D&D 5E what is it about 2nd ed that we miss?

[The Crimson Binome]

Then you say that HP could include cuts, fractures, and concussions. I disagree. All of these cannot co-exist, due to the definition of overnight healing. In 3e, you only heal level-hp-per-night. So to get to full hitpoints, let's say it takes 5 days, and cuts / concussions don't heal in 5 days. In 4e/5e, you heal all-hp-per-night. So everything heals in one night, and fractures / concussions don't heal in one night. Some concussions heal in minutes, and fractures take weeks.

Can you imagine a world which worked that way, though? In the same world with elves and dragons, where we have cheap steel that never breaks under normal usage, could we also have mighty heroes who recover from fractures within a week?

For most players, it's a matter of suspension of disbelief, and how far you're willing to go before you draw the line. For those players - particularly the ones who don't know the details of how things work in the real world - they're willing to draw the line somewhere between two weeks and overnight.

Although, from a practical perspective, you could define injury however you felt like in 2E because it was just going to be healed with magic anyway. The fact that you could sleep it off with two weeks of intensive care was not something that usually came up during gameplay, since the cleric was going to patch you up within three days.

What is the nightly healing rate in 2e (low level)?
Are there massive damage rules in 2e (low level)?
The damage you take in 2e must match the overnight healing rate, right?

Basic healing was 1hp per night, but full bed rest brought that up to 2hp per day. I want to say that two full weeks of uninterrupted bed rest counted as a full heal, though.

I don't know about massive damage, because it never came up. The default rule was dead at 0, though there was an optional rule that let you survive until -10 (in which case recovering was difficult from that point). There was also System Shock, which was a percentile chance to not instantly die if someone tried to Raise you or Haste you; presumably, there were other things which could also trigger it.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I wouldn't say that it didn't provide much of a discussion

You wouldn't say that? Would you like the quote the discussion of what hps represented that it did provide then?

but what it didn't do is attempt to "finally" define HP to mean one thing in particular.

It didn't need to, in the sense that 1e had already gone there in a big way. But, yes, remaining virtually silent on what hps represented was indeed, not attempting to define them.

With 2e I like the fact that I can narrate HP damage to be whatever I want it to be for the situation at hand.

You can always do that, in any edition. Some people seem to get twitchy, though, when the mechanics and narration don't match up. For instance, if you narrate doing 8 hps of damage with a longsword to a peasant or orc as running the unfortunate victim through and killing him, it's hard to narrate 8 hps of damage from a longsword thrust the same way vs an 80 hps fighter, about the only alternative to ruling that fighters don't actually need their internal organs for some reason is to narrate the same wound from the same weapon, differently. Then you're left to explain why nearly-fatal wound to one character and a minor scatch to another take the same healing spell to cure...

Or, you can just not worry about it.

In 2e I like the fact that a character can take a sword to the gut or several arrows in the back at any point.

Can he, though? Those are potentially mortal wounds that would be debilitating. Yet a 2e character can easily have so many hps that maximum damage from a sword or several such from arrows couldn't possibly kill him when he's 'fresh,' and that, regardless, as long as he has even 1 hp left he's suffering no disability or penalty of any kind.

There is no 50% percent rule that prevents that narrative on round 1.

There's no such rule in 5e, it's just one example of narrating damage.

It also means that healing magic is needed. In this case a cleric walks into a war hospital and starts using his healing magic, he doesn't just return a day later to find the place empty and people smirking at his useless magic. In other words, healing magic in the game world isn't made pointless by coddling healing and resting rules or class features like Second Wind.

Restoring hps instantly, in combat, even if the target is at 0 hps is hardly pointless just because it's possible to heal some or all lost hps in an hour or overnight - nor does the fighter's ability to get back a few hps once between rests, while he's conscious render such a function moot.

What it does do is avoid the pointless bookkeeping dynamic of having the entire party retire from the dungeon to rest, all regain a hp, then have the Cleric heal everyone with the slate of all-cure-spells he prepares, then all 'rest' again so the Cleric can get his spells back, and it reduces the need to have the 'band-aid' Cleric devote most/all his spells and actions to casting Cure..Wounds.

Good to know that low level 2e didn't have that. Low level D&D seems to be an entirely separate game from mid-level-plus. I almost wish that they stuck with only 10 levels in 5e.

