A word about the Long Rest

[Dmdork]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

[LudicSavant]

Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

It is not realistic, nor is it intended to be so.

If you would like to introduce lingering injuries to your game, then the DMG provides optional rules for doing just that. :redcloak:

[DeTess]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

Depends on how you fluff HP. If every lost HP is a wound, and being at 1 hp is like being at deaths door, it might seem odd. If you fluff HP as minor scratches and a characters reserve of lucky misses until a character drops to 0 hp, where the last blow was a big wound, healing quickly from 1 hp makes more sense. Remember, that barbarian at 1 hp also fights just as well as the barbarian at full health, so it seems that hp loss doesn't translate to wounds so bad that they limit your ability to fight effectively.

[No brains]

If you want to look for 'realism' in this, consider failing 3 death saving throws to be the threshold before serious injury. Before that happens, characters are just sore, after that happens, characters need emergency medical care that doesn't exist in their world at the time. Everything before 0 hp amounts to a combination of stress/ exertion/ psychological stuff over gross tissue damage.

How can a 15th level barbarian take hits from a giant and not get serious injuries in the first place? I unno. Magic?

[Millstone85]

What others said, but as a PHB quote.
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 unconsious.

The really realistic alternative is that a sword that hits you kills you, or leaves you a cripple. The game just can't be played like this, unless the party is an unit within an army of spare characters.

[Honore Shadow]

As a starting DM, i had a simmilar feel.
I dont know where anymore but i recall HP being described as more then just “healthyness”, rather its your stamina to continue.

On that regard, i use a bit of a non-binary system in my campain. You can regainl plenty of hitpoints using your hitdice or long rests, but without magical healing, an injury like a broken leg will take quite a while to heal. Heck, even with (not too powerfull) magical healing it can take more then a day.

[Millstone85]

I dont know where anymore but i recall HP being described as more then just “healthyness”, rather its your stamina to continue.In the definition of hit points, page 196. "Hit points represent a combination of physical and mental durability, the will to live, and luck."

I especially like "luck". Yeah, it is magic. Or meta. Or both.

[fbelanger]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

Healing is not realistic in DnD.
As well as magic, most monsters, and if you continue to ask question most of the game is not realistic.

[MoiMagnus]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

No. I don't find it weird that the character's "luck" is back to full after a long rest.
And don't forget that you recover only half of your HP dice (or whatever is the name of the short rest healing).
Which mean you need two long rest to fully heal.

Sure, HP also represent some kind of wounds, but you have to keep in mind that "any individual wound represented by HP is a wound that can fully be healed in 1h", using short rests.

And to be fair, the HP part is probably far more realistic than the way armor is taken care of (sure, a big hammer strike is either ignoring armor totally or not doing any damage, looks reasonable).
And by realistic, I mean that considering that any strike that don't put you at 0HP is only a scratch. But once your plot armor is gone (no HP left), stuff start hurting you like in real life: a well placed strike put you out of fight, and after that you may die by yourself, or be killed easily.

From a game design perspective, it is a choice made by the developer of 5e for multiple reasons:
1) If you want epic fight, you need to the player to care more about short term consequences than long term ones. Any "realistic" approach will probably result in players playing in a very un-fun way of "dealing with enemies without any fight, or only at distance and retreating at the first danger".
2) For the sake of campaign pacing, you don't want injuries to last. Unless you are playing a survival game (which you can, but D&D isn't the best system to use for that), you don't want to take too much time caring about mundane stuff like healing injuries.
3) For balance purposes. The only game I've tried where lasting injuries actually worked, it was because you had the possibility to switch character to continue the quest while the others where resting from injuries. In every other situations, either we weren't injured, either it resulted in "winner win more", which means that the DM had to find stuff even more immersion breaking to actually keep the quest reasonably winnable.
4) Instant healing is a good rule beginner DMs. DMs competent enough to properly handle an injury rules will either have their own homebrew rules, either find them in the optional rules somewhere. Other DMs will probably do more harm than good to the fun by trying to apply a lasting injury rule, and "long rest = full heal" allows to compensate for ill-balanced encounters that a beginner DM will certainly create.

(Note: I don't know if the designers had all of those reasons in mind. But those are certainly the reasons why I put "Long rest = instant healing" in my homebrew D&D games. Though I don't always take it for non-D&D games)

[mephnick]

1) If you want epic fight, you need to the player to care more about short term consequences than long term ones. Any "realistic" approach will probably result in players playing in a very un-fun way of "dealing with enemies without any fight, or only at distance and retreating at the first danger".

This is how the game was played for decades. People seemed to find it fun. We still had epic fights because sometimes you needed to push through.

Anyway, there's a huge gap between "lingering debilitating injuries" and "gaining all your HP every rest". They went way too far to one side.

[Mordaedil]

In older editions of D&D, you just got back 1-2 hitpoints after resting, and before 3rd edition you had very limited amounts of hit points you could earn, only rolling dice until 9HD of your class, then you only gain 1-2 hit points from that point onward.

But hit points, in their root cause have always been an abstraction. There is a reason why falling below a certain amount of hit points doesn't cause a detriment to your stats, cause limbs to fall off or give you scars. That is also why armor doesn't absorb blows, but instead deflects blows. Your hitpoints is what you sort of absorbs to avoid a fatal injury.

You healing up all hit points after a long rest is just you getting ready to fight again.

[Malifice]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

HP aren't meat. They're luck, resolve, the will to live, fighting skill and health.

You get more if you're a good warrior and you get better with experience.

[MoiMagnus]

This is how the game was played for decades. People seemed to find it fun. We still had epic fights because sometimes you needed to push through.

Anyway, there's a huge gap between "lingering debilitating injuries" and "gaining all your HP every rest". They went way too far to one side.

Just because a rule is counterproductive to a goal doesn't mean you cannot reach that goal.

And from the point of view of game design (and manipulating player's psychology), the more you put long term consequences, the more the players will be prudent, careful and rational. Because they are actually punished when they aren't behaving like that. Sure, the DM can compensate for it, but the goal of a good rule system is to reward/punish behaviors that are expected/undesirable from the players.

And I disagree that this is to far on this side (but I know that's an opinion, not a fact). Though to be honest, I prefer when campaign adjust the frequency of long rest (every night, every 3 nights, every week, every month, every 3 months, ...) depending on the pacing of the events.
(I mean, politicians don't get 3 assassinations attempt per day, so if you want to reach a reasonable number of encounters per long rest, you need less long rests)

[mephnick]

Just because a rule is counterproductive to a goal doesn't mean you cannot reach that goal.

Those rules were not counterproductive to the goal of having fun. Actually having to plan your actions carefully was the fun.



And from the point of view of game design (and manipulating player's psychology), the more you put long term consequences, the more the players will be prudent, careful and rational... the goal of a good rule system is to reward/punish behaviors that are expected/undesirable from the players

Yes. Surviving by being prudent and careful was how DnD was played for decades. It was fun.

Modern DnD is still fun, but it is basically formed from video game logic.

[Hail Tempus]

Those rules were not counterproductive to the goal of having fun. Actually having to plan your actions carefully was the fun.



Yes. Surviving by being prudent and careful was how DnD was played for decades. It was fun.

Modern DnD is still fun, but it is basically formed from video game logic.
Based on the success level of the current edition of D&D compared to previous editions, it’s fair to say that the designers have figured out the way to maximize fun for the largest number of gamers.

[mephnick]

Based on the success level of the current edition of D&D compared to previous editions, it’s fair to say that the designers have figured out the way to maximize fun for the largest number of gamers.

I'd say there's a lot more to it than the system that's led to the uptick in DnD players. Nerd culture itself has boomed insanely in the last decade. It is not longer "weird" to play DnD.

5e DnD would not be nearly as popular if it was still 1980.

But yes, 5e is definitely suited to more casual players which will bring in a bigger audience. Absolutely.

[Pex]

It's not supposed to be realistic. It's a game. It's a facilitator. In previous editions players spent a lot of resources healing up at the end of the day to be full the next game day. It was a waste of play to keep doing that. Long rest healing gets rid of the minutiae.

The bad guys are at full hit points on the second game day of the session for free. Why can't the PCs?

[some guy]

Based on the success level of the current edition of D&D compared to previous editions, it’s fair to say that the designers have figured out the way to maximize fun for the largest number of gamers.

