It would seem based on Niksandros comments on enworld.org that the DMG will not provide anything close to a serious set of healing modules. To be honest I'm not really surprised. I think in my heart of hearts I pretty much gave up on the DMG when I saw the table of contents.
I wish they'd have just said straight away early on that they don't want players like me and be done with it. Why waste my time with promises they did not intend on keeping? It's their game and I recognize their right to do what they want. I just don't know why they have to be evil about it.
Please wait until you actually see what is in the DMG before you declare that the sky has fallen.
Emerikol. wrote:
Thing is, I'm guessing serious is '1 HP per day' - and if they had that, which as a rule you've invented for yourself already without paying, you'd buy the book?
When you're going to do your own thing anyway, why be evil about it and act as if you might have bought the book?
Healing is something that seems pretty easy to house rule, and there does seem to be rules around injuries and such.
What is it you're after?
Was that Nikosandros' comment about not having thouroughly read the book so he might have missed something, or his comment that he was politely asked not to give any further info besides what little fragments had already been said since he isn't even technically supposed to have the book yet that made you think you know what is or isn't present in the DMG?
Em, please remind us what you're looking for...
He is looking for rules that conform to his incredibly specific combination of avoiding all "metagame dissonance" and also disallowing elements he finds unappealing such as martial healing. Moreover, he is quite insistent that those rules be formally present in the core books, and he is convinced that his priorities match those of a large portion of the player base.
Let's be nice people.
Nikosandros' review of the book was sporadic and short. There's a lot I suspect he missed.
That said, I'm sure there are lots of rules modules and options they couldn't or didn't include, and lots of room for house rules. Even if there are no variant healing rules, that's easy enough to fix through house rules. 5e is designed for hacking.
DaveDash wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I know I'm going to catch flak for this, but I'm lost in this thread. What is a "healing module" and why is the publisher evil for not having them?
ankiyavon wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
I totally agree. What irks me more was the note on top of the healing rules in the preview. WotC actually thinks they have provided a large set of optional healing rules, but according to the leak that's simply not true.
All I wanted was a simple set of rules that allow hit points and healing to function as it did in AD&D/ 2e. I'm just not interested in healing surges (hit dice), non-magical healing, and recovering all hit points with a short rest. sure, I can house rule all that, but my playstyle won't be offically supported. I might as well just go back to playing 2e.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
What might be more insulting is that it doesn't appear as if they even bothered to include the alternate long rest rules that were in the playtest.
" I quickly glanced through the customization options and I've noticed that they are very brief. For example, under the rest options, it merely says that you can make short rest 5 minutes and long rest 1 hour, but there is little discussion of the ramifications."
You know, I think the DMG should include more than just suggestions about changing the length of rests, but I will say that if the DMG doesn't include more than a discussion about altering rest times then it's no worse than any other edition of D&D; it's not like BECMI, 2e, or 3e mechanically supported my healing prefence beyond the description of what the elements of HPs are. I'm not saying that I wish that situation on others, I don't, but it's not as if I wrote those editions off because they were imperfect for my needs.
FFSAA wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Making people happy with redundant material.
Do people just want their house rules in the DMG and it's a long way around of getting it?
pukunui wrote:
Noon wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
Man. You guys make Paizo's forums look friendly to 5e.
I really don't understand the problem here. Why are healing rates such an issue? Are there really players out there (and I mean players, not DMs) that really love to be wounded and at sub-max hit points for days on end? "Sorry, Lord Questgiver. We would love to help you rescue the princess but I've got some boo-boos from last week that haven't healed yet." I submit that it's mostly DMs that want this and not the players. I have never met a player that wanted LESS healing than what's standard in D&D (4e excepting, of course). So I think this really boils down to a DM issue.
But okay, say you modify the system to have lower healing rates. The players are left with 2 options:
1) Wait until they are fully healed before heading back out to adventure.
2) Go adventuring with very little hit points and be constantly on the verge of death.
If players choose option #1, you might as well use the standard 5e healing rates. Because there is very little difference between "you wake up tomorrow, fully refreshed, and ready to kick monster butt yet again" and "you wake up 7 days later, fully refreshed, and ready to kick monster butt yet again". D&D is not and has never been designed to be a simulation of realistic human wound recovery. You might as well complain that Knights in Chess are unrealistic because "real horses can move in straight lines". If that bothers you, then it's not the system for you.
If players choose option #2, then they will be definitely challenged. Every combat is gritty and dangerous. Mission accomplished, right? Not really, because you probably had to hack the system apart to get the healing rates low enough. Every single class has a way to mitigate damage. Undoing that is impractical.
There is more to the game than hit points and damage. You probably wouldn't know that from looking at threads here, but it's true! There is a LOT more to D&D than surviving combat. Challenge players in other ways and stop looking for reasons why some abstract mechanic isn't realistic enough for you.
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Folks saying that others should just reduce healing per rest with house-rules and be content with that, have no bloody idea what they're talking about, really.
In most prior editions of D&D healing was pretty much self-contained.
You had a healing rate per day, and some spells. You could adjust those higher or lower and that was about it. Problem solved, if you had any problems with the standard rates, that is.
In 5th edition healing is everywhere. Several elements of the game are (in theory) balanced according to healing rates throughout several systems. There's plenty and plenty of abilities and rules in the game that deal with healing. Most parts of the whole system are dependant on it. Monster damage is calculated expecting you to be able to recover a LOT of hit points quickly. Etc.
It is NOT a simple matter of increasing or decreasing how much HP you gain per day (or duration of rests). It is NOT a simple matter of "deleting" every ability that heals and is not a cleric spell.
Yes you can house-rule something like that, but in 5e you are bound to run into problems and things that will start not working in the system, that will work awkwardly, or that will become over/under-powered.
A good healing module should deal with not only HP recovery rates but the consequences and ramifications of changing that throughout the system.
And I expect nothing less of an official game variant that's supposed to come in the DMG.
So yes, this is a big disappointment.
But I knew the moment I saw the Index preview of the DMG (and the incredibly small number of pages dedicated to variant rules), that there was probably nothing serious worth my time in there.
If the healing modules [to make this edition feel closer to the previous editions] are not in the DMG, i think it could be because WotC decided that they weren't worth the space when they realized they could easily put them in the conversion document for older editions that they are gonna give for free sometime after the DMG release.
That is my 2 coopers...
I think the key thing to remember is that if the DMG doesn't have exactly the sort of healing options you want, it should be taken at a minimum as a total rebuke of your playstyle and a direct, unequivocal statement from WotC that you are a bad person. This should give you sufficient impetus to ragequit on the forums is the most dramatic and entertaining way possible so that those of us who are playing and enjoying the game can have a good laugh. After all, laughter is the best healing option.
iserith wrote:
First. I said "it would seem" which is me indicating that if the poster is right then what follows is the conclusion.
Ramzour, many of us have issues with the healing system because it forces us to think of healing in a certain way. That is entirely independent of the rate of healing. I do not want to think about healing the way healing surges and short rests make me feel about it. It's obviously not a wound at all. If a cleric casts a spell I can imagine wounds being knit together.
Mecha, there is a big difference between abandoning an approach that was present in 1e, 2e, 3e and not introducing all possible concepts at launch. We had what we felt was a good healing system in 1e, 2e, and 3e. We just want the game to recognize that many of us like that approach and are happy with it. And that is true even if you like rapid healing or slow healing. Those are orthogonal considerations. I don't know where I fall on healing rapidity. I know with certainty though I do not want non-magical recovery that is rapid.
I'll look the book over. The DMG is already the ghetto if you ask me. If they can't find room in the ghetto for all of us I see no reason to support the company. If you like what they are doing these days Mecha then by all means buy it. It's the free market. I do consider it unethical of them to say one thing and do another. If they just came out on day one and said they are not going to support any form of traditional healing because of X then I'd have happily moved along on that day. I make no claim that I have a right to force them to do anything. I vote with my dollars and that is it. I do think though that I expect them not to be evil and lying about it is evil.
And yes these facts are true per Mike Mearls own words
1. Healing is a major divisive issue across the playerbase
2. Variants addressing those concerns were supposed to be in the DMG.
dmgorgon wrote:
shpelley wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Honestly what were you expecting. What did you actually want the DMG to provide.
It it gives options for lingering wounds from critical hits and attacks that reduce you to 0.
It says you can change the time of short rests and long rests.
Will those cause changes to balance, yes of course they will. But so will any change to the healing rate. The game is balanced around X number of encounters per day, and all the healing PCs have barely gets them to X as it is.
Reducing natural healing means the DM will have to have less combats per day, give out more magical potions or items, or have PCs spend days on end healing up. That sounds exactly like older editions. No need for the DMG to spell this out for you guys.
Lawolf wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
There seems to be some misinformation going on here about Hit Points. So, here are what the 5 editions have said about hit points to date.
5e:
Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck. Creatures with more hit points are more difficult to kill. Those with fewer hit points are more fragile.
4e:
Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.
3e:
Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn’t hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower.
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical damage and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power.
2e:
Sometimes, no degree of luck, skill, ability, or resistance to various attacks can prevent harm from coming to a character.
To allow characters to be heroic, and for ease of play, damage is handled
abstractly in the AD&D game. All characters and monsters have a number of hit points. The more hit points a creature has, the harder it is to defeat.
AD&D game combat does not use a hit location system to determine where every blow in a battle has landed.
1e:
These hit points represent how much damage the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors.
Rest also restores hit points, for it gives the body a chance to heal itself and regain the stamina or force which adds the skill, luck, and magical hit points.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
tl;dr
Hit Points are an abstract concept in every edition to date. They have always represented MORE than just physical damage. Saying otherwise is 100% false.
I kept this post on ice to bring out whenever the healing and hit points crowd decided to make a go of it again. Same players, same game, and this response is just as valid now as then.
Cyber-Dave on Hit Points (in response to Lawolf) from back in June:
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
Rastapopoulos wrote:
The game already doesn't make sense. It's make believe pretend game of elves magic and dragons.
The game jettisons causal relationships and internal coherence simply by being a game.
I think we must not forget that there is a distinction between Basic Rules/PHB/DMG play.
- With Basic Rules, you have everything you need to run what I would call an arcade game with simple rules (mash buttons and kill a lot of things without thinking about the mechanics).
- With the PHB, you have everything you need to run a type X game (where X is what they discovered the majority wants during the playtest).
- With the DMG, you will have alternative rules to run a type Y, Z and Z+ games (where Y, Z and Z+ are the top 3 types of game they discovered had the most appeal to the playtesters but weren't no 1) and every TOOLS you need to CREATE BY YOURSELF the remaining rules you need to run another type of game.
I myself don't like the healing mechanic and tried to come up with a houserule to tweek it to my liking. I was overthinking it and found that if I go with long rest= time BETWEEN adventures and short rest= average of 2 during an adventure, I can do every type of game. With variable time periods depending on the situation you can do anything.
Want to go dungeoncrawling? Takes you a day, to clear the dungeon and then you take a long rest 8 hours and you're good to go again.
Want to do hexcrawl? The adventure start when you are exiting the town and finish when you come back. You can go out a day, a week or even a month but remember that you'll be able to take a long rest only when you come back and its going to last X days.
Want to travel from town A to town B? you're allowed a long rest only when reaching town B, the time in between is the ''adventuring day''.
Doing that doesn't alter game balance and can simulate lasting injuries quite well. Exemple: during your journey you got damage for 5 HP, you've exhausted your HD, the journey takes a month and you take a X days long rest into town. In that exemple, you weren't able to heal during the journey because it was to strenuous and back to town you healed in X days.
I think what we saw in the leaked preview on ENWORLD that they put in the DMG is exactly that: you can alter the lenght of the short and long rests however you want if you keep the same formula (an ''adventuring day'' can represent a day, many days, a week, a month, a year, etc.).
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
I think shouting a severed hand back on is more realistic than drinking a little shooter of gummy berry juice (or saying a prayer) and growing a new hand.
Just my 2 cents.
Seriously, some people love making games not fun...
If you don't like D&D's healing, play something else. I've never had a problem with interpreting HP's, damage, etc. any damn way I want at the table.
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Synjin wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I prefer Gygax's views on HP.
"Hit points are a combination of actual physical constitution, skill at the avoidance of taking real physical damage, luck and/or magical or divine factors. Ten points of damage dealt to a rhino indicates a considerable wound, while the same damage sustained by the 8th-level fighter indicates a near-miss, a slight wound, and a bit of luck used up, a bit of fatigue piling up against his or her skill at avoiding the fatal cut or thrust. So even when a hit is scored in melee combat, it is more often than not a grazing blow, a mere light wound which would have been fatal (or nearly so) to a lesser mortal. If sufficient numbers of such wounds accrue to the character, however, stamina, skill, and luck will eventually run out, and an attack will strike home..."
From Gary Gyax's article Much about melee published in Dragon #24 (April, 1979).
From the 1e AD&D DMG, page. 82:
It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the “sixth sense” which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm—the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter’s exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment."
SillyMind wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Luckily enough, the DMG will have options for lingering wounds that take multiple days to recover from.
Rejoice! You get exactly what you asked for (except the wounds and HP aren't necessarily related).
Ramzour wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Synjin wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
iserith wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
To throw in a few cents:
I was raised on HP damage as being both cuts and scrapes, and bruises, twisted knees, etc. Likewise, just because an attack "misses" doesn't mean that the blow didn't make contact -- only that it didn't inflict damage. In the above example, longer damage might take days (or longer) to heal naturally, whereas minor bumps and bruises take a day to lose sensitivity (and therefore limit combat effectiveness.
I remember rules for damage beyond HP in this game (2E?) and others. Unless you're talking about Battletech or something where compartmentalized damage makes sense (and is necessary), I don't think such a level of damage is feasible for D&D without a specifi set of rules to govern it , such as table that lists "if an attack does X% of your total HP, this effect takes place; if an attack does Y% of your total HP, then THIS effect takes place."
In terms of dungeon delving (and short of magical healing, of course) it would be fairly lame to incur an injury that might knock your character out (i.e., he is healing from a torn ACL) for the adventure and possibly a campaign. I think this is one of those part where RAW should be limited to numerical terms: you took 10 points of damage. X amount of short/long rests heal it. Not because that is or is not realistic, but for the continuity of gameplay.
I would be cautious about providing too many alternatives in what is essentially the core rule books. I think the PHB and DMG should have very few options, but provide a working infrastructure to add or subtract as the game continues -- whether it's official, 3rd party, or houserule.
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
I don't get it, if you absolutly want HP to mean injury just do it.
Don't use the HD mechanic, Second Wind=Temp HP and Temp HP go away after a fight (see it as an adrenaline rush). Drop the full HP after long rests and you regain an arbitrairy number of HP decided by the DM each night (1, 1 per level, a quarter, a third, half, doesn't matter). The game CAN support that playstyle and you just play with the repercutions of those changes as it's exactly what you want.
Even if something like that isn't in the DMG I wouldn't care because it's so trivial. I am not sure I want them to waste space by putting a paragraph for every single mini-houserule that people are already empowered to do just to legitimate your house rule. I'd rather much prefer them putting ground-breaking things or other modules that can influence bigger parts of the system (like eliminate short rests completely, every ability refreshing during a short rest, make-your-own race/class/sub-class tool box, etc).
Lawolf wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
My view on HP has recently change when I read a thread on another forum about the 4e Warlord beeing able to close wound with shouts without the use of magic.
I understood one thing: wounds can mean (don't have to) loss of HP and healing can (but doesn't have to) mean healing of injuries.
3 exemples supported by the abstraction of HP:
- Warrior is hit by goblin but doesn't drop Warrior to 0 HP so the attack is just a bruise which drain Warrior's stamina, cleric comes and cast cure wounds restoring Warrior's stamina.
- Warrior take an arrow to the knee, during a short rest he takes out the arrow and shake off the pain (using HD). The Warrior is now full HP with a gasp in the knee, he is still wounded and if you, the DM+the player, want to playout the injury you can but are not required to do so (if one of my player was to just mention the injury during RP I think I would give him inspiration for awesomeness).
- Warrior is hit by a drow's arrow, the arrow is poisonned and for it to make sense I rule that the hit is at least a little wound. During the short rest, the bard uses Song of Rest while you spend HD and the song doesn't magicaly close your wounds, it refreshes your stamina and soothes your mind so you can work beyond the pain.
Viewing HP as wound, wound+stamina or stamina depending on the situation clears any problem you may have. They decided that for Basic and the PHB, injuries were only PLOT tools that you could use in the story but it wasn't required in the mechanic. The rules are there to empower you to do as you want, not restrict you in any way.
There are roughly four people in this thread. They are having an argument.
That argument:
A) Has been had a thousand times before.
B) Is, at best, peripherally relevant to the actual topic of this thread.
Perhaps you should all step back and ask yourself: "Am I making these forums better by making this post?" before posting.
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
Well I think I'll wait until after the DMG is released before I go on a nerd rampage on the forums. I've been obsessed with this topic for the past 2 years and I'm burnt out.
The DoaM war almost killed me and no amount of resting will heal those wounds.
Anyway, hopefully I'll be able to accept the lingering wounds module.
SillyMind wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
[quote="Mistwell"]
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Slyck314 wrote:
A friend and I fired up Icewind Dale the other day to play. For those who don't know what that is, its a CRPG based on the AD&D rules.
Nether of us wanted to play a healer because games have evolved over the years, and healers are now pretty boring, so we just rolled with it. Who wants to just use all their spells on healing and nothing else these days?
Anyway, without a healer the game dragged down to tedium. We ended up just biting the bullet and throwing in a healer to follow us as our healer bot.
"Yay" for the good old days eh.
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
DaveDash wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Elfcrusher wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
You could solve this through the setting. Make it magical. The world the PCs live in has one of these two effects:
1) The Gods made the world such that all injuries heal quickly with a relatively short rest, to a limit, and some magics enhance this further; or
2) Some some people are gifted by the Gods with the ability to heal quickly with rest, to a limit, and some magics enhance this further.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Healing outside of the class is fairly easy to address, since you can control access to healing items or magic. Where 5E will probably faill in regards to healing modules, is the ability to add or remote class ability. It is covered for casters via spells, but there is no equivalent for martial classes. Even hit dice can be removed from the game, or modified because it treats all classes equally.
Therefore, It was fairly evident from class design when the PHB was released that the game would fall short for those that wanted different moducles for tactics, healing, damage (automatic, half damage), etc. for any given class. And it is implementation of those modules or choices that help emulate different play styles.
DaveDash wrote:
Looking for a homebrew low hit point recovery module? Then I invite you all to come here and help brainstorm ideas! This thread topic started out negative, so let's try again...only this time let's be constructive. Your move, nerds!
SillyMind wrote:
I concede that I cannot shout back on a whole severed arm, but what about a severed finger?
How many HP is a finger at level 20? At level 1, is a finger less than one HP?
What about groin injuries? Or brain injuries?
What about HP being equal to hearts? How many HP per heart? At what level does a heart = 10 HP?
If HP aren't always physical damage, why can't they be 'shouted' back?
If a video game can have HP, a life bar, or hearts...Why can't D&D have them?
All casters can shout (or pray) HP's away from you. It stands to reason that if shouting (or praying) HP's away is fine, than shouting (or praying) them back is OK too. Oh...Melee weapons can do damage as well, but I guess that damage can't be prayed or shouted back? Wait... it can be prayed back, but not shouted back?
It's all just so inconsistant. Again. IMO, there should be martial, divine, arcane, primal, and psionic healing...because there is martial, divine, arcane, primal, and psionic damage. (I know, that was 4e. But still.)
Ramzour wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
SillyMind wrote:
I would love to play for a oneshot/mini-campaing/full campaign with some people on those boards. I watched Rollplay on youtube since its begining and I would love to do something like that using roll20/skype.
Edit: I removed a comment that could have been seen as offensive.
SillyMind wrote:
Not sure if it was mentioned before in the tread but this was a remark about healing made in Mike Mearls ask me anything session on readit.