In the classic game, low-level (say 1st-2nd or 3rd) was an almost entirely different game from the 'sweet spot' (3-7, perhaps 10th at the outside), which, in turn, was an almost entirely different game from high-level (double-digits in general, perhaps 'starting' as late as 12th or 13th). 5e does capture that feel quite successfully, with Apprentice Tier (1-4) and higher levels (11+ ? 15+ ?) having much more rapid advancement than the 'sweet spot' in-between, so you can linger in the arguably most-playable/fun level range.

sticking to ten levels would let them make the overall class design better and help them better focus the D&D brand's identity

Seems to have worked fine for 13A. Maybe they could have gone the BECMI direction, with each tier in it's own set. A basic set, the standard 3-book game, and then a 'Legends' or Epic or something set. But, instead of feeding into eachother, each is just essentially a different 1s-10th level game?

Can you imagine a world which worked that way, though? In the same world with elves and dragons, where we have cheap steel that never breaks under normal usage, could we also have mighty heroes who recover from fractures within a week?

For most players, it's a matter of suspension of disbelief

Highly selective suspension of disbelief, it seems....

 

[RotGrub]

You wouldn't say that? Would you like the quote the discussion of what hps represented that it did provide then?

Off the top of my head I'm reminded of the 2e falling damage rules and mention of someone surviving a 33,330 foot fall.

It didn't need to, in the sense that 1e had already gone there in a big way. But, yes, remaining virtually silent on what hps represented was indeed, not attempting to define them.

Thankfully, 2e did not attempt to force any particular narrative. That kept them more abstract.

You can always do that, in any edition. Some people seem to get twitchy, though, when the mechanics and narration don't match up.

I think the mechanics of 4e and to a lesser extent 5e forces a particular narrative.

For instance, if you narrate doing 8 hps of damage with a longsword to a peasant or orc as running the unfortunate victim through and killing him, it's hard to narrate 8 hps of damage from a longsword thrust the same way vs an 80 hps fighter, about the only alternative to ruling that fighters don't actually need their internal organs for some reason is to narrate the same wound from the same weapon, differently. Then you're left to explain why nearly-fatal wound to one character and a minor scatch to another take the same healing spell to cure...

The point is that any narrative of such a wound is not available in 5e even when it does make sense to use.

Now, I've played 2e house ruled games with more realistic hit point caps. The optional critical hit location system in 2e also helps in this regard. Of course, I do recall that an old dragon magazine article that attempted to explain hps as magical.

Or, you can just not worry about it.

I think people always do worry about it. If they are forced to ignore it too much it can become a problem.

Can he, though? Those are potentially mortal wounds that would be debilitating. Yet a 2e character can easily have so many hps that maximum damage from a sword or several such from arrows couldn't possibly kill him when he's 'fresh,' and that, regardless, as long as he has even 1 hp left he's suffering no disability or penalty of any kind. There's no such rule in 5e, it's just one example of narrating damage.

Well PCs in 5e have even more HPs. But yes, let the blade slash open his chest and then let the cleric magically heal him. You can do that in 2e. In 5e you don't have that narrative option because the fighter can just second wind/rest himself back to full.

Restoring hps instantly, in combat, even if the target is at 0 hps is hardly pointless just because it's possible to heal some or all lost hps in an hour or overnight - nor does the fighter's ability to get back a few hps once between rests, while he's conscious render such a function moot.

What it does do is avoid the pointless bookkeeping dynamic of having the entire party retire from the dungeon to rest, all regain a hp, then have the Cleric heal everyone with the slate of all-cure-spells he prepares, then all 'rest' again so the Cleric can get his spells back, and it reduces the need to have the 'band-aid' Cleric devote most/all his spells and actions to casting Cure..Wounds.

You need to address how overnight healing affects the game world. Does it cheapen magical healing granted to clerics by the gods? Are the PCs the only ones who heal overnight or do these rules also apply villagers? If it does apply to villagers I'd wonder if cliff jumping could become a sport. In 2e, you at least needed a cleric to engage in cliff jumping.

Which makes me wonder how a 5e DM would deal with a masochist PC that jumps off a cliff every night before bed. Now, I can't say we didn't have cliff jumping dwarves in 2e, but at least they didn't auto heal.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Off the top of my head I'm reminded of the 2e falling damage rules and mention of someone surviving a 33,330 foot fall.