Like Mephnick said, there are a lot of other factors to 5e's succes, especially when you take that in consideration that 4e's long rests also granted fully recovered hp.

Some people think fully recovering hp is fun, other's think it's not fun, others don't care. I think it's less fun, but it's also less bookkeeping which I like.

[Nhorianscum]

HP is not wounds, it's an imaginary shield of "luck" that has no value or impact before 0 where the character becomes injured.

Generally I'll show this as evasion/armor at half or higher, light wounds under half, and critical wounds with a roll on the long term injury/ (S/L/I) madness tables at 0 or lower. A blow that deals over half a character's hp will also be portrayed as a wound.

Instant death from half is possible in deadly+ encounters so this seemed like a decent if not foolproof way of conveying HP in a manner that allows for suspension of disbelief on rest mechanics.

Gritty realism is pretty good for allowing hp as meat.

[Joe the Rat]

Since risking life and limb is supposedly part of the fun (as opposed to the "Why are you fighting? get the loot and run" days), slow natural recovery of stay-in-the-fight resources puts the onus on magical healing to keep the game running. "You need to have a cleric." from 4 on this need has been lessened.

Hit Points are not health. They are not meat. They are not blood.

They are your ability to stay in the fight. More than anything, it's Endurance. One hit point left is not death's door. One hit point left is barely standing - a strong breeze could knock you over. You're burning effort and taking some pain to keep your insides in and your soft bits not burnt. Luck and Veteran Knowledge is another piece, but I'm going to focus a bit more on the physical.

Your closest tracking to actual health is probably hit dice - the things you burn to recover hp without magic. Pardon my gamism, but here you are discovering that some of those hits were a bit more serious, but you are recovering the energy to fight on. You've got the choice to be wounded, or be fit but at greater risk of serious injury later. You recover half of these at a time - and this is another spot where you could explore varying recovery if two days of rest (without significant reinjury / HD spending) to get from pulpy innards to full form is a bit fast.

Death Saves are when you take a nasty hit - your defenses, your vim, you can't pull your ass out of the fire in time. This is where I am most likely to add lingering injuries or exhaustion as a wound indicator.

So Cure Wounds. This has been a misnomer since 3rd ed. There is simply not enough actual wounding going on with more than 9hd+1-4 hp per level worth of hit points on a Hero. But we are also stuck with Wisdom for that "awareness and willpower" stat, six scores on a 3-18 bell curve for modifiers rather than just the modifiers, and Barbarian as the Battle Focus Fighting Style Which Really Isn't Attached To Nonpolitan Cultures, Y'Know?. The Vigor spells from 3.5s Complete Divine have a better name, as they are all about restoring energy to keep going. Proper injuries is more the realm of Restoration spells - removing the various damage-based conditions. Magical Healing still matters. It's that or you can introduce the Bone/Blood/Organ Ways from Rolemaster.*

This does create the break where Hit Dice cannot be recovered with magic, but "injuries" - penalizing or debilitating effects - can. There's probably some sort of life force argument here, but I will leave that as a question to consider.

Other folks have pointed out the variants (Slow Rest, Lingering Injuries) that might better fit your tastes. But I think the shift in perspective may help - but lingering injuries is a fun (for certain uses of the word) way to capture the damage.

* - Rolemaster, for all of its faults, really captured the hits vs injuries dynamic well. Points are "concussion" hits - wearing you down to a KO. Just about every attack ends up draining a few. Injuries are the results of Criticals - added effects of varying intensity depending on your weapon, your attack, and your luck on the table. Recovering hits naturally was rather rapid, and there were magical ways to help. But there was also an entire suite of spells to address the specific injury results from the crits. Crushing blow breaks your arm? Bone Ways has a spell to fix that.

[Man_Over_Game]

This is how the game was played for decades. People seemed to find it fun. We still had epic fights because sometimes you needed to push through.

Anyway, there's a huge gap between "lingering debilitating injuries" and "gaining all your HP every rest". They went way too far to one side.

For a midway point, do something like this:

Stamina Rules: "After a Long Rest, you do not regain hitpoints as normal. Instead, you spend your remaining Hit Dice until your HP is at full health. Then you gain your normal amount of Hit Dice back (half of your maximum) and continue spending Hit Dice until you are at full HP."

So you don't regenerate HP, you regenerate stamina. Having multiple stressful events in a row will result in not having any Hit Die for the day, or even not starting the day with full HP AND having no Hit Die to sustain yourself.

[Damon_Tor]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

Your "maximum hitpoints" are actually just ~50% of your body's tolerance for damage. The closer approximation is pain tolerance. When you're in too much pain (zero hitpoints) you fall unconscious. Pain can even kill you, as you go into shock (failed death saves).

Damage actually done to your body is tracked by your hit dice, and you only recover half your hit dice during a long rest, which means if you're badly damaged it takes you two full nights of recovery to fully heal.

And it's also worth noting that not all damage is recovered during a long rest. Anything actually missing from your body, such as limbs, do not grow back.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Except for 4th edition, D&D has never really figured out if it wants to treat hp as plot armor or as literal meat. Magic is generally the only way to restore hit points... except for a good night's sleep. Hit points are fighting spirit... except that mundane inspiration type mechanics mostly only give temporary hit points.

Regardless, if you want to treat hp as meat more than luck, replace long rest healing with a rule that says anyone capable of using healing magic can slowly restore up to 6 creatures to max hp during a long rest. Same practical effect, but now it's magic.

[Hipno]

HP is not wounds, it's an imaginary shield of "luck" that has no value or impact before 0 where the character becomes injured.

Generally I'll show this as evasion/armor at half or higher, light wounds under half, and critical wounds with a roll on the long term injury/ (S/L/I) madness tables at 0 or lower. A blow that deals over half a character's hp will also be portrayed as a wound.

Instant death from half is possible in deadly+ encounters so this seemed like a decent if not foolproof way of conveying HP in a manner that allows for suspension of disbelief on rest mechanics.

Gritty realism is pretty good for allowing hp as meat.

Heroism Points is my favourite interpritation of HP. Your not getting wounded every time you loose HP, your either running out of luck, stamina, conviction etc.

[Keravath]

Those rules were not counterproductive to the goal of having fun. Actually having to plan your actions carefully was the fun.



Yes. Surviving by being prudent and careful was how DnD was played for decades. It was fun.

Modern DnD is still fun, but it is basically formed from video game logic.

Really? We usually just spent a couple days at the inn while the cleric just prepared only healing spells .. cure light, cure serious (later cure moderate), heal if you actually got to that level. It might have taken the equivalent of a couple long rests and having a cleric or Druid in the party but functionally, from a character perspective, it really wasn’t that different from everyone getting their hit points back on a long rest .. except for the fact you don’t need a cleric. Toss in one more day of rest for the cleric to prepare his usual adventuring spells.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I actually made a setting element out of the HP = meat idea. It relies on the fact that it's a fictional world where the people just happen to outwardly look like humans, but have strong sub-surface differences in how they're put together. It turned out to work really well, and explained quite a lot. But it's not something I rely on for day-to-day play. It's more of a "well, we could explain it like..." counterfactual that happens to work well (in my opinion).

I certainly don't presume that it's part of the default narrative description for most worlds.

If anyone wants to read my write-up of it, it's on my setting site. (https://www.admiralbenbo.org/index.php/the-council-lands/11-metaphysics/50-worldbuilding-hit-points-and-healing)

[Naanomi]

HP aren't meat. They're luck, resolve, the will to live, fighting skill and health.

You get more if you're a good warrior and you get better with experience.
To be clear, it doesn’t *have* to be meat... but that can be a componant. I want my Dwarven Barbarian to have arrows sticking out of him and just keep coming, his HP are all meat... whereas my Halfling monk friend never gets hit until the blow that downs him

[PhoenixPhyre]

To be clear, it doesn’t *have* to be meat... but that can be a componant. I want my Dwarven Barbarian to have arrows sticking out of him and just keep coming, his HP are all meat... whereas my Halfling monk friend never gets hit until the blow that downs him

I agree. D&D is not designed to be realistic, it's designed to be cinematic. And a barbarian actively tanking blows and shrugging them off is totally cinematic, while the nimble type dodging by a hair until they get smacked out of the sky mid-acrobatic-dodge is also totally cinematic.

