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

[The Crimson Binome]

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.

While it is true that we don't need rules for what happens off-screen, we do have rules for what happen on-screen. If the off-screen activity varies noticeably from the on-screen activity, then that's an inconsistency within the world.

Recall that the rules of 5E explicitly condemn meta-gaming. You aren't allowed to treat an NPC differently than a PC, just because they're an NPC.

 

[Azzy]

Recall that the rules of 5E explicitly condemn meta-gaming. You aren't allowed to treat an NPC differently than a PC, just because they're an NPC.

Monsters and Death

Most DMs have a monster die the instant it drops to 0 hit points, rather than having it fall unconscious and make death saving throws.

Mighty villains and special nonplayer characters are common exceptions; the DM might have them fall unconscious and follow the same rules as player characters.

What was that?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What was that?

I never claimed that the rules of 5E were perfectly consistent. The game is nothing if not designed-by-committee and shoddily-assembled.

In any case, however, it is trivial to reconcile the quoted passage with the explicit condemnation of meta-gaming. After all, mighty villains and special NPCs are the only ones who are likely to have healing magic. Without access to healing magic, and under the assumption that the party will finish off any unconscious foes when the fight is over, you might as well treat someone as dead when they hit zero. It doesn't actually change anything, 95% of the time.

 

[Charlaquin]

While it is true that we don't need rules for what happens off-screen, we do have rules for what happen on-screen. If the off-screen activity varies noticeably from the on-screen activity, then that's an inconsistency within the world.

Sure. So it is good practice to insure that the narrative represented by the mechanics is consistent with the narrative that occurs absent the mechanics. A good argument in support of narrating HP loss as largely not equating to serious injury.

Recall that the rules of 5E explicitly condemn meta-gaming.

...huh? You got citation for that?

You aren't allowed to treat an NPC differently than a PC, just because they're an NPC.

Is that “you as a player” or “you as the DM”?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Aaaaaannnnnnnd going going going... gone! Another thread spirals into the 'Meat Points' black hole!

Can we just stick to the question asked by the OP and drop all the arguing over something that has already consumed like 9 BILLION THREADS??? Really, seriously, I'll even give it a shot, though I am darned if I have the slightest interest in actually playing 5e, for various reasons (healing not being one of the primary ones TBH).

I'm OK with 5e healing in the general sense of "PCs get to recover without a lot of hassle at the table, nor forcing someone to play a healic, but HP are still something you need to care about." This is generally the space in which things should work, and then from there it is just all about color.
In AD&D, in many campaigns, you could get away with a MC cleric (you still got all the same stuff at level 1 where you get most of your CLW spells if you are decent WIS), plus maybe some healing potions and maybe just toughing out a few days of slow heal now and then when it doesn't matter. Still, in most games someone WAS stuck being a full-time cleric, so it wasn't great.
3e pretty much made healing wands/potions limitlessly available, as long as someone was willing to pay/craft. Clerics were so boss that playing one was only mildly annoying anyway. So the only problem here was color, which is of course quite subjective.
4e hit the sweet spot quite well. There's a good bit of 'innate healing' and you can have any of a wide variety of interesting leaders in the party. Color is no longer an issue in the "I have a wand habit" sort of 3e way. Of course there IS 'rapid healing', but that is only an edge-case difference from previous editions where you'd just have the cleric max on heals and pump everyone up ASAP anyway (or do it with wands/potions).
5e is mostly like 4e, though I am sad that the neat balance of numbers that 4e had worked out get fouled up, and HS was a very elegant solution to things that HD (why dice?) doesn't do nearly as well. Still, 5e basically manages, and its healers are varied and reasonably interesting (that is not locked into nothing but casting CLW ala AD&D ones).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure. So it is good practice to insure that the narrative represented by the mechanics is consistent with the narrative that occurs absent the mechanics. A good argument in support of narrating HP loss as largely not equating to serious injury.


...huh? You got citation for that?


Is that “you as a player” or “you as the DM”?

You won't make a dent, not even 1 millimeter in this wall my friend. the mortar set, the wall is in place, it ain't ever budging. In all fairness, they like how they play, and you will note that they're still playing D&D despite all the complaints about how HP work. It is, IMHO, an academic thing, when you sit down at a table all this hooey goes out the window and people just play, and mostly don't even get around to thinking about what it meant that they just lost "10 hit points" for whatever reason.

 

[Hriston]

Anything that does damage can kill you. Even a punch that does one point of damage can kill you. The way the game decides whether that punch killed you or not is first, does it hit? And second, do you have only one hit point? If the answer is yes to both, you’re dead! (If you’re a PC, you also get some saving throws.) So calling it damage isn’t the problem. It’s clearly lethal stuff.

On the other hand, I think hit points isn’t a good term for describing what they are. It’s derived from hit dice, which are the number of hits it takes to drop you. (Think d6 for all attacks and hit dice.) When you get hit, the damage uses up about one hit die worth of your hit points. And of course, when they’re all gone, you’re toast.

So hit points are really just a measure of how much damage it takes to kill you. I think damage rating (DR) would be a good term for this. As you “take” damage, your damage rating decreases until just a small amount of damage can actually kill you.

I also think calling them something like indemnity points would work. As long as you have them, you are unhurt because you have indemnity. Once you loose your indemnity, however, there can be no doubt that you are damaged.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Anything that does damage can kill you. Even a punch that does one point of damage can kill you. The way the game decides whether that punch killed you or not is first, does it hit? And second, do you have only one hit point? If the answer is yes to both, you’re dead! (If you’re a PC, you also get some saving throws.) So calling it damage isn’t the problem. It’s clearly lethal stuff.

On the other hand, I think hit points isn’t a good term for describing what they are. It’s derived from hit dice, which are the number of hits it takes to drop you. (Think d6 for all attacks and hit dice.) When you get hit, the damage uses up about one hit die worth of your hit points. And of course, when they’re all gone, you’re toast.

So hit points are really just a measure of how much damage it takes to kill you. I think damage rating (DR) would be a good term for this. As you “take” damage, your damage rating decreases until just a small amount of damage can actually kill you.

I also think calling them something like indemnity points would work. As long as you have them, you are unhurt because you have indemnity. Once you loose your indemnity, however, there can be no doubt that you are damaged.

Right, 'hit points' are really more like 'plot armor' for the most part. So, the real question is how to lampshade the plot armor in a given story, particularly if that story is high level.

 

[Iry]

I never claimed that the rules of 5E were perfectly consistent. The game is nothing if not designed-by-committee and shoddily-assembled.

The dark secret of all major RPG game designers.
There are very few successful RPGs that are not designed-by-committee.

 

[Hriston]

Right, 'hit points' are really more like 'plot armor' for the most part. So, the real question is how to lampshade the plot armor in a given story, particularly if that story is high level.

I haven’t played D&D past 10th level, so maybe this just isn’t a problem I’ve encountered yet, but I don’t recall ever having difficulty suspending disbelief because of hit points such that it would require lampshading. To me, a conceit around which the game seems to be designed is that the PCs, by gaining levels and accumulating hit points, become the protagonists of their story. Maybe that’s just a lampshade I find stylish, though.