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

[Azzy]

Yeah, I've played since 87 (maybe 86... it's been too long). At first I was apprehensive about overnight healing, but after running it and then playing it, I was like "whatever". No one in my group has complained about it, and I like that it doesn't require the party to hole up for a while to cast spells repeatedly or spend months in town doing nothing.

As far as I'm concern, it fits with action movie cinematics and larger than life play.

 

[5ekyu]

So this is something which can be both true, and controversial. It is indisputably true that PCs, by being PCs (and thus player controlled) are different than NPCs. It is also indisputably true that for reasons of efficiency (that the narrative spotlight focuses on what PCs are doing, and that the DM is not a supercomputer continually updating the world around the PCs to account for things that the PCs aren't doing, and aren't otherwise important to the PCs) the narrative story will revolve around PCs, and that more care will be taken to account for things that impact the PCs than those things that do not impact the PCs.

And yet, this can also be a controversial statement, because the concept behind it is can also encapsulate the difference between certain different styles of gaming.

For example, some tables prefer that PCs are, for lack of a better phrase, just the same as everyone else. The reason that they become better, become renowned, become "heroes" (or anti-heroes, or retire to their keep) is because of a combination of grit, luck, and (perhaps) skilled play where failure is marked, sometimes often, by death - which is understandable, because PCs are just like everyone else, and adventuring is risky.

Other tables prefer that the PCs are predestined to be heroes; the adventures are basically a set of scenes that the PC will (most likely) triumph in with the dramatic stakes set not by ultimate failure (permanent death, TPK) but by relative failure (moral dilemmas, failure to achieve goals, etc.). Why play a fantasy RPG if you aren't playing a fantasy hero, or a character that you enjoy (which implies, more often than not, triumph)?

There really isn't a wrong way to approach this, but they are different approaches. That said, they often shade into one another. The issue with more gritty and realistic healing is that it can require more downtime, more PC death, and (for some people) less fun. Which is why you often would see people in the past try to find ways around the healing rules; for example, through healbots (Clerics) or CLW Wands (3e) or various other means.

The disconnect comes when you get to standard 5e rules which incorporate this type of waiver into the basic ruleset. Healing as a spell or as an ability is no longer prized or an issue in the game; seriously, when was the last time someone mentioned the Paladin's or the Monk's healing as a bonus? They don't, because healing is so baked into the rules (between healing as hit dice, healing from rest, healing from good berries and low-level spells, and death saves that keep you from dying etc.) that healing doesn't matter in the least as a ribbon ability for classes.

Which is ... okay. For those that like it. It very much fits into the ethos of 5e overall. Instead of worrying about persnickety resting, and downtime, or (in 3e) CLW Wands and the like, it just kinda makes it easy for everyone.

But to answer the OP- for those who came from an older style of play, it is very noticeable and kind of annoying. It is probably the single weirdest aspect of 5e - it (along with the generous death saves) creates the "whack a mole" combats. That said, it's understandable. Different people will have different desires, and the issue of healing/adventuring is one that has long been an issue in D&D, and has resulted in numerous houserulings. The main difference is that in the past, the houserulings were to make healing more generous; now, you would have to make a ruling to make it less generous.

I honestly do not know how the quoted statement was controversial.

"As others have chimed in on, the rule for PCs apply to PCs not everything in the world. So, others have it or not at GM discretion."

In the core PHB itself, the death saves rules are brought out as such. For NPCs "minsters" it's up to the GM explicitly whether those use death saves or just die at zero. Thry make a direct call go use or not for non-players characters on case-by-case even.

I did not make a judgement over which should be used, no better thans."

So if your table likes one way and mine another and we both agree both are permissible then there is no controversy - just different preferences. Strawberry vs mint chocolate us not controversy. Well, unless one decides controversy means not liking the same things in all cases.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 4E or 5E, yes, because the math is stacked against you. The games are built to enforce the idea that you will get hit.

But, not hurt, so much, until you've been worn down. Really, D&D, at the best - in each ed's sweet spot - has generally had that dynamic. And it's part of why abstract hps are better than realistic death-spirals or sudden kills - It lets players gauge risk meaningfully in the course if the encounter.

In 3E, you can build for AC, and that actually means something.

You can, but it's just part of your defense, there's 3 saves, as well, and touch AC... as a general rule, optimizing for defense wasn't that optimal.

In 2E, there are no expected encounter guidelines, so it's easier to avoid things that are too dangerous.

That doesn't follow. Lack of encounter guidelines just means the DMs more likely to drop accidental cakewalk and TPKs, until he gets the hang of fudging convincingly - it's harder for the players to tell what's "too dangerpus," as well... until it's too late.

Two big differences BA makes that way, though. In the TSR era, even 1st-level frontliners were hard for low level monsyers to hit, so even with rolled hp, you could make your way through a few encounters. And, at high level, BA means you still get rapidly ground down when at all outnumbered.

 

[Iry]

I'm not "Okay" with healing, but that's because I would rather healing be something like "Level 2. Heal 30 HP, and the target of this spell cannot benefit from another healing spell until they finish a short rest."

