# I don't get the dislike of healing surges



## Mercurius

I remember the days when D&D seemed to lag behind the cutting edge of RPG design--this seemed to start in the late 80s and early 90s when Ars Magica and the White Wolf games came out, and then, with the "Indie Boom" of the 90s, it became even more accentuated. 3E seemed to (at least partially) fix this, with a core engine that made sense, was somewhat modular and relatively streamlined.

In the 70s and 80s, D&D was kind of a big happy mess, like a sandbox that you could do what you wanted with; if you wanted to change something, you just did. Every campaign had house rules. In the 90s this was still true to some extent, but with the growing number of cutting edge indie games, the idiosyncrasies and awkwardness of D&D as a rules system began to glare a bit. Saving Throws vs. Petrification and Polymorph? "THAC0"? _Really?! _In many ways 3E was a saving grace; not only did it revive D&D as a community and game, but it vastly improved the rules system itself.

One of the most commonly discussed D&D rules (if I remember correctly) was Hit Points (and its related partner in crime, Armor Class). Even though HP was always meant to be an abstract gestalt of different factors--body, vitality, endurance, even luck, etc--it never seemed to make sense that an Ancient Red Dragon had less HP than a 10th level fighter. This problem wasn't really solved with 2E or even 3E. The numbers just got bigger all around.

Which brings us to 4E and healing surges. If HP truly is meant to represent a combination of factors, and not just physical damage capacity, then it would make sense that there would be easy and self-applied ways to regain a bulk of HP through rest, recovery, or something akin to adrenaline. It is my opinion that healing surges are essentially the "missing link" to HP, that HP don't really make sense without them, unless you want to go the route of the first WotC version of Star Wars and split HP into Wounds and Vitality.

I am continually surprised when I encounter the dislike of healing surges, seemingly because they aren't realistic, they turn D&D characters into video game superheroes. Now there are many things I don't like about 4E, and overall I would prefer a slightly more toned-down character development, somewhere between the weakling 1E 1st level characters and the already-heroic 4E 1st level characters (which are more like 5th level characters in 1E, imo). 4E has lots of problems that I hope will be addressed in 5E, but healing surges are not one of them.

I'm not attached to healing surges themselves, but to some mechanism that allows a character to "heal" themselves, to regain HP quickly. At least as long as HP remain HP--that is, a gestalt of different factors, an abstraction. If 5E wants to go another route entirely, say turn HP into body points only and instead increase defenses and damage resistance, sure, I'm fine with that. Actually, it makes more sense, really. But if we want to keep HP around essentially unchanged, than something akin to healing surges needs to exist, something that can be not only self-administered but self-generated. In other words, ubiquitous healing potions is not the answer and would create a similar problem to the necessity of magic item bonuses and an equally awkward patch (ala inherent bonuses).

If you dislike healing surges, why? And what would your solution be?


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur

I personally like healing surges and the way that they work. They allow for a party to have different characters in the group and not _need to have a cleric_ in the group to get some kind of relief, especially during a long hard fought battle. I like the way that characters can use them only once per encounter, unless a power grants them the use of another one or two, as well as not having to provide a ton of healing potions/scrolls/wands to PCs as a DM. I also don't mind that characters can use as many as they like out of combat, because that just speeds up the game and lowers the downtime of characters seeking out a healer, scrolls, or potions and allows them to continue on with their adventure.

I've played Savage Worlds with the wounds system before which doesn't have any hit points at all, but since I prefer the D&D version with HP, I didn't really care for the wounds way of doing things, but it just comes down to my personal preference.


----------



## billd91

I like the idea of a character catching his second wind and surging back to the fight in dramatic circumstances. There's plenty of it in action movies - particularly ones like Rocky and Die Hard. That's why I was on board with the implementation of second wind in Star Wars Saga Edition. There, it's usable when you're below half hit points and you can do it once per day. Characters can invest feats or talents in increasing the number of times it can be used, but it still pretty much tops out at 3 times a day.

Healing surges, as I see them, take a potential good mechanic and push it out of its ideal zone. There are too many negatives, I think, with healing surges to make it an attractive primary healing method for me.


----------



## Morrus

I think the thing to remember is that the primary resource isn't hit points any more - it's healing surges.  A party low on hit points isn't worried; a party low on healing surges is.

Hit points are now - kinda - "fractions" of Big Hit Points (which are your surges).


----------



## Gaerek

I've talked to several people about 4e. One of the biggest things (even today) that I see from people who don't like this system is that the ruleset seems too much like a video game. I personally think that subject has been beat to death, but that's what I still hear. They believe that healing surges aren't realistic enough (as if HP were at all realistic, but I digress) and they are akin to "Health Packs" in FPS's. Essentially, it bolsters their belief that 4e is more like a video game than an RPG.

I'll be honest, when I first heard about healing surges, I was skeptical. I didn't like the idea, but then again, I had the same complaint as above. Once I saw them in action, and realized what they actually represented, I came to realize the brilliance in the mechanic. And the more I play, the more I come to love the system. It's an almost completely organic way of keeping track of a groups endurance, without the encumberance of a dedicated healer.

If we want to talk realism, by the way, think about this. Most squads in the military have a medic in them. But the medic's job isn't to patch someone up immediately, to get them back in the fight withing seconds/minutes. It's to stabilize them so that a doctor can patch them up, and maybe, in a few weeks/months/etc, they can be ready to fight again. Essentially, in a modern (you can actually apply this same thinking to practically any warfare in history) firefight, it's the will/endurance/vitality/body armor/resolve/morale/etc of the individual in the fight that keeps them alive and moving, NOT the medic. Healing surges make far more sense in this respect than a cleric. However, opponents of healing surges will try to argue that HS don't make sense. The problem is, they only don't make sense when compared to previous editions of D&D.


----------



## Gaerek

billd91 said:


> Healing surges, as I see them, take a potential good mechanic and push it out of its ideal zone. There are too many negatives, I think, with healing surges to make it an attractive primary healing method for me.




If you don't mind my asking, why do you believe this? I'm not saying you're wrong, or whatever, I'm just very curious why you feel this way. I may have missed something in my evaluation of the system. You can see my previous post to see my thoughts on it.


----------



## Nagol

Healing surges are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of character health once a character takes damage.  The narrative can only be presented in hindsight once the outcome has been determined.

The PC doesn't blow healing surge?  His wounds are life-threatening and he is seriously courting death every round.  That last blow drew a mortal wound...

The PC blows a surge?  'Tis only a flesh wound!  There was never any REAL damage!  The last blow barely scraped the hero...

A game with them reminds me of the movie the _Last Action Hero_  -- if the hero is alive, it's only a flesh wound.


----------



## Dausuul

Healing surges display a glaring inconsistency at zero hit points. When your hit points go below zero, which happens a lot in 4E, you're unconscious and bleeding out. You'll die if someone doesn't rush in to stabilize you, the way Gaerek is talking about in his real-world example above. Okay. That's all well and good. But once you're stabilized and combat ends, you spend a few healing surges and you're back on your feet like nothing happened. WTF? You were mortally wounded five minutes ago. This is what makes healing surges feel "video-gamey" to people.

(Also, the name is stupid. They're obviously _not_ healing you, so why are they called "healing surges?")

_Edited to add: Originally I broke both of the above out as separate points, with the name being #1 and the inconsistency being #2. Since the inconsistency is the important thing here, with the name being a minor annoyance, I decided to rewrite the post and focus on the inconsistency, lest we get bogged down in a long argument over the name._


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> If you dislike healing surges, why? And what would your solution be?



I hate 'em- they remind me of arcade fighters & FPS computer games.

A single Second Wind per encounter is OK, but I much preferred D&D's healing magic from prior editions.  A magic spell or potion of healing should not have it's potency affected by whether or not the target has HSs.


----------



## prosfilaes

Mercurius said:


> I'm not attached to healing surges themselves, but to some mechanism that allows a character to "heal" themselves, to regain HP quickly. At least as long as HP remain HP--that is, a gestalt of different factors, an abstraction.




Deep down, I don't accept any model of HPs that doesn't treat each HP lost as some sort of physical wound. At higher levels, each HP is a pretty minor wound, approaching the minor scrapes and bruises level, but they're physical damage, and they take time to heal.


----------



## Gaerek

Nagol said:


> Healing surges are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of character health once a character takes damage. The narrative can only be presented in hindsight once the outcome has been determined.
> 
> The PC doesn't blow healing surge? His wounds are life-threatening and he is seriously courting death every round. That last blow drew a mortal wound...
> 
> The PC blows a surge? 'Tis only a flesh wound! There was never any REAL damage! The last blow barely scraped the hero...
> 
> A game with them reminds me of the movie the _Last Action Hero_ -- if the hero is alive, it's only a flesh wound.




HP has always been an abstract concept. I'm certain you realize this. As such, HS's fall under this as well. Keep in mind, in almost every circumstance, players must do something (drink a potion, get a heal from a cleric, use a power, use an item, etc) to use a healing surge. The one exception, of course is the Second Wind. With the exception of the second wind, the healing surge provides the narrative as it happens, not in hindsight. And my players try to use Second Wind as little as possible because it uses a Standard in most cases. YMMV. HS are used as a mechanic to determine essentially how long a player can last in a day. Most uses of healing surges in combat are NOT second winds. Previously, this had been determined by how many spell slots a cleric had, or how many charges the Wand of Cure Light had left. This being the case, I'll take the new system over the old ANY day of the week, even if I have to suspend a little more disbelief.



Dausuul said:


> Healing surges display glaring inconsistency at zero hit points. When your hit points go below zero, which happens a lot in 4E, you're unconscious and bleeding out. You'll die if someone doesn't rush in to stabilize you, the way Gaerek is talking about in his real-world example above. Okay. That's all well and good. But once you're stabilized and combat ends, you spend a few healing surges and you're back on your feet like nothing happened. WTF? You were mortally wounded five minutes ago. This is what makes healing surges feel "video-gamey" to people.




But it somehow makes sense that (in ALL editions of the game) that because I'm 10th level and you're first level, I can take several direct hits in battle, but you can only take one? That doesn't seem video gamey? (Let's excuse the fact that practically every video game we play today has it's roots in D&D). Hmm.

Before you jump in with the HP are an abstract, I know, I agree. The entire system is an abstract. It was designed to reduce the reliance of a dedicated healing cleric, and Wands of Cure Light. Like I said above, I'll take the new system over clerics and wands any day of the week.

And, I used my example, not because I believe that D&D is somehow realistic, but because one of the big arguments I've come across (not from you, of course) is that HS are not realistic. But realism is a terrible argument with D&D, since it's not designed to be realistic. HP are not realistic. Gaining levels and somehow, immediately knowing new things is not realistic. HS are not realistic. AC is not realistic. Magic Missle is not realistic. All realism arguments in D&D are immediately thrown out, in my book.



> (Also, the name is stupid. They're obviously _not_ healing you, so why are they called "healing surges?")




I agree, the name is dumb. I wish they were called something else. I honestly believe most of the dislike of the system is a result of the name not being representative of what they really are.

As a matter of fact, I bet if they were called Endurance Points, or something like that (that had nothing at all to do with healing) there would be FAR fewer people who had a problem with the mechanic.


----------



## amerigoV

I've only played a bit of 4e. I like the Surges themselves and they are not all that far off "reality" so to speak if one uses sports as an analogy (which of course, everyone will poke holes into).

Healing surge in combat - like a turning point in a ballgame - a big play that energizes you to carry one (that's why I could dig the Warlord - its like Ray Lewis yelling at you - you will player harder).

After combat - even if you are dead beat, a 5-10 minute breather seems to bring you back. 

Full renew after a long rest - I remember back to my HS football days - a day would end where I swear I would not get up the next day - yet I did and went at it hard again. Sure, there were aches and pains, but nothing that was going to hindrance performance.

I do not worry about stuff around 0hp - the system has always been flaky there regardless of edition.

The part that I did not fully get is other people 'activating' your own surge. I am sure the math all worked out as the Surge is really the resource, not the HP. But I stopped playing before I fully bought into that part of the mechanic (I am sure if I was still playing 4e that it would just be part of the system and I would not even think about it).


----------



## Dausuul

Gaerek said:


> But it somehow makes sense that (in ALL editions of the game) that because I'm 10th level and you're first level, I can take several direct hits in battle, but you can only take one?




Abstraction is not the issue here. From moment to moment, I can tell a coherent story about what's happening in combat with the 10th-level fighter. Each hit is a bruise or a minor injury, and then when the final blow takes the fighter to zero, it's a deadly and life-threatening wound.

I can't do that with HSes. When the fighter drops to zero in 4E, she goes into a Schrodinger's Box where the severity of the wound is undetermined till she either dies or spends a healing surge. What's going on with her while she's in the box? I don't know. Nobody does. Nobody can.

Now, are there places where traditional hit points don't tell a consistent story? Sure there are. Falling damage is the most common example, where people calmly step off fifty-foot cliffs because they know they have enough hit points to get up and walk away. And you know, those rough spots are _exactly_ the ones people have been grumbling and griping about for decades. House rules for falling damage sprout like weeds.



Gaerek said:


> And, I used my example, not because I believe that D&D is somehow  realistic, but because one of the big arguments I've come across (not  from you, of course) is that HS are not realistic.




I think most people who object to healing surges have the same problem I described, but many haven't consciously worked out what it is that rubs them the wrong way. (It took me several false starts before I figured out what I wanted to post to this thread.) They just know healing surges don't sit right somehow, and that not-sitting-right has to do with the surges not matching what they imagine going on in the game world. So they call healing surges "unrealistic."


----------



## was

It's not that I dislike them, but they do tend to make things seem a bit more fantastic then realistic.  Perhaps it's just the sheer number of healing surges per day.


----------



## TheUltramark

I think healing surges are fantastic. and as mentioned before in paraphrase, they are the "real hit points".  I don't even mind the name, what else would you call them? "hit-point-getter-backers" ???


----------



## MortonStromgal

Mercurius said:


> it never seemed to make sense that an Ancient Red Dragon had less HP than a 10th level fighter. This problem wasn't really solved with 2E or even 3E.




This didn't really happen in 2e... you rolled HP so on average a fighter is gaining 5 or 6 HP per level + CON (1 HP fighters at first level were uncommon but fun!). Then at 9th level you were only gaining 1HP + CON mod. And if you were not a "fighter" type after 9th level you were gaining 1HP per level.



Mercurius said:


> If you dislike healing surges, why? And what would your solution be?




I dislike them because there is no downtime to heal your either ok or dead, at leased with older D&D it could take a few days to get back up to normal after a big fight.  Its a Book vs Movie thing, in LOTR books travel was very slow, in the films they glossed over it to get to the "good stuff". The only good thing is removal of the healbot. But you could have done this by increasing natural healing without having the ridiculous level of healing surges. Let me heal 1/4 of my HP per day of natural rest rather than my level.


----------



## Traveon Wyvernspur

TheUltramark said:


> I think healing surges are fantastic. and as mentioned before in paraphrase, they are the "real hit points".  I don't even mind the name, what else would you call them? "hit-point-getter-backers" ???



If I had to rename them, I'd call them "Adrenaline Surges" instead. It's just a rush of adrenaline that allows the character to continue on.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Mercurius said:


> If you dislike healing surges, why? And what would your solution be?




Because it highlights the abstract nature of HP (something stated frequently in the rule books but usually not the case in practice in my experience) and it comes off as quasi-magical. Also to me, it just looks like a mechanic designed around game play rather than flavor. So it has a gamey feel that I am just not into.


----------



## Nagol

TheUltramark said:


> I think healing surges are fantastic. and as mentioned before in paraphrase, they are the "real hit points".  I don't even mind the name, what else would you call them? "hit-point-getter-backers" ???




Correct me if I'm wrong, but you can die whilst still having a pool of healing surges, correct?

They aren't the real hit points; they are large bags of hit points that can be summoned to convert daamge that could kill you into near-misses in a way that is impossible for the characters to notice.

"Bob was down and potentially bleeding to death 2 seconds ago, but he's much better now.  Cleric, why did you waste time on him -- it was only a flesh wound!"

"Glad we got that 5 minute breather!  I almost lost my lung in the last fight, but now I'm ready to go -- only my hair is mussed!"


----------



## Dausuul

I'd call them "heroic surges," which I think better gets at what they're supposed to be. That said, the name isn't the big problem here.

As to what I would do to solve the issue: Instead of the surge mechanic, I would have a separate mechanic for tracking "real injuries" which require a long time, or magic, to heal. The simplest way to do this is with a Star Wars-style wound/vitality system, without the ability for crits to bypass vitality (which more or less defeats the point of having the split). I can think of some other possible approaches, though.


----------



## prosfilaes

Gaerek said:


> And, I used my example, not because I believe that D&D is somehow realistic, but because one of the big arguments I've come across (not from you, of course) is that HS are not realistic. But realism is a terrible argument with D&D, since it's not designed to be realistic. HP are not realistic. Gaining levels and somehow, immediately knowing new things is not realistic. HS are not realistic. AC is not realistic. Magic Missle is not realistic. All realism arguments in D&D are immediately thrown out, in my book.




Really? So if your DM has a human continue attacking you after you've cut off his head, you'll accept that and not think that it might be something other than a simple human?

Realism is a hard line to walk in action/fantasy, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary. Indiana Jones and John McClane do a lot of stuff that would get people killed in real life, but nobody ever empties a gun point-blank into their face, and the audience would mutiny if that happened and our heros just shrugged it off. When Hans Gruber got dropped off a building, the audience didn't have to see the body to know he was dead. What needs to be realistic varies based on genre and person, but without a basis of realism, we don't know whether or not our hero is scared of being dangled 100 ft in the air over a lake of acid with acid-breathing sharks in it.

I don't know why you say that AC is unrealistic; if you distill armor down to one value, AC is realistic as far as I know. Magic missile is perfectly realistic, once you accept the fantastic basis for it.


----------



## The Shaman

Mercurius said:


> I remember the days when D&D seemed to lag behind the cutting edge of RPG design . . .



Newer != better.







Mercurius said:


> Saving Throws vs. Petrification and Polymorph? "THAC0"? _Really?! _



Yes, really.







Mercurius said:


> In many ways 3E was a saving grace; not only did it revive D&D as a community and game, but it vastly improved the rules system itself.



Newer != better.

And "I don't like it" != "bad."







Mercurius said:


> . . . (I)t never seemed to make sense that an Ancient Red Dragon had less HP than a 10th level fighter.



Never heard of Saint George?


As far as healing surges go, they are a solution for someone else's problem, not mine.


----------



## billd91

Gaerek said:


> If you don't mind my asking, why do you believe this? I'm not saying you're wrong, or whatever, I'm just very curious why you feel this way. I may have missed something in my evaluation of the system. You can see my previous post to see my thoughts on it.




On a narrative level, they take a dramatic event (the second wind) and turn it common place. I can take them in every fight, more than once with a little help. That feels too often to be dramatically bouncing back from trouble (unless that's your particular idiom as in the SWSE character investing in multiple chances to catch his second wind).

On a mechanical level, the shift of healing from external resource to internal causes problems. I like being able to pass my healing potion to another character who has had a few unlucky breaks in the course of a fight. If he's out of surges, I can't do that because the healing runs off his own internal resource. You can't concentrate the healing like you could in previous editions. In the game we're playing, the wizard almost never taps his surges while the rogue, paladin, and ranger are doing so all the time. The wizard's healing resource is wasted because it's not used nor can it be transferred while the others are over-taxed and hard to supplement. The only thing about healing someone and surges that I like is the way a paladin's laying on of hands uses his own surge to help someone else. That's a nice touch. The paladin sacrifices his own durability to help someone else... of course it's kind of spoiled by giving him more surges in the first place to compensate for it, undercutting the magnitude of the sacrifice.

I also think that, as far as campaign and resource management goes, they serve to bring back pressure toward a short adventuring day in an area 3x had largely fixed away from that tendency. Healing was cheap in 3x in the form of cure light wounds wands, level-based additions to healing spells, and spontaneous healing. Parties could go a *long* time compared to 1e and 2e with their more limited healing.

If I were to revise healing in 4e, I'd utterly divorce magical healing from using the healing surges of the target creature. That's a minimum. If I were to beyond just healing, I'd ditch most daily powers (certainly all the martials), ditch the current use of action points, and come up with some kind of dramatic narrative pool for characters that could be used to gain an extra action, push an encounter power up to an extraordinary level of success (replacing daily powers), push use of a skill to an extraordinary level, make a save, or gain a second wind in a fight.


----------



## avin

Hello OP! I've played and DMed 4E for more than a year.

And I hate Healing Surges.

I also hate Thac0 (sorry The Shaman, been there, done that, even the name thac0 is horrible).

I guess there's always something people will dislike in any edition of D&D.


----------



## Spatula

"Healing Surge" covers a lot of different topics, but people seem to be jumbling them all together, making it hard to tell what it is that they object to exactly.

I mean, what is a surge? This is how I see it:

1) The amount of healing received is relative to the max HP of the heal-ee, not the power of the healer (at least, not 100% the power of the healer). This to me is what a healing surge "is", and it's an elegant solution to some of the HP-related oddities from earlier editions. It also eliminates the need for multiple, separate healing spells that differ only in their potency.

2) A resource that limits how many times a character can be healed in a day. This limit is necessitated by the existence of unlimited (encounter) healing spells in 4e, but might not be needed in a system when spell-casting was more constrained.

I also see people bringing up general 4e healing rules, which aren't really tied to surges.

1) Second wind / self-healing / non-magical healing / healing to full HP after a battle. Healing to full after a fight has been the norm in D&D for as long as I can remember, so I am guessing that it's being able to do it without magic that bothers people.

2) The lack of any damage that last longer than a day (diseases & starvation excepted).

As for why people object to them, I agree with what Bedrockgames stated upthread. HP have always meant to be abstract, but most (if not all) gamers don't think of them as such in practice. Being "hit" by a sword means that a sharp deadly weapon has connected with your body. That higher-level characters can survive many such sword hits while lower-level characters cannot is just how it is. That you don't suffer any "real" injuries until you're at or below 0 HP is just how it is. It's easy to hand-wave it all away and not really think about it. But on some level, 4e forces players to confront the abstractness inherent in the rules, and a lot of people don't like that.


----------



## ehren37

Nagol said:


> Healing surges are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of character health once a character takes damage. The narrative can only be presented in hindsight once the outcome has been determined.
> 
> The PC doesn't blow healing surge? His wounds are life-threatening and he is seriously courting death every round. That last blow drew a mortal wound...
> 
> The PC blows a surge? 'Tis only a flesh wound! There was never any REAL damage! The last blow barely scraped the hero...




Except its always been like this. In 1st/2nd edition, your first level mage with 3 hit points stubs his toe and his leg almost falls off or is scratched by a house cat for 2 hit points of damage. Oh no! He's almost dead. He's gushing blood, barely clinging to life because the bad kitty got him. The high level fighter is barely concerned. Then you go to rest, and since you heal 1 hp a day, the low level mage is suddenly able to fully recuperate from dramatic trauma in 2 days, while it takes the fighter 2 days to fully recover from a small scratch? Similarly, that 6 HP life threatening sword stab is easily repaired by Cure Light Wounds.... since when are life threatening sword stabs light wounds?

Unless we treat all HP as the same. In which case the low level person really is dying from a single swat from a cat and the high level person has multiple spears poking out of his heart and functions without penalty (hey, he's still got 10hp left.).

HP, healing, damage.... its all abstract. Its ALWAYS been abstract. If you have a problem with healing surges, and you didnt have a problem with HP/damage/healing before, you either werent thinking about it, or are just a hypocrite. Or more likely, you're just looking for something to harp on regarding 4th edition, and the Grognard Gripe Table result pointed to surges rather than "video gamey/WOW". Granted, often the Grognard Grouse Miscability Table provides an overlap, as has previously been displayed in the thread, and surges are both unrealistic AND video-gamey. 



> A game with them reminds me of the movie the _Last Action Hero_ -- if the hero is alive, it's only a flesh wound.




And here we have all of D&D, from OD&D to now. If you arent dead, it wasnt that bad. You're pretty mucht 8 hours of the cleric taking a nap and a cast of St Cuthbert's Fortifying Zerberts to be functioning.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You're pretty mucht 8 hours of the cleric taking a nap and a cast of St Cuthbert's Fortifying Zerberts to be functioning.




A lot more can happen, narratively, in 8 hours of campaign time than in the few minutes between encounters in a 4Ed game when a PC simply burns enough HSs to improve his health.

And if that cleric isn't around...


----------



## Oryan77

I've never heard people defend the HP system as *not* being a representation of physical damage as much as I have until 4e came out.

I know I might get a lot of slack for saying this, but to me, this seems like nothing more than an excuse to defend the healing surge system and to explain how the system is not _unbelievable/videogamey_. Or it's an excuse to justify how wonky the HP system actually is if you try to think of it as just physical damage. It's like an easy cop-out.

If I have to think of the HP system as "physical endurance, skill, luck, and resolve", then I have to assume a percentage of the "damage" from a claw attack is physical damage if I can die by reaching -10 HP. Why not tell me what that percentage of physical damage is? Give me a way to track it since I can die from it, and we'll just assume that "skill, luck, and resolve" were factored into the attack I received from a beasts claws and ignore those the way we ignore physical damage with the idea of Healing Surges. 

I don't need a system to "heal" the skill, luck, and resolve damage unless I want my Fighter to "heal" himself & not be dependent on a Healer. But I could use a system to heal the wounds I took since that is what kills me.

I don't know, I get what people say when they explain their view of the HP system. But I've honestly never had any difficulty using the HP system as a representation of physical damage (unless I wanted the ability for my Fighter to heal himself). And to me, that would make it videogamey.


----------



## The Shaman

avin said:


> I also hate Thac0 (sorry The Shaman, been there, done that, even the name thac0 is horrible).



No need to apologize to me or anyone else for what you don't like in a roleplaying game.







avin said:


> I guess there's always something people will dislike in any edition of D&D.



And I appreciate you expressing it that way, as a reflection of your person preference.

Unfortunately there are some gamers who can't or won't differentiate between, "I don't like _x_," and, "_x_ is teh suxxors!"


----------



## prosfilaes

ehren37 said:


> HP, healing, damage.... its all abstract.




Everything's abstract; even the greatest supercomputer couldn't track damage to the human body without abstracting something. That doesn't mean we should just accept any results uncritically. If abstract was fine, why not go back to OD&D and all weapons doing 1d6 damage?



> If you have a problem with healing surges, and you didnt have a problem with HP/damage/healing before, you either werent thinking about it,




I did have a problem. But healing surges made it worse.



> Or more likely, you're just looking for something to harp on regarding 4th edition




If it were all equal, then nobody should have been happy about WotC making 4E. If you can legitimately like 4e better than older editions, there's obviously enough difference that we can legitimately like it less.


----------



## Oryan77

And this is way off topic, but....

Mercurius, why do you constantly create these 4e threads to discuss every single controversial thing about 4e?

It's like weekly, you gotta start one of these threads. I'm not complaining, cause it's entertaining to see people get all riled up over 4e. I was just wondering though, do you sit at home thinking about what kind of 4e thread you can start next?


----------



## gamerprinter

I've never needed to abstract on the idea of hit points and AC, for me they mean what they look like. You need to get past my AC to hit me, and you need to drop my hit points to zero to get me to stop fighting, and whether it's -10 or my Constitution score below zero to actually kill me. That works fine for me.

Healilng surges are like a cleric attached to my person, I press a button and healing occurs - that doesn't feel realistic. My fighter is not a caster, and cannot perform any kind of spell, which includes healing. I don't want my fighter to be able to heal himself - that's what a cleric is for.

Your argument that this way you don't need a cleric... well I guess if you don't need to kill any monsters then, you don't need fighters either, but then why play the game. If you want to be kept healed over the long haul, you're going to need potions of healing, or a Cure Wand, otherwise you have to have a cleric.

And due to the power clerics have in combat, I've never seen a group where somebody didn't want to play cleric. We've never seen a situation where a cleric was not desired by someone.

Basically, its keep your spells out of my martial characters skillset. I don't want my fighter to cast spells, and to me that's what healing surges are - healing spells. It ain't natural...

Not to be contrary, and not that there's anything wrong with it, but I don't get why you like healing surges, nor that you are concerned that I (we) don't?

Really, if healing surges equals more hit points in spurts beyond your HP score, then just give me the extra hit points hidden in the surges to my total HP - it would work the same wouldn't it. So why parse out my hit points in surges outside of my hit point score. It makes equal sense, so I don't need surges, just more hit points.


----------



## Dausuul

ehren37 said:


> Except its always been like this. In 1st/2nd edition, your first level mage with 3 hit points stubs his toe and his leg almost falls off or is scratched by a house cat for 2 hit points of damage. Oh no! He's almost dead. He's gushing blood, barely clinging to life because the bad kitty got him. The high level fighter is barely concerned. Then you go to rest, and since you heal 1 hp a day, the low level mage is suddenly able to fully recuperate from dramatic trauma in 2 days, while it takes the fighter 2 days to fully recover from a small scratch?




Natural healing in pre-4E D&D was unrealistic, no doubt about it, and I've known a number of folks to complain about it. However, it didn't get in your face the way healing surges do. It only came up in the case that a) there was no magical healing on hand, and b) the party was out of combat for a period long enough for natural healing to take place, but not enough for everyone to fully recover.

I'm not going to address the rest of your post because I don't feel like getting threadbanned today. This is a pretty interesting discussion here, and it'd be a pity to take it down the road you seem to want to go.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Mercurius said:


> If you dislike healing surges, why?



I, personally, dislike healing surges. I don't like that healing surges because they make hit points exactly as you describe them: a compilation of physical toughness, skill at reducing blows taken, luck, fate, and anything else you want to cram in there. I hate that idea in a fantasy genre game. Maybe in a superhero game, but in fantasy it just rubs me the wrong way. So, subjectively, that's what's wrong with them (to me, of course).



> And what would your solution be?



I separated hit points into two categories: regular hit points (how tough you are, how much damage you can take, skill at turning blows into less serious blows, etc.), and temporary hit points (how quickly you regain your stamina, how skilled you are at completely sidestepping attacks, etc.). THP is consumed before HP is taken away (unless the effect bypasses THP, such as falling damage or being on fire).

Now, you have a straight separation of those two types of hit points. HP takes a long time to regenerate naturally, while THP completely recovers within a matter of rounds (the higher Con you have, the faster it comes back). You have your hit points that take a long time to heal naturally, and you hit points that come back quickly.

I have a feat that lets you take a move action to regain THP. That makes sense to me (taken a moment to stop and catch your breath). However, you shouldn't be healing actual, physical wounds like that, and that's where the Healing Surges failed to me. They forced hit points to represent everything _but_ grievous wounds most of the time. You also run into hiccups where someone was "hit" on an attack roll, takes 3 damage (out of their 120 hit points), but is poisoned because the attack was "poison, injury". This force that is supposed to be fate, luck, skill at dodging, whatever is somehow _always_ bad when someone uses poison. If _anyone_ uses poison and is skilled enough to land a blow on you, Luck and Fate abandon you just as fast as your skill at dodging does. And that bugs me.

Thus with my solution, if the attack only does THP, it didn't hit. That poison does nothing. If it gets past your THP, it hit, and you take a physical wound (and are poisoned). This cuts your "pool" of HP abstractions into two separate, smaller areas, and adds a lot to my game. For others? No idea. Probably good for some, probably terrible to many others. That's fine, to me. I just really didn't like what healing surges forced hit points to represent, and the inconsistencies that came with it (injury poison, falling damage, etc.).

But that's just me. They're not a bad mechanic, and I allow something similar with my THP solution. I think a lot more people would be okay with it if the "pools of abstraction" were separated. It's another complication to the system, though, so I don't know how popular it'd be. However, I think a lot of people who had the same issues I did would be happier.

Anyways, sorry for rambling on. Hopefully that gives some perspective to my view on things (and that of my group). As always, play what you like


----------



## Bluenose

prosfilaes said:


> Deep down, I don't accept any model of HPs that doesn't treat each HP lost as some sort of physical wound. At higher levels, each HP is a pretty minor wound, approaching the minor scrapes and bruises level, but they're physical damage, and they take time to heal.




Or, of course, magic to heal. Which is where the problem comes in with this particular model. As, of course, high level characters require a large amount of healing magic for those "minor wounds" to heal, but low level characters can be brought back from the brink of death with a lot less effort.


----------



## Dausuul

Bluenose said:


> Or, of course, magic to heal. Which is where the problem comes in with this particular model. As, of course, high level characters require a large amount of healing magic for those "minor wounds" to heal, but low level characters can be brought back from the brink of death with a lot less effort.




That's a separate concern, however. One could address that by keeping the part of the healing surge mechanic where it's a "unit of healing," and getting rid of the parts where you can trigger them at will and have a limited supply.

...In fact, now I think about it, that's probably the original purpose and the reason why they're called "healing surges." Viewed purely as a unit of healing, the name makes perfect sense. Ironic that a mechanic which, in its original conception, would have _improved_ verisimilitude, instead ended up breaking it for so many people.


----------



## Gaerek

First of all, I've read most of the responses since I last posted, but not all. I apologize if I missed a point somewhere. Please correct me. I haven't been able to follow this thread because I have had actual work to do at work. Having said that, it appears to me that there are two main arguments against Healing Surges.

1) The realism argument - Many of you have been making it, though I don't think it was intended. Anytime you say, "It doesn't make sense." or anything like that, it's a realism argument. If you want your game to be realistic, there are a bunch of simulationist games out there that might be more to your tastes. As it is, however, D&D has ALWAYS been one of the most gamey feeling games out there.

Someone responded to a few of my "realism" arguments. Understand that I don't care if something is realistic or not. Taken to it's natural point, every one of those things *can *(operative word...can) be considering unrealistic. And to comment on the comment about AC being unrealistic, AC is not realistic. It also is an abstract about how hard it is to be hit. Only part of it reflects how well your actual armor protects you. Unless you're not adding your Dex bonus? But I digress again (sorry, one of my personal flaws).

Essentially, you can throw out any appeal to realism in this discussion, because:

a) D&D is not a realistic simulation
b) There are dozens, if not hundreds of abstract, gamist, non-realistic rules that are bundled with EVERY edition of D&D. If you're not ok with HS because they aren't realistic, then you're not ok with D&D in general.

2. The 0-HP, or Mortal Wound argument - I had never actually heard this one before, and never really thought much about it. Narratively, the idea of a healing surge (and really, only Second Wind, and the ability to burn HS between combat, specifically, any other use seems pretty reasonable) makes little sense. I can't argue against this one, because the truth is there. However, I have a couple directions I can go to show why I'm ok with it.

a) 0-HP, and neg-HP has always been a wonky area in D&D. It's been a while since I've playing anything but 3e and 4e, but wasn't there a rule in a previous edition that said 0hp was unconscious and neg HP was dead, and there were different rules for each? This means that the higher level you are, the smaller the "unconscious" target was and the larger the damage "arrow" is. In other words, as you got more powerful, your chances of going unconscious at any point decrease. This isn't really reason enough, but there has always been A LOT of suspension of disbelief in each and every edition when it came to death and dying. No one edition really nailed this area well. I will submit that 4e seems more out there than other editions, but this brings me to:

b) I hate rules that get in the way of fun. I especially hate rules that get in the way of fun for the sake of realism. 4e's healing surge system breaks down the narrative at 0 Hp and below. But, what's the option? In previous editions, I hated playing a cleric (it was better in 3e, but not by much). My choices in combat were heal the injured, or brain the bad guy with my mace. 3e allowed clerics to not have to memorize heals. BUT, this came with a caveat. Any spells you cast that's not a heal better have an affect that will likely eliminate the need for said heal. At least from my perspective, that eliminated about half the cleric's spell book. Cleric's have never been fun (until 4e). I've always hated the Wand of Cure Light. I thought it was at best, a bandaid in a broken system, or at worst a gaming of the rules to allow a party to do more than was intended.

From my perspective, and this is completely my opinion, and I totally understand why you disagree, even though they might be less realistic, or put the player in Schrodinger's Box (as has been mentioned), healing surges make the game more fun, and give players more options in character builds and party builds. If there was a way to do that without healing surges, I'd LOVE to see it. But I would never, ever, ever, want to go back to healbots and healsticks.


----------



## wingsandsword

Healing Surges are a very balanced, very sound game mechanic. . .but it makes for lousy roleplaying because of the suspension of disbelief it pushes beyond acceptable levels. 

As people have said, in terms of players and the DM imagining the narrative of the game it strains suspension of disbelief far more than just HP alone.  By "video gamey", we are saying that it reminds us like a video game: well balanced mechanics but lots of suspension of disbelief required for the mechanics.  

Yeah, D&D isn't hyper-realistic, but the prior level of abstraction from edition prior to 4e was something that players had learned to deal with, but the addition of healing surges is even less realistic and pushes the abstraction too far for too many of us.


----------



## gamerprinter

But within the confines of the abstractness to the game - its realistic enough to me. However, I'm not searching for a realistic nor simulationist game -they've always been out there, and I've basically not played most of them (I have played some).

I prefer D&D, so I accept whatever abstractness or realism is in the game, I've grown comfortable with it.

Thus anything that counters what I feel comfortable with, ergo I feel uncomfortable. And healing surges are part of that uncomfort engendered in 4e - its part, not the only reason, but part of why I don't play 4e. Nothing wrong with the game - its just not my game.

Finally if I wanted reality, I would just live it, and not play any RPGs at all, so obviously realism has very little influence in what I play. However, magical healing created by non-magical characters not only seem unrealistic (to me), but counter to the way I prefer to play.

Its really just a preferential thing.

And as far as 'balance' goes, 3x/PF is balanced enough for my fun - in reality, I would despise a perfectly balanced game (probably). Balance isn't the end all or be all of RPGs, so its not something I especially seek.


----------



## Nagol

Gaerek said:


> First of all, I've read most of the responses since I last posted, but not all. I apologize if I missed a point somewhere. Please correct me. I haven't been able to follow this thread because I have had actual work to do at work. Having said that, it appears to me that there are two main arguments against Healing Surges.
> 
> 1) The realism argument - Many of you have been making it, though I don't think it was intended. Anytime you say, "It doesn't make sense." or anything like that, it's a realism argument. If you want your game to be realistic, there are a bunch of simulationist games out there that might be more to your tastes. As it is, however, D&D has ALWAYS been one of the most gamey feeling games out there.
> 
> Someone responded to a few of my "realism" arguments. Understand that I don't care if something is realistic or not. Taken to it's natural point, every one of those things *can *(operative word...can) be considering unrealistic. And to comment on the comment about AC being unrealistic, AC is not realistic. It also is an abstract about how hard it is to be hit. Only part of it reflects how well your actual armor protects you. Unless you're not adding your Dex bonus? But I digress again (sorry, one of my personal flaws).
> 
> Essentially, you can throw out any appeal to realism in this discussion, because:
> 
> a) D&D is not a realistic simulation
> b) There are dozens, if not hundreds of abstract, gamist, non-realistic rules that are bundled with EVERY edition of D&D. If you're not ok with HS because they aren't realistic, then you're not ok with D&D in general.
> 
> 2. The 0-HP, or Mortal Wound argument - I had never actually heard this one before, and never really thought much about it. Narratively, the idea of a healing surge (and really, only Second Wind, and the ability to burn HS between combat, specifically, any other use seems pretty reasonable) makes little sense. I can't argue against this one, because the truth is there. However, I have a couple directions I can go to show why I'm ok with it.
> 
> a) 0-HP, and neg-HP has always been a wonky area in D&D. It's been a while since I've playing anything but 3e and 4e, but wasn't there a rule in a previous edition that said 0hp was unconscious and neg HP was dead, and there were different rules for each? This means that the higher level you are, the smaller the "unconscious" target was and the larger the damage "arrow" is. In other words, as you got more powerful, your chances of going unconscious at any point decrease. This isn't really reason enough, but there has always been A LOT of suspension of disbelief in each and every edition when it came to death and dying. No one edition really nailed this area well. I will submit that 4e seems more out there than other editions, but this brings me to:
> 
> b) I hate rules that get in the way of fun. I especially hate rules that get in the way of fun for the sake of realism. 4e's healing surge system breaks down the narrative at 0 Hp and below. But, what's the option? In previous editions, I hated playing a cleric (it was better in 3e, but not by much). My choices in combat were heal the injured, or brain the bad guy with my mace. 3e allowed clerics to not have to memorize heals. BUT, this came with a caveat. Any spells you cast that's not a heal better have an affect that will likely eliminate the need for said heal. At least from my perspective, that eliminated about half the cleric's spell book. Cleric's have never been fun (until 4e). I've always hated the Wand of Cure Light. I thought it was at best, a bandaid in a broken system, or at worst a gaming of the rules to allow a party to do more than was intended.
> 
> From my perspective, and this is completely my opinion, and I totally understand why you disagree, even though they might be less realistic, or put the player in Schrodinger's Box (as has been mentioned), healing surges make the game more fun, and give players more options in character builds and party builds. If there was a way to do that without healing surges, I'd LOVE to see it. But I would never, ever, ever, want to go back to healbots and healsticks.




