D&D 5E Those who come from earlier editions, why are you okay with 5E healing (or are you)?

[Lanefan]

No matter how clear/simple/straightforward* something may be, it can be rendered 'controversial' by enough people complaining about it, loudly and persistently enough.

Conversely, if that many people are complaining about something maybe there really is an underlying problem.

It's a glaring hole in certain interpretations of what the rules are modeling. Each interpretation has it's own glaring holes.

True, but where there's a choice let's go for those with the smallest and least-glaring holes, shall we?

As in "what is your damage?"

Er...wha? Does not parse...

 

[Oofta]

Conversely, if that many people are complaining about something maybe there really is an underlying problem.

True, but where there's a choice let's go for those with the smallest and least-glaring holes, shall we?

Er...wha? Does not parse...

Are that many people complaining about it? It's a core game mechanic that has been around for 45 years or so. They've had plenty of time to change it. With recent editions they are even trying to listen to their customers.

The rules have to be simple for the game to work. Hit points are simple.

 

[Charlaquin]

Miss: "The blow glances off your shield for no damage."
Hit: "The blow glances off your shield for 7 damage."

Or how about
Miss: “You’re easily able to deflect the blow with your shield. No damage.”
Hit: “The blow nearly connects, you’re only just able to block it with your shield in time, and the force puts a heavy strain on your arm muscles. 7 damage.”

And it's entirely possible the very use of the word "damage" might be at fault, as damage is usually defined as (and most certainly implies) something being physically harmed or broken or even destroyed.

Indeed, the words “hit” and “damage” do seem to make it very difficult for some people to accept the necessarily abstract nature of the HP mechanic.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem isn’t the cleric being a support class, it’s the support class being essential.

I don't really have a problem with this. Support is very important and largely overlooked - it also used to come from sources like henches and hirelings, but the design has moved away from those too.

Yes, lots of people do enjoy playing support classes, but lots of people don’t, and not every group had the former among their players. And even players who do like to play support classes sometimes like to play something else from time to time. Not every group has problems finding someone willing to play a cleric, but enough do that it’s a problem worth addressing.

If no-one wants to play a particular class (in my games, it's usually Thief or Ranger) but its presence in the party is deemed essential, the party will simply go and recruit an adventuring NPC.

I’m not convinced the designers would agree. If it was indeed a bug, it could have been fixed by now. There are lots of RPG systems that don’t have this problem. If the D&D designers thought it was a problem, there are solutions out there they could have employed, so the fact that they still haven’t seems to indicate that they don’t think it’s a problem.

I think the designers of D&D over the last 20 years have a) tried to push too hard toward the 'heroic fantasy' side of things, and b) tried too hard to remove unpleasantnesses for the PCs and-or players. So yes, what the designers think doesn't carry all that much weight with me.

 

[Lanefan]

The rules have to be simple for the game to work. Hit points are simple.

Believe it or not I agree with this sentiment in principle.

That said, the whole sphere of hit points/damage/defense/resting/recovery could (and IMO should) be made to work quite differently and still, in the end, be more or less just as simple.

 

[Charlaquin]

The game rules ARE the setting! They have to be, otherwise all you've got is an inconsistent mess.

You have not demonstrated this claim to be true.

Joe the farmboy heals like a peasant one night but the next day takes up a sword and starts adventuring, so the next night Joe the adventurer heals like an adventurer. Which means that yes, something about Joe changes the moment he leaves the farm.

Before Joe the farmboy started adventuring, he was not a character being played in the game of D&D, so the question of how he healed before he took up adventuring is one of narrative, not game mechanics.

OK, let's say he's a retired PC. (not that it should matter in the least!)

It doesn’t. What matters is whether or not his HP, its loss, and its recovery is relevant to the game. And if he’s not adventuring, it isn’t.

Also, don't forget that not all adventurers are PCs! There's party NPCs, other adventuring parties (be they friend, foe or neither), etc., etc.

True, NPCs that are adventuring with the party do need mechanics to handle their HP and its loss and recovery, and it does make the most sense for that to be treated the same way that it is for the PCs.

As a game purely in the game-first sense, perhaps; but I've got a computer if that's what I want. As a device for producing both a setting and a fiction consistent with itself this aspect of the system barely works at all (in any edition; though 4e-5e are a bit worse than the rest).

See, I have a computer if what I want is a game where everything that occurs is the result of a detailed rules engine that executes functions with absolute consistency. If I want a game that is adaptable and can respond to infinite possible variables, I turn to D&D for that, and a too-rigid rules system gets in the way of that.

Whether it comes up in the run of play or not is absolutely irrelevant; it's still going on in the background...or at least for the sake of consistency and believability the players have to think it is; and the easiest way to achieve that is to make it so.

Yes, in the background, the character recovers from his injuries in an appropriate amount of time. That doesn’t need to be governed by game rules though, because it isn’t part of the game. It is part of the narrative, and can (and should) be governed narratively.

True, though as h.p. are always what you lose when something hurts you one would think they'd also be the go-to mechanism to represent injury.

They’re always what you lose when you get Hit with an Attack (that is to say, when an opposing creature’s Strength or Dexterity + weapon Proficiency Roll meets or exceeds the character’s Armor Class.) That doesn’t have to mean narratively that the character was hurt, and in fact it shouldn’t if that narrative leads to a narratively nonsense outcome, such as the character recovering from that injury in an illogical timeframe.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Conversely, if that many people are complaining about something maybe there really is an underlying problem.

May well be. Which is exactly why stirring up controversy is an effective strategy.
It's funny how which one it is depends more on the reader's PoV than anything else, though.

True, but where there's a choice let's go for those with the smallest and least-glaring holes, shall we?

You're probably going to have to end up going with "which set of holes are smallest and least glaring is subjective," anyway, so let's just cut to that.

Er...wha? Does not parse...

When 'kids these days' say 'what's your damage?' they're referring to psychological baggage.

 

[Azzy]

The game rules ARE the setting! They have to be, otherwise all you've got is an inconsistent mess.

This pattently not true.

 

[Charlaquin]

I don't really have a problem with this. Support is very important and largely overlooked - it also used to come from sources like henches and hirelings, but the design has moved away from those too.
If no-one wants to play a particular class (in my games, it's usually Thief or Ranger) but its presence in the party is deemed essential, the party will simply go and recruit an adventuring NPC.

Ahh, but this is asking the DM to solve a problem the rules created. A necessary evil at times perhaps, but indicative of a failure at the design level.

I think the designers of D&D over the last 20 years have a) tried to push too hard toward the 'heroic fantasy' side of things, and b) tried too hard to remove unpleasantnesses for the PCs and-or players. So yes, what the designers think doesn't carry all that much weight with me.

That’s all well and good, but then it’s being disingenuous to call it “a bug, not a feature.” It is working as intended, so it is not a bug. You may dislike the design intent, and fair enough, you do you. But don’t try to make it out like a failure of the design when it’s clearly consistent with design intent.

 

[Oofta]

Believe it or not I agree with this sentiment in principle.

That said, the whole sphere of hit points/damage/defense/resting/recovery could (and IMO should) be made to work quite differently and still, in the end, be more or less just as simple.

I think you're overestimating how easy it would be to come up with an alternative that would still fit the nature and feel of D&D. This is not the first thread on the subject, I've yet to see a solution that's as simple and elegant.

There are alternative rules for gritty realism and longer rest periods in the books if you don't like the short healing period. Personally I use the longer rest options in part because of healing, but I still acknowledge that I want more Die Hard than VA Hospital in my game.