Was there a sense of how they survived it?

Thankfully, 2e did not attempt to force any particular narrative.

In other words it was relatively silent on the subject, as I said.

I think the mechanics of 4e and to a lesser extent 5e forces a particular narrative.

You are mistaken. Every edition of D&D has presented very abstract hps that simply do not work from a standpoint of exacting consistency in generating some narrative. Classic D&D had a terrible time because of the inconsistency of non-proportional healing. 4e had proportional healing, and that also had issues. 5e has very rapid natural healing, which is closer to supporting the old 1e vision of hps EGG expressed in the DMG than the mechancis of 1e, itself, were.

The point is that any narrative of such a wound is not available in 5e even when it does make sense to use.

When does it make sense for a character hit for less than his remaining hps, to receive narration of a mortal wound?

Of course, I do recall that an old dragon magazine article that attempted to explain hps as magical.

That was something. Positive energy. Being overdrawn at the heavenly hit-point-bank.

I think people always do worry about it. If they are forced to ignore it too much it can become a problem.

IMX, it's just a matter of getting used to what to embrace and what to ignore. If you've been playing D&D since the 70s or 80s or even early 90s, you got used to the silliness of hps as presented in the classic game - if you hadn't been able to stomach it, you'd've given up long before the newer versions came out.

It's just a matter of transferring that profound level of tolerance to a system that actually has less call for it.

Well PCs in 5e have even more HPs. But yes, let the blade slash open his chest and then let the cleric magically heal him. You can do that in 2e. In 5e you don't have that narrative option because the fighter can just second wind/rest himself back to full.

You didn't really have it in 2e, either, since such a wound would be debilitating.

You need to address how overnight healing affects the game world. Does it cheapen magical healing granted to clerics by the gods?

No. How could it. It takes hours - really, it takes two long rests to fully restore a PC (to get back both hps, and all surges). Cure Wounds or Healing World restores lost hps instantly.

Are the PCs the only ones who heal overnight or do these rules also apply villagers?

I'd think it applies to anyone with hp and HD, both. Personally, as a DM, I have no problem not statting out non-combatants, and narrating their wounds in more horribly medieval-realistic ways...

If it does apply to villagers I'd wonder if cliff jumping could become a sport. In 2e, you at least needed a cleric to engage in cliff jumping.

Not really. Healing was slow, but if you had days to weeks to recover from the 'sport' you could.

Which makes me wonder how a 5e DM would deal with a masochist PC that jumps off a cliff every night before bed. Now, I can't say we didn't have cliff jumping dwarves in 2e, but at least they didn't auto heal.

If he has enough hps to do so without being reduced to 0, he's able to climb back up the cliff without penalty - regardless of edition - so I don't see how there's a huge difference. He can't have any broken limbs or other severe injuries in either case or there'd be serious penalties to a lot of checks. Why can any high-hp character in any edition willfully jump off a cliff and end up OK at the bottom?

 

[RotGrub]

When does it make sense for a character hit for less than his remaining hps, to receive narration of a mortal wound?

Not all wounds are mortal, but they can be serious physical wounds. Falling from a cliff, swimming in a pool of acid, being struck by an arrow, are all such wounds that can be healed by magic.

Look at it this way, I would hate to avoid telling a player that the arrows a rogue shot in his back (that did max damage) didn't actually stick in him. I really don't know how arrows that do max damage to an unsuspecting and unarmored victim don't actually penetrate flesh.

I think you are making the assumption that being struck in any way shape or form (even for a hero) is debilitating. Of course, I know you are forced to claim that if you want non-magical insta healing to make sense.

I think there are plenty of real world examples even in sports were this is not the case. Can you fight on with an arrow or two stuck in you? You sure can.

Here is my example, Take a character who suffers a critical from a lance. In 2e you can tell the player a splinter went right into his neck. Now, a D&D cleric could come along and heal him to full. In 2e, the actual wound could be described. In 5e, the DM can't describe that wound because he'll be forced to house rule in fear that the knight will recover in a day or two without magic.

I'd think it applies to anyone with hp and HD, both. Personally, as a DM, I have no problem not statting out non-combatants, and narrating their wounds in more horribly medieval-realistic ways...

I don't have to do that in 2e.