First, I've never experienced the whole healbot group dynamic -- I have no doubt it exists, but it just never developed in games I ran or played in.  The healers healed to the best of their ability / whatever thet felt was appropriate.

As for better methods, it depends what you're trying to accomplish.  For me, I want the game to have a consistent and understood state so that if a player walks in, I can describe the situation without game speak and where the situations flow naturally from one another.  Pretty much any system beats healing surges in this regard especially in the not very rare edge cases around bloodied, unconsciousness, and death.

If you want to reduce the 'necessity' of magical healing while maintaining a resource management/ablative nature to exploration, the myriad of games that have wound-vitality / body-fatigue / body-stun-endurance splits where the true physical damage is marked (and healed) separately from a pool of stamina works quite well.  Just adjust the recovery of the pools meet the genre expectations.


----------



## SpydersWebbing

gamerprinter said:


> But within the confines of the abstractness to the game - its realistic enough to me. However, I'm not searching for a realistic nor simulationist game -they've always been out there, and I've basically not played most of them (I have played some).
> 
> I prefer D&D, so I accept whatever abstractness or realism is in the game, I've grown comfortable with it.
> 
> Thus anything that counters what I feel comfortable with, ergo I feel uncomfortable. And healing surges are part of that uncomfort engendered in 4e - its part, not the only reason, but part of why I don't play 4e. Nothing wrong with the game - its just not my game.
> 
> Finally if I wanted reality, I would just live it, and not play any RPGs at all, so obviously realism has very little influence in what I play. However, magical healing created by non-magical characters not only seem unrealistic (to me), but counter to the way I prefer to play.
> 
> Its really just a preferential thing.
> 
> And as far as 'balance' goes, 3x/PF is balanced enough for my fun - in reality, I would despise a perfectly balanced game (probably). Balance isn't the end all or be all of RPGs, so its not something I especially seek.




I dunno, as a former kickboxer I was always amazed by the amount of punishment someone could take and not only persevere but triumph. I remember quite a few times being kicked so hard that I flew backwards and hit a wall, only to get back up and keep fighting, and then take several very punishing blows that should have toppled me anyway. 

I'm going to attempt to stop blowing my horn long enough to make a point: you'd be surprised what's "realistic" and what's "not realistic".


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Bear in mind that my experience with 4e is limited, and was not what I would consider fun....

Healing Surges are part of what creates 'the grind' - where combat becomes predictable, you know who has won or lost, but the combat is going to go on for another half an hour anyway.... It bored me out of my skull.  Between Healing Surges and a whole lot of pushing and pulling miniatures this way and that a combat that should have taken an half hour took almost three hours. (Admittedly, with a snack break in the middle.) Healing Surges are the only offensive feature that I can name off hand - there were multiple pushes and pulls with names varied by class, but _everyone_ had Healing Surges.

A 'once per day' Healing Surge might be more palatable to me, but as they are currently written.... 

The Auld Grump


----------



## gamerprinter

SpydersWebbing said:


> I dunno, as a former kickboxer I was always amazed by the amount of punishment someone could take and not only persevere but triumph. I remember quite a few times being kicked so hard that I flew backwards and hit a wall, only to get back up and keep fighting, and then take several very punishing blows that should have toppled me anyway.
> 
> I'm going to attempt to stop blowing my horn long enough to make a point: you'd be surprised what's "realistic" and what's "not realistic".




Its kind of like the reality of war. There are those that have been shot a dozen times, perhaps in the same shooting incident and survives, while there's also the newbie that gets shot once and dies crying 'mother'. Hit points also include perseverance and some people just don't have that. Reality is tough to measure, so game mechanics do it for us, in game.


----------



## tomBitonti

I'm kindof surprised that there aren't more responses in the "mechanics" area.  My quick response is that healing surges seem to interrupt the flow of mechanics to narration:

Orc swings at Bob.  Ouch!  That hurt!
(Bob spending a healing surge) Nawt, just a flesh wound (fights with renewed vigor.)

As opposed to:

orc swings at Bob.  Watch out Bob, that looks like trouble!
(Bob spending a heroic surge).  Hoohaw!  (He makes an extra effort and steps aside from the blow.)

That is:

Attack/Damage/Surge Erases Damage

vs:

Attack/Incoming Potential Damage/Surge Prevents Damage

[Edit: This goes to the issue of the difference between numbers, which are abstract, and allow commutation, and the narrative flow, which tears apart if subject to the same operators.  That is, from a mathy point of view, HP - D + S is a fine rearrangement of HP - (D - S); from a narrative point of view, the rearrangement fails.  As a net, Healing Surges push the game too far into abstractions, hence the "gamist" criticism.]

TomB


----------



## ehren37

Dannyalcatraz said:


> A lot more can happen, narratively, in 8 hours of campaign time than in the few minutes between encounters in a 4Ed game when a PC simply burns enough HSs to improve his health.
> 
> And if that cleric isn't around...




He's binding his wounds. Or determining that the damage was stun damage, walking it off, or whatever narratively you want it to be. Consider it "wind" damage, like in Deadlands. 

Regardless, it beats 3rd edition/pathfinder's "we poke each other with a stick" for x rounds using undercosted wands of cure light wounds.


----------



## ehren37

gamerprinter said:


> I've never needed to abstract on the idea of hit points and AC, for me they mean what they look like. You need to get past my AC to hit me, and you need to drop my hit points to zero to get me to stop fighting, and whether it's -10 or my Constitution score below zero to actually kill me. That works fine for me.




If you've never needed to abstract HP, you've been willfully ignoring the advice of the game-makers since as long as I can remember, which is to abstract them, and that they represent a collection of things.

Incidentally, Rolemaster is thataway with its Lesser Nasal Repair" spells if you wantto nitpick every wound. 



> Healilng surges are like a cleric attached to my person, I press a button and healing occurs - that doesn't feel realistic. My fighter is not a caster, and cannot perform any kind of spell, which includes healing. I don't want my fighter to be able to heal himself - that's what a cleric is for.




Only if you intentionally view it that way. Back in my day though, gamers had imagination, instead of needing everything as concretely described as possible. Its called narrative play. Your surges represent your ability to keep the character alive. You describe how its done. Either it really was just a scratch, and you bonked your head for a few minutes, it looked worse than it was, etc. The system gives you big boy pants, and you can describe it how you want. If you wet yourself because you cant think beyond spamming the Cure Light Wounds button and blame the system, oh well. *<= this is the kind of insults that get you a ban from ENworld. Don't do it people. Plane Sailing, ENworld admin*



> Your argument that this way you don't need a cleric... well I guess if you don't need to kill any monsters then, you don't need fighters either, but then why play the game. If you want to be kept healed over the long haul, you're going to need potions of healing, or a Cure Wand, otherwise you have to have a cleric.




Or just not get seriously hurt. Which is what not being killed is. If you arent dead, its nothing a little 

And due to the power clerics have in combat, I've never seen a group where somebody didn't want to play cleric. We've never seen a situation where a cleric was not desired by someone.



> Basically, its keep your spells out of my martial characters skillset. I don't want my fighter to cast spells, and to me that's what healing surges are - healing spells. It ain't natural...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So dont describe it that way? Oh wait, that would require your imagination and contribution to the story...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to be contrary, and not that there's anything wrong with it, but I don't get why you like healing surges, nor that you are concerned that I (we) don't?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It makes the game play easier, is more narratively interesting that poking each other with sticks for a few minutes after a fight, and lets you tell a wider range of stories, including those without divine healers.
> 
> I also like it because it drives the neckbeards crazy, but that's just a side perk.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Ahnehnois

Mercurius said:


> ...In many ways 3E was a saving grace; not only did it revive D&D as a community and game, but it vastly improved the rules system itself.
> 
> One of the most commonly discussed D&D rules (if I remember correctly) was Hit Points (and its related partner in crime, Armor Class). Even though HP was always meant to be an abstract gestalt of different factors--body, vitality, endurance, even luck, etc--it never seemed to make sense that an Ancient Red Dragon had less HP than a 10th level fighter. This problem wasn't really solved with 2E or even 3E. The numbers just got bigger all around.
> ...
> If you dislike healing surges, why? And what would your solution be?



The problem with healing surges is that they take the problem that is hit points, and they make it worse. As you've pointed out, hit points have always been abstract and vague. As you've also pointed out, while 3e improved the verisimilitude, fairness, and comprehensibility of many of the rules, hit points remained basically the same. This is a bad thing.

If I had been designing 4e, one of if not my single top priority would have been to dispose of hit points and introduce a system that really tracked health, injury, and sickness, and at least made some effort to reflect the fact that wounds hurt, wounds disable you, and wounds take time to heal. Doing that while keeping the game beginner-friendly (and rules lawyer-friendly, and everyone else-friendly) would be extraordinarily difficult, which is why it hasn't been done. But that is the next big breakthrough the PnP rpg hobby is waiting for.

I use a modified vitality/wound system, which is not perfect but so much better than hit points, and still certainly allows heroes to be tough. Quick healing of vitality damage (but not severe wounds) also removes the "need" for healing surges.

Healing surges have several problems. They describe instant healing of damage that, while abstract, is lethal damage that could have killed a character. Verisimilitude is a problem, no matter what examples of people "shaking off" wounds you can come up with. They create another "per [time period]" resource, which was another big problem with 3e, both in terms of verisimilitude and balance. They also completely redefine the archetypical D&D roles. Whether you liked it or not, a "healer" has always been central to a D&D party. With everyone being able to heal themselves, this is much less true, and required a radical reimagining of the divine classes. Some people might view this sort of change as good, others are conservative and will object to any change. Personally, I prefer clerics to be quasi-doctors, although I wish they were less effective at it.


----------



## GSHamster

One thing I do find odd about this discussion is that several detractors of healing surges have referred to the system as "videogamey".

Yet the vast majority of videogames tend to follow the old system, with healing potions, or characters who specifically cast healing spells.

I guess I just don't get the connection between videogames and healing surges.


----------



## Ahnehnois

GSHamster said:


> One thing I do find odd about this discussion is that several detractors of healing surges have referred to the system as "videogamey".
> 
> Yet the vast majority of videogames tend to follow the old system, with healing potions, or characters who specifically cast healing spells.
> 
> I guess I just don't get the connection between videogames and healing surges.



If you compare PnP rpgs to video games, then no, healing surges aren't especially reminiscent of video games. If you think about D&D as being a combination of dramatic fiction, storytime around the campfire, a strategy game, healing surges are pretty strongly game-y. The TV/movies/books I use as inspiration for D&D don't have a lot of instant healing (although plenty of fiction does, truthfully), and I would not allow something like that in straight improvisational storytelling.

To be fair, "gamist" would be a better way of putting it. I think that usually what "videogamey" means. The merits of that philosophy are the real point of debate, which is a contentious one.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Gaerek said:


> a) D&D is not a realistic simulation
> b) There are dozens, if not hundreds of abstract, gamist, non-realistic rules that are bundled with EVERY edition of D&D. If you're not ok with HS because they aren't realistic, then you're not ok with D&D in general.



First, let me compliment you on your tone. Though you disagree with what others think, you haven't blown things up at all. I think people should try to discuss things with a certain amount of tact in this thread (or on these boards in general), so I'm looking forward to being able to do so with you.

Second, I really don't think your conclusion about D&D and realism is correct. As another poster has pointed out, if you were fighting a human enemy in D&D, and the GM described your blow as lopping his head off, but also described him as continuing to attack you, you wouldn't assume that the enemy was a normal human. You'd think, "well, something's up" and probably be momentarily surprised, and maybe intrigued. This is because, realistically, a human dies when his head is lopped off.

I feel as if you're saying, "if you take any concept, and progress it to the natural extreme, it doesn't make for a good play experience." The problem with that, to me, is that you're taking it to the extreme for some reason. The game is heavily abstracted, yes, _but with nods to realism all over the place_. In fact, the abstractions are usually glossing over complicated real life actions (attack roll, etc.). No, having a perfectly realistic game isn't desirable, but neither is it the goal. No one should be worrying about a completely realistic D&D with no abstractions cropping up.

The reason people like nods to realism (or verisimilitude, if you'd prefer that word), really, is because it lets them connect to the world. The internal logic of a fantasy world based on what we -as real life humans- rely on makes for a game that is much easier to immerse in. You're not constantly having to figure out how the world works differently from ours. Abstractions of these real life translations help speed up game play, increase fun (by adding an element of randomness), and generally giving us a way to mimic something we could theoretically experience in real life (most of the time, at least; things like spells are an exception, but probably don't take up the bulk of any session).

Taking all of this into account, realism is an extremely useful tool for RPGs. It's a way to immerse. And while immersion is not a goal that everyone will share, it's definitely a common goal among a significant section of those who play RPGs. Therefore, I find it rather intelligent to pander to this crowd if you plan to sell RPGs. You obviously have a balance you want to strike between crowds, but breaking the "suspension of disbelief" is something you don't want to do for the majority of your player base if you can help it. And, since we're all using a shared imaginative space, the "suspension of disbelief" is going to vary wildly. That's why something like healing surges cause objections; people already dislike certain aspects of hit points, and now you've compounded that issue by adding a mechanic that makes for even more baffling situations to come up. You now have retroactive descriptions of wounds, for instance. It's now, "the orc 'hit' you for 11 damage, and I'll let you know how bad it is at the end of combat" instead of "the orc slams his sword into the left side of your armor, and you feel blood, and it feels pretty bad. Take 11 damage."

All told, the healing surge mechanic is just compounding already existing problems. Before, hit points gave us falling damage, injury poison, and the like, and now we have all this and retroactive descriptions. It's not that there for no problem with hit points before, it's that it's become worse.

As I've mentioned previously in this thread, separating the hit point abstractions into two separate pools of abstraction is a solution with a lot of merit: 
(1) You have one pool that's "turning bad wounds into less bad wounds, taking physical punishment, etc." that takes a long time to recover, and...
(2) You have a second pool that's "fatigue, ability to completely avoid damage, etc." that takes a very short amount of time to recover.

With this method, you can have certain effects reflect the description as necessary. Falling completely bypasses the "fatigue" pool, and deals damage directly to your "physical" pool. Being set on fire does the same. As does being immersed in lava. As does retroactive descriptions. And so on. So many issues with hit points over the past 35 years disappear.

Because, really, the problem with healing surges are somewhat unique, but they're an extension of the problem with hit points as they stand now. Your conclusion of "If you're not ok with HS because they aren't realistic, then you're not ok with D&D in general" just does not ring true to me.

Just my thoughts on it, though. Make of them what you will. As always, play what you like


----------



## Plane Sailing

ehren37 said:


> The system gives you big boy pants, and you can describe it how you want. If you wet yourself because you cant think beyond spamming the Cure Light Wounds button and blame the system, oh well.




And if someone can't get past infantile insults aimed at other people, what then? Since it is your second go round in this thread today, you get to have a holiday from ENworld.

See you in a week. You can email me if you don't understand the problem.


----------



## prosfilaes

Ahnehnois said:


> If I had been designing 4e, one of if not my single top priority would have been to dispose of hit points and introduce a system that really tracked health, injury, and sickness, and at least made some effort to reflect the fact that wounds hurt, wounds disable you, and wounds take time to heal.




Personally? Those are facts I don't think I want reflected in D&D. They slow down the game and don't reflect the heroic aesthetic. Also implicit in those statements is the death spiral; as you get hurt, you get weaker and thus easier to hurt and less able to damage your opponents which makes you get hurt more and become more powerless. It can get pretty unfun, and it doesn't seem well represented in the genres that D&D emulates.


----------



## Plane Sailing

prosfilaes said:


> Personally? Those are facts I don't think I want reflected in D&D. They slow down the game and don't reflect the heroic aesthetic. Also implicit in those statements is the death spiral; as you get hurt, you get weaker and thus easier to hurt and less able to damage your opponents which makes you get hurt more and become more powerless. It can get pretty unfun, and it doesn't seem well represented in the genres that D&D emulates.




While I agree that it can be done badly, it can also be done well.

RQ2 had pretty much fixed hp (and hp per location), hp were always associated with real damage, injuries would impact your ability and yet there were no death spirals as such, and plenty of heroic combats. In fact when I started with RQ2 everyone noticed how much MORE heroic the combat seemed at every point.

A game that was designed in the late 70's, which was fast, furious and fun while also having more of a nod towards realism in combat. I think it is funny that in 40 years since then so many RPGs have struggled to meet the bar it set.

Cheers


----------



## I'm A Banana

Mercurius said:
			
		

> If you dislike healing surges, why? And what would your solution be?




I don't have particularly strong feelings about them one way or the other, but there is something that they dramatically affect: adventure pacing.

The mechanic of "restore to full HP using surges after an encounter" changes what effect HPs have on gameplay. HPs become not about how long you can endure a dungeon crawl (which is what they were about before), but about how tough of an _encounter_ you can take. The shift is instant and dramatic, and focuses intensely on the encounter, rather than the adventure/dungeon itself. The encounter is what will kill you. The encounter is what will drain you. The encounter is what challenges you. A dungeon or an adventure is just a backdrop for a series of encounters that drain your HPs, spaced out by places where you can spend your surges.

I think this shift to the encounter is overall a negative shift in D&D. Healing Surges are not the whole bag, but they're a big part of it. 

There's a disconnect with earlier editions where "full HP" meant that you were at full strength, and now, it might not mean that -- it just means you're able to take One Encounter before healing again (using surges). It's dissonant for newbies, too: I'm at full health, but I'm down half my surges....exactly what kind of condition am I in? How do I make sense of that in the narrative of the game? It's not something 4eD&D provides a lot of guidance for. 

I think you could easily have mechanics that let PCs heal themselves without using surges. Potions work if you make them mostly "mundane," or you could do a Heal check restoring HP, or the Second Wind, or even going "Full Defense" for a round (and having that recover a bit of HP, as you are bandaging and tending to your wounds). Surges aren't necessary to have characters heal themselves. 

I think I'd keep surges around, if I were doing a game. The first thing I would do with them is describe them better in story terms: this is your endurance, your grit, your determination, your willpower, your ability to power through. You HP's are only a snapshot of your overall health, your Surges define how beat up or healthy you are. I would also expand their definition so its not just HP that they recover. They might recover HP, or they might give you back a spell, or they might be used to activate a ritual. They'd be spent pro-actively as well as re-actively, giving the resource management aspect of D&D more prominence. I think that would help the party to focus more on when they need to take extended rests. Then I'd link Bad Things Happening to each extended rest.


----------



## prosfilaes

Bluenose said:


> Or, of course, magic to heal. Which is where the problem comes in with this particular model. As, of course, high level characters require a large amount of healing magic for those "minor wounds" to heal, but low level characters can be brought back from the brink of death with a lot less effort.




That's because cure spells are like magical opiates. First you start out with one or two cure lights, and then that doesn't have the effect it used to, so you go up to cure moderates, then cure serious, or critical or even heal spells to get that same effect. But don't worry; you can quit anytime you want to. Sure.


----------



## TheUltramark

I got it! instead of healing surges, or my first suggesstion "hit-point-getter-backers" they should be called vitality reserves.  

Also - I dont get the whole "lack of realism" when the preferred method would be a small stick shooting out a ray of magical energy or a guy calling down divine power from the heavens or some bottle of hitpoints to be uncorked....i dont see much difference in calling on an inner reserve, but thats probably just me.

Everyone stay happy and stay gaming ! ! !  (I'm on my way tonight to the weekly game ! ! ! ! yay me ! ! !


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Gaerek said:


> In previous editions, I hated playing a cleric (it was better in 3e, but not by much). My choices in combat were heal the injured, or brain the bad guy with my mace.




Wow, I'd hate playing a cleric too, if that were my options.  Her's my current spells prepared in our 1e game.  I'm 8th level and have been blessed with an 18 wisdom:

1st level:  Cure light wounds x3, command x2

2nd level: Hold person x2, resist fire, silence 15' radius, augury

3rd level:  Speak with dead, Locate Object, Dispel Magic, Prayer

4th level: Cure seriuous wounds, divination, sticks to snakes


I have a few cures for emergencies, but mostly combat or utility spells.  My options are to heal the injured, attack with my mace or sling, cast offensive magic, of which I have some of the best in the game, gather information about the upcoming dungeon, so that less people NEED to be healed.  I have the best ac in the game, and I'm the second best fighter.  In a pinch, I can serve as the trap finder, as well.   And should we get our asses handed to us, I can spend a day and have the party ready to go tomorrow.  Healbot, indeed.


----------



## prosfilaes

TheUltramark said:


> Also - I dont get the whole "lack of realism" when the preferred method would be a small stick shooting out a ray of magical energy or a guy calling down divine power from the heavens or some bottle of hitpoints to be uncorked....i dont see much difference in calling on an inner reserve, but thats probably just me.




Because in D&D magic is real. It is a concrete real fact that a cleric can channel divine healing power from the heavens or store it in wands or potions for later. If you were defining this as divine power, there'd be no criticizing it on realism grounds; the complaints would be that fighters (at least most fighters) shouldn't channels of divine power.


----------



## Ahnehnois

prosfilaes said:


> Personally? Those are facts I don't think I want reflected in D&D. They slow down the game and don't reflect the heroic aesthetic. Also implicit in those statements is the death spiral; as you get hurt, you get weaker and thus easier to hurt and less able to damage your opponents which makes you get hurt more and become more powerless. It can get pretty unfun, and it doesn't seem well represented in the genres that D&D emulates.



That of course depends on what you mean by "heroic aesthetic" (I'd say the ability of a hero to feel pain and get injured is a prerequisite for heroism) and what genre you want D&D to emulate (I'd say LotR and GoT, but there are plenty of other answers). I enjoy fiction that makes a strong effort at verisimilitude. For example, an early Battlestar Galactica episode has the best pilot sit out the biggest space battle of the season because she hurt her knee several episodes earlier. Boromir is trapped in a "death spiral" as he is overwhelmed and killed by orcs, failing to protect his party. The Wire has a major character shot in the back and killed by a kid with a grudge while buying groceries at a convenience store. I don't think these sorts of moments would be "unfun" if they happened in a D&D game.

That said, you're not wrong, you're talking about a stylistic issue on which there are many different viewpoints. I think that a modern D&D should be able to do in-depth verisimilitude and escapist adventure for those who want it, since it is the standard-bearer for rpgs.


----------



## Summer-Knight925

To be honest, I actually like Palladium's health system better than D&D's, but I don't really like healing surges

actually I hate them

and it is not so much that they are video-gamey as much as they remove the point of such classes as...you know...the cleric?

Some people hate being the heal bot, but honestly, I like it, everyone wants to keep me alive, I get to turn undead, I get to heal, I get to do things no one else can do. (If you take the right feats, you can pretty much do what fireball does [whirlwind attack anyone?]) and yet healing surges said EVERYONE'S A CLERIC! granted you cant heal others
unless you're a paladin

I also feel like there were far to many each day, or that it could bring you to full health
half health would be okay
quarter health would be even better

while it makes sense 'scientifically' to have adrenaline and that stuff play into it, we must also remember the symptoms of shock, if anything HP make sense, but if you continue to lose blood it makes more sense, like an actual wound, and use say...you constitution score to determine how much blood you lose (or don't lose) and for how long you remain in adrenaline mode...but again, if you can, look at the Paladium health system, I actually like it, call me weird, but I like it.


----------



## Gaerek

JamesonCourage said:


> First, let me compliment you on your tone. Though you disagree with what others think, you haven't blown things up at all. I think people should try to discuss things with a certain amount of tact in this thread (or on these boards in general), so I'm looking forward to being able to do so with you.




In the end, it's just a game. There's no sense getting worked up about it. I have a feeling, in the end, this is just a case of, "Let's agree to disagree." It's also why I'll refuse to respond to anyone who decides to take this out of the realm of civil discussion, and into the realm of the childish, the insulting, or anything beyond what this is...a discussion about a game.



> Second, I really don't think your conclusion about D&D and realism is correct. As another poster has pointed out, if you were fighting a human enemy in D&D, and the GM described your blow as lopping his head off, but also described him as continuing to attack you, you wouldn't assume that the enemy was a normal human. You'd think, "well, something's up" and probably be momentarily surprised, and maybe intrigued. This is because, realistically, a human dies when his head is lopped off.



I actually agree with you here. I even mentioned in my post that I'm willing to accept the oddities of the system, for the sake of fun. Does it throw off the narrative? Yep, sure does. But for me, it's better than the option. And I think this is where we may disagree.



> I feel as if you're saying, "if you take any concept, and progress it to the natural extreme, it doesn't make for a good play experience." The problem with that, to me, is that you're taking it to the extreme for some reason. The game is heavily abstracted, yes, _but with nods to realism all over the place_. In fact, the abstractions are usually glossing over complicated real life actions (attack roll, etc.). No, having a perfectly realistic game isn't desirable, but neither is it the goal. No one should be worrying about a completely realistic D&D with no abstractions cropping up.



Again, I do agree with you here. Simulationist games are rarely fun for most people. Extremely "gamist" games usually start off pretty fun, but it tapers off quickly. The best would be somewhere in the middle. I would also argue that the point of having some realism, or roots in realism, or whatever you want to call it, is done, simply because those aspects make it fun, exciting, and interesting. A players character I was DMing for died a couple months ago. He told me, "Man, it's no fun dying." I asked him how much fun he'd have if there was no threat of death. He thought for a moment and said, "The game would be f'ing boring." That's a perfect example of what I'm saying here, and I think you would agree as well. But again, for me, Healing surges fix a serious (in my eyes) flaw with previous editions. 

Hell, back in the mid-90's we were so sick of the whole healer bot/healer stick problem with 2e, we made a bunch of house rules to help us not have to worry so much about having a cleric in a group or at least the requirement for a cleric to memorize tons of heals. The first thing we did was use the 3e cleric spells system (before it was even published). Clerics didn't have to mem heals. The next thing we did (and I forget what we called it) was allow each character to heal half their HP every couple hours with some restrictions (I don't remember exactly how we did this, there were some limits). We ran clericless 2e games without any issues. There were times heals would have been nice, but they were far from needed. Especially the second rule, these were very gamist, but they allowed us to have more fun with the game, so we were willing to suspend disbelief to make it happen.



> The reason people like nods to realism (or verisimilitude, if you'd prefer that word), really, is because it lets them connect to the world. The internal logic of a fantasy world based on what we -as real life humans- rely on makes for a game that is much easier to immerse in. You're not constantly having to figure out how the world works differently from ours. Abstractions of these real life translations help speed up game play, increase fun (by adding an element of randomness), and generally giving us a way to mimic something we could theoretically experience in real life (most of the time, at least; things like spells are an exception, but probably don't take up the bulk of any session).



In other words, it's fun to imagine we're in these situations, and the closer to real life the system is, the more opportunity there is for fun. I do agree.



> Taking all of this into account, realism is an extremely useful tool for RPGs. It's a way to immerse. And while immersion is not a goal that everyone will share, it's definitely a common goal among a significant section of those who play RPGs. Therefore, I find it rather intelligent to pander to this crowd if you plan to sell RPGs. You obviously have a balance you want to strike between crowds, but breaking the "suspension of disbelief" is something you don't want to do for the majority of your player base if you can help it. And, since we're all using a shared imaginative space, the "suspension of disbelief" is going to vary wildly. That's why something like healing surges cause objections; people already dislike certain aspects of hit points, and now you've compounded that issue by adding a mechanic that makes for even more baffling situations to come up. You now have retroactive descriptions of wounds, for instance. It's now, "the orc 'hit' you for 11 damage, and I'll let you know how bad it is at the end of combat" instead of "the orc slams his sword into the left side of your armor, and you feel blood, and it feels pretty bad. Take 11 damage."



It's funny how much I actually do agree with you. The difference here being, I personally believe (with the exception of the obvious) that Healing Surges make things more realistic. In medieval style combat (like D&D) in reality, you either survived, or you were dead. If you took more than minor wounds, you were likely dead. The healing surge represents the idea of "licking your wounds" or "walking it off" or "rubbin' some dirt on it" or the burst of adrenaline (which are all very real "ideas") you get sometimes. When I played football in high school, I played both offense and defence. I got tired, I got bruised, scraped, cut, etc because I was on the field for 40 out of 60 minutes. Every 10 minutes or so, I'd get rotated out for about 5 minutes. That 5 minutes was enough to rest myself up and be almost at 100% again by the time I hit the field. That's the kind of thing the healing surge is meant to represent. The name they chose for it was bad because it immediately got people thinking, "Oh, characters can heal themselves now??" when that's not exactly what's going on. And I was the same way when I heard that term, and it immediately through me off. Only through playing the system, and understanding exactly what it was trying to do did I change my mind about it. To me, it was an improvement.



> All told, the healing surge mechanic is just compounding already existing problems. Before, hit points gave us falling damage, injury poison, and the like, and now we have all this and retroactive descriptions. It's not that there for no problem with hit points before, it's that it's become worse.




I can understand why you feel this way. For me, the benefits of HS outweigh the drawbacks. For you, they do not. And that's perfectly fine! If you invited me to come to a Pathfinder, or 2e or 3e or whatever game, I'd be like, "Date and time? I'll be there!" I just want to play. I prefer 4e, but really, in the grand scheme of things, these are minor issues.



> As I've mentioned previously in this thread, separating the hit point abstractions into two separate pools of abstraction is a solution with a lot of merit:
> (1) You have one pool that's "turning bad wounds into less bad wounds, taking physical punishment, etc." that takes a long time to recover, and...
> (2) You have a second pool that's "fatigue, ability to completely avoid damage, etc." that takes a very short amount of time to recover.
> 
> With this method, you can have certain effects reflect the description as necessary. Falling completely bypasses the "fatigue" pool, and deals damage directly to your "physical" pool. Being set on fire does the same. As does being immersed in lava. As does retroactive descriptions. And so on. So many issues with hit points over the past 35 years disappear.



I think this is a very viable idea. I always thought Gary Gygax's description of what HP represent was kinda half-assed. However, I couldn't think of anything better without getting into the ridiculous, so I accepted it. If 5e is around the corner, I would be totally ok with this type of a system. For now, I'm find with healing surges.



> Because, really, the problem with healing surges are somewhat unique, but they're an extension of the problem with hit points as they stand now. Your conclusion of "If you're not ok with HS because they aren't realistic, then you're not ok with D&D in general" just does not ring true to me.
> 
> Just my thoughts on it, though. Make of them what you will. As always, play what you like



That comment about not being ok with HS means not being ok with D&D was tongue-in-cheek. I tend to throw a little hyperbole around to help make a point. My point was simply there's a lot of abstracting in these types of games. D&D is, and has always been, one of the more gamist games out there. Pathfinder, being essentially an extension of 3.5e D&D falls in that category too. For me, it's not much to extend a little more suspension of disbelief to healing surges, for the sake of fun.

And please don't get me wrong. I don't think healing surges are the end all, be all cure. I personally believe they work well at what they do. If a new system comes out that replaces them, as long as it's not a regression back to what we had before, I'll welcome it with open arms.


----------



## Oryan77

ehren37 said:


> He's binding his wounds. Or determining that the damage was stun damage, walking it off, or whatever narratively you want it to be. Consider it "wind" damage, like in Deadlands.




Wanting to use a rule *to* explain something narritavely (HP loss = physical damage) is much easier for me than *wanting* to use a rule (healing surges) and needing to figure out a way to explain its existence narritavely (Fighters can heal, so HP loss is more than just physical damage). Not only that, but then I need to implement another rule (can only use it once per encounter) and once again, figure out a way to explain "why" narratively.

Mechanically & narratively, the only time I could use a Healing Surge to represent the fact that I'm _healing physical damage_ (by bandaging) would be _after_ a battle. 

Mechanically, a Second Wind (1 action) is faster than pulling out a bandage & wrapping it (2 move actions). So it's breaking the rules if I'm supposedly tending to physical damage.

Narratively, I don't imagine I could bandage a life threatening wound in 6 seconds (1 action). And if it isn't a life threatening wound, then why would I bandage it during combat (use a healing surge)? If my death is from many smaller wounds, then how would I have treated those wounds with a single Heal Surge (1 action) before I die?

Therefore, the damage can't be physical damage. In that regard, my Fighter should never die when reaching -10 HP. All of that damage would be related to the "skill, luck, and resolve" explanations for what HPs represent, or "stun damage or walking it off damage" to explain it narratively.

My point is, an unidentified percentage of physical damage has to be assumed if you die by a loss of HPs. We identify the point of death (-10 HP), so what's the difference identifying the percentage of physical damage taken? 

It's just a rule put in place to cater to a certain playstyle cause it's convenient. I like convenience, but not if it doesn't come with a believable explanation.


----------



## Gaerek

JRRNeiklot said:


> Wow, I'd hate playing a cleric too, if that were my options.  Her's my current spells prepared in our 1e game.  I'm 8th level and have been blessed with an 18 wisdom:
> 
> 1st level:  Cure light wounds x3, command x2
> 
> 2nd level: Hold person x2, resist fire, silence 15' radius, augury
> 
> 3rd level:  Speak with dead, Locate Object, Dispel Magic, Prayer
> 
> 4th level: Cure seriuous wounds, divination, sticks to snakes
> 
> 
> I have a few cures for emergencies, but mostly combat or utility spells.  My options are to heal the injured, attack with my mace or sling, cast offensive magic, of which I have some of the best in the game, gather information about the upcoming dungeon, so that less people NEED to be healed.  I have the best ac in the game, and I'm the second best fighter.  In a pinch, I can serve as the trap finder, as well.   And should we get our asses handed to us, I can spend a day and have the party ready to go tomorrow.  Healbot, indeed.




I suppose that makes my argument moot!

In reality, I haven't played 1e in, oh, 15 years. A lot rides on the DM. I've been stuck with a lot of a-hole DMs that know how much healing a cleric is capable of, and build encounters accordingly. I have seen many cleric spell builds like that in the past, but it was very dependent on the game and the DM. Large, 1e style mega dungeons that were more about overcoming puzzles/traps/etc than combat meant less emphasis on healing. 2e Players Option: Combat and Tactics (which my group played, and loved) and 3e meant more emphasis on combat, and accrdingly, more emphasis on healing.

With 4e style, large, tactical battles (which I, and my group absolutely love), a lot of healing is essential. Play that kind of combat with a 3e and before system, and you've got your healbot.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Well, this discussion seems to be going how it always goes.

One group looks at hps and the like as a way to play a game, and the other group wants it to reflect reality.

I am in the first group.

Overall, healing surges and the like work well to keep the party's resources under control. In 3.5 the evil CLW wands allowed any party that could survive a fight to keep going mroe or less indefinitely. Especially if the party had a cleric who could make the things for half cost. 

I prefer the 4E system, actually, htough I owuld like to see mroe ways for characters to use them in combat, making healing powers less of a requirement and all the goofienss I see in 4E due to that. 

Personally, I wouild like 5E to go one mroe step and let characters spend Hs pretty freely, though not toally freely and get rid of hte need to have leader classes heal. Maybe htey can still make Hs heal better, but they should not be the ones who have to sue pwoers to tgrigger them.


----------



## gamerprinter

In the end, I don't play 4e, so how 4e characters heal is of little concern to me. I've tried 4e, didn't like it, though thought it was a fine game for those who do like it.

For the last 30+ years when you're low on hit points - have the cleric heal you, chuck a healing potion, or get a dose of a cure wand - it all works fine and my character can keep going. I don't need a lot of fiddly rules to make it 'better'. Nor do I need to explain how this works - it works.


----------



## Oryan77

For those that keep using the "Cure Wands" excuse, I'm telling ya, get rid of magic item shops and control what magic items PCs can get their hands on and it solves all kinds of problems. From a DM perspective, there's actually no negatives to doing so. 

Sure, PCs could still craft them, but that's much less commonplace.


----------



## FireLance

TheAuldGrump said:


> Bear in mind that my experience with 4e is limited, and was not what I would consider fun....
> 
> Healing Surges are part of what creates 'the grind' - where combat becomes predictable, you know who has won or lost, but the combat is going to go on for another half an hour anyway.... It bored me out of my skull.  Between Healing Surges and a whole lot of pushing and pulling miniatures this way and that a combat that should have taken an half hour took almost three hours. (Admittedly, with a snack break in the middle.) Healing Surges are the only offensive feature that I can name off hand - there were multiple pushes and pulls with names varied by class, but _everyone_ had Healing Surges.
> 
> A 'once per day' Healing Surge might be more palatable to me, but as they are currently written....



Actually, it seems to me like you are talking about the Second Wind action rather than healing surges. Spatula's post here provides a pretty good breakdown of the issues.


----------



## gamerprinter

Oryan77 said:


> For those that keep using the "Cure Wands" excuse, I'm telling ya, get rid of magic item shops and control what magic items PCs can get their hands on and it solves all kinds of problems. From a DM perspective, there's actually no negatives to doing so.
> 
> Sure, PCs could still craft them, but that's much less commonplace.




There's no such thing as a Magic Shop in any of my worlds. In fact, I haven't included the concept in my published setting either. Of course, that won't stop GMs from sticking one in, and they're welcome to it.

For me, magic items are treasure found on adventures, not purchased in stores.


----------



## Alzrius

I haven't read this thread from the beginning, so apologies if someone already expressed this sentiment (better).

For me, the problem with healing surges is wrapped up in the following:

*Hit point loss represents taking physical damage. Conversely, regaining hit points represents physical healing.*

The above point is _fundamental_ to understanding why I don't like healing surges - they necessitate that the above understanding be discarded and replaced with an alternative understanding for what hit points represent (e.g. that hit points are a character's "ability to keep fighting" or something similar).

If hit point loss is damage, and hit points gained is healing, then having characters spontaneously, non-magically regaining hit points means they've essentially just had a burst of regeneration; suspension of disbelief breaks at that point.

Now, using hit points to measure physical damage taken/healed has some baggage to describing exactly how it works in-character. A big one is the relativity of the damage, that is, why 8 points of damage is lethal to a 1st-level commoner but negligible to a 20th-level fighter.

In my game, the loss is looked at as a percentage of a character's total hit points, and then described in-character accordingly. For a character with only 6 hit points, 8 hit points of damage is a punctured vital organ; for a character with 200 hit points, it's a scratch.

There are some problem areas with this approach, to be sure. The converse of the above method of "damage as a percentage" is that magical healing actually becomes _less_ effective at higher levels (e.g. a _cure light wounds_ will restore that 1st-level commoner from dying to pristine condition...but for that 20th-level fighter it'll only heal scratches). Housecats can kill commoners with a swipe of the claws or two. High-level characters can fall off cliffs and reliably survive.

The thing is, most of these problems are either corner cases, or are easily ignored - they're the rough spots that come with that basic assumption about hit points, and I've long since accepted those problems as part-and-parcel of that way of looking at them. 

But spontaneous healing surges are too regular to shrug off, too conspicuous to overlook, and too radical a departure from how I view hit point loss/healing in my games. Hence, I don't like them.


----------



## FireLance

Well, it seems to me that most of the problems that people have with healing surges are not actually problems with healing surges per se. Rather, the problems seem related to non-magical recovery of hit points, and the speed of hit point recovery.

The fact that hit points can be recovered by non-magical means (taking a short rest, the second wind action, a warlord's _inspiring word_) imposes certain restrictions on the narration. It means that hit points are almost entirely non-physical. When a character loses hit points, you can narrate a small cut, a minor bruise, or some fatigue from dodging a blow that would otherwise have killed him, but nothing that would hamper the character significantly. If the only way to recover hit points is through magical means, you can get a bit more creative with the narration, because the idea that magic can fix anything doesn't jar with most peoples' sense of realism (magic is, after all, inherently unrealistic). Most people can accept that a character can be dying one minute, and be back on his feet, fighting as if nothing has happened after he receives magical healing. Not everyone can accept the various narrative justifications why he can do so after non-magical hit point recovery ("He's ignoring the pain"/"He's just _that_ tough"/"He's been bandaged to the point that the wound doesn't bother him").

A related point is rapid hit point recovery, whether it's the ability to take the Second Wind action in the middle of a fight, recovering hit points after a short rest, or recovering all healing surges after an extended rest. It is still plausible if you accept the narrative convention that hit points are mostly non-physical, but it does have an impact on gameplay, as a number of posters have noted.

Of course, since these issues have nothing to do with the concept of healing surges, you can address them while retaining healing surges as written: ban the warlord class and other non-magical sources of healing (or re-write them so that they provide temporary hit points instead of hit point recovery), ban the spending of healing surges during a short rest, remove the Second Wind action or restrict it to once per day instead of once per encounter, slow down the rate of healing surge recovery, etc.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

FireLance said:


> Actually, it seems to me like you are talking about the Second Wind action rather than healing surges. Spatula's post here provides a pretty good breakdown of the issues.



