Falling in love with 13th Age VERY quickly. The best part after your awesome explanation is that nothing about the system really ties you down to a fantasy world. Can't wait to see what I can do with this.
I really appreciated the part near the end (around 12:23) where you explain how characters in 13th age aren't created as low level adventurers that eventually become powerful over time, but start off already heroically capable. That's the kind of 'feeling' info I've been looking for.
Great video, my favourite part is reading how the designers disagree in the rules. It really gives you permission to disagree yourself and change things.
You really get that feel of "building up to the megazord" because often your most powerful spells and abilities can only be used once per battle or per long rest. So instead of D&D where you want to whip out your most powerful stuff as soon as possible to get the highest advantage, in 13th Age you're incentivized to save up and wait for the escalation die to give you a +5 or +6 bonus at a critical moment later in the fight before unleashing that fireball
I love this game as well. I introduced it to my gaming group and it replaced 5e completely. The escalation in combat does increase the excitement in battle.
I play with people who refuse to try anything other than 3.0/3.5. I own a good portion of the 13th Age books and have run it a few times, and it's by far one of my favorite fantasy RPGs due to the flexibility in character creation and how it has a decent amount of mechanics but plays so much like a rules-light game.
Glad to see you're trying to get back into the TTRPG commentary game, friend! Hope the post-OGL 1.1 resurgence in community dialogue raises you up with it. Cheers!
Nice video! What I really like about 13th Age is it does the hero fantasy d20 game really well. Sure it doesn’t do any other kind of fantasy well, but there are different games for that! It’s also very easily tweaked, if you don’t like the Backgrounds you can add the 5e skill list and put the points into those for example.
I played maybe 3 sessions back in like 2016, and then mostly forgot about the experience. But I was recently reminded of its existence and started poking at it. And what I realized very quickly is that I've spent the last couple of months mostly reinventing 13th Age-style mechanics whenever I think about how I'd improve upon the One D&D playtest. Indeed, for a while I've been thinking about essentially rewriting the classes from scratch to better tie in with the lore and more evenly fill the design space. At first for 5e, because that's the game where more than half the classes outright offend my sensibilities (and nothing quite motivates me to homebrew like spite). Then for PF2e, because it has a far nicer engine. But now I'm realizing 13th Age already does half of what I want and makes the other half easier. Kinda sad to give up the brilliance of the 4 level success and +10 to crit system, as well as the archetype system (here's hoping 13th Age 2e draws some inspiration, to the extent those systems mesh with 13th Age's engine), but it's ultimately a small price to pay for what 13th Age does well.
This is exactly why I'm interested. 😄 I'm finally replacing my stolen 4e rulebooks, but if I can't get my friends to agree to play it I'll likely try 13th Age instead!
@@polyhedron3386 I think you need to make this one of your current trademarks, focus on 13th Age, as it's having a late resurgence and many of us are eager to see more on it
It's weird hearing people whine about 3E and 4E rules being used in 13th Age. Like, what do they think the ENORMOUS controversy about the OGL was about?
In old school D&D, characters were viewed as SUPPOSED to be exceptional, with higher then average stats. Otherwise they would just be 0 level serfs and the like. Just like the observation that not everyone is a runner, scientist, nature enthusiast, etc in the real world. So I'm all for epic heros personally.
In play, I found backgrounds to be a little bit of a hassle. As a GM I don't really enjoy the negotiation that comes with the vague nature of whether they are applicable.
The nice thing about it is we can easily run it more or less strict depending on how much the group(and GM of course) enjoys the haggling of backgrounds. Most of the time people will have something that applies, though not always. We can also reward half their background too if it makes sense. It opens up the door for Gms to make more unique skill challenges that perhaps only one of the players can qualify for.
One thing I love, and it makes much more sense, is using your level for the number of damage dice. Level 1 fighter hits with a long-sword: 1d8 damage, Level 5 fighter hits with a long-sword: 5d8 damage! I've been GMing pathfinder and a level 7 Ranger attacking with a longbow has 1d20+13 to hit! and a measly 1d8+3 for damage. So underwhelming.
My big question is, does the combat feel tactical without a grid? like, do decisions made in combat feel like they are the dominant contributor to success in combat? or is it more just the dice deciding things? I really enjoy gridless systems, but I have found that beyond basics like focus fire, there often isn't much to think about tactically. That works at tables where all the players are happy to put all their brainpower into coming up with descriptions and dialogue during combat to express their characters, but whenever I have players that I know want to engage with game mechanics primarily during combat, I break out the grid systems. would 13th age provide a tactical experience for them without me having to prep detailed battlemaps with engaging terrain?
