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

[Oofta]

Oh, you mean he has hit points?

At that point in the story he was a really cranky dwarf so he opted for "gritty realism" healing.

 

[Hriston]

At that point in the story he was a really cranky dwarf so he opted for "gritty realism" healing.

A dwarf?! I thought Drizzt was an elf.

 

[Oofta]

A dwarf?! I thought Drizzt was an elf.

D'oh! Got my characters crossed. Drizzt never even breaks a sweat, much let loses a drop of blood.

 

[Sacrosanct]

A game is not a book. A book is not a game. (Let's ignore choose your own adventure style books, which while bridging that gap to a degree, are really more game than book.)

In a book it's not a problem if the hero gets the stuffing knocked out of him and is laid up for weeks or months recovering. In a book that focuses on a solo character, you might largely fast forward through it. Or focus on their inner turmoil during i5. In a book with a larger cast, other characters can easily have adventures while the injured guy recovers, since the author has no obligation to involve that character.

That doesn't work as well in a team oriented game like D&D. It would be crappy to tell the player that they can't play the next few sessions because their character is too beat up. Having them roll up a new character in the interim is certainly an option, but not a great one if the player has any real investment in their character. It can also be annoying for the party to have to sit around and wait for the guy to recover if they're fine and would otherwise have adventures they wish to pursue (it doesn't make sense to sit on your hands for weeks if the innocent dragon's life is threatened, having been kidnapped by an evil princess).

Finally, I don't think even Drizzt novels, action oriented as they are, have as much combat as the average D&D campaign. Some things just work better for different forms of entertainment.

One of the big things about D&D is to emulate stories. They are the inspiration behind D&D. The whole reason appendix N exists. You can’t divorce the two as easily as you suggest. Also,as mentioned earlier, outside of a paragraph that says HP are abstract, literally every other part of the rules, and how every combat session is narrated, treats losing hp in battle as actual wounds. Language use is important. So treat them however you want, but this attitude that people are wrong for treating or wanting to treat hp loss in battle as wounds, or that people who have issues with super fast hp healing to full after 8 hours are wrong, needs to stop. There is a mountain of supporting evidence that supports people feeling that way.

In one of the recent novels, Bruenor almost dies and is layed up for a few months. Others have described bruises and small cuts, aches and pains.

Of course Drizzt has plot armor, so he never really gets hurt.

In the early stories he very much does. Frequently.

 

[Fanaelialae]

One of the big things about D&D is to emulate stories. They are the inspiration behind D&D. The whole reason appendix N exists. You can’t divorce the two as easily as you suggest. Also,as mentioned earlier, outside of a paragraph that says HP are abstract, literally every other part of the rules, and how every combat session is narrated, treats losing hp in battle as actual wounds. Language use is important. So treat them however you want, but this attitude that people are wrong for treating or wanting to treat hp loss in battle as wounds, or that people who have issues with super fast hp healing to full after 8 hours are wrong, needs to stop. There is a mountain of supporting evidence that supports people feeling that way.

It's a game for having fun, not merely a workflow for simulating fiction. Sure, the fiction inspired the game. But it's nonetheless a game.

Nods to the fiction are why rules like gritty healing and lingering injuries exist. And I certainly don't begrudge anyone having those options. But a big part of why they are optional is because they can make the game harder to run.

 

[Oofta]

In the early stories he very much does. Frequently.

Been a long time since I read the original stories. After the rebirth novels I've pretty much given up because he's such a Marty Sue. I mean I get it. You're drow full of angst.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

The problem certainly was both, back in the day, when the cleric was the only viable support class.
But support being "essential" (or, perhaps, merely optimal, or 'expected') is fine, it's part of making D&D a more interesting/dynamic cooperative game, having different characters make different, but equally significant contributions.
So it's really tying support to one, or to too-few or too-closely-related concepts that's the more problematic part. In 1e, only the Cleric was fully competent as a support (healer) contributor at all levels, by 4e, you could get your full complement of support from any of: Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Shaman, Artificer, Ardent, Druid(Sentinel), or, in a pinch, Paladin. 5e omits Warlord, Shaman, & Ardent, from that list, having only recently re-introduced Artificer.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Been a long time since I read the original stories. After the rebirth novels I've pretty much given up because he's such a Marty Sue. I mean I get it. You're drow full of angst.

I know. I only have read the Chrystal shard series, and the dark elf trilogy. Everything else I couldn’t really make it through the books because of that reason.

 

[Hriston]

D'oh! Got my characters crossed. Drizzt never even breaks a sweat, much let loses a drop of blood.

But he probably loses a few hit points? Am I right?

 

[Charlaquin]

a

The problem certainly was both, back in the day, when the cleric was the only viable support class.
But support being "essential" (or, perhaps, merely optimal, or 'expected') is fine, it's part of making D&D a more interesting/dynamic cooperative game, having different characters make different, but equally significant contributions.
So it's really tying support to one, or to too-few or too-closely-related concepts that's the more problematic part. In 1e, only the Cleric was fully competent as a support (healer) contributor at all levels, by 4e, you could get your full complement of support from any of: Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Shaman, Artificer, Ardent, Druid(Sentinel), or, in a pinch, Paladin. 5e omits Warlord, Shaman, & Ardent, from that list, having only recently re-introduced Artificer.

Good point.