Second Wind - you mean what allows you to _use_ Healing Surge' in combat?

Sorry, I consider them part and parcel. I do not like the mechanic, not because it is 'unrealistic' but because it is _boring._ It makes for boring combats in boring encounters that make up boring adventures.

Clear on that? I said 'Healing Surge' meaning the general mechanic, 'Second Wind' is a specific of that mechanic. I do not like _any_ of the mechanics of Healing Surge, not just that one instance. That one instance was just the one that was most used in three hours of the least fun that I have ever had gaming. I would rather have been playing Clue or watching a movie. 

The Auld Grump, being corrected when the correction is incorrect annoys me... does it show?


----------



## Dragonblade

Being able to play through multilple exciting combats/encounters without having to camp, use a wand, or rely on a cleric after each one = fun. 

Having to rely on a cleric, a wand of CLW spells, or needing to camp for a day or more after an exciting and challenging combat/encounter = unfun. 

If 5e comes up with something better than Surges, then fine by me. But I certainly hope the game doesn't regress back to prior edition mechanics.

I'm playing Pathfinder and having to camp, use a wand, or ask the cleric for healing after every encounter is really getting tiresome.


----------



## gamerprinter

FireLance said:


> It means that hit points are almost entirely non-physical.




For me hit points and healing of hit points are physical only. Game designers have tried to explain it otherwise since the beginning of the game, but the game plays like hit points are physical - it works fine that way and I cannot see it as non-physical. So healing surges feel unnatural - no other explanation necessary.


----------



## prosfilaes

Dice4Hire said:


> One group looks at hps and the like as a way to play a game, and the other group wants it to reflect reality.




I think that's an unfair dichotomy. I certainly don't want HPs to reflect reality. They're a playable abstraction, and even at that represent certain types of fiction more than frequently brutal reality. But on the flip side, this is not Go or Chess or Monopoly. We're roleplaying characters in a world that has to exist as a fictional world, not abstract meeples across an abstract board. The world has to work in some sense for this to be an RPG and not an abstract wargame. If you can't believe in some sense in the world, you can't really roleplay a character in that world.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

ehren37 said:


> Regardless, it beats 3rd edition/pathfinder's "we poke each other with a stick" for x rounds using undercosted wands of cure light wounds.



1) in your opinion, not everyone's, of course

2) we never use CLW wands- for magical healing, its potions or casters.



GSHamster said:


> One thing I do find odd about this discussion is that several detractors of healing surges have referred to the system as "videogamey".
> 
> Yet the vast majority of videogames tend to follow the old system,




Depends on the videogames- I specifically mentioned arcade fighters and FPSers.  It happens in fewer of the latter, to be sure, but many if not all of the arcade fighters I've played allow for in-combat healing akin to the HS mechanic.  Result: I can't use a HS in 4Ed without thinking of how I used to drop quarters...

Hence, "videogamey."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dragonblade said:


> Being able to play through multilple exciting combats/encounters without having to camp, use a wand, or rely on a cleric after each one = fun.




Funny, our 1Ed, 2Ed, 3Ed and 3.5Ed campaigns of the past 30+ years had no problem running 5-7 encounters between rests.  (Again, without CLW wands.)

It's all about playstyle, not mechanics.



> Having to rely on a cleric, a wand of CLW spells, or needing to camp for a day or more after an exciting and challenging combat/encounter = unfun.




In your world, it's called unfun reliance on a cleric.  In mine, it's teamwork.


----------



## Dragonblade

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Funny, our 1Ed, 2Ed, 3Ed and 3.5Ed campaigns of the past 30+ years had no problem running 5-7 encounters between rests.  (Again, without CLW wands.)
> 
> It's all about playstyle, not mechanics.




Funny, my 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, and Pathfinder games pretty much mandated that either we are camping, using our portable surge sticks (aka wands), or bringing along an NPC healbot (I mean cleric). It was either that or a TPK because we didn't have the resources to keep going.

Its about the mechanics not supporting our playstyle. Having the DM contrive carefully measured resource draining encounters is stupid. You end up sleep walking through the first three, and then get to the "OMG we are going to TPK!" encounter. Much better to have four equally exciting full bore encounters instead.

The first approach feels more contrived and artificial to me, while the second feels more organic and exciting. There are elements of 4e that I find videogamey, particularly in terms of the mechnical structure of powers and the minis requirement, but healing surges is not one of those things.



> In your world, it's called unfun reliance on a cleric.  In mine, it's teamwork.




Forcing someone to play a cleric is not 'teamwork'. Nor is bringing along an NPC healbot to serve the same role.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Having the DM contrive carefully measured resource draining encounters is stupid. You end up sleep walking through the first three, and then get to the "OMG we are going to TPK!" encounter. Much better to have four equally exciting full bore encounters instead.




That does not describe my experiences (on either side of the screen) at all.



> Forcing someone to play a cleric is not 'teamwork'.




In 30+ years in D&D games, I've never had to "force" _anyone_ to be a cleric as a DM, nor played in a campaign in which someone was.


----------



## FireLance

TheAuldGrump said:


> Second Wind - you mean what allows you to _use_ Healing Surge' in combat?



It's a fine difference, but I see the Second Wind action as something that allows you to heal yourself in combat. The fact that in the 4E rules, the healing is accomplished by spending a healing surge is irrelevant - a Second Wind type action can be used even in game systems that do not have the concept of healing surges: Star Wars Saga Edition, for example.



> Sorry, I consider them part and parcel.



Me, I try to boil them down into their basic concepts in order to distinguish the effect that they have. To me, the essence of Second Wind is that anyone can spend an action to recover hit points in a fight. The essence of a healing surge is that healing generally becomes a daily resource and is proportional to the maximum hit points of the character.



> I do not like the mechanic, not because it is 'unrealistic' but because it is _boring._ It makes for boring combats in boring encounters that make up boring adventures.
> 
> Clear on that? I said 'Healing Surge' meaning the general mechanic, 'Second Wind' is a specific of that mechanic. I do not like _any_ of the mechanics of Healing Surge, not just that one instance. That one instance was just the one that was most used in three hours of the least fun that I have ever had gaming. I would rather have been playing Clue or watching a movie.
> 
> The Auld Grump, being corrected when the correction is incorrect annoys me... does it show?



Well, your complaining about combat length and posting stuff like "A 'once per day' Healing Surge might be more palatable to me, but as they are currently written.... " did give me the impression that your key problem was with Second Wind. As it is, I still think that the rate of hit point recovery (especially in-combat hit point recovery) is more an issue for you than healing surges, although the fact that 4E allows you to recover one-quarter your maximum hit points by spending a healing surge is probably a contributing factor.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Gaerek said:


> In the end, it's just a game. There's no sense getting worked up about it. I have a feeling, in the end, this is just a case of, "Let's agree to disagree." It's also why I'll refuse to respond to anyone who decides to take this out of the realm of civil discussion, and into the realm of the childish, the insulting, or anything beyond what this is...a discussion about a game.



Cool, looking forward to the civil discussion, and ready to call it a day with, "agree to disagree" whenever you feel it's appropriate 



> I actually agree with you here. I even mentioned in my post that I'm willing to accept the oddities of the system, for the sake of fun. Does it throw off the narrative? Yep, sure does. But for me, it's better than the option. And I think this is where we may disagree.



Possibly, but I honestly think it's more because I find the oddities can detract from fun. Responding as I read the post, though, so let's see if I'm right.



> Again, I do agree with you here. Simulationist games are rarely fun for most people. Extremely "gamist" games usually start off pretty fun, but it tapers off quickly. The best would be somewhere in the middle.



First of all, I'd consider even the most simulationist game to be very, very abstracted. I mean, you have to heavily abstract things in order to make any game. You definitely have different levels of abstraction, no doubt, and some are much more simulationist than others, but to truly account for details without heavy abstraction is pretty much impossible. That is, really, because you have to leave the description open, and the more ways you can describe something, the more abstracted it is.

So, a system without a called shot system is more heavily abstracted than a called shot system that merely increases your damage, which is more heavily abstracted than a called shot system that disables certain body parts, which in turn is more heavy distracted than a system that describes the type of attack ("you get down on one knee, lunging forward as you duck under your enemies swing, your right first slamming into their gut, knocking the wind from them), which is less abstracted than other systems could be.



> I would also argue that the point of having some realism, or roots in realism, or whatever you want to call it, is done, simply because those aspects make it fun, exciting, and interesting. A players character I was DMing for died a couple months ago. He told me, "Man, it's no fun dying." I asked him how much fun he'd have if there was no threat of death. He thought for a moment and said, "The game would be f'ing boring." That's a perfect example of what I'm saying here, and I think you would agree as well. But again, for me, Healing surges fix a serious (in my eyes) flaw with previous editions.



I agree with you about including the roots of realism only to a point. I do think it's done because it's so hard to get away from. Many, many people have a problem feelings immersed in a game when there's no connection to what they know. I have a player who prefers to play humans when possible, actually, because they feel that trying to get into an alien mindset causes them to lose immersion because he constantly have to ask himself if it would be okay to act this way (this is reasonable to a certain extent to me, since I felt alignments did the same thing).

However, immersion is the goal of my group because it's fun. However, immersion isn't the goal for some people. They want strongly narrative play, including director and author stance. These people can definitely appreciate and enjoy immersion, but by setting themselves up to be in a position where they aren't taking a first-person stance on things, they end up losing a lot of potential for true, deep immersion. And there's nothing wrong at all with that type of game. I like it in games like Mutants and Masterminds.

The point, however, is that the game is about immersion to my group because it's fun, but it's not as much fun for other groups to feel as limited as an immersion-first approach can make you. It can really limit your options as a player, and a lot of people want to put the story first, and be really hands-on with it. I can totally understand why that is.

Both approaches, however, tend to include many, _many_ nods towards realism. Gravity nearly always works. Things can be created or destroyed. People die. RPGs tend to be nods to realism, tweaked by design focus and sprinkled with genre expectations. Realism is the base for most RPGs, in my experience, though not the goal for most. Is it simply because it's "fun, exciting, and interesting"? Maybe, but I suspect it's much easier to do than changing all aspects of realism, and I suspect it's because it gives the players a base for the game right away.

That's not to say that a realistic base cannot involve gravity being different, making all matter in the universe indestructible, and all creatures immortal. It can definitely have that as the base of the game. And while that universe would look drastically different from ours, there would be so many other similarities to ours that it's truly staggering. Just the assumption of sleep, for example. Things like emotions. These things will make massive changes to the game world, and it's much more logistically sound to say, "here's the base, and here's how it's different from the base" than to say, "there's no basis for things, here's how things are."



> Hell, back in the mid-90's we were so sick of the whole healer bot/healer stick problem with 2e, we made a bunch of house rules to help us not have to worry so much about having a cleric in a group or at least the requirement for a cleric to memorize tons of heals. The first thing we did was use the 3e cleric spells system (before it was even published). Clerics didn't have to mem heals. The next thing we did (and I forget what we called it) was allow each character to heal half their HP every couple hours with some restrictions (I don't remember exactly how we did this, there were some limits). We ran clericless 2e games without any issues. There were times heals would have been nice, but they were far from needed. Especially the second rule, these were very gamist, but they allowed us to have more fun with the game, so we were willing to suspend disbelief to make it happen.



Personally, I've run campaigns without any magic users in my 3.X-based RPG system. Where everyone is healing wounds naturally (and I slowed down 3.X's healing system!). They didn't have a problem with it. It's going to depend on the group. If your group has a problem waiting for two weeks if you just got really injured, then it'll be a problem. I figure a lot of groups do, but I think people would like to see that as an option in the narrative. By eliminating that option, you can't have a hero be incapacitated for a while, healing up while the bad guy advances his plans, and pushing on _only_ if it's completely necessary.

That's one of my problems with the "healing to full" rules of some systems, and something I tie slightly into healing surges (I don't know if I should, honestly). But, by doing so, you don't have a situation where your hero is injured and unable to participate while the setting progresses (or story, for the narrative-minded). I like that style of play. It's one reason (though not the main reason) that I eliminated long distance travel magic (well, for free, anyways). If you have to walk, ride, fly, or swim everywhere, time passes. You get to see the setting evolve, enemies fall before you reach them, new enemies rise around you, friends get married, have children die of old age, and the like. I'm sure you see the upsides to it. There are also downsides, though. It prevents people from being constantly in the action. It makes them vulnerable to attacks, and less mobile. Considerable, real downsides to consider.

To that end, though, I think the option of "consistently quick healing by adding an element (via a cleric, or whatever)" or "consistent quick healing at all times (via extended rests or healing surges)" means you've just eliminated a style of play in the name of narrativism. This sort of baffles me, as your story-first approach just eliminated a common type of story from unfolding. I mean, The Princess Bride can't happen now, because Wesley can't be that injured. If you're going to embrace a narrative approach, at least let The Princess Bride be possible!

Seriously, though, I think it is a style issue. Your group didn't like the recovery time, and wasn't sad to see it go. I would be, and indeed was. I also prefer gritty fantasy games, though, so I have more of a niche taste in that regard, in all likelihood.



> In other words, it's fun to imagine we're in these situations, and the closer to real life the system is, the more opportunity there is for fun. I do agree.



Well, this, and logistically speaking it's a lot harder to create a game where realism isn't the base. But this is definitely a factor in my mind.



> It's funny how much I actually do agree with you. The difference here being, I personally believe (with the exception of the obvious) that Healing Surges make things more realistic. In medieval style combat (like D&D) in reality, you either survived, or you were dead. If you took more than minor wounds, you were likely dead. The healing surge represents the idea of "licking your wounds" or "walking it off" or "rubbin' some dirt on it" or the burst of adrenaline (which are all very real "ideas") you get sometimes.



Which is why I support two pools of abstraction: physical, and "other" (fatigue, luck, fate, skill at dodging, etc.). Keep the physical HP pool relatively small, and keep the other HP pool bigger, and you eliminate a lot of this issue. Now, if you're getting an adrenaline burst, or heroic surge, or whatever, you're recovering your "other" HP pool, which makes perfect sense: it was never physical wounds to begin with.



> When I played football in high school, I played both offense and defence. I got tired, I got bruised, scraped, cut, etc because I was on the field for 40 out of 60 minutes. Every 10 minutes or so, I'd get rotated out for about 5 minutes. That 5 minutes was enough to rest myself up and be almost at 100% again by the time I hit the field. That's the kind of thing the healing surge is meant to represent. The name they chose for it was bad because it immediately got people thinking, "Oh, characters can heal themselves now??" when that's not exactly what's going on. And I was the same way when I heard that term, and it immediately through me off. Only through playing the system, and understanding exactly what it was trying to do did I change my mind about it. To me, it was an improvement.



Yep, still in favor of the two pools. This is you getting your breath back. That's part of the fatigue from the "other" pool. The "other" pool sets it up for so many different possible abstractions: fatigue ("you're catching a second wind"), luck ("his sword is going to connect, but your footing buckles, and you slip, falling out of the way before his sword hits you"), fate ("as the arrow comes in directly towards your face, you flinch, closing your eyes as blood and feathers spray you... wait, feathers? Yes, a bird flew into the path of the arrow."), skill at dodging ("you deftly dodge out of the way, stopping what would be a sure strike against a lesser warrior"), or even plot protection ("his weapons doesn't work on you, because you're Rand and it has no chance of hurting you!").

This separation of pools leaves an incredibly amount of narrative abstraction at the table, and it also addresses people who have the problem of physical wounds only sometimes being bad, maybe. It prevents things like falling damage (which would just bypass the "other" HP pool. Step off that 80' cliff? Well, too bad it bypasses most of your hit points. Splat.



> I can understand why you feel this way. For me, the benefits of HS outweigh the drawbacks. For you, they do not. And that's perfectly fine! If you invited me to come to a Pathfinder, or 2e or 3e or whatever game, I'd be like, "Date and time? I'll be there!" I just want to play. I prefer 4e, but really, in the grand scheme of things, these are minor issues.



Well, I don't like them for HP as it stands now, but I have a feat in the game I created that allows you to restore your THP (temporary hit points) as a move action. THP in my game is more fatigue than anything else, so it's taking a moment to catch your breath. This makes sense to me, and I wouldn't be against a healing surge mechanic where you get 25% or that HP back or whatever. I'm against it's current implementation, but not it's goal whatsoever.

And, yes, it's a relatively minor issue. Healing surges definitely don't make or break the game for me, or for you, but they definitely augment the play experience one way or the other, depending on the poster 



> I think this is a very viable idea. I always thought Gary Gygax's description of what HP represent was kinda half-assed. However, I couldn't think of anything better without getting into the ridiculous, so I accepted it. If 5e is around the corner, I would be totally ok with this type of a system. For now, I'm find with healing surges.



That makes sense to me, and I'm glad you like it. I'm not sure if it'll get implemented. I think we'll see even more abstracted mechanics, if the new skill system is the track they're on. Personally, I didn't like Monte's skill system, but I know a lot of people do. It's too abstract for me. Then again, I like narrow skills and skill points, so tastes vary!



> That comment about not being ok with HS means not being ok with D&D was tongue-in-cheek. I tend to throw a little hyperbole around to help make a point. My point was simply there's a lot of abstracting in these types of games. D&D is, and has always been, one of the more gamist games out there. Pathfinder, being essentially an extension of 3.5e D&D falls in that category too. For me, it's not much to extend a little more suspension of disbelief to healing surges, for the sake of fun.



I see that, and agree that's D&D tends to be more gamist than a lot of other games I've read about (same for Pathfinder). And I get your feelings on healing surges, and they're valid.



> And please don't get me wrong. I don't think healing surges are the end all, be all cure. I personally believe they work well at what they do. If a new system comes out that replaces them, as long as it's not a regression back to what we had before, I'll welcome it with open arms.



I would too, if they separated the HP pools like I've said, or something similar. I think it'd win over a lot of people. At any rate, thanks for the discussion. And, as always, play what you like


----------



## Oryan77

Dragonblade said:


> Having to rely on a cleric,



....is no different than having to rely on a wizard/sorcerer if you are a fighter type. Or rely on a fighter type to take hits if you are a wizard/sorcerer. It may be harder, but you can get by without a Cleric. It may be harder, but you can get by without an arcane caster.



> a wand of CLW spells,



....is how much different than relying on healing surges? From what I'm reading, CLW wands seem pretty commonplace in games. So the only difference is that the healing surges are free? Yer still relying on both.



> or needing to camp for a day or more after an exciting and challenging combat/encounter = unfun.



....is any different than needing to rest after *every* exciting and challenging combat/encounter? Wouldn't that statement hold more ground if it was in regards to not using healing surges? Before healing surges, I could do 3 or 4 combats before I needed to rest for a night. Healing surges are causing me to rest after every fight and then I still have to rest again each night. 

If people like healing surges because it keeps things moving and is convenient, then why not just eliminate the hitpoint system completely? Then you know for sure that you can always keep things moving and not worry at all about healing those pesky hitpoints. We can just say that if a bad guy hits you more than 5 times, you die. We don't need to roll damage cause figuring out how to heal it is annoying.



> I'm playing Pathfinder and having to camp, use a wand, or ask the cleric for healing after every encounter is really getting tiresome.



 Dude, I know what you mean. I've been playing D&D for 16 years and if I have to buy supplies, use a weapon, or ask the wizard to cast fireball one more time, my head is going to explode.


----------



## FireLance

gamerprinter said:


> For me hit points and healing of hit points are physical only. Game designers have tried to explain it otherwise since the beginning of the game, but the game plays like hit points are physical - it works fine that way and I cannot see it as non-physical. So healing surges feel unnatural - no other explanation necessary.



For me, hit points cannot be completely physical because if a sword thrust deals 8 hp of damage and kills a normal man, and the same sword thrust barely slows down a 10th-level fighter, either the 10th-level fighter survived something that would have killed a normal man (decapitation, stabbed through the heart, sword in the gut) and just kept going, or he somehow managed to turn the 8 hp wound into something less significant for himself than it would be for a normal man. If the former, it feels unnatural to me.  If the latter, then hit points cannot be completely physical.


----------



## Oryan77

FireLance said:


> For me, hit points cannot be completely physical because if a sword thrust deals 8 hp of damage and kills a normal man, and the same sword thrust barely slows down a 10th-level fighter, either the 10th-level fighter survived something that would have killed a normal man (decapitation, stabbed through the heart, sword in the gut) and just kept going, or he somehow managed to turn the 8 hp wound into something less significant for himself than it would be for a normal man. If the former, it feels unnatural to me.  If the latter, then hit points cannot be completely physical.




If you can think abstractly about what hitpoints are in 4e and how healing surges work, then why can you not think abstractly about how damage is dealt to characters of different levels?

I don't think of 8 damage as being the exact same from one attack to another. Even among characters of the same level. It's the overall damage from every strike during a combat that matters to me.

Eight points of damage to a level 1 Fighter doesn't have to mean that it was more powerful than the 8 damage done to a level 10 Fighter. It just means that the attack wounded the level 1 guy more than the attack wounded the level 10 guy. The points/amount of damage rolled is insignificant. The higher hitpoints is a reflection of having more "luck, skill, and resolve" which is why the higher level guy is in better shape.

That's how I think of it anyway. It makes more sense to me than explaining that a Fighter using Healing Surges is not necessarily healing physical damage & can only use 1 Second Wind per encounter, yet if he gets to -10, he dies from physical damage.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur

FireLance said:


> For me, hit points cannot be completely physical because if a sword thrust deals 8 hp of damage and kills a normal man, and the same sword thrust barely slows down a 10th-level fighter, either the 10th-level fighter survived something that would have killed a normal man (decapitation, stabbed through the heart, sword in the gut) and just kept going, or he somehow managed to turn the 8 hp wound into something less significant for himself than it would be for a normal man. If the former, it feels unnatural to me.  If the latter, then hit points cannot be completely physical.




The reality is unrealistic. I've seen 2 people take the same type of injury with the same level of severity and watched one instantly pass out and the other say "Ouch," and then drive to the emergency room on their own. They were both first time shoulder dislocations.


----------



## Celtavian

*re*

I don't like 4E overall.

But I liked healing surges. I like the system of being able to recover on your own without magic. This better fit fantasy. You rarely see a priest administer in combat healing in fantasy books. That was more a pure D&Dism than a fantasy trope. Healing surges allowed you to show how tough fighters shrug off the fatigue and wear and tear of a recent fight. 

Healing surges were a good idea. Not sure how much I loved the implementation of using them as a daily healing limit. I did like that characters could shrug a fight off without using a wand or massive healing magic. Better fit my view of how it should work in fantasy games.


----------



## FireLance

Oryan77 said:


> The higher hitpoints is a reflection of having more "luck, skill, and resolve" which is why the higher level guy is in better shape.



In other words, not completely physical.


----------



## FireLance

Ultimatecalibur said:


> The reality is unrealistic. I've seen 2 people take the same type of injury with the same level of severity and watched one instantly pass out and the other say "Ouch," and then drive to the emergency room on their own. They were both first time shoulder dislocations.



So, even in real life, hit points are not entirely physical?


----------



## Grydan

JamesonCourage said:


> As I've mentioned previously in this thread, separating the hit point abstractions into two separate pools of abstraction is a solution with a lot of merit:
> (1) You have one pool that's "turning bad wounds into less bad wounds, taking physical punishment, etc." that takes a long time to recover, and...
> (2) You have a second pool that's "fatigue, ability to completely avoid damage, etc." that takes a very short amount of time to recover.
> 
> With this method, you can have certain effects reflect the description as necessary. Falling completely bypasses the "fatigue" pool, and deals damage directly to your "physical" pool. Being set on fire does the same. As does being immersed in lava. As does retroactive descriptions. And so on. So many issues with hit points over the past 35 years disappear.




As old issues disappear, new issues arise.

One is that any effect that can bypass the buffer of "fatigue" hit points and go  directly to the "physical" hit points is vastly more powerful and desirable  than ones that cannot. 

If, as you suggest, falling damage bypasses the buffer, then any effect  that can push an opponent off an edge, or even better lift them and drop  them, becomes signficantly better than one that just deals damage. 

If, as you suggest, fire damage bypasses the buffer, fire spells and flaming weapons become dramatically more powerful than even pushing or lifting/dropping, because you aren't limited by the local environment. 

A system where a torch is a better weapon than a sword has... issues.

Systems such as what you are proposing have been used before, even by WotC. One of their Star Wars RPG systems used Vitality Points and Wound Points.

For their final take on the game (Saga Edition), they abandoned the system, and replaced it with a HP + Condition Track (death spiral) system instead.

Why? Well, one of the reasons they gave is that they felt the system was far too lethal. They felt that moving away from it allowed them to better capture the heroic and cinematic flavour of the Star Wars films, which like D&D are occupied by swashbuckling adventurers, clever scoundrels, and beautiful princesses. 

Do some people want D&D to be grittier and more lethal than that? Certainly. I'm not one of them, though.

As soon as ways exist to bypass a large chunk of a character's health, then those methods become what the game is really about. Save or Die effects trump HP damage. "Physical" damage trumps "fatigue" damage.


----------



## Ultimatecalibur

FireLance said:


> So, even in real life, hit points are not entirely physical?




Oops, left out the who of it. The first was a Private in basic training and the other was a Sergent goofing around off duty.

The human body can take huge amounts of damage before it can not work. This amount is pretty constant across everyone. On the other hand it takes an amount of damage that varies from person to person that causes the autonomic nervous system to panic and start shutting body parts down. This pain threshold can be physically trained.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Grydan said:


> As old issues disappear, new issues arise.



As someone who constantly tinkers with game design, this makes sense.



> One is that any effect that can bypass the buffer of "fatigue" hit points and go  directly to the "physical" hit points is vastly more powerful and desirable  than ones that cannot.



Yep. This makes sense to me, and would be desirable.



> If, as you suggest, falling damage bypasses the buffer, then any effect  that can push an opponent off an edge, or even better lift them and drop  them, becomes signficantly better than one that just deals damage.



That would be a feature, not a bug, to me and my players. I do know that mileage will vary.



> If, as you suggest, fire damage bypasses the buffer, fire spells and flaming weapons become dramatically more powerful than even pushing or lifting/dropping, because you aren't limited by the local environment.



I didn't suggest that. I said being on fire. Two different things. Dodging a fire spell? The "other" pool applies. Been lit on fire? It doesn't. You didn't dodge, fate didn't intervene, you didn't get lucky.



> A system where a torch is a better weapon than a sword has... issues.



I don't think that's an issue here.



> Systems such as what you are proposing have been used before, even by WotC. One of their Star Wars RPG systems used Vitality Points and Wound Points.



I wonder if it's what I was proposing. Based on this post, it's not.



> For their final take on the game (Saga Edition), they abandoned the system, and replaced it with a HP + Condition Track (death spiral) system instead.



Okay. That's mildly interesting. It's not something I would do for my game.



> Why? Well, one of the reasons they gave is that they felt the system was far too lethal. They felt that moving away from it allowed them to better capture the heroic and cinematic flavour of the Star Wars films, which like D&D are occupied by swashbuckling adventurers, clever scoundrels, and beautiful princesses.



Makes sense. Then again, like I said, I'm okay with different feels for different genres. I like gritty in my fantasy. I like narrative play in my Mutants and Masterminds. I don't want gritty in M&M, or narrative play in my fantasy games.



> Do some people want D&D to be grittier and more lethal than that? Certainly. I'm not one of them, though.



Right. Makes sense.



> As soon as ways exist to bypass a large chunk of a character's health, then those methods become what the game is really about. Save or Die effects trump HP damage. "Physical" damage trumps "fatigue" damage.



Not what it's about if most effects are hard to implement. Yes, they're more effective and can be taken advantage of, _circumstances permitting_. Pushing someone into lava or off of a cliff is a lot more lethal. That's a good thing in my eyes, even for different playstyles.

To simulationist players, this means that if you push a guy into lava, it doesn't matter if he's really skilled at deflecting attacks, he's going to start burning, and fast. This makes sense to them.

To narrative players, if the GM let them stumble across this circumstance, it's meant to be used. These players tend to be more willing to accept the GM using his control over the narrative to implement interesting settings and circumstances, so this is controlled in these groups by avoiding lava, cliffs, etc. Easy enough.

It mainly has upsides, in my view. You don't make bypassing the "other" pool easy. You make it make sense, and balance it. I think it's doable, as I feel I've done so for my game. But that's me. I understand you don't like it. That's fine. I don't agree with your reasoning. But, in my mind, it's much easier to implement a core optional rule that combines both HP pools into one than it is to separate both. But, as always, play what you like


----------



## gamerprinter

FireLance said:


> For me, hit points cannot be completely physical because if a sword thrust deals 8 hp of damage and kills a normal man, and the same sword thrust barely slows down a 10th-level fighter, either the 10th-level fighter survived something that would have killed a normal man (decapitation, stabbed through the heart, sword in the gut) and just kept going, or he somehow managed to turn the 8 hp wound into something less significant for himself than it would be for a normal man. If the former, it feels unnatural to me. If the latter, then hit points cannot be completely physical.




A couple things, your examples of decapitation, stabbed through the heart and sword in the gut all seem to be special attacks either by vorpal weapons, special monster attacks or class features for possible classes. These things bypass hit points altogether working like Assassinate - if your opponent fails his save, he's slain, no matter if he has 8 hit points or 1800 hit points.

And does it seem realistic that a 1st level character might have 8 HP, while a 10th level might have 80 HP of real damage taking capability? Of course it's not realistic, but it always been part of the mechanic of progressing in level, since 1e. I completely accept this with a suspension of disbelieve - it's D&D, it works as long as you don't put too much real world physics (or biology) into it.

Since I see every HP as real damage and not the combination of adrenaline, perseverance and real damage, healing surges feel 'wrong' to me from a player perspective. I realize this is solely based on my perceptions of hit point damage, which obviously differs from yours and perhaps even the designer's intent. It is how I see it though, and have accepted that way for over 30 years. I'm comfortable with it.

Nothing wrong with healing surges in 4e, that's the way things work, and if I were playing, I'd probably have to give the same suspension of disbelief that that is how things are. I'd accept, but since I don't play that edition, its unnecessary for me to change my point of view.

Mechanically it works out the same a negative hp total of my Con, I'm dead, no matter how I want to perceive how Hit Points work.

Your way is not wrong, it just feels wrong for my personal games, so I don't care for it for that reason only. In D&D PCs aren't normal men, they are heroes and the higher level they are the more heroic they become from abilities to hit points.


----------



## prosfilaes

FireLance said:


> he somehow managed to turn the 8 hp wound into something less significant for himself than it would be for a normal man. If the former, it feels unnatural to me.  If the latter, then hit points cannot be completely physical.




That's semantics. We know that a HP on a 1st level character doesn't mean the same thing an HP on a 10th level character does. But it's completely physical in that it's a measure of physical damage in both cases.


----------



## FireLance

gamerprinter said:


> A couple things, your examples of decapitation, stabbed through the heart and sword in the gut all seem to be special attacks either by vorpal weapons, special monster attacks or class features for possible classes.



And to me, these are plausible narrative descriptions for what happens when a "normal man" with 3 hp takes 8 hp of damage from a sword. 

I'm actually quite curious. How would you describe a normal man with 3 hp taking 8 hp of damage from a sword in your system? How would you describe a 10th-level fighter with 80 hp taking the same 8 hp of damage from a sword?


----------



## gamerprinter

FireLance said:


> And to me, these are plausible narrative descriptions for what happens when a "normal man" with 3 hp takes 8 hp of damage from a sword.
> 
> I'm actually quite curious. How would you describe a normal man with 3 hp taking 8 hp of damage from a sword in your system? How would you describe a 10th-level fighter with 80 hp taking the same 8 hp of damage from a sword?




Sorry, I edited my previous post with what basically answers this. A normal man is a 0 level commoner. Any PC is not a normal man, rather a hero - something completely different and unique set apart from normal men. Whether its the power of the gods that grants this, but the more experience you gain, the more heroic you become. With D&D heroism you gain the ability to sustain more hit points of damage.

And in our games heroes don't attack people that are 4 or more levels beneath them (if they are in the way, they will die, but never sought as an intended target) that is reserved for equals and real challenges. As a GM I don't face PCs against insurmountable odds, challenging odds only, so a 1st level character would never face a 10th level character or CR9 monster - that would be an unfair encounter. It just wouldn't happen in my games.

So the damage dealt and received is appropriate for the level.

I don't need to scientifically dissertate on how this is realistic. For my group's games such a discussion is meaningless - we wouldn't go there.

Edit: and no doubt a decapitation might seem equivalent to 8 points of damage to somebody with 8 hit points total, however in game, decapitation is a mechanic that falls under vorpal and has a definite place in the game, that is not related to your hit point total. Assassinate has existed in one form or another since 1e (not 2e) and whether by assassination table or by PrC ability it confers Death on a failed save having nothing at all to do with hit points. So though the same first level character is dead, he still has his head, unless vorpal came up in play.

And while a gut shot may not be specifically a given mechanic, it could be, especially for some kind of monster whose special gore attack that goes for your intestines.

Although hit points are real damage to me, I don't use hit location tables so your hit points of loss are across your entire body, and none mortal by themselves until you're actually out of hit points. Mortal damage as from something as specific as a gut shot, neck break, decapitation, heart stab are not the same kind of damage from normal combat.


----------



## FireLance

prosfilaes said:


> That's semantics. We know that a HP on a 1st level character doesn't mean the same thing an HP on a 10th level character does. But it's completely physical in that it's a measure of physical damage in both cases.



Same thing. Describe what happens when a "normal man" with 3 hp takes 8 hp of damage from a sword. Describe what happens when a 10th-level fighter with 80 hp takes 8 hp of damage from a sword. 

Bonus questions: Describe what happens when a 10th-level fighter who normally has 80 hp but has already taken 77 hp of damage (so that he has 3 hp left) takes 8 hp of damage from a sword. Is the type of physical damage he takes at this point different from the 8 hp of physical damage he took when he was at full hit points? If so, why?


----------



## Bluenose

Plane Sailing said:


> While I agree that it can be done badly, it can also be done well.
> 
> RQ2 had pretty much fixed hp (and hp per location), hp were always associated with real damage, injuries would impact your ability and yet there were no death spirals as such, and plenty of heroic combats. In fact when I started with RQ2 everyone noticed how much MORE heroic the combat seemed at every point.
> 
> A game that was designed in the late 70's, which was fast, furious and fun while also having more of a nod towards realism in combat. I think it is funny that in 40 years since then so many RPGs have struggled to meet the bar it set.
> 
> Cheers




I wouldn't say RQ2 was particularly fast, to be honest. Attack roll, parry roll, location roll, damage roll from which you then subtract armour points. I mean, I agree that combat feels more "heroic" or at least more deadly, and I always enjoy the game, but I wouldn't say it was always fast.  



TheAuldGrump said:


> Sorry, I consider them part and parcel. I do not like the mechanic, not because it is 'unrealistic' but because it is _boring._ It makes for boring combats in boring encounters that make up boring adventures.




Are they really more boring than _Cure Light Wounds_ wands or _potions of healing_?


----------



## Oryan77

FireLance said:


> In other words, not completely physical.






FireLance said:


> So, even in real life, hit points are not entirely physical?




I'm sorry for wasting your time by responding to your previous post.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

So Mercurius, have you gotten a satisfactory answer?

There are lots of different reasons, most boiling down to someone's personal taste.


----------



## FireLance

gamerprinter said:


> Sorry, I edited my previous post with what basically answers this. A normal man is a 0 level commoner. Any PC is not a normal man, rather a hero - something completely different and unique set apart from normal men. Whether its the power of the gods that grants this, but the more experience you gain, the more heroic you become. With D&D heroism you gain the ability to sustain more hit points of damage.



I'm probably coming across as pedantic or stubborn, but to me, that looks like divine or magical protection/toughness and is therefore not completely physical. Oh well, as another poster said recently, that's semantics.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

FireLance said:


> It's a fine difference, but I see the Second Wind action as something that allows you to heal yourself in combat. The fact that in the 4E rules, the healing is accomplished by spending a healing surge is irrelevant - a Second Wind type action can be used even in game systems that do not have the concept of healing surges: Star Wars Saga Edition, for example.
> 
> Me, I try to boil them down into their basic concepts in order to distinguish the effect that they have. To me, the essence of Second Wind is that anyone can spend an action to recover hit points in a fight. The essence of a healing surge is that healing generally becomes a daily resource and is proportional to the maximum hit points of the character.
> 
> Well, your complaining about combat length and posting stuff like "A 'once per day' Healing Surge might be more palatable to me, but as they are currently written.... " did give me the impression that your key problem was with Second Wind. As it is, I still think that the rate of hit point recovery (especially in-combat hit point recovery) is more an issue for you than healing surges, although the fact that 4E allows you to recover one-quarter your maximum hit points by spending a healing surge is probably a contributing factor.



If Second Wind was the _only_ way to use HS in combat then maybe, but it isn't - so you have something that looks, sounds, and quacks like a duck. Guess what? It's a duck.

While in theory HS gets used _after_ combat, in the game I played they were pretty much used _in_ combat.

So it is still Healing Surge, and it still makes for long boring combats. No thanks, I'll take a cleric slinging spells over the HS any day of the week, and twice on Saturdays.

There are a lot of other things that I didn't like about 4e - but the Grind topped the list, and HS and all its cousins are most definitely part of the Grind.

Wanna guess why I don't play MORPGs? Contrary to a lot of folks I _don't_ think that 4e plays like a MORPG, but they share the Grind, and I don't like the Grind in them, either.

Rather than trying to convince me that Healing Surges don't suck, or that if they sucked then it wasn't Healing Surges, just accept that I really did not have fun with 4e, that Healing Surges were a big part of _why_ I didn't have fun, and leave it at that. I have literally had more fun watching paint dry. (I am cheating with that comparison - I _like_ painting miniatures.)

The best fantasy game in the D20 architecture for avoiding the Grind is not Pathfinder, but Fantasy Craft, I hate the Gear system in FC, but the combat is a lot of fun, at least for me.

The Auld Grump


----------



## gamerprinter

FireLance said:


> I'm probably coming across as pedantic or stubborn, but to me, that looks like divine or magical protection/toughness and is therefore not completely physical. Oh well, as another poster said recently, that's semantics.




That's just it, its how the system has always worked - if it were magic or toughness it would state that it in the rule description, and it doesn't. Its just how D&D works. I've never had a problem with it, or needed to explain it, as an explanation isn't going to change the mechanic - its semantics.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Bluenose said:


> Are they really more boring than _Cure Light Wounds_ wands or _potions of healing_?



 Yes, they are.

Relying on someone else to use a limited resource is more stressful. If Clarke the Cleric is busy healing Bob the Barbarian then Randy the Ranger may be in trouble.

Add in three hours of excruciatingly dull combat and you have why I hate Healing Surges.

Worse, folks trying to make them sound better makes me hate them _more_, not less. Adding frustration to annoyance.

I really think that this is one of those situations where 3.X and 4e fans are _not_ going to understand or accept the other's view. If you like Healing Surges, then fine, play 4e, but do _not_ assume that because I do not like Healing Surges then I do not understand them. I hate them for what they are.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> ...do not assume that because I do not like Healing Surges then I do not understand them.  I hate them for what they are.




That's the core of it.


----------



## Pentius

gamerprinter said:


> There's no such thing as a Magic Shop in any of my worlds. In fact, I haven't included the concept in my published setting either. Of course, that won't stop GMs from sticking one in, and they're welcome to it.
> 
> For me, magic items are treasure found on adventures, not purchased in stores.




I do that, too, regardless of edition, but it only makes healing even more mechanically similar to surges.  In 4e, healing is X per day, internal to the character, in old Es with no wands, healing is X per day, internal to one character(the cleric).


----------



## FireLance

TheAuldGrump said:


> Rather than trying to convince me that Healing Surges don't suck, or that if they sucked then it wasn't Healing Surges, just accept that I really did not have fun with 4e, that Healing Surges were a big part of _why_ I didn't have fun, and leave it at that. I have literally had more fun watching paint dry. (I am cheating with that comparison - I _like_ painting miniatures.)



Frankly, if it was an email conversation, I'd be happy to leave it at that. However, since this is a messageboard, others will also be reading what I write. 

I do not dispute that you did not have fun with 4E, and I do not dispute that you think healing surges were a big part of that. However, I still think that the key issue was too much in-combat recovery of hit points rather than healing surges per se. This is not an assumption, by the way, it is my analysis based on what you have posted on grind and combat length. 