[thereaper]

A 15th level barbarian with a good con can be submerged in lava for almost six seconds and remain conscious. You know how long a real human being can survive (let alone remain conscious) after falling into lava?

Trick question; you're dead before you reach it.

D&D characters are superhuman. You're going to have to learn to live with it.

[Naanomi]

A 15th level barbarian with a good con can be submerged in lava forD&D characters are superhuman. You're going to have to learn to live with it.
An enhanced enough character can have what... 500HP? It can get funny the kinds of things that just cannot kill someone under any circumstances like that

[Luccan]

Don't really have problem with it. I played editions where injuries meant weeks without going on adventures: it was boring. A good group and DM can make it not boring, but the inherent rules were. You basically had to sit around and do nothing the entire time. At the same time, threats aren't the same this edition. Even if you're doing a good old fashioned dungeon delve for treasure, navigating back to town when your fighter drops halfway through doesn't present the same challenges in 5e. And if you incorporate them, you'll find they're often more monotonous than tense.

[JoeJ]

Don't really have problem with it. I played editions where injuries meant weeks without going on adventures: it was boring. A good group and DM can make it not boring, but the inherent rules were. You basically had to sit around and do nothing the entire time. At the same time, threats aren't the same this edition. Even if you're doing a good old fashioned dungeon delve for treasure, navigating back to town when your fighter drops halfway through doesn't present the same challenges in 5e. And if you incorporate them, you'll find they're often more monotonous than tense.

How is it boring for the DM to say, "okay, three weeks pass while you recover in town?" Times when nothing interesting is happening to the characters aren't generally played out.

[Naanomi]

How is it boring for the DM to say, "okay, three weeks pass while you recover in town?" Times when nothing interesting is happening to the characters aren't generally played out.
That isn’t any more realistic than the current long rest model is it? I mean... where is the years of rehab? The massive infection risk? The perminant damage that never recovers?

5e rules just mean a healing spellcaster to Handwave all that away in a day or two isn’t isn’t necessary like it used to be (and, for what it matters, I loved being a 2e healer, it was a big favorite; I wish 5e had found a good balance between making a useful healer while not necessitating one)

[Sigreid]

Think of it as more cinematic than realistic. He's got to be ready for his next big action hero scene.

[Max_Killjoy]

"The Long Rest" sounds like a euphemism for what comes after running out of HP entirely, and then failing save(s).

[mephnick]

Really? We usually just spent a couple days at the inn while the cleric just prepared only healing spells .. cure light, cure serious (later cure moderate), heal if you actually got to that level. It might have taken the equivalent of a couple long rests and having a cleric or Druid in the party but functionally, from a character perspective, it really wasn’t that different from everyone getting their hit points back on a long rest .. except for the fact you don’t need a cleric. Toss in one more day of rest for the cleric to prepare his usual adventuring spells.

I'm sorry your DM didn't understand pacing and risk/reward.

[MaxWilson]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

Yes. Likewise it bothers me that the party can fight off an Efreet, knocking it down from 200 HP to 82 HP before it manages to turn invisible and run away, and an hour later that Efreet can be back at full health. I think that's bad for the pace of the game, and it's better and more interesting if the adventure now includes "a wounded Efreet" instead of "an Efreet who has used up all of his Hit Dice and his daily Invisibility but is otherwise fine."

The house rule I like best for this is, "You do not heal to full health automatically on a long rest. Hit Dice can normally only be gained or spent on a long rest, instead of a short rest, and on any given rest you can spend HD or regain half of your HD but not both. However, Bardic Song of Healing now also allows you to spend one HD during a short rest."

The Efreet is now wounded for the rest of the day, and someone who is severely injured almost to death (e.g. -80 HP left out of 90 HP) can take up to four days to regain full stength, or even six days if they had already used up all of their HD. Note: negative HP are not normally a thing in 5E, that is another house rule on my part.

[Boci]

That isn’t any more realistic than the current long rest model is it? I mean... where is the years of rehab? The massive infection risk? The perminant damage that never recovers?

Yes it is. You're right, a week full heal isn't 100% realistic, but that doesn't mean 8 hour full heal is just as realistic.

I tend to use the slow natural healing varient rule in my games. It makes combat more meaningful without crippling the party too much.

[Astofel]

I find healing over time in older editions to be much more annoying. In Pathfinder, 8 hours of rest recovers 1 HP per hit dice, and no more. No Con mod or anything, so if you have a higher Con or a bigger hit die it actually takes you longer to heal. Slow healing like that can make the pacing suffer, and it necessitates having a healer in the party if you don't want to take days or weeks to get back to being fighting fit.

[Boci]

I find healing over time in older editions to be much more annoying. In Pathfinder, 8 hours of rest recovers 1 HP per hit dice, and no more. No Con mod or anything, so if you have a higher Con or a bigger hit die it actually takes you longer to heal. Slow healing like that can make the pacing suffer, and it necessitates having a healer in the party wand of infernal healing if you don't want to take days or weeks to get back to being fighting fit.

Fixed that for you. But yeah, that was where the system mastery aspect 3.5 and PF emerges. There were ways around the slower healing, but new groups would not know them. And for more expirienced groups, a DM may not like such tactics.

[Chronos]

I started playing D&D back in 2nd edition. Back then, healing from rest was much less generous, and it could take a month or more to naturally recover from serious wounds.

But even back then, healing magic existed, and spells replenished overnight. With the net result that, in practice, a night's rest usually actually was enough for the party to fully recover from whatever they'd suffered. Two nights, at most, one to swap out all of your other spells for healing spells, and then one to swap back to whatever you usually carried for adventuring.

5e just took that idea and ran with it. If, in practice, a night's rest is usually enough, then for the sake of the game, let's just say that it's enough. No, it's not realistic in the slightest, but it makes for a better game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I started playing D&D back in 2nd edition. Back then, healing from rest was much less generous, and it could take a month or more to naturally recover from serious wounds.

But even back then, healing magic existed, and spells replenished overnight. With the net result that, in practice, a night's rest usually actually was enough for the party to fully recover from whatever they'd suffered. Two nights, at most, one to swap out all of your other spells for healing spells, and then one to swap back to whatever you usually carried for adventuring.

5e just took that idea and ran with it. If, in practice, a night's rest is usually enough, then for the sake of the game, let's just say that it's enough. No, it's not realistic in the slightest, but it makes for a better game.

I agree. The other thing it did is mandate that you either had a cleric (pre 3e) or bought disposable wands. And both of those are a bit obnoxious to me. Way more obnoxious than a breach of "realism"...which D&D has never really had, or even tried to have. It's been unrealistic since day 1.

[Naanomi]

I agree. The other thing it did is mandate that you either had a cleric (pre 3e) or bought disposable wands. And both of those are a bit obnoxious to me. Way more obnoxious than a breach of "realism"...which D&D has never really had, or even tried to have. It's been unrealistic since day 1.
Hey now, you didn’t need a cleric... a Druid, specialty-priest, or (if built right) psionicist could also work

[Boci]

I agree. The other thing it did is mandate that you either had a cleric (pre 3e) or bought disposable wands. And both of those are a bit obnoxious to me. Way more obnoxious than a breach of "realism"...which D&D has never really had, or even tried to have.

This claim gets thrown around in these kind of threads, and its simply not true. D&D has always had elements of realism, and its need them, or the expirience gets too wierd. For example, why do small characters get disadvantage with heavy weapons? To prevent gnome and hafling fightins dominating the game? No. Its because of realism. They are too small to wield such weapons.

[PhoenixPhyre]

This claim gets thrown around in these kind of threads, and its simply not true. D&D has always had elements of realism, and its need them, or the expirience gets too wierd. For example, why do small characters get disadvantage with heavy weapons? To prevent gnome and hafling fightins dominating the game? No. Its because of realism. They are too small to wield such weapons.

Or because halflings with great swords don't fit the archetypal images? Yes, this has its roots in realism, but almost everything comes down to the archetypes that are being evoked. And in this case, the action hero "bandage that gaping wound and move on" image is what they're going for.

5e is more cinematic than realistic. Its physics bear much more relationship to Hollywood than to CERN. And I prefer it that way. For many reasons.