It’s definitely not as tactical as something like Pathfinder but yeah combat can get pretty intense. You need to be smart about resource management, movement, and usually each class has their own little mini game going. You can definitely make better decisions to get better results.
I think its a bit a shame that you did not, at least for this video, look into d&d 4e. Since 13th age builds heavily on it (but without a grit). Alsp 4E is a really interesting system to play itself if you like the tactical combat
I think D&D already extremely narratively restrictive and linear and streamlined. I don't like D&D and I'm guessing the 13th Age will not be my cup of tea.
I’d say 13th Age is like a more narrative version of D&D, so if you like the d20 system but wish it was more narrative, you might like this. But it’s not like the narrative chaos of PBTA games for example.
You are right about D&D, but I think you're wrong regarding 13th Age. 13th Age uses a simple version of the D&D engine, but it has lots of narrative-emphasis rules which make it run much more like Fate Core or PbtA in terms of player-agency and free-form involvement in the story, just with a bit more structure at times. Some of the supplements are far more creative than anything I have read in TSR and WotC D&D, it's more like the richness you see with writers who pen Talislanta, Glorantha, Numenera, etc. It's a narrative game with a few more nuts n bolts for action scenes (not complex however), everything else is more based on rulings trather than rules.
I always hated Recoveries. It makes zero sense if I have enough potions to heal myself but drinking them does no good if I'm out of Recoveries. Another one of the many weak points from 4th ed D&D.
Yeah Recoveries don't work at all with D&D 4E, it was far too gamist for its own good. Hard to simulate reality and straight-jacketed telling a story due to the gamist focus of D&D 4E, so yeah Recoveries sucked there. Bit of a different situation here due to the narrative emphasis of 13th Age, and Recoveries work fine here. Your character has so many opportunities for recovery in a story, that's what it is portraying. You use your recovery opportunity for rallying, healing, etc and it can have its effects boosted with things like healing magic and potions etc. If you have already used up all your recovery opportunities and still want to use a healing potion, its up to the GM if this is a scene or not. If not, then it just doesn't happen in the story, but if so then you get half effect - thats a gamist compromise. Nothing simulationist at all with this game, its all about narrative scenes and such. Very much not 'objective' like TSR/WotC D&D.
It makes perfect sense. Your body just has a limit it can be recovered in a day. You have some reserves for stamina but at some point they are used up.
@@tigriscallidus4477 It's still a horrible mechanic that isn't represented in the fiction of anything but video games which makes sense because that's all 4th ed was, an early attempt to try to coopt the MMORPG crowd by turning D&D into a tabletop video game and they're still doing it with this latest push toward WotC's version of Roll20 and trying to get away from physical products. I never thought I'd be ok with walking away from D&D but they made it easy.
@@FellVoice let me guess you never played ab mmo nor 4th edition right? You also never did martial arts. Healing surges is a brilliant and really realistic mechanic. If you have a fight you need a lot of stamina for blocking etc. After some timw you can fight again but you have a limit on how often you be fit again on a day. There is long lasting stress. And healing surges are exactly a reason why 4e is not like an MMO. An MMO is about having full ressources every combat doing your best. There is no video game using a mechanic like this. 4e, like most rpgs, is a game of attrition and healing surges made the game work, unlike 5th edition where level 1 and 2 do not work at all and even later no one does the recomended 8 fights per long rest. 4e was just open about ita underlqying systems. You still have roles in 5e its just not explicit. You need a tank. You oftwn need a healer and you need damage and some crowd control helps as well, bur since casters are so much stronger than martials each group has a full caster with crowd control anyway. Also MMOS have no dailies, rarely "once p3r encounter" abilities and normally also no at wills, but rather abilities with cooldowns which plays reqlly different. MMOS are also about endgame not leveling up. Healer do only heal not mainly attack, and positioning in the games is a small thing. There is normally no blocking there is no forced movement, there is no grid, it is not turn based, and a fight is not over after 5 attacks each, but it is about long fighrs with 100a of attacks. The problem with 4e is: You need to be able to play tactical. So i guess people who were not mentally able to do that are the same for which MMOs were too hard so these people just hate on both