The way I see it, the real culprits are the Second Wind action, minor action healing powers and other ways to spend a healing surge in combat. As mentioned, healing surges may contribute to the problem because the standard conversion rate in 4E is 1 healing surge = 25% maximum hit points, and that adds to the rate at which hit points are recovered in combat. Lowering the conversion rate to 1 healing surge = 10% maximum hit points might mitigate the problem. Removing ways to spend a healing surge in combat might eliminate it completely.


----------



## Pentius

TheAuldGrump said:


> Yes, they are.
> 
> Relying on someone else to use a limited resource is more stressful. If Clarke the Cleric is busy healing Bob the Barbarian then Randy the Ranger may be in trouble.



Except that still happens in 4e.  A cleric can only heal one person per turn.  Randy may be able to second wind, but that is still a very much inferior solution to getting his own cleric healing.  Randy the Ranger using his second wind in 4e is not unlike Clark the Cleric hitting things with his mace in 3.x(or 4e, really).  Yeah, the problem(damage, or lack thereof) will be addressed, but the one suited to it does it better.



> Add in three hours of excruciatingly dull combat and you have why I hate Healing Surges.



I'm not going to try to say this didn't happen.  I'm sure it did.  I've had 3 hour 4e combats, just like I've had 3 hour 3.5 combats.  But I really don't think second wind is as much a contributor as you seem to think.  It's 1/4 of a character's HP.  As a DM, I routinely take that much out of a character in a single turn, more if foes gang up on that one.  And that's without the new MM3 math.  If your rounds are long enough that a second wind makes a battle that much longer, there are deeper problems than surges going on.  Last time I had a fight that long in 4e, we had a break in the middle, and the rest was spent fighting a solo brute with 400hp(at level 5 or some such where that took way to long), AND everyone was brand new to the game.  In 3.5, it was also a solo fight, as I recall, but it took forever because one character(totally not me, cough cough) was such a noob he had to look up his spells each round.



> Worse, folks trying to make them sound better makes me hate them _more_, not less. Adding frustration to annoyance.



yay, I'm exacerbating.



> I really think that this is one of those situations where 3.X and 4e fans are _not_ going to understand or accept the other's view. If you like Healing Surges, then fine, play 4e, but do _not_ assume that because I do not like Healing Surges then I do not understand them. I hate them for what they are.
> 
> The Auld Grump



I get that we have different preferences, and I'm often willing to accept that as a root cause between our disagreements, but I have yet to see you hate healing surges for a reason that even sort of matches my own experience with them.  Thus my post.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I have yet to see you hate healing surges for a reason that even sort of matches my own experience with them.




Lots of people have seen _Gone With The Wind_ and loved it.  I hate it.  No matter how much _GWTW_philes explain their reaction in an attempt to convert me to their view, they will fail.

TAG isn't you.  I am not you.  Why should our experiences with HSes match yours?

Do YOU get reminded of Tekken* when you burn a HS?  I do.  Every. Damn. Time.  If not, why don't you?  Because you are not me.  Thus, one aspect of the game that I find objectionable is not anywhere within the scope of your experiences.




*  I love Tekken, BTW.


----------



## Bluenose

gamerprinter said:


> That's just it, its how the system has always worked - if it were magic or toughness it would state that it in the rule description, and it doesn't. Its just how D&D works.




This is incorrect. I'm pretty sure someone in this thread already quoted the description of hit points from the AD&D 1st Edition Players' Handbook so I won't repeat it, but it's quite clear that hit points *weren't* always purely physical damage. It's very possible to argue that the 4th edition approach is closer to the original intent.

Edit: I'll correct myself. Dungeon Master's Guide, p.82, not the PHB


----------



## Pentius

Oryan77 said:


> I've never heard people defend the HP system as *not* being a representation of physical damage as much as I have until 4e came out.



Yeah, I can see that.



> I know I might get a lot of slack for saying this, but to me, this seems like nothing more than an excuse to defend the healing surge system and to explain how the system is not _unbelievable/videogamey_. Or it's an excuse to justify how wonky the HP system actually is if you try to think of it as just physical damage. It's like an easy cop-out.



It's really not.  The HP system is and has never been an honest attempt to represent purely physical damage.  I get that you see this more since 4e.  4e forces people to face the issue, because it *actually takes its own flavor seriously.*  Let me say this plain, with bold, so you see it, *HP as physical damage has never been realistic.*  Now, I'm a fan of reflavoring, I really am, but one rule holds constant throughout.  *If your way of narrating the events doesn't match the boundaries the rules set, that is ON YOU.*  So maybe 4e doesn't quite jive with the way you've butchered the system for 20 years.  That isn't 4e's fault.  The system has always been intended for HP to be abstract.



> If I have to think of the HP system as "physical endurance, skill, luck, and resolve", then I have to assume a percentage of the "damage" from a claw attack is physical damage if I can die by reaching -10 HP.



No, you really don't.  That's what an abstract system is all about.  IT'S NOT CONCRETE.




> Why not tell me what that percentage of physical damage is? Give me a way to track it since I can die from it, and we'll just assume that "skill, luck, and resolve" were factored into the attack I received from a beasts claws and ignore those the way we ignore physical damage with the idea of Healing Surges.



I see this idea a lot.  Honestly, I have no particular problem with further abstraction of HP.  But do you really think 4e wouldn't be under constant assault for being "not like D&D" if it had defense points or some such instead of HP?


----------



## Pentius

Oryan77 said:


> I know I might get a lot of slack for saying this, but to me, this seems like nothing more than an excuse to defend the healing surge system and to explain how the system is not _unbelievable/videogamey_. Or it's an excuse to justify how wonky the HP system actually is if you try to think of it as just physical damage. It's like an easy cop-out.




And one last bit:

I've seen a lot of people describe HP as concrete over the years.  It's a constant thorn in my side, and why I'm so happy bringing up a new generation of gamers.  I've heard that HP should be concrete since 1e, the idea making 0 sense all the way, and I've accepted it as one of those unavoidable idiosyncracies of a specific group.  It's like when a player tries to say, in character, "I have X AC".  Or "My weapon is +X"  

In other words, treating HP as concrete has snapped me out of any immersion immediately for my entire gaming 'career'.  I'm glad to see 4e finally make people face the inherent abstraction in the system.  Let me say plain, *it was no less realistic when a 1e fighter cured a spear to the gut by resting for a weekend.* 


*I am fully aware some groups regard HP as concrete.  You are actively narrating against the rules, via any edition. The developers are NOT beholden to your against-the-rules-narration.  DEAL WITH IT.*


----------



## Dausuul

Grydan said:


> Why? Well, one of the reasons they gave is that they felt the system was far too lethal. They felt that moving away from it allowed them to better capture the heroic and cinematic flavour of the Star Wars films, which like D&D are occupied by swashbuckling adventurers, clever scoundrels, and beautiful princesses.




The main reason for that excessive lethality was that they allowed critical hits to bypass vitality and go straight to wound points. This was a huge mistake IMO, because it meant that a damage effect scaled to chew through the "buffer" was now being allowed to bypass the buffer. Crits happen often enough that this was far too common.

If falling damage goes straight to wound points (or whatever you call them), you can then scale down the amount of damage dealt by a fall. Likewise with any other "bypass effect." That brings them back into balance with regular damage.


----------



## avin

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Funny, our 1Ed, 2Ed, 3Ed and 3.5Ed campaigns of the past 30+ years had no problem running 5-7 encounters between rests.  (Again, without CLW wands.)




That absolutely does not describe my 2ed, 3ed and 3.5 experiences. Don't get me wrong: if I had to choose my favorite D&D edition it would be 3.5... but 5-7 encounters without wands of healing or potions only if the enemy is clearly underpowered (in my experience).

Now, if Wotc manage to hit large encounters like 4E but a bit more faster and lethal like 3.5, heck, I'm giving them my money again.


----------



## Pentius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Lots of people have seen _Gone With The Wind_ and loved it.  I hate it.  No matter how much _GWTW_philes explain their reaction in an attempt to convert me to their view, they will fail.
> 
> TAG isn't you.  I am not you.  Why should our experiences with HSes match yours?
> 
> Do YOU get reminded of Tekken* when you burn a HS?  I do.  Every. Damn. Time.  If not, why don't you?  Because you are not me.  Thus, one aspect of the game that I find objectionable is not anywhere within the scope of your experiences.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *  I love Tekken, BTW.



I love Tekken,  too, but 4e reminds me not at all of Tekken.  Whether you like or dislike surges is a subjective measure, to be sure, but whether they make the difference between a half-hour combat and a three-hour combat is not a measure of their Tekken-ness.  I question whether surges causes this major time differential the same way I'd question a claim that cutting the bread at a restaurant takes a whole season.  I've cut bread in minutes the same way I've seen HP cut through in seconds.


----------



## billd91

Oryan77 said:


> ....is how much different than relying on healing surges? From what I'm reading, CLW wands seem pretty commonplace in games. So the only difference is that the healing surges are free? Yer still relying on both.




It's the difference between limited and hard to transfer *internal* resources and transferable [/b]external[/b] resources. If one player had a lot of bad luck, you can concentrate any wand healing on him as much as you need to. I find that a big difference.


----------



## billd91

Pentius said:


> And one last bit:
> 
> I've seen a lot of people describe HP as concrete over the years.  It's a constant thorn in my side, and why I'm so happy bringing up a new generation of gamers.  I've heard that HP should be concrete since 1e, the idea making 0 sense all the way, and I've accepted it as one of those unavoidable idiosyncracies of a specific group.  It's like when a player tries to say, in character, "I have X AC".  Or "My weapon is +X"
> 
> In other words, treating HP as concrete has snapped me out of any immersion immediately for my entire gaming 'career'.  I'm glad to see 4e finally make people face the inherent abstraction in the system.  Let me say plain, *it was no less realistic when a 1e fighter cured a spear to the gut by resting for a weekend.*
> 
> 
> *I am fully aware some groups regard HP as concrete.  You are actively narrating against the rules, via any edition. The developers are NOT beholden to your against-the-rules-narration.  DEAL WITH IT.*




I'm not so sure about that. 3x's take on hit points can certainly be used to support a physical-only interpretation of hit points. In the 3.5 glossary: 



> hit points (hp): A measure of a character’s health or an object’s
> integrity. Damage decreases current hit points, and lost hit points
> return with healing or natural recovery. A character’s hit point total increases permanently with additional experience and/or permanent
> increases in Constitution, or temporarily through the use of
> various special abilities, spells, magic items, or magical effects (see
> temporary hit points and effective hit point increase).




The description in Chapter 8:


> HIT POINTS
> Your hit points tell you how much punishment you can take before
> dropping. Your hit points are based on your class and level, and your
> Constitution modifier. applies Most monsters’ hit points are based
> on their type, though some monsters have classes and levels, too.
> (Watch out for medusa sorcerers!)
> When your hit point total reaches 0, you’re disabled. When it
> reaches –1, you’re dying. When it gets to –10, your problems are
> over—you’re dead (see Injury and Death, page 145).




Not much there about hit points being so abstract as to represent skill, luck, divine protection, or a host of other non-physical things. I would agree that in 1e hit points cover a variety of abstractions. The Players Handbook has a more expansive explanation of hit points in it that 3e, for brevity, omits. 2e, I don't know. Those rule books aren't handy to me right now. 

I would be interested in knowing, of the people who adhere to hit points being physical, what edition they started with or played most with. That could have a significant effect on how they view hit points and make the 4e transition that much more jarring.


----------



## molepunch

Hi all. I'm not very articulate but if I may offer my perspective on the Healing Surge and Hit Points discussion:



As a 4E DM, I don't see Hit Points as Health Points entirely. I know this isn't much better but I think of HP as 'destiny' or 'narrative' points. 

If an ogre 'hits' a PC, the 'damage' it rolls, to me, is the potential, erm, Harm Points (if you will), that it dished out. When 'hit', the PC Fighter or Wizard narratively wasn't fast enough or lucky enough to passively avoid the ogre's attack. He then instead must now fork out the necessary Hit Points to narratively 'have a close one' or 'took a hit but not too bad' or 'parry just barely'. As a DM I avoid narrating actual serious wounds until they are Bloodied (4E). As such, Healing Surges don't bother me as the DM because it makes sense. The PC using his Second Wind when Bloodied is still bloody narratively even if it brought his HP past Bloodied; he just isn't flagged with that condition anymore. 

I deal with Poison damage similarly, and Falling Damage is automatically fatal past a certain height. I also adjust critical hits and damage to reflect better.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I question whether surges causes this major time differential the same way I'd question a claim that cutting the bread at a restaurant takes a whole season.




I've seen people get crappy service in restaurants I love: my family once went to a rather posh place for dinner and my father got his escargot appetizer...and that was it.  His dinner never appeared before him.

I wasn't there to see it, but I do not doubt him.  He had no reason to lie.  Others witnessed it.  Still others had made similar complaints about the restaurant on other occasions: inexplicably, this fine establishment occasionally had nights of simply inexcusably bad service.

I view the claim about surges increasing combat duration likewise: I personally have not witnessed it, but enough unrelated people have made the claim since 4Ed hit the shelf that I see no reason to question that this is their experience.

Why haven't I seen it?  Perhaps it is that our playstyle- in which "going nova" is almost entirely unseen- is inherently slower than others' pre-4Ed games, so any HS-related slowdown disappears within our playstyle's inherent pace.  I don't know.

But I can accept that others' perception that HSs cause _their_ game to drag is non-controversial.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Yes hitpoints in all editions have been, to a degree, abstract. They have also been, to a degree, concrete.

Healing surges are, almost in their entirety, abstract.


I don't know why people don't see that.




Some examples of hit points meaning "you got hit and got hurt" include "rider damage" or "rider effects". This can be things such as poison or fire damage. If the person has not been hit by the sword, how are they poisoned? If the troll has not been hit by the sword, why does the fire damage prevent its regeneration? A "wounding" weapon that causes you to "bleed" certainly has hit you, and you are losing blood. To say otherwise negates the narrative.

Yes, clerical curing is odd in many editions (why does a lvl 10 fighter not heal his tiny wounds from a spell that would bring a lvl 1 fighter back from near death). However, just about every single description of healing spells is "closing wounds". I have never, ever, in any edition, seen a healing spell written up as "restores adrenaline" or "improves endurance" or whatever.

In fact, most editions have other mechanics for the things that those defending healing surges are describing hps or HSs as. Endurance? That's tested by con checks and there is an endurance feat. Fatigue? There are fatigue rules. 



All along, hit points have been suggested to be abstract, and in essence, they must be (to a degree). However, the rest of the game was written as if they were quite concrete, but with some small degree of abstraction. 4e has turned this on its head, actually following the intent they have claimed to be doing all along, but have actually not done. EDIT: Also, I'll dispute the degree/level of "hit points are abstractions" in prior editions being claimed as well. I attribute it as a nod to "this ain't always going to make sense, roll with us" rather than them saying "hit points represent far, far more than getting hit/hurt."

EDIT: from the 3e and 3.5 phbs and http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Loss_of_Hit_Points


> Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.




Instead of "the best mechanic we have to simulate combat and injury" hps (because of HSs) are now, in 4e "a complete abstraction of a pc's adventuring across a given day".


The change has been both subtle (subtle as in hard to see) and radical. Hence exactly this sort of thread every so often.

Make no mistake. Hps in 4e represent something different than they have in earlier editions. Healing surges enforce this.


However, and another possible reason for the dislike of healing surges is that the 4e phb considers them "healing" they are defined as such and it specifically states that when a character uses one, he has *healed*. I can envision healing wounds, but are we to say "I healed, so I got luckier again"?


It seems to me that in every edition hit points have been a "have your cake and eat it too" situation. They represent getting hurt, but they also represent more than that. Healing surges go too far with that, mainly representing "you're healing, but you're not really healing". 



There is a backwardness to healing surges. It's the same backwardness that is the cure light wounds does less on a light wound than a serious one (on a lvl 10 vs lvl 1 char). But this backwardness is even more in your face. At least with the curative spells, it is still healing that is being represented. The fact that the rules are ass backwards dosen't change this. With a healing surge, few seem willing to describe them as what wotc describes them as: healing.

Yes, hps represent some manner of luck. This is very telling in the 3.5 description of them when discussing how a lvl 10 ftr getting hit by an orc has suffered a "small wound" or "glancing blow". Healing these small wounds with spells closes the wounds. 

So what does a healing surge actually do? Have I ever been hit? If so, do my wounds close? If so, how do I accomplish this as a normal human fighter? 


In prior editions, yes, hps represented some luck/skill and some physical punishment. But the luck/skill was never restored by curative magics. That is a fundamental difference to what is being restored in 4e with healing surges...and thus causes a fundamental difference to the meaning of hps.


----------



## gamerprinter

Bluenose said:


> This is incorrect. I'm pretty sure someone in this thread already quoted the description of hit points from the AD&D 1st Edition Players' Handbook so I won't repeat it, but it's quite clear that hit points *weren't* always purely physical damage. It's very possible to argue that the 4th edition approach is closer to the original intent.
> 
> Edit: I'll correct myself. Dungeon Master's Guide, p.82, not the PHB




Yes, it did say that in the AD&D 1e book, but even then I thought it was load of crap. Designers may have had intents that it be that way, but in game it always worked as hit points were real damage - know matter what they said...

I just have to agree to disagree with TSR designers at the time - it never made sense to be anything other than 1 hit point = 1 point of damage.


----------



## billd91

gamerprinter said:


> Yes, it did say that in the AD&D 1e book, but even then I thought it was load of crap. Designers may have had intents that it be that way, but in game it always worked as hit points were real damage - know matter what they said...
> 
> I just have to agree to disagree with TSR designers at the time - it never made sense to be anything other than 1 hit point = 1 point of damage.




You may disagree with the rules but that does take you into house rule territory. You can't really expect your view to be supported by later rules or for the D&D community at large to find your argument persuasive.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

billd91 said:


> You may disagree with the rules but that does take you into house rule territory. You can't really expect your view to be supported by later rules or for the D&D community at large to find your argument persuasive.




Well, yes and no.

I think what he's saying (and what I am definitely saying, but said in more depth here http://www.enworld.org/forum/5697988-post118.html) is that they wrote "these are kinda abstract" but then they went ahead and made just about every rule as if they were concrete.

It's not houseruling in that situation, it's acknowledging that they said one thing and did another.


----------



## Gargoyle

I miss the simplicity of hit points without healing surges.  

As far as their abstract nature...

I had a discussion with a player about hit points years ago, I forget the edition.  I explained that I felt that hit points represented more than just damage taken, it was also exhaustion and luck.  The DMG at the time backed me up on that.  His reply was that "Well, then if that poisoned blade didn't actually hit me, why do I need to Save vs Poison?"

I didn't have a good response to that, and I still don't.

Healing surges plus non magical healing in 4e makes the down side of the abstract nature of hit points worse by creating scenarios that strain the suspension of disbelief.  The fighter takes massive damage from the claws of a horrible dragon which the DM describes in gory detail.  He gets his second wind, the warlord tells him to shake it off, and five seconds after the dragon is dead the fighter is ready to take on the next encounter - all without magic.

So what happens?  The DM stops narrating descriptions of the fight.

Hit points are a snap to explain.   Healing hit points with magic or even a healing skill is easy to accept as real in a fantasy game.  Surges are harder to comprehend, and healing what was described in the narrative as real wounds with no magic is tough to enjoy. 

I'm not saying I'm completely against healing surges, but they do cause problems.


----------



## Gaerek

Alzrius said:


> *Hit point loss represents taking physical damage. Conversely, regaining hit points represents physical healing.*
> 
> The above point is _fundamental_ to understanding why I don't like healing surges - they necessitate that the above understanding be discarded and replaced with an alternative understanding for what hit points represent (e.g. that hit points are a character's "ability to keep fighting" or something similar).




This may have already been talked about, but I haven't read the thread to the end, since I wanted to reply to Jameson. But, unfortunately, Hit Point loss, has never fully represented taking physical damage. Not with OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x, PF, 4e, not with any of them. Hit points have always been a very abstract concept that includes a bunch of factors, including, but certainly not limited to, physical health, mental health, endurance, vitality, ability to mitigate damage, glancing blows, luck, etc. Gary Gygax himself spoke about this, as far as I know, as early as the 1e DMG.

There are serious problems with thinking of HP as ONLY physical damage, more so than what you already spoke of. First and foremost, in my mind, if you take a sword hit that does 50% of your physical damage, how are you now able to continue fighting at 100%? I like to think of Boromir in LotR, when he takes the arrow in the chest. He's still conscious, he still has some motor activity, but he certainly cannot fight at 100%. He tries to fight of course, but as he keeps taking arrows, he becomes weaker and weaker.

Here's a quote from the 1e DMG, written by Mr. Gygax himself. (It's the only one I could find in a short amount of time, without access to my books, and at work, but it should suffice).



> _It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability_
> _in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain_
> _physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an_
> _assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust_
> _which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero_
> _could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why_
> _then the increase in hit points? *Because these reflect both the actual*_
> _*physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by*_
> _*constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill*_
> _*in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" whith*_
> _*warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck,*_
> _*and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine*_
> _*protection.* Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand_
> _physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas_
> _which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness)._




Bolded area is key to understanding that HP do not completely reflect actual, physical damage.



JamesonCourage said:


> Cool, looking forward to the civil discussion, and ready to call it a day with, "agree to disagree" whenever you feel it's appropriate




I'm not going to respond to everything you've written, mainly because I believe we're pretty close to being on the same page. I appreciate your being civil as well, and your willingness to agree to disagree. In the end, I like your sig, as it pretty much sums up my feelings. 



> First of all, I'd consider even the most simulationist game to be very, very abstracted. I mean, you have to heavily abstract things in order to make any game. You definitely have different levels of abstraction, no doubt, and some are much more simulationist than others, but to truly account for details without heavy abstraction is pretty much impossible. That is, really, because you have to leave the description open, and the more ways you can describe something, the more abstracted it is.




This is certainly correct. More simulation = more abstraction. More gamey = less abstraction. Abstraction isn't a bad thing, per se, but too much interferes with the actual game play. 



> However, immersion is the goal of my group because it's fun. However, immersion isn't the goal for some people. They want strongly narrative play, including director and author stance. These people can definitely appreciate and enjoy immersion, but by setting themselves up to be in a position where they aren't taking a first-person stance on things, they end up losing a lot of potential for true, deep immersion. And there's nothing wrong at all with that type of game. I like it in games like Mutants and Masterminds.




And this might be the difference. Immersion, for my regular group, comes secondary to having fun. We certainly enjoy immersion, don't get me wrong, but if it interferes with other things that make the game fun for us, we're willing to let a bit go. This is where the suspension of disbelief comes in. I have players in my group that run the gamut as well. For one of my players, he shows up at our games because he wants to "Kill some ." I have another player who doesn't particularly care for the combat system of 4e, but loves how unrestricted it is (with regards to alignment, and other "forced RP" mechanics of older systems) for RP, so he's willing to deal with the combat system for the immersion it gives him in other areas. My other players fall somewhere in between. As for me, as a player, I don't care what system I'm playing, I just want to play. As a DM, well, at this point, I won't DM anything but 4e, but I have other reasons for that, none of which have anything to do with the HS mechanic. 



> The point, however, is that the game is about immersion to my group because it's fun, but it's not as much fun for other groups to feel as limited as an immersion-first approach can make you. It can really limit your options as a player, and a lot of people want to put the story first, and be really hands-on with it. I can totally understand why that is.




Whole heartedly agree. My group is in that category.



> Both approaches, however, tend to include many, _many_ nods towards realism. Gravity nearly always works. Things can be created or destroyed. People die. RPGs tend to be nods to realism, tweaked by design focus and sprinkled with genre expectations. Realism is the base for most RPGs, in my experience, though not the goal for most. Is it simply because it's "fun, exciting, and interesting"? Maybe, but I suspect it's much easier to do than changing all aspects of realism, and I suspect it's because it gives the players a base for the game right away.




Most games can get away without a real heave base in realism. A tabletop RPG, like D&D, really can't. That's sort of the point of the game. My problem is rules that attempt to emulate reality by sacrificing fun. This is why every successful MMO (sorry to bring up video games, it's just a good example) doesn't have permanent death. And in most cases, their explanation was extremely half-assed. Star Wars Galaxies was one of the worst, if you've ever played that. They added "clone resurrection" in a world where nothing like this was ever mentioned in any movie, book, or source material. (I know, clones exsist, but the idea of cloning yourself after you die, did not.) But they knew that the game wouldn't be fun if you had to start over everytime you died.

I know many people disagree, but the Healing Surge Stick (aka. Wand of CLW) and required Cleric made the game less fun for me and my group. Hence, I'm ok with healing surges, even if they aren't realistic. And removing magic shops and not handing out Wand of CLW won't work if your players are more than willing to make them, and mine were. 



> Just the assumption of sleep, for example.




Just wanted to make a quick comment on this. According to all pre-4e rulesets, if my players have a Wand of CLW with enough charges, they could continue literally indefinately, without stopping for sleep/rest. Of course, the magic users wouldn't get their spells back, but the melee classes would never have to stop, ever. 4e gives each character a set amount of endurance. When you're out of HS, you pretty much need to stop. Now, before you comment, I know, the dual health, vitality system you proposed would fix this, but without it (like we are now) 4e means you must rest. 3e and prior, you don't.



> It's going to depend on the group. If your group has a problem waiting for two weeks if you just got really injured, then it'll be a problem. I figure a lot of groups do, but I think people would like to see that as an option in the narrative. By eliminating that option, you can't have a hero be incapacitated for a while, healing up while the bad guy advances his plans, and pushing on _only_ if it's completely necessary.




One of the biggest selling points of 4e to me was the cinematic feel of everything. John McClane in Die Hard should have been incapacitated after the first 20 minutes of the movie. Instead, he lasted the entire length of the movie and defeated the BBEG, Professor Snape. 

It really takes away from that feel if my players have to go back to town to rest at the inn for 2 weeks after every 3 or 4 encounters. I'd quit a game like that, so would my players. Again, we're willing to suspend some disbelief to have that slightly over-the-top, cinematic feel.



> That's one of my problems with the "healing to full" rules of some systems, and something I tie slightly into healing surges (I don't know if I should, honestly). But, by doing so, you don't have a situation where your hero is injured and unable to participate while the setting progresses (or story, for the narrative-minded).




Again, my players characters are heroes in the vein of any fantasy/action movie. In LotR, sure, Frodo had to rest after he got stabbed by the Nazgul, but after that point, he never had much of an extended break. Any real person wouldn't have been able to do what he did. They make the setting progress (either by actively affecting it, or choosing not to participate in something). The setting doesn't make my players progress.



> I like that style of play. It's one reason (though not the main reason) that I eliminated long distance travel magic (well, for free, anyways). If you have to walk, ride, fly, or swim everywhere, time passes. You get to see the setting evolve, enemies fall before you reach them, new enemies rise around you, friends get married, have children die of old age, and the like. I'm sure you see the upsides to it. There are also downsides, though. *It prevents people from being constantly in the action. It makes them vulnerable to attacks, and less mobile. Considerable, real downsides to consider*.




Bolded is the key for me. That's not heroic. That's normal. Characters aren't normal. They are heroes. I agree with a lot of the travel stuff, but at a certain point, there's no reason why an 18th level wizard (thinking 3e and prior) can't go pretty much wherever he wants to go. He's practically a god in anything else he does, but he has to walk from town to town? Not very heroic. At low levels? Sure, you're hoofing it.



> Seriously, though, I think it is a style issue. Your group didn't like the recovery time, and wasn't sad to see it go. I would be, and indeed was. I also prefer gritty fantasy games, though, so I have more of a niche taste in that regard, in all likelihood.




Here it is. The key point.  It looks like we will be agreeing to disagree.



> Which is why I support two pools of abstraction: physical, and "other" (fatigue, luck, fate, skill at dodging, etc.). Keep the physical HP pool relatively small, and keep the other HP pool bigger, and you eliminate a lot of this issue. Now, if you're getting an adrenaline burst, or heroic surge, or whatever, you're recovering your "other" HP pool, which makes perfect sense: it was never physical wounds to begin with.




Put this in a game and I'll play it.  Seems like if gives the best of both worlds. Let's hope Mr. Cook can do something like this for 5e.



> That makes sense to me, and I'm glad you like it. I'm not sure if it'll get implemented. I think we'll see even more abstracted mechanics, if the new skill system is the track they're on. Personally, I didn't like Monte's skill system, but I know a lot of people do. It's too abstract for me. Then again, I like narrow skills and skill points, so tastes vary!




From what I've seen, people either love or hate Monte Cook. For me, I like a lot of what he's done. But there are some things that are questionable. I don't like the 3e skill system. I think the more simplified 4e system is superior. But that's just an opinion. Sure he created the base of current skill system, but the older one just got out of hand very quickly.



> I would too, if they separated the HP pools like I've said, or something similar. I think it'd win over a lot of people. At any rate, thanks for the discussion. And, as always, play what you like




I'm with you here.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

*Hit points across several editions, and curing:*

Hit points across editions, and curing:

*AD&D first edition phb, p34:*
"These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant prtion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points... It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment...Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."

Cure light wounds: "Upon laying his or her hand upon a creature, the cleric causes from 1 to 8 hit points of wound or other injury damage to the creature's body to be healed."


*AD&D 2nd edition Player's Handbook, page 138-139:*
"Sometimes, no degree of luck, skill, ability, or resistance to various attacks can prevent harm from coming to a character. The adventuring life carries with it unavoidable risks. Sooner or later a character is going to be hurt...Damage is subtracted from a character's (or creature's hit points. Should one of the player characters hit an ogre in the side of the head for 8 points of damage, those 8 points are subtraced from the ogre's total hit points. The damage isn't applied to the head, or divided among different areas of the body. Hit point loss is cumulative until a character ies or has a chance to heal his wounds." [A brief vignette follows and then a section entitled WOUNDS.] "When a character hits a monster, or vice versa, damage is suffered by the victim."

Cure light wounds: "When casting this spell and laying his hand upon a creature, the priest causes 1d8 points of wound or other injury damage to the creature's body to be healed."

*D&D 3.0 player's handbook page 127+128*
"Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. While exotic monsters have a number of special ways to hurt, harm, or kill you, usually you just take damage and lose hit points."
"*What hit points represent*: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. A 10th-level fighter who has taken 50 points of damage is not as badly hurt as a 10th-level wizard who has taken that much damage. Indeed, unless the wizard has a high constitution score, she's probably dead or dying, while the fighter is battered but otherwise doing fine. Why the difference? Partly because the fighter is better at rolling with the punches, protecting vital areas, and dodging just enough that a blow that would be fatal only wounds him. Partly because he's tough as nails. He can take damage that would drop a horse and still swing his sword with deadly effect. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn't have the favor of some higher power."

glossary, p279: "Hit points (hp): A measure of character health or object integrity. Damage decreases current hit points, and lost hit points return with healing or natural recovery."

cure light wounds: "When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (up to +5."

*D&D 3.5 player's handbook, page 145*
(Basically the same as 3.0, but a shortened version)

(glossary and cure light wounds are same as 3.0)

*D&D 4e player's handbook, page 293*
"Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. *Hit points (hp)* measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve-all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation...Powers abilities and actions that restore are known as *healing*. You might regain hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic."
"Even in a heated battle, you can heal. You can heal yourself using your second wind,..."

Cure light wounds: "You utter a simple prayer and gain the power to instantly heal wounds, and your touch momentarily suffuses you or a wounded creature with a dim silver light....The target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge."


----------



## gamerprinter

billd91 said:


> You may disagree with the rules but that does take you into house rule territory. You can't really expect your view to be supported by later rules or for the D&D community at large to find your argument persuasive.




Nor was I trying to persuade anything. The question was asked why I don't like healing surges, and I've been quite clear as to how I view hit points damage. So I must accept that HP is some kind of mix of things as stated in 2e, even though THAC0 didn't follow along either. I think 2e and 3x/PF are apples and oranges to a great degree.

Houserules change the game. But by the book or by my explanation, HP works the same - how could my perception be a 'houserule' when this 'houserule' has no mechanical difference whatsoever.

And as stated its semantics really, whether HP is actual damage or something else doesn't change how HP works in game, nor how damage works, nor how healing works. When I get to -10/-CON Score, I'm dead, in under whatever explanation you want to give it. So whether I believe it works differently than how you think it works - it doesn't change its effect in game. It works by either explanation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to my point of view - really I could care less. As long as HP = some kind of loss, and total loss = death, it's no different by any explanation of specific details. Those details don't change my game, so it's really meaningless. Its all 'handwavium'.


----------



## Mercurius

Wow, this thread got out of hand (in terms of size). I can't possibly take the hour or two to read through every post, but I tried to skim through. Forgive me if I'm repeating a view already expressed.

The idea that Hit Points represent the capacity to withstand physical damage is, quite frankly, erroneous. It just doesn't make sense--the curve in every edition is too great (4E is a bit better because of higher starting HP, but still). In pretty much every edition, the designers have clearly stated that HP is *not* only the capacity to withstand physical damage, that it is a combination of factors including skill, endurance, vitality, etc. 

Healing surges are based upon that assumption, and therefore make sense in the context of the rules as they are written. The only way they _don't _make sense and are "videogamey" is if HP represent physical damage capacity only, and the only way that HP represent physical damage capacity only is if a given DM and group decide to change the rules, or at least interpret it in a way that the rules were not intended. There is nothing wrong with that, but you end up in a pick-up-sticks situation: move one stick and everything else is impacted (or, in this case, doesn't make sense). Yes, if HP are physical damage capacity only, then healing surges don't make sense and/or are videogamey, but then also high HP totals don't make sense either, so I would suggest a reduction of HP altogether with some kind of size multiplier.

But the problem with this interpretation is that it is essentially a kind of category error, like saying "Mozart is crappy heavy metal." Mozart isn't heavy metal, wasn't intended to be heavy metal. Everyone has the right to categorize Mozart as he or she chooses, and certainly if one thinks of Mozart as heavy metal than his music will be rather crappy, but it is taking interpretation a bit far. 

Of course that is a bit extreme, but its the same general idea. 

[MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] - I'm sorry that you were offended by my suggestions 1E and 2E were imperfect games, but I am not interested in the semantic game of "You're putting forth your personal opinion as if it is fact." That must be the most out-worn, over-used debate on the internet. Not interested in rehashing that for the umpteenth time.

[MENTION=18701]Oryan77[/MENTION] - First of all, I haven't been participating on EN World much over the last couple months, except the last week or so. But admittedly, yes, I like controversial topics. They tend to be interesting. I didn't start this to get people riled up; I was honestly curious as to why people don't like healing surges. I'm getting the sense that the dislike is largely based upon an idiosyncratic interpretation of the rules which leads to the category error I described above.

Now there are other reasons that some have stated for disliking healing surges that, imo, have more validity (because they don't "liberally interpret" HP)--for example, the fact that they contribute to the The Grind. That makes sense to me. But again, not liking healing surges because one interprets HP as physical damage capacity only is based upon an interpretation of the rules that isn't how the rules were written or intended.


----------



## gamerprinter

That's all fine. The question was why some people don't like healing surges. Not 'liking' something is a question of preference involving feelings. So why must the supporters of healing surges insist on some kind of exacting explanation on how it works 'between the rules'. No scientific explanation is going to make any kind of difference on my 'feelings' on this or that. It doesn't feel right to me, isn't that enough?


----------



## DEFCON 1

The reason why I've never considered hit point loss to be "real" damage or injury is because of the loss of versimilitude I see between D&D combat and "real" combat if I did.

In actually swordfighting... especially between highly armored individuals, you usually don't see actual real injury occur until one of them manages a killing blow.  Instead, you see two guys getting bruised, getting tired, getting their bells rung, slowing down, perhaps get some small cuts across the face or arm... until _finally_ someone manages to get their weapon past their opponent's defenses and cuts off a limb, or guts the other guy in the stomach or face.  But once that happens, the _fight is over_.

Now for the guy who wins... he usually isn't massively injured, because if he was, he wouldn't have been able to continue fighting.  His guard would have dropped, and _he_ would have been the one to have received the killing blow (or the 'took such a catastrophic injury that he ain't getting up any time soon, if ever' blow.)  Instead, he takes off his helmet, he regains his breath, he drinks some water, he maybe bandages some superficial wounds, and he then gets ready to continue on to the next battle.  He never was actually _hurt_.

To me, that's swordfighting.  Lots of superficial bruises and cuts until one to two massive blows occur that result in bodily shock, physical trauma, or immediate death.  Each attack is _not real injury, not real injury, not real injury, not real injury, not real injury, BOOM! SWORD TO THE FACE!_  And this is where I think the Healing Surge mechanic actually makes a little bit of sense.

Now you put this up against the D&D format, where _if we assume_ that hit point loss is actual physical injury... you have a guy with 100 HPs taking anywhere from 3 to 15 physically damaging blows (attacks which cause hit point loss) over the course of an entire fight.  To me, _that_ seems patently ridiculous.  Especially when at the end of a fight when a guy only has 5 HPs left, the only way he can regain those hit points is through _magical_ healing potions or the blessed cures of a man of the cloth?

What kind of attacks were these things?  Somehow deadly enough that they _require_ magical healing to remove... but not deadly enough that the fighter could take 3 to 15 of them during the fight?  Doesn't make sense.  Sure, you might _occasionally_ see a guy take a massive gouge to a non-critical part of the body (say, the thigh or something) that would ordinarily require surgery (or magical healing)... but that would only account for _one_ of those 15 injurous attacks.  

I dunno about anyone else... but if I see a swordfighter getting hit by a sword 15 times and is still fighting at full strength... those _aren't_ causing actual physical injury (save for maybe one or two, plus the actual killing blow.)  They just aren't.  They're just bruising.  They're just fatigue.  They're just superficial loss of energy that you can get past by getting a Second Wind or a having a friend to tell you to Rub Some Dirt Into It.

So all in all... while the 4E doesn't take all parts of swordplay into account via hit points / healing surges... it's no more unrealistic than any of the other edition's damage systems.  They're ALL abstractions.  And thus you have to just accept them as game rules, rather than trying to mimic reality.


----------



## Oryan77

Pentius said:


> *I am fully aware some groups regard HP as concrete.  You are actively narrating against the rules, via any edition. The developers are NOT beholden to your against-the-rules-narration.  DEAL WITH IT.*




You're ok with the rules actively going against your narrating? Rules are a tool for me, they are not going to dictate my narrating.

I can use the hitpoint rule and narrate how it works just fine (regardless if people agree what HPs represent). You can't do that with healing surges without making all kinds of assumptions and contradicting your narrating. If I could make sense of it in my narrations (in a way I liked) then it wouldn't be ok. But rather than let it dictate how I narrate, I'd rather not use the rule at all. Especially because I don't need the rule unless I want D&D to be easier to win.

BTW, just because you bold lines of text doesn't mean you just proved how I'm playing D&D wrong. You don't need to do that. The "deal with it" comment was also unnecessary. You need to chill out if you're getting that upset just because I *hate* healing surges.


----------



## NewJeffCT

Gargoyle said:


> I had a discussion with a player about hit points years ago, I forget the edition.  I explained that I felt that hit points represented more than just damage taken, it was also exhaustion and luck.  The DMG at the time backed me up on that.  His reply was that "Well, then if that poisoned blade didn't actually hit me, why do I need to Save vs Poison?"
> 
> I didn't have a good response to that, and I still don't.




Easy explanation on that one.  A level one fighter gets hit by a poisoned sword and take 8 points of damage from the slashing gash the orc just opened from his hip to his armpit.  He then needs to make a saving throw vs poison.

A level 10 fighter gets hit by a poisoned sword and gets nicked in the arm for 8 points of damage.  However, since he was hit, he still has to make a save vs poison.

The difference is a huge gash on a level 1 fighter, vs a nick on a level 10 fighter, even though both attacks did the same damage.

I've been playing D&D since the late 70s now and have been DMing a 4E campaign for a bit over a year now and I'm still getting used to the idea of healing surges.  I don't love how they work, but what I do love is that it really limits the 15 minute adventuring day - if the players have surges/reserves/hit-point-getter-backers or whatever you want to call them - the party can rest 5 minutes and press on and have access to all their at-will and encounter powers.  In prior editions, it was one big combat a day and rest/recover and move out the next day.


----------



## Oryan77

Oryan77 said:


> I've never heard people defend the HP system as *not* being a representation of physical damage as much as I have until 4e came out.




I've also never heard so many people use a variation of "think abstractly" to defend a rule as much as I have until 4e came out.