[Boci]

Or because halflings with great swords don't fit the archetypal images? Yes, this has its roots in realism, but almost everything comes down to the archetypes that are being evoked. And in this case, the action hero "bandage that gaping wound and move on" image is what they're going for.

By default sure, but the existence of two varient rules that change that (technically three if you count using both at the same time as a seperate mode) shows they wanted to accomodate the "sword wounds are serious" crowd as well.

[MaxWilson]

Or because halflings with great swords don't fit the archetypal images?

Bullroarer Took might have something to say about that sentence.

[guachi]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

Yes. That's why I use the handy alternate resting rules available to me in the DMG. I've been using them for three years now and like them very much.

[KyleG]

I thought of two ideas that am going to investigate the use of (here an elsewhere).

1. Treat your HP in increments of Hit Die as injuries perhaps?

2. Currently im looking at including a second Racial Hit die on character creation. This Hit die would represent physical injury on your way to the grave either being added to as you level (class hit die but con score adds to racial HP). A 4th level character would have Racial Die + 4x Con in Racial HP.

Neither are fleshed out just thoughts at this stage but I particularly like the Racial HP as a starting modifier too to differentiate between a gnome barbarian and a Half Orc barbarian

[Cynthaer]

Or because halflings with great swords don't fit the archetypal images? Yes, this has its roots in realism, but almost everything comes down to the archetypes that are being evoked. And in this case, the action hero "bandage that gaping wound and move on" image is what they're going for.

5e is more cinematic than realistic. Its physics bear much more relationship to Hollywood than to CERN. And I prefer it that way. For many reasons.


Bullroarer Took might have something to say about that sentence.
From my brief research, it looks like he was notable for (A) being relatively tall, and (B) hitting someone really hard with a club, which is in line with the base 5e rules.

The hypothetical archetype for "halfling with a Heavy weapon" would be more like "he wielded a tremendous club, so large that even a [human] man would struggle to lift it".

But even if that was Bullroarer Took, PhoenixPhyre's point still stands: "Realistic" or not, that's just not one of the archetypes they're drawing on to set the tone and feel of the base game.

Ultimately, nobody actually cares about "realism". What we care about is whether things are unrealistic in ways that defy our expectations for the genre, setting, and tone.

[Man_Over_Game]

From my brief research, it looks like he was notable for (A) being relatively tall, and (B) hitting someone really hard with a club, which is in line with the base 5e rules.

The hypothetical archetype for "halfling with a Heavy weapon" would be more like "he wielded a tremendous club, so large that even a [human] man would struggle to lift it".

But even if that was Bullroarer Took, PhoenixPhyre's point still stands: "Realistic" or not, that's just not one of the archetypes they're drawing on to set the tone and feel of the base game.

Ultimately, nobody actually cares about "realism". What we care about is whether things are unrealistic in ways that defy our expectations for the genre, setting, and tone.

That's a valid point. A Halfling with a giant club is a pretty comedic scene, and DnD isn't a very comedic game. That's something I'd expect more out of Fate.

[Boci]

Ultimately, nobody actually cares about "realism". What we care about is whether things are unrealistic in ways that defy our expectations for the genre, setting, and tone.

Which is exactly the same as saying everyone cares about realism, the degree to which is influenced by both personal taste and the established tropes and themes of the genre in question.

[Man_Over_Game]

Which is exactly the same as saying everyone cares about realism, the degree to which is influenced by both personal taste and the established tropes and themes of the genre in question.

Sure, but that's why we have variants to use.

The default is assuming the DM and the Players want to fight and do cool things most of the time. When you know enough to decide what you actually want, you can choose something other than the default.

Rather, the default is for when you don't know what you're doing, and now you can make your own decisions.

I've seen people want 5 minute Short Rests so that they can keep balance between Short/Long rest classes without slowing down the game. I've also seen people who want Short Rests to take a full night's sleep, because they want to maintain the same SR/LR balance but still only have one-two fights per day.

Neither is wrong. The worst thing you can do is decide there's a problem and do nothing about it. (Not an attack on you, just an overall statement)

[JoeJ]

That's a valid point. A Halfling with a giant club is a pretty comedic scene, and DnD isn't a very comedic game. That's something I'd expect more out of Fate.

Have you not seen the illustration of the zealot barbarian in XGtE? I can't see how making the figure a halfling would have made that picture any more absurd.

[Max_Killjoy]

Ultimately, nobody actually cares about "realism". What we care about is whether things are unrealistic in ways that defy our expectations for the genre, setting, and tone.


Never say "nobody" when it comes to this kind of thing.




Which is exactly the same as saying everyone cares about realism, the degree to which is influenced by both personal taste and the established tropes and themes of the genre in question.


For me, "genre" is a very thin defense that wears out in a hurry.

Don't tell me one thing but show me another... or tell me a lot of contradictory things... or show me a lot of contradictory things. Internal consistency matters, and being unrealistic in consistent ways matters.

Don't waste "unrealness" on trivial things or narrative contrivances.

[Boci]

Sure, but that's why we have variants to use.

Another reason why its wierd to say no one cares about realism, given the multiple people in this thread who have said they like the longer healing varient rules because they are more realistic.


For me, "genre" is a very thin defense that wears out in a hurry.

I think genre is relevant. If the genre is heroic fantasy, then however injuries are handled, there is an expectation they will not mirror real world humans, as then its kinda hard to have a heroic storyline when you need 6 months to recover from a sword stab. Now a modern detective game could easily, so genre certainly does play into our expectations of how realistic a game will be.

"Sci fi" virtually gurantees stupid technology that almost certainly won't work. Its basically a requirement. By contrast, a historical game would seem wierd with the addition.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think genre is relevant. If the genre is heroic fantasy, then however injuries are handled, there is an expectation they will not mirror real world humans, as then its kinda hard to have a heroic storyline when you need 6 months to recover from a sword stab. Now a modern detective game could easily, so genre certainly does play into our expectations of how realistic a game will be.

"Sci fi" virtually guarantees stupid technology that almost certainly won't work. Its basically a requirement. By contrast, a historical game would seem wierd with the addition.


Keep in mind that for multiple reasons, not all breaks from reality are equal or equivalent.

Does it enable the type of game you want to play or the type of story you want to tell -- or is it just laziness and trope-adherence?

Does it remain internally consistent, working the same way, with consequences followed through -- or is it all over the place?

[Boci]

Keep in mind that for multiple reasons, not all breaks from reality are equal or equivalent.

Exactly, and I feel genre plays into this. There are breaks from reality that are not only expected given a genre, but may very well be required. But just because X is super important for heroic fantasy doesn't mean X will work as well in sci-fi, and viceversa.

[Rukelnikov]

Yes. Likewise it bothers me that the party can fight off an Efreet, knocking it down from 200 HP to 82 HP before it manages to turn invisible and run away, and an hour later that Efreet can be back at full health. I think that's bad for the pace of the game, and it's better and more interesting if the adventure now includes "a wounded Efreet" instead of "an Efreet who has used up all of his Hit Dice and his daily Invisibility but is otherwise fine."

The house rule I like best for this is, "You do not heal to full health automatically on a long rest. Hit Dice can normally only be gained or spent on a long rest, instead of a short rest, and on any given rest you can spend HD or regain half of your HD but not both. However, Bardic Song of Healing now also allows you to spend one HD during a short rest."

The Efreet is now wounded for the rest of the day, and someone who is severely injured almost to death (e.g. -80 HP left out of 90 HP) can take up to four days to regain full stength, or even six days if they had already used up all of their HD. Note: negative HP are not normally a thing in 5E, that is another house rule on my part.

My group uses the same rule.

IMO your sig summarizes the "problem" perfectly (it's not really a problem, its a matter of how the game suits someones expectations)

[Aquillion]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...It's standard heroic fantasy stuff. In this genre, people just shrug off injuries like that with ease.

[JoeJ]

Exactly, and I feel genre plays into this. There are breaks from reality that are not only expected given a genre, but may very well be required. But just because X is super important for heroic fantasy doesn't mean X will work as well in sci-fi, and viceversa.

True, and only partly because of the genre's assumptions regarding the healing process itself. What the characters are expected to be doing plays a role as well. A PC who is recovering from a serious injury would not necessarily be unable to meaningfully participate in a Traveller campaign that was focused on interstellar trade and speculation. But if it's D&D, and the party expects to fight monsters in dungeons, that's a different matter.