@@tigriscallidus4477 Well all that aside Wizards actually admitted that 4th was their attempt to appeal to the MMORPG crowd, so there's that. And yes I've been a martial artist for about 35 years at this point so yeah I get your point about catching your breath/taking a recovery but that's not my issue. On it's own that part makes decent sense but when you tie magic's ability to heal you to those recoveries is where it falls apart. If I'm down on HP and I have Healing Potions or the Cleric has Healing spells but I'm out of recoveries.....come the fuck on, that's some weird ass logic to buy into even for fiction, magic doesn't work because I'm out of recoveries, no thanks. So yes, I have played 4th and there's a reason it is collectively known as the worst edition of D&D, because it is, well that's assuming that D&D One doesn't overtake it as it looks like it's on track to do. I'm not a big fan of video games, not because they're bad or whatever but because TTRPG's exist. I don't know why anyone would prefer a video game with only the options available to you that the programmers have hard baked into the game as opposed to the infinite possibilities that exist in TTRPGs. Sure the characters have limitations but they exist in a world of possibility, video games just have options and no way to play outside of those options. I could see lonely people with no friends loving video games because then they get to log into communities to hang out with other people who also have no friends so that they can be lonely together. Now if they would take a bath and work on their social skills they could invite people over for some real human interaction around a table where infinite stories can be told via the TTRPG but I get it, sunlight, social anxiety and gluten are all out there waiting to get them.
I can't believe you have that same fundamental lack of understanding that people who have only heard of Hit Points and not read the book have. HP isn't toughness, you're not physically tougher for having more Hp, what you are is better at avoiding dangers that would kill ordinary men. If you read what Hp is in the 5E D&D book you will see that it's like Stress in FATE, Vitality in Conan or Wound Threshold in FFG Star Wars, it's your ability to last second save your own ass but at the cost of HP. Basically, you're sacrificing Hp equal to the danger that caused it, matching it in whatever heroic way suits your narrative. An Owlbear slaps you for 15 HP, it doesn't mean he took a bigger chunk out of you than another blow which only did 10 Hp. It means that the blow represented a certain amount of danger that you have the skill and experience to offset and instead of being killed maybe you're just rattled or scratched but not in a life threatening way. It can even represent something as deft as a Rogue dodging the blow completely as long as there is no secondary effect like poison that would upset the narrative description of the blow completely missing him. It would still cost the same Hp but the Rogue would survive as long as he had the Hp to cover it whether it was claws that raked him down the back or him barely ducking under it at the last moment.
In many ways Hit Points should fall into two categories: Health Points and Hero Points. Health Points are the character's body, so to speak, and I think when the value is 10 HP or less it is reasonable to portray this. All the Hit Points gained beyond 10 HP need to be reframed as Hero Points, because they are really just a buffer describing how heroic a character has become, and how well they can survive in action scenes according to the fiction.
@@Mankcam That's a reasonable houserule. Star Wars d20 attempted something like that where you had Vitality points which were basically HP and worked as normal. Then there was Wound points which were only equal to your current Constitution score. Critical hits tended to go straight to Wounds rather than do extra damage. SO crits in that system are really dangerous.
I've been playing D&D for 42 years. The mechanics of how healing works do not fully support your position. Nor do they fully support any other position. Over the years we've just decided to ignore the problems with it.
@@jn3Storyteller A fellow veteran, lol, 33 years here. Actually healing makes perfect sense if you adjust your understanding of what Hp is in 5E and how it is gained and lost. Sure in previous editions where it was all injury it made a little more intuitive sense but once you see healing as repairing injury and replenishing exhaustion/endurance it does make sense in the context of the new rules.
Falling in love with 13th Age VERY quickly. The best part after your awesome explanation is that nothing about the system really ties you down to a fantasy world. Can't wait to see what I can do with this.
I really appreciated the part near the end (around 12:23) where you explain how characters in 13th age aren't created as low level adventurers that eventually become powerful over time, but start off already heroically capable. That's the kind of 'feeling' info I've been looking for.
13th age is one of my favorite games. Everything I liked from other editions of D&D with a lot less complexity.
Yes crunchy yet rules lite.
Great video, my favourite part is reading how the designers disagree in the rules. It really gives you permission to disagree yourself and change things.
YES I love that about the book, however I did see comments about how that makes the book less approachable to new GMs.