----------



## Dausuul

DEFCON 1 said:


> The reason why I've never considered hit point loss to be "real" damage or injury is because of the loss of versimilitude I see between D&D combat and "real" combat if I did.
> 
> In actually swordfighting... especially between highly armored individuals, you usually don't see actual real injury occur until one of them manages a killing blow.  Instead, you see two guys getting bruised, getting tired, getting their bells rung, slowing down, perhaps get some small cuts across the face or arm... until _finally_ someone manages to get their weapon past their opponent's defenses and cuts off a limb, or guts the other guy in the stomach or face.  But once that happens, the _fight is over_.
> 
> Now for the guy who wins... he usually isn't massively injured, because if he was, he wouldn't have been able to continue fighting.  His guard would have dropped, and _he_ would have been the one to have received the killing blow (or the 'took such a catastrophic injury that he ain't getting up any time soon, if ever' blow.)  Instead, he takes off his helmet, he regains his breath, he drinks some water, he maybe bandages some superficial wounds, and he then gets ready to continue on to the next battle.  He never was actually _hurt_.




Which is fine, until the guy who had his limb cut off jumps back to his feet and announces it was just a flesh wound and he's had worse. Sometimes I think 4E fighters ought to have a "Bite Your Legs Off" power.


----------



## Gargoyle

NewJeffCT said:


> Easy explanation on that one.  A level one fighter gets hit by a poisoned sword and take 8 points of damage from the slashing gash the orc just opened from his hip to his armpit.  He then needs to make a saving throw vs poison.
> 
> A level 10 fighter gets hit by a poisoned sword and gets nicked in the arm for 8 points of damage.  However, since he was hit, he still has to make a save vs poison.
> 
> The difference is a huge gash on a level 1 fighter, vs a nick on a level 10 fighter, even though both attacks did the same damage.



Which is all fine and good, I do the same, but my point is that because the blade is poisoned, it _has _to hit him.  Otherwise it doesn't make sense.  I can't as the DM say, "You rolled to the right, narrowly avoiding the blade." like I could if it weren't poisoned.  Luck and exhaustion as explanations for losing hp don't make sense when there is a chance that it will poison him.  It has to nick him repeatedly, thus limiting my narration.  



> I've been playing D&D since the late 70s now and have been DMing a 4E campaign for a bit over a year now and I'm still getting used to the idea of healing surges.  I don't love how they work, but what I do love is that it really limits the 15 minute adventuring day - if the players have surges/reserves/hit-point-getter-backers or whatever you want to call them - the party can rest 5 minutes and press on and have access to all their at-will and encounter powers.  In prior editions, it was one big combat a day and rest/recover and move out the next day.




I agree.  And I don't have a better idea on how to get this functionality without the complexity and the narration issues.


----------



## Nagol

Dausuul said:


> Which is fine, until the guy who had his limb cut off jumps back to his feet and announces it was just a flesh wound and he's had worse. Sometimes I think 4E fighters ought to have a "Bite Your Legs Off" power.




And that's why you can only narrate in after the fact.  Party A is worn down to the point where a potentially catastrphic hit happens -- or did it?  Maybe he just slipped and wakes up unhurt and ready to go; maybe he bleeds out on the floor and dies.  You'll only know once the player of Party A works out if and how many healing surges can be triggered.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Dausuul said:


> Which is fine, until the guy who had his limb cut off jumps back to his feet and announces it was just a flesh wound and he's had worse. Sometimes I think 4E fighters ought to have a "Bite Your Legs Off" power.




And that's why I never narrate a guy getting his limbs cut off, unless it was the monster taking the final attack that kills him.


----------



## Dausuul

DEFCON 1 said:


> And that's why I never narrate a guy getting his limbs cut off, unless it was the monster taking the final attack that kills him.




So you never narrate a guy being seriously injured, unless he goes from positive hit points to negative bloodied in one shot? Because that's the only attack you can know to be fatal at the time of narration. If the attack just takes the guy into negative hit points, it's possible--even likely--that he'll be up and about again when combat's over, apparently no worse for wear. Unless of course he bleeds out and dies, in which case he'll be dead.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> And that's why I never narrate a guy getting his limbs cut off, unless it was the monster taking the final attack that kills him.




So, you never use things like Swords of Sharpness?  Your loss.


----------



## Nagol

DEFCON 1 said:


> And that's why I never narrate a guy getting his limbs cut off, unless it was the monster taking the final attack that kills him.




Or going down in a pool of blood, being run through front to back, or having a large visible wound pumping blood, etc.

You're pretty much limited to "Party A goes down"; he may not even have been _hit_.


----------



## Gaerek

Oryan77 said:


> I've never heard people defend the HP system as *not* being a representation of physical damage as much as I have until 4e came out.




I also never heard of people defending the forward pass in football before it was first used in a game. Of course people aren't going to spend time defending it. Prior to 4e, it was the status quo. If you didn't like it, your choice would be to live with it, or not play D&D. It's only after the status quo was changed that the need to defend it occurs.

Having said that, I've had dozens of discussions with people about what HP really represent since I started playing in 1991. When I first started, I didn't think about it. When I spent time thinking about damage in D&D, I went to my DM (this was '92 or '93) and asked him about it, and we argued about it for about an hour. Since then, I've explained/argued/defended it many times. Just because YOU didn't notice people defending it, doesn't mean it didn't happen...a lot...


----------



## DEFCON 1

Dausuul said:


> So you never narrate a guy being seriously injured, unless he goes from positive hit points to negative bloodied in one shot?




Nope.  Makes no sense.  How do you narrate differences in injury that don't actually incapacitate the person?

A fighter gets hit by various attacks for 5 HPs, 12 HPs, 10 HPs, 10 HPs, 4 HPs, then whoops!  Critical hit for 42 HPs!  And then after that attack the fighter still isn't even bloodied yet.

What were those 5 to 12 HP attacks?  Were they all actual cuts?  Cuts that won't 'go away' after combat is done and instead require magical healing to get rid of?  And if so... what then was that 45 HP critical hit?  A complete impaling through the sword arm?  And yet after that... the fighter still doe-see-does through the rest of the combat as though nothing happens.  And then on top of that... our fighter here is wearing a complete set of plate armor.  So where exactly are these 5 vicious cuts occurring on him?  What parts of him are actually exposed enough that he sustains actual physical injury in each of those attacks, and not just bruising and fatigue?

To me, if a swordfighter sustains a narratively gross physical injury... it's removed him from a fight.  He's down.  He's out.  He's not getting up.  You don't narrate the fighter taking an arrow to the throat if the expectation is he's going to spend a couple healing surges to go back to full HP.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Dannyalcatraz said:


> So, you never use things like Swords of Sharpness?  Your loss.






			
				Nagol said:
			
		

> Or going down in a pool of blood, being run through front to back, or having a large visible wound pumping blood, etc.




Not against the PCs, no I don't.

Now when a PC strikes a killing blow on a _monster_, then sure... all those narrative techniques are fine.  Because I know the monster is dead.  He isn't healing himself back up.

But narrating a PC getting a limb hacked off by an ogre?  Not a chance.  Even when I was playing 1-3E and had to use magical healing, I never did that.  Because to somehow believe that these PCs would have their arms chopped off, then picked up and placed against the stump and then reattached and the wounds and muscles all magically sewn back together... and _then_ have them continue their adventuring career as though nothing happened, sometimes even within the hour?  To me, THAT'S stupid and narratively ridiculous.  To have a body take that sort of traumatic shock almost every fight and not have it ever affect the person at the very least psychologically is a narrative dead end in my opinion.


----------



## billd91

DEFCON 1 said:


> [Regarding swords of sharpness] Not against the PCs, no I don't.




Oh, you are seriously missing out. Granted, most of them end up in the hands of the PCs (whatever hands remain) so you have to be willing to put up with that, but until then you get to hear them wail in terror. It's music to mine ears.


----------



## Naszir

Healing Surges within the context of 4e make sense for the most part. 4e hp are considered abstract and represent many different factors as has already been quoted.

The issue of dropping below 0hp might be able to be dealt with narratively if the only way to get a character back above 0hp is with some sort of magic induced healing surge. A warlord yelling at a mortally wounded fighter to "Shake it off", allowing the fighter to magically heal the deadly blow that took him below 0hp is a bit much.

Otherwise it does seem to be a narrative nightmare and for the most part glossed over in some way.

Personally, I could never get hp as being only physically representative. That would make no sense to me. But if someone finds other players who are fine with that and it works for them then roll/role with it.

In some ways you have to look at each individual hit point being representative of a combination of factors. Separating out hit points as "these hit points are physical" and "these hit points are luck" and "these hit points are skill" just makes a mess of things, IMO.

I see each individual hit point as a combination of the ability to take physical damage, the luck at which the attack missed something vital and the skill to avoid taking a truly serious blow.

I like the idea of Healing Surges but I do feel like something more can be done to make the game work more efficently. Combat should not take as long as it does in 4e.


----------



## Dausuul

DEFCON 1 said:


> To me, if a swordfighter sustains a narratively gross physical injury... it's removed him from a fight.  He's down.  He's out.  He's not getting up.  You don't narrate the fighter taking an arrow to the throat if the expectation is he's going to spend a couple healing surges to go back to full HP.




So if a guy gets reduced to negative hit points (but _not_ negative bloodied)...  how do you narrate that? He's down; he might be up and fighting again in a couple of rounds, or he might be dead in a couple of rounds. You don't know which it's going to be.

(I'm not saying that PCs should get limbs lopped off. I never narrated that particular type of injury for player characters either. But I did narrate pretty severe wounds for PCs who went below zero. I felt this was not just acceptable but more or less required; if they weren't grievously wounded, why would it be so urgent to rush over and stabilize them? With 4E... well, I've mostly stopped narrating 4E combat, though this is only one of the reasons.)


----------



## billd91

I think you don't really need to narrate a heck of lot of detail when a PC drops due to hit point loss. Chances are good that most other characters aren't in position to see much detail other than the hit landing. You can include more detail as another character approaches to do something about it.

I use comments like "The giant's sword hits hard, Laerin collapses in a heap and doesn't move."
Then when Gil the cleric heads over to offer some assistance, if she's deep in negatives I can say that blood is running everywhere. If not (perhaps still near 0), she's unconscious but the wounds aren't terrible. She will surely die if not given assistance.
But if she uses her own healing (somehow), she can pick herself back up, shrugging off the pain.

Critics are right that, to a certain degree, the wounds are more ambiguous since they heal themselves, non-magically, so fast... or don't... depending on whether or not the PC can burn a healing surge. I agree that can be a problem depending on your narrating style. I just think there are styles that can minimize the issue.

I'm starting to come around to the idea of having some hit points auto-restored at the end of a fight given breather time - through healing surges or not - because of their abstract nature. I'm thinking it might work if PCs could recover half the damage they sustained during a fight. Every attack then becomes half temporary, half persistent. Characters bounce back a little but are definitely wearing down. Healing item needs are reduced a bit. They should get this even without having to spend a healing surge (for 4e players). Additional bookkeeping would be required - at least keeping track of damage received in the current fight - but I don't think that would be hard.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Dausuul said:


> So if a guy gets reduced to negative hit points (but _not_ negative bloodied)...  how do you narrate that? He's down; he might be up and fighting again in a couple of rounds, or he might be dead in a couple of rounds. You don't know which it's going to be.




Going into negatives is easy... he's just down.  Maybe he's unconscious, maybe he's out of breath, maybe he's so stunned he just can't get to his knees and lift his weapon.  In any event, he isn't capable taking any combat action.  No big deal. 

It is the 'third strike and you're dead' saving throw rule that is admittedly the one place where the 4E format breaks down and you have to make the illogical jump from 'he's out of breath' to 'his body went into shock and now he's dead!'  And I fully expected someone to mention it, because you are absolutely correct... 4E combat isn't in any way simulationist across the board.

But to be honest... I genuinely don't worry about it.  Having someone fail a third saving throw and 'die' happens so infrequently in comparison to people supposedly getting cut by greatswords or impaled by crossbow bolts or engulfed in fireballs that I usually just handwave it.  When the PC fails that third save, either they went into shock and died, or more usually narratively a monster performed a 'killing blow' on them.  And while yes, it's possible someone might ask of the situation 'wait, there was no monster adjacent to the PC when he died, how did they accomplish a killing blow?' or something like that... but usually the players themselves are so shocked that someone's been cacked that those questions of the leaps in logic don't usually rear their head.


----------



## Dark Mistress

I think healing surges have good a bad points about them. I personally don't like them as written but think the idea has merit. I will explain what I mean.

I utterly loath second wind, I also loath how healing surges is a internal source. When your out your out.

What I did like is the amount healed is based on your hp total, I never liked the idea of healing healed 1d8+x hp.

So IMHO interesting idea with a lot of merit that was very poorly implemented. 

***note - I haven't played 4e in some time and never played it a ton, so going off a admittedly fuzzy memory.


----------



## billd91

Dark Mistress said:


> What I did like is the amount healed is based on your hp total, I never liked the idea of healing healed 1d8+x hp.




I can empathize with this point, but I think the 1d8+x hp model for cure light wounds serves a pretty good purpose. If the healing spells recovered a fraction of the target's hp total, how do you quickly heal low-level characters? Cure light healing 1d8+x serves the purpose of healing a much larger proportion of a low-level character's hit points. That helps low-level character durability immensely.

What may serve both your preferences and the needs of the game with low-level characters is a mechanism where characters are healed xd8+x amount below a certain level of hp, and a proportion of hp for higher hp. Alternatively, you'd need to come up with an entirely different structure for healing spells - not based on light, moderate, serious, etc wounds.


----------



## Naszir

Dark Mistress said:


> I think healing surges have good a bad points about them. I personally don't like them as written but think the idea has merit. I will explain what I mean.
> 
> I utterly loath second wind, I also loath how healing surges is a internal source. When your out your out.
> 
> What I did like is the amount healed is based on your hp total, I never liked the idea of healing healed 1d8+x hp.
> 
> So IMHO interesting idea with a lot of merit that was very poorly implemented.
> 
> ***note - I haven't played 4e in some time and never played it a ton, so going off a admittedly fuzzy memory.




To clear up the fuzzy memory of yours, second wind more represents getting an adrenaline rush and finding the fortitude to recover.  It's not that hard to visualize. You see it all the time when someone has been presented with a crisis. There are times where you just feel like you cannot give anymore but you somehow find a way to push yourself and you get a second wind. Runners find it, hikers find it, and people who play sports find a second wind.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

FireLance said:


> Frankly, if it was an email conversation, I'd be happy to leave it at that. However, since this is a messageboard, others will also be reading what I write.
> 
> I do not dispute that you did not have fun with 4E, and I do not dispute that you think healing surges were a big part of that. However, I still think that the key issue was too much in-combat recovery of hit points rather than healing surges per se. This is not an assumption, by the way, it is my analysis based on what you have posted on grind and combat length.
> 
> The way I see it, the real culprits are the Second Wind action, minor action healing powers and other ways to spend a healing surge in combat. As mentioned, healing surges may contribute to the problem because the standard conversion rate in 4E is 1 healing surge = 25% maximum hit points, and that adds to the rate at which hit points are recovered in combat. Lowering the conversion rate to 1 healing surge = 10% maximum hit points might mitigate the problem. Removing ways to spend a healing surge in combat might eliminate it completely.



Once more into the breach....

Second Wind and like 'healing in combat' are merely the most objectionable of the uses of Healing Surge - it _as a whole_ trivializes damage taken. Much of 4e seems built around trivializing what had been serious damage (example - petrification) further than the magic in previous editions.

I also don't like the use of Healing Surges _after_ combat. But, and I want to be clear here, I understand why it was put into the game, and if it were a _hell_ of a lot less available then I would likely not object much, if at all.

Even in combat, if Randy the Ranger can get free of the scrum for a couple of rounds then it would not bother me. Him being able to do it while Gary the Goblin is poking him with a pokey stick of poking _does_ bother me. Heck, in the case of Bob the Barbarian it would not bother me if he could heal it in combat while using Rage.  But having it happen too many times strained my patience.

Something to add - I do not mind Save or Die and/or Save or Suck effects. Failed a save vs. the hot glance the medusa gave you from across a room? Don't lose Dex bub, turn to stone. Disintegrate? The answer my friend, is blowing in the wind, the answer is blowing in the wind....

And for the record, I have never had a combat in 3.X last as long with so few opponents as that 4e battle. This was before folks started routinely posting that hit points in 4e encounters should be halved.

I really wanted to avoid talking about why I hate 4e, it does not forward the conversation in a meaningful fashion, is not likely to change any opinions, and is likely to trigger a 'yeah, but'.... I hate yeah, buts.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Mercurius

gamerprinter said:


> That's all fine. The question was why some people don't like healing surges. Not 'liking' something is a question of preference involving feelings. So why must the supporters of healing surges insist on some kind of exacting explanation on how it works 'between the rules'. No scientific explanation is going to make any kind of difference on my 'feelings' on this or that. It doesn't feel right to me, isn't that enough?




Of course it is, but "it doesn't feel right to me" is different than "because hit points represent the physical capacity to withstand damage." The latter is an "exacting explanation" that I am saying is based upon a kind of category error; the former is a "question of preference involving feelings." I cannot debate your feelings--they are yours and I simply have no right (or capacity, really) to disagree with what you say you feel or like. But I _can _disagree with your "exacting explanation" and interpretation of the rules.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

In regards to Hit Points - I have always assumed that they are a hold over from D&D's wargaming roots - a man at arms had one hit point, a character model had more.

In D&D the assumption remains kind of the same  - a man at arms has D8 Hit Points, and a longsword does D8 Damage.

They then modified up and down from there - a wizard is twice as likely to die from a hit by a longsword than a man at arms is. A fighting man somewhat less.

It is also why a combat round used to be a full minute - trying to correlate a tabletop wargames passage of time with that of a role playing game.

So, consider the Hit Point a wavicle - it behaves as an abstract unless you are observing it, then it behaves as a concrete.... The concept is abstract, but the game effects need to be empirical.

In other words, they are both abstract and concrete, so game mechanics on some level echo quantum mechanics.

The Auld Grump


----------



## JamesonCourage

Gaerek said:


> But, unfortunately, Hit Point loss, has never fully represented taking physical damage. Not with OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x, PF, 4e, not with any of them. Hit points have always been a very abstract concept that includes a bunch of factors, including, but certainly not limited to, physical health, mental health, endurance, vitality, ability to mitigate damage, glancing blows, luck, etc.



Actually, in 3.5, here's what it says in the PHB:


			
				3.5 Player's Handbook said:
			
		

> *What Hit Points Represent:* Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. _For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn't have the favor of some higher power._



It's clear to me, in the opening sentence, that what hit points represent isn't a variety of factors, like it had been explained in past editions. Personally, I think the reason for this change in 3.X was that hit points had never been treated differently than how 3.X describes them. That is, a "poison, injury" hits you no matter how much hit points you have, as long as I deal 1 damage. Why is that? Because the game treats HP as meat, and 3.X acknowledged it. 4e is closer to the roots of the game by switching back, but it's another direct change away from 3.X that a lot of people took subtle but important notice of, because the implications are large.



> I'm not going to respond to everything you've written, mainly because I believe we're pretty close to being on the same page. I appreciate your being civil as well, and your willingness to agree to disagree. In the end, I like your sig, as it pretty much sums up my feelings.



Cool 



> This is certainly correct. More simulation = more abstraction. More gamey = less abstraction. Abstraction isn't a bad thing, per se, but too much interferes with the actual game play.



Um, I'd argue that the more abstraction you have, the less it could potentially interfere with game play. That's why we have an increasing number of games go rules "lite" on us, really. It says, "here are some very basic, abstract rules. Now, we won't bog you down in the little stuff. Wing it, and enjoy the game instead of looking up rules." I don't like rules "lite" games too much, but I certainly see the appeal. And they rely heavily on abstraction.



> And this might be the difference. Immersion, for my regular group, comes secondary to having fun. We certainly enjoy immersion, don't get me wrong, but if it interferes with other things that make the game fun for us, we're willing to let a bit go. This is where the suspension of disbelief comes in. I have players in my group that run the gamut as well. For one of my players, he shows up at our games because he wants to "Kill some ." I have another player who doesn't particularly care for the combat system of 4e, but loves how unrestricted it is (with regards to alignment, and other "forced RP" mechanics of older systems) for RP, so he's willing to deal with the combat system for the immersion it gives him in other areas. My other players fall somewhere in between. As for me, as a player, I don't care what system I'm playing, I just want to play. As a DM, well, at this point, I won't DM anything but 4e, but I have other reasons for that, none of which have anything to do with the HS mechanic.



That all makes sense to me. It doesn't reflect my group, but hey, tastes differ, and I'm okay with that. Tear stuff up with your group. 



> Whole heartedly agree. My group is in that category.



I thought you might be  



> Most games can get away without a real heave base in realism. A tabletop RPG, like D&D, really can't. That's sort of the point of the game. My problem is rules that attempt to emulate reality by sacrificing fun.



This is where my view differs. If you have a basis in realism, with nods to realism all over your game, and then you seemingly knowingly abandon it for a mechanic for ease of use, our group gets pulled out of immersion pretty quickly. That pulls us out of the game, and out of the fun.



> This is why every successful MMO (sorry to bring up video games, it's just a good example) doesn't have permanent death. And in most cases, their explanation was extremely half-assed. Star Wars Galaxies was one of the worst, if you've ever played that. They added "clone resurrection" in a world where nothing like this was ever mentioned in any movie, book, or source material. (I know, clones exsist, but the idea of cloning yourself after you die, did not.) But they knew that the game wouldn't be fun if you had to start over everytime you died.



Well, to be fair, I've never seen an MMO that I could immerse in. So, it's not really they're goal. Immersion was key to my design goals when I was designing my game. And, it really shows in the rules, in my opinion. It's obviously not the case for MMOs. MMOs can be a lot of fun, as can CRPGs, but I don't play them, personally, to feel immersed. That is, however, what my group plays fantasy PnP RPGs for.



> I know many people disagree, but the Healing Surge Stick (aka. Wand of CLW) and required Cleric made the game less fun for me and my group. Hence, I'm ok with healing surges, even if they aren't realistic. And removing magic shops and not handing out Wand of CLW won't work if your players are more than willing to make them, and mine were.



And while I played 3.X for years, we had groups without healers of any kind, and we literally _never_ used a wand of CLW. In fact, I think we used a wand maybe in three or four encounters total, in thousands of hours of game play. So, I probably don't agree on the nature of their necessity to the game.

But, my group is okay with avoiding or going without combat, too. We started a new campaign (new setting included), and we've played four real sessions so far. Each session lasts about ten hours. In those four sessions and 40 hours of play, there have been two combats. Both combats only involved one player, and they lasted one round (first combat), and four rounds (second combat). In the party of six players, two are completely built around combat, three are adept but built around other things (thief lord, amazing craftsmen, amazing negotiator), and one is just now getting decent at defending himself (chancellor / interrogator).

The point of our sessions is to immerse in the characters, see what story unfolds from the evolving setting, and experience interesting play, whether that's fighting a mercenary unit with other mercenaries you've hired, or if it's talking them into leaving you alone. The party has talked their way out of more fights, and purposefully avoided more fights, simply because they want a higher chance of success in the long term. I'm not sure that this would mesh well with your group, but it works for us. It's never been about killing stuff and taking their things (even though it's kind of what they want to do on the macro scale... they're warlords).



> Just wanted to make a quick comment on this. According to all pre-4e rulesets, if my players have a Wand of CLW with enough charges, they could continue literally indefinately, without stopping for sleep/rest. Of course, the magic users wouldn't get their spells back, but the melee classes would never have to stop, ever. 4e gives each character a set amount of endurance. When you're out of HS, you pretty much need to stop. Now, before you comment, I know, the dual health, vitality system you proposed would fix this, but without it (like we are now) 4e means you must rest. 3e and prior, you don't.



That's not what I meant by sleep. The context was in terms of the assumption of sleep alone denotes a nod towards realism that will drastically effect game play.

Additioanlly, your experience is vastly different from mine, but we didn't use wands of CLW. And if we had, my players would have wanted to save the charges on the wands, which means using easily renewable resources, like spell slots. Which means resting.



> One of the biggest selling points of 4e to me was the cinematic feel of everything. John McClane in Die Hard should have been incapacitated after the first 20 minutes of the movie. Instead, he lasted the entire length of the movie and defeated the BBEG, Professor Snape.
> 
> It really takes away from that feel if my players have to go back to town to rest at the inn for 2 weeks after every 3 or 4 encounters. I'd quit a game like that, so would my players. Again, we're willing to suspend some disbelief to have that slightly over-the-top, cinematic feel.



Whereas I think that type of game is possible with two health pools. If his "other" pool is the only thing that gets injured, you have cinematic combat. If it hits your "physical" pool, you don't get that. It leaves options for both stories to be told. Now, that's not the case. It's all Diehard, all the time. Sometimes I want Conan the Barbarian. Yes, he was a badass in that movie. Yes, he did get beaten down by a bunch of fanatics at then "crucified on the Tree of Woe." Literally, a bunch of random snake cult fanatics just dogpiled on him and he was done. I'm cool enough with Conan to accept both that possibility, and the possibility that I'm about to kill 40 guys on horseback with just me and my thief friend. I want both possibilities in my game.

What I don't want to see in any edition of the game, which 4e did come closer to, was the "cinematic" feel at the very early levels. I don't want to see level 1's expect to be John McClane. You want to do cinematic stuff? I'm okay with that after the first few levels. Say, level 5-6. Then again, in my game, I place the average settled adult NPC at around hit die 4 (in a system that caps at 20). This is all just personal preference, though. If I say, "I don't want this" or "I want this" it doesn't mean I think it's what's best for the hobby. It means it's my preference.



> Again, my players characters are heroes in the vein of any fantasy/action movie. In LotR, sure, Frodo had to rest after he got stabbed by the Nazgul, but after that point, he never had much of an extended break. Any real person wouldn't have been able to do what he did. They make the setting progress (either by actively affecting it, or choosing not to participate in something). The setting doesn't make my players progress.



Well, LotR basically did something I touched on: how much story happened in the world between the time Frodo and Sam got separated, and the time they got captured by Faramir? Or, between the time they got released by him, and the time they reached the pit to throw the ring into? By having to walk everywhere, they're letting time pass, the setting evolve, and story is happening. Which is one of the things I touched on.

As far as continuing on with wounds received, I'm okay with that as long as your "physical" pool isn't depleted. If you have 25 "physical" hit points and 60 "other" hit points, and your physical hit points get depleted down to 4, you can still move about for all I care. You're super messed up, though. But you can heroically carry on, if you think it's more important than healing (as many heroes will).



> Bolded is the key for me. That's not heroic. That's normal. Characters aren't normal. They are heroes. I agree with a lot of the travel stuff, but at a certain point, there's no reason why an 18th level wizard (thinking 3e and prior) can't go pretty much wherever he wants to go. He's practically a god in anything else he does, but he has to walk from town to town? Not very heroic. At low levels? Sure, you're hoofing it.



Well, let's look at LotR, since you brought that up. It's always one of two things for them: being in the action, or traveling to the action. I'm asking for a system that reflects that. It's really easy to skim over a one month travel time from defending the mountain pass against demons that eventually overrun you to the fortress protecting the source of immortality for the immortal races. In one month, though, a lot can happen elsewhere. You have the following:
(1) Action in the mountain pass!
(2) We're skimming over the one month travel in about 3-5 minutes, though this allows for the setting to evolve everywhere else in the world.
(3) Action at the fortress!

I'd call Gandolf heroic. I'd call Strider heroic. These people had the same restrictions I'm talking about now.



> Here it is. The key point.  It looks like we will be agreeing to disagree.



Okay   Definitely nothing wrong with either of our preferences. 



> Put this in a game and I'll play it.  Seems like if gives the best of both worlds. Let's hope Mr. Cook can do something like this for 5e.



Hopefully he's reading this and stealing it. If he is... hit me up, Mr. Cook! 



> From what I've seen, people either love or hate Monte Cook. For me, I like a lot of what he's done. But there are some things that are questionable. I don't like the 3e skill system. I think the more simplified 4e system is superior. But that's just an opinion. Sure he created the base of current skill system, but the older one just got out of hand very quickly.



Yep, and I like most of what he's done. I really like the 3.X skill system, and think the 4e system is too binary and rigid (but like I said, I like narrow skills, not broad skills). I just didn't like the skill system presented recently.



> I'm with you here.



Great. Glad we can see eye to eye on so much, even if our preference differs in "gritty" versus "non-gritty" (I hesitate to say gonzo, as I don't know if that's your preference, and I won't say heroic, as my gritty games definitely have heroic characters). Thanks for the satisfying conversation. As always, play what you like


----------



## gamerprinter

Mercurius said:


> Of course it is, but "it doesn't feel right to me" is different than "because hit points represent the physical capacity to withstand damage." The latter is an "exacting explanation" that I am saying is based upon a kind of category error; the former is a "question of preference involving feelings." I cannot debate your feelings--they are yours and I simply have no right (or capacity, really) to disagree with what you say you feel or like. But I _can _disagree with your "exacting explanation" and interpretation of the rules.




Well that's just the premise behind my feelings. As stated, it matters not to me whether this explanation works for you - your stated position makes as much sense if that's what works best for you. I don't want to counter your position on how you feel the opposite. That you don't accept my interpretation on the rules is fine - we aren't playing at the same table, and neither of our explanations change the math of the mechanics. Keep in mind I don't play 4e, so I don't need a different perspective as it provides no material gain or loss to how I perceive it.

On what it might mean in game vs. real combat, I can only say 25 years ago, when in the army, I was a member of the SCA. I had participated in a combat trial with full armor, shield and rattan sword. After two minutes of duking it out with my opponent, I was exhausted. I couldn't hold the shield high enough (eventually) to cover my head. I even tried to duck, but the weight of the helmet almost carried me to the ground. That's as close to a real combat as I ever want to be involved in, and I discovered I make terrible hand-to-hand fighter in real life. Real combat and D&D combat are not the same thing, so I can't compare the two. Nor do I need some level of verisimilitude regarding 'hit points'.

I don't want to convince you of my way of thinking, nor I yours. Mechanically it makes no difference, so why all the hub-bub? While in interesting intellectual exercise to discuss this, it doesn't change the game, so beyond intellectual discussion, it's really a non-point.


----------



## GSHamster

After reading this thread, I'm kind of coming to the conclusion that WotC needs to give Wounds/Vitality another shot. I know there were a lot of issues with the previous implementations of W/V. But it just seems to encapsulate how both sides really look at hit points and combat damage better.

Also, regarding hit points, it's been 30+ years since D&D came out.  If you haven't been able to get across the idea that idea that hit points are abstract to the audience, maybe you just can't. Maybe the idea that hit points = physical health is just stronger and more intuitive than the alternative.

It seems to me that if, after 30 years, you can't break people of that mindset, you should give up and roll with it.


----------



## billd91

TheAuldGrump said:


> Once more into the breach....
> 
> Second Wind and like 'healing in combat' are merely the most objectionable of the uses of Healing Surge - it _as a whole_ trivializes damage taken. Much of 4e seems built around trivializing what had been serious damage (example - petrification) further than the magic in previous editions.




I totally disagree on the appropriateness of something like second wind in combat. Doing it a limited number of times, rather than once per encounter (or more), is the problem for me. I'm sure we've all seen a hero of some stripe rallying during a fight in some form of action media, whether it's Battlin' Murdock seeing his son Matt in the audience and fighting on against a superior boxer or a battered Daredevil fighting off a pin because he recognizes he's in danger of being crippled like his legal secretary, I like the idea of a second wind/rally pumping the character up and allowing him to carry on the fight. I just don't want it happening so often that the moment is devalued.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

GSHamster said:


> After reading this thread, I'm kind of coming to the conclusion that WotC needs to give Wounds/Vitality another shot. I know there were a lot of issues with the previous implementations of W/V. But it just seems to encapsulate how both sides really look at hit points and combat damage better.
> 
> Also, regarding hit points, it's been 30+ years since D&D came out.  If you haven't been able to get across the idea that idea that hit points are abstract to the audience, maybe you just can't. Maybe the idea that hit points = physical health is just stronger and more intuitive than the alternative.
> 
> It seems to me that if, after 30 years, you can't break people of that mindset, you should give up and roll with it.



By some odd coincidence the D20 game that I run most often (Spycraft 2.0) _also_ uses Wounds/Vitality. I find that it suits my purposes quite well.

I also liked the Revised version of the WotC Star Wars game, but did not like Saga even a little bit. So, make of that what you will.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Oryan77 said:


> I've never heard people defend the HP system as *not* being a representation of physical damage as much as I have until 4e came out.




Then, forgive me for saying this, you were not paying attention.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

billd91 said:


> I totally disagree on the appropriateness of something like second wind in combat. Doing it a limited number of times, rather than once per encounter (or more), is the problem for me. I'm sure we've all seen a hero of some stripe rallying during a fight in some form of action media, whether it's Battlin' Murdock seeing his son Matt in the audience and fighting on against a superior boxer or a battered Daredevil fighting off a pin because he recognizes he's in danger of being crippled like his legal secretary, I like the idea of a second wind/rally pumping the character up and allowing him to carry on the fight. I just don't want it happening so often that the moment is devalued.



And I see it as being devalued with how often it happens in 4e, not sure how much we are disagreeing there, since it does seem mostly a matter of where the line is drawn and when.

The Auld Grump


----------



## billd91

TheAuldGrump said:


> And I see it as being devalued with how often it happens in 4e, not sure how much we are disagreeing there, since it does seem mostly a matter of where the line is drawn and when.
> 
> The Auld Grump




Your posts on second wind make it look like you're opposed to the idea completely rather than opposed to it happening with a high frequency. At least that's how they appeared to me. If it turns out we're closer to being on the same page, then I'm spiff.


----------



## Mercurius

TheAuldGrump said:


> In regards to Hit Points - I have always assumed that they are a hold over from D&D's wargaming roots - a man at arms had one hit point, a character model had more.
> 
> In D&D the assumption remains kind of the same  - a man at arms has D8 Hit Points, and a longsword does D8 Damage.
> 
> They then modified up and down from there - a wizard is twice as likely to die from a hit by a longsword than a man at arms is. A fighting man somewhat less.
> 
> It is also why a combat round used to be a full minute - trying to correlate a tabletop wargames passage of time with that of a role playing game.
> 
> So, consider the Hit Point a wavicle - it behaves as an abstract unless you are observing it, then it behaves as a concrete.... The concept is abstract, but the game effects need to be empirical.
> 
> In other words, they are both abstract and concrete, so game mechanics on some level echo quantum mechanics.
> 
> The Auld Grump




Interesting thinking here, although the problem is that it starts falling apart the higher level you go, or at least the more abstract hit points become. A 1st level character can be slain by a single weapon strike from an opponent of any level; a 10th level cannot, unless it is from a very powerful opponent. But what happens when an orc scores a critical hit on a 10th level character? They lose HP, but not a devastating amount. What then is a "critical hit"? In the rules as written--in pretty much any edition, afaict--an orc can never deal a death-blow to a high level character. It just isn't possible with some sort of house rule. Why? Because hit points don't represent merely physical damage capacity, and this becomes even more so the case at higher levels.

I don't have a problem with hit points not being realistic--it fits the epic feeling of D&D. The 3rd edition of Talislanta was re-designed by none other than Jonathan Tweet, one of the main designers on 3E D&D. Talislanta, especially 3e (and later editions) has a very similar basic structure to D&D 3E and d20 games in general. But in Talislanta, characters have armor points, and less hit points, and HP represent actually bodily damage capacity. 

I would suggest that HP-as-body points requires something akin to armor points or damage reduction. In a sense, damage reduction and HP as they are, are redundant--might as well just give a creature more HP. But if we want HP to represent the body and the body only, then we would need to tease out skill (via increased defense), damage reduction (perhaps armor points or an armor protection value to reduces damage), and perhaps even some kind of X-Factor, like a fate/karma/luck mechanism that allows a PC to ignore damage of a given attack once-every-so-often.

Just thinking aloud here.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Gargoyle said:


> I miss the simplicity of hit points without healing surges.
> 
> As far as their abstract nature...
> 
> I had a discussion with a player about hit points years ago, I forget the edition.  I explained that I felt that hit points represented more than just damage taken, it was also exhaustion and luck.  The DMG at the time backed me up on that.  His reply was that "Well, then if that poisoned blade didn't actually hit me, why do I need to Save vs Poison?"
> 
> I didn't have a good response to that, and I still don't.




He has to save because some unspecified portion of the damage is ALWAYS an actual physical wound.  Luck, skill, divine providence may be involved, as well, but there is always an injury involved.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Naszir said:


> To clear up the fuzzy memory of yours, second wind more represents getting an adrenaline rush and finding the fortitude to recover. It's not that hard to visualize. You see it all the time when someone has been presented with a crisis. There are times where you just feel like you cannot give anymore but you somehow find a way to push yourself and you get a second wind. Runners find it, hikers find it, and people who play sports find a second wind.




Ok, I'm not picking on Naszir, here, it's just the most recent example of what I'm addressing.


Second wind causes the character to heal themself of wounds.

The 4e phb quotes I've provided slightly upthread seem to disagree with our common sense view of it, and state (pretty clearly, actually) that it's closing of wounds.


Now, I agree with everyone else who is claiming that it makes more sense if healing surges represent adrenaline or whatever else, rather than actually healing wounds....but that is not what it is spelled out as in the 4e phb.

_I'm asking: Can anyone provide an actual WotC source that says what healing surges represent other than the closing of wounds/healing?_



So, there's the challenge...is it just people making sense of it in their own way, or does WotC ever actually say anywhere that it represents something other than healing?


----------



## blargney the second

Healing surges are reserve hit points.

They just come in discrete packages and can sometimes be triggered during combat.
-blarg


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Then, forgive me for saying this, you were not paying attention.



Heh, Nerd arguments go a long way back... I remember arguing whether balrogs had wings or if the shadows were being described as wings in a metaphor, back in the early '70s.... (I am of the 'no wing' persuasion.)

From a discussion on the Dumnestor's Heroes webcomic:




Wingless by TheAuldGrump, on Flickr

Nerds argue, it's what we do.

There were indeed arguments as to the nature of the Hit Point... as often? I don't know.

The Auld Grump, way down here they have a name for shadow, pain, and fire. They call the balrog Durin's Bane, in this hole they call Moria.
Moria, Moria, they call this mine Moria....


----------



## TheAuldGrump

billd91 said:


> Your posts on second wind make it look like you're opposed to the idea completely rather than opposed to it happening with a high frequency. At least that's how they appeared to me. If it turns out we're closer to being on the same page, then I'm spiff.



As I said, I have no problem with Randy the Ranger getting his 'Second Wind' (once!) if he can back away from the combat for a round or two, he needs time to get that second wind.

Bob the Barbarian on the other hand is closer to the Incredible Hulk - as he gets more pissed off he is able to shrug off more of his pain and weariness, so he _wouldn't_ necessarily need to back away from combat.

Wally the Wizard takes damage and starts complaining, he never does get to shake off the damage while in combat, even if he leans against the wall wheezing for a round or two. (He really could stand to lose about twenty pounds, you know?)

As for a battle with a single dragon taking two hours... (the _other_ combat that I mentioned - I was only in two and both were boring as water soup without salt) the Healing Surges made it painfully obvious that we were going to win, but that it was going to take forever to get there. It became very predictable, very repetitious, and lasted way too long.

The Auld Grump


----------



## The Shaman

Mercurius said:


> [MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] - I'm sorry that you were offended by my suggestions 1E and 2E were imperfect games . . .



Thanks for implying that I'm offended, but of course that's just a rhetorical duck-and-weave with no basis in fact; you're talking to a guy who has no dog in the hunt.







Mercurius said:


> . . . but I am not interested in the semantic game of "You're putting forth your personal opinion as if it is fact." That must be the most out-worn, over-used debate on the internet. Not interested in rehashing that for the umpteenth time.



What you dismiss as a "semantic game" I consider basic good manners, which is something I consider neither "out-worn" nor "over-used."

Tell me, what exactly does it get you to be dismissive of others' preferences? What do you stand to gain?


----------



## The Shaman

NewJeffCT said:


> A level one fighter gets hit by a poisoned sword and take 8 points of damage from the slashing gash the orc just opened from his hip to his armpit.  He then needs to make a saving throw vs poison.
> 
> A level 10 fighter gets hit by a poisoned sword and gets nicked in the arm for 8 points of damage.  However, since he was hit, he still has to make a save vs poison.
> 
> The difference is a huge gash on a level 1 fighter, vs a nick on a level 10 fighter, even though both attacks did the same damage.



Yup. The blow that the high-level fighter blocks with his shield, or takes on the armor, or luckily dodges, or narrowly nicks him, is the same blow that would lay him out for the angels at low level.

Hit points are pretty damn elegant when you think about it.


----------



## danbuter1

I'm not a huge fan of 4e, but I think Healing Surges was a good idea. It made clerics viable as something other than walking healing potions.


----------



## Aaron

I apologize in advance if I missed it, but I haven't found a response to this excellent post, that elegantly summarizes what many feel is wrong with the HS.