[Boci]

True, and only partly because of the genre's assumptions regarding the healing process itself. What the characters are expected to be doing plays a role as well. A PC who is recovering from a serious injury would not necessarily be unable to meaningfully participate in a Traveller campaign that was focused on interstellar trade and speculation. But if it's D&D, and the party expects to fight monsters in dungeons, that's a different matter.

Rate of healing is actually less important for heroic fantasy, as shown by 3.5. Whatever you may or may not like about the system, it was heroic fantasy, and yet by default the heal rate was pretty slow. It needs to be faster than regular healing, and you need to be able to 100% heal given enough time, but whether its a single night or a week or two both still fit in the genre of heroic fantasy.

What won't work is realistic damage. If being shot at by 20 arrows works with any real semblance to how that would in real life, then the game does not fit into the heroic fantasy genre.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Rate of healing is actually less important for heroic fantasy, as shown by 3.5. Whatever you may or may not like about the system, it was heroic fantasy, and yet by default the heal rate was pretty slow. It needs to be faster than regular healing, and you need to be able to 100% heal given enough time, but whether its a single night or a week or two both still fit in the genre of heroic fantasy.

What won't work is realistic damage. If being shot at by 20 arrows works with any real semblance to how that would in real life, then the game does not fit into the heroic fantasy genre.

The natural healing rate was low, but that was completely made irrelevant by cheap consumables and spell slots. So the observed healing rate was high enough to meet conventions. And that's what matters. Basically, they had to allow for those things in order to make the supply of HP meet the demand for HP.

[Boci]

The natural healing rate was low, but that was completely made irrelevant by cheap consumables and spell slots. So the observed healing rate was high enough to meet conventions. And that's what matters. Basically, they had to allow for those things in order to make the supply of HP meet the demand for HP.

Yes, but whilst most groups did use that, either by having a healer, or having healing items, you didn't strickly needs them. To say you did would be to say you couldn't play D&D 3.5 without them, and yet you could. It happened occasionally, and was still heroic fantasy, albeit with a slightly different feel to one where the group could heal better.

Now with damage, there's no alternative. If you have even semi-reslistic damage, then it stops being heroic fantasy.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Yes, but whilst most groups did use that, either by having a healer, or having healing items, you didn't strickly needs them. To say you did would be to say you couldn't play D&D 3.5 without them, and yet you could. It happened occasionally, and was still heroic fantasy, albeit with a slightly different feel to one where the group could heal better.

Now with damage, there's no alternative. If you have even semi-reslistic damage, then it stops being heroic fantasy.

I agree about damage, but really, the "slow healing" option was to have one or more of

a) disposable characters
b) long breaks between fights (which doesn't fit heroic fantasy in my mind)
c) or a dedicated healer/buying healing from temples (which is not really slow healing).

So it was only the theoretical default and observed only in the breach. Not to mention that above the first few levels, you needed a source of condition removal, and that usually came attached to a cleric (NPC or PC). So it was a rather moot point.

[Boci]

I agree about damage, but really, the "slow healing" option was to have one or more of

a) disposable characters
b) long breaks between fights (which doesn't fit heroic fantasy in my mind)
c) or a dedicated healer/buying healing from temples (which is not really slow healing).


That's only true if the DM is running the game as combat is war, rather than combat is sport. If its the latter, then a group could get by dodging all three. Not a typical game expirience, but far from impossible. And combat as sport works kinda well for heroic fantasy as a genre.

[PhoenixPhyre]

That's only true if the DM is running the game as combat is war, rather than combat is sport. If its the latter, then a group could get by dodging all three. Not a typical game expirience, but far from impossible. And combat as sport works kinda well for heroic fantasy as a genre.

Avoiding those requires basically a no-damage run or adventures that are over within a single adventuring day. The first doesn't fit well with the "balanced encounters" (since it's a cakewalk), and the second doesn't leave much room for extended campaigns (and is the "large breaks between adventures" path).

[Boci]

Avoiding those requires basically a no-damage run or adventures that are over within a single adventuring day. The first doesn't fit well with the "balanced encounters" (since it's a cakewalk), and the second doesn't leave much room for extended campaigns (and is the "large breaks between adventures" path).

I don't know what else to tell you. People absolutly did play 3.5 without any significant amount of healing through abilities or magical items. Most groups would end using one of the above, but not all did, and the above parapragh kinda reads like your trying to logically disprove their expirences of the game.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't know what else to tell you. People absolutly did play 3.5 without any significant amount of healing through abilities or magical items. Most groups would end using one of the above, but not all did, and the above parapragh kinda reads like your trying to logically disprove their expirences of the game.

I guess I"m just not seeing how it's even possible to have all of

a) balanced fights (meaning not cakewalks)
b) frequent fights (multiple per day or even multiple per week)
c) no non-natural healing

especially at low levels.

Sure, you can theoretically do it, but it's certainly not a supported play-style. It's like a level 0 commoner run. It's taking things way beyond the design intent.

[ad_hoc]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

See: Every action movie

[MaxWilson]

That's only true if the DM is running the game as combat is war, rather than combat is sport. If its the latter, then a group could get by dodging all three. Not a typical game expirience, but far from impossible. And combat as sport works kinda well for heroic fantasy as a genre.

Are you sure you're not using those terms backwards? If you fight the monsters in front of you, assuming that the DM wouldn't give you a fair fight, that's Combat As Sport. If you avoid them at first and go find the neighboring tribe of orcs, use illusions to persuade them you're a god, and command them to go kill the monsters, that's Combat As War, because "in war there are no rules".

When you say "...could get [without healing] by dodging all three" that sounds more like Combat As War than Combat As Sport. Combat As Sport, which is PhoenixPhyre's preference AFAICT, almost guarantees that healing will be necessary on a regular basis, because the DM will be dissatisfied with any encounter that doesn't injure PCs and use up spells/abilities and will try to ensure that the next one does.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ThereAreNoRules


See: Every action movie

Averted in Batman: The Dark Knight Rises, where it takes Batman months(?) to heal after Bane beats him up.

[Boci]

Are you sure you're not using those terms backwards?

Possible. My understanding was combat as sport was when encounres were heavily influenced by the party's own abilities, since like in sport, competition and entertainment are the focus. Combat as war however is about survival which the DM expecting the players to adapt and overcome to challanges largely unchanged to reflect their capabilities, much like how war does not care about how equipt one particular unit of soldiers are.

[Luccan]

Averted in Batman: The Dark Knight Rises, where it takes Batman months(?) to heal after Bane beats him up.

Rule of Drama. Bane can't destroy Gotham's infrastructure and set up his nuke*if Batman recovers too quickly. Also, Bruce has to learn about Bane's past, Selena has to see the damage a lawless city yields, Jim has to be exposed, the officer who shall not be named has to lose hope in the GPD, etc.. Yet in every other film in that series he receives debilitating injuries and keeps going just fine. And even in Rises, his absolutely obliterated knee only works as a weakness when he's fighting Bane and Catwoman steals his mother's necklace. Because batgadgets. Also, keep in mind that injury it took him only months to heal and then be in perfectly fine condition? It was breaking his back. Sure, that might be a little much for a good night's sleep, even in an action film. But how often in game do you actually describe a PC's injury as being that debilitating and severe anyway?
*and the film makers can't inadvertently imply all poor people are straw-anarchists who are totally ok with mock trials and unfair death sentences. Seriously, Selena's friend seems way too into the fact that city has no power and is ruled by a murderous tyrant.

[Mordaedil]

I guess I"m just not seeing how it's even possible to have all of

a) balanced fights (meaning not cakewalks)
b) frequent fights (multiple per day or even multiple per week)
c) no non-natural healing

especially at low levels.

Sure, you can theoretically do it, but it's certainly not a supported play-style. It's like a level 0 commoner run. It's taking things way beyond the design intent.

The way I saw this used, which wasn't very often, was by use of towns with healers and buying their services. Mind, it involves a lot of traveling and abandoning dungeons half-way through, to return later. Even then, it was only because the cleric was the one to die and we needed a new one, body wasn't even retrievable, so raising him wasn't feasible or affordable.