In other words, much bigger heals that have to be used sparingly and tactically.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The game actually has rules for what happens when you fall on spikes. You roll dice to determine whether or not they actually hit you, and how much damage is inflicted if they do.

I guess you could argue that a hit isn't really a "hit", and damage isn't really "damage"; but if those words don't mean what they always mean, then we have no idea what's actually going on.

Nah. Choosing to claim being "hit" by a spike is being "impaled" in 100% on you as a DM. If the spikes did like 20 damage to a dude with 50 HP and you're claiming he was "impaled" you're absolutely going out of your way to make it not make sense. That's on you as a DM, not the game.

 

[Melkor]

I have played with the same DM since around 1986 - So Basic, AD&D, 2E, 3E, 4E, and 5E, and we just had to figure out a way to rationalize 5E healing where it made sense to us.

In our current campaign, your character gets a Lingering Injury when you drop to zero HP.

Otherwise, Hit Points just represent stamina, luck, and the ability to turn a blow...Not necessarily "meat damage" (other than minor bruises and scratches). The really serious wound is the one that takes the character to zero (and results in the Lingering Injury).

That tends to make more sense to us as to why HP can be regained fully on a Long Rest.

Additionally, our DM determines when the characters are in a safe and comfortable enough environment to take a Long Rest, and how long that rest lasts. That also helps rationalize the 6 - 8 "encounters per day" since it means not having to actually jam 6 - 8 encounters into 24 hours - just between the time the characters can take a Long Rest.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

It's been a long time since I played 1 or 2E, but I remember us using a lot of magical healing.

One of the things about AD&D is that, in the absence of encounter guidelines, every table played very differently from every other table. I'm sure that you used magical healing, if you had it. It also seems likely that access to magical healing would influence the sorts of adventures you chose to undertake, and may have also influenced your DM in deciding which monsters were present on those adventures.

In 5E, I run a very heavy RP game but difficult fights are part of the game. If people never get hit, it would be boring.

If healing is too trivial, then getting hit can be even more boring than not getting hit. If you're not getting hit, then there's always the tension that you might get hit, and that would be bad. With fast healing, why even care whether or not you get hit? You'll be fine in the morning, either way. I guess it might be different if every fight you run has a very real chance of a TPK, but that drains tension in a different way.

And, as mentioned up-thread, Bounded Accuracy is directly responsible for HP bloat. The decision that most attacks should hit, means that everything needs enough HP to survive a few rounds of being hit, which means getting hit is the expected outcome of being attacked (rather than anything remotely interesting or dramatic).

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Nah. Choosing to claim being "hit" by a spike is being "impaled" in 100% on you as a DM. If the spikes did like 20 damage to a dude with 50 HP and you're claiming he was "impaled" you're absolutely going out of your way to make it not make sense. That's on you as a DM, not the game.

Twenty damage is enough to KO a warhorse, and sufficient to kill many people outright. A DM is absolutely entitled to make that call, in their attempt to reconcile the mess that the game has made of HP and healing.

If there was a consistent solution, and the DM chose to ignore it, then it would be their fault for choosing to do so. As it stands, though, there is no good answer. That interpretation is far from the worst I've seen. At least they're trying to make sense of it.

 

[Oofta]

One of the things about AD&D is that, in the absence of encounter guidelines, every table played very differently from every other table. I'm sure that you used magical healing, if you had it. It also seems likely that access to magical healing would influence the sorts of adventures you chose to undertake, and may have also influenced your DM in deciding which monsters were present on those adventures.

If healing is too trivial, then getting hit can be even more boring than not getting hit. If you're not getting hit, then there's always the tension that you might get hit, and that would be bad. With fast healing, why even care whether or not you get hit? You'll be fine in the morning, either way. I guess it might be different if every fight you run has a very real chance of a TPK, but that drains tension in a different way.

And, as mentioned up-thread, Bounded Accuracy is directly responsible for HP bloat. The decision that most attacks should hit, means that everything needs enough HP to survive a few rounds of being hit, which means getting hit is the expected outcome of being attacked (rather than anything remotely interesting or dramatic).

To me a game where you did everything possible to avoid any chance of damage would be boring. Some of my most fun and engaging encounters have been when the party is barely hanging on, and the threat of a TPK is hanging over the heads of the party like the sword of Damocles. It wouldn't want every fight to be like that but I want to keep the option open, especially if the party does something stupid.

But to each their own. If that's the kind of game you want to play I think there are probably better game systems out there. Or perhaps implementing some of the alternate rules from the DMG may be the best choice in 5E.

 

[Gadget]

Twenty damage is enough to KO a warhorse, and sufficient to kill many people outright. A DM is absolutely entitled to make that call, in their attempt to reconcile the mess that the game has made of HP and healing.

If there was a consistent solution, and the DM chose to ignore it, then it would be their fault for choosing to do so. As it stands, though, there is no good answer. That interpretation is far from the worst I've seen. At least they're trying to make sense of it.

This, once again, assumes that HP = meat points, which Gygax went out of his way to talk his way to explain was not the case. Even the example of a warhorse is straight out of the example he used in his explanation, iirc. Furthermore, even if we accept HP = meat points, how is the character traipsing around a Dungeon, fighting, jumping, climbing.etc. while "impaled" on a spike?