Resting for a night replenishes all of a characters HP, as well as half their hit dice. The full heal seemed to garner a fair bit of criticism during the playtest, so what was the deciding factor in including it?
We found that the full heal was the most popular option, but there are alternatives in the DMG. It's definitely a case where groups varied the most in terms of preference, but full healing seemed to make many groups happy while doing the least offense in turning people away. We generally created defaults that are fairly liberal, and then let DMs tone down things. That seems to be a pattern that works well for most DMs.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
ankiyavon wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Sort of catch 22 for me. I prefer a slower rate of healing but you need the higher healing rates because of the gonzo damage 5E monsters do.
I'm more annoyed at the swinginess of the in combat, out of combat, short rest and long rest healing and that varies by party composiiton. Whats easy for one group can be stupidly hard for another group just because 1 class is not present.
And thats before you get to overnioght healing or the expected 6-8 fight grind fest to get through all that copious healing anyway. I don't care about the abstract nature of hit points or arguing over what they are a 2E high level fighter could survive reentry from orbit and the fall to earth. Regaining those HP overnight is a bit silly and 5E has other problems in its healing rates anyway.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I've learned a little bit, but the key is the discussion; anybody with an open mind is having that mind expanded. It's interesting to see other people's opinions of subjective matter. On the other hand, the thread's value is in the discussion, rather than the OP.
MechaPilot wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
PHB page 181: Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck.
PHB page 182: Dungeon Masters describe hit point loss in different ways. When your current hit point total is half or more of your hit point maximum, you typically show no signs of injury. When you drop below half your hit point maximum, you show signs of wear, such as cuts and bruises. An attack that reduces you to 0 hit points strikes you directly, leaving a bleeding injury or other trauma, or it simply knocks you unconscious.
PHB page 156: Healer -- You ar an able physician, allowing you to mend wounds quickly and get your allies back in the fight. This is demonstrated by hit point increase.
PHB page 78: Lay on Hands -- Your blessed touch can heal wounds. This is also demonstrated by hit point increase.
I posted the above because numerous times posters have stated that hit points are not wounds and that phyical trauma can occur, but the character heals up to full hit points while the physical trauma still exists. This is not stated in the rules nor is it supported by the rules. Inflicting damage cause hit point loss, and healing wounds increases hit points. When current hit points are high there is no sign of injury so stating the injuries are still visible is the opposite of what the rules state.
It has also been stated several times that hit points are an abstract concept. I agree with this because it makes sense and various editions, including this one, have clearly indicated that hit points are an abstract concept that can include just about anything and everything. What doesn't make sense is that the abstract concept can be anything and everything except actual damage, especially given the description of physical durability. What makes sense is that there is a physical component included in that abstract. That physical component is why we make saving throws for injury poison on any attack regardless of the number of hit points we have. It's the reason the bigger the monster the more hit points it has (it's not like an entire species of herbivorous dinosaurs is more loved by the gods, luckier, or more skilled in combat; they just have more actual mass as the reason for higher hit dice and hit points).
The rules seem clear in the physical component to hit points in the descriptions and demonstrated within additional rules.
Having said that, I also agree with how we can narrate the actual damage. There is no reason hit point damage has significant damage regardless of the attack type until we hit 0 hp per the rules. This is a game and the hit point mechanic is a simplification to keep the game flowing. The hit point mechanic includes many abstract concepts beyond damage. The hit point rules state the attack doesn't do direct significant damage until the PC reaches 0 hit points, so narrating a significant blow before that point is not following the mechanics as part of the narrative. I understand it was different in the past, but this is the way it is now and it's not that hard to narrate that way. At least in my opinion. Using hit points as a device to determine skill or luck works just as well as using them to determine taking a hit; better because the big hit isn't until 0 hp and we have a lot of hp that need to be narrated as minor damage so more methods to convey what's happening the better.
I am looking forward to the lingering injuries in the DMG because I like a grittier, more dangerous, more realistic setting where danger and long term effects occur. That's fun for me. I can see doing that with hit points or along side hit points as a separate item to track. Hopefully they do a good job. Currently I'm not allowing over night healing if the players are above 50% hit points and if they are below they heal up to 50%, i'm restricting hit dice recover to 1/4 of the character level rounded down to a maximum number equal to CON mod (since the in combat hit dice abilities didn't make it in this isn't a concern like it was before the PHB came out), and any time a character drops to 0 hp he or she gains 1 level of exhaustion. That seems to work well enough.
I don't like the overnight healing to full hit points. This contradicts the description of hit points and healing as provided above. The description indicates cuts and bruises that appear to disappear overnight. This isn't so bad but there should be some lingering damage, and any day that a person took a significant wound by hitting 0 hp should have something that continues to show, which full hit points do not. That's when lingering wounds really make sense.
It also wasn't hard to come up with some rules that slow down healing to a point with which I was comfortable. 
Overall, players seem to have extreme opinions on what hit points are when they are a simplified abstract mechanic. I don't think anyone wants all "meat points", but ignoring physical damage completely is just as bad and does break versimilitude for me. I mean really, hit points can be an abstract of a bajilliion different things but only as long as physical damage is not one of those things? Minor damage is still damage even if the majority of hit point loss is other things as well.
My advice would be to do what I did and work out the rules a person can enjoy playing and relax on the extreme view points a bit. I would also wait and see what the DMG actually says because it might be what we want to see. Even if it doesn't meet expectations it's still not that hard to make adjustments.
dmgorgon wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ashrym wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
As a DM, I'm actually doing a small homebrew fix on this for the time being.
I think it will work quite well 
So as a little explanation:
I think the "Medicine" (Wisdom) skill is kind of... underused. Since the only time it is actually used is when someone drops at 0 hp, which doesn't happen at every session really.
One of my PC's is a Cleric that is into healing, has learned healing arts at an elven monastery in his background and so on.. So he is proficient and has quite the high score on his Medicine skill through his Wisdom, which is almost never used (remember they only have about 4 skills they are proficient in).
Sure, he can do a healing spell that takes about 10 minutes (not in combat), which means that he can heal the party even if they haven't had a short rest. That does sacrifice a spell slot he only gets back during a long rest though.
So here is what I am adding:
The Cleric in question is also proficient with the "Healer's kit", which I also want to enhance a little.
As he is trained in the arts of healing and knows how to best take care of wounds, stabilize dying creatures and so on he will be able to use his Medicine skill, combined with his Healer's kit (that has salvos, bandages etc.), when the party is having a short rest, to be able to add a bonus Hit Dice to another PC.
For a practical example:
The Warlock in our party is level 4, and during a short rest he takes 2 of his remaining Hit Dices to heal himself. Although, since he was badly wounded during the last fight, he doesn't max his total HP with these 2 Hit Dices.
In this case, the Cleric walks up to him and starts using his Healer's kit to try and better take care of the wound. Note that in this instance, the Cleric would have to have a Healer's kit on him and then do a Medicine skill check (DC 15, for example - and higher DC depending on the wound). IF he succeed on the DC, the Warlock gets 1 additional bonus Hit Dice.
I don't think it will get overpowering. Since he could very well fail on the check.
But it does add more to the Medicine skill, and give this particular Cleric a bit more "healer status" in the party.
Since it seems like it'd fit 5e's design, my guess is that Lingering Wounds will reduce maximum HP and provide some sort of detriment until it is healed in some way (magic, bedrest, whatever). Wouldn't that basically solve the "well this type of injury should have a lasting effect that a Second Wind/martial healing/boogyman-mechanic-I-don't-like shouldn't heal!" without resorting to gutting healing in other ways? Seems like this is much ado about nothing, frankly.
dmgorgon wrote:
The greatest misconception by the other side in this discussion is about what people in my camp want. You have to realize that rate of healing is another axis that runs orthogonal to this discussion. Do I want healing to be a little bit scarce? Sure. Am I wanting it super scarce in my games? Probably not. Fast healing was commonplace in 3e and yet 3e's hit point system did not offend me.
What I want....
The short answer --> The healing system from 1e, 2e, and 3e.
The long answer --> A healing system that does not force me to view hit points in the 4e and now 5e way but instead in the way I viewed them (and let me inform you if you are clueless the way thousands viewed them in the past) when I played 1e,2e, and 3e. Healing was not broken as far as I'm concerned. I am in favor of the game requiring parties to have a magical healing class. When a cleric casts a heal spell I want to be able to envision a wound knitting up.
I'd prefer to just drop the healing debate. You guys have not convinced us of your viewpoint. I recognize the existance of your viewpoint but I don't want to play a game with it. If my only choice were games using your approach I'd quit and take up another hobby. No need to beat a dead horse. My immersion and my verisimilitude is shattered every time a short rest causes a character to heal up naturally. I just immediately want to leave the room in disgust. So I respect your view. It is not my view and I won't have fun playing that game.
Here is where WOTC went wrong.
1. They admitted the playerbase was split like 50/50 over the healing issue.
'2. They said early on they would provide modules that would enable people to play their way.
3. The issue is really important for a lot of people on both sides.
4. Writing a healing system is not super hard and it takes up little space.
There is almost NOTHING in the DMG that is an optional rule that would be more important than optional healing systems. As much as I like domain rules and downtime stuff, those things are even on the same scale as healing systems in terms of player interest.
I can only assume that WOTC is actively trying to kill off the other way of playing. Well I don't want to spend my money with a company that is doing that. Please note that I said at the very beginning of the thread that it SEEMS ... BASED UPON.... Did you miss that? That means that I am giving a tentative response based upon feedback. I have also seen the table of contents though and to be honest I think they basically threw tons of people under the bus when it comes to modules. Even though I could care less about a tactical module, I do think they are liars (YES LIARS AS IN FALSEHOOD PERVEYORS) if they don't provide a tactical module. They may have provided one, I am merely saying if they don't then they are liars without any doubt. I prefer not to deal with a company that lies a lot to it's customers.
I can make houserules for myself. I don't though want to support a lying company so I will use another game and houserule that game to my preferred playstyle. There are plenty of options. I don't want to give them my money if they have so little respect for half their playerbase.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Emerikol. wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Synjin wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
@Emerikol
1.) Goals aren't promises. A lot of stuff I wanted got cut. Particularly the warlord.
2.) I don't assume the 50/50 healing & HP division is between HOW we view HP and Damage. I assume its between quick and slower recovery overall. In other words, the grittiness & deadliness of the game. Currently the rest/recovery sits between quick and slower rates of healing.
3.) Apart from regocnition that this is a divisive issue - probably the biggest divisive issue - there wasn't anything more to suggest widespread unhappiness with the way it's set now.
4.) I think you've read into this: there's no promises, no lies, and no mandate for "your" style of HP. Mine neither, though.
I could understand that once all the facts are in, and there isn't an adequate (for you) module, that you'd want to complain. I'd fully grok that. However, until such a time, it's difficult to take any such complaints and accusations seriously, and all it's doing is just inciting unnecessary rage.
Take a deep breath and wait until all the facts are in. If you want to play 5e with a different hp recovery method in the meantime, there have been plenty of people that have offered suggestions of how to do so in this thread and in others.
IIRC in 2000, didn't 3E come out with a free conversion .PDF before any of the core rulebooks were out? Or at least the same time as the PHB.
I know we used it to convert my AD&D game into 3E.
Emerikol. wrote:
bawylie wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
230-some-odd posts of proof that there is no such thing as a splintered playerbase!
(inb4 "But they took a survey and everyone wanted healing!")
Teasing aside, this is a fascinating conversation. I never would have guessed that something like hit points were so...contentious. I like the idea of shorter rests to help out short rest classes like the fighter or warlock, but I think long rests are just about fine. The amount of healing seems fine for the most part also, but clearly other people want other options. Seems easy enough to give to everyone imo.
MechaPilot wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Well, I’m not of the complainer type (I just left 5e and went to past editions) but really? 4 maneuvers in a sub class? I didn’t like the way they handled the “Warlord” and the Battle Master. Also, to be fair, I didn’t like tons of stuff but that’s another thing.
Chakravant wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Let's just make sure there's a healing module that no matter how many hp has been lost, as long as they're alive, a character will magically return to full hp after 4 weeks of rest—just like in 1e.
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
HP, DAMAGE, and HEALING
HP is simply your ability to fight meter. If your character has HP then he can fight and fight just as well as he could before. If he doesn't have HP then he cannot fight..
Any decrease in the ability to fight meter should be explainable using any fluff explanation the player wants. Luck expended, divine favor used, magically evaded the hit, took the hit but didn't phase me, anything should go here. HP decreases are fluff. There's one notable exception. When you are reduced to 0 HP that hit has to use fluff that is restricted to being some kind of physical or mental trauma.
Any increase in hp should be generic enough to account for any kind of fluff that was used to lose hp. It's easy to account for recovering hp if fluffed as luck or stamina or morale. Just about any class could have an ability that could restore that kind of hp loss. However, not all hp loss is luck or stamina or morale. Some HP loss is fluffed as actual damage and physical trauma. As such recovering that kind of HP loss should not be doable with a shout from an inspriing leader.
Since HP doesn't have a way of tracking what kind of HP damage it is then any form of healing we use in game needs to be able to cover any HP loss fluff reason. This leaves us with magical healing and long rests as our methods for hp restoration. Long rests should probably restore hp slowly and magical healing can restore it quickly.
Now with the issue examined I think we can make a solution. My solution would be that:
HP loss needs disaccoiated with any physical damage type fluff. In other words HP can be described however you want except for using physical trauma, tohugh minor cuts bruises and scrapes may can be allowed here as well.
Once that is done we should make certain breakpoints where major physical trauma can occur. I'm thinking maybe at 75% hp, 50% hp, 25% hp and 0% hp. A player can roll a d20 to determine whether something happens at those hp values or whether he manages to come away from that blow intact. For example if a player rolled a 9 maybe he gets a broken arm. Maybe on a 11 or higher he suffers no condition. These conditions can have their own remeoval requirements (very long time or magical healing required). They also may cause negative combat and adventuring effects on the character.
The nice thing is that once you've taken physical trauma out of HP then you can set HP recovery values to whatever you want. They can be 1 per day or max hp every day. There's no fluff reason preventing them from being whatever a player or group wants them to be.
Any thoughts or objections?
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
FrogReaver wrote:
For those who want slower natural healing, why doesn't the DMGs optional rest change work?
If short rests were 8 hours long, a PC would only recover a handful of HP per day (and then only if they have and spend HD).
For example, a level 10 rogue has 70 HP and 10d8 HD. After a few fights, he gets knocked down to 50 HP. During the next long rest, he decides spend 2 HD, saving the rest for later and recovers 14 HP. This goes on for a few days until eventually, he is out of his reserves and will no longer regain HP through short rests. He needs to find a safe place for a few days to take a long rest.
Lets say our rogue finds a humble village. Badly in need of recuperation, he decides to rest there for a few days. As long as nothing bad happens during that time, he is able to regain all his lost HP but only half of his HD. This means he would need to spend another few days resting to be back to perfect condition.
Of course, magical healing would decrease recovery time significantly.
FrogReaver wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Here is the optional resting rule that was once in the playtest packet.
Optional Rule: Slower Recovery
A Dungeon Master who would like recovery to be a slower process, particularly in a grim and gritty campaign, can consider one of these options.
Slower Hit Point Recovery: At the end of a long rest, you regain no hit points, but you do regain all your Hit Dice and can spend any number of them without using a healer’s kit.
Slower Hit Dice Recovery: At the end of a long rest, you regain all your hit points but not all your Hit Dice. Instead, you regain a number of Hit Dice equal to 1 + your Constitution modifier
All-Around Slower Recovery: At the end of a long rest, you regain no hit points, you regain a number of Hit Dice equal to 1 + your Constitution modifier, and you can spend any number of them without using a healer’s kit.
Chakravant wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Seems if there is advice in there for turning long rests into 5 days and short rests into 8 hours it does slow down the non magical healing ion 5E by a lot. Maybe not enough I am tempeted to go with 1d3 hit points per day, long rest a month and short rests 8 hours sounds nice.
I'll probably have to tone encounters down but it will enable things like hex crawlds which 5E basically fails at hard because of the gonzo over night healing rates.
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
The issue with just varying the lengths of rests is that it affects so many other rules as well. I don't have an issue with martials getting their stuff back fairly quickly so a short rest should be ten minutes but I want natural healing to be super slow so I have to make a short rest a week. Too many things are tied to what happens for a short rest.
Emerikol. wrote:
ankiyavon wrote:
I'm largely staying out of this argument, because it's pointless.
However, I will stand up and proudly declare that I DO NOT narrate HP loss as always being at least partly meat. And, I have introduced at least 10 other people into D&D, teaching each one of them that HPs work the way I use them (narrated as part meat or as not meat at all as the DM pleases). I hope those people who I have brought into the game bring others into the game, because D&D is much cooler than it gets credit for socially.
Emerikol, dmgorgon, and others, I'm not saying that your way is wrong, and I won't participate in the argument that my way is allowed by RAW of all editions (despite the fact that I obviously think that it is), but I will continue to teach everyone I bring into the game that HPs can be partly meat but do not have to include any meat at all, even the tiniest fraction. If you are going to argue that "your camp" is "right," then I'll proudly say that I am the corruptor of future generations who might otherwise be indoctrinated into the school of proportional meat. If "your camp" is to be considered "right" in this argument, then I will be your "camp's" devil (but a sexy one, not like a bone devil); I will spread my leathery wings of DM control over HP narration over everyone I bring into the game, and I hope they spread it to others as well.
I just had an oops moment. A 5 day long rest will tone down things like overnight healing and HD based recovery but it will also impact the regain rate of spells as well?AD&D at higher level (2E) had a 4 point diffenece between good and bad saves but mostly it was 3 or less. Good saves also future proof the gameform silly splat book spells that require a saving throw.
Zardnaar wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Good post dmgorgon.
dmgorgon I think one of the 2E splats (Bard Handbook) had a charlatan kit where you could get a small amount of non magical healing at a rate faster than 1-3 hit points per day.
One obscure kit in a semi obscure splat book was about it AFAIK in 2E. I bnever saw it in play once in 20 years.
Azzy1974 wrote:
When did the term "straw man" become mainstream? Honestly, the amount of times I've heard that phrase over the past week boggles my mind. The funny thing is: the concept of a straw man argument is to distance everybody's ignorant attention away from the actual subject by attacking the opponent or premise -- which is almost the way the term itself is being used. You know what other overused term that reminds me of? Victim blaming. Example: Person A walks into the police station and says "Person B just punched me in the face." Cop asks what provoked it. Is that straw man? Or is that attempting to understand the situation? Granted, a vast majority of the time the provocation was silly, but there are times when it is not, and a first swing is justifiable.
Anyhow, back to the real world of D&D forums.
If a thread is "Healing is broken." it is not straw man to find out about who says it's broken, when the game designers presumably listened to many opinions and endured several layers of playtesting, rules-writing, re-playtesting, and edits. There is an assumption -- even by those who question the designers -- that they knew what they were doing. Now, if the person who complains explains his or her rules or expectations and they are found to be lacking (at least in their opponent's perspective) then it is a perfectly viable argument to say "The game isn't broken; it's you who is expecting too much."
It's also not straw man to discover a person's expertise in a subject, either. If the same person were to say "Healing is broken." and then you found out they've never even played the game before, you would discredit that person. Granted, that's a wild exagerration, but the point is that understanding where a person is coming from helps both sides -- sometimes it even [GASP] helps end an argument amicably!
When these threads gets past a page or two, most of the relevant stances have been made, and the only way to continue AT ALL is to delve into motives and expertise. At this point, I think the term is just being thrown around because it sounds great, even though it's generally being misused.
I think it would be great if everybody who gets called some fancy-schmantzy term suddenly asked for clarification.
Zardnaar wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
I wish we could just skip the red herrings.
1. I don't care what your view of healing. I don't care if you care about my view of healing.
2. I don't care to argue about the use of "we" versus the use of I. I'll continue using we where I feel it's appropriate. Get over it. Your whining isn't going to stop me.