But you know, DM's often adapt the game depending on how the party setup is and that means accounting for the lack of a healer. Some classes in 3.5 are full capable of never taking a hit, since AC isn't bounded like it is in 5e.

[Dr. Cliché]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

It does indeed bother me. Though the ability of characters to spring back to full health on a short rest is equally bothersome (and seems to exist as a carryover of 4th's godawful Healing Surge mechanic).

I know that some people like to view hit points as "luck" or "endurance" or some other nonsense, but (outside of the wonky, non-magical healing) the game mechanics really don't back either of those up.

Barbarian gets struck be lightning - "Oof! Right in the endurance!" :smallconfused:

Also, it seems that wyverns and the like have the impressive ability to sting PCs and inject them with poison without ever physically injuring them.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The way I saw this used, which wasn't very often, was by use of towns with healers and buying their services. Mind, it involves a lot of traveling and abandoning dungeons half-way through, to return later. Even then, it was only because the cleric was the one to die and we needed a new one, body wasn't even retrievable, so raising him wasn't feasible or affordable.


So not very much heroic fantasy--that's very much in the dark and gritty style. Heroes keep pressing on. Plus still using non-natural healing.



But you know, DM's often adapt the game depending on how the party setup is and that means accounting for the lack of a healer. Some classes in 3.5 are full capable of never taking a hit, since AC isn't bounded like it is in 5e.

From level 1? I doubt it. Especially since 3e characters are even more squishy at level 1 than 5e characters, from what I understand. Sure, using high-OP means and at high levels, you might not take any physical damage. But you still have tons of conditions you need removed or need to be immune to, both of which generally require healing-capable casters.

[MoiMagnus]

It does indeed bother me. Though the ability of characters to spring back to full health on a short rest is equally bothersome (and seems to exist as a carryover of 4th's godawful Healing Surge mechanic).

I know that some people like to view hit points as "luck" or "endurance" or some other nonsense, but (outside of the wonky, non-magical healing) the game mechanics really don't back either of those up.

Barbarian gets struck be lightning - "Oof! Right in the endurance!" :smallconfused:

Also, it seems that wyverns and the like have the impressive ability to sting PCs and inject them with poison without ever physically injuring them.
The mecanics don't back up injuries too.
"Sure, I got hit 17 times by a sword without having any armor, I have injuries everywhere, but I'm fine and no problems, but the 18th time someone strike me, I will be on the ground not being able to to anything, and may die spontaneously in 18s with probably 1/8"

Part of the game mecanics back up the "HP loss are real injuries", other back up "HP loss protect you against real injuries".

But that's a common choice in a lot of mediums.
In a lot of video games, you (and the enemies) are fully healed between each fight, and when you strike you're still "hitting/burning/..." the enemy, and for most players it doesn't break immersion into the universe.
In a lot of stories (books or films), characters tends to always get out of fight unwounded, or have unrealistically quick healing, or both. And unless the story actually claim to be fully realistic, it doesn't break my immersion.

[Bloodcloud]

My own little homebrew explanation for it is that a small fraction of the population is highly reactive to "green herb", a common and plentifull medical plant. For thyese few, the herb gives them wolverine-like healing factor when applied.

Adventurers, of course, are exclusively of that kind of people.

[PhoenixPhyre]

My own little homebrew explanation for it is that a small fraction of the population is highly reactive to "green herb", a common and plentifull medical plant. For thyese few, the herb gives them wolverine-like healing factor when applied.

Adventurers, of course, are exclusively of that kind of people.

I actually have a setting-based explanation for HP, HD, and healing. It's nothing like "realistic"[1] and it has far-reaching consequences for the nature of the beings we call "humans"[2], but I think it works.

Basically, HP are actually a direct measure of the body (and soul)'s ability to fast-heal injuries. So you take a hit, and if you have HP left afterward, the damage caused is gone. But your short-term reserves are depleted. The way that PCs are special is that they are among the few who have essentially uncapped potential for growth of this ability. Others can too, but most normal people have limits (essentially a person-by-person "level" cap). Given a good night's sleep, the body can replenish this pool totally from other resources, at the cost of needing food.

HD are the longer-term reserves of energy that can be used (given some breathing space) to refill the HP reserve pool. Bigger creatures (and those more physically-focused like barbarians or fighters) have developed their reserves more. Note that HD can also be used as a measure of the total soul capacity (which is important for things like blood magic). Draining a high-power person is worth more than an infant. Restoring this pool takes more time.

Going to 0 HP causes incapacitation as your body goes into panic mode trying to cannibalize anything it can to get you up and going again. Injuries sustained in that last hit tend to last--your body heals cuts into scars, bones knit wrong, etc. People who go to 0 HP and stabilize normally also tend to wake up starving, as their body cannibalizes its own structures for energy. I don't use the lasting injury mechanic for PCs (due to game reasons), but it's in effect for NPCs. Healing magic/potions are concentrated, "pre-digested" energy designed to be easily accessible to the body to refill the HP pool.

[1] as it assumes that everyone heals like this and that yes, you can tank a swipe from a giant's club and be no worse for wear. But most people are commoners (or not much better), so one arrow or a good hit will KO them.

[2] For one thing, it demands that the biology in the setting is completely different than that on Earth. There are no cells, no differentiated tissue. No atoms or molecules.

[Roderick_BR]

If you think HP heals too quickly in 5e (just remember it's not a full heal, you need to roll those dice), and wants the characters to have some downtime, you could use that optional rule on the DMG where short rest becomes the 8 hour long/once a day thing, and long rest becomes an once a week thing. Just apply it only to HP and HD tough, because leaving the party without most abilities all week long will cause riots.

[R.Shackleford]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

No different than a lot of movies and stories. D&D doesn't simulate real life, it simulates movies/stories.

[Dr. Cliché]

The mecanics don't back up injuries too.
"Sure, I got hit 17 times by a sword without having any armor, I have injuries everywhere, but I'm fine and no problems, but the 18th time someone strike me, I will be on the ground not being able to to anything, and may die spontaneously in 18s with probably 1/8"

True. It's certainly wonky that there's no mechanical effect to injuries until you drop to 0hp.

Not really related, but it's also weird that heavier armour makes you harder to hit, rather than reducing damage.




But that's a common choice in a lot of mediums.
In a lot of video games, you (and the enemies) are fully healed between each fight, and when you strike you're still "hitting/burning/..." the enemy, and for most players it doesn't break immersion into the universe.
In a lot of stories (books or films), characters tends to always get out of fight unwounded, or have unrealistically quick healing, or both. And unless the story actually claim to be fully realistic, it doesn't break my immersion.

I partially agree. However, I'd actually argue that characters getting out of deadly situations unwounded or recovering from wounds almost instantly (in spite of supposedly having no special powers), can easily break immersion if pushed too far.

I can't speak for others but I've lost interest in a number of shows because the plot armour of the hero(es) broke my immersion entirely.

[Boci]

The mecanics don't back up injuries too.
"Sure, I got hit 17 times by a sword without having any armor, I have injuries everywhere, but I'm fine and no problems, but the 18th time someone strike me, I will be on the ground not being able to to anything, and may die spontaneously in 18s with probably 1/8"

The problem is they often don't, but they also often do. Wyverns and scorpions have already been mentioned, injecting poison with stingers roughly the side of a longsword that somehow only just break the skin. Then theres the monster for which it matters what the weapon is made of (silver or adamantium), which doesn't make too much sense is a sword never really cuts until 0 hp. What about hold person? Your paralyzed, so how exactly do the crits work then? You couldn't are mitigating them through any movement, however slight.

[Willie the Duck]

Does it bother anyone that you can be a 15th barbarian, say, and have one 1hp left and rest for 8 hours and be fully healed? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this. Maybe someone can explain to me how this is realistic...

Well, along with high-level characters able to fall from terminal velocity and routinely survive, shrug off being surrounded by fire (equating to 75%-100% coverage burns), or as others have mentioned survive dunking in lava, the game fails some basic realism tests. Others have talked up the hit points as endurance or luck, but I'll paraphrase Mike Mornard, one of the original D&D playtesters: 'Hit points are hit points and they represent hit points. They were never anything except a gamist pacing mechanism.' See, Chainmail, the game which original D&D was based off of, had the following mechanism for being hit: a super-hero (high level fighter, by out terms) had to be surrounded by eight regular men (or the equivalent number of greater opponents, which were said to each 'count as two men' or the like). Each of those opponents all had to make a successful hit against the superhero on the same round, in which case he was defeated. People wanted some status in between full-health and down for the count, so HP were born. It was never meant to be more than that. retroactive explanations abound, and boy are there contradictions with any of them (such as how can healing magic or healer feat restore hp if it is combat luck?, etc.).