The only answer I have found doesn't address at all the "Schrödinger" issue.


----------



## Pentius

Gargoyle said:


> As far as their abstract nature...
> 
> I had a discussion with a player about hit points years ago, I forget the edition.  I explained that I felt that hit points represented more than just damage taken, it was also exhaustion and luck.  The DMG at the time backed me up on that.  His reply was that "Well, then if that poisoned blade didn't actually hit me, why do I need to Save vs Poison?"
> 
> I didn't have a good response to that, and I still don't.




There are ways to get poison into a human body without cutting it open first.  Maybe it's a contact poison, and a drop flew off the blade at the PC.  The save would be to see if he was lucky enough to have it not hit, or land on his armor.  Maybe he blocks the hit, or turns it aside on his armor, but a smear of poison tries to seep through.


----------



## Pentius

Aberzanzorax said:


> Ok, I'm not picking on Naszir, here, it's just the most recent example of what I'm addressing.
> 
> 
> Second wind causes the character to heal themself of wounds.
> 
> The 4e phb quotes I've provided slightly upthread seem to disagree with our common sense view of it, and state (pretty clearly, actually) that it's closing of wounds.
> 
> 
> Now, I agree with everyone else who is claiming that it makes more sense if healing surges represent adrenaline or whatever else, rather than actually healing wounds....but that is not what it is spelled out as in the 4e phb.
> 
> _I'm asking: Can anyone provide an actual WotC source that says what healing surges represent other than the closing of wounds/healing?_
> 
> 
> 
> So, there's the challenge...is it just people making sense of it in their own way, or does WotC ever actually say anywhere that it represents something other than healing?




Actually, I can and you already did.  4e PHB, page 293, that you quoted earlier:

"Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points
are known as healing. You might regain hit points 
through rest, heroic resolve, or magic."

This is right underneath the part where hit points are described as not being entirely physical.  And there it is.  "Healing" is defined as the regaining of hit points, not the closing of wounds.





Oryan77 said:


> You're ok with the rules actively going against your narrating? Rules are a tool for me, they are not going to dictate my narrating.
> 
> I can use the hitpoint rule and narrate how it works just fine (regardless if people agree what HPs represent). You can't do that with healing surges without making all kinds of assumptions and contradicting your narrating. If I could make sense of it in my narrations (in a way I liked) then it wouldn't be ok. But rather than let it dictate how I narrate, I'd rather not use the rule at all. Especially because I don't need the rule unless I want D&D to be easier to win.
> 
> BTW, just because you bold lines of text doesn't mean you just proved how I'm playing D&D wrong. You don't need to do that. The "deal with it" comment was also unnecessary. You need to chill out if you're getting that upset just because I *hate* healing surges.



I find it rather amusing that you call out my admittedly unnecessary "deal with it" comment in a post that contains unnecessary comments about me letting the rules dictate my narration and about surges making D&D easier to win.  Neither of us is raising the bar here.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> There are ways to get poison into a human body without cutting it open first.  Maybe it's a contact poison, and a drop flew off the blade at the PC.  The save would be to see if he was lucky enough to have it not hit, or land on his armor.  Maybe he blocks the hit, or turns it aside on his armor, but a smear of poison tries to seep through.




In a game like 3.X, contact poison and injury poison are two separate and distinct things, and injury poison applies as long as at least 1 hit point of damage is dealt. From the SRD:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> *Contact*
> Merely touching this type of poison necessitates a saving throw. It can be actively delivered via a weapon or a touch attack. Even if a creature has sufficient damage reduction to avoid taking any damage from the attack, the poison can still affect it. A chest or other object can be smeared with contact poison as part of a trap.
> 
> *Injury*
> This poison must be delivered through a wound. If a creature has sufficient damage reduction to avoid taking any damage from the attack, the poison does not affect it. Traps that cause damage from weapons, needles, and the like sometimes contain injury poisons.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Naszir said:


> To clear up the fuzzy memory of yours, second wind more represents getting an adrenaline rush and finding the fortitude to recover.  It's not that hard to visualize. You see it all the time when someone has been presented with a crisis. There are times where you just feel like you cannot give anymore but you somehow find a way to push yourself and you get a second wind. Runners find it, hikers find it, and people who play sports find a second wind.





Yeah i know that is the accepted view of it. But to me hp is health. I am in the camp of. Why does 8 points near kill a level 1 fighter but a level 10 shrugs it off as follows. A level 1 doesn't know much more than the basic swings and a block or two. A level 10 knows lots of blocks and deflections and dodges. So a level 1 gets hit and takes most of the brunt of the great axe to the chest. The level 10 deflects the blow so it glances off her shoulder armor leaving a small but mildly painful shallow cut. 

Since I see hp that way, second wind breaks immersion for me. To be fair I don't like it in movies either. I find it annoying when the hero is beat down nearly dead and then suddenly pops up and kicks ass like he was never hurt. To me second wind feels the same way. Which is fine if you like what I call cinematic game play, which I don't.


----------



## Dark Mistress

billd91 said:


> I can empathize with this point, but I think the 1d8+x hp model for cure light wounds serves a pretty good purpose. If the healing spells recovered a fraction of the target's hp total, how do you quickly heal low-level characters? Cure light healing 1d8+x serves the purpose of healing a much larger proportion of a low-level character's hit points. That helps low-level character durability immensely.
> 
> What may serve both your preferences and the needs of the game with low-level characters is a mechanism where characters are healed xd8+x amount below a certain level of hp, and a proportion of hp for higher hp. Alternatively, you'd need to come up with an entirely different structure for healing spells - not based on light, moderate, serious, etc wounds.




Yeah i get what you mean, I still don't agree and here's why. You take a 18 con Barby who gets dropped to 0 hp. A max CLW at 1st level barely puts him above half hp. While a 16 con wizard would be perfectly healed by the same spell with the same roll. I honestly do like the % of health healed better that healing surges do than the roll. 

I wouldn't mind seeing something like CLW healing 25% of your health + cleric levels or something, or even 50% + cleric levels. The current 3.5/pathfinder system is ok and I do like it better than how healing surges currently work in 4e. But I also think healing surges have a lot of potential to be a good system with a bit more work IMHO.


----------



## Spatula

billd91 said:


> I can empathize with this point, but I think the 1d8+x hp model for cure light wounds serves a pretty good purpose. If the healing spells recovered a fraction of the target's hp total, how do you quickly heal low-level characters?



The same way you quickly heal high-level characters. Since all healing would be relative to HP totals anyway, healing methods become independent of level.

I can imagine a version of D&D where clerics (frex) get their normal complement of spells, and then also get some healing ability that is not tied to level in the same way that spells are. That is, instead of having to sacrifice memorization slots for healing spells, or sacrifice other spells to spontaneously cast healing spells, the cleric's spells & magical band-aids are separate. (although the cleric might choose to have some spells that heal in his/her repertoire, as a supplement to the class' healing ability) Since healing would be proportional, the system doesn't need several spells of different levels that accomplish the same thing - heal some HP.

Well, that's pretty much how the cleric and other healers work in 4e. But I can see the idea being transported into AD&D or 3e games as well, when paired with the concept of surges.


----------



## Spatula

Aaron said:


> I apologize in advance if I missed it, but I haven't found a response to this excellent post, that elegantly summarizes what many feel is wrong with the HS.
> 
> The only answer I have found doesn't address at all the "Schrödinger" issue.



The "Schrödinger" issue only exists if you have a warlord in the party, so if you have a problem with that... ban the warlord class? *shrug*


----------



## JamesonCourage

Spatula said:


> The "Schrödinger" issue only exists if you have a warlord in the party, so if you have a problem with that... ban the warlord class? *shrug*



I'm not very familiar with 4e, but wouldn't this problem exist with the Second Wind mechanic that everyone is entitled to? I'm trying to piece it together based off of memory and context used within this threat.


----------



## Oryan77

Pentius said:


> Neither of us is raising the bar here.




I can agree to that.


----------



## Dausuul

Spatula said:


> The "Schrödinger" issue only exists if you have a warlord in the party, so if you have a problem with that... ban the warlord class? *shrug*




Any time there isn't a source of magical healing in the party and someone is reduced to zero or less, the issue arises. You can spend any number of healing surges after a short rest; so, 5 minutes after you were dealt a "mortal wound," you're back on your feet and ready to roll.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

One of my players described 'Healing Surge' as 'Dropping another quarter in the slot'....

My reply was 'Sorry Mario, your princess is in another castle.' 

[MENTION=11816]Dark Mistress[/MENTION], I kind of like your idea of 25%+Cleric Level for CLW, I may try it as a house rule, and see how it shakes. It might be over powered at higher levels but it is worth a try.

The Auld Grump, as for raising the bar, this thread has made me want to hit the bar....


----------



## Wiseblood

Healing surges are low hanging fruit. If HP are abstract then HS are abstract +1. 

I for one believe they are far too abundant and they do not add to the game. As they are a resource that will almost never be exhausted they contribute to an already disconnected feeling the individual encounters have. 

Just as some feel that calls for realism are unfounded in a discussion of fantasy. House rules should not be seen as an excuse for unfortunate rules.


----------



## nightwyrm

For me, I just tend to look at this HP/HS situation backwards. Your total hp is not the number beneath your hp box, it's your HP+HS. So a fighter with 30 HP and 10 HS really has 105 hp, but it's just that he can only take 30 pts worth of damage in a short time before becoming overwhelmed and going under. If the PC is at 5 HS and 0 HP, he just took a big blow to the head that knocked him momentarily unconscious. If the PC is at 0 HS and 0 HP, feel free to go wild on the gory description.

It's like asking me to do push-ups. If you give me a whole day, I can probably do 100+ fine. If you give me 2 mins, I'd be lucky to do 40 before collapsing.

As for combat descriptions, to each his own, but even in 3.x I'm not gonna paint myself into a corner by describing the monster lopping off the PC's head or arms just coz the PC reached -5 hp. There's always gonna be some dude in the party with a healing potion or a cleric with a readied heal.


----------



## prosfilaes

FireLance said:


> Same thing. Describe what happens when a "normal man" with 3 hp takes 8 hp of damage from a sword. Describe what happens when a 10th-level fighter with 80 hp takes 8 hp of damage from a sword.




It's an abstract system; it supports a wide range of descriptions. 



> Describe what happens when a 10th-level fighter who normally has 80 hp but has already taken 77 hp of damage (so that he has 3 hp left) takes 8 hp of damage from a sword. Is the type of physical damage he takes at this point different from the 8 hp of physical damage he took when he was at full hit points? If so, why?




Same answer. Ultimately, it's probably going to be narrated more dramatically because it's a time for drama.



JRRNeiklot said:


> He has to save because some unspecified  portion of the damage is ALWAYS an actual physical wound.  Luck, skill,  divine providence may be involved, as well, but there is always an  injury involved.




I see that as under contention. As one of the HP are physical damage side, I've never argued that x HP of damage to a 1st level character is the same as x HP of damage to a 10th level character. Skill is of course involved; depending on how you visualize it, luck and divine providence can be too. But if some part of the damage is always an actual physical wound, how can the PC heal HP without healing that damage? Especially how can a PC heal to full or near full by force of will if he's just been sliced up a dozen times by orc swords? He's still got a dozen cuts in him.



Pentius said:


> *I am fully aware some groups regard HP as concrete.  You are actively  narrating against the rules, via any edition. The developers are NOT  beholden to your against-the-rules-narration.  DEAL WITH IT.*




4E PHB p. 276: "If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. Otherwise, you miss. ... When you hit with an attack, you normally deal damage to your target, reducing the target's hit points."

So the Fourth Edition PHB says that when you make an attack roll, you "hit" and "deal damage". "Damage" is an English word meaning to "loss or harm resulting from injury to person, property, or reputation" (Merriam-Webster.com). In 4th Edition, the rules state that successful attack rolls cause damage, cause injury, and equate that to HP. Even in 4E, I'm narrating along with the part of the rules, against another part of the rules.


----------



## prosfilaes

Gaerek said:


> First and foremost, in my mind, if you take a sword hit that does 50% of your physical damage, how are you now able to continue fighting at 100%?




Because you're a badass. I don't see how this is relevant; no matter how much damage you take in D&D, you continue fighting at 100%. No matter what HP measures, there is no way in D&D to take so much damage that you're no longer fighting at 100%. Presumably in 4E, there's a way to take 50% of your physical damage, no matter what that means in terms of HP and healing surges; you can still then fight at 100% or you're unconscious.



Mercurius said:


> The idea that Hit Points represent the capacity  to withstand physical damage is, quite frankly, erroneous. It just  doesn't make sense--the curve in every edition is too great




You're misinterpreting what we claim, then. Personally, and I think many of us, aren't claiming that someone with 20 HP has twice as much capacity to take damage as someone with 10 HP. We interpret the HP track to reflect physical damage, and that each time you lose HP, you take physical damage. Thus when you heal, you need to heal physical damage. And as I point out above, the 4E PHB says that when you make your attack roll, you hit and do damage. So even in 4E, the rulebooks don't consistently give a clear explanation of what HP mean if they don't mean damage.


----------



## Hussar

The discussion of Healing Surges being this sort of Heisenburg construct misses the point.

4e is entirely built around the concept that nothing can be narrated until the action is resolved. 

In pre-4e D&D, a character initiated an action and, by and large, that action would then be resolved and the narrative could be created at the same time.  There might have been a few hiccups like Attacks of Opportunity or the like, but, by and large, if I state, "Thugdar climbs the wall", I roll the dice and I narrate as follows.

4e doesn't work like that.  It's not linear.  I, or anyone else at the table, at any point in time, can jump in and change the narrative.  I state, "Thugdar climbs the wall" and roll.  If I fail, someone might step in with a power that gives me a bonus, and now I succeed.

And it can get a whole lot more complicated than that.  That's a pretty straight forward answer.

The problem people seem to be having isn't so much with realism, or concrete vs abstract, it's with the fact that 4e mechanics are not tied to linear time.


----------



## GregoryOatmeal

I read through a bunch of posts and never really encountered anything similar to my experience with healing surges.

I approached 4E anxious to slaughter some sacred cows. Ultimately healing surges were the only thing I really truly disdained about 4E. This is what I noticed in my game
- As a DM or player I didn't feel like spending a healing surge used a limited resource. I can't recall ever running out of healing surges, but I feel like it may have happened once or twice when I played a wizard
- Due to the length of combat and my players schedules permitting five-hour games I seldom ran more than two combats per game.
- A few bad apples, typically the types that forget to bring their character sheets, also forget to keep track of how many surges they spent at the end of their last battle
- Smaller combats didn't feel like they had any consequence or point. I never gave my players the cure light wounds stick (I always controlled when they could heal) so when they took 3 damage from orcs in the past they had to decide if they wanted to spend one of the few potions they had.
- I missed downtime. The fifteen-minute adventuring day had its moments when characters were resting.
- When a monster could spend a healing surge I usually avoided doing it because it would prolong the combat encounter
- A lot of the non-magical healing powers felt forced and awkward in implementation. My best role-player (who preferred 4E) frequently struggled to justify how her warlord inspired people to get back up.
- I never thought about how realistic healing was in the past but healing surges started to feel gamey. Maybe I was just conditioned to HP from previous games, but it just felt right.

Lots of players are just unable to "get" 4E and lack the imagination to translate it into a non-gamist narrative. A few simply aren't trying out of spite for 4E but a lot of folks get caught up in game terms and break immersion for everyone else. For example the Druid will say "I use my Daily Power Nature's Soothing Wrath and attack the drow and heal our ranger". I'll ask them "Without using game terms what does that do?" and they look at me like a deer in the headlights. This didn't happen in past editions. I found the ability to control the narrative to be really empowering but some others just couldn't.


----------



## GregoryOatmeal

nightwyrm said:


> It's like asking me to do push-ups. If you give me a whole day, I can probably do 100+ fine. If you give me 2 mins, I'd be lucky to do 40 before collapsing.



That's a good way to look at it. But if in the same day you were brought to the brink of death in an unconscious state by being:
- incinerated with a flamethrower
- assaulted by a maniac with a battle axe
- robbed of 3 gallons of blood by a 500 pound mosquito
- turned into a duck by a witch
would you be able to get up later that day and do 10 pushups?

That's how my 4E combats tended to go


----------



## Spatula

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm not very familiar with 4e, but wouldn't this problem exist with the Second Wind mechanic that everyone is entitled to? I'm trying to piece it together based off of memory and context used within this threat.



Second wind uses a standard action. When you're unconscious, you have no actions.

(technically someone else can bandage you up with the Heal skill to trigger your second wind, but that's more about putting a limit on how many times you can heal yourself in an encounter)

If you roll a 20 on your stabilization check/death save, you can also spend a healing surge.


----------



## Spatula

Dausuul said:


> Any time there isn't a source of magical healing in the party and someone is reduced to zero or less, the issue arises.



The only sources of non-magical healing when you're unconscious is from a warlord or some application of the Heal skill (which conceptually I don't think many people would have an issue with). Or rolling a 20 on a death save, which while possible is exceedingly rare - or at least, I've never seen it happen. In any case, ban the warlord and remove the '20 on death save' effect and you remove the issue.



Dausuul said:


> 5 minutes after you were dealt a "mortal wound," you're back on your feet and ready to roll.



Just like it's always been (healing resources permitting, of course).


----------



## JamesonCourage

Spatula said:


> Second wind uses a standard action. When you're unconscious, you have no actions.
> 
> (technically someone else can bandage you up with the Heal skill to trigger your second wind, but that's more about putting a limit on how many times you can heal yourself in an encounter)
> 
> If you roll a 20 on your stabilization check/death save, you can also spend a healing surge.



I thought of that, but couldn't this still apply when you're bloodied?


----------



## Bluenose

prosfilaes said:


> Because you're a badass. I don't see how this is relevant; no matter how much damage you take in D&D, you continue fighting at 100%. No matter what HP measures, there is no way in D&D to take so much damage that you're no longer fighting at 100%. Presumably in 4E, there's a way to take 50% of your physical damage, no matter what that means in terms of HP and healing surges; you can still then fight at 100% or you're unconscious.




In some ways it's realistic. Adrenaline can do a lot to keep people going. Running around on a broken leg, cycling a hundred miles with a broken collar-bone, collapsing after the fight is won - all observable phenomena. I'd actually suggest that hit points reaching zero is the point at which you stop being willing to continue more than a particular state of physical injury. "No mas", to quote Roberto Duran.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bluenose said:


> In some ways it's realistic. Adrenaline can do a lot to keep people going. Running around on a broken leg, cycling a hundred miles with a broken collar-bone, collapsing after the fight is won - all observable phenomena. I'd actually suggest that hit points reaching zero is the point at which you stop being willing to continue more than a particular state of physical injury. "No mas", to quote Roberto Duran.




But after the fight is won in 4ed, instead of dropping or being exhausted, you're fresh as a daisy.  It's weird.


----------



## Bluenose

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But after the fight is won in 4ed, instead of dropping or being exhausted, you're fresh as a daisy. It's weird.




I'm not sure that someone who has run out of healing surges is "fresh as a daisy". Spending them at all leaves you with less resilience for later in the day. It's not as if people aren't resilient enough to get up after being knocked unconscious and be walking and talking normally a few minutes later. I wouldn't bet on them in another fight, but they're still capable of exerting themselves.


----------



## Blackbrrd

Dannyalcatraz said:


> But after the fight is won in 4ed, instead of dropping or being exhausted, you're fresh as a daisy.  It's weird.



Usually you have lost some healing surges. You might be fit to fight, but you know you can only take so much of this before going down.

I have assorted encounters where the party starts looking for a good spot to rest after a fight because the elf wimp is looking a quite haggard (full hp, no healing surges left).


----------



## JamesonCourage

Bluenose said:


> I'm not sure that someone who has run out of healing surges is "fresh as a daisy". Spending them at all leaves you with less resilience for later in the day. It's not as if people aren't resilient enough to get up after being knocked unconscious and be walking and talking normally a few minutes later. I wouldn't bet on them in another fight, but they're still capable of exerting themselves.



Well, based on your quote that Danny (if that is his real name...) replied to, this doesn't seem consistent to me, so maybe I missed something. You said:


> In some ways it's realistic. Adrenaline can do a lot to keep people going. Running around on a broken leg, cycling a hundred miles with a broken collar-bone, collapsing after the fight is won - all observable phenomena.



If you're running on adrenaline to keep you up mid-fight while you have a broken leg, or a broken collarbone, or you should collapse after the fight is done, that makes sense. But it sounds like you're saying it's reflected in the game, but it's not. The broken leg is not reflected in the game, nor is the broken collarbone. And, realistically, if you did have a broken leg, you might be able to push yourself through it and keep fighting (and it'd be cool to see in a movie or read in a book). However, if you can keep walking around on it after the fight is over and the adrenaline is gone, and perform just as well in the next combat (and be just as nimble and mobile) as long as you aren't hit, then I think the argument you originally put forth doesn't work out.

But, I might be missing something. As always, play what you like


----------



## Nagol

Spatula said:


> The only sources of non-magical healing when you're unconscious is from a warlord or some application of the Heal skill (which conceptually I don't think many people would have an issue with). Or rolling a 20 on a death save, which while possible is exceedingly rare - or at least, I've never seen it happen. In any case, ban the warlord and remove the '20 on death save' effect and you remove the issue.
> 
> Just like it's always been (healing resources permitting, of course).




Actaully, that's not true.  Dropping unconscious in 1e took time to recover from -- starting with a coma that lasts about an hour and then a week of recovery.  Not what I'd call a "bounce back"


----------



## Bluenose

JamesonCourage said:


> If you're running on adrenaline to keep you up mid-fight while you have a broken leg, or a broken collarbone, or you should collapse after the fight is done, that makes sense. But it sounds like you're saying it's reflected in the game, but it's not. The broken leg is not reflected in the game, nor is the broken collarbone. And, realistically, if you did have a broken leg, you might be able to push yourself through it and keep fighting (and it'd be cool to see in a movie or read in a book). However, if you can keep walking around on it after the fight is over and the adrenaline is gone, and perform just as well in the next combat (and be just as nimble and mobile) as long as you aren't hit, then I think the argument you originally put forth doesn't work out.
> 
> But, I might be missing something. As always, play what you like




Want to stand on the podium on the Tour de France with a broken collarbone, it has been done. Want to spend several days walking around with a broken leg before getting any treatment, people have. Want to break your neck in the FA Cup Final and walk up the steps to get your winner's medal, that's fine too. Anything as complicated as injuries and people's reactions to them that's being resolved with a system as abstract as hit points is going to leave queries.


----------



## Maxboy

Morrus said:


> I think the thing to remember is that the primary resource isn't hit points any more - it's healing surges.  A party low on hit points isn't worried; a party low on healing surges is.
> 
> Hit points are now - kinda - "fractions" of Big Hit Points (which are your surges).




This needs to be re-posted. its more about the Healing Surges as a Resource than hit points

I love the Resource pool that is Healing Surges


----------



## JamesonCourage

Bluenose said:


> Want to stand on the podium on the Tour de France with a broken collarbone, it has been done. Want to spend several days walking around with a broken leg before getting any treatment, people have. Want to break your neck in the FA Cup Final and walk up the steps to get your winner's medal, that's fine too. Anything as complicated as injuries and people's reactions to them that's being resolved with a system as abstract as hit points is going to leave queries.



Happen? Yes. No doubt. However, once the incident is over and the adrenaline is gone, people don't function at full capacity. That's why that guy only lasts a few days on his leg. It hurts, it's not functioning right, he favors it, he can't walk as quickly, etc. The initial stage of adrenaline is over, and the leg ceases to be as useful in the time afterward.

Yes, hit points bring odd situations up. However, arguing realism for healing surges as adrenaline and ignoring the effects afterwards strikes me as really odd. But, that's me. I'm not asking for a perfect system, and I'm not asking to mimic reality perfectly within the game. I like the abstract hit point system (even though I modified it).

However, like I said, you argued that it's more realistic, and I really don't see it that way based on what you put forward. Just me, though. Not saying you're wrong to play that way or think that way, just saying I disagree. As always, play what you like


----------



## wingsandsword

Oryan77 said:


> For those that keep using the "Cure Wands" excuse, I'm telling ya, get rid of magic item shops and control what magic items PCs can get their hands on and it solves all kinds of problems. From a DM perspective, there's actually no negatives to doing so.
> 
> Sure, PCs could still craft them, but that's much less commonplace.




Unless, of course, you are running a high-magic setting like Eberron, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, or Mystara where the trade in magic items, especially lower-end items like healing wands and potions, low-end magic weapons, or scrolls, is logical and common if not outright expected.

Some D&D worlds are low magic, some are high-magic.  For some DMing styles and worlds there are no negatives to a lack of trade in magic items.  When you are settings that involves magically powered sailing ships that sail between worlds, a planar metropolis where anybody in the multiverse can visit, there is an entire PC race of mass produced sentient golems, or it's well established that entire nations are ruled by large orders of archmages that use many apprentices to mass-produce basic low-end items, you kind of expect magic items to be more available.

For basic low-fantasy in the styles of Tolkien or Howard, yeah, low magic item levels with no item shops and every single item is hand selected by the DM as treasure are fine, but that's not all of the spectrum of D&D.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Aaron said:


> I apologize in advance if I missed it, but I haven't found a response to this excellent post, that elegantly summarizes what many feel is wrong with the HS.
> 
> The only answer I have found doesn't address at all the "Schrödinger" issue.




I think the reason why we haven't tried to counteract that particular argument of Dausuul's is because we all agree that he's correct.  His particular case is a very good example why the Healing Surge mechanic as it stands is not perfect.  But the reason why we don't care about his point is because those of us on the HS side I think pretty much agree that EVERY facet of the 'hit point' system in every edition of the game _doesn't actually make any sense_.  And thus... since we accept that hit points are nothing more than a _GAME convention_ put in place to give us a win/lose situation in the 'game' part of 'roleplaying game' (described to us as a kind of injury simulation although in actuality does a piss poor job of simulating it)... we overlook the Schrödinger issue just like we've overlooked all the other stupid parts of hit points through the years.

My big question for the rest of you is how you're actually able to think of hit point combat as being 'real' enough that it's 'healing surges' that are the straw that breaks the camel's back?  Because as I pointed out upthread... since any character can actually get HIT AND DAMAGED three to fifteen times over the course of a fight... that's three to fifteen REAL INJURIES that a character is sustaining during that fight, and yet the fact they are still able to continue fighting doesn't break the reality for you?  You're able to accept that... but it's the 'healing surge' mechanic where you draw the line?


----------



## NewJeffCT

wingsandsword said:


> Unless, of course, you are running a high-magic setting like Eberron, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, or Mystara where the trade in magic items, especially lower-end items like healing wands and potions, low-end magic weapons, or scrolls, is logical and common if not outright expected.
> 
> Some D&D worlds are low magic, some are high-magic.  For some DMing styles and worlds there are no negatives to a lack of trade in magic items.  When you are settings that involves magically powered sailing ships that sail between worlds, a planar metropolis where anybody in the multiverse can visit, there is an entire PC race of mass produced sentient golems, or it's well established that entire nations are ruled by large orders of archmages that use many apprentices to mass-produce basic low-end items, you kind of expect magic items to be more available.
> 
> For basic low-fantasy in the styles of Tolkien or Howard, yeah, low magic item levels with no item shops and every single item is hand selected by the DM as treasure are fine, but that's not all of the spectrum of D&D.




A wand of cure light wounds is also something that should be fairly easy to craft for a cleric in 3E/3.5E  (not sure about Pathfinder, but I'd imagine it's similar).  So, if the players said, "We want to stop for long enough to craft a wand of Cure Light Wounds" - does the DM say "no" to that request because it's a low magic world?


----------



## Naszir

Aberzanzorax said:


> Ok, I'm not picking on Naszir, here, it's just the most recent example of what I'm addressing.
> 
> 
> Second wind causes the character to heal themself of wounds.
> 
> The 4e phb quotes I've provided slightly upthread seem to disagree with our common sense view of it, and state (pretty clearly, actually) that it's closing of wounds.
> 
> 
> Now, I agree with everyone else who is claiming that it makes more sense if healing surges represent adrenaline or whatever else, rather than actually healing wounds....but that is not what it is spelled out as in the 4e phb.
> 
> _I'm asking: Can anyone provide an actual WotC source that says what healing surges represent other than the closing of wounds/healing?_
> 
> 
> 
> So, there's the challenge...is it just people making sense of it in their own way, or does WotC ever actually say anywhere that it represents something other than healing?




Hey no problem. I don't feel picked on.

Unfortunately I couldn't find what you are talking about with the closing of wounds in regards to Second Wind. 

From what I can tell healing surges mean many different things. Spending a healing surge and using Second Wind gives you a "burst of vitality". pg. 291 PHB. 

Getting Healing Word cast on your character and spending a healing surge "helps you mend your wounds" - though that is just a flavor description. Healing as stated on pg. 293 PHB doesn't say a thing about "closing wounds". The flavor descriptions on the powers will talk about this but again that is just flavor.


----------



## Dausuul

Spatula said:


> The only sources of non-magical healing when you're unconscious is from a warlord or some application of the Heal skill (which conceptually I don't think many people would have an issue with). Or rolling a 20 on a death save, which while possible is exceedingly rare - or at least, I've never seen it happen.




...Or spending any number of healing surges after a short rest. This is specifically called out in the rules as something you can do:



> After a short rest, you can spend as many healing surges as you like outside combat.



In the glossary entry for "Knocking Creatures Unconscious," there is a specific mention of unconscious creatures benefiting from a short rest, so unconsciousness does not prevent resting. And you can certainly spend healing surges while unconscious.


----------



## Imaro

DEFCON 1 said:


> My big question for the rest of you is how you're actually able to think of hit point combat as being 'real' enough that it's 'healing surges' that are the straw that breaks the camel's back? Because as I pointed out upthread... since any character can actually get HIT AND DAMAGED three to fifteen times over the course of a fight... that's three to fifteen REAL INJURIES that a character is sustaining during that fight, and yet the fact they are still able to continue fighting doesn't break the reality for you? You're able to accept that... but it's the 'healing surge' mechanic where you draw the line?




See now this to me, especially when dealing with minor cuts, bruises, etc., but even with more serious injuries seems like a justification for adrenaline, willpower, etc., kicking in to keep you going. You're still going to go down when you've hit your limit (unlike with HS where your limit is artificially increased)... but right now you're fighting through the pain and weariness to survive and that plus the fact that you've trained to do this allows you to ignore the minor injuries and pain. It's sorta like the same way a professional football player has to ignore minor injuries and still play at or close to the top of his game.  It's only when you've been whittled down to your limit with minor injuries or suffer a major injury that you fall and can't go on.

See, IMO, this is already cinematic combat and is why HS seem, IMO, to push characters towards the superheroic scale. They don't just fight through injuries and pain anymore... now they can shake off (heal) major wounds, unconsciousness and even being on the brink of death... without magic or help... and give them 5 mins to catch their breath and they are in tip top shape for the next battle. That doesn't feel like adrenaline kicking in, or catching your breath... that's Wolverine's healing factor. And yes, I know healing surges eventually run out (though with the length of combat it's hard to get there in any one 4 hour gaming session), but then again even Logan's mutant ability has it's limits on how much it can repair in a certain amount of time... with that said it's still very much a super power.


----------



## Imaro

NewJeffCT said:


> A wand of cure light wounds is also something that should be fairly easy to craft for a cleric in 3E/3.5E (not sure about Pathfinder, but I'd imagine it's similar). So, if the players said, "We want to stop for long enough to craft a wand of Cure Light Wounds" - does the DM say "no" to that request because it's a low magic world?




Why would a DM allow crafting feats in a low-magic world.  It seems this would be something that is available to only the most powerful (greatly increase the level necessary to take the feats) and/or specially trained (prestige class) spellcasters.  I don't think a world in which PC's have easy access to crafting at low levels could really be considered a low-magic game.


----------



## wedgeski

I do wish that 4E had incorporated a Condition Track or at least *something* which reflected the longer-term effects of being beaten into unconsciousness or healed from the brink of death, but having said that, I love Healing Surges. I don't have a single problem with what they represent or how they're used.


----------



## BryonD

I'm perfectly content with abstract HP and I strongly dislike Healing Surges.  

I think the difference is presented in the subtle shift from here:



Mercurius said:


> Even though HP was always meant to be an abstract gestalt of different factors--body, vitality, endurance, even luck, etc--...




To here:


> At least as long as HP remain HP--that is, a gestalt of different factors, an abstraction.




Yes, it was always an abstract.  But it was understood that physical damage was the benchmark of that abstraction.  Setting magic aside, healing was tied to ideas of normal healing of physical damage.  Yes, it was a loose tie, but it was there.  And along with the idea that some HP represents "luck", "fate", raw skill at avoiding damage, whatever, it was simply accepted that recovery of this "luck" scaled consistently with the primary idea of physical healing.

And that had a benefit because, at least, it kept the abstract part of the healing concept on the same side of the ledger as the abstract side of the HP concept.

But now it has gone away from being an abstraction that is benchmarked against physical damage and healing and into being a free floating abstraction.  There is no connection to physical.  And so you get a situation in which two warriors fighting with weapons end with both or either of them either dead or able to shrug off any and all damage with no meaningful recovery period or medical aid.  
When you move away from an abstraction built on a physical idea and to a pure abstraction, no damage is physical at all.  No damage may ever be dealt that con not be abstracted away in a full absence of anything resembling actual healing.

Now, you add magic into the system.  As long as magic healing still scales with this abstraction, it still works good enough.  It doesn't really matter if 15 points of healing is closing a wound or restoring luck.  So that in itself does not change anything.

It has been pointed out that the wand'o'heals creates the exact same game result, so what difference does it make.  My first response to that it is not correct to assume this happens in everyone's game, so it certainly isn't correct to assume that designing a new game expecting everyone to accept it is ok.  But, even when a wand is used in rapid succession, at least there is an implicit narrative justification for the healing.  Using "magic" to channel power and heal wounds is a fundamental idea of how a world works.  Joe the fighter can close his wounds through willpower is not.  Certainly you can invent a world in which everyone has a form of regeneration.  And that is cool.  But the default concept of a fantasy world does not resemble this idea.

Yes, you can think of specific examples in fantasy that perfectly fit a surge.  Princess Bride is probably one of the best.  And yet, imagine how miserably anti-climatic it would have been if everyone had already been "surging" four times a day throughout the movie prior to that.  

You asked for solutions.  I have an option in my game that provides exactly this kind of heroic moment, and would readily be recognizable as a form of "surge" but with two key changes.

First, it requires an action point, which is a much more precious resource.  The effect is not something that happens routinely, but only at desperate times.  Second, it provides temporary hit points, not healing.  These temp HP go away within 10 minutes and deal an extra 50% damage when they do.  You can heroically fight on, but you still need to heal, and that much more for having exerted yourself beyond your normal means.

Another option is a wound/vitality system.  These have there own issues and I generally don't bother with them.  But if you must have surges, W/V can keep the surges fully in the abstract side of things.


----------



## BryonD

Bluenose said:


> Want to stand on the podium on the Tour de France with a broken collarbone, it has been done. Want to spend several days walking around with a broken leg before getting any treatment, people have. Want to break your neck in the FA Cup Final and walk up the steps to get your winner's medal, that's fine too. Anything as complicated as injuries and people's reactions to them that's being resolved with a system as abstract as hit points is going to leave queries.



How many of those people found that because they had temporarily overcome their injury, they suddenly no longer needed any medical treatment for that injury ever?


----------



## DEFCON 1

Imaro said:


> ...but right now you're fighting through the pain and weariness to survive and that plus the fact that you've trained to do this allows you to ignore the minor injuries and pain. It's sorta like the same way a professional football player has to ignore minor injuries and still play at or close to the top of his game.  It's only when you've been whittled down to your limit with minor injuries or suffer a major injury that you fall and can't go on.




But this is the exact opposite of what many folks upthread have considered hit points.  They aren't treating hit points as minor injury, pain and fatigue, they're treating them as actual, describable, bleeding _wounds_.  Imaro, you're actually pointing out a way of looking at hit points that allow Healing Surges to actually WORK (and how those of us on the HS side look at it.)  Minor pain, fatigue, and slight injuries are all things that can be fought through via adrenaline or psychological gearing up, or whatnot.  All the things that healing surges (especially the Warlord/Bard 'shout them okay' type) represent.



			
				Imaro said:
			
		

> See, IMO, this is already cinematic combat and is why HS seem, IMO, to push characters towards the superheroic scale. They don't just fight through injuries and pain anymore... now they can shake off (heal) major wounds, unconsciousness and even being on the brink of death... without magic or help... and give them 5 mins to catch their breath and they are in tip top shape for the next battle.




As I said above... you're absolutely right about the 'three strikes and you're dead' problem.  It's the one place where we have to accept the breakdown of how someone can be on the brink of death but still be able to will themselves healthy after 5 minutes of rest.  But if we are willing to accept that _the game_ requires us to have a way to actually die (because it's a game trope that's been in existence forever that Death is the end of a character's career) ... we have to accept that the methods to achieve that death aren't going to be in any way realistic unless we build a much more intricate combat system like The Riddle Of Steel or something.  And if we accept that the entire system doesn't make any lick of real sense... why is the healing surge game mechanic the one that makes you say 'nuh uh!'? 

THAT'S what makes me wonder why folks get so bent out of shape about the concept.  It's picking and choosing one stupid game convention out of an entire bucketful of stupid game conventions.


----------



## Oryan77

wingsandsword said:


> Unless, of course, you are running a high-magic setting like..........Planescape........




I run a 3.5 Planescape game and I do not have magic item shops other than Akin The Friendly Fiends shop. And even then, his shop is full of useless/odd magic items that either a player won't want to buy, or a player buys it but it has no real use in the game other than adding flavor.

Just because the game is high fantasy doesn't mean that you *have* to have magic item shops and allow players to buy whatever they want. It's possible, I do it.


----------



## Hussar

Dausuul said:


> ...Or spending any number of healing surges after a short rest. This is specifically called out in the rules as something you can do:
> 
> In the glossary entry for "Knocking Creatures Unconscious," there is a specific mention of unconscious creatures benefiting from a short rest, so unconsciousness does not prevent resting. And you can certainly spend healing surges while unconscious.




Note, unconscious and dying are not the same thing.  When you knock something unconscious, you have deliberately chosen that your attacks are non-lethal.  And,



			
				Rules Compendium said:
			
		

> When you reduce a creature to 0 hit points or fewer, you can choose to knock it unconscious rather than kill it. Until it regains hit points, the creature is unconscious but not dying. Any healing makes the creature conscious. If the creature doesn’t receive any healing, it is restored to 1 hit point and becomes conscious after a short rest.




so, you are actually flat out wrong here.  Since you cannot spend any actions while unconscious, you couldn't spend healing surges.  Granted, you wake up after a short rest, but, that's pretty reasonably.  Someone knocks you out, you wake up a few minutes later, shake it off (spend your healing surges) and carry on with a seriously sore head.

Also note:



			
				Compendium said:
			
		

> While a creature is unconscious, it is helpless, it can’t take actions, and it takes a -5 penalty to all defenses. It also can’t flank and is unaware of its surroundings. When a creature is subjected to this condition, it falls prone, if possible. See also helpless and prone.


----------



## Imaro

Bluenose said:


> Want to stand on the podium on the Tour de France with a broken collarbone, it has been done. Want to spend several days walking around with a broken leg before getting any treatment, people have. Want to break your neck in the FA Cup Final and walk up the steps to get your winner's medal, that's fine too. Anything as complicated as injuries and people's reactions to them that's being resolved with a system as abstract as hit points is going to leave queries.




Again, isn't this covered by the fact that loss of hit points does not impair heroes with minuses to their actions, even though they still need to rest or heal eventually to get themselves back into top shape?


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> Again, isn't this covered by the fact that loss of hit points does not impair heroes with minuses to their actions, even though they still need to rest or heal eventually to get themselves back into top shape?




You are exactly right.  You can model things that way.  And it works.  Why can he push through?  Well, he's still got some hit points left.  That's because hit points work on a linear time frame.  If he's still moving, he's got hp left obviously.

4e just doesn't work that way.  Not that it's a better way of doing it, but, rather, a different way of approaching the issue.  

People keep trying to apply an approach that 4e just doesn't support and then complain that 4e doesn't do what they want.  In 4e, a wound is never, ever a fixed narrative point until AFTER everything is complete.  That's the whole point of it being abstract and a narrative based concept.  Everyone at the table has the opportunity to add or subtract from the narrative at every point in time, up to and including ret-conning narratives.

The orc attacks you and does X damage.  That's all that's known.  Until the combat is over anyway, and THEN, and only then, can you pin down the narrative.  Granted, most of the time, the narrative does follow in a fairly linear fashion, but, that's simply because none of the players have changed the narrative as its being played out.