You really get that feel of "building up to the megazord" because often your most powerful spells and abilities can only be used once per battle or per long rest. So instead of D&D where you want to whip out your most powerful stuff as soon as possible to get the highest advantage, in 13th Age you're incentivized to save up and wait for the escalation die to give you a +5 or +6 bonus at a critical moment later in the fight before unleashing that fireball
I love this game as well. I introduced it to my gaming group and it replaced 5e completely. The escalation in combat does increase the excitement in battle.
This is a great introduction to 13th Age
(I showed my players this to get them on the same page as me for 13th Age)
Thanks for posting !
I play with people who refuse to try anything other than 3.0/3.5. I own a good portion of the 13th Age books and have run it a few times, and it's by far one of my favorite fantasy RPGs due to the flexibility in character creation and how it has a decent amount of mechanics but plays so much like a rules-light game.
Glad to see you're trying to get back into the TTRPG commentary game, friend! Hope the post-OGL 1.1 resurgence in community dialogue raises you up with it. Cheers!
Nice video! What I really like about 13th Age is it does the hero fantasy d20 game really well. Sure it doesn’t do any other kind of fantasy well, but there are different games for that! It’s also very easily tweaked, if you don’t like the Backgrounds you can add the 5e skill list and put the points into those for example.
This was a great video and 13th Age has definitely been on my "I should play this" list for a while now. Thanks for the overview!
I played maybe 3 sessions back in like 2016, and then mostly forgot about the experience. But I was recently reminded of its existence and started poking at it. And what I realized very quickly is that I've spent the last couple of months mostly reinventing 13th Age-style mechanics whenever I think about how I'd improve upon the One D&D playtest.
Indeed, for a while I've been thinking about essentially rewriting the classes from scratch to better tie in with the lore and more evenly fill the design space. At first for 5e, because that's the game where more than half the classes outright offend my sensibilities (and nothing quite motivates me to homebrew like spite). Then for PF2e, because it has a far nicer engine. But now I'm realizing 13th Age already does half of what I want and makes the other half easier. Kinda sad to give up the brilliance of the 4 level success and +10 to crit system, as well as the archetype system (here's hoping 13th Age 2e draws some inspiration, to the extent those systems mesh with 13th Age's engine), but it's ultimately a small price to pay for what 13th Age does well.
13th Age is a redesigned D&D 4E.
This is exactly why I'm interested. 😄 I'm finally replacing my stolen 4e rulebooks, but if I can't get my friends to agree to play it I'll likely try 13th Age instead!
The only negative thinf is that it is withour a grid which makes combat a lot less tactical
Great video man! I’d love to see more videos on 13th age, especially with the second edition in the works!
Definitely more 13a stuff coming!
@@polyhedron3386 I think you need to make this one of your current trademarks, focus on 13th Age, as it's having a late resurgence and many of us are eager to see more on it
This sounds like fun. Thanks for the video. You'll have to make a video on what supplements to follow up with after the core book.
Insightful talk about #13thage Look forward to more!
I have to push how fun combat is!! My group are combat nerds. We don't even use Icons... But we have so much fun with the combat in 13th Age! No slog!
It's weird hearing people whine about 3E and 4E rules being used in 13th Age. Like, what do they think the ENORMOUS controversy about the OGL was about?
In old school D&D, characters were viewed as SUPPOSED to be exceptional, with higher then average stats. Otherwise they would just be 0 level serfs and the like. Just like the observation that not everyone is a runner, scientist, nature enthusiast, etc in the real world. So I'm all for epic heros personally.
This is definitely a game I need to try.
In play, I found backgrounds to be a little bit of a hassle. As a GM I don't really enjoy the negotiation that comes with the vague nature of whether they are applicable.
Fair point. I usually do not let be a negotiation, it’s either a yes or a no, usually a yes.
The nice thing about it is we can easily run it more or less strict depending on how much the group(and GM of course) enjoys the haggling of backgrounds. Most of the time people will have something that applies, though not always. We can also reward half their background too if it makes sense. It opens up the door for Gms to make more unique skill challenges that perhaps only one of the players can qualify for.
It's baby Becmi streamlined for those with an even shorter attention span.
If BECMI were focused on character rather than setting (and were consequently much less deadly), yeah.
One thing I love, and it makes much more sense, is using your level for the number of damage dice.
Level 1 fighter hits with a long-sword: 1d8 damage,
Level 5 fighter hits with a long-sword: 5d8 damage!