Anyway, there's a huge gap between "lingering debilitating injuries" and "gaining all your HP every rest". They went way too far to one side.

By default. They made a relatively quick recovery model the default mode. They included multiple alternate models of both rest and healing right there in the DMG under the optional rules flag. Mind you, I think they went a little overboard (I would have made the default be that with a long rest you got back no hit points, but some or all of your HD to spend), but overall I think it has the kernel of the right decision. They finally made one game for both the 8 year olds learning to play (potentially without adult tutelage) and for the adults, with nice, clean, clear asides in the DMG that practically telegraphs 'if your group has gotten used to this edition, and needs a little more challenge...' I do not know why the optional rules are not mentioned more in online discussion (kudos to everyone on this thread for repeatedly pointing them out). They are clearly there for those of us who feel the default is a little far to one side.


In older editions of D&D, you just got back 1-2 hitpoints after resting, and before 3rd edition you had very limited amounts of hit points you could earn, only rolling dice until 9HD of your class, then you only gain 1-2 hit points from that point onward.

The first version of the game I owned (BECMI) actually had no natural hit point recovery rules. It was assumed that you healed up in between adventures, and otherwise needed to find a cleric. It is a different experience, with lots of character management and balance of resources (in that regards, both Mephnick and MoiMagnus are right. Mephnick in that it was done for years, and MoiMagnus in that it doesn't support the style of play of today). I generally feel the need to point out the enjoyable qualities it has to people who think of early D&D gaming as some kind of obsolete dark age and the need to point out its constraints when someone tries to imply modern gamers are somehow less mature or playing de-digitized video-games.

[MaxWilson]

The problem is they often don't, but they also often do. Wyverns and scorpions have already been mentioned, injecting poison with stingers roughly the side of a longsword that somehow only just break the skin. Then theres the monster for which it matters what the weapon is made of (silver or adamantium), which doesn't make too much sense is a sword never really cuts until 0 hp. What about hold person? Your paralyzed, so how exactly do the crits work then? You couldn't are mitigating them through any movement, however slight.

Aside: this is a bit like how movie superheroes can smash each other through brick buildings without excessive trauma, but stab one with a knife and suddenly he's on the ground bleeding to death. A real human being on the other hand can sometimes shrug off stab wounds, but throw him through a brick wall and he'll break like an egg.

Also it makes no sense that 5E still gives paralyzed creatures their Dex bonus to AC.

[Boci]

Also it makes no sense that 5E still gives paralyzed creatures their Dex bonus to AC.

Realistically absolutly it makes no sense, but from a design point it makes perfect sense: situational modifiers are handled almost exclusivly by advantage and disadvantage. There are few numeral modifiers to the base of proficiency + relevant ability mod, and fewer still that are situational. By giving advantage and hit = crit to paralyzed creatures, 5th ed means players don't need to keep track of their regular AC, and AC without dex mod, nor do they need to remember if various AC bonuses (second stat from monk or barbarian, shield of faith) apply when paralyzed.

[Willie the Duck]

I tend to be a little more forgiving when the rules telegraph, 'we darn well know you get a bonus to hit a paralyzed foe. Here's a bonus. It's not the right bonus, but we're trying to keep things simple here.'

[PhoenixPhyre]

Realistically absolutly it makes no sense, but from a design point it makes perfect sense: situational modifiers are handled almost exclusivly by advantage and disadvantage. There are few numeral modifiers to the base of proficiency + relevant ability mod, and fewer still that are situational. By giving advantage and hit = crit to paralyzed creatures, 5th ed means players don't need to keep track of their regular AC, and AC without dex mod, nor do they need to remember if various AC bonuses (second stat from monk or barbarian, shield of faith) apply when paralyzed.

Right. I, for one, really really don't want to bring back conditional modifiers. No more flat-foot AC, touch AC, no more if-then chains and tracking interactions. I don't have the brain space for that anymore. Especially as a DM--keeping track of a bunch of monsters and their abilities and tactics while keeping the game moving is already enough work. I'm totally happy to sacrifice fidelity of representation for simplicity and consistency (AC either always or never includes DEX, based on the type of armor).

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, along with high-level characters able to fall from terminal velocity and routinely survive, shrug off being surrounded by fire (equating to 75%-100% coverage burns), or as others have mentioned survive dunking in lava, the game fails some basic realism tests. Others have talked up the hit points as endurance or luck, but I'll paraphrase Mike Mornard, one of the original D&D playtesters: 'Hit points are hit points and they represent hit points. They were never anything except a gamist pacing mechanism.' See, Chainmail, the game which original D&D was based off of, had the following mechanism for being hit: a super-hero (high level fighter, by out terms) had to be surrounded by eight regular men (or the equivalent number of greater opponents, which were said to each 'count as two men' or the like). Each of those opponents all had to make a successful hit against the superhero on the same round, in which case he was defeated. People wanted some status in between full-health and down for the count, so HP were born. It was never meant to be more than that. retroactive explanations abound, and boy are there contradictions with any of them (such as how can healing magic or healer feat restore hp if it is combat luck?, etc.).


I find that the more editions or players try to explain D&D's HP as anything other than a purely "gamist" mechanism, the worse they make the whole thing sound, with layer upon layer of self-contradiction, conflation, and confusion.

[JoeJ]

Right. I, for one, really really don't want to bring back conditional modifiers. No more flat-foot AC, touch AC, no more if-then chains and tracking interactions. I don't have the brain space for that anymore. Especially as a DM--keeping track of a bunch of monsters and their abilities and tactics while keeping the game moving is already enough work. I'm totally happy to sacrifice fidelity of representation for simplicity and consistency (AC either always or never includes DEX, based on the type of armor).

Adding complexity for the sake of realism to a system that is not remotely realistic to begin with is rather pointless. The entire D&D damage system, with hit points that increase by level, and armor that makes you harder to hit (rather than reducing damage from a hit) is fundamentally absurd. We accept it because it works just fine as a game mechanic, and because it wouldn't feel like D&D if it were changed to something significantly different.

[Boci]

Adding complexity for the sake of realism to a system that is not remotely realistic to begin with is rather pointless.

If that were true no one would play 3.5 over 5th ed. Yet people do, because they like the realism (amoung other things) the extra complexity adds, even in the context of heroic fantasy game and all the breaks from reality that genre entails/encourages.

[Willie the Duck]

If that were true no one would play 3.5 over 5th ed. Yet people do, because they like the realism (amoung other things) the extra complexity adds, even in the context of heroic fantasy game and all the breaks from reality that genre entails/encourages.

Well, do we know that people play 3.5 for the realism?

But I think the greater point is sort of an analog of significant digits -- Adding realism to the dodge-paralyze mechanic when the base AC mechanism is your realism limiting component does not necessarily increase the realism in the situation (analog to punching pi into your calculator out to nine decimal places instead of 3.14 for a circumference calculation when you only know the radius out to 2 sig. figs).

[JoeJ]

If that were true no one would play 3.5 over 5th ed. Yet people do, because they like the realism (amoung other things) the extra complexity adds, even in the context of heroic fantasy game and all the breaks from reality that genre entails/encourages.

Those people are not me. My preference for editions - from best to worst - is:

5e
2e
1e
Original D&D
3.x

(I've never played, or wanted to play, 4e, so it's not on the list.)

[Boci]

Well, do we know that people play 3.5 for the realism?

Yes. Not exclusivly, but yes, the realism from the complexity is a plus for some. I know that.


Those people are not me.

That's faiur. I just don't get the whole dissmissing such a preference as "pointless".

[Max_Killjoy]

If that were true no one would play 3.5 over 5th ed. Yet people do, because they like the realism (amoung other things) the extra complexity adds, even in the context of heroic fantasy game and all the breaks from reality that genre entails/encourages.