Your character takes a butt load of damage.  Combat ends and he spends his healing surges.  Now he's back at full hit points minus those healing surges.  What happened to his gaping wound?  

It never happened.  There was no gaping wound.  Even when the character fell down and was possibly dying, there was no gaping wound.  Why not?  Because the Warlord yelled at him to get back up and it worked.  If he had a sucking chest wound, no amount of yelling would have made him stand up.  But it worked, therefore there was no sucking chest wound.  That blow that looked so bad was just stopped by the Mithril Armor and the character had the wind knocked out of him.

However, had the warlord not yelled at the PC, and the PC then failed his three death saves, then that wound would obviously have been a sucking chest wound, because, well, no one dies of having the wind knocked out of them.

Now, I can totally see why people might not like this way of doing it.  I get that.  But, the argument about "realism" just doesn't wash.  It's perfectly realistic, but, you just have to apply the narrative after the resolution of the event, not as it occurs.


----------



## Aaron

DEFCON 1 said:


> Because as I pointed out upthread... since any character can actually get HIT AND DAMAGED three to fifteen times over the course of a fight... that's three to fifteen REAL INJURIES that a character is sustaining during that fight, and yet the fact they are still able to continue fighting doesn't break the reality for you?  You're able to accept that... but it's the 'healing surge' mechanic where you draw the line?



If you are a high level character I have no problem imagining him/her sustain an impressive amount of damage.

I can cite tons of fantasy characters from manga/comics/movies etc. that can sustain an absurd amount of damage. But none of them presents the Schrödinger issue.



			
				[Hussar said:
			
		

> The orc attacks you and does X damage.  That's all that's known.  Until  the combat is over anyway, and THEN, and only then, can you pin down the  narrative.  Granted, most of the time, the narrative does follow in a  fairly linear fashion, but, that's simply because none of the players  have changed the narrative as its being played out.
> 
> Your character takes a butt load of damage.  Combat ends and he spends  his healing surges.  Now he's back at full hit points minus those  healing surges.  What happened to his gaping wound?
> 
> It never happened.  There was no gaping wound.



If that's the case:

1) what happens if someone looks at the (eventually) wounded character? -what would someone see?
Maybe an ally looks at his comrade to see if he can sustain more damage, and go and help him, even if they can't communicate for some reason.

Or maybe there's someone else watching the combat without being involved, and wants to act if and when the character is effectively wounded. 

Heck, his enemies too are interested into see if their attacks are effective.

2) what if the character for any reason can't use any HS for a long time after combat. Would he remain in this "cinematic" indetermination for hours?

3) if there's no "gaping wound", what happens? If, for example, a character is on fire, what happens? Is he/she damaged by the fire? Can I see if he/she is damaged only after something else happens, like his/her death or he/she quenches the fire?

4) What if the character falls unconscious after the combat. What would another character see looking at his/her body? A gaping wound or ...what else?


----------



## DEFCON 1

BryonD said:


> But it was understood that physical damage was the benchmark of that abstraction.  Setting magic aside, healing was tied to ideas of normal healing of physical damage.  Yes, it was a loose tie, but it was there.  And along with the idea that some HP represents "luck", "fate", raw skill at avoiding damage, whatever, it was simply accepted that recovery of this "luck" scaled consistently with the primary idea of physical healing.




And this right here is where the whole system breaks down, and why EVER treating move-by-move combat in D&D as causing actual physical injury is patently absurd.  (And please note, I'm not saying we didn't do this... I'm saying that the fact we did do this this entire time shows us how dumb we all were to do so.)

As I said upthread... an individual D&D combat involves a character taking upwards of ten to twenty actual wounds over the course of the fight (if we are to assume that taking damage equates to actual injury that has to be HEALED either via magic or long amounts of bedrest.)  Now... name me ANY combat situation where this actually happens?

The answer is, there isn't any.  Any fight actually usually involves just bruising, minor cuts, and fatigue until such time a _single_ major injury occurs that almost assuredly knocks the person out of the fight entirely.  Once you get that limb broken, or that blow to the head knocks you out, or you are gutted by the spear... you're done.  You're on the ground in massive amount of pain, or your body goes into shock, or you are instantly killed.  That's just the way it is.  And it is only the extremely rare cases where you might suffer a massive injury (one that in the D&D world would require magical healing via spell or potion) and still be able to continue fighting... but then the odds are that a SECOND massive injury will remove you from the fight.  Two injuries tops, three for a psychotic superman, but assuredly none of this ridiculous ten to twenty.

***

The only way D&D combat in any way would make a little bit of actual sense would be if hit points were not physical injury but fatigue, luck, blocks, parries, and bruising and it's only that final attack that drops you under 0 HPs that is the real, wounding injury (the 'killing blow').  But to emulate this... D&D's combat and recovery should really be that if you are under 0 HPs you require a magical heal to put you at 1 HP (thereby mending the gash in your abdomen, or resetting the broken bone)... and then all the rest of your HPs automatically return via 5 minutes of rest because of regaining breath, binding small cuts, putting ice on it etc. (the healing surge mechanic).  You should in no way require your _positive_ HP levels to have to be returned by magical healing, because that implies actual injury... which as I've just pointed out, makes not a lick of sense.


----------



## Dausuul

Hussar said:


> Note, unconscious and dying are not the same thing.  When you knock something unconscious, you have deliberately chosen that your attacks are non-lethal.




The reason I brought up that rule was that it's debatable whether you can "rest" while unconscious. The rule makes it clear that you can. Nothing in the "dying" rules would indicate that the dying form of unconsciousness works differently.



Hussar said:


> so, you are actually flat out wrong here.  Since you cannot spend any actions while unconscious, you couldn't spend healing surges.




Spending a healing surge is not an action. If the cleric uses Healing Word on you, you can spend a healing surge, whether you're stunned, unconscious, or what have you. Same with anything else that says "You can spend a healing surge." (The use of "spend" here is another example of bad choice of rules terms--it implies an action is required when it isn't, and it implies you can do it at will when you can't.)


----------



## BryonD

DEFCON 1 said:


> But this is the exact opposite of what many folks upthread have considered hit points.  They aren't treating hit points as minor injury, pain and fatigue, they're treating them as actual, describable, bleeding _wounds_.  Imaro, you're actually pointing out a way of looking at hit points that allow Healing Surges to actually WORK (and how those of us on the HS side look at it.)  Minor pain, fatigue, and slight injuries are all things that can be fought through via adrenaline or psychological gearing up, or whatnot.  All the things that healing surges (especially the Warlord/Bard 'shout them okay' type) represent.



I think one problem here is there is a lot of all or nothing going on.

What Imaro is pointing out is that you can have BOTH minor wounds AND serious wounds and work with that inside the same larger abstract system.  

Some responses have latched onto "ALL SERIOUS" which is problematic and other, such as your here, have latched on to "All MINOR", which solve Surges but creates other major problems.

Surges reduce the options for how the abstract nature of wounds can be modeled in a satisfactory way.  That is bad.  (And I readily admit that someone might have a far easier standard of satisfactory, but at a minimum, the OP should see how this difference answers the question.)


----------



## Imaro

DEFCON 1 said:


> But this is the exact opposite of what many folks upthread have considered hit points. They aren't treating hit points as minor injury, pain and fatigue, they're treating them as actual, describable, bleeding _wounds_. Imaro, you're actually pointing out a way of looking at hit points that allow Healing Surges to actually WORK (and how those of us on the HS side look at it.) Minor pain, fatigue, and slight injuries are all things that can be fought through via adrenaline or psychological gearing up, or whatnot. All the things that healing surges (especially the Warlord/Bard 'shout them okay' type) represent.




First, no. Most people are saying that at least some part of hit points is physical injury and I agree with this. How much? It depends on the level of the PC and in part the DM. As an example...A Fighter with 8 hp's has a higher percentage of actual physical HP's vs. a Fighter with 800 HP's... perhaps 100% to 1%. I think this is how most people upthread who are disagreeing with you are looking at both hp's and damage (at least some of the damage has to be physical. Now that said... 

I think you're misunderstanding me. I am saying the fact that there are no penalties imposed on a heroes actions is where adrenaline and willpower, IMO, fit into the narrative. Allowing you to heal yourself of wounds, a hero being back to tip top shape after a combat is over none the worse for wear, without any type of medical or magical healing, etc., IMO, is regeneration. There are some real fundamental differences in the two, HS allow one to actually heal damage... the "no-penalties to actions" thing is exactly what many american football players and other pro athletes do every game or competition... healing wounds is not. 





DEFCON 1 said:


> As I said above... you're absolutely right about the 'three strikes and you're dead' problem. It's the one place where we have to accept the breakdown of how someone can be on the brink of death but still be able to will themselves healthy after 5 minutes of rest. But if we are willing to accept that _the game_ requires us to have a way to actually die (because it's a game trope that's been in existence forever that Death is the end of a character's career) ... we have to accept that the methods to achieve that death aren't going to be in any way realistic unless we build a much more intricate combat system like The Riddle Of Steel or something. And if we accept that the entire system doesn't make any lick of real sense... why is the healing surge game mechanic the one that makes you say 'nuh uh!'?




No, it's not the only place. They can also be beaten unconscious one minute and back to full on readiness to fight in 5 mins without magical or medical aid. No ones saying make it realistic, but don't just keep stacking more and more abstractions on top of it for us to deal with and not providing a definitive way to associate those abstractions with something taking place in the narrative. 

Maybe this explanation and example will help you undertstand it. By every definition of HP's, in every edition... at least some are physical, as is some damage... thus if I spend healing surges to get back to tip top shape from let's say... one hit point after a 5 min rest I have actually under my own power somehow forced my body to regenerate ala Wolverine, regardless of the specific percentage or number of hitpoints that are physical... add to that the fact that I can do this numerous times in a day and it borders on super powers. 



DEFCON 1 said:


> THAT'S what makes me wonder why folks get so bent out of shape about the concept. It's picking and choosing one stupid game convention out of an entire bucketful of stupid game conventions.




No it's not... it's saying "Hey, just because I'm willing to accept some abstraction, doesn't mean you should keep adding to it, without consideration of the narrative, and expecting me to just wave it off...somehow...in someway."


----------



## DEFCON 1

Aaron said:


> If you are a high level character I have no problem imagining him/her sustain an impressive amount of damage.
> 
> I can cite tons of fantasy characters from manga/comics/movies etc. that can sustain an absurd amount of damage. But none of them presents the Schrödinger issue.




Exactly.  You're picking one completely absurd thing to accept as possible, and one other completely absurd thing as not possible.

I understand why... we all cling to absurdities every day while discounting other just as absurd things.  But for my money, as someone who sees himself as a logical person... if I'm going accept absurdity and suspension of disbelief as part of playing a game... then I'll accept ALL the absurdity and suspend all my disbelief as just the requirement for making the rules of a game enjoyable to play.  I'll have fun playing with the rules and just not worry about it.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> You are exactly right. You can model things that way. And it works. Why can he push through? Well, he's still got some hit points left. That's because hit points work on a linear time frame. If he's still moving, he's got hp left obviously.
> 
> 4e just doesn't work that way. Not that it's a better way of doing it, but, rather, a different way of approaching the issue.
> 
> People keep trying to apply an approach that 4e just doesn't support and then complain that 4e doesn't do what they want. In 4e, a wound is never, ever a fixed narrative point until AFTER everything is complete. That's the whole point of it being abstract and a narrative based concept. Everyone at the table has the opportunity to add or subtract from the narrative at every point in time, up to and including ret-conning narratives.
> 
> The orc attacks you and does X damage. That's all that's known. Until the combat is over anyway, and THEN, and only then, can you pin down the narrative. Granted, most of the time, the narrative does follow in a fairly linear fashion, but, that's simply because none of the players have changed the narrative as its being played out.
> 
> Your character takes a butt load of damage. Combat ends and he spends his healing surges. Now he's back at full hit points minus those healing surges. What happened to his gaping wound?
> 
> It never happened. There was no gaping wound. Even when the character fell down and was possibly dying, there was no gaping wound. Why not? Because the Warlord yelled at him to get back up and it worked. If he had a sucking chest wound, no amount of yelling would have made him stand up. But it worked, therefore there was no sucking chest wound. That blow that looked so bad was just stopped by the Mithril Armor and the character had the wind knocked out of him.
> 
> However, had the warlord not yelled at the PC, and the PC then failed his three death saves, then that wound would obviously have been a sucking chest wound, because, well, no one dies of having the wind knocked out of them.
> 
> Now, I can totally see why people might not like this way of doing it. I get that. But, the argument about "realism" just doesn't wash. It's perfectly realistic, but, you just have to apply the narrative after the resolution of the event, not as it occurs.





Okay a couple points I want to make here...

First, I find this as a prime example of the "Doesn't feel like D&D to me" argument. You're outright saying the narrative for a combat in 4e is done totally different than any other previous edition and yet people don't understand why some express the idea that 4e feels like a totally different game. Go figure???

Second, where is the fact, that the narrative has to be constructed after the fight is over, expressed anywhere in the corebooks? How can you blame people for picking up an edition of D&D and expecting it to play out in a general sense like the editions before it? The fact that no mention or guidance on this is given in the corebooks is just the icing on the cake.  To me this speaks to a failure of 4e's designers in considering and setting guidelines for the narrative surrounding it's mechanics, something many have expressed displeasure with.

Last, so does your group just state mechanics through the entire fight and then at the very end go back and describe everything that happened? I'm trying to wrap my mind around this because it just seems an odd, un-intuitive, and confusing way for the narrative to be constructed. I mean do you even remember everything that happened by the end? Or is only the narrative concerning healing surge use, damage, hitpoints, etc. held off till the end?


----------



## Spatula

Nagol said:


> Actaully, that's not true.  Dropping unconscious in 1e took time to recover from -- starting with a coma that lasts about an hour and then a week of recovery.  Not what I'd call a "bounce back"



Can't say I've ever seen that happen in a game - namely because a 1st-level spell completely removes any and all penalties from being on the brink of death. 5 minutes after the fight, the cleric has used some spells (and/or some wand charges) and everyone is back in tip-top shape. That's why I said, "healing resources permitting".


----------



## Nagol

Spatula said:


> Can't say I've ever seen that happen in a game - namely because a 1st-level spell completely removes any and all penalties from being on the brink of death. 5 minutes after the fight, the cleric has used some spells (and/or some wand charges) and everyone is back in tip-top shape. That's why I said, "healing resources permitting".




Cure spells don't remove the coma/recovery.  You need a _Heal_ or better to remedy it.  You may be at full hp, but you can't fight, move quickly or do more than eat and sleep.


----------



## wingsandsword

Hussar said:


> People keep trying to apply an approach that 4e just doesn't support and then complain that 4e doesn't do what they want.  In 4e, a wound is never, ever a fixed narrative point until AFTER everything is complete.



Maybe that's a part of why many people don't like 4e.  This is like other places where 4e might be a fine game on its own, but it has such different assumptions in so many places about so many things that are required for the game to work properly that players who have played other editions don't feel they should have to completely re-learn not just the mechanics of the game, but even their narrative style and conventions just to play a new edition of D&D.

A whole new magic system, fighters with the power to force other characters to move, the elf/eladrin split, a new cosmology, and countless other changes to both rules and setting presumptions, but also changing the underlying narrative style a DM would use to describe actions during combat.

OD&D, Basic D&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e. . .in all those editions if an orc hit your 1st level PC with an axe and did 3 points of damage the DM could say as the dice were rolled and the results tallied that the orc hit your character with an axe, it was a serious, but not immediately fatal, cut, and he wasn't getting better without some significant rest or magical healing.  In 4e you can't do that because a character might use a healing surge and that cut would just vanish, you just arbitrarily say the character took 3 HP, and after the fight maybe the DM can narrate things.  Being unable to accurately narrate a combat in real-time because it's too abstract is yet another thing that detractors (myself among them) will point to and say it is like a video game.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Imaro said:


> No it's not... it's saying "Hey, just because I'm willing to accept some abstraction, doesn't mean you should keep adding to it, without consideration of the narrative, and expecting me to just wave it off...somehow...in someway."




Why not?  If you are willing to accept some absurdity, why aren't you willing to accept all of it?  Once you suspend your disbelief and accept somehow that the game mechanics of D&D combat have an analogous 'real-world' representation of combat... why pick and choose when to stop?  And why should the game designers choose an arbitrary stopping point for no other reason than some players might just not be willing to go further with the abstraction?  And more to the point HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHERE THAT POINT IS?


----------



## Imaro

DEFCON 1 said:


> Why not? If you are willing to accept some absurdity, why aren't you willing to accept all of it? Once you suspend your disbelief and accept somehow that the game mechanics of D&D combat have an analogous 'real-world' representation of combat... why pick and choose when to stop? And why should the game designers choose an arbitrary stopping point for no other reason than some players might just not be willing to go further with the abstraction? And more to the point HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHERE THAT POINT IS?




Because at a certain point in absurdity, instead of playing D&D... I'm playing Toon.

Oh, and to address the rest of your questions...

Stopping at just hit points wasn't an arbitrary stopping point... every edition had them and even then their abstracted nature caused some dissent... but yeah, the answer was throw some more abstracted mechanics without a clear connection to the narrative or gameworld on the base of hit points because if there was anything D&D players were clamoring for... that was exactly it... or maybe not.

The previous point, hit points (in abstractness), was already a sore spot... how did they not know adding even more abstractness to it would rub many people the wrong way? Personally I ignore them in my 4e games when I run it... don't even try to explain what is happening at that 5 min rest when everyone is suddenly in prime form... but it does irk me at times.


----------



## Nagol

DEFCON 1 said:


> Why not?  If you are willing to accept some absurdity, why aren't you willing to accept all of it?  Once you suspend your disbelief and accept somehow that the game mechanics of D&D combat have an analogous 'real-world' representation of combat... why pick and choose when to stop?  And why should the game designers choose an arbitrary stopping point for no other reason than some players might just not be willing to go further with the abstraction?  And more to the point HOW ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO KNOW WHERE THAT POINT IS?




Suspension of disbelief has a limit for members of the audience.  Willing Suspension of Disbelief - Television Tropes & Idioms

As for the devs knowingwhere that limit is, they don't.  They define the audience as those who are willing to go this far with them.  If they stay close to the accepted, the audience stays large.  If they go out REALLLY REALLY far, their audience shrinks to almost nothing.  The devs pick the audience by choosing how far to go, not the other way around.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> Because at a certain point, instead of playing D&D... I'm playing Toon.



Given the way an AD&D character with enough levels can get smacked around by a giant, blown up, and dropped off a cliff and _still_ get up and run around (possibly while making a hooting sound), ie, given they way they resemble _Daffy Duck_, you could say we've been playing Toon in fantasy-drag all along!


----------



## tomBitonti

The issues regarding hit points is somewhat of a distraction from healing surges: D&D has always been rather conflicted in regards to HP and damage; weapon attacks can cause bleeding damage.  1ed fireballs could melt lead; what kind of fall of over 20' would not inflict actual serious physical injury?

On the other hand, hit points are described as not just "damage" or "injury" but as an ablation of stamina, luck, and divine favor.

My own take on healing surge issues is that healing surges are defined at the meta-level, not at the narrative level.  The player or GM is required to create the narration.  Contrast the very concrete act of drinking a healing potion from the more abstract act of spending a healing surge.  While ultimately, the act of drinking a healing potion still has a vagueness, that is hidden within the abstraction of hit points.  The act of using a healing surge has no such concrete tie.

There are some hints built into the classes, but, by the 4E philosophy, any actual descriptions are just a "skin", and can be reflavored freely.  A character could be flavored as being chemically driven.  Using a healing surge could actually be "taking a sip of the go juice".

I think what this translates into is a desire for the game designer to provide the narrative ties.  An RPG is not just an abstract framework that is built to provide a balanced set of numbers.  (In my view) an RPG also provides a set of concrete ties which outline the game narration in a compelling way.  In this view, the abstract framework is the easier part of the game design.  The hard (and valuable) part is the narrative tie.  That is what drives creative and interesting stories.

TomB


----------



## JamesonCourage

DEFCON 1 said:


> Exactly.  You're picking one completely absurd thing to accept as possible, and one other completely absurd thing as not possible.



So, accepting mechanics that reflect standard genre tropes means you should accept other mechanics by the same people, just because they made the game, even if you feel they don't adequately reflect genre tropes? That doesn't seem right to me.

Hussar is right. It's a narrative issue. You can definitely wait until a point where a wound is definitively decided before describing it. It very much goes against the linear timeline I want to see in combat, since part of immersion is having a feeling of dread when you see your best friend take a claw through his chest and poke out the other side, before he coughs a little blood and falls to the ground. Having to say, "he hits you for 18 damage... that puts you in the negatives. So, you're down, I guess..." would really throw me off my game, and really draw my group out of immersion.

It's like rolling dice behind a screen. It pulls me out of immersion when a GM does it (not that I'd ever tell one not to, if that's their preference). I always wonder if they're fudging to help the party out. They may not fudge at all, but I always wonder, and it yanks my focus away from the game and thinking in-character. When you have a narrative that isn't resolved, it'd do the same thing to me. I'd want to know, in-character, does my friend look hurt? Does he have a hole through his left shoulder, or does he look winded? Should I rush over to help him, or should I fight on, even if I think my allies can handle it? And, as a GM, I want my players to know these things, too, so that they can make informed decisions in-character.

This is just a play style difference. Neither is objectively right or wrong, but I see big issues with it ever being able to fit my play style. And that's fine. It'd work well enough in my homebrewed RPG if it was limited to the THP pool, and I think that's an overall better model for the game, as I think it represents different kinds of play more easily, as well as allowing healing surges (or disallowing them) just as easily. It promotes a linear timeline in combat with descriptions, but allows for cinematic feel with surges for those who want them, while remaining easily abstract enough for many different descriptions. It also addresses falling damage, being on fire, being immersed in acid, and other such things that make hit points seem weird some of the time. But hey, that's just me and my group, and our preference.

In the end, it comes down to preference. The OP asked why some people don't like healing surges. I think there have been very clear, valid, and subjectively justifiable reasons why people dislike healing surges. He also asked what people would do to fix it, and some have given answers (myself included). Why's there's a debate when the question was about the opinions of other people I'm not sure (other than debating is fun), but I'll continue to enjoy this thread as long as it's civil. As always, play what you like


----------



## Aaron

DEFCON 1 said:


> Exactly.  You're picking one completely absurd thing to accept as possible, and one other completely absurd thing as not possible.
> 
> I understand why... we all cling to absurdities every day while discounting other just as absurd things.  But for my money, as someone who sees himself as a logical person... if I'm going accept absurdity and suspension of disbelief as part of playing a game... then I'll accept ALL the absurdity and suspend all my disbelief as just the requirement for making the rules of a game enjoyable to play.  I'll have fun playing with the rules and just not worry about it.



I don't understand your point.

What is "absurd" in having an heroic character sustain a high amount of damage?

While no one can deny that the Schrödinger issue created by the HS is illogical at best, there's nothing illogical if you accept a fantasy world where heroic characters fight with supernatural stamina.
But fantasy doesn't mean illogical or lacking internal consistency.

There's nothing incongruous inside a fantasy world where heroic characters get grievously wounded and fight on.

But there is a glaring incongruity, even in a fantasy world, with the Schrödinger issue.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> Given the way an AD&D character with enough levels can get smacked around by a giant, blown up, and dropped off a cliff and _still_ get up and run around (possibly while making a hooting sound), ie, given they way they resemble _Daffy Duck_, you could say we've been playing Toon in fantasy-drag all along!




Well numerous posters have addressed the "hp's do not all equal damage, only some are actual physical damage thing"... which kinda dismisses all of your arguments above concerning damage and Daffy. 

 what I'm saying is don't notch the default absurdity level up to the point where the default is my character being flattened by a hammer and then picking himself up, blowing on his thumb until he's normal shape again and being all better in a few minutes.  YMMV of course.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Unless, of course, you are running a high-magic setting like Eberron, Planescape, Forgotten Realms, Spelljammer, or Mystara where the trade in magic items, especially lower-end items like healing wands and potions, low-end magic weapons, or scrolls, is logical and common if not outright expected.




Just because something exists doesn't mean it is available.  Nor does it mean that it is desirable.  I live in Dallas, Tx.  There is no Skoda dealership here.  And if there were, it would doubtlessly fail- the only Skodas around here are used or imported directly for particular buyers.

The only CLW wands I've seen in play of 30+ years were those found in troves.  Even when PCs went into "M-Mart", they unfailingly purchased healing potions instead of wands.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Aaron said:


> I don't understand your point.
> 
> What is "absurd" in having an heroic character sustain a high amount of damage?




As I've mentioned above... it is absurd if this damage requires _magical healing_ to recover from it.  Because that implies it's a real physical injury.  Which then implies that since a heroic character can take three to fifteen of these damaging attacks during a combat before dropping below 0 HPs and "falling unconscious"... they are sustaining three to fifteen REAL PHYSICAL INJURIES THAT REQUIRE MAGICAL HEALING and somehow are still fighting.

So tell me what those are?  Name me fifteen injuries a hand-to-hand combatant could sustain that would require magical healing (or if we want to make it even more understandable... 'surgery') but yet still allow him to keep fighting even after sustaining each and every one.

And to make it even more interesting for you... put that combatant in full plate mail armor, and the guy doing the attacking wields a longsword.  Now what are those fifteen injuries?

Please remember, these fifteen injuries cannot include minor cuts and bruises... because those do not require surgery (i.e. magical healing), and thus can get recovered from just by taking a little while to regain your strength and perhaps some small stitching and patching after the battle (i.e. spending a healing surge).


----------



## DEFCON 1

Imaro said:


> What I'm saying is don't notch the default absurdity level up to the point where the default is my character being flattened by a hammer and then picking himself up, blowing on his thumb until he's normal shape again and being all better in a few minutes.  YMMV of course.




So instead we should keep the absurdity level down at the point where someone can stand in a room and get engulfed by six separate fireballs before finally falling unconscious from it.  Because that level is easier to narratively explain away.  YMMV of course.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> The orc attacks you and does X damage.  That's all that's known.  Until the combat is over anyway, and THEN, and only then, can you pin down the narrative.



Does this mean that once combat is over and a "wound" is described, no later surge may remove that damage?


----------



## Imaro

DEFCON 1 said:


> So instead we should keep the absurdity level down at the point where someone can stand in a room and get engulfed by six separate fireballs before finally falling unconscious from it. Because that level is easier to narratively explain away. YMMV of course.




I'm not sure what your point is?  They went down because they no longer had the ability to minimize the damage through non-physical hit points (which we've already established mean numerous things from knowing how to crouch so as to take minimum damage to divine intervention or pure luck.) and the rest of the damage not counteracted from the fireballs exceeded their own physical hit points.  

Now what would be amazing to me (in either a superhero or cartoon sense) is if they went down from said fireballs and then 5 minutes later without medical aid, magical aid or even the shout of a Warlord... stood up dusted the ash of their clothes and were totally unhurt and ready to fight at full capacity.  But maybe that's just me.


----------



## BryonD

DEFCON 1 said:


> As I've mentioned above... it is absurd if this damage requires _magical healing_ to recover from it.  Because that implies it's a real physical injury.



I don't agree with that at all.

If we can accept that HP damage is a combination of wounds and luck/karma/fate, why can't restoration of HP, through any means physical, magical, whatever, also be a combination of wounds and luck/karma/fate?


----------



## GSHamster

wingsandsword said:


> Being unable to accurately narrate a combat in real-time because it's too abstract is yet another thing that detractors (myself among them) will point to and say it is like a video game.




I really wish I knew what video games you guys are playing that have systems like this.

Most games are stricter on linear time than D&D has ever been. That's the entire point of "real-time" games.

Sorry to keep beating a dead horse, but using 'video games' as a derogatory term is unfair if video games don't exhibit the behavior you are criticizing.


----------



## Nagol

BryonD said:


> I don't agree with that at all.
> 
> If we can accept that HP damage is a combination of wounds and luck/karma/fate, why can't restoration of HP, through any means physical, magical, whatever, also be a combination of wounds and luck/karma/fate?




You can, but you end with the situation of a character bleeding out on the floor 6 seconds from death being recovered and refreshed by a good talking to from his company sergeant.

This is one of the reasons for split pools originally -- to give a pool that is hard to heal and a pool that refreshes more quickly.  At that point, the sergeant can restore confidence, resolve, some karma/luck/divine favour, but only bandage the physical injury gained.


----------



## BryonD

Dannyalcatraz said:


> The only CLW wands I've seen in play of 30+ years were those found in troves.  Even when PCs went into "M-Mart", they unfailingly purchased healing potions instead of wands.



Same here.

I've seen healing wands in play.  But the "insta-heal" in a box problem has never once surfaced because they are treated as the limited resource that they are.  They are not treated as the perpetual resource that surges are and wands are so often falsely equated to.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> As I've mentioned above... it is absurd if this damage requires magical healing to recover from it. Because that implies it's a real physical injury. Which then implies that since a heroic character can take three to fifteen of these damaging attacks during a combat before dropping below 0 HPs and "falling unconscious"... they are sustaining three to fifteen REAL PHYSICAL INJURIES THAT REQUIRE MAGICAL HEALING and somehow are still fighting.




It isn't that the injuries require magical healing, it is that they require magical healing to be returned to full fighting trim _right now_ as opposed to after weeks or months of natural healing and mundane medical attention.


> So tell me what those are? Name me fifteen injuries a hand-to-hand combatant could sustain that would require magical healing (or if we want to make it even more understandable... 'surgery') but yet still allow him to keep fighting even after sustaining each and every one.



Well, considering that there is a photo in the Gracie dojo of one family member having a fight stopped by the Ref after said Gracie sustained a broken arm and was in a grapple..._and yet was still willing to continue fighting..._

Or that another martial artist (who works street security in Amsterdam) pointed out that one method (not the preferred method, to be sure) of disarming a knife is to get stabbed through the hand and grasp the attackers fist, using the bones of your hand as leverage when you twist...

I see matches all the time where boxers keep fighting wit broken noses (which can result in fatal injuries), or striking with broken bones in their hands.

I think someone like that could rattle off a LOT of serious injuries a trained fighter could fight through that would have most of us crying like _*leetel gorils*_.

Me? I'm no fighter.  But even I know that you can fight through numerous broken bones, deep contusions, and even ruptured organs...if that is what you train to do.


----------



## GSHamster

For the anti-healing surge crowd, would you accept healing surges with a Wound/Vitality system, if the healing surge could only heal Vitality?

A Wound / Vitality system specifically differentiates between serious physical wounds, and the surface cuts, exhaustion, luck etc. of Vitality.  To follow Hussar's phrasing, the type of wound that was suffered is determined at the time the attack resolves, not retroactively in the future.

If healing surges can only heal Vitality, would that restore the viable suspension of disbelief?


----------



## BryonD

Nagol said:


> You can, but you end with the situation of a character bleeding out on the floor 6 seconds from death being recovered and refreshed by a good talking to from his company sergeant.



Yes, what you described can happen IF you use surges.

I dislike surges and that never happens in my game.


----------



## Nagol

BryonD said:


> Yes, what you described can happen IF you use surges.
> 
> I dislike surges and that never happens in my game.




Well surges or forms of non-magical healing that aren't capped anyway -- like the Martial Leader class.


----------



## BryonD

GSHamster said:


> For the anti-healing surge crowd, would you accept healing surges with a Wound/Vitality system, if the healing surge could only heal Vitality?
> 
> A Wound / Vitality system specifically differentiates between serious physical wounds, and the surface cuts, exhaustion, luck etc. of Vitality.  To follow Hussar's phrasing, the type of wound that was suffered is determined at the time the attack resolves, not retroactively in the future.



This would be a huge improvement over the 4E approach.  

Though, honestly, I find HP and no surges the best option of the three.

Surges with W/V is perfectly acceptable however.



> If healing surges can only heal Vitality, would that restore the viable suspension of disbelief?



Just speaking for myself, it isn't about "suspension of disbelief".  I have no problem with that.  It is about quality of the narrative flow and the mechanics and a strong, consistent model.


----------



## BryonD

Nagol said:


> Well surges or forms of non-magical healing that aren't capped anyway -- like the Martial Leader class.



Can you give me a 3E example?


----------



## Dausuul

GSHamster said:


> For the anti-healing surge crowd, would you accept healing surges with a Wound/Vitality system, if the healing surge could only heal Vitality?




Can't speak for anyone else, but wound/vit is my preferred solution to the whole business. Healing surges to vitality? As long as the implementation was clean and tight and didn't slow down play, I'd be fine with it.

The only caveat I would add is this: For any given source of damage, it should either bypass vitality all the time, or none of the time. There should never be a "sometimes" option (e.g., critical hits go straight to wounds but normal hits go to vitality).

The reason is that a damage source which is scaled to vitality-size hit point pools will usually be an insta-kill if applied directly to wounds. That defeats the point of having ablative hit points in the first place. Damage that goes straight to wounds should be scaled to a wound-size hit point pool.


----------



## Nagol

GSHamster said:


> For the anti-healing surge crowd, would you accept healing surges with a Wound/Vitality system, if the healing surge could only heal Vitality?
> 
> A Wound / Vitality system specifically differentiates between serious physical wounds, and the surface cuts, exhaustion, luck etc. of Vitality.  To follow Hussar's phrasing, the type of wound that was suffered is determined at the time the attack resolves, not retroactively in the future.
> 
> If healing surges can only heal Vitality, would that restore the viable suspension of disbelief?




For me, pretty much.  Most such systems I'm aware of have a (reasonably) fast recharge on the Vitality/Stun/Fatigue side anyway -- anywhere from less than a minute (Hero) to a hot meal and good bed (C&S IIRC).

It restores the ability to narrate in linear time and for the group to have a common vision of the events and plausible outcomes from moment to moment..


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> For the anti-healing surge crowd, would you accept healing surges with a Wound/Vitality system, if the healing surge could only heal Vitality?




Well, since I already said I'd be OK with a single Second Wind per encounter, and my favorite RPG system is HERO (which has Stun/Body)...

I'd have to say I'd probably be fine with that.


----------



## Nagol

BryonD said:


> Can you give me a 3E example?




Nope, since 3.X doesn't offer healing surges nor fast uncapped non-magical healing.  

4e offers both though so to fix that problem requires change than just healing surges.


----------



## JamesonCourage

GSHamster said:


> For the anti-healing surge crowd, would you accept healing surges with a Wound/Vitality system, if the healing surge could only heal Vitality?
> 
> A Wound / Vitality system specifically differentiates between serious physical wounds, and the surface cuts, exhaustion, luck etc. of Vitality.  To follow Hussar's phrasing, the type of wound that was suffered is determined at the time the attack resolves, not retroactively in the future.
> 
> If healing surges can only heal Vitality, would that restore the viable suspension of disbelief?



In the RPG I created, I eventually divided hit points into two pools: one that represented physical wounds, and one that represented fatigue and avoiding attacks (though this could very easily extend to luck, fate, divine intervention, etc.). My players like it a lot, and I think healing surges would work great with it (even if I don't use them), as the new pool, THP, restores on a per round basis in my game.

I don't think the problem is with restoring hit points mid-encounter for most people (though it is for some, who think encounters are too long). I think the bigger problem is the dissociated narrative that occurs due to healing surges as they stand now (or as hit points stand in 3.X or previous editions when it comes to things like falling damage, being immersed in lava, etc.).



BryonD said:


> This would be a huge improvement over the 4E approach.
> 
> Though, honestly, I find HP and no surges the best option of the three.
> 
> Surges with W/V is perfectly acceptable however.



Exact same boat. I prefer no surges, but it'd work fine, and I'd be totally okay with it, as long as the game worked if you house-ruled them out (as in, most healing effects are not tied to them).



> Just speaking for myself, it isn't about "suspension of disbelief".  I have no problem with that.  It is about quality of the narrative flow and the mechanics and a strong, consistent model.



Yeah. Hussar hit the nail on the head when he said they hurt a narrative timeline in combat. I really want to be able to describe something accurately, and healing surges in the 4e model would make that much more difficult. If you separate physical wounds from "other" wounds, it'd be much easier to describe the action as it happens, without needing to retcon stuff at a later time.


----------



## BryonD

Nagol said:


> Nope, since 3.X doesn't offer healing surges nor fast uncapped non-magical healing.
> 
> 4e offers both though so to fix that problem requires change than just healing surges.



IMO "surges" are not the problem with 4E, they are simply one overall example of the results of the design philosophy of 4E.  So it seems natural to me that there would be other related issues.

If I was a 4E fan who just didn't like surges, I can work around it I'm quite certain.

But it doesn't work that way.  Surges fit right in to the collective thrust of 4E.  That is why I'm not a 4E fan.


----------



## Gaerek

First off, I apologize for taking me so long to reply. It's been busy in Gaerek's world.  Having said that, I'm enjoying our little conversation. I'm gaining a lot of insight here. I appreciate that.



JamesonCourage said:


> Actually, in 3.5, here's what it says in the PHB:
> 
> It's clear to me, in the opening sentence, that what hit points represent isn't a variety of factors, like it had been explained in past editions. Personally, I think the reason for this change in 3.X was that hit points had never been treated differently than how 3.X describes them. That is, a "poison, injury" hits you no matter how much hit points you have, as long as I deal 1 damage. Why is that? Because the game treats HP as meat, and 3.X acknowledged it. 4e is closer to the roots of the game by switching back, but it's another direct change away from 3.X that a lot of people took subtle but important notice of, because the implications are large.




Please correct me if I have the wrong understanding, but I always took the second part of the sentance, the "...and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one." to fall under the perview of everything I mentioned. It's the idea that, "Man, that was going to be a hard hit, but I got lucky and sidestepped at the right time!" or "Good thing that sword only glanced off my armor, or I'd be in a world of hurt right now!" In essense, it covers the "...physical health, mental health, endurance, vitality, ability to mitigate damage, glancing blows, luck, etc." that I mentioned in my last post. I will agree that 4e went further than 3.x, but 3.x HP's were still very abstract and did not completely mean physical wounds. 



> Um, I'd argue that the more abstraction you have, the less it could potentially interfere with game play. That's why we have an increasing number of games go rules "lite" on us, really. It says, "here are some very basic, abstract rules. Now, we won't bog you down in the little stuff. Wing it, and enjoy the game instead of looking up rules." I don't like rules "lite" games too much, but I certainly see the appeal. And they rely heavily on abstraction.




Good point. I didn't think about it like that. I suppose that this is another issue of extremes.



> That all makes sense to me. It doesn't reflect my group, but hey, tastes differ, and I'm okay with that. Tear stuff up with your group.




Again, to be clear, I just love playing. I haven't found a system I truly hate. And I certainly don't hate older version of D&D. I tend to DM for the group, so right now, we're more about killing and looting. I have no problem with the other side of the coin, and if my players wanted that, I would adapt the system, or even move over to PF or something else. But for us, right now, 4e is the perfect system, flaws and all.



> This is where my view differs. If you have a basis in realism, with nods to realism all over your game, and then you seemingly knowingly abandon it for a mechanic for ease of use, our group gets pulled out of immersion pretty quickly. That pulls us out of the game, and out of the fun.




I totally understand. Difference of playstyle. Immersion is great, and for your group it's needed. Not so much for my group. And that's perfectly fine for either of us.




> Well, to be fair, I've never seen an MMO that I could immerse in. So, it's not really they're goal. Immersion was key to my design goals when I was designing my game. And, it really shows in the rules, in my opinion. It's obviously not the case for MMOs. MMOs can be a lot of fun, as can CRPGs, but I don't play them, personally, to feel immersed. That is, however, what my group plays fantasy PnP RPGs for.




This is very true. But it's a bit more representitive of our playstyle. Just like permanent death in an MMO would kill off pretty much all the fun, excessive "realistic rules" would pretty much kill off the fun of our tabletop game. Again, difference of opinion and playstyle, and I can respect that.




> And while I played 3.X for years, we had groups without healers of any kind, and we literally _never_ used a wand of CLW. In fact, I think we used a wand maybe in three or four encounters total, in thousands of hours of game play. So, I probably don't agree on the nature of their necessity to the game.




Your DM is going to have a lot of say over what's "needed" in your group. In the "kick in the door" style play that has represented about 75% of the games I've ever played, wand of CLW have pretty much been a staple. We had even nick-named them crack sticks, because of how "addictive" they were.