The real issue is Wotc's truthfulness in declaring they were going to provide certain types of options. I am hoping some more people get the DMG soon and can verify or correct the guy on enworlds comments. Since the DMG is printed, the facts are going to be the facts. There is no fixing the issue.
If there are no healing modules (or a tactical module for that matter) I'll be glad to call the Wotc devs liars to their faces. And no I do not consider a sentence on changing the length of resting periods to be healing modules. I hope after a careful examination of the DMG that there are in fact more options. I'm not hopeful based purely on the contents page.
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Hat's off to DungeonKrusher for an excellent post.
Hey they fixed the problem. My original Emerikol account can return.
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
I guess my question for Emerikol is, "so what?". If he is going to ragequit over some perceived lack of healing options that fit or do not fit his playstyle, what was the point of starting a thread about how disappointed he was? It seems kind of grandiose and not just a little bit narcissistic to do so. As if him not playing 5e will somehow detract from the enjoyment of the rest of us.
At what point do we just declare this thread as people screaming into an endless void?
Zardnaar wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
I can't believe I just read this whole thread.
D&D has a long tradition of house ruling when a given DM or group doesn't like something. This is largely due to the fact that due to the immense player base compared to other games it would be literally impossible to publish every conceivable rules variation people desire. To the credit of first TSR and then WotC, the owners of D&D have always encouraged house rules and often given advice, alternate systems, or examples to help guide house rule creation. If you choose to ignore the perfectly valid option to house rule when your own version of the perfect rule for something doesn't make the cut to be in the printed rules, then you are cutting off your own nose to spite your face.
As to all the loose accusations of lies on the part of the developers, others have pointed out that we already know there are options addressing these issues. If they are unsatisfactory, see above paragraph.
I post rarely but after reading this discussion, I would like to chime in support of Ramzour's position. The definition of hit points has remained consistent throughout all editions. A single hit point is an indeterminate quantity whether it is physical or metaphysical like a drop of water in a pool. The change from edition to edition is about recovery and inflation. Narration is the other shoe in this discussion.
Honestly, I have played since 1e and I have only narrated the endpoints. Everything in between is a pool that represents your state and your proximity to death. It has never made any sense regardless of edition to narrate major debilitating injuries with hit point reduction. Does getting stabbed in the leg decease your movement rate? A slash across your sword arm decrease your combat effectiveness? Does it really make any sense to link hit point reduction to broken bones? No, whether 1hp or 100hp is the same other than the increase of potential death in 1hp case.
Hit Points do have a physical component but it is never getting stabbed in the lung and then having difficulty breathing. This narration of drowning in your own blood is only available after reaching zero and failing the death saving throws. This is heroic fantasy game with a hero similiar to John McClane from Die Hard movies for the default. This is the default that the majority of players want. There is a lingering wounds option in the DMG but this is gritty as it gets by RAW for 5e.
I consider my overall attitude being old school and I sympathize with the Emerikol and Dmgorgon position. However, I believe their problem is narration only. If they are determined to continue with their narration style, 5e will never be the game for them.
I much prefer 5e healing to wand of cure light wounds with large number of charges. There is a lot of cause and effect relationships in the game. Removing Ye Olde Magik Shoppe and decreasing cleric dependency is a motivating factor in my enjoyment of 5e.
jredmon wrote:
Curious. Any lurkers with the OP on this?
jredmon wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
One further point about the slow Hit Point Recovery as shown on 1e DMG p. 82. "Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any to full strength."
How does the above make any sense if the narration is major physical damage with hit point loss? Obviously, the loss of eye is going to require magic. How about major kidney and liver damage? How about nerve damage? It doesn't matter how long you rest, some wounds require medical attention that is not available in this game except by magic. The OP's narration while playing 1e may have been within the bounds of his credulity but it doesn't mean that makes sense with respect to reality.
A lingering wounds module detached from abstract hit point model that does require magic for recovery makes far more sense that what has been in the game in the past.
bawylie wrote:
We have had 2 parties make it to level 11 and I think there is more wrong with 5E ATM than the hit point recovery method even if I prefer something more like AD&D hit point recovery.
bawylie wrote:
It's unrealistic to expect any gaming system to be all things to all people.
All designers have to work with finite resources: deadlines, page count limitations, budgetary considerations... so on and so forth. At some point a decision has to be made that will leave something out that some players will be disappointed or unsatisfied about.
I understand both sides of this particular argument, but my personal opinion is the design team did a really good job with this edition from what I've seen. When I sit down to play with my friends we have a lot of fun with 5th Edition. Instead of spending time with our noses buried in books or on the net looking up obscure rules we spend the time playing the game and enjoying each other's company. I'm happy to give up some degree of verisimilitude and realism to get that.
If you want gritty simulation that tracks each wound and mirrors real world healing rates this game may not be the best fit for you. You can either make up house rules to get it closer to what you want it to be or you can move on to something different. I'm not sure what the constant arguing that the game isn't what you want it to be is going to accomplish.
Maybe the people who feel dissatisfied with the current rules should start another topic where people can constructively offer suggestions and house rules to create the module for slower healing you'd like to see. It seems to me that time spent doing that would be more productive and result in a better gaming experience for you than simply complaining over and over again that you don't like the way the design team handled the issue in the DMG, which still isn't even actually out yet.
jredmon wrote:
jredmon wrote:
In our game we handle non-magical healing by looking at the number of wounds a character has taken. We take the wound that inflicted the greatest amount of damage, deduct that character's constitution bonus and the result is the number of days that character needs to recuperate to be back at full strength. This keeps all the characters at a more equitable healing time.
Magic acclerates the healing rate. Either with a single heal spell to reduce the number of days required to heal, or multiple heal spells to bring the character back up to full.
Divine magic is superior to arcane magic, if the deity is favorable to granting the prayer request. A single prayer can fully heal a paladin who has taken multiple hits. An arcane caster would have to expend multiple "slots" for healing spells.
"Lingering wounds" eyes plucked out, extremities removed, crippling wounds, .... require magic.
Erifnogard wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
jredmon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
[quote="FFSAA"]
jredmon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
DMGorgon and Emerikol I have a serious set of questions for you guys:
1) Do you plan to buy the 5e core books and play the game at all?
2) Do you think the DMG might solve your issues?
3) If the DMG does not solve your issues, why do you think houseruling won't solve your issues?
4) If you don't plan on buying, playing, or solving your issues, then why are you still posting to a fan forum for a game you're not planning to buy or play or work with?
Ramzour wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
jredmon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
iserith wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
eleran wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Honestly I don't see how you could have missed them saying they were going to offer modules for healing.
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
I spent the last half hour looking for any comment from Mearls where he promised a healing module. I can't find it. I see him talking about a tactical combat module, a storygame module, a domain module, etc.. but I do not see him talking about a healing module.
Now I am not saying he never said it - I am saying I can't find it. I'd really like to see this supposed quote where he supposedly promises a healing module.
Don't consider a sentence or two on varying rest times to be a module. In order to get anything approaching pre 4e healing you'd have to break the rest of the game. Week long short rests as a solution really don't work.
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I attended at least three sessions with Mike Meals and when questioned about healing he always mentioned there would be modules. I am sure I've seen it online as well. Perhaps it was Twitter or a podcast.. I'm not going to scour the boards to prove something. If you never heard it I can't believe you been here the whole time.
For my own purposes I know he said it so I have no problem calling him on it.
Gnarl wrote:
If 4e didn't sink them then they can't be sank. So I seriously doubt 5e is sunk.
I did notice a preview on enworld that discussed weapon speed factors. Are you kidding me? They had room for that but not for some robust healing options. The playerbase is divided over healing but they'd rather service the 1% of people who care about weapon speed factors??
It was a deliberate choice. We can argue the reasons but it was intentional. Even if the modules were provided free and the printing too they would have rejected them. They were deliberate. Perhaps it was an attempt at forcing unity on the issue.
MechaPilot wrote:
OK found the video:
Zardnaar wrote:
@Mistwell,
That is the video that I was talking about.
Now, while I have no investment in either side of your discussion with Emerikol, the term modules were at the time, to my recollection, largely taken to include both variant rules options that change existing rules (such as altering healing rates) and additional rules options that are simply just extra rules (such as fear and madness rules).
That said, I want to reiterate that my mention of the module (meaning rules varient in that context) spoke specifically about rate of healing. I know that Emerikol also has issues with Second Wind and Survivor, but in that thread I also pointed out that while the module may not address those things the community has discussed them at length and at the time had already come up with several replacement options for abilities that Emerikol finds objectionable.
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Soooo, I've been out of the loop for a while. Is this the new Tarrasque thread?
Zardnaar wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Personally, I find the claim that Mike Mearls "promised" anything beyond the absolute obvious to be a pretty dubious claim, unless a direct quote is provided. The game was, and has been, in a significant state of flux up until publishing, so I would assume all but the most essential features are up for review.
Of course now the full review is on ENWorld, and apparently the DMG does include modules for lingering wounds and longer resting. So the initial post, in hindsight, was calling WoTC liars because of an unsubstantiated promise that they've entirely fulfilled. Maybe next time, if not waiting until the actual book comes out, at least waiting for the full reviews might be worth a go?
Look people as I stated up front and repeatedly since, my comment was based upon the early info provided by a DMG owner on enworld. I used the word SEEMS. That means based upon THAT info. Now I still have yet to see what you are referring to Milky but I'm going to investigate it.
Ramzour, I do not feel obligated to prove anything. I heard what I heard and I am commenting on it. I believe many people also heard the same thing. They can react to my comments. If though you doubt me because I haven't provided proof then that is of course your right. If you believe I'm an unreliable source, then I wouldn't believe me either assuming you haven't heard what I'm talking about yourself. I am not though obligated to prove it. Perhaps to convince you I am obligated.
Another example is when I asked Mike Mearls about dissociative mechanics. He said they totally understood the issue and they were definitely considering it in their design. Then the next week and thereafter they release all kinds of rules that violate the concept. The reason I didn't say Mike was a liar then was because I honestly believe he doesn't understand what I'm talking about. The subject is complex. With healing modules though, I really don't think the issue is complicated at all. I think the solution is almost free to provide. Choosing not to is strategic not economic. I guarantee you a hundred times the people care about healing than care about weapon speed factors. I love the fact they have weapon speed factors as an option but the room in the book argument doesn't hold.
Now I am going to look at the additional previews. If as some say there are some additional healing rules then I will back off saying they are out and out liars. I will likely view it like I do the dissociative mechanics thing. They just don't realize what about healing needs addressed. Are there that many people wanting a lingering wounds module? Really? Most of us just want to avoid rapid non-magical healing because we've played that way our entire lives and we like it. It was an enjoyable time for us and we don't think it needed fixing. We don't take any issue with requiring a group to have a healing class. We consider that one of the core conceits of D&D.
"Dissociative mechanics" is also a bankrupt concept that stems from failure to narrate in a way that connects the fiction to the mechanics.
Emerikol wrote:
iserith wrote:
It's not hard to understand what some people mean when referring to "dissociative mechanics." But the issue, much like the healing issue being railed against in this thread, all stems from how the DM/players choose to narrate. As such, it is a self-inflicted problem that people can choose to correct. Sadly, however, the choice to blame the designers for the issue is the easier way out, so that's what they do. "It must be the other; it can't possibly be me."
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
iserith wrote:
dave2008 wrote:
iserith wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
So, looks like the DMG has this for some alternative heaing options (I am paraphrasing here):
1) An option where you can only expend HD during a short rest by consuming a healer's kit.
2) An option for use of alternate healing surges. As an action, a character can use up to half his HD (you start by rolling one, see the result and keep rolling up to the maximum). A character recovers the surge after a short rest and all HD after a long rest.
3) A "super-heroic" option is offered in which healing surges (above) are a bonus action.
4) A slow natural healing option. No HP are recovered after a long rest. Characters need to expend HD to recover HP.
5) A lingering wounds system which are rolled when a characters is reduced to 0 HP, takes a critical hit or fails a death save by 5 or more. There is a table with different effects.
And you can combine these. So for instance you could have a more grim and gritty system if combine #1 and #4 and #5. In such a game, you can only heal by expending hit dice (no HP recovery on long rest)), and you can only expend HD by using a healer's kit (hence more clearly connected to an actual physical wound and binding/dressing/treating such a wound), and if you are reduced to 0 HP or take a critical hit or fail a death save by 5 or more, you roll on the lingering wounds table to see what lingering effect happens to your character.
So whether you think Mearls said "options" or "module", I think that satisfies both. It might not satisfy someone's personal preferences for healing, but it sure seems to fulfull any perceived promise on providing healing options/module.
Mistwell wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
There's also an optional rest rule where a short rest is 8 hours and a long rest is a week. Haw.
1eejit wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Actual ENworld healing options link http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2096-Here-s-How-HEALING-OPTIONS-Change-in-the-DMG!#.VHeQDtLF9gg
Just in case you folks would like to look it over. Happy gaming.
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Ooh, I like that Healing Surge variant. Not at all what I thought they'd do. It captures the heroic feel of 4e, yet it remains very 5e-ish. I might adopt this rule in the future, and change the Fighter's Second Wind so it can do that as a bonus action instead.
So, looks like all that wailing and gnashing of teeth and accusations of lies was all very premature (and immature) and without merit.
Told you so.
Shirebrok wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
The slow healing optional rules seems to be about twice as quick as 3.5 healing rates.
Slow natural healing. No HP are recovered after a long rest. Characters need to expend HD to recover HP.
Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?2096-Here-s-How-HEALING-OPTIONS-Change-in-the-DMG!#.VHfcJzGUf_J#ixzz3KKH4k2Lx
They can recover at 200% roughly in short bursts but the following day they wouold be back aht half levelX/HD based healing.
Gritty realism. Short rest 8 hours. Long rest 7 days.
This rule looks intersting but it also impacts spell recovery rates. Could be a good option though if you are using the 2E historical series which directly nerfed spellcasters in various ways. Could also be useful for hexcrawls with a combat ever 2-4 days instread of 6-8 per long rest.
There is no slow natural healing options+vancian spell recovery though. At best you heal at roughly double the rate of 3.5. To be fair they did not promise specifics.
Zardnaar wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
From the linering wounds chart:
There's stuff like losing an eye, a hand, a foot or a limb (you need regeneration to counter this effects).
Other effects include:
Limp: reduce speed, make a DC 10 dex save or fall when dashing, cured by magical healing.
Internal Injury: when attempting an action in combat make a DC 15 con save or lose the action and the next reaction. Cured by magical healing or 10 days of complete rest.
Broken Ribs: as above, but the save is DC 10.
Horrible Scar: disadvantage on persuasion checks. Advantage on intimidation. Requires healing magic of 6th level or above.
Festering Wound: reduce maximum HP by 1 every day. Cured by magical healing or 10 successful daily medicine checks.
Minor scar: No specific effect. Requires healing magic of 6th level or above.
Mistwell wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
I still kind of wanted slower healing (this one is fat still) and you get your spells back after 1 day. If you combined them though you get no hit points back after 5 days and half your level in hit dice.
People can justify their problems with WotC however they want, but I think the truth is that people DO NOT really want to fix the problem. They just want to complain.
How do I know this? Because the thread I started to come up with ideas for homebrewing a healing system that fits the slower and non-magical healing crowd has 31 posts and is days old.
Meanwhile, this thread is 515+ posts, largely due to arguments started by ludicrous claims that WotC is run by evil, baby-eating goblins that hate 50% of all D&D players. Go figure.
On another note, I feel like the term Dissociated Mechanics is being used as an argument against 5e, but that's a really lazy argument.
Here is a link to where the term originally came from. Dissociated Mechanics: a brief primer. I suggest reading the whole article because it's quite good. He talks a lot about mechanics and roleplaying. There's even an example of Monopoly being a Roleplaying Game (a topic which came up earlier in this thread). But if you only read one part, read the section called "Realism vs Association" (about half way down). I think this section applies the most to this particular discussion about healing and hit points.
The truth is that hit points have ALWAYS been a Dissociated Mechanic. Yes, even in ye old school editions. Does anyone else remember playing D&D when crossbows did d4 damage? I distinctly remember thinking, "Ha! Suck it DM! Your 5 city guards might have crossbows trained on me, but I have 21 hit points and they can't kill me even if they all did max damage!" I also remember thinking how unrealistic that felt. It just didn't sit well with me. How could you get hit with 5 arrows at point blank range and survive? That's not how it works in real life!
I was young and new to D&D at the time, though, so I did what any other kid would do: I read the rules. I scoured the rules for clues on how to rationalize this crossbow vs hit points thing. And guess what? The answer was in the rulebook. Hit Points are an abstraction. They represent energy and stamina and luck and fate and all that other non-physical stuff. Oh, okay then! I finally understood that not every crossbow bolt that deals damage to my character is dealing PHYSICAL damage. It could also be expressed as "my luck running out" or "wearing me down" or any number of other rationalizations.
"But Ramzour!" you say. "We're not arguing about hit points as meat or not-meat! We object to non-magical healing! You cannot shout wounds closed!" And I agree with you. You can't shout wounds closed. But that's not what happens with Rally or Second Wind or Short Rests. What those quick bursts of mundane healing do is help you recover hit points. I'll repeat that. Non-magical healing lets you recover hit points. That's all. It doesn't fix broken bones. It doesn't mend your flesh. It merely fills up your life bar. Because we're playing a fantasy game about dungeons and sometimes dragons and our heroes have life bars. THIS IS NOT A NEW CONCEPT.
The only particular reason why this issue seems more important in 5e (and 4e too) is because there are more forms of non-magical healing now. Let's be clear though...there has ALWAYS been non-magical healing. You could always rest over night and regain hit points. That's mundane healing. But 4e/5e has more of it. So the "problem", as it were, has always existed, just not to the extent that it has in previous editions.
But the amount of non-magical healing in 5e is actually irrelevant. Why? Because Hit Points have ALWAYS been a dissociated mechanic. So please don't blame 5e for your reluctance to treat hit points have they have always been treated: hit points are life bars. Hit Points, damage types, magical healing, non-magical healing....none of those are associative mechanics. They are game constructs. Stop complaining that D&D isn't realistic. Of course it isn't. It's a game. If Second Wind or Short Rests bothers you, that's because you refuse to acknowledge that D&D is a game.
Ramzour wrote:
TheMilkyBarKid wrote:
Use Lingering Wounds to represent injury that cannot be healed except with proper medical attention or magical healing. Have something reduce maximum HP if you think it can't be healed except with one of those two options. This is not hard to do. It handles the "but I want some physical damage that can't be healed using non-magic." For those who don't care, they use the base HP rules.
TheMilkyBarKid wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Ramzour, please I am not using dissociated mechanics as an argument against 5e. It's a flaw in my opinion but not one I could not easily fix and I am fairly certain that they just don't understand the issue well or they probably would have avoided it. Some of their choices could have been made non-dissociative without impacting anything.
The_Jester wrote:
Do not conflate the two arguments though. Dissociative mechanics as a definition is fine and dandy. Those who can't seem to grasp it are for sure the people who don't take issue with it. Not saying all of you who don't mind them don't grasp them. Just those who can't really get the definition. Plenty enjoy them and undestand the definition perfectly well.
Going from there to saying a game with dissociative mechanics is not a roleplaying game is a new argument. It is not one every person who understands DS would make. I would not make it at all for example. I think in defense of the original author though he was viewing games based upon character stance as the only true roleplaying games because you are actually playing the role in character. That was his opinion. It's not mine. It is though the kind of game I enjoy playing. I do not prefer the author/director stance games. So inspiration would never ever ever get in my game.
If I had to play the game as written in it's core 3 books without a single change then I would not choose 5e. It has elements that I will have to houserule in order to enjoy the game. I do not enjoy dissociative mechanics. And no abstract hit points are not dissociative. The fact 5e may provide an actual healing module for my style of play at least makes playing the game something to seriously consider. It now comes down to how much I houserule 5e versus how much I houserule 2e, 3e, or some retroclone like C&C. I guess the price of buying versus using existing is also a factor but for me not that much of one. I'll likely decide purely on the merits of the games and how hard the houseruling will be.
