D&D 5E Variant 5e?

[Garthanos]

Since magical healing remains the same, it will simply shift the healing burden from HD to slots. Classes with Cure..Wound &c on their lists will blow through slots more quickly, forcing more frequent rests to recover spells, other casters will thus be free to use more spells in each encounter - and should, as they'll be harder encounters, demanding every effort to bring them to a swift conclusion before anyone gets mangled or worse, a level of exhaustion.

Support casters will be healbots, others will be OP casting virtually every round, non-casters will be disposable...

...hm...sounds familiar.

This does sound like a bit of flashback... that required healer was a big thing.

 

[Morrus]

[QUOTE="dnd4vr]
[/QUOTE]

I didn’t imply it. I said it directly.

 

[DND_Reborn]

[QUOTE="dnd4vr]

I didn’t imply it. I said it directly.
[/QUOTE]
Please stop harassing me. Thank you.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This does sound like a bit of flashback... that required healer was a big thing.

Yep. When someone says "natural healing is too fast" I tend to hear "healbots need to make a comeback." ;D

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yep. When someone says "natural healing is too fast" I tend to hear "healbots need to make a comeback." ;D

I doesn't have to be one or the other IMO. You can have slower, more gritty healing, and play that way.

RAW, quick healing is very prevalent in 5E, just some people think it takes away too much of the danger element unless you make the encounters harder. Personally, I would prefer "weaker" encounters to be more deadly than having to not use them. The options are I buff the monster, or nerf healing... which ever you choose can work of course.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I doesn't have to be one or the other IMO. You can have slower, more gritty healing, and play that way.

That's what the Gritty Variant is for: healing takes longer, whether you're doing it with HD and rest or using slots for it.

RAW, quick healing is very prevalent in 5E

TBF, it always had been - you just "needed a Cleric" for it, prior to 4e. (Though, in 3e a certified acolyte-practitioner with UMD and a wand would do, if that's all your HMO covered. )

 

[Garthanos]

Yep. When someone says "natural healing is too fast" I tend to hear "healbots need to make a comeback." ;D

One can in theory have fully differentiated "out of combat" vs "in combat". In combat you have inspirational hit point recovery and "afflictions/wounds " which either take a long time to rest or can be suppressed by acupressure or surgery martial practices OH and also those rituals (like Heal) -- see all is good eh. Long term resources spent to remove long term issues.

 

[Charlaquin]

Well, I would either go one way or the other. 1E-style, you get HD to level 9 or so, and then a static amount after with no CON bonus, or you get your HD all the way to level 20, but after 9 or so, no more CON bonus. Either way it works out about the same for most characters I would think.

Is your goal for this just to bring HP values closer in line with 1e HP values? Because if so, it seems like you would be emulating the aesthetics of 1e, but not the function. 1e-like player HP values will certainly change the combat math of 5e, but it won’t make it like the combat math of 1e.

It is not a huge impact no. The idea is simply to keep bonuses a bit lower. If you really want the 20 score, the feat allows for it and represents the investment that you really are going beyond what others can.

But to what end? I’m not seeing what real impact this has on gameplay. Again, it looks like changing the numbers to suit an aesthetic preference.

Yep, I like 0 hp to be super scary! Given the cheap costs of a potion of healing, I couldn't allow it to restore a level of exhaustion.

I figured. I do think this rule will work very well for you, given what your goals are.

It would replace the HD mechanic. We discussed this at our table yesterday and IMO anyway there is no need for an HD mechanic anywhere in 5E. I don't know why they added it. It seems like a "hey, this could be what HD is used for!" idea...

Makes sense. I think part of the reason for the HD mechanic was invented mostly because it kinda sorta looks like healing surges from 4e, without being as offensive to the h4ters. It’s also partly there as a compromise between the folks who wanted HP to be an encounter resource and the folks who wanted them to be an adventure resource. But yeah, they don’t really serve either of those goals well.

Sorry, it is more along the ideas that you can only take two short rests between long rests from RAW.

I don’t think that’s true...

Depending on how quickly the OP wants hp to heal, it would all have to be adjusted accordingly. Hopefully that makes sense?

Yeah, I gotcha. Basically you want fixed amounts of healing at the various rest intervals, which I think is a good idea.

This isn't quite true, but depends a lot on play style IMO. We play with time-constraints for most of our adventures. You can't start it and then take two months off without issues arising.

Take our current adventure. We are infiltrating a stronghold, moving through it, and taking out the bad guys as quietly as possible. We know we aren't going to be able to finish this before we have to retreat. Depending on our status, that retreat will hopefully just be a long rest. But, if someone gets injured badly, we might have to leave them behind the next time we go in since they won't be full strength. Or, maybe they'll come along but be weaker and we have to be more cautious.

Rests, and the time in between them, can certainly impact the game play.

I don’t agree, but I don’t think it’s worth arguing about. If it works for your group, who am I to tell you it doesn’t.

 

[Morrus]

Please stop harassing me. Thank you.

The harassment rules exist to protect actual harassment victims. Please do not use them to try to silence suagreemt. Thanks.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's what the Gritty Variant is for: healing takes longer, whether you're doing it with HD and rest or using slots for it.

TBF, it always had been - you just "needed a Cleric" for it, prior to 4e. (Though, in 3e a certified acolyte-practitioner with UMF and a wand would do, if that's all you HMO covered. )

Yeah, we played the gritty variant for awhile. It was better to our style, but not quite enough. We still use 24-hour long rests and 4-hour short rests.

Sure, we had heal-bots in many of our 1E and 2E games, but also ran games without them. As slow as natural healing was in 1E, that made taking damage very dangerous and difficult to recover from!

When we first began 5E, I explained hp more like vitality in SWSE, which I always thought was a great concept. The problem was 5E didn't also have wounds, so we added a variant of them.

RAW plays fine really, but luckily it easily allows tables to tailor it to their tastes.