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

[Sacrosanct]

I admit my perspective comes from TSR era D&D, where non magical rapid healing largely isn’t a thing. yes, I am fully aware that the “hp can be abstract” exists back then in the PHB. But hp loss in combat also represented physical wounds because the mechanics supported that via slow or no non-magical healing options. It fit the verisimilitude.

Somewhere along the line, fast non magical healing was introduced. And it feels like in order to justify that, the took the HP are abstract paragraph and took it to extremes where HP aren’t wounds at all. That’s what sort of runs me the wrong way. It wasn’t always like that, and wasn’t a good change IMO. The idea that if a four foot long spike in a pit can do a maximum 12 points of damage, that as long as a PC has 13+ hp, no matter how badly they fall into said spike, it doesn’t do any significant physical damage. Or that if a monster’s six inch long razor sharp teeth do a maximum of 15 points of damage, as long as the PC has 31+ hp, no matter how well the monsters hits, even with a critical hit, the PC doesn’t suffer any wounds from said monsters critical hit. Those don’t feel right to me. And others apparently.

So while I don’t know exactly when this shift happened and rapid non magical healing was a common thing, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to associate hp loss with wounds, because there’s about at least 15 years of precedence of being so (and I’d argue the entire lifespan since that’s how it’s presented via language in the rules, and how it’s narrated in the actual games)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Big J Money]

I've found that it's helpful to understand this, simply because once you see this, you quickly see that a lot of debates fall into these fault lines.

I don't in agree that my OP requires us to go off on this tangent. I'm not saying that you make an un-interesting point, but if I reply to this directly, I'll be leaving the original discussion far behind.

Sure, I agree it could be an interesting debate for another thread, but all I will say here is that I reject your duality in the sense that it is in any way helpful or enlightening to the issue I am originally posting about. We'll have to just agree to disagree about that.

Edit: I also don't appreciate you talking around my main points and leading into tangents, I think that is very selective of you and you come across as trying to push your worldview a bit. Apologies if that's not your intention.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

I admit my perspective comes from TSR era D&D, where non magical rapid healing largely isn’t a thing. yes, I am fully aware that the “hp can be abstract” exists back then in the PHB. But hp loss in combat also represented physical wounds because the mechanics supported that via slow or no non-magical healing options. It fit the verisimilitude.

Somewhere along the line, fast non magical healing was introduced. And it feels like in order to justify that, the took the HP are abstract paragraph and took it to extremes where HP aren’t wounds at all. That’s what sort of runs me the wrong way. It wasn’t always like that, and wasn’t a good change IMO. The idea that if a four foot long spike in a pit can do a maximum 12 points of damage, that as long as a PC has 13+ hp, no matter how badly they fall into said spike, it doesn’t do any significant physical damage. Or that if a monster’s six inch long razor sharp teeth do a maximum of 15 points of damage, as long as the PC has 31+ hp, no matter how well the monsters hits, even with a critical hit, the PC doesn’t suffer any wounds from said monsters critical hit. Those don’t feel right to me. And others apparently.

So while I don’t know exactly when this shift happened and rapid non magical healing was a common thing, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to associate hp loss with wounds, because there’s about at least 15 years of precedence of being so (and I’d argue the entire lifespan since that’s how it’s presented via language in the rules, and how it’s narrated in the actual games)

The fast healing started with 4E as far as I know. It stuck around because it makes magical healing less required as the default.

Don't like the default? There are plenty of optional rules that modify that. But, yes the default is that you're playing John McClane in any of the Die Hard movies or any other number of action films.

That doesn't make the change right or wrong, and certainly no rule, option or game is going to be right for everyone.

 

[Big J Money]

The extent to which 5e healing will bother you (if it does) will largely depend upon your conception of what D&D is, which largely goes into the aformentioned camps; there tends to be a correlation between those who came from the older (OD&D, 1e) editions and those who prefer the grittier healing, and those who are playing 5e will use their own houserules or variants within the DMG.

This is what I'm disagreeing with. The reason this is a duality is because you apply it to a global scope. You speak for everyone, and I reject that specifically. If you rephrased it to:

"In my experience, some people seem to have a preference (or aversion) to 5E healing based on [some description that is not global and convoluted]."

...then I might accept it, or find it worth debating. But these dual camps that you've created are convoluted. I think you have arbitrarily created a relationship between several concepts and used that to create two broad strokes extremes in your model. I'm not saying that you claim everyone falls into either extreme. I'm saying your extremes are simply wrong. But the specifics of that is not a debate I want to have in this thread, because it goes outside this thread's scope.

You incorreclty characterize me avoiding this off-topic debate to be thread policing. I have no desire to tell others in this thread what they're allowed to post, but it's perfectly within my right to choose which debates I enter and which I avoid. I am allowed to be my own police.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Big J Money]

Don't like the default? There are plenty of optional rules that modify that. But, yes the default is that you're playing John McClane in any of the Die Hard movies or any other number of action films.

I think Action Film is a much better description for the effect of 5E's healing rule than heroism. While one could argue that there are plenty of action films where the protagonists go "out of commision" over more than 24 hours, the idea behind action films is that they are paced quickly and nothing ever gets in the way of the action. Which is probably the reason for 5E's healing rule: so that nothing can get in the way of the adventuring day.

That doesn't make the change right or wrong, and certainly no rule, option or game is going to be right for everyone.

I agree with this too, but I also think it's only natural for people to react to changes made by product designers. From my point of view, some shock comes from the fact that this rule makes an implied statement about D&D settings:

"Player characters are never injured for more than 24-hours."

To me this is a pretty extreme statement to make in a fantasy setting. Others are fine with it because they never explored that space to begin with. If a PC was down for a day or more it only impeded their fun, and did not add to their immersion.

And many DMs came up with their own house-rules to find the middle ground that is just right for their group. That's another purpose for me starting the thread of course, to prod folks' minds and see what the house-rule territory around the new 5E healing rules looks like. My own that I am running with is that long rest returns hit dice but not hit points. It's simple, and is working for my group fine. I somewhat prefer the idea I came up with a few posts ago though, to make use of Vitality Points.

 

[Oofta]

I think Action Film is a much better description for the effect of 5E's healing rule than heroism. While one could argue that there are plenty of action films where the protagonists go "out of commision" over more than 24 hours, the idea behind action films is that they are paced quickly and nothing ever gets in the way of the action. Which is probably the reason for 5E's healing rule: so that nothing can get in the way of the adventuring day.



I agree with this too, but I also think it's only natural for people to react to changes made by product designers. From my point of view, some shock comes from the fact that this rule makes an implied statement about D&D settings:

"Player characters are never injured for more than 24-hours."

To me this is a pretty extreme statement to make in a fantasy setting. Others are fine with it because they never explored that space to begin with. If a PC was down for a day or more it only impeded their fun, and did not add to their immersion.

And many DMs came up with their own house-rules to find the middle ground that is just right for their group. That's another purpose for me starting the thread of course, to prod folks' minds and see what the house-rule territory around the new 5E healing rules looks like. My own that I am running with is that long rest returns hit dice but not hit points. It's simple, and is working for my group fine. I somewhat prefer the idea I came up with a few posts ago though, to make use of Vitality Points.

Personally I use the alternate longer rest rules and assume that there is magical healing that is just slower than a single action but doesn't require significant resources.

It think there are a lot of ways of dealing with it, including just house ruling that non-magical healing is limited to 1 HP per day like in the olden days IIRC.

I don't see why healing would be a deal breaker for using 5E unless you're playing AL. It's so easy to just tweak it to suit your needs. But, to each their own.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*