If he has enough hps to do so without being reduced to 0, he's able to climb back up the cliff without penalty - regardless of edition - so I don't see how there's a huge difference. He can't have any broken limbs or other severe injuries in either case or there'd be serious penalties to a lot of checks. Why can any high-hp character in any edition willfully jump off a cliff and end up OK at the bottom?

The high hp problem doesn't justify adding in more problems.

Sure, both system share some of the same issues (they are not perfect), but all I'm saying is that 2e has less exceptions and allows for a wider narrative.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not all wounds are mortal, but they can be serious physical wounds.

Serious physical wounds would be debilitating. Hp loss is not, not until 0. Thus Gygaxian scratches, bruises, luck, skill and pseudo-hits.

The high hp problem doesn't justify adding in more problems.

It's not a matter of 'adding problems,' but of perceiving different problems depending on which bits you want to try to explain away. The exercise is comparatively futile, regardless. The system if very abstract, trying to read too much into it has never worked.

Sure, both system share some of the same issues (they are not perfect), but all I'm saying is that 2e has less exceptions and allows for a wider narrative.

Classic D&D mechanics actually lead to a fairly constricted narrative, with obligatory clerical healing playing a routine day-to-day (combat-to-combat) role not generally found in the genre. Similarly, 3e with the profound mechanical efficiency of Wands made for a very odd narrative.

 

[RotGrub]

Serious physical wounds would be debilitating. Hp loss is not, not until 0. Thus Gygaxian scratches, bruises, luck, skill and pseudo-hits.

It's not a matter of 'adding problems,' but of perceiving different problems depending on which bits you want to try to explain away. The exercise is comparatively futile, regardless. The system if very abstract, trying to read too much into it has never worked.

Classic D&D mechanics actually lead to a fairly constricted narrative, with obligatory clerical healing playing a routine day-to-day (combat-to-combat) role not generally found in the genre. Similarly, 3e with the profound mechanical efficiency of Wands made for a very odd narrative.

So you think that HP damage in AD&D and 2e can't be anything more than a scratch? Why do you think that serious wounds are always debilitating? Where do you get that from? Isn't that a case of reading too much into it?

Now, 3e wands are cheesy, but at least they provide a reasonable explanation for insta-healing, which is "magic".
At least, 3e didn't attempt to usurp the way I described wounds.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So you think that HP damage in AD&D and 2e can't be anything more than a scratch?

I listed several alternatives to scratches, but, no, not a lot more. No deep gashes that'd've severed nerves/vessels/muscles, no broken or lopped of limbs, no traumatic brain injury, etc, until you hit that 0 hp threshold where you drop unconscious and can die. Until then, you're just happily adventuring along at no penalty of any kind.

Why do you think that serious wounds are always debilitating? Where do you get that from?

Same place you get that they don't heal overnight.

Isn't that a case of reading too much into it?

Yes, that's the point.

Now, 3e wands are cheesy, but at least they provide a reasonable explanation for insta-healing, which is "magic".

"Because: magic" is only as reasonable in an FRPG as it is in the fantasy genre, itself. And, no, to the degree it's typically used in D&D, not that reasonable, not remotely. 5e does a bit better with HD - though 1-hour rests are excessive, you can always invoke the time-compression trope...

At least, 3e didn't attempt to usurp the way I described wounds.

No edition has.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

Yep. Aside from plot armor and light injury/stamina, i can't see how HP would work and make sense as a system.

 

[ZzarkLinux]

Wow, enjoyable read so far. Nice to see both sides representing well.

So, the HP definition depends on 2 factors:
-Can average joe PC heal his HP overnight without magic?
-Is a cleric/magicwand assumed to be readily available to the average joe PC?

If we cross join them, we'd get something like:
No Overnight x No Cleric = reality. This one's lame.
Yes Overnight x No Cleric = 4e.
No Overnight x Yes Cleric = 2e.
Both Yes Overnight x Yes Cleric = Seems like an "unstable state" *

And neither system handles concussions, shock, or lingering wounds. I'm reminded of an important argument in Gulliver's Travels, which is a pleasant thought.

* Yes, I agree with Tony that 5e poorly defines hitpoints. It doesn't help that WotC is releasing products that give nod to existing canon (e.g. 2e clerics, CoS vestiges) but at the same time try to accomodate younger gamers who are oblivious to the legacy settings (i.e. kids these days have no connection to the OldSchool style suspension-of-disbelief).