I've been GMing pathfinder and a level 7 Ranger attacking with a longbow has 1d20+13 to hit! and a measly 1d8+3 for damage. So underwhelming.
My big question is, does the combat feel tactical without a grid? like, do decisions made in combat feel like they are the dominant contributor to success in combat? or is it more just the dice deciding things? I really enjoy gridless systems, but I have found that beyond basics like focus fire, there often isn't much to think about tactically. That works at tables where all the players are happy to put all their brainpower into coming up with descriptions and dialogue during combat to express their characters, but whenever I have players that I know want to engage with game mechanics primarily during combat, I break out the grid systems. would 13th age provide a tactical experience for them without me having to prep detailed battlemaps with engaging terrain?
It’s definitely not as tactical as something like Pathfinder but yeah combat can get pretty intense. You need to be smart about resource management, movement, and usually each class has their own little mini game going. You can definitely make better decisions to get better results.
I want you to talk more about 13th Age.
Hey Ron, You aren't dead ;)
Great to see you (and in good health)
I hope you, your wife, and the twins are all OK.
Ugh. This sounded really interesting until you described the combat system.
I think its a bit a shame that you did not, at least for this video, look into d&d 4e. Since 13th age builds heavily on it (but without a grit).
Alsp 4E is a really interesting system to play itself if you like the tactical combat
I think D&D already extremely narratively restrictive and linear and streamlined. I don't like D&D and I'm guessing the 13th Age will not be my cup of tea.
I’d say 13th Age is like a more narrative version of D&D, so if you like the d20 system but wish it was more narrative, you might like this. But it’s not like the narrative chaos of PBTA games for example.
You are right about D&D, but I think you're wrong regarding 13th Age. 13th Age uses a simple version of the D&D engine, but it has lots of narrative-emphasis rules which make it run much more like Fate Core or PbtA in terms of player-agency and free-form involvement in the story, just with a bit more structure at times. Some of the supplements are far more creative than anything I have read in TSR and WotC D&D, it's more like the richness you see with writers who pen Talislanta, Glorantha, Numenera, etc. It's a narrative game with a few more nuts n bolts for action scenes (not complex however), everything else is more based on rulings trather than rules.
I always hated Recoveries. It makes zero sense if I have enough potions to heal myself but drinking them does no good if I'm out of Recoveries. Another one of the many weak points from 4th ed D&D.
Yeah Recoveries don't work at all with D&D 4E, it was far too gamist for its own good. Hard to simulate reality and straight-jacketed telling a story due to the gamist focus of D&D 4E, so yeah Recoveries sucked there. Bit of a different situation here due to the narrative emphasis of 13th Age, and Recoveries work fine here. Your character has so many opportunities for recovery in a story, that's what it is portraying. You use your recovery opportunity for rallying, healing, etc and it can have its effects boosted with things like healing magic and potions etc. If you have already used up all your recovery opportunities and still want to use a healing potion, its up to the GM if this is a scene or not. If not, then it just doesn't happen in the story, but if so then you get half effect - thats a gamist compromise. Nothing simulationist at all with this game, its all about narrative scenes and such. Very much not 'objective' like TSR/WotC D&D.
It makes perfect sense. Your body just has a limit it can be recovered in a day. You have some reserves for stamina but at some point they are used up.
@@tigriscallidus4477 It's still a horrible mechanic that isn't represented in the fiction of anything but video games which makes sense because that's all 4th ed was, an early attempt to try to coopt the MMORPG crowd by turning D&D into a tabletop video game and they're still doing it with this latest push toward WotC's version of Roll20 and trying to get away from physical products. I never thought I'd be ok with walking away from D&D but they made it easy.
@@FellVoice let me guess you never played ab mmo nor 4th edition right?
You also never did martial arts.
Healing surges is a brilliant and really realistic mechanic.
If you have a fight you need a lot of stamina for blocking etc. After some timw you can fight again but you have a limit on how often you be fit again on a day. There is long lasting stress.
And healing surges are exactly a reason why 4e is not like an MMO. An MMO is about having full ressources every combat doing your best. There is no video game using a mechanic like this.
4e, like most rpgs, is a game of attrition and healing surges made the game work, unlike 5th edition where level 1 and 2 do not work at all and even later no one does the recomended 8 fights per long rest.