Emerikol wrote:
"Going from there to saying a game with dissociative mechanics is not a roleplaying game is a new argument. It is not one every person who understands DS would make. I would not make it at all for example. I think in defense of the original author though he was viewing games based upon character stance as the only true roleplaying games because you are actually playing the role in character. That was his opinion. It's not mine. It is though the kind of game I enjoy playing. I do not prefer the author/director stance games. "
This is a nuanced take. Thank you.
Whoa, you are all misunderstanding what he is saying. The paragraphs following that quote are important and you're ignoring them.
He's not saying D&D isn't a roleplaying game. He's saying if a game consists of purely dissociated mechanics (which D&D does not), then the game isn't about roleplaying. Consider Chess. The way pawns and knights and bishops and rooks move are not something you are doing "in character". They're purely game constructs. You're not playing any roles, you're just moving game pieces according to some rules.
I think that's a pretty fair definition of what a roleplaying game is, actually. In D&D, you have a lot of Associated Mechanics, which are game mechanics you can link to an in-character event. The example he gives is a Wizard memorizes one spell, then casts that one spell. Spending a spell slot is an Associated Mechanic because there's a pretty direct link between "expending a spell slot" (in game terms) and "using up a bit of stored magical energy" (in character).
On the other hand, Hit Points are a Dissociated Mechanic. Because they represent a combination of multiple things, it's not always clear which hit point is what kind of injury. When you hit an enemy with your attack, the hit doesn't necessarily represent one sword swing. And following from that, you have the famous "poisoned weapon" situation where the sword obviously hit you exactly once because you got poisoned, but that conflicts with the concept of abstract weapon attacks. Hence the dissociation.
Now I'm not saying either is good or bad. I'm just saying they exist in the game of D&D. There are a lot of Dissociated Mechanics in D&D that we have no problem with (class levels, XP, Armor Class, etc.). So if we can accept that fact that our elven wizards in a fantasy game level up in quantized level brackets after receiving "experience points" for killing dragons.......then why can't we accept that Fighters have a limited well of stamina that they can tap into to make their life bar refill a bit?
I disagree with your analysis. Further, I don't believe these are useful definitions or that they have anything to add to our understanding of the game. The guy made an arbitrary distinction of rules viewed from one (of many) possible outlooks and stances and extrapolated some subjective value system (fine) which he tried vainly to disguise as objective truths (not fine).
Its each player's responsiblity to find their own enjoyment. Philosophical discussions over the rules and pseudo intellectual Theorycrafting have been notoriously bad at helping us find happiness; in the main, they've been divisive and contentious. This crap article is one huge example.
bawylie wrote:
Hang on, you can say "that guy is just expressing an opinion" as a defense and then turn around and tell me I'm not making an argument - after all, aren't I just expressing my opinion? The guy does have an agenda, he is trying to make blanket assertions about RPGs, and his article and opinions are crap, my lazy use of buzzwords notwithstanding.
And you've misread Emerikol. He doesn't believe HP are dissociated.
Some of these arguments make my head spin. I prefer nice and simple so just state I prefer slower rates of healing a'la AD&D and 3E. I avoid the arguements over what HP are just prefer a slower rate regaining them.
TheMilkyBarKid wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
The way I played hit points in 1e, 2e, and 3e they were not dissociated. I am sure they could be dissociated if played a different way. I didn't play them in a dissociated way because I don't like dissociative and that would have ruined the game for me.
A swing is a swing in my game even in 1e. I may agree that a ton of other non-rolled swings occurred that were insignificant as far as doing harm (feints and such) but when damage was done it was done because of a single swing connecting. (In the case of multiple attacks each adjudicated separately then of course each of those represented a swing that could possibly do damage).
It has taken me a while to figure out how some of you have been thinking all this time. Honestly it's alien to me. No judgment. Just so different that I've never really ran into it until I met you guys. We narrated all of our rolls as attacks and we applied the damage as damage. We never spoke of it as a near miss when a hit occurred. We might say if the damage was low and we were strong that it was a glancing blow.
The reason I hate you on some days Bawylie is that for me realizing the connection between dissociated mechanics and things I like and don't like was a major breakthrough. It has enriched my life and allowed me to accept or reject some games far more rapidly than I could have in the past. If I had known the theory prior to 4e I could have saved hundreds of dollars. There is no judgment there on those that like it. There is the certain knowledge that the definition is valuable and useful as a tool that I can use to judge whether I will like a game or not. So when you make repeated disparaging remarks about the theory itself you lose credibility with me and I want to start attacking you. It definitely does not make me wan to be civil. You can say the definition and theory does not help you but it helps me and others so it is useful for us.
Zardnaar wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
@Emerikol
Im not hating on the idea, I'm hating on the article and the conclusions that stem therefrom.
Im hating on the total lack of discussion of 1E & 2E saving throws and Attack rolls under the same scrutiny. I'm hating on the "3rd Ed is the only good, consistent Ed" mentality that author espouses.
Look, if you prefer a tight correlation between character knowledge and character action, that's fine. And there's nothing to hate on anyone's preference. But pretending, as the author does, that any other play isn't role playing at all, is a position worthy of scorn.
I mean look at what chapter 9 in 2E has to say about saving throws. It's basically "Usually, it's an instinctive action, but you can basically make up whatever you want and it's more exciting if it fits the action." In other words, you make the roll and then decide what happens afterward: raise your shield, drop to the ground, empty your mind and maybe you weren't fast enough. Or you raised your shield but it was a feint and the attack came in low. Right there in the text: eh, just make it up (ditch the rules entirely in the service of fun) and be exciting.
Look at what it says about making Attacks. You're gonna close in, feint, parry, maybe land a telling blow. Or an orc is gonna fling himself bodily at you, but maybe miss and land in the middle of your formation. Maybe you use an attack roll to drop from a 2nd story window. It's not all explicitly "an attack roll = a single swing of weapon and only that!"
Not that you can't or shouldn't be internally consistent. But there's a universe of possible play in there and labeling "everything not done in actor stance" as wrong is outright stupid. (This isn't your claim, Im still just hating on the article).
jredmon wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour's right though. Hit points have always been vague and open to interpretation. Anyone who's been exclusively narrating them as one thing or another has themselves to blame for not understanding how it works.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Zardnaar wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Tell y'all what though. If you don't like the way something in the DMG is done, take a gander at pg. 263. It explicitly states that "the rules serve you, not the other way around." Like 2E. If you don't care for the way something is done, you change it. Because it's your game.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I can't believe Justin is now being held up as some authority on RPG rules (or that some are now claiming he invented the term - as opposed to is simply commenting on a term that had been around for a decade). Yeesh. If you really like the guy, you should head over to TheRPGSite. He posts there all the time. I mean, nothing against the guy, he's fine, and his article is worth reading. But, he's just some guy.
Also, the idea that Mike Mearls didn't know that dissasociative mechanics are, is friggen hilarious. Obviously some people are not aware of Mike's background in RPG theory. For what it is worth, Mearls comments on that very Alexandrian article, in his 2010 interview with Escapist Magazine.
Well if he truly does understand then he is very much a liar. You can't have it both ways. He told me he understood and that the rules would take into consideration those concerns. That is something he said to my face. Then within a few weeks a bunch of blatantly dissociative rules dropped. What am I supposed to think? He either doesn't get it or he lied. In this particular case I figured he didn't understand it very well.
Let me explain another thing. I do not necessarily consider non-magical healing dissociative. I might consider second wind dissociative with one hour short rests. But that is far beyond just non-magical healing. I'm assuming all of this rapid healing is occuring "in character". I dislike something and it not be dissociative. That is not the be all end all of everything. I don't like DS mechanics that is true but I dislike other things as well.
I don't see the rapid non-magical healing issue as a dissociative one. At least not primarily. I consider it more a disagreement over how you envision hitting, taking damage, and recovering. When I see a healing spell getting cast, I see injuries disappearing. When I see a hit happening I see something getting hit even if in a minor way. That is just how I envision it working and I've played that way for years and it's worked fine.
Maybe he considered the issue that a niche group of people are having with certain mechanics and determined that the issue was easily dismissed as a problem of narration on the part of those players, not a problem with the game design. Because that's all it is and ever will be.
bawylie wrote:
Yeah, I think if what he said was true, that there's not really a fractured customer base, that we all broadly want the same things, and that the only seriously divisive issue was rate of HP recovery, then I have to conclude that dissociated mechanics, (or as I'll now be calling them "Functional Utilities"), weren't an important enough consideration to merit change.
However, that said, there are a never of abilities that work "after the roll, but before the DM announces the result" that are threading the needle between functional and guesswork. And in the end, a situation isn't finally resolved until the DM says so and narrates the results. This tends to catch a lot more in the associated net than if the actions were resolved BY rolling the die.
Once again, a matter of perspectives in how you deal with Functional Utility.
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
I posted this in another thread and feel it fits well here also:
I think if people stopped thinking of HPs so much as actual health and more as how well equipped you are to survive a battle then there wouldn't be any issues.
Like if I have 18 HP and lose 12 in one fight, that doesn't necessarily mean I got seriously cut up a lot. It just means that fight took a lot out of me and now I'm tired, winded, and maybe bruised up with some minor cuts and scrapes.
It isn't until you reach 0 HP that you actually took a really bad hit. All of the dodging and banging and what not finally got to you and your enemy finally nailed you with a good shot to put you down.
When thinking of it like that, resting lets you catch your breath and attend to your battered but not critically wounded body(unless you happened to be critically wounded).
HPs does not equal health(directly). It measures your survivability in a fight.
And to add to that, remember they're called hit points, not health points, and the only reason they are even called hit points is because they were taken from a naval wargame where ships could only take so much damage from hits.
bonethug0108 wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Prior to 4e, I always felt like I was part of the D&D "family". I was gung ho for every edition. I thought there was a shared perspective on the game and the universe. Since then I've felt like this "family" has become dysfunctional. We are at each others throats because we no longer have that shared vision. Now I realize it was an illusion because back during 1e, 2e, and 3e apparently many of you were really unhappy. I and my buddies were always really happy right up until we were not. Since 4e we've become jaded and cynical. I thought 5e might be a unifying force but regardless of what I do I doubt it succeeds in that regard with my community of friends. Even if I run 5e, I doubt that will mean everyone in my circle is running it.
Just to add to what Gnarl said. I'm going to play my playstyle. One way or the other. I will bend 5e to my purposes or I will play another game. So suggesting I just "think differently" is not really constructive.
no matter how you play the game you have to admit, if you are being honest, that Emerikol's definition of HP is a valid interpretation of how HP worked in 1E-3E. It did not work with 4e where they did specify exactly how HP worked for the first time. HP were an abstract concept that had multiple versions of use untill they did that.
His complaint is that they decided to come off the fence that they had always perched on and make a set decision on how you must view HP.
For some this was no big deal, they already viewed HP this way. For others this was a huge issue, they told lots of people that they were wrong in how they played.
Emerikol wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Well bonethug0108, I do intend on making a decision on 5e sometime soon. If I decide against then I'm sure I'll stop coming here. If I decide that I'll adapt the game then I will.
For me the only thing to get upset about initially was when it looked based upon feedback that there weren't going to be the modules they had promised.
Here is another question that I ponder. Will the game ever be one that I will totally embrace the way I did in 1e, 2e, and 3e? Or will every edition be a serious of compromises and houserules to even get it to the point where it's playable. (for me). If I could get a firm answer that no edition will ever return to it's roots then perhaps I'd just call it quits. I could houserule something and just stick with that. Then I suppose technically I really would be a grognard.
I get the frustation. I'm a huge video gamer(since the atari days) and there have been numerous games I've wanted to like but something kept me from doing so. There have also been games were there were things I didn't like or thought could have been better, but the fun outweighed the issues.
The problem with video games, unlike D&D, is that for the most part I can't change them. With D&D I can make it my own. It gives me a base to build my own game upon.
But my question to you is if you like the older editions so much why not just play them? Is it lack of people to play with? Are there things you didn't like about them that you were hoping 5e would fix? Lost/sold books?
If they were working so well why are you trying 5e? Newness? Hoping for better play?
These are serious questions. I'm not trying to knock you, just understand better where you are coming from.
bonethug0108 wrote:
Yeah that is a tough decision. Some of those things are very easy to change, while others would take a lot of work.
I think the biggest issue is that a few of the things you really like would be a lot harder to bring into older editions(the things involving the underlying math of the system).
The easiest thing to fix might be the wizard.
Is it the HD period, or the way they are involved in healing? If it's just the healing, strip it out and just say you heal your level + constitution bonus(minimum of +1) on a short rest, and your level + your constitution score on a long rest. Maybe that could work?
What particular Fighter and Rogue things do you dislike? And what in particular do you dislike about the skill system?
Emerikol wrote:
when I get some time I will share how I tweeked 5th to fit my play style better. that will probably be close to what you want E and you can make adjustments from there.
Another suggestion for you. Turn the hit points from second wind into temporary hit points(making them more like stamina than actual health) with a duration of 1 minute. The fighter pushes through but eventually tires out again. Would something like that work?
I'm not seeing what you may dislike about the rogue. Is it one or more of the archetypes(even then I'm not seeing it)? Same question for anything else on the fighter. You could just avoid the Battle Master archetype. Both of the others appear fine.
He knows what he needs to do and what he likes. He's heard thousands of suggestions from hundreds of people. His complaint is that the elements he dislikes are baked in by default and hard to get away from. Or that they lend themselves to a certain way of thinking that is outside of what he's done for 30 years. He's not an idiot. He's just stubborn.
bawylie wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
@Emerikol If you love 1-3 so much, hate 4 and 5 so much, but don't have a problem with other people loving 4 and 5, then how about - instead of complaining that 4 and 5 aren't more like 1-3 - you just keep playing 1-3 and let everybody else play 4 and 5? "No edition is perfect" seems like a cop-out when you're in the middle of saying that some editions are more perfect than others.
His answer sounded pretty genuine to me. He gave valid points he liked and didn't like about 5e.
bonethug0108 wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
NineInchNall wrote:
I wouldn't reveal data like that either. Paid money to get it and no reason another company should benefit from my work. Data would remain internal.
"We're" standing here today. About 50 of us. Not a drop in the bucket. Nor conclusively symptomatic or illustrative of anything larger. No evidence to back up your position, either, really.
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
dmgorgon wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
dave2008 wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
dave2008 wrote:
dave2008 wrote:
I am glad they put some healing modules into the DMG. At least they are trying. They could have done an even better job if they had addressed the rapidity dial and the non-magical switch separately. By addressing rapidity they've somewhat handled the non-magical dial for *some* people. There are those people who want rapid healing between encounters and also do not want any non-magical rapid recovery. That group is left out. Fortunately FOR ME, I am happy with reduced healing overall.
Right now if I had to play a game exactly as written, I could not play 4e or 5e. I could play any of the prior editions. So dmgorgon's ideas about being able to join a group if they mattered to me would be valid. I can sit down at a 3e table in my town pretty easily. Personally I am almost exclusively a DM. Mainly because I have players wanting me to DM and I rarely find good DMs that really satisfy my standards for depth of world. It's kind of like the idea that plenty of people will eat the cake if someone makes it but not everyone wants to be the one baking it. Fortunately for me I like to bake.
Another option is to minimally refactor 5e. Just remove the stuff I can't stand but tolerate everything else. That means no DS mechanics and an alternate healing system without rapid non-magical recovery. I'd probably just accept the other stuff I mentioned if I went this route.
The third option is to write my own game cobbling together stuff from 1e, 3e, and 5e. This would produce the most satisfying result but would also result in a monumental time investment. Every time a new edition is announced, my hope is that something a lot closer to my amalgamated edition would appear as the result. If it ever does then I'm likely done. I'll never buy any future edition after that point. I don't really need a new set of rules every 5 years.
Fixing 5e though would involve a good bit of work on the martial classes.
This might be the way I would go if I had plenty of time...
1. Start with a 3e core books baseline (not 3.5 and not Pathfinder)
2. Change the monsters and their abilities to be more like 1e in terms of deadliness. Level drains, rust monsters, etc...
3. Remove or make a LOT harder magic item creation.
4. Give extra attacks to martial classes. Allow movement between attacks (from 5e).
5. Allow 5e backgrounds to add to your 3e class skill list. (In this one case use the Pathfinder skill system)
6. Figure out a way to migrate to 5e big feats. (A big job)
7. Rewrite 3e spells to be based upon spell level instead of caster level in terms of potency.
8. Maybe make the vancian 3e wizard the wizard and try to use the 5e wizard (in some form) as the sorcerer.
9. Ignore a lot of the wealth by level stuff in 3e.
To make life simple I'd probably limit the game to the core four classes and races starting out. 90% of the time thats what my players play anyway.
Either approach is a job. I've considered using C&C as the base as well. C&C would involve more addition and less subtraction.
Right now due to personal life issues, I haven't started a campaign based on anything. I have been working on my next campaign setting which due to my time investment I tend to do long before a game starts anyway.
I'm also thinking that if Wotc releases a 5e OGL that perhaps some enterprising game company will do this work for me.
Ramzour wrote:
VacantPsalm wrote:
VacantPsalm wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
iserith wrote:
The_Jester wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
I have to agree that, just because he said he would give something consideration in no way meant he would implement it. For all we know he could have had a discussion with the other designers and came to the conclusion that what they wound up doing was better for the majority(not saying that DID happen; we don't know what did or didn't happen).
And I get the impression that most people are okay with the way HP and healing works. But that doesn't make that statement true, just as saying someone getting the impression that most people hate the way it works isn't automatically true.
In the end, who cares. It is what it is now and you can either use it, change it, or play something else. Beating each other's heads against the wall solves nothing.
I was wondering. Now that the DMG is out, what exactly are the alternate healing options?
Yeah I was wondering that also. You'd figure this would be a great place to mention SOMETHING about them. 
Gnarl wrote:
Someone already mentioned them. There were a few options.
One me was for overnight healing to not restore HP at all, but restore half of
your HD.
Another was for HD to only work if you use a healing kit.
Another was was for a short rest require a day and a long rest require a week. This one was actually teo
suggestions. Either for HP recovery alone, or for both HP and spell/ability recovery.
I think they were mentioned earlier. That said, my DMG says. . .
Option #1:
Character's can't spend HDs without expending a use of a healer's kit.
Option #2:
Once per short or long rest, as an action, spend up to half of your HDs. You gain one-quarter of your HDs back on each short rest.
Option #3:
Long rest heals no HPs, just gives back 1/2 your HDs. You can spend HDs to heal during a long rest.
Azzy1974 wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
This is what I posted, in case anyone else might like the idea:
The only thing I'd like to see is if you drop to 0 hp and aren't healed magically, you should take longer to get back on your feet as you've sustained a serious enough wound to almost kill you. Maybe have it something like you gain 1 hp per day unless someone uses a healer's kit(you roll 1 HD and gain 1 + the roll for the day).
I realized the part I posted about magic healing was redundant so I removed it.
So of course if you have anyone with a heal spell in your party this rule doesn't matter. But if you're playing a bunch of martial and arcane types you will have to be careful during fights.
Thanks guys. But now I don't understand how this thread can possibly still be going on. There are slower healing options. They're not the ones you had in AD&D or 3e but half the HD per long rest and one long rest per week is super slow healing.
Gnarl wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Interesting concept, but maybe add that you can spend one use of a healer's kit to regain 1 HD on a short rest. You have enough time to bandage small wounds and rest up slightly, but not enough time to recover any significant amount.
bonethug0108 wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Here's the thing with the Battle Master archetype: if you don't like disblahblahblah mechanics, you can choose another archetype. EK and Champion don't have those things. Problem solved. I still am failing to see the DS mech with any of the rogue's stuff.
Stroke of Luck is dissociative on the rogue. It is 20th level so not likely to be a problem because most campaigns won't reach 20 but still there.