From what I recall of playing 3.5, I don't think the complexity adds a any more "realism", just more complexity. It adds perhaps the illusion of "realism" by having mechanisms that claim to address situational complexities, but the results that come out the other end are still just as wonky as without those mechanisms.

[PhoenixPhyre]

From what I recall of playing 3.5, I don't think the complexity adds a any more "realism", just more complexity. It adds perhaps the illusion of "realism" by having mechanisms that claim to address situational complexities, but the results that come out the other end are still just as wonky as without those mechanisms.

I agree. You get the illusion of realism (since there's so many moving parts that surely it fits reality!), but in reality it's just as unreal.

[Boci]

From what I recall of playing 3.5, I don't think the complexity adds a any more "realism", just more complexity. It adds perhaps the illusion of "realism" by having mechanisms that claim to address situational complexities, but the results that come out the other end are still just as wonky as without those mechanisms.

No, it added realism. You could bypass someones armour, typically using magic, but also using select martial ability that could be fluffed as going for the throat/other unprotected area, or just thowing your weapon clean through. There was absolutly more realism. Whether or not the complexity was worth it is a matter of persoanl taste, but -illusion of "realism" is a smart way of saying nothing. Realistically you should not get your dex bonus when paralyzed. Therefor realistically a high dex character would be penalized more than a low dex character. They are in 3.5, they arem't in 5th ed. Again, noty saying this makes one edition better, but on a level purely of realism, there is a clear winner. That's not illusion, anymore than the entire game could be written off as.

[JoeJ]

That's faiur. I just don't get the whole dissmissing such a preference as "pointless".

Perhaps I should have made it more clear that this is just my subjective opinion. It seems pointless to me. Equally playable but much more realistic options have been available since at least 1977 that I know of* and for most games that are not D&D, I greatly prefer them. For D&D, I'm happy to leave things as they are and handwave the lack of realism.

(*The example I'm thinking of is Metagaming's Melee, created by Steve Jackson, which was later expanded into the combat system used in GURPS.)

[Max_Killjoy]

No, it added realism. You could bypass someones armour, typically using magic, but also using select martial ability that could be fluffed as going for the throat/other unprotected area, or just thowing your weapon clean through. There was absolutly more realism. Whether or not the complexity was worth it is a matter of persoanl taste, but -illusion of "realism" is a smart way of saying nothing. Realistically you should not get your dex bonus when paralyzed. Therefor realistically a high dex character would be penalized more than a low dex character. They are in 3.5, they arem't in 5th ed. Again, noty saying this makes one edition better, but on a level purely of realism, there is a clear winner. That's not illusion, anymore than the entire game could be written off as.

Bypassing armor still applied the effect of that attack to the HP contrivance -- or became one of the umpteen exceptions to HP that meant it was also bypassing all the things that HP sometimes did or didn't "include" based on all the retro-explanations.

And then there were the rules with tons of stacking and countermanding modifiers that ended up producing results just as wonky as if the modifiers weren't there... I think that was the edition where trying to jump onto or over things resulted in comical results, but it's been over 20 years since I last messed with that iteration of D&D.

[Boci]

Bypassing armor still applied the effect of that attack to the HP contrivance

So? The ability to bypass armour and dex mod to AC added depth and realism to combat. You don't have to think the complexity neccessary to achieve this was worth it, but arguing that it was all just an illusion is a really strange hill to plant your flag on. Different editions have different merits. That's how editions work.

[PhoenixPhyre]

So? The ability to bypass armour and dex mod to AC added depth and realism to combat. You don't have to think the complexity neccessary to achieve this was worth it, but arguing that it was all just an illusion is a really strange hill to plant your flag on. Different editions have different merits. That's how editions work.

You ended up with more realism in one way and less realism (or more corner cases where realism fails hard) in others. Overall, it's a wash. In exchange for oodles more complexity.

Now some people enjoy complexity for its own sake. But saying that it's measurably more realistic in total is a real hard sell for me.

[R.Shackleford]

So? The ability to bypass armour and dex mod to AC added depth and realism to combat. You don't have to think the complexity neccessary to achieve this was worth it, but arguing that it was all just an illusion is a really strange hill to plant your flag on. Different editions have different merits. That's how editions work.

If you want realism... The defender should ha ethe choice to try and dodge an attack (dex save) or try to resist/absorb the attack (armor check of some sort).

D&D doesn't do realism and the depth that bypassing armor gave... Was just fiddly rules to help bandage other fiddly rules

[Boci]

If you want realism... The defender should ha ethe choice to try and dodge an attack (dex save) or try to resist/absorb the attack (armor check of some sort).

No, that's just that flat out not true. Defence isn't an all or nothing dodge or block. You can infact incorporate elements of dodging and blocking into one defence.

[R.Shackleford]

No, that's just that flat out not true. Defence isn't an all or nothing dodge or block. You can infact incorporate elements of dodging and blocking into one defence.

Trying to hit someone depends a lot on how the defender is, well, defending.

Watch boxing.

If a defender is more of a tank, it's easier to hit them. If they're agile, it's harder to hit them. It's dependent on the defender and their style unless you can overwhelm them to a huge degree (in which case, why are you even bothering to roll dice).

I love when people claim they want realism but then don't bring realism into the conversation.

[Boci]

I love when people claim they want realism but then don't bring realism into the conversation.

You mean like you claiming defence is all or nothing, dodge or block, and then citing boxing to defend your position, a sport with neither armour, shields, or weapons to parry with?

You're right, it is funny. You're just bad at judging the culprit.

[R.Shackleford]

You mean like you claiming defence is all or nothing, dodge or block, and then citing boxing to defend your position, a sport with neither armour, shields, or weapons to parry with?

You're right, it is funny. You're just bad at judging the culprit.

Defense is based on the defender, not the attacker.

The defender chooses if they're being agile or more of a tank.

Pretending like the attacker gets to choose for the defender is straight up fantasy.

[Boci]

Defense is based on the defender, not the attacker.

The defender chooses if they're being agile or more of a tank.

Pretending like the attacker gets to choose for the defender is straight up fantasy.

Here you go again with the all or nothing again. All sides in a fight can influence the flow of battle, and all sides will try to do so in a manner that they judge is beneficial to them.

[Max_Killjoy]

You ended up with more realism in one way and less realism (or more corner cases where realism fails hard) in others. Overall, it's a wash. In exchange for oodles more complexity.

Now some people enjoy complexity for its own sake. But saying that it's measurably more realistic in total is a real hard sell for me.


To me, the problem is that the core / skeleton of D&D was not built to be realistic, and there's no way change that -- d20, levels, classes, etc, just doesn't even form a rough approximation of feeling

I mean, I tried like hell to quote-unquote "fix" D&D back in the day, but every "fix" just shuffled the corner cases and odd results around and demanded another fix.

[Boci]

To me, the problem is that the core / skeleton of D&D was not built to be realistic, and there's no way change that -- d20, levels, classes, etc, just doesn't even form a rough approximation of feeling

I mean, I tried like hell to quote-unquote "fix" D&D back in the day, but every "fix" just shuffled the corner cases and odd results around and demanded another fix.

Yeah, if you find yourself needing to fix issues that aren't balance related in a system its a pretty good sign the system is not for you.

[Rukelnikov]

Yeah, if you find yourself needing to fix issues that aren't balance related in a system its a pretty good sign the system is not for you.

I've never found a system that me or my group didn't tweak within the first campaign playing it. SWd6 is probably the one we tweaked the least though.

[Boci]

I've never found a system that me or my group didn't tweak within the first campaign playing it. SWd6 is probably the one we tweaked the least though.

Absolutly, but tweaking is not fixing. Tweaking is "this is agood, but I can make it better for me and my group sepcifically". Fixing is "something doesn't fit, enough to bother me when I use this system".

[Rukelnikov]

Absolutly, but tweaking is not fixing. Tweaking is "this is agood, but I can make it better for me and my group sepcifically". Fixing is "something doesn't fit, enough to bother me when I use this system".

Oh, I see what you mean. Truly fixing because something just doesn't work for my playstyle, has only happened to me with the systems I played extensively, which worked at first but over time some things became recurring issues.

I think its inevitable though, it would be pretty hard for a system to be perfect 100% of the time, and after years playing in a system those moments when its not right are what you end up noticing the most.