> But, my group is okay with avoiding or going without combat, too. We started a new campaign (new setting included), and we've played four real sessions so far. Each session lasts about ten hours. In those four sessions and 40 hours of play, there have been two combats. Both combats only involved one player, and they lasted one round (first combat), and four rounds (second combat). In the party of six players, two are completely built around combat, three are adept but built around other things (thief lord, amazing craftsmen, amazing negotiator), and one is just now getting decent at defending himself (chancellor / interrogator).
> 
> The point of our sessions is to immerse in the characters, see what story unfolds from the evolving setting, and experience interesting play, whether that's fighting a mercenary unit with other mercenaries you've hired, or if it's talking them into leaving you alone. The party has talked their way out of more fights, and purposefully avoided more fights, simply because they want a higher chance of success in the long term. I'm not sure that this would mesh well with your group, but it works for us. It's never been about killing stuff and taking their things (even though it's kind of what they want to do on the macro scale... they're warlords).




Sounds like fun, honestly. Just not like the type of game I'm running at the moment. I would enjoy it, my players, not as much.



> Whereas I think that type of game is possible with two health pools. If his "other" pool is the only thing that gets injured, you have cinematic combat. If it hits your "physical" pool, you don't get that. It leaves options for both stories to be told. Now, that's not the case. It's all Diehard, all the time. Sometimes I want Conan the Barbarian. Yes, he was a badass in that movie. Yes, he did get beaten down by a bunch of fanatics at then "crucified on the Tree of Woe." Literally, a bunch of random snake cult fanatics just dogpiled on him and he was done. I'm cool enough with Conan to accept both that possibility, and the possibility that I'm about to kill 40 guys on horseback with just me and my thief friend. I want both possibilities in my game.




I can accept this. It's possible to have it both ways in the same system.



> What I don't want to see in any edition of the game, which 4e did come closer to, was the "cinematic" feel at the very early levels. I don't want to see level 1's expect to be John McClane. You want to do cinematic stuff? I'm okay with that after the first few levels. Say, level 5-6. Then again, in my game, I place the average settled adult NPC at around hit die 4 (in a system that caps at 20). This is all just personal preference, though. If I say, "I don't want this" or "I want this" it doesn't mean I think it's what's best for the hobby. It means it's my preference.




And here I disagree with you. In my games, the PCs are always a cut above the rest. If my level 1 PC got into a fight with the town butcher (not that it should happen, but hypothetical), there would be no contest. I've always played this way. I want my PCs to feel like they are something special, that they were somehow, someway, set aside. If an average NPC is 4 HD, and is an actual threat to my 1st level PCs, there's a problem. Take your relatively typical 1st level "quest." We need the PCs to rid the town of the kobold threat. If the NPCs are 4HD, they can do it themselves. Why hire these PCs? I could see a town guard, or militia, or soldiers, or whatever being like this, but your average farmer (in my opinion, YMMV) or whatever, should be anywhere near the PC's in skill, health, etc. Like you said, this is all preference, and it's nice to see a different opinion here. It gives me a broader perspective and helps me see outside the box.




> Well, LotR basically did something I touched on: how much story happened in the world between the time Frodo and Sam got separated, and the time they got captured by Faramir? Or, between the time they got released by him, and the time they reached the pit to throw the ring into? By having to walk everywhere, they're letting time pass, the setting evolve, and story is happening. Which is one of the things I touched on.




Certainly, the world moves along. I don't think I explained it right. Basically, in LotR, every single person in that setting, either directly, or indirectly, was affected by the actions of main characters. If Frodo had decided in Rivendell not to take the ring, Sauron would have ended up with the ring, and the world would be a much different place. If Strider hadn't decided to step up and become Aragorn, King of Gondor, the world would be a much different place. If Legolas and Gimli had decided to let their racial differences be an issue (instead of as a place to respect one another) there's a good chance the fellowship would have failed even sooner, and Strider's group would have been killed in one of their many fights. What I'm trying to say is, I present something the world is attempting to do. What happens to the world, is a direct result of the decisions my players make, either positive, or negative. If there's a problem I present, there's a way for them to deal with it. I know this might not be the best way to do things, it might not be everyone's preference, but it goes along with my feeling that heroes should be heroes. And the PC's are heroes. Not regular joes who carry a sword (or wand, or holy symbol, or whatever) and might get good enough to present a challenge to farmer in a fight in a little bit.



> Well, let's look at LotR, since you brought that up. It's always one of two things for them: being in the action, or traveling to the action. I'm asking for a system that reflects that. It's really easy to skim over a one month travel time from defending the mountain pass against demons that eventually overrun you to the fortress protecting the source of immortality for the immortal races. In one month, though, a lot can happen elsewhere. You have the following:
> (1) Action in the mountain pass!
> (2) We're skimming over the one month travel in about 3-5 minutes, though this allows for the setting to evolve everywhere else in the world.
> (3) Action at the fortress!




Ok, I can see this. I'm starting an Eberron campaign, and the world is full of faster travel options. But, almost each one presents an opportunity for "Action in the mountain pass!" as you put it. In previous games, I got over this in the Final Fantasy method of travel. You're low level, well, you have to walk everywhere. Oh, you've explored the continent? Well, here's a land vehicle you can use to get around this continent. Oh, action on the next continent! You're going to have to take a boat, but you can't bring your vehicle, you're hoofing it! Oh, you've explored two continents now? Awesome, here's an airship! Now you can fly around the whole world. Oh look, a new island has popped up. You fly there? Well, you're attacked, and now the airship has crashed. You're hoofing it again! Except in my games its more like, by the time they can instant travel in the world, they're planeshopping, so it makes it harder to instant travel. I try to organically prevent fast/instant travel, rather than saying, "Sorry, teleport spell doesn't exist!" That may be what you had in mind, but it didn't look like it.



> Hopefully he's reading this and stealing it. If he is... hit me up, Mr. Cook!




Did you read his last L&L article? It's obvious he's getting ideas for 5e now, at least to me. I'm pretty excited to see what comes of this.



> Yep, and I like most of what he's done. I really like the 3.X skill system, and think the 4e system is too binary and rigid (but like I said, I like narrow skills, not broad skills). I just didn't like the skill system presented recently.




I like the more general skills, but that's preference again, I suppose. This could be another discussion, for another thread, I think. 




> Great. Glad we can see eye to eye on so much, even if our preference differs in "gritty" versus "non-gritty" (I hesitate to say gonzo, as I don't know if that's your preference, and I won't say heroic, as my gritty games definitely have heroic characters). Thanks for the satisfying conversation. As always, play what you like




I like everything. I think the best term for my games is cinematic. That's just because it fits my group. People want gritty? I can do gritty. But I give my players what they want. Since I've been playing with the same players since 4e came out (prior to 4e, I didn't play at all since about 2003, due to my group moving away), it works well. I'm enjoying the conversation as well. Thanks for it.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

tomBitonti said:


> I'm kindof surprised that there aren't more responses in the "mechanics" area. My quick response is that healing surges seem to interrupt the flow of mechanics to narration:
> 
> Orc swings at Bob. Ouch! That hurt!
> (Bob spending a healing surge) Nawt, just a flesh wound (fights with renewed vigor.)
> 
> As opposed to:
> 
> orc swings at Bob. Watch out Bob, that looks like trouble!
> (Bob spending a heroic surge). Hoohaw! (He makes an extra effort and steps aside from the blow.)
> 
> That is:
> 
> Attack/Damage/Surge Erases Damage
> 
> vs:
> 
> Attack/Incoming Potential Damage/Surge Prevents Damage
> 
> [Edit: This goes to the issue of the difference between numbers, which are abstract, and allow commutation, and the narrative flow, which tears apart if subject to the same operators. That is, from a mathy point of view, HP - D + S is a fine rearrangement of HP - (D - S); from a narrative point of view, the rearrangement fails. As a net, Healing Surges push the game too far into abstractions, hence the "gamist" criticism.]
> 
> TomB




I read the whole thread, and I'm kind of surprised that this wasn't picked up, since here we are many posts later, and it is still the only "mechanics" area criticism of surges that I saw.

Especially since hit points have always been primarily a narrative pacing convention.  Hit point pacing has been compared to the last scene in Robin and Marion, where an older Robin Hood, played by Sean Connery, fights the Sherriff of Nottingham.  He kills the Sherriff, then crawls off to die of his wounds--though the nuns "bleeding" him as a cure is ambiguous in the orginal source material, and deliberately played as such in the movie.  At least one player in Gygax's original games has specifically cited that scene as the best explanation of hit points in film.

As near as I can tell, the other objections to surges have been in the same category as objections to hit points:  They don't produce the kind of pacing that I want.  Nothing wrong with that.  On the contrary, if someone don't get the kind of pacing they want in combat, it is highly unlikely that they could like the results.  But this is an objection to the design ethos of 4E, not the mechanics of surges.  (And in fairness, many people have recognized that, both pro and con.)

Tom's objection above is outside that range, because while it accepts that narrative pacing is important, it is relating the effects of surges in particular to the "micro" pacing of combat, rather than the overall pacing of the fight.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Re: RuneQuest managing to have physical-only hit points, not scaling, with no death spiral.  I don't buy it.  If RQ doesn't have a death spiral, it is only because most significant hits in RQ equate to "immediately out of the fight".  That is, there is no death spiral, because the character goes from "well" to "unable to fight" without having the spiral in the middle.

But there are substantial penalties to characters that are wounded, which is the classic death spiral problem.  If a character is tough enough to somehow withstand a wound and stay in the fight, it is a classic death spiral situation.


----------



## Naszir

I guess what a lot of people are looking for is more consistency in the system. Don't give us hit points and say they are abstract and then give us a power or magic item that does bleeding damage (which clearly is not abstract).

Don't tell us that an attack "hits" only to allow us to retroactively say that it didn't really hit our character but they still suffer the rider effects as if the attack physically "hit" (i.e. poison).

The hard thing is how to reconcile the inconsistencies. And as people who like to think about these things we sometimes have a hard time wrapping our brains around this. So we search for new explanations or new ways to represent what we would like to see in the game.

For example:

What if, instead of healing surges, they were what I'd like to call "defensive surges"?

Defensive surges would turn opponent attacks into minimum damage attacks. So instead of retroactively affecting damage this would be something that would proactively affect damage. It would reflect the defensive ability of a character to roll with a blow or deflect it in some way so they only take the minimum damage from the attack.

Of course this wouldn't truly work with 4e because it would take a lot to rework all the powers that interact with healing surges. But maybe going forward this is something to think about.

Edit: Uh, I swear I didn't see tom's post until after I posted. Weird.


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> Well numerous posters have addressed the "hp's do not all equal damage, only some are actual physical damage thing"... which kinda dismisses all of your arguments above concerning damage and Daffy.



My experience --obviously not universal, but still, in many groups over 26 years of play-- is that HP damage got described as real, tangible wounds, like JamesCourage's example of the claw going through a PC's back. The more (numerical) damage rolled, the gorier the description.

However, despite the graphic descriptions, these wounds never behaved much like actually wounds. They didn't impair, they didn't _bleed_, except in rare cases, like when struck by certain, powerful magical weapons. Leaving D&D combats resembling the classic Black Knight segment of Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- grievous maulings shrugged off as "just a flesh wound".

(because D&D's combat system can produce nothing but "flesh wounds", up until the point you're unconscious and dying/dead)



> What I'm saying is don't notch the default absurdity level up to the point where the default is my character being flattened by a hammer and then picking himself up, blowing on his thumb until he's normal shape again and being all better in a few minutes.



Sure, in theory I agree with this, it's bad, or a least silly, form to describe a PC that's literally flattened, or limb-deprived, or burned to cinders and yet still alive, but it was also commonplace to do _nearly_ that; describing fireballed PC's with 3rd degree burns who still, miraculously and thoroughly cartoon-like, still able to fight the good fight. And so on. 

The system gave you roughly two choices when dealing with with PC's past a certain HP value: either describe the severity of wounds taken based on _when_ they occur in the fight, and not by the numerical total of the damage dice (ie, the more severe wounds occur when the PC is near 0HP, regardless of the amount rolled), or describe PC's taking epic beatings of video-game proportions, which, conveniently don't break their stride (though they'll require powerful supernatural medical attention afterwards...). 

Besides, Imaro, weren't you describing _precisely_ the right way to narrate a 4e combat; the wounds aren't that bad until the PC is out of HP (and surges). 



DEFCON 1 said:


> So instead we should keep the absurdity level down at the point where someone can stand in a room and get engulfed by six separate fireballs before finally falling unconscious from it.  Because that level is easier to narratively explain away.



It's even better when you through old-school item saving throws into the mix. The PC can stand --relatively-- unscathed in the pool of molten steel and gold their armor and coin sack melted into (as happened to my PC more than once back in a game I played in college). 

Like I've said before, 4e isn't _less_ realistic then previous editions, it's unrealistic in a few new ways.

Honestly, I find aspects of the Healing Surge mechanics to be _more_ realistic than previous editions. With surges, it's possible to model stunning/knocking a PC out though vanilla physical damage (they go below 0HP, but sill have surges). In older editions, they're either fighting at full strength or dying.


----------



## The Shaman

Crazy Jerome said:


> Hit point pacing has been compared to the last scene in Robin and Marion, where an older Robin Hood, played by Sean Connery, fights the Sherriff of Nottingham.  He kills the Sherriff, then crawls off to die of his wounds--though the nuns "bleeding" him as a cure is ambiguous in the orginal source material, and deliberately played as such in the movie.  At least one player in Gygax's original games has specifically cited that scene as the best explanation of hit points in film.



As I recall, the comparison was to the 1938 Errol Flynn movie, _The Adventures of Robin Hood_, specifically the duel between Mr Flynn and Basil Rathbone, not _Robin and Marian_.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L10fR31jC1w&feature=related]the duel between Mr Flynn and Basil Rathbone[/ame]


If you have a link citing a reference to the latter, that would be appreciated.


----------



## Pentius

RE: Spending surges while dying.

This may be technically possible(I'm not going to look up the fiddly bits of whether it is or not), but even if it is, it isn't practically feasible.  You're Dying.  The game term, Dying, where you have to roll a d20 every round and if you get under a 10 three times you're dead.  You can't spend surges freely until after a short rest, which means 5 minutes, which means 50 times rolling that d20.  Good luck.

RE: [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s changed narrative flow for 4e.  

That's all well and good, and it sounds like it'd work fine, though I've never personally done it.  But you don't have to drop linear narrative to have narrative in 4e make sense.  I've been doing linear narration, with the occasional split-second retcon for interrupt moves, since I started playing, and it works out.  What you have to do is simply not describe any non-fatal wound as a fatal wound.  You don't describe a PC has having a broken leg when they take 10HP of damage and are mechanically capable of walking around just fine.  You don't describe a Fighter with 54hp of damage and 1hp left as being a pincushion of arrows.  You don't do this because in any edition, that Fighter can still stand up and run a marathon in full plate with no ill effects.  And he can do it the next day, and the next, and every day after that, unless another hit comes along and drops him for real.

Or, you can do like I've seen countless groups do, and describe it exactly that way, and just take in stride situations like the 1hp pincushion Fighter dragging his dead cleric friend's body for a day's walk back to the temple for healing, and never mind the idea of bleeding out.  And if you're among that number who are fine with these sort of wahoo damage descriptions, then you're probably fine with it in 4e, because 4e isn't really any more wahoo about it.


----------



## Darwinism

It's pretty obvious that HP are part abstract, part concrete. Always have been, always will be, because that's just how D&D's system works. Unless, in my favorite example, you like to imagine that the 3d10 ballista bolt, doing say 18 damage, a level 1 character is instantly killed by will only mildly inconvenience a level 10 character with the exact same 18 points of damage.

For that reason healing surges make a lot more sense because they scale with the player; you don't have the really inexcusably silly position of a level 1 character being brought back from -9, the brink of death, to full hitpoints by a spell that says, right there, that it only cures _moderate_ wounds. Nor the equally silly position of higher level characters  getting not even a fifth of their HP back from a spell that says it cures _critical_ wounds. And those spell names and such are presented as actual in-character labels.

And bleeds make perfect sense, assuming you view HP as a mixture of abstract and concrete; bleeding takes them away, the same as just barely parrying that Balor's gigantic sword does. Unless, of course, you'd rather imagine D&D as being two people squaring off and just slapping the crap out of each other with weapons that do real damage that somehow doesn't incapacitate them until they lose an abstract number of hitpoints.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> My experience --obviously not universal, but still, in many groups over 26 years of play-- is that HP damage got described as real, tangible wounds, like JamesCourage's example of the claw going through a PC's back. The more (numerical) damage rolled, the gorier the description.




Dude, not sure what the whole "26 years" thing has to do with your point since regardless it's still just your experiences and probably, though not certainly, you were drawn to gamers who shared your predilections. This is where we differ and why no one should assume their personal experience relates to everyone. The people I played with and ran for described what happened based on the amount of hit points one loss in regards to his/her total amount, with only a small percentage of those being real physical damage... thus that is why to this day I look at hit points in that way. Just because your groups decided to disregard what the rulebooks stated hit points were... doesn't mean everyone did. In other words great anecdotal evidence but it's hardly enough to prove everyone was doing it how you did.



Mallus said:


> However, despite the graphic descriptions, these wounds never behaved much like actually wounds. They didn't impair, they didn't _bleed_, except in rare cases, like when struck by certain, powerful magical weapons. Leaving D&D combats resembling the classic Black Knight segment of Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- grievous maulings shrugged off as "just a flesh wound".




Maybe this was because as the rulebooks stated hit points weren't composed of only the physical... yet you chose to play and describe them as if they were... so you get silly results and then turn around and blame the rules and guidance you chose to ignore. This doesn't seem like a problem with D&D. 



Mallus said:


> (because D&D's combat system can produce nothing but "flesh wounds", up until the point you're unconscious and dying/dead)




Uhm, not true... however D&D heroes have through numerous battles and training and being slightly beyond normal men (along with adrenaline, willpower, etc.) able to keep going at an almost undiminshed capacity even when wounded. We talked about this in numerous posts upthread.




Mallus said:


> Sure, in theory I agree with this, it's bad, or a least silly, form to describe a PC that's literally flattened, or limb-deprived, or burned to cinders and yet still alive, but it was also commonplace to do _nearly_ that; describing fireballed PC's with 3rd degree burns who still, miraculously and thoroughly cartoon-like, still able to fight the good fight. And so on.




You totally missed my point, so I'll try it again. In older editions you ignored the description of hit points in the book while creating your narrative and thus got a silly result, not because the game made you or advised you too but because you went against what was printed in the books... in 4e the healing surge rules create the silly result, "I was unconsciouss and dying but 5 min later I'm up to full and ready to fight...for the third time today" and expect you to find some way to narrate around or with it while providing no real description or narrative that makes sense.



Mallus said:


> The system gave you roughly two choices when dealing with with PC's past a certain HP value: either describe the severity of wounds taken based on _when_ they occur in the fight, and not by the numerical total of the damage dice (ie, the more severe wounds occur when the PC is near 0HP, regardless of amount), or describe PC's taking epic beatings of video-game proportions, which, conveniently don't break their stride (though they'll require powerful supernatural medical attention afterwards...).




Or you could narrate slight misses, a scratch, ankle twists, bruises, punches, etc. for under a certain amount of damage and more severe wounds such as a shallow gash, a deep cut, a broken finger or nose, etc. for higher damage rolls (most of which again aren't life threatening or even enough to slow most trained warriors down until enough of them whittle away his reserves). You chose to describe things a certain way that went against what was printed in the book. 



Mallus said:


> Besides, Imaro, weren't you describing _precisely_ the right way to narrate a 4e combat; the wounds aren't that bad until the PC is out of HP (and surges).




Huh? When did I describe this? This is so absurd it makes my head hurt. PC's can be dying but until they have no surges and no hp's they haven't taken any bad wounds??? If I did describe it that way it makes no sense whatsoever upon reading you restate it, so please show me where I stated this?


----------



## Dausuul

Pentius said:


> RE: Spending surges while dying.
> 
> This may be technically possible(I'm not going to look up the fiddly bits of whether it is or not), but even if it is, it isn't practically feasible.  You're Dying.  The game term, Dying, where you have to roll a d20 every round and if you get under a 10 three times you're dead.  You can't spend surges freely until after a short rest, which means 5 minutes, which means 50 times rolling that d20.  Good luck.




Usually you will have been stabilized (but not necessarily brought back out of negatives) by a fellow PC.

Even if you aren't, you've got a pretty fair chance to get a 20 before your third strike. It's a 27% chance normally. If you have something giving you a +1 bonus on your saving throws, it shoots up to 49%, since the rule does not require a natural 20.


----------



## TheUltramark

I just wanna say that I am a little shocked that the "hit-point-getter-backer" discussion still rages.

Like I said, I am of the opinon that if you are going to buy into the idea of spells, orcs, psionics, dragons, divine callings, demons and devils and angels and elementals, and knocking a snake prone, but somehow some line gets drawn at healing surges????

To each their own, happy gaming, try the decaf.


----------



## Imaro

TheUltramark said:


> I just wanna say that I am a little shocked that the "hit-point-getter-backer" discussion still rages.
> 
> Like I said, I am of the opinon that if you are going to buy into the idea of spells, orcs, psionics, dragons, divine callings, demons and devils and angels and elementals, and knocking a snake prone, but somehow some line gets drawn at healing surges????
> 
> To each their own, happy gaming, try the decaf.




I too am shocked everyone just doesn't accept and think what I think???... I also believe they should all try the decaf...


----------



## DEFCON 1

So the overwhelming opinion of most of you who keep posting is that hit points are not in fact completely just a tally of the amount of physical wounds you have taken.  They are a combination of physical wounds AND bruising/fatigue/luck/dodging etc. etc.

Good.  Glad we got that out of the way.

Now... to recover those 'hit points'... some of that 'healing' should therefore be from either long-term rest (letting the wounds re-knit themselves on their own) and magical spells/potions (which speed up the process).  No problem.  I'm right there with you.

However... SOME of that recovery should also come from just regaining breath, mopping the brow, resetting the armor, do a quick self-stitch of a superficial cut, maybe reset your own nose etc.  Is this not correct?  To cover all the bruising/fatigue/luck/dodging?  All the things that the 'healing surge' mechanic is meant to represent?

So to be 'realistic' about it... a person should have to do both.  Have some hit points just naturally return after a short break from combart *AND* get magical healing to close the wounds.

Now... *IF* D&D used the two track Vitality/Wound or Stun/Body system... then there we go!  Problem solved.  Vitality or Stun returns after some short period of time... Wound or Body returns either by magic or long-term rest.  I'm right there with you, and agree that this would be a better way to mimic reality.

However... since D&D doesn't (and never had) these two tracks... the question is whether either method BY ITSELF is better than the other.  Or even more to my point, are D&D combat mechanics _with a single track_ so absurd and reality breaking that IT DOESN'T MATTER if either method is better than the other?

And that's all I've been saying.  Is the whole enterprise of D&D combat just so  stupid, absurd, and unrealistic that getting hung up on one particular aspect of it really worth the time?  For some of you... apparently it is.  But for me... I play the D&D combat 'game' as it is, and not worry about the narrative if it doesn't make a whole heap of sense.  Because I find the 4E combat rules to work well and be fun.  And if that means handwaving away the fact that I narrated a player taking a gouge to the face from an orc's axe, but after the fact the Warlord Inspiring Worded his wound close?  Then so be it.  Better that than to force that player to instead play a Cleric when he didn't want to just so the same exact game mechanic would be 'magical' in nature.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Mallus said:


> My experience --obviously not universal, but still, in many groups over 26 years of play-- is that HP damage got described as real, tangible wounds, like JamesCourage's example of the claw going through a PC's back. The more (numerical) damage rolled, the gorier the description.
> 
> However, despite the graphic descriptions, these wounds never behaved much like actually wounds. They didn't impair, they didn't _bleed_, except in rare cases, like when struck by certain, powerful magical weapons. Leaving D&D combats resembling the classic Black Knight segment of Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- grievous maulings shrugged off as "just a flesh wound".
> 
> (because D&D's combat system can produce nothing but "flesh wounds", up until the point you're unconscious and dying/dead)



Well, just to be clear, the context I used my example in was for dropping someone into the negatives; that is, their wounds are now bad enough that they cannot act, are unconscious, and are bleeding out. I'm sure you were just using my example as a jumping off point, but I thought I'd clarify so my example doesn't get taken the wrong way.

On a different note, you spelled my user name incorrectly (James, instead of Jameson), though you got my real name correct. I'm okay with that. As always, play what you like 



DEFCON 1 said:


> And that's all I've been saying.  Is the whole enterprise of D&D combat just so  stupid, absurd, and unrealistic that getting hung up on one particular aspect of it really worth the time?  For some of you... apparently it is.  But for me... I play the D&D combat 'game' as it is, and not worry about the narrative if it doesn't make a whole heap of sense.  Because I find the 4E combat rules to work well and be fun.  And if that means handwaving away the fact that I narrated a player taking a gouge to the face from an orc's axe, but after the fact the Warlord Inspiring Worded his wound close?  Then so be it.  Better that than to force that player to instead play a Cleric when he didn't want to just so the same exact game mechanic would be 'magical' in nature.



If a game mechanic ignores internal consistency to such a point that it is bucking against the coherent story of the game, it's a problem for me (yes, hit points as presented in 3.X, my edition of choice, were also a problem for me, which is why I changed them in my game). Hand waving stuff is fine for some groups. However, I've seen PCs undergo personality shifts after being dropped into the negatives, both when running a game and when playing in a game. It was a life altering event (though to different degrees), because the life of the PCs nearly ended. This can be achieved within the 4e rule set, though if the game bucks the system to the point that it makes it harder to judge, it really hurts the story. It hurts immersion. And internal logic, immersion, and story trump game mechanics for me (this is not limited to just combat, or just 4e, this applies to rules in other areas and other editions).

This doesn't mean I want things to be super realistic, nor does it mean I want a free form storytelling system. No, I want defined, clear rules that facilitate internal logic, immersion, and story. Healing surges, while a nice mechanic, hurt that for me with the current HP pool. Criticizing it for that failure is not an invalid or unjustified shot, especially when asked on a public forum for my thoughts on it. Giving constructive feedback on what I don't like about it, and how it could be better implemented, is not only directly answering the original post, it's potentially good for the game in the long run.

So, yes, it matters to me. I don't play any edition of D&D right now. I doubt 5e, even if it is being worked on, will bring me back. However, it might. Healing surges are not bad. They could be better. Voicing my objections to how they are now is not me thinking the "whole enterprise of D&D combat just so stupid, absurd, and unrealistic", nor is it because I'm "getting hung up on one particular aspect of it" and wasting time thinking about it. The question was proposed to the public, and some answered it, and fairly civilly, in my opinion. You may think it's fine, or a waste of time to talk about (or even think about). I'm perfectly okay with you thinking that. I just don't like hearing that by civilly disagreeing with a mechanic's current implementation -and then providing constructive feedback that was asked of me- that I now think D&D's combat system is stupid or absurd. I don't. Please don't imply that I do. Thank you.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Imaro

DEFCON 1 said:


> And that's all I've been saying. Is the whole enterprise of D&D combat just so stupid, absurd, and unrealistic that getting hung up on one particular aspect of it really worth the time? For some of you... apparently it is. But for me... I play the D&D combat 'game' as it is, and not worry about the narrative if it doesn't make a whole heap of sense. Because I find the 4E combat rules to work well and be fun. And if that means handwaving away the fact that I narrated a player taking a gouge to the face from an orc's axe, but after the fact the Warlord Inspiring Worded his wound close? Then so be it. Better that than to force that player to instead play a Cleric when he didn't want to just so the same exact game mechanic would be 'magical' in nature.




Ok, isn't the whole premise of this thread for people who *do* have a problem with healing surges, if you didn't then I'm not sure what your point is.  Are you trying to show people the "error" of their preferences?  Trying to prove something... or what?  I'm genuinely curious about this.

OAN:  Couldn't your players have just gotten potions, a wand, hired a cleric, etc. to get the magical effect... did they really *have* to play a cleric or is that just hyperbole??


----------



## BryonD

Mallus said:


> My experience --obviously not universal, but still, in many groups over 26 years of play-- is that HP damage got described as real, tangible wounds, like JamesCourage's example of the claw going through a PC's back. The more (numerical) damage rolled, the gorier the description.
> 
> However, despite the graphic descriptions, these wounds never behaved much like actually wounds. They didn't impair, they didn't _bleed_, except in rare cases, like when struck by certain, powerful magical weapons. Leaving D&D combats resembling the classic Black Knight segment of Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- grievous maulings shrugged off as "just a flesh wound".



And in all those 26 years no one every questioned that there might be a better way to make the description match what was actually happening?

I agree with you that what you describe is a problem.  And I have no idea how many people play that way now.  But it just seems obvious to me that descriptions that work with the system and don't force "just a flesh wound" references are better.

I recall playing the way you describe when I was very young.  But I also recall being made fun of in high school by a teacher when a friend and I got a bit too loud describing ideas for how non-wound hit point loss could and should be described.  And I'm 42 now.  So I've got your 26 years covered right there.

If you prefer everything be "flesh wounds", then awesome, play on, whatever is the most fun is the key.  I can certainly see how Surges would, at least do zero harm to your experience under that approach.

But, I think it is a fair question to ask, can you see how surges would be a very unwelcome addition to the game played the way I play it?


----------



## Crazy Jerome

The Shaman said:


> As I recall, the comparison was to the 1938 Errol Flynn movie, _The Adventures of Robin Hood_, specifically the duel between Mr Flynn and Basil Rathbone, not _Robin and Marian_.
> 
> the duel between Mr Flynn and Basil Rathbone
> 
> 
> If you have a link citing a reference to the latter, that would be appreciated.




I don't visit that other board anymore, so I can't provide that link.  But a poster that goes by "Old Geezer" mentioned it more than once.  It stood out for me because I had noticed the comparison myself when I first saw the movie years ago. 

For all I know, the Robin and Marian film was somewhat of a homage to the Flynn version.  It is supposedly a homage to many earlier Robin Hood stories, but concentrated on the end of the legend.


----------



## BryonD

DEFCON 1 said:


> And that's all I've been saying.  Is the whole enterprise of D&D combat just so  stupid, absurd, and unrealistic that getting hung up on one particular aspect of it really worth the time?  For some of you... apparently it is.



You aren't making sense here.  I mean, my D&D combats are unrealistic in the sense that human's can take on giants ans wizards can throw fireballs, etc, etc, etc....

They are INTENDED to be fantastic.  And they are NOT intended to be perfect models of true combat.  They are intended to produce the feel of fantasy literary battles.  And, for that, it works great.  I completely reject the idea of "stupid" and "absurd".  

And, besides, it is the pro-surge people who have been saying "come on, it is so abstract already that this isn't going to hurt anything".  The anti-surge people have been saying "we made it this far without giving in to the absurd, don't expect us to start now."



> But for me... I play the D&D combat 'game' as it is, and not worry about the narrative if it doesn't make a whole heap of sense.



That is great.  I'm glad you have a game you love.  
But that is a million miles from what I want.
A narrative that "makes sense" is a foundation to me.  I require a lot more than that.  But without that foundation, nothing else matters.

Which isn't to argue right or wrong.  It is just to demonstrate that 4E, when all is said and done, doesn't even TRY to be the game experience that I get from other systems and even other editions of the brand.

I want the RPG experience to feel like I'm inside an awesome novel.  And if I'm reading a novel and the narrative doesn't make sense it is far far removed from awesome.  It is more like, throw it away and find something else to read.



> Because I find the 4E combat rules to work well and be fun.



This really doesn't say anything.  You could replace combat with a game of checkers and say that it would "work well and be fun".  



> And if that means handwaving away the fact that I narrated a player taking a gouge to the face from an orc's axe, but after the fact the Warlord Inspiring Worded his wound close?  Then so be it.  Better that than to force that player to instead play a Cleric when he didn't want to just so the same exact game mechanic would be 'magical' in nature.



Ok, and if I've never once forced a player to play ANY character they didn't want to what does that mean?  (Again, it never ceases to amaze me how people can think insulting their own gaming history will win a debate.)

Also, it ISN'T anywhere close to the same mechanic.


----------



## Sonny

One thing to keep in mind was that Hit Points were only abstract as far as Character Classes were concerned. For monsters they did in fact, represent it's health. That kind of double standard definitely had a hand in equating all hit points = heath. 

Though I think this way was more satisfying in practice though since no one wants the DM to describe his character slowly wearing down a Dragon's Luck and skill.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Gaerek said:


> First off, I apologize for taking me so long to reply. It's been busy in Gaerek's world.  Having said that, I'm enjoying our little conversation. I'm gaining a lot of insight here. I appreciate that.



I feel like I'm learning stuff, and it's a good discussion, so no worries about a late reply 



> Please correct me if I have the wrong understanding, but I always took the second part of the sentance, the "...and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one." to fall under the perview of everything I mentioned. It's the idea that, "Man, that was going to be a hard hit, but I got lucky and sidestepped at the right time!" or "Good thing that sword only glanced off my armor, or I'd be in a world of hurt right now!" In essense, it covers the "...physical health, mental health, endurance, vitality, ability to mitigate damage, glancing blows, luck, etc." that I mentioned in my last post. I will agree that 4e went further than 3.x, but 3.x HP's were still very abstract and did not completely mean physical wounds.



Turning a blow into a less serious one implies a certain amount of activity to me, not passive forces like luck or fate (unless you can consciously affect those). However, I see how you can draw that interpretation, even if I wouldn't assume that to be the case. I still don't think that's what it means, but I wouldn't argue against it if you were GMing for me  



> Good point. I didn't think about it like that. I suppose that this is another issue of extremes.



Extremes can really muck up a conversation based on theoretical musings. I'll try to avoid that!



> Again, to be clear, I just love playing. I haven't found a system I truly hate. And I certainly don't hate older version of D&D. I tend to DM for the group, so right now, we're more about killing and looting. I have no problem with the other side of the coin, and if my players wanted that, I would adapt the system, or even move over to PF or something else. But for us, right now, 4e is the perfect system, flaws and all.



Yeah, again, makes sense to me. Not sure if there is a perfect system. I created the RPG that my group of six players play once a week (game later today!), and I'm still tweaking rules (mostly expanding to fill rules in cases where GMs would normally have to use fiat, because the system doesn't cover it, like running territories and the like). If I can make my own RPG and not be satisfied, I don't know if there is such as thing as a perfect system for me!



> I totally understand. Difference of playstyle. Immersion is great, and for your group it's needed. Not so much for my group. And that's perfectly fine for either of us.



Yep 



> This is very true. But it's a bit more representitive of our playstyle. Just like permanent death in an MMO would kill off pretty much all the fun, excessive "realistic rules" would pretty much kill off the fun of our tabletop game. Again, difference of opinion and playstyle, and I can respect that.



You know what's funny? Years ago, when I used to play WoW, I used to advocate for a "hardcore" server, where if you died, you had until the mandatory release time to be res'd or that's it, you start over from scratch. I thought it'd be cool. Even in WoW, I wanted permanent death as an option (as in mandatory, but only on one or two servers, which you get to pick). Even in Diablo II (which I didn't play much of), I only ever played on hardcore in the campaign mode. I think I made it through two acts before I got kind of tired of my barbarian and played other games.

But, yeah, different play styles. No right or wrong answer to that 



> Your DM is going to have a lot of say over what's "needed" in your group. In the "kick in the door" style play that has represented about 75% of the games I've ever played, wand of CLW have pretty much been a staple. We had even nick-named them crack sticks, because of how "addictive" they were.



And the group I ran never went through dungeons or played modules, so they weren't as necessary (though they'd certainly have been useful at times). I've played through a dungeon-like environment or two, but it was low levels (1-3), so they didn't come up (750 gp is a lot to a first level character... way out of his price range).



> Sounds like fun, honestly. Just not like the type of game I'm running at the moment. I would enjoy it, my players, not as much.



Well, the amount of combat is basically set by the players. They've tried to avoid fights where possible. The two fights have been instigated by me, when bandits have attacked the PCs when traveling along the road (traveling by yourself means that a group of 4-6 bandits might like their odds when they have ranged weapons and are on the mountainside, waiting for people to pass by). The players could definitely start more fights than they have (they've almost been in, I don't know, probably six fights so far), but they keep letting the negotiator talk people down (that's their preferred plan, but combat was always, "and in case he fails, we jump him...").



> I can accept this. It's possible to have it both ways in the same system.



I think so, too. I think they'd have to shift healing surges away from the main healing mechanic (heals don't "activate" healing surges in other PCs anymore, but heal raw damage, even if it's 25% instead of a number). Leaving healing surges as the main mechanic for healing puts arbitrary hard caps on the amount of external healing one could receive in a day, which will still rub people the wrong way.

I also might have a fundamental misunderstanding of how healing works in 4e. And if so, ignore this 



> And here I disagree with you. In my games, the PCs are always a cut above the rest. If my level 1 PC got into a fight with the town butcher (not that it should happen, but hypothetical), there would be no contest. I've always played this way. I want my PCs to feel like they are something special, that they were somehow, someway, set aside. If an average NPC is 4 HD, and is an actual threat to my 1st level PCs, there's a problem. Take your relatively typical 1st level "quest." We need the PCs to rid the town of the kobold threat. If the NPCs are 4HD, they can do it themselves. Why hire these PCs? I could see a town guard, or militia, or soldiers, or whatever being like this, but your average farmer (in my opinion, YMMV) or whatever, should be anywhere near the PC's in skill, health, etc. Like you said, this is all preference, and it's nice to see a different opinion here. It gives me a broader perspective and helps me see outside the box.



Well, in my game, when you level up, you don't automatically increase in anything (save free skill points, or a feat or stat hop). And, since it's a point buy system, you can dump all of your points into being an amazing butcher if you want to. You can have a 20th hit die scholar with 3 hit points, or a 5th hit die warrior with 50 hit points. So, I put the baseline at 4th hit die to set a certain level of proficiency within professions, not combat (though soldiers might average 4th or 5th level in combat proficiency).

These are also settled adults, which means they aren't new or green. If you pick a fight with them at hit die 1, you will probably lose. As you should, in my mind. If you want to be heroic, start at a higher hit die. I wanted a system that could support a "farmboy to hero" story just as well as a "we're naturally the biggest, baddest guys around with little training" in my game. You can have a grizzled, trained warrior captain with decades of training in tactics and real life wars under his belt, and you can have a farm kid who gets dragged into the adventuring life, and becomes a hero.

In my ideal version of D&D, it should support different narrative ranges. I know that starting at 8th hit die means you miss out on a chunk of the game, but it's preferable to me than not being able to play a "zero to hero" type game, even if I wanted to. Give me the option for either, and let the group decide what to play.

But, like you said, it's preference. I see the real downsides to doing it my way (you lose out on the early hit die, thus you might have a shorter long term game). But the upsides more than make up for it to me. But, it's just preference in what we want in a system. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess that you'd rather have a specialized game this resonates with most of your wants, then a general game that adapts to different styles. Many people prefer the "I'd rather all games be specialized, so I can pick a game that is tailored to my wants, and that specializes in the things I desire, rather than doing it halfheartedly." I understand that mindset, but since D&D has such a broad base, I'd rather have it appeal to as many different styles as possible (which is a goal that might, ironically, lose it some gamers).



> Certainly, the world moves along. I don't think I explained it right. Basically, in LotR, every single person in that setting, either directly, or indirectly, was affected by the actions of main characters. If Frodo had decided in Rivendell not to take the ring, Sauron would have ended up with the ring, and the world would be a much different place. If Strider hadn't decided to step up and become Aragorn, King of Gondor, the world would be a much different place. If Legolas and Gimli had decided to let their racial differences be an issue (instead of as a place to respect one another) there's a good chance the fellowship would have failed even sooner, and Strider's group would have been killed in one of their many fights. What I'm trying to say is, I present something the world is attempting to do. What happens to the world, is a direct result of the decisions my players make, either positive, or negative. If there's a problem I present, there's a way for them to deal with it. I know this might not be the best way to do things, it might not be everyone's preference, but it goes along with my feeling that heroes should be heroes. And the PC's are heroes. Not regular joes who carry a sword (or wand, or holy symbol, or whatever) and might get good enough to present a challenge to farmer in a fight in a little bit.



I'm okay with this style of play. I don't want it to be the base of all of my games. I want more options. Sometimes, the PCs are the heroes that help defeat the demonic forces from invading the Mortal Realm (happened in my game), while other times they're the evil warlords expanding out (happening later today). Other times, they're orphans raised in service to the crown, and they follow orders (happened in my game), and other times they're outcasts on a human continent looking for a way to survive (happened in my game).

I want a lot of possible narratives in my game, and I don't want all of them to be life-changing, world-altering narratives. Sometimes it's nice to see if the warlords rise to power, or fall trying. Sometimes it's nice to see if the nobles can help a nation build a new frontier town. It really depends on what our group feels like, and I don't want the system to shackle me.



> Ok, I can see this. I'm starting an Eberron campaign, and the world is full of faster travel options. But, almost each one presents an opportunity for "Action in the mountain pass!" as you put it. In previous games, I got over this in the Final Fantasy method of travel. You're low level, well, you have to walk everywhere. Oh, you