4e was just open about ita underlqying systems. You still have roles in 5e its just not explicit. You need a tank. You oftwn need a healer and you need damage and some crowd control helps as well, bur since casters are so much stronger than martials each group has a full caster with crowd control anyway.
Also MMOS have no dailies, rarely "once p3r encounter" abilities and normally also no at wills, but rather abilities with cooldowns which plays reqlly different. MMOS are also about endgame not leveling up. Healer do only heal not mainly attack, and positioning in the games is a small thing. There is normally no blocking there is no forced movement, there is no grid, it is not turn based, and a fight is not over after 5 attacks each, but it is about long fighrs with 100a of attacks.
The problem with 4e is: You need to be able to play tactical. So i guess people who were not mentally able to do that are the same for which MMOs were too hard so these people just hate on both
@@tigriscallidus4477 Well all that aside Wizards actually admitted that 4th was their attempt to appeal to the MMORPG crowd, so there's that.
And yes I've been a martial artist for about 35 years at this point so yeah I get your point about catching your breath/taking a recovery but that's not my issue. On it's own that part makes decent sense but when you tie magic's ability to heal you to those recoveries is where it falls apart. If I'm down on HP and I have Healing Potions or the Cleric has Healing spells but I'm out of recoveries.....come the fuck on, that's some weird ass logic to buy into even for fiction, magic doesn't work because I'm out of recoveries, no thanks. So yes, I have played 4th and there's a reason it is collectively known as the worst edition of D&D, because it is, well that's assuming that D&D One doesn't overtake it as it looks like it's on track to do.
I'm not a big fan of video games, not because they're bad or whatever but because TTRPG's exist. I don't know why anyone would prefer a video game with only the options available to you that the programmers have hard baked into the game as opposed to the infinite possibilities that exist in TTRPGs. Sure the characters have limitations but they exist in a world of possibility, video games just have options and no way to play outside of those options. I could see lonely people with no friends loving video games because then they get to log into communities to hang out with other people who also have no friends so that they can be lonely together. Now if they would take a bath and work on their social skills they could invite people over for some real human interaction around a table where infinite stories can be told via the TTRPG but I get it, sunlight, social anxiety and gluten are all out there waiting to get them.
I can't believe you have that same fundamental lack of understanding that people who have only heard of Hit Points and not read the book have. HP isn't toughness, you're not physically tougher for having more Hp, what you are is better at avoiding dangers that would kill ordinary men. If you read what Hp is in the 5E D&D book you will see that it's like Stress in FATE, Vitality in Conan or Wound Threshold in FFG Star Wars, it's your ability to last second save your own ass but at the cost of HP. Basically, you're sacrificing Hp equal to the danger that caused it, matching it in whatever heroic way suits your narrative. An Owlbear slaps you for 15 HP, it doesn't mean he took a bigger chunk out of you than another blow which only did 10 Hp. It means that the blow represented a certain amount of danger that you have the skill and experience to offset and instead of being killed maybe you're just rattled or scratched but not in a life threatening way. It can even represent something as deft as a Rogue dodging the blow completely as long as there is no secondary effect like poison that would upset the narrative description of the blow completely missing him. It would still cost the same Hp but the Rogue would survive as long as he had the Hp to cover it whether it was claws that raked him down the back or him barely ducking under it at the last moment.
In many ways Hit Points should fall into two categories: Health Points and Hero Points. Health Points are the character's body, so to speak, and I think when the value is 10 HP or less it is reasonable to portray this. All the Hit Points gained beyond 10 HP need to be reframed as Hero Points, because they are really just a buffer describing how heroic a character has become, and how well they can survive in action scenes according to the fiction.
@@Mankcam That's a reasonable houserule. Star Wars d20 attempted something like that where you had Vitality points which were basically HP and worked as normal. Then there was Wound points which were only equal to your current Constitution score. Critical hits tended to go straight to Wounds rather than do extra damage. SO crits in that system are really dangerous.
@@Mankcam this makes it just more complicated. And not much is gained
I've been playing D&D for 42 years. The mechanics of how healing works do not fully support your position. Nor do they fully support any other position. Over the years we've just decided to ignore the problems with it.
@@jn3Storyteller A fellow veteran, lol, 33 years here. Actually healing makes perfect sense if you adjust your understanding of what Hp is in 5E and how it is gained and lost. Sure in previous editions where it was all injury it made a little more intuitive sense but once you see healing as repairing injury and replenishing exhaustion/endurance it does make sense in the context of the new rules.