Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6869693" data-attributes="member: 996">Of course, that could also impact other things he tried to do, which aren't modeled by the system.The bottom line is that hps are a very abstract, even 'gamist' little sub-system and reading too much into them - including worrying about how you narrate their loss based on there being more options for restoring them rather than less in 5e - is fruitless.Sure.I do not recall that, and I have had occasion to look at those sections of the 1e DMG in recent years... can you quote that?  Of course, there were monsters that fought into the negatives, giant boars and such.1. 'Doing without healing' is not practical in D&D, of any edition, ("Soldiering on" in the sense of proceeding without resting might be more meaningful in the context, as eschewing the 5MWD, for instance.)  But, 'Soldiering on' in the sense those you're replying to used it means continuing in spite of taking that beating, yet actually being able to accomplish something.  It's a line between heroism and suicide.2. Understood.  An attrition style focusing on spells as the critical resource.  Letting something other than spells, or some character other than a spell-caster, be important, undermines that style.  Often called 'caster supremacy.'  A legitimate and time-honored style of D&D still supported by 5e, heavily so with the right modules in place.It is, whether you 'soldier on' fully healed but out of HD & slots in 5e, or fully healed but out of memorized Cure___Wounds spells in 2e.  The question is do you gain hps for leveling.  If you don't, your hps may be reasonably visualized as 'all meat' (or all clay, in the case of a classic golem), or at least in a fixed meat|other-stuff ratio.  If you do gain hps as you level, the all-meat or fixed-ratio visualization fails.Sure, and to within as much consistency with the mechanics as you're comfortable with.  If you're comfortable describing a wound that is inconsistent with mere hp loss and no impairment, for instance, then you shouldn't be uncomfortable with narrating recovering the hps associated with that wound (you can still visualize the wound as present, just stabilized, for instance) after a short rest or night's sleep.  Neither is any more inconsistent than the other.This is where you're just stubbornly applying a double-standard.  You're fine with ignoring that a wound you describe would realistically impose severe penalties and result in long-term or permanent disability, even if healed.  You are not fine with ignoring that it wouldn't heal over night, nor even accepting the perfectly genre-appropriate trope of stabilizing or 'soldiering on' unimpaired by the wound in the sense of restored hps as well as freedom from hps.   I get what you're trying to do, and it's not that your definition isn't useable in 2e, it's just that it's not any less useable in 5e.  You're selectively holding later editions to a much more stringent, genre-inappropriate standard, even as you excuse not only unrealistic, but genre-breaking gaffes in the older editions handling of the same game mechanisms.5e can handle the way you want to narrate wounds just fine, thank you - all you have to do is cut it the same slack you did 2e.  It can also handle more forms of visualizing hp loss and recovery, that better fit with genre tropes.  5e does more, not less, than 2e that way.</blockquote>

Verification