On the Champion the survivor power is not DS but it is rapid non-magical healing. For a variety of reasons I'm sure I wouldn't allow the Battlemaster regardless.
Action surge recovering only after a one hour rest also makes it dissociative. Of course my very first houserule would be to make most martial powers encounter based.
On the fighter in general the indomitable feature is also DS.
Second Wind is both DS (due to the one hour rest limitation) and also rapid non-magical healing. I would not like this even if it were temp hit points. I'd fix this by just giving the fighter a +1 bonus on hit points per level.
As you can see the martials have lots of issues.
I am considering the healing options in the DMG as sufficient to at least attempt to address the needs of alternate playing styles. If they'd failed to provide that option I would most definitely not have bought the books on principle.
Now I just have to analyze the game and see if houseruling 5e is the best approach or houseruling something else would be better. In either case I'm sure some things from 5e will be usable.
This thread continues mainly because we love arguing game theory and the theories of gamer preferences.
MechaPilot wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
On the getting back 1/2 your HD after a long rest, what if you are multi-class, let's say Fighter 5/Wizard 5, which HD would you recover (or combination thereof)?
Emerikol wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
I am curious why the "Use a healing kit to be able to regain hit points from a rest" option doesn't address the concerns raised in this thread?
It means HP are wounds, at least partially. Isn't that the issue?
dmgorgon wrote:
dave2008 wrote:
One thing I have noticed from playing is that, because you only get half your hit dice back from a long rest, my players are usually perpetually wounded in the sense of being low on hit dice. In standard rules it really takes two days rest to get everything back to full, assuming you went through more than half your hit dice.
so, if you use long rest option this compounds the issue, and it will usually take two weeks of straight resting to get back to 100% if you use this option I think 5e actually has a slower recovery rate than the old 1 hp/day approach. Why? Because in the old rules we never healed compleatly be sitting around a number of days equal to our missing hit points. Instead, we would have the cleric max out on heal spell preps and heal everyone, then rest a second day and cleric would re-prep spells. At most it was a three or four day rest , no matter how wounded we were. And if there was no cleric there was usually a temple or, some one had a magic wand etc.
But in 5e there is no way to regain HD except by resting. You are actually forced to rest in town, usually two days, to get back to max, which mirrors closely older editions with the difference being that you don't have to rely on magic. But, use the long rest modual from the DMG and now it's usually a two week rest to get back to full HD and no magic can speed that up (or, at least it's rare magic). That is much more brutal than older editions.
Just ts think about it, at the end of the first or second adventuring day you spend all of your HD and now you can't regain HP except for magical means unless you rest for a week. You can rest for 6 days and will receive no natural healing unless you can make it the full week. In the old rules you at least got 1hp/day. Then of course, you can put in the requirement of needing a healing kit to use those HD. Again, more restrictive than older editions because natural healing is not possible without expending money on health kits. If your traveling in the wilderness and run out of health kits you can't spend HD any more, and need a solid week of no random encounters in order to regain hit points. Remember, casting cleric spells will require a week to recover as well, so that's not an option like it was in older editions.
No, there is no 1/hp per day rule (thought that wouldn't break anything to include it. Or you could do 1 HD per day of rest instead of half HD) but, when you throw in lingering wounds, saves vs massive damage, and insanity and madness special rules you have a lot of options for sliding the scale of gritty vs heroic, with the default in the PHB being in the middle. Healing and overall grittyness is very modular indeed.
Brock_Landers wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Once again, hit point loss is only meat loss if you describe it that way when it happens. If that then creates a disconnect when the rest/healing rules are brought into play, the issue was how the DM chose to narrate.
Hit points are exception based, from general loss to specific as the situation dictates. WIth any viewpoint on the subhect you can point out anomalies. Then any further discussion is a bunch of hand waiving.
Yay. Another "HPs = meat" debate. Sweet!
Look out, rock throwing tarrasque. You're days, as king of all threads, are numbered!
iserith wrote:
iserith wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Who here is saying either of:
1) HP are only meat; or
2) HP are zero meat?
I think the answer to both those questions are "nobody".
In which case, both sides are simply slinging strawmen at each other, and both sides agree it's a mixture of both, and simpy disagree about what that mixture looks like at any given time.
Mistwell wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Meh.
In D&D core of all editions, you can't break an arm.
You can adventure for 50 years, fighting demons, deels, vampiries, mummies, and dragons, die and be raised back form the dead 3-6 time, and travel across mulple planes of existence...
and never break an arm.
You can't even jerk your ankle and be hobbled for a day by the rules.
When I learned that in my very first game of D&D, I stop worrying about what HP is.
For me, it's purely a matter of what you are imagining happening. 4e's approach and 5e's default approach keeps shattering my immersion because what I am imagining keeps getting derailed by the way the game works. I didn't experience this in pre-4e games. That is the end of it. I don't care if you want to imagine it differently. In my groups we are imagining it the way we always have which is why I fought so hard during the playtest for some modules to support our playstyle.
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
iserith wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
As long as Cure Wounds can heal the wound caused by being hit in the face by an Axe then its all good.
Gnarl wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
I did have a hang nail that caused 2 hp damage. Thanks Cure Wounds!
Emerikol wrote:
bonethug0108 wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
kalil wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
kalil wrote:
@Ramzour, in my games every individual attack that could do damage is a roll. I recognize that part of the process of combat is manuevering into position via feints etc.. so that you can make that attack. In my games though, every single individual attack that could do damage is a roll.
SailingPirateRyan wrote:
kalil wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
It's funny, Emerikol has been asked four times now, by multiple people, why the "use a healer's kit to gain hit points during a rest" does not address his issue with hit point loss being connected to a wound. And four times now Emerikol has ignored those posts, directed at him, to argue with others about how his playstyle is being ignored.
One might almost think this has nothing to do with the issue he's raised...
kalil wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Innumerable games have very quick HP recovery in the service of playability and nobody bats an eye.
Latest Tomb Raider, all Street Fighter games, Batman: Arkham series, Assassins Creed Series, GTA, dragon age, WOW, etc. Gonzo healing crosses genre and setting & literally nobody complains about it.
But here, in special snowflake RPGs, it's a make or break? I just don't buy that as a widespread mentality. Playability trumps most concerns, especially one nobody* truly cares about outside a fussy subgroup.
The big problem I'm having with the 5e DMG is that are no options to remove Hit Dice. I don't even want to play in a game that uses them. IMO, they are designed to make the system more gamey and I'm just not interested in that.
After reading some of the 4e reviews again, it's very clear to me that the existance of healing surges was one of the common complaints. I just can't understand why 5e is getting a pass in that regard.
Now, a cleric might as well just be a fighter because adventurers miraculously heal after combat.
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
There are currently 500 reviews of the PH on Amazon. Of those, fewer than 50 give a rating of 3 stars or less. I read all 50. Only 1 mentions rate of healing AT ALL. It's a complaint. 1 in 50.
By far the biggest complaint is the book binding. The majority of "bad" ratings say they're happy with the content and pissed at the binding.
I didn't read the 450 "good" reviews. I feel safe assuming they won't include too many complaints.
Where's your peeps, Em? 1 in 50. If that's accucrate, this mentality is 2% population. At best. But really it's even less, considering the bad reviews were mostly about binding and not content.
If rate of healing were a serious issue among a significant population, that complainy wouldn't be an outlier. It would be prominent. Or even recurring. It. Is. Not.
bawylie wrote:
For old school fan there is a healing option in the DM guide called Gritty realism:
Short rest take 8 hours, and long rest take 7 days.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
On the Amazon reviews not representative idea: see 2012 study from Harvard Business School concluding strength in numbers on Amazon reviews in the aggregate means the ratings are every bit as reliable as those of professional critics.
May not mean much to you, but that feature - reliable informative user reviews - drives a metric ton of purchasing decisions across consumers.
bawylie wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
bawylie wrote:
500 reviews doesn't make the grade? And you still provide no evidence to the contrary. Check the other 450 yourself if you're certain of your representation.
bawylie wrote:
310 reviews of the starter set (containing, you'll recall, the same rate of HP recovery and hit dice). 61 are 3 stars or lower. Zero complaints regarding healing.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Just use a natural healing system from a previous edition, that is the big seller of 5th Ed for me: ease of porting over/converting/tweaking/variants, etc.
This edition does make me me feel beholden, love it.
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Emerikol.
Plenty of complaints in Amazon re 4E, 3E, & PF. 5E is already better received commercially and critically than the others.
Thousands left, I guess. Did they leave Amazon, too? So ticked at 4E they refuse to complain about 5?
Your people are not showing up to make your case. If you were right, they'd be there. They aren't.
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
ing
bawylie wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal atatcks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Emerikol wrote:
Rottle wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Lawolf
Sort of works but by slowing everything down not just healing so healing in proportion to everything else isn't really slower is it?
The problem with just changing the timing of short and long rests is that they regulate too many things. The original idea of using OO design concepts to build D&D was a good idea but in this case it is very brittle. If I turn one dial I am turning all the dials on a lot of subsystems.
I want warriors recovering quicker, casters not at all on a short rest but totally on a long rest, and I want healing different from that. Wanting to slow down healing doesn't mean you want to slow the entire game down and still effectively be playing the same way as the default game.
Rottle wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Rottle wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
There are no options in 5e that allow you to play the game without hit dice. Hit Dice is a mechanic that the devs inserted into the game from the very start of the playtest. There was not a single iteration of the playtest without it.
Emerikol wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
I have to admit that I really love HD healing especially compared to healing surges.
The only change that I would be tempted to make is to let characters heal their level in hp over night.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Then it's insignificant. And while you're right, I can't know the hearts and minds of every player of every game, I've still offered evidence (circumstantial, I admit), while your argument rests on...?
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
I find this thread odd since I'm coming at it from the opposite perspective- martial healing isn't even an option in the DMG, therefore it's a clear sign that 4e fans are unwelcome. There's faster healing, there's individual healing, but there's nobody like the Warlord who can get you up and moving again without waving their hands around.
FFSAA wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Criswell wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
I wouldve traded every Modron picture in there for additional options.
on this area there is broad agreement: options for literally everyone.
Emerikol wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Reius wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
"Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Since I am still undecided on whether I will buy 5e or not and I hate fast non magical healing I think you are moving the goal posts. I said sales would be impacted negatively. I did not say half of all people on the planet would reject 5e because of healing.
I do think better more open support for the traditional hit point approach without fast non magical healing would increase sales in a non insignificant way. That does not mean that I am saying everyone who dislikes fast nonmagical healing won't buy 5e. 5e is offering modules so I'm. At least satisfied they are trying to be supportive.
I am saying that some people who hated 4e and left will see the healing system in 5e and kneejerk reject it without even giving it a try or knowing options exist. Most people in my gaming community would not have even heard of the playtest if I hadn't ran a session.
Orethalion wrote:
Bawylie I don't think your data even bears on the question.
Reviews are by buyers which already precludes a lot of people. Second no one has demonstrated that book reviewers represent any cross sample of interested people. These reviews are also not the sort of thing were a reviewer would necessarily go in depth. You likely have a few in depth reviews and tons of one sentence ones.
Mike Mearls comments about losing half the playerbase are a million times more reliable. The guy knows the sales figures.
I normally consider you a clear thinker Bawylie but of late you seem to be off kilter in what you believe and deny. Its crazy.
Emerikol wrote:
I personally think the whole fast or slow healing is an issue because the cleric is the least fun class of the classic four to play. Most gamers tend to dislike the archtype and go out of their way to rationalize healing through any other means possible. It also shows itself in cleric options as the cleric often tries to poach other class features (weapons, armor, spells, skills, etc) of other classes to try to entice people into playing what is basically a support class. If the cleric had more attractive options for what is supposed to be its main features of Healing, Buffing and Support, then the whole fast vs slow healing thing would not exist because the class needed to keep the game running smoothly would do what it was designed to do in a way that causes people to want to play the class.
Emerikol wrote:
But Bawylie you have no evidence either. You calling it evidence doesn't make it valid.
I admit my feelings about healing do come from the 4e era and my own anecdotal experiences neither of which am I willing to dismiss lightly. I refuse to believe that my rather extensive gaming community (not my group) is so completely different from others. I also saw tons of reviews and probably thousand DS of posts that were anti healing during that tine.
If Mike Mearls feedback on the playtest really is unified even though he did say we were pretty close to evenly divided on several occasions that is horrible news. That means he lost the rest of the playerbase before he even started.
I am suspicious that his tone on healing changed so dramatically right before launch when the rules did not. My guess is they threw up their hands and picked a side. Probably the side they personally preferred.
75% of those anti-DS posts were written by you.
And I do have evidence. Your people didn't show up to complain on Amazon. They just didn't. If your complaint were as popular as you assert, they would have. Does nobody in KY use Amazon? Hard to believe. If they're in lockstep with you, sure someone would step up and make your case. Mablok maybe. But you do have 1 guy. 1/800.
Then we get to Mearls' quotes, which you believe selectively. That's on you. He said we're not fractured along major lines. He said this option as default was most widely accepted and least offensive. If you don't believe it, that's up to you, but don't pretend that because you don't believe it that it isn't germain to the discussion. It is evidence. Compelling? Not to you. Still vastly more than you've offered.
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Or they could not have. Here, I'll imagine 7 billion people who "could" disagree. You can't prove they don't, so...
Give me a break.
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Got to 50 by including 3 star reviews as "negative" reviews. Average rating is 4.5 stars. Must be skewed though, right?
bawylie wrote:
I included 3 stars among the "negatives" because the overwhelming majority of reviews are glowing. In fact more than half of the bad reviews are glowing as to the game, but complain about the quality of the book binding or the airspace in the starter box. in any case, I felt like I should give the anti-fast heal group the most favorable search parameter I could. Wide net, 1 fish.
Now reading the 4 star reviews. Literally dozens of people "coming back" after skipping out on 4E. Many saying this is what 3rd should have been (Brock's position), and lapsed players from the OSR feeling this is true to EGG. No mentions of fast healing as a turn-off. Completely the opposite of arm's prediction. Fast heal simply isn't a factor compared to anything else. Doesn't even rate a mention.
A while back I read pretty much every review for the Starter Set, PHB, MM, and HotDQ(every 1-3 star and most 4-5 star) and honestly don't even recall any mention of fast healing(good or bad).
And I'm surprised that the reviews were that positive. As you said most of the "bad" reviews were about book quality while still praising the game(and said they'd upgrade their review if they got a good replacement). I counted MAYBE 10 actually negative reviews about the game. Given human nature to complain more than praise, this surprises me.
bawylie wrote:
I don't think the percent is relevant, personally, but I see your point. What stuck out to me was the absence, altogether, of the complaint.
What's sticking out in my review of the 4&5 stars is Grognards "coming back." Again, against Emerikol & Zardnaar's predictions. They, along with Orethalion now, have been saying that only those predisposed to liking 5E are responding. That's another claim that doesn't bear out. It's peeling off PF players, Grognards, & OSR, everyone. It's almost universal praise. Supports Mearls' assertion that player base is largely United in what they want. And to a lesser extent my assertion that the edition wars were just we few forum jerks, not representative of the rest of gamers. Thanks, the Forge (ugh).
Yeah that was probably one of the most common things I saw was about older players getting back into it and really enjoying it.
I want to say the few negative reviews I saw seem to have come from Pathfinder loyalist extremists, but even people that like PF were praising it.
bawylie wrote:
@Emerikol
I've actually stood up for you several times in this thread. I asked people to stop personally attacking you. I tried to help you come up with solutions to your problems. I started a thread to hold those solutions. I tried to see your point of view and show you ways you could change it. I even gave you the benefit of the doubt for your initial nerdrage and figured you would be more reasonable once the red mist faded from your eyes. But that doesn't seem to be the case. Pretty much all of your criticisms and claims have been refuted, yet you still desperately cling to them. So what justification do you have to continue posting here in good faith? Because honestly, I don't think you have been for the past 10 pages or so. You are MM p 291'ing us.
Orethalion wrote:
So I've only been recently following the conversation and I'm a tad confused.
There was a quite from Mearls about 4E splitting half the player base (or something similar to that) and it was wholley accepted because "he has the numbers"
And when that same source was quoted for things being mostly in line and healing not being that big of an issue, this is entirely discredited and the quoted peson (Mearls) was lying or totally wrong in what his data stated.
So....um......why is the 1st a confirmation and yet the 2nd rabidly speculated and questioned??
Diffan wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Nail in the coffin. You don't believe Amazon reviews are indicative of the popularity (or lack thereof) of the product reviewed.
The sample space argument is a canard. Out of 800 reviews only 1 person mentioned rate of healing. Your "it's not 2%" of people haven't showed up. If there were a significant number of them, they'd be there. But they're not. Not even to say "Healing is a little off to me, but it's NBD because I can fix it."
Spell slots, backgrounds, no-grid play all gets comments like "this is a little off, but NBD! System is awesome!" Fast-healers aren't there. They didn't show.
The ref's called the game.
Ramzour wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I believe people exist for whom the nature and rate of healing is an issue. I don't believe it ranks on the top ten of issues for most. I'd say it appears to be a niche issue among a very few. Circumstances lend support to my belief.
-That doesn't mean it isn't an important issue-
Mecha pointed out earlier. Reviews are not just from Buyers.
And I'll add, bc you seem to have forgotten, 4E was trashed in reviews by non-buyers (and buyers, alike). The majority of 5E complaints regard book binding. The majority of 5E praise is "a return to D&D after the dark years of 3 & 4." 3 & 4.
Reviews are open.
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Bart: So finally, we're all in agreement about what's going on with D&D 5e. Milhouse?
Milhouse: [steps up to blackboard] Ahem. OK, here's what we've got: Amazon.com, in conjunction with Wizards of the Coast and the saucer people --
Bart: Thank you.
Milhouse: -- under the supervision of the reverse vampires --
Lisa: [sighs]
Milhouse: -- are posting overwhelmingly positive customer reviews in a fiendish plot to eliminate the perception that healing rates are offensive to half the player base.
Milhouse: [sotto voce] We're through the looking glass, here, people...
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
"You're like "Fox News" that says things like: "many people are criticizing the president's actions today" but those "many people" are just other "Fox News" people. "
Come on, dude.
Orethalion wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Jrdemon has it. The feeling could well be widespread. But the number of people who will turn off/away bc of that feeling is closer to zero than to "a not insignificant number" (whatever goalpost Emerikol is aiming at).
Edit: spelling
Orethalion wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
Ramzour wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Clearly, the 5 person development team at WotC has the time and money to write hundreds of fake reviews about 5e.
Come on sheeple. There are literally dozens of people who suffering in silence due to the rapid overnight healing found in 5e. They aren't buying 5e and that will cause its sales to tank. Just you wait and see.
Also nobody who truly cares about the rate of healing would bother writing a review saying as much.
Mistwell wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Remove HD entirely.
Long rest healing is Con mod x character level.
There "gritty realism" crowd, problem solved.
Keeping out of this "discussion," but I didn't see the link for the paper Bawylie is referencing within the thread (if I missed it I apologize for the repetition) so here it is.
http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/12-080_da1b5d32-415a-4449-93d9-5b838edd07a2.pdf
Fitzco wrote:
The spirit of the game from the very beginning has been to not rely on the letter of the rules, but to make the game your own. To read someone whine and moan and even go so far as to call the developers "evil" for not printing their private, pet houserule is shameful and antithetical to the very soul of the game. So congrats Emerikol, you are everything Gygax and Arneson railed against wrapped up in one spoiled, bratty, entitiled little package. You are the polar opposite of what a D&D player should be.
Hey everyone, regardless of where you stand (or don't) in this discussion, don't post stuff like this. Arguments getting heated is fine, that'll happen. This stuff though is wholly uncalled for and doesn't help reach any level of understanding at all.
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Look at it from another angle. 4E is still my favorite edition, yet I hate math/numbers bloat for the sake of bigger numbers and adding to the fact that "Vancian" casting is the single biggest "immersion breaking"/dumbest mechanic ever put in the game from a "character logic" standpoint, I generally have great dislike for "daily" mechanics period and now there were even more "Dailies" added. There are a couple other things also, but there's no need for the whole laundry list.
Those are strong dislikes for me, very strong.
At the end of the day, those things weren't worth me not playing a game I greatly enjoyed or getting upset about. I didn't like them, but I accepted they were part of the game because having fun was more important than whining about nits. I loved my cool melee tricks, bye bye healbot and the much better game math.
The game was for me even though it wasn't perfect for me.
This is no different than any edition of the game for its fans, 5E included. If the game works well enough for what one wants, don't rage against the small stuff. And 5E is really easy to hack or grab stuff from 1E/2E and staple it on.
Gunthar wrote:
Look I bought the 5th PHB and MM and am waiting for my DMG ... the healing was an issue for me and the did an OK job of containing it in a simple to modify selection.
I do not think that amazon is a reliable source for RPG content analasys by players.
It does show overall product quality (which was so so via the binding issue)
It does show long term like dislike of a product (the number of negative reviews of 4e over time which again are only a would you recomend quantifier)
It does not show current statistical data on play style preferances. (The rating system is only for quality of the product and would you recomend)
Trying to assign data about content of said game is not present in questions nor is it referenced in any pole submission of the data collected. Amazon does not poll for data on any specific part of the items it sells. It provides at will customer reviews of a product. You would have to read each review and then contact each person that submitted the review to collect data on a particular game feature.
WOTC did collect data durring the playtest and per their statments there was a devide on what was wanted from healing content. They, again per their statments, decided to pick the option that was least hated by both ends of the spectrum. The picked the mud flavor with intent.
Maybe.
I'm still waiting for the modules to make me want to choose it over other editions/games when teh choice is mine "alone". At this point it's just kind of "there" for me as a system. I see the possibility of having a bunch of what I really want, it just doesn't have them at this point. It's still early though.
You guys trying to 1-up the Tarrasque thread here? 
Orethalion wrote:
[quote="dmgorgon"]
Mistwell wrote:
Alright, I think this is fully explored and explained, so I'm out (unless something new comes to light worth re-evaluating).
That's a good point, The only problem I have is that 5e was marketed to be an edition for everyone via modules. I'd argue that WotC droped the ball on the modules everyone wanted.
Diffan wrote:
Fitzco wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Fitzco wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I am totally not even caring about the amazon cheating thing. That is just one tiny aspect of the whole unreliability of an opt-in survey for analyzing preferences about anything. No one trying analyze player preferences in a scientific way would consider amazon reviews as a data source. It really is laughable and when you offer it as evidence of something you are discrediting your own ability to reason and apply scientific principles.
The game provided some healing modules. That fact negates to some degree any ability to use 5e as a pure test of healing preferences. Yes some people will buy the game because of those modules. Others will see the default and not buy it without giving the modules a chance. That is true too. I think the behavior of Wotc is indicative that they consider healing an issue worth addressing. So that blows away the whole niche argument.
Personally, I am now at the point where I have to evaluate 5e vs my other options. There are no automatic disqualifiers (like a lack of a healing module would have been for me). I now just need to figure out what starting point I want to use when I begin hacking a game. It is though a bonus (not an absolute dealbreaker of course but an advantage) though when the default game is playable. For me 4e and 5e by default are unplayable. Even if my five best friends asked me to join a RAW 4e or 5e campaign, I would not. Now since I am primarily a DM, I am least impacted by all of this stuff.
There are many types of problems a game has and they are not equally bad problems....
1. A mechanic or story element so fundamentally offensive that you can't play a campaign that contains it. (for me -> rapid martial healing and dissociative mechanics)
2. Mechanics that are imperfect but not fundamentally offensive. You might prefer a bit more of one thing or another but you could play a game. (for me --> 3e vancian vs 5e vancian casting)
3. Functionally bad processes. Things like a combat table instead of a simple d20 system. Things like the old grapple rules. Almost all of us want these things fixed but they almost never are deal breakers where I am concerned.
So it is a fact that I could sit down at a random table and play any version of D&D prior to 4e without a problem. Whereas I could not even try a 4e game and 5e would be unlikely unless the DM publicized that he was using rules modules.
Emerikol wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
It's a matter of degree. Just as a general example, if I have to change 8 rules it's no big deal. If I have to change 180 rules, it's probably better for me to just keep playing whatever edition that I'm playing and not spend money on the game. The more modules that give people what they want, the less work they will have to do. The less work they have to do, the more likely that they will spend their money on 5e products.
It has nothing to do with security. If you'd just open your mind and put yourself in someone elses shoes for a change, you'd understand better.
iserith wrote:
This kinda sums up the whole thread for me. This is never been a time that WOTC has been as open about playing the way you want to play with the edition you want to play. 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e are all still in print. They want you to play 5e; but if it isn't possible they provided a multitude of material on dndclassics.com that grows each week. 5e has removed many obstacles compared to the previous editions. No doubt there will more modules still beyond the core 3. Be patient and play what makes you happy.
Orethalion wrote:
Which I find funny considering 5e is more about rulings than rules and that the designers WANT you to homebrew and customize the system as much as possible. It's why it's written the way it is. Perhaps they just assumed that if they didn't get something "right" (meaining not what a specific customer wanted) then that person/group is probably in a better position to create that specific content themsleves. Just look at the Vitality system that has been posted or the Warblade that Lawolf created. I doubt WotC is going to come out with something that looks even remotely close to that and so Lawolf did the work himself because he's in a FAR better position to create the content than they are.
Diffan wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
iserith wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Personally, I've heard a lot of players complain about 4th ed over the years, but I've never once heard anyone complain about the rate of healing or non-magical healing. If you were talking about it seeming mechanical or too much like an MMO and not like D&D, those I've heard.
But hey, let's see that everyone I've talked to just happened to be a bad sample of the community and that those two things were indeed huge factors in driving folks away from 4e. The end result is still the same. It totally doesn't matter. This edition just came out. They aren't about to throw it in the trash no matter how big the 'we hate non-magic healing so much we won't play this game' crowd is. They are committed. Those folks who are unable to play this edition because of non-magic healing being in the game are going to need to put together some house rules.
As the DMG repeatedly points out, it's your game and you should change it to fit your needs. So build a fix. If there is a large community of like minded folks, it would be greatly appreciated by them I am sure. You'd not only be fixing your game, but fixing thousands of others.
My own group of friends were pretty mixed about 4e. Loved the healing though, and the Warlord.
This thread started (and I should know I started it) with me complaining that per a poster on enworld who had the book there were going to be no healing modules outside a sentence on varying rest times. That was what the guy said. The point of the thread was to call out Wotc for not doing as they said they would do. Additional possessors of the DMG eventually clarified things and showed that the original guy had failed to point out other modules in other places in the book. At that point the original purpose of this thread was dead.
Secondarily some people love to take pot shots and argue healing theory every chance they get. They jumped on here and began to attack those of us with a particular view point on healing. Naturally we responded. This was stage two of the thread. It went nowhere because we've spent thousands of posts on other threads debating this issue and no headway is going to get made.
Then a third stage began over the amazon reviews and Bawylies assertion that only a teensy tiny percentage of the playerbase cared about healing. We argued this for a bit and of course Bawylie is wrong but that was the third stage.
At no point though, was this thread about the feasibility of houseruling 5e or using the provided modules. The few times I spoke on that issue I merely said that Wotc had met my minimum requirements to give the game a chance. If I chose another game now over 5e it would not be because 5e had an intrinsic deal breaker. (e.g. for example the complete lack of a healing module). So at this stage I've commented that I have to analyze my options and make a decision. It might mean starting out trying to houserule from a variety of perspectives to see just how hard each one is as I start the undertaking.
I did make one comment which I think is true that just sitting down at a random game with a random set of players is likely not possible with 5e for me and it is possible with other editions prior to 4e. That is a loss but for me hardly significant since I consider random games fairly cheesy and worthless anyway. Nice way to try a system but not really the roleplaying experience I'm looking for to be honest. I like long term compaigns with well defined playstyle up front.
So yes this thread is the random silly healing argument thread at this point. Nothing to be done for it. But like a car wreck, it's hard to look away.
Pulpnoir wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Diffan wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
jredmon wrote:
jredmon wrote:
jredmon wrote:
"Then a third stage began over the amazon reviews and Bawylies assertion that only a teensy tiny percentage of the playerbase cared about healing. We argued this for a bit and of course Bawylie is wrong but that was the third stage."
almost, dude. All except the part where I was wrong. All your side has is selective quoting and unsupported feelings. If you'd said "of course I disagree with bawylie" that'd be accurate. But you double down on your bet while you got a 3 and a 5, off suit, in your hand.
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
The Warlord hate. I definitely see it online, but haven't seen it IRL. Just like the non-magic healing thing. Very big deals in the online community, but oddly absent from my face to face conversations with other gamers. The slow play thing, that is a killer though. The length of combats made it very hard for my group to do anything beyond the 15 minute workday model if they wanted to do any sort of roleplaying.
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Obviously there are gonna be people who hate 5e, and who dislike it, and who are "meh" on it, but I'm not seeing the evidence for a large portion of people hating it because of fast healing. This board is literally the first I've heard of this complaint.
Orethalion wrote:
Criswell wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
HoboJustice wrote:
THEMNGMNT wrote:
We keep talking about data and evidence, how many people here have even complained about it. Forget that amazon's reviews(which do NOT require opt-in because you don't need to be to review and there are troll reviews from people who don't even own it) positive or negative never mention it.
We have maybe 5-10 people out of thousands on here who have said they dislike it to varying degrees? Even ignoring the squeaky wheel syndrome, that is an insanely low percentage.
This is clearly a very low impact "problem". Given the lack of complaints I think it says they went in the right direction.
Orethalion wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Emerikol wrote:
just popped in to see how this thread can possibly still be going. it's time to move on lads
dafrca wrote:
I think most D&D players do not get on these forums, never heard about the playtest, and never visit a place like enworld either. Absolutely true. Most is probably an understatement.
Only the impassioned typically get on these boards. I had some friends start a Facebook group to "discuss" roleplaying games. I was like "what is wrong with the wotc forums?"
I'm not sure though how that bears on anything.
I believe there are people who might look at 5e but the first sign of something from 4e that they really hated will send them back where they came. Maybe the chances of getting that person wasn't great to begin with but I know of people who did open the book look at the healing system and say "oh this is 4e". Now they are wrong. 5e is massively better than 4e in my opinion. I could houserule 5e to the point where it could be played. If I did 4e that way no one would realize it was still 4e and I would have practically written an entire game.
My point above was that the default healing rules which are a done deal now so it's just a retrospective by me likely cost them some sales. Enough that it would have been in their interest to produce a game that looks a bit more like traditional D&D and then have front and center some optional modules to adjust it. I think it is better design to have the default be what everyone accepts and then have the modules be additive. To me that would be true even if more people wanted the current approach in 5e. I do not believe given all of the people who could theoretically play D&D that that is the case though. Some might play it the 5e way but they would still choose if given the choice the traditional pre-4e way.
Another minor failure is that they could so easily have provided a traditional wizard alongside everything they have now. Call the current wizard the mage or something. That too may impact some people. They'll open the book and see such a fundamental change in magic and they'll drop it. Personally I would like something based upon the original but it's not something I can't tolerate. As a player I don't play wizard types anyway.
After 4e, their willingness to change the game fundamentally is obvious. The only good thing about such a willingness is that eventually the wheel will roll back around to something I really like. If I had owned the ip for D&D I would not have went the route they went. They've obviously lost millions of dollars because of Pathfinder. Pathfinder exists because people wanted classic D&D and not a totally new game. They wanted 3e improved and refined.
Emerikol wrote:
Xguild wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Articles about the playtest and the new edition appeared in Wired, the New York Times, and other nationally syndicated outlets. Feel culture is ascendant and pervasive. This idea that people were unaware, it's thin. Maybe some were unaware - but there was a cattle call across the 4 corners of the US. If you missed it, it's because you're a hermit.
I am a hermit. And I knew about it.
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
bawylie wrote:
bawylie wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
HP already do go down on a miss.
In 5e, before you are below 1/2 HP, you are typically described as only fatigued or tired. Below one half HP you are scraped and ruined.
If you follow the suggestion about how to describe HP states from the PHB, this means a significant portion of "hits" were actually attacks that were dodged at the last second, deflected, parried, or near misses. This is of course no different from pre 5e.
Well, what does that tell us? It tells us that you can lose HP without having a weapon make physical contact with your body. As such, it is damage on a "miss".
dmgorgon wrote:
grendel111111 wrote:
eleran wrote:
"AC" "Saving Throw" "Spell Slot" "Modron"
Emerikol wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
It's harder than it seems. They never tire, even when completely dodging Attacks in full plate! Only a direct attack can harm them.
I honestly don't know what to do with online book or game reviews. How does it help to tell others that you enjoy playing Monopoly? How can you be sure that you'll like a game because 1,000,000 other people also like it? What kind of narcistic twat puts a review on something as subject to personal tastes as a game?
Or movies or restaurants or books or music or or or or.
Its how we roll.
As we come close to 1,000 posts, I'd like to remind everybody that the score to beat is 2,208. You can do it!
Shirebrok wrote:
Yes we can.
I dunno... Maybe?
While I think this discussion has been infantile (is so!/is not!), it has been a guilty pleasure...I can't stop reading it. I am hoping for another 1,000 posts. In the meantime, I am going to incorporate a Silent Horde into one of my campaigns. Keep at it folks!
FFSAA wrote:
Siphersh wrote:
Gatt wrote:
Weren't we asked in like every single survey which was our favorite edition? If there was evidence that the 4e crowd was overrepresented, they would have noticed it. I don't understand why people always assume that people at WoTC are total incompetents...
Emerikol wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
guachi wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
We’ve removed content from this thread because of a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks. You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
Remember, a community is a joint effort of all those involved, and while we want intelligent meaningful and productive banter to ensue we also need it to be polite and considerate of others.
Thank you for your time and support as we continue to try and make a great community for everyone.
Gnarl wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
caecafortuna wrote:
guachi wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
got my DMG today
I must say i am a bit suprised that the dection on healing and rest variants (p266/267) combined are smaller then the section on initiative (p270/271)
As Mile Mearls said hwaling and restng where one of the places there there was the widest range of opinions during the playtest.
So i had expected the sections on healing and resting to be longer.
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
That would be the best strategy of the silent horde were verifiable. Theres no evidence of a horde.
bawylie wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Not only do I think some confirmation bias is going on but also peer pressure within the group dynamic. If a player has been in a group for a considerable time with a DM with a particular bias, many will be agreeable because there are many more positives from the relationship than negative. The more flexible the player, the less likely to ever complain. There is no silent horde made up of infexible, dogmatic players that won't purchase 5e based on healing or possibly any other single issue. For me, 4e was the "bridge too far" because of amalgamation of many issues from mechanical to asethetic; 5e is such improvement over what came before, with greater flexibility, I feel it would be almost rude to go back with "Sorry, still not good enough". Honestly, I want the brand to be successful and there is nothing currently in the core that is going to make me walk away.
Mistwell wrote:
[quote="Mistwell"]
How many people want something that isn't satisfied-enough by the options in the DMG?]/quote]
No idea.
Emerikol wants us to think it's a Silent Horde. a "statistically significant" number who, on that issue and that issue alone, would not buy the books because of that issue and their dissatisfaction with the PHB and DMG options for that issue.
FFSAA wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I'm not sure whether I should find it amusing or sad that the complaints about healing in the DMG are that it's still too easy, not that we still don't have classes with martial healing abilities a la the Warlord even as an optional module in a non-PHB book.
I realize this board as a whole is pretty anti-4e but I figured someone besides me would be speaking up for the cool parts of what was left behind.
Criswell wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Criswell wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
FFSAA wrote:
Criswell wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
bawylie wrote:
guachi wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Can't find your facts? Maybe I can help.
http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Archive.aspx
If you want just L&Ls...
http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Archive.aspx?page=2&category=all&subcategory=legendslore
Most (not all) of the pre-forum revision articles are still available.
Lawolf wrote:
The strawman you guys keep throwing out with this silent hoard argument is that 40 or 50% of the players have to be affected in their purchasing decisions for Wotc to care. If even 5% or even 1% buy or don't buy a game because of one paragraph in a book that is probably a paragraph they should write.
I agree that there are people out there that aren't going to buy 5e because it doesn't have a warlord. I agree wholeheartedly. Why in the world didn't they provide that?? Sure they gave some watered down version in the fighter class that is an insult to the 4e people and still unusable by people like me. What did they get? Big fat nothing.
Realize folks that I am a very informed decision maker. From voting to choosing my games to practically anything, I get the facts before I jump. With gaming I was a late comer to the idea but you can forgive me for trusting a company that succeeded three times in a row. Not everyone is an informed decision maker though. These people I see making comments are not people in my group. They are not people who've ever been in my group. My Facebook gaming group is a large network of local players who do everything from wargaming to roleplaying and everything in between. There are probably at least a hundred people in that group.
So when I see a person I hardly know and whose never gamed with me, just up and say that 5e is too much like 4e because of healing and they aren't buying it, I took notice. I'm not saying the majority of people given a decent healing module alternative can't use that alternative. We can debate how many players will actually use that alternative (I think more than you think for sure). My critique is they made some bad business decisions in how they went about things. They could have started with a default that made no assumptions whatsoever about the nature of hit points. Then they could have provided recovery modules and resting rules that refined the concept. Then people perusing the book don't have those kneejerk reactions.
It is patently ridiculous that one of the most contentious issues in D&D today gets fewer pages than initiative got. It's brain dead. Why throw away customers?
That has been my point for some time now. Yes I refuse to believe that people I don't interact with and thus do not influence just randomly in my area complain about the healing and it's not happening anywhere else. That my little niche of the country is totally unique. And sure, I know that my area is very strongly anti-4e. We had no 4e campaigns running besides mine. So it may swing on the healing issue a bit more conservative than say New York or Seattle. But people with such views are not unique to my area. There are other areas in the country just like mine.
You're literally the only person I've seen across multiple sites complaining about people leaving games over healing. I think it's just an issue with you.
Criswell wrote:
Criswell, I believe the current party line is that we all really agree and there was no edition war. That there are not major differences in the playerbase over some issues. I find such an attitude very akin to Bagdad Bob's attitude.
I'd have been happy to see more 4e options so long as they were alongside good options for my playstyle. I'd have been happy if I read they describe the various approaches and why some like one way and others another. It's a game. We don't have to be unified. Our groups need to want the same things but based on what's been said here that apparently hasn't been an issue.
'
Chakravant wrote:
In 1e, it was nonsensical to narrate hit points as representative of physical damage beyond what the character could heal naturally within a 1 month time frame. Now matter what mundane (not magical like energy drain or mummy rot, as you read this, you are going to find that I love mummy rot) circumstances brought the character down to 1hp or how many hp the character started with, 1 month of bedrest brought the character to full strength. (1e DMG, "Recovery of Hit Points", p. 82)
Other mechanics such as the save system or specific spells like regenerate took care of physical aspects which obviously could not be healed within a month's time like poison, disease, curses, energy drain, extremity removed by sword of sharpness. Mummy rot would always result in death outside the use of magic. However, say, two fighters of nearly equal prowess with comparable equipment went at each other where hit point loss was the only determining factor of impeding defeat. As hit points lost are representative of various reasons, the one thing I am certain of is no one is getting disemboweled with precision evisceration until -10hp are reached. Even at zero hit points under 1e, it more of carotid style injury as the character is dying of blood loss and shock. In any case, if others are available to bind the wound, the character can recover completely without magic and be back to full hit points in about a month.
However, if one narrates in such a way that only magic healing makes sense for the character's survival then the above natural healing progression is nonsense in many cases. Magical healing is the only sensible alternative for wounds that a character couldn't recover from by simple bedrest. By completely ignoring natural healing which was practically useless other than "topping off the tank", (by 3e, this became particularly applicable, otherwise it amounted to only a rounding error) all kinds of grievous wounds could be imagined healed by the power of magic.
Fast forward to 5e. By default, the healing system is a nearly equal synergy between magical and non-magical healing which pairs with wounds that are combination of physical and metaphysical effects. Physical damage is limited until zero is reached where the subject is unconscious only and possibly dying. Poison damage obviously requires a scratch of some kind from piercing or slashing. Bruises are caused by bludgeoning. Anything significantly more serious is going to result in death from a tri-failure of saves. There are exceptions. In the mummy rot example, upon save failure, the subject can no longer regain hit points from any source and hit point max reduces over time until it reaches zero and subject turns to dust. (This is so much better than the one in 1e). I agree that default 5e will limit narration that essentially has been nonsense since the beginning. That certainly has not stopped players from doing it anyway in all of their hyperbolical glory.
Hit Points are an abstract mechanic with a primary dissociative property paired to number. This has always been what it was and still is. It can made associative by additional mechanics such as mummy rot example above. A "hit" can be physical strike or other effects associated with exceeding a target number. In the past, the physical strike was limited only by the credulity of the players involved. In 5e, the system itself limits the physicality with regard to the specific mechanic only instead of the "anything goes" attitude of the past. Other mechanics like the lingering wounds option are required, if the players wish to expand the physicality. This results in less hand-waving and eye-squinting with regard to the hit point mechanic.
I guess it comes down to whether the above is acceptable for the game one wishes to play. However, it is doubtful there is a silent horde that is going to find it unacceptable.
Emerikol wrote:
Is there a strawman tangent for Godwin's Law? I knew it had to roll around again...
Gnarl wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Once you concede the principle, all that remains is negotiation over the details.
Emerikol wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Bluenose wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
I get Emerikols argument and I understand his distaste for how the HP and healing system work but ultimatly it boils down to the fact that D&D is a game. There has to be a reset button in there somewhere to keep the game moving forward else the burden of creating one falls to the DM. The short rest is probobly one of the most important inventions as it allows the game to "march on" despite any narrative inconviniances like severe injuries, lack of healers, shortage of healing potions etc... Strictly speaking HP as a whole is the most unrealistic representation of "health" you could possibily have but the reality of injuries if simulated in a role-playing game would make the whole excercise rather stupid. Take a fall, break a leg, your character is out for 6 months.
This is why we have magical healing, but while "natural" healing seems silly the idea behind is that they clearly (as a game) the designers didn't want to force certain types of adventure party coordination demands as has been the case in almost every edition of the game. "who's going to be the cleric" is not a nescessary question in 5e, no one has to be a healer and the balance of the game still works. Sure its easier with a healing class character in the party but in the past, in particular in 1st and 2nd edition if you didn't have a full time Cleric the game was irreverasably broken. Even the smallest and most insignificant fight could cause the party to be put out of commission for days/weeks unless you where packing a heavy pack of potions, in which case it becomes a DM driven thing.. aka instead of having a more robust healing system now the DM needs to make sure the party is constantly finding healing potions in every barrel and crate they run across.
It boils down to the 5 minute workday or as was the case in the past 5 minute work week, where a single fight could force the party to sit on their asses for days to get back up to functional state.
Short and Long rests are by design a gamist thing. They may be rather unrealistic but they solve a lot of the issues D&D always had. It eliminates the 5 minute work day, it solves the issue of forcing players to have dedicated healers, it eliminates the need for the DM to constantly provide alternative ways of magical healing to keep the gaming moving forward and prevents the game from devolving into a realistic survival game rather than a heroic adventure. I mean if I knew that everytime I took 20 HP of damage I'm out of commission for days, I'm going to be approaching adventures with paranoia and fear, not heroism.
D&D is does not represent a realistic world hence is not a realistic game, nor it doesn't represent realistic events or people. Its a movie fantasy. Watch the Lord of the Rings Trilogy and you will understand what the vision/fantasy of D&D is. Rarely does anyone actually get injured and when they do its usually part of a dramatic scene, rather than some sort of realistic event. Characters survive horific things that would kill an ordinary person in almost every battle, the amount of reality is so little that even something simple as riding a horse is represented completetly unrealistically for effect.
I think very often DM's get caught up in trying to find a logic/realistic explaination or representation of events in D&D and that's a pointless endevour. If this is your goal D&D will fail at every turn.
Psikerlord wrote:
Noon wrote:
Emerikol,
I think the disconnect for me, as it has always been, is how absurdly easy it is to fix this issue on your own. You are acting like it is such a huge issue, not in terms of how important it is to you, but in terms of how much work would be required to fix it. But the reality is that you could fix it in far less time than it takes you to write about how it is a problem!
1) Long rest recovers 1 hp. Or 1/level. Or whatever you want.
2) No non-magical healing. Either simply remove all non-magical healing, or turn it into temporary hit points.
Done.
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Criswell wrote:
Karnos wrote:
Okay, I see what you are saying.
Though, for the record, The healer feat involves using a healing kit, it's not magic. It's not inspirational either, of course.
Criswell wrote:
Reius wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
There's every possibility he DID hear it locally. Take that with a grain of salt though, bc he selects SO STRONGLY for like minded players that there's a possible bubble effect going on.
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Do you have a specific method you're using to do conversions?
bawylie wrote:
First of all. I am NOT self-selecting. I know my local area fairly well. It is asinine to claim I'm self-selecting on my local community of a hundred people. And no I am not going to go and search Facebook for a post which I'm not sure how I could prove to you it was legit anyway and when I did you'd just run off onto something else.
Let me be clear.
IN MY OPINION, I believe the percentage of people affected by the healing issue is significant enough to hurt their sales in some noticeable way. That is my opinion. I am not claiming to have any incontrovertible proof. None of us have the Wotc sales figures and even if we did we don't have the "didn't sell" figures. It's stupid to even make counter arguments in this way. I am backing up my opinion with some anecdotal experiences.
Mistwell, all you had to say was "In my opinion, I don't think that number is significant." We could amiably agree to disagree. I do think that number is significant. Instead you act like my expressing my opinion is some crime or that I shouldn't do it without this absolute proof. And you are dead wrong about the 40/50% thing. Just read this thread over. There are people claiming I am saying that WOTC is losing half their playerbase over healing. I never said that and did not imply it. I said the number was not insignificant. I would consider 5% very significant though.
Xguild wrote:
Know not why the desperate need, as many have implemented: use a healing system ya dig (like, 1st Ed's, etc)?
Another example, it seems, that people do not seem to grasp, is house-ruling and home-brewing are not the same thing.
1.) Maybe not self-selecting but your bubble-effect is sufficient that you hadn't heard of some ways people play until you came here.
2.) Still making the argument that Wounds Close as HP Goes Up, when that's not necessarily or strictly true. It's, as has been said, a matter of narrative.
Say we have a chalice of wine, each. We engage in like a pillow fight or something and whoever empties their chalice first loses. Wine is gonna spill. But between rounds of our pillow fight, we have some liquid we can add to the chalice - it's not wine, but it does keep the chalice from being empty. Nothing anyone can do will put the spilled wine back in the chalice, but that's okay. Adding the alternate liquid doesn have to undo the spills - it just has to keep the chalice from being empty.
I think it's easy enough to view HP as the wine. Maybe ALL your HP is the wine. While the points you recover from hit dice are like Grit or something. There's no problem with anyone fighting on while injured, you've said. Now you have a metric as to just how far someone can keep doing that. Meanwhile, the HP and the Grit replenish at a rate of your choice.
This "problem" doesn't have to exist, so long as you stop thinking that adding liquid to a chalice is the same thing as unspilling wine.
If only you had substituted "milk" for "wine" in your analogy...
D&D Harry and the Last What-Have-You
ChrisCarlson wrote:
bawylie wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
"A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. Advanced Dungeon & Dragons is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity. This is not to say that where it does not interfere with the flow of the game that the highest degree of realism hasn't been attempted, but neither is a serious approach to play discouraged. In all cases, however, the reader should understand that AD&D is designed to be amusing and diverting pastime, something which can fill a few hours or consume endless days, as the participants desire, but in no case something to be taken too seriously. For fun, excitement, and captivating fantasy, AD&D is unsurpassed. As a realistic simulation of things from the realm of make-believe, or even as reflection of medieval of ancient warface or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure. Readers who seek the latter must search elsewhere. Those who desire to create and populate imaginary worlds with larger-than-life heroes and villians, who seek relaxation with a fascinating games should be fun, not work, will find this system to their taste."
— E. Gary Gygax, AD&D Dungeon Master Guide, 1979, p. 9 (Elements bolded for emphasis)
As it was with 1e when I was 12 it remains the same with 5e at 45, a game like no other that is about fun and enjoyment, not to be taken too seriously. 3e and 4e went down a path I didn't wish to follow. 5e is likely the closest to 1e/2e with a D&D logo on it that I will see in my lifetime. Accept it or move on.
jredmon wrote:
I don't know if the Forge added meaning. But maybe I'm splitting hairs, so ...
So, Gary Gygax would have written it differently if he could have been enlightened by GNS theory and discovered the evil of DS mechanics. Surely, he would have elaborated further if he had any great concern before his untimely death in 2008. This goes in the category of "taking it too seriously" from my perspective. I think it was about the fun of creating a fantasy world without the minutia of required simulation that would interfere with the flow of the game. These were the priorities of Gygax the Storyteller. Many of his mechanics taken under a microscope are pretty poor because they weren't the driver. Once the mechanics became the priority, then 3e and 4e followed. 3e and 4e went too extremes at the expense of game flow. In 5e, useful mechanics were taken out of these editions without losing sight of Gygax's orginal priorities, a fun flowing game that enhances imagination and creativity.
I know Emerikol still wishes to review the DMG but I am certain how this is going to play out. I got a laundry list of so-called DS mechanics from 5e DMG that could be simply be ignored but are probably going to be a deal-breaker. I am positive that another forum topic on the subject of the DMG will be forthcoming.
"Accept it or move on" is hardly presumptuous since it really is the only two choices. I definitely took my own advice regarding 3e and 4e.
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
bawylie wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Precedent doesn't invalidate present.
In other words, just because trains still work doesn't mean we don't need cars.
Also, just because we need cars, doesn't mean trains don't work.
In this case, I don't think the slow-recovery of older editions is a compelling argument. It's not something I'm interested in, and would likely simply gloss over.
"1 month later..." as, indeed, I used to do. The less-than-max HP being relevant only in dramatically charged situations.
Emerikol wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Whichever side of the fence you are on I think that healing and damage modules are one of the most obvious things to do early on, Mearls also said that we would get them but what we got was less than some desired. To be honest there are a lot of things Mearls said we would get that many think are either non or under delivered. Given time I think we will see more healing modules but that will more than likely be other a long time so in the meantime there are 3 options: 1. Put up with it till they come out with the module that suits your needs 2. Homebrew (or use someone elses ideas or 3rd party product) and 3. Move on.
Wether slow/fast healing is good or bad is purely subjective arguing for a position that one is good or bad is somewhat futile.
I thought it was already decided that slow HP recovery isn't any more realistic than fast HP recovery (in fact it is less realistic).
Emerikol simply likes slow HP recovery because that is the way he is used to.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lady_Auralla wrote:
This thread apparently heals to its maximum hp on a long rest. If it only healed 1 hp per day, this thread wouldn't still be alive. Unfortunately, it also doesn't take damage on a miss (otherwise we'd stand a better chance of killing it for good.
Reius wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
First of all thanks for posting the healing rules in their entirety.
I am removing those rules clearly not targeted at me. Things like Healing Surges. I'll comment on the rest.
jredmon wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
jredmon wrote:
2nd wind is kind of cute but its not reaslly a major source of healing in game. Monster damage is a lot higher than other additions. Tere is still to much healing and it is kind of odd how thye have assigned it though. Life clerics for example heal double to triple the amount of the other clerics who are better at healing than the other classes and the healer ferat at low level beats all of them.
Then you have things like goodberry, bards and paladins.
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Failing to appease the .005% sliver who won't even buy 5e because it includes rapid overnight healing to get the 80% of players who prefer faster healing because it leads to better game pacing is probably a big win for WOTC.
dmgorgon wrote:
Orzel wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
For Emerikol
I just looked at the DMG ....
Honestly it looks like it is a good fit. The game is increadibly hackable in simple methods. The default healing is so easy to alter that it is almost as if they didnt pick a default.
You can add in via DMG
Lingering wounds ... which are the same or nearly the same as the effects of 1E when you are hit with massive damage or go to 0 HP.
They also have rules for the 2nd more than 50% damage from a single blow which can imedatly drop you to 0 HP ...
which would link into the lingering wounds.
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Both: most widely accepted and least offensive, IIRC
DungeonKrusher wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Eh, it's the adventuring "day," wherein a day is a period of time between long rests. Could be a week, month, year, hour...
Lawolf wrote:
EnglishLanguage wrote:
Ugh! Vancian Casting = dumbest game concept ever.
EnglishLanguage wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Mike Mearls did say that the playerbase was split on the issue of healing. Now I wouldn't fault you if wanted to claim 53/47 or maybe in the extreme 60/40 but no 90/10. These guys would not have even mentioned it if it fell outside those bounds.
I disagree with Mike's thinking though on the idea that it is easier and better to take away. That doesn't fit any model of gaming theory I've heard about. Generally it is better to start with what everyone agrees upon and then optionally add in the stuff that people don't agree upon. Optionality is better as an additive than as a subtractor.
I think perhaps Mike's real reason is that he thinks (right or wrong) that brand new players will like the default healing rules and he figures he can expect more out of the veterans. Perhaps that is because of the video game age or whatever. I think though that is his motivation and that is just my opinion.
Lawolf wrote:
The amount of healing like a lot of other things in this system seems to run off 2 core philosophies:
1. Rulings not rules.
2. Design settings set to be generous, DM then can dial it down to what they want.
It seems that the designers have created the game with the idea most DM's will alter many parts of the game. In other words Alterations will be the norm not the exception.
dmgorgon wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Attack the issue not each other. I would prefer this forum not go back to its less unpleasant days.
Emerikol wrote:
In case people forgot so we can get back on ttrack the discussion is about the healing modules within the DMG, wether there is enough in there and if it does enough to suit peoples needs.
Personally whilst I dont mind what is in the phb I believe the DMG did not present enough options or go into enough detail about either possibilities or consequences.
Gunthar wrote:
So, I just read through my copy of the DMG, and it has quite a few healing options in it...
Gunthar wrote:
Cyber-Dave we found that out about 30% of the way into this thread. Someone who had the book misinformed us as to what was available and only listed the part where rests could be made really long.
Reius wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Okay Reius. This whole debate about old editions slow healing stemmed from that one comment that people went wild with. I'll accept on your word that you weren't the originator of the incorrect claim and just jumped in midway.
Here is my analysis of 5e healing...
1. Was the default system the one that would maximize sales. NO.
2. Do the modules in the DMG correctly identify and provide for each of the major playstyles differences NO.
3. Does what they have available at least show an effort on their part to provide something. YES.
Here are the dials people are concerned with when it comes to healing.
Dial #1
Rate of recovery. Range...
1. Group heals up after every short rest
2. Group sometimes but not always heals up after short rests.
3. Group generally only fully recovers daily.
4. Group doesn't recover even daily.
Dial #2
Methods of hit point recovery.
1. Primarily magic. Natural healing is so slow as to be non-viable in most cases. (like 1e/2e/3e).
2. A mixture of magic and natural healing where magic is still needed but not as much. (5e).
3. Natural healing is practically on par with magical healing. No healer class is needed at all. (4e).
Dial #3
Representation of Injury
1. Nothing at all. You never have any ill effects from hp damage until you go down. (D&D from the beginning).
2. Penalties for low hit points that indicate some injury.
3. Specific lingering injuries.
I personally want 3 on dial 1 and 1 on dial 2 and 1 on dial 3.
A really robust modular system would cover methods for turning all of those dials. I think the book should leave the narrative to the DM and players. Obviously if you want a particular narrative you just turn the dials to something that fosters that narrative.
Also while it wouldn't matter to me I think some major playstyle options should be available in public play instead of just the default. Maybe let the DM just put a card on his table indicating the style he'd use.
Emerikol wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
I looked at some of the older LnL articles, and found this one on HP
http://archive.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130527
It basicly mentions the healing options we see in the DMG.
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
shirebrok ... you are correct. You can play any edition with out a healer. having a healer makes it easier for the party to heal up durring an adventure but healing was never mandatory.
Emerikol wrote:
dmgorgon wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
Drycanth wrote:
I have removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code here: http://www.wizards.com/Company/About.aspx?x=wz_company_about_codeofconduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the Report Comment button below the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Mistwell wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
I love and hate every pre-5th edition of D&D as they all show potential but always miss the mark due to some silly reason or another,
D&D is like one of those sports teams that would be better than average if they just worked on that glaring weakness. But they never did. Always so close but never there.
And it's always for game design reasons. The philosphy and design of the game has always conflicted.
I can't give 5th fair judgement yet.
Shirebrok wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Most people I know who dislike 4e have never actually played the game.
They simply repeat all the same old BS that they heard on the internet. Everyone who I have personally met who has played 4e likes it for what it is, a great tactical miniatures wargame with just as much RP potential as any other edition of D&D. Sadly the war game aspect is so good (and time consuming) that RP can take a sideline unless you have a really good DM.
Yeah, while 4E made it easier to DM from a numbers side, at the end of the day there's still a major and important art to good DMing. Even aside from RP, the difference between a hard and easy fight was often the tactical proficiancy of the DM.
5E hasn't done much to alleviate that either, not can it, in some ways. The designers can give all the advice and anecdotes they want, but if the DM doesn't interpret or implement in the same spirit at least, it falls flat.
4E DMG had a section on mixing units in your encounters. It was good, still not complete.
Good encounter building warrants more than mathematical understanding, and more than saying "What's there is there bc it ought to be." Both of those are fine. But they're a step shy of "good."
Mistwell wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
Just quoting another forum on the healing thing.
(...) Pre-healing surges (and now in Next) HP is unlimited; you have as many potions or wands of cure light wounds as you can carry. Any restriction on this healing has to be from the DM or the world. In a fight, however, you can't heal well; the only thing wortwhile is the Heal spell at higher level. Pacing and scaling on healing spells didn't really match up to the HP damage being dealt by monsters. This poor design of previous D&D is now back in Next.
With healing surges, two things happened: one, the total amount of HP you could tap into in a given day was limited. Secondly, healing in combat suddenly became a realistic proposition - you were able to use this healing resource in combat as it scaled with your HP (each surge is base 1/4th of your total HP, some races/feats etc modified this), and generally the math on monster to-hit and damage was very tight in 4E. This was a complimentary, elegant system.
Some people hated it because healing comes from Magic Only and thats how they always did it. Some people hated it because it necessarily made the game less lethal; Mearls house-ruled Healing Surges out of existence in his 4E games because he wanted players to have their basic HP and-that-was-it; he didn't like the Adventuring Day being tied to Healing Surges left, he wanted it to be tied to spells remaining and just in general be higher lethality.
In 4E, there are no monsters that can just kill you outright; it wasn't a design concept. Anything that could do enough damage to kill you outright would also be unhittable and miss you only on a natural 1 due to the level scaling. If you wanted higher lethality, and that gameplay feel/style, removing or reducing healing surges was a step in that direction.
I think that is a pretty fair look at why people didn't like healing surges without name-calling. Basically they wanted to play a game with, for lack of a better term, less empowered (not necessarily powerful, but capable of interacting with the game world on their own terms) PCs. 4E essentially empowered all characters to do this within the framework of the rules - you didn't have to use weird magical tricks and loopholes. Lots of players, however, got their kicks out of 3.X from doing exactly that, trying to gain a degree of power over the world via abuse of the game rules, because a vanilla 1-20 character had no agency unless they were a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard in 3.X.
All of a sudden, everyone was equal under the game rules. That is a very different mental game - you no longer are trying or have to or even need to game the system. And, get this - really, truly gaming the system in 4E requires the participation of *other players at the table*. You couldn't craft the 1-20 build that did its stupid gimmick and didn't rely on anyone else and get that kick anymore. As a DM, I was delighted at this, but I know a few players who made the 3.X->4E transition and basically were sad that the degree of power gaming possible in 3.X in relation to the relative power of the default classes and other players was no longer there. You can still do nasty tricks and combos in 4E, but the absolute best ones rely upon abuse of the action economy, and those require other players to maximize.
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
I played B/X a lot and loved it. I played 1e a lot and loved it. I played 3e/3.5e a lot and loved it. And I played 4e a lot and loved it. And now I've played 5e a lot and love it. And I've never played 2e, but if I did I strongly suspect I'd love that edition too. Probably PF as well.
That said, I have my preferences. At this point, after years of playing 4e, I think I can fairly say that some of it's flaws were getting to me, particularly with combats taking too long, and character sheets grids and miniatures being too much of a focus. That doesn't mean I disliked 4e - I just was growing tired of it after many years...and that was happening with 4e faster than it happened with 3e/3.5e , which also had flaws that were getting to me. The 3e/3.5e flaws were mostly with how long it took to prep to DM it and to actually DM it, and system bloat - I just didn't need or want a rule for everything.
I am sure the flaws with 5e will eventually get to me, but right now I am not seeing them, or at least the benefits are far outweighing the flaws. And healing is one of the flaws. It's just, so far for my games, not a big deal. I'm probably, eventually, going to use the Lingering Wounds module to address my minor problems with healing.
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Let's not get into a contest of who's disliked more on the forums. Because I think I got a lot you beat.
bawylie wrote:
iserith wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Chakravant wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
bawylie wrote:
I have to say I don't know what the OPs on about.
I have been playing D&D since 2nd edition, and have invested, and enjoyed all systems. (Including the dreaded 4th edition, which I personally think they got some things incredibly correct with, two of the most interesting and fun characters to come out ANY of my sessions where a result of Martial Healers/Leaders). I have house ruled things in practically every addition however. For example A common house rule that I have used since 3.0 is too attach item bonuses to character levels, not magic items, which where effect only based. So I don't understand why he can't house rule something like that incredibly simply. I mean what do you expect, a three-page break down on Magic Healing vs. Not Magic Healing? I have to say, *personally* I would be incredibly annoyed if a substantial chunk of text was taken up by something so (in my opionion) trivial to fix/change.
That being said. . .
Everything you asked for is in the DMG.
Paragraph for not being able to spend hit dice with out magic or a healing kit.
Paragraph for not full healing after a long rest and spending hit dice instead.
Paragraph for Gritty Realism where a short rest is 8 hours and a Long Rest is 7 days.
These options make healing naturally incredibly grueling, and pretty much require magic healing for success. Ontop of that they added a lingering wounds section, which does alot more for gritty realism and the feeling of danger than throttling healing does. The only thing that they don't do is have a rule for 1hp per day type healing, all healing is still tied to hit dice. And this is a good thing to be getting away from, because 1hp a day style healing is incredibly stupid and immersion breaking and I can demonstrate why (Personally I house ruled out 1hp healing and tied it to Hit Dice long before 5th Edition).
1st Level Fighter.
10 hit points
Probably a young, or robust individual.
1st level Wizard
6 hit points.
likely weak, sickly, or old.
for simplicitys sake though they both have average constitution.
The fighter a robust warrior takes 6 hit points of damage, likely a deep shoulder wound or something similiar.
The Wizard takes 6 hit points damage He is down and dying (Ruptured lung, slashed throat, etc, etc).
Assuming he survives, and you are using the 1hp per day healing, the wizard (basically a non-combatant) heals from a life threatening injury in the exact same amount of time that a it takes a robust, young, experianced in martial injury individual to shrug of a shoulder wound.
This problem only becomes worse at higher levels. Say a 10th level Wizard and a 10th level fighter both are reduced to 0 hit points during the course of a battle and both recover naturally. Even though functionally within the game the characters took equivlant, life threatening damage, mechanically the fighter took about 30 more points of damage. Which means mechanically the wizard, who is likely older and weaker, is up and doing cartwheels for a full month before the likely young, likely fit warrior can be equally as healthy, despite the fact that within the game they where functionally equally has hurt.
If you insist on instituting something similiar, to 1 hit point recovery, you should at very least still base it off HD so its not completely immersion breaking, and it doesn't feel like your punishing the fighter for doing his job.
Use something like this.
d4 = 1 hp per day.
d6 = 2 hp per day.
d8 =3 hp per day.
d10=4 hp per day.
d12=5 hp per day.
You could even have it be modified by constitution.
3 Con 100% Healing per 5 days.
4-5 Con. 100% Healing per 4 days.
6-7 Con. 100% Healing per 3 days.
8-9 Con. 100% Healing per 2 days.
10-11 Con Normal healing per day.
12-13 Con. 150% Healing per day.
14-15 Con. 200% Healing per day.
16-17 Con. 250% Healing per day.
18 Con. 300% Healing per day.
Man those charts really took alot of effort, totally needs a full page dedicated to it in the DMG.
EzraTwitch wrote:
Of course a healing spell heals a percentage of a characters hp. That is every edition ever.
It is just that you never know what that percentage is before you roll the dice.
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
bawylie wrote:
EzraTwitch wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Orethalion wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
EzraTwitch wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
How are we supposed to agree on how realistic DnD healing is, when we can not even agree on how realistic 'realistic' healing is?
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Azzy1974 wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Lawolf your line of argument is a prime example of why these threads go off the rails.
Someone made an assertion and someone else refuted it with an example. You then went into a lengthy discussion about things that have no bearing on that argument at all. This happens on these boards all the time and it's why we can't have a civilized logical discussion. The assertion made was that anything that took a month to heal would have to leave a serious disability. Even in the middle ages this is utter nonsense. Did many such wounds lead to a serious disability? Sure. No one would argue that. You are stuck defending ALL not some. It is a premise of the game good or bad that wounds suffered can heal naturally. We have not had a lingering wounds system. Many wounds can heal naturally. While in the case of a broken arm or leg you may be right, no indication is given that hit points wounds are in fact broken arms or legs. In fact the fact you move normally is an indication it's likely not a broken leg. That does not rule out all serious injury though. We've chosen to play that such wounds are not disabling. If you want disabling wounds then add the lingering wounds module. That doesn't affect the playstyle though for those that want wounds that heal slowly when they heal naturally.
Realize that the original choice of 1 hp/level was practically the same as 0 hp/level from a character perspective. The game designers wanted players to at least be able to conceive that someone could heal naturally from there wounds but practically no one was waiting months to do it. Adventurers used magic to heal. They recovered rapidly via magic which to many of us made sense as the wounds sustained were magically repaired. If you changed the rules for adventures to say you cannot heal naturally at all, no one in my 1e or 2e groups would have even noticed. The 1hp/day thing was likely the minimum amount just as a token symbol that natural healing was at least theoretically possible. It was hardly a rule that the game designers likely imagined getting used often.
When I talk about hating 4e, I am talking about hating an inanimate object. There are clothing lines, cars, breakfast cereals, vegetables, restaurants, and so forth that I hate. This is not a hate where you murder someone. This is just a disgust with and general contempt for an inanimate object. Even in the case of living beings, we often hate abstract groups. I hate the Cincinnati Bengals for example but it's sports hate. I don't know the players and I don't wish them ill. I just don't like the team and I don't want that team to prosper. It's kind of silly that some of you can't differentiate between the various ways the term "hate" is used.
Lawolf wrote:
Beldak_Serpenthelm wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Let me emphasize here that I did not threaten to punch anyone on these boards in the face. I don't know any of you personally (well except Mablok and he agrees with me mostly). I was talking about someone who would sit at my table and outright cheat. I have the example to indicate that I consider cheating something that goes beyond just a gaming difference. I would consider someone in my group who read or played in an adventure module ahead of time and didn't tell me to be outright cheating. To me that is not just a difference of opinion about gaming. It is a despicable moral failing.
In another case concerning Bawylie, I said that he made me feel like running my fist through his face. I was merely illustrating the level of anger he induced. I have no ability to run my fist through his face and even if he were in the same room with me I am sure the feeling would have passed without violence occuring. It was a mere expression of frustration and anger at his behavior.
Emerikol wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Shasarak wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Whether using the Lawolf or Emerikol interpretation, there is always a disconnect between the player and character perspectives. With the Lawolf interpretation, "plot armor" is meaningless from the character perspective since a character would have no idea that their hit points are low and they need "healing" with only scratches and bruises. What does the cure wounds spell do other than give me a warm fuzzy feeling of happiness in character? Further, you have a disconnect between what HD healing accomplishes and what magical healing accomplishes. With Emerikol's interpretation, hit point loss is real damage that disappears with magical healing but also disappears slowly with time. However, unless the physical wound is limited by narration, there is disconnect with the mechanic because there is no degradation of character performance. Further, regardless of the seriousness of a physical wound, a character can back to full strength naturally within a month. This interpretation further adds the complication of the continuous necessity of healing magic to determine game pacing.
Both interpretations are extremes in which neither has the high ground regardless of the appeal to authority of the past. Both are nonsense and require the necessary hand-waving from the player because the mechanic itself is nonsense and always has been. With the Lawolf interpretation, HD healing makes sense but magical healing does not. With the Emerikol interpretation, the reverse is true. It is essentially an argument of my way is less silly and therefore superior. 5e with options in DMG is a compromise for the various playstyles with some styles requiring more work from the DM than others. The middle ground is that hit points are just hit points with an interface to other mechanics where physicality options are desired.
The real issue is that Lawolf can play with his interpretation with the 5e default while Emerikol cannot. This is why there will never be a resolution to the argument with each claiming the majority preference. Instead, I think the majority is with the middle ground; there are physical wounds that are healed by magic but nothing too serious without other mechanics; HD healing does refresh the pool of stamina, skill, and luck. Everyone accepts the hand-wave of no character performance degradation with hit point loss. Most don't dwell on the nature of hit points but just accept it for what they are. This is why 5e along with the fact that most want the brand to succeed will be a success.
End of story. Have fun with the game or not is the only reasonable conclusion.
Oops. Almost nailed it.
iserith wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
iserith wrote:
jredmon wrote:
kalil wrote:
kalil wrote:
AaronOfBarbaria wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
I was looking at the DMG the yesterday and I noticed that the Sword of Wounding limits healing to a short and long rest. All other forms of healing, including magical healing, doesn't work. It's small changes like these all over the system that make adding old school healing back into the game rather difficult.
btw, the sword of sharpmess isn't bad since it can actually cut your limb off. The vorpal blade is similar, but I really do think the Balor should be using the version in the DMG.
dmgorgon wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting/personal attacks are violations of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
jredmon wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Mistwell wrote:
Consideration seems to be that the loss cannot be quickly or immediately mitigated. It's a nasty effect that truly slows you down. Now you have to prioritize taking the time for a short rest or pressing on weakened. It's good.
It's a reistant wound that is anti-magic in nature. Sort of like a special kind of poison. Only 8 hours rest will get it out of your system.
Mistwell wrote:
Would someone please quote the sword of sharpness deal (do not have my mitts on it yet)?
Mistwell wrote:
Brock_Landers wrote:
jredmon wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Gunthar wrote:
I'm not threatening not to play it, I'm just not playing much right now.
For what I would like to see, I would like to see a decent Swordmage option in the game, conceptually a lightly-armored, very mobile swordsman who's defensive and rescue-oriented with a few magical defenses and tricks but not reliant upon it for offense/damage. The 4E Avenger did this fairly well too, and in some ways so did the 3E Soulknife and even the Dervish (though that was a lot of hoops for not much effectiveness). I'm also waiting for a few more races to come in to play. I like Genasi and Deva/Aasimar a lot, for example, I played a lot of humans over the years and I'm really tired of Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and Halflings. Dragonborn and Tieflings aren't my favorites either, though they're cool. These are just a couple of things I'm expecting to be around relatively soon.
Generally speaking, not jumping in to a new system day 1 has served my fun very well. I've seen a lot of potential in each new version of the game, this one is no different. I also see things I don't particularly care for, but if I'm having fun I usually just write them off as unimportant.
Brock_Landers wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
jredmon wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Personally, I try to weigh things by 3 metrics: Scripture (by which I mean what the text says, means, implies, omits), tradition (including precedent set in older editions & other games), and Reason (what makes sense in the context).
So (again for me), precedent is an important factor in these considerations.
Yeah I can't see a DM even using it if they aren't using the gritty healing method.
When someone says X is a version of Y then I think the X should not be a totally new game but rather a version of the original Y. So for me the playstyles of older editions should absolutely have been fully supported. If not is the game even D&D? 4e definitely got attacked along those avenues. For me the only thing that made it D&D was the fact the owners said it was. I wouldn't have recognized the game if nothing in the text mentioned D&D. I would have thought it was some new age approach to gaming someone had come up with.
I'm of the school where version means something. I realize a lot of game designers ignore the definition.
Emerikol wrote:
Emerikol wrote:
I’ve removed content from this thread because trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: http://company.wizards.com/conduct
Please keep your posts polite, on-topic, and refrain from making personal attacks.You are welcome to disagree with one another but please do so respectfully and constructively.
If you wish to report a post for Code of Conduct violation, click on the “Report Post” button above the post and this will submit your report to the moderators on duty.
Xguild wrote:
I created a thread on using 5e healing in Pathfinder on the Paizo forums: http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2rrav&page=1?Using-DD-5e-healing-and-banning-CLW-wands
You know what I didn't get? Pages worth of vitriol. I instead got a discussion on the merits of HP as a daily resource.
Well done guys. You've created an environment where it's safer to talk about 5e on the official Pathfinder forums then it is on the official 5e forums.
JohnLynch wrote:
Threads been dead quiet for hours.
bawylie wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
MechaPilot wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Is this an appropriate time to revitalize the discussion about hair?
kalil wrote:
Shirebrok wrote:
When i looked at healing in the PHB the Recuperating action seemed interesting to me.
And when i saw it i thought it might be the vehicle they would expand on fror some of the healing systems in the DMG.
but non of the systems in the SMG realy make use of it.
I think that Recuperating could easely have been turned into aditional level of resting in one of the options.
so you would have 1 hour, 1day and 3 day rests.
For example there could have been a system where expanding of Hitdice and the heal at the end of a long rest can't raise you above 50% of your max HP.
But when you finish the Recuperating action you do heal to full HP by natural means.
I know how to make this thread even better.
HEY GUYS. WHAT RATE DOES THE TARRASQUE HEAL AT?
JohnLynch wrote:
DungeonKrusher wrote:
Originally this thread was about healing modules being under deliverd in the DMG, do with that in mind what modules are wanted that didnt appear?
Maybe a quicker short rest to get back abilities and Con mod healed for 8hrs rest. Good bye HD. (Boost HP for some classes). This would give an older stle meets new style feel.
Old school healing: All abilities reset after 8 hours rest and healing 1hp/day (more with bedrest and healers kit).
Heroic: Full HD renewal after 8hrs rest and maybe spend HD to regain some used abiliies.
Wounding: Crits and hits tat suceed by 5+ also reduce max hp which amount reduced must be healed before any Hp are actually healed.
Low Magic healing spells: Spells work as printed but utilize a HD
Picky God healing magic: Non followers are either healed half as much or must spend a HD for the healing to take effect (or use both together).
Healing modules are easy and important I am surprised so little space, thought or effort was given.
1eejit wrote:
Edwin if they had made providing a healing system for all the different playstyles a priority they most definitely could have done it. Right or wrong, they chose not to do that.
I really believe they believe that the current way of playing 5e appeals to a massive percentage of players or they want it to. One or the other. In their minds they've placed a high value on not requiring a cleric or other healer. For me that is a low priority as I always have one. So it's not an issue. I believe their own gaming prejudices played as big a part as anything else including the surveys. They may have told themselves otherwise and even in some cases really did go against their instincts, I still believe it's hard to eradicate all bias from your decision making.
Thank goodness we have a champion fighter. If you remember, a dev said he couldn't imagine anyone wanting a simple fighter. That is pretty scarey that you have a dev that can't even imagine someone wanting a simple fighter. I can imagine someone wanting a complex one even though it's not my cup of tea. I'd probably be accepting of it if it didn't violate certain immersion concepts I hold dear. And that is possible but yes it is harder.
I think to be honest at my age it's probably better if I just hack together a game from older editions. Steal a few good ideas from 5e and go forward with that. I personally have none of the needs other have to play the official game. I only play private games and I can get my players to play practically anything. I kept them playing 4e for sixteen months so I'm figuring I should just go to the middle east and negotiate a peace treaty.
Emerikol wrote:
Paladin can use slots as smites.
Would be nice to have similar trades for other classes.
Emerikol wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Xguild wrote:
BC something is true when it ratifies what you already believe. And it is false when it conflicts with your beliefs.
Also...
Xguild wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Xguild wrote:
In order for the vocal minority to have the effect that you say they do, Xguild, then it would have to be their opinions which are found when anyone not already of their own formed opinion - the new and impressionable potential customer - goes looking for information.
A quick Google search for "Dungeons & Dragons" or "Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition" both lead to first page results that are mostly counter to the opinions I've heard coming from the vocal minority, and are actually mostly official press, and shopping.
The most likely thing to happen with a new player running into the vocal minority is that they have come to this forum by way of the WotC website, and they will find no wide-spread consensus because the vocal minority shouting complaints of the game are not doing so without other posters offering counter points at every turn - a common one of which is "It seems your opinion wasn't held by D&D fandom at large, since the playtest-driven design went the other way on that topic."
ChrisCarlson wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Xguild wrote:
I think it is wrong to just group strongly opinionated people with those who come online. Those online ara subset of that group. I do believe strongly opinionated people in general have a far outsized affect on the game comparable to their numbers. Often DMs are some of the most opinionated and many groups would tolerate and accept many things to have a happy DM and happy group. So if that DM hates 5e they just play something else. It happened often in 4e I believe (both ways by the way). It definitely hurt 4e. There are plenty of Pathfinder players who might have played 4e and plenty of 4e players that might have played Pathfinder. The don't care people are followers so they follow. Whether it's a good trait or not is beside the point. They do whatever to get along and they have fun doing it so end of discussion.
Now to answer the other question about my "apparent" contradiction. I do not question that the devs think and believe they are heeding the guidance of the surveys. I believe in some cases that meant they changed course. No arguments so far. That situation though is where they are consciously aware of the situation and of their own biases. Realize that they wrote the surveys. Their unconscious bias can greatly influence the game design because they aren't even aware of it. That is human nature. Removing all bias is one of the greatest challenges for any person. It is why scientific experiments follow such rigorous rules and have to be peer reviewed and repeated by other teams. It's not because the original team thinks they are biased. Bias can creep in anyway.
I believe the devs believe somethings to be universally true that are not true. I'll give one example. They likely believe that *most* players had issues with balance in 3e and that the casters dominated the mundanes. The reality is that *most* likely didn't have problems. A very vocal subset had problems and cried to holy hell and it became part of the collective unconscious of the devs. It is why we get these kneejerk fixes in prior editions that often resulted in the cure being worse than the illness.
Mistwell wrote:
Einlanzer wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Gunthar wrote:
This forum, not so much. The forum reflects what potentially influential negative reviews have been posted more than the source of said reviews or opinions. That said, it can be a rallying point for groups to go out and troll review.
As an example, there were a couple of rather vocal and prolific anti-4E posters over on ENWorld who, when confronted with direct questions, finally admitted to never having played or even read the game but simply were parroting what they read from an online review and blog. They even admitting to writing reviews themselves on Amazon, etc. based only on that.
I also ran some games at an anime convention for a few groups who had only heard bad things but tried it because it was teh only RPG being offered when they had an open time slot and even openly commented that it was nothing like what they had read on the reviews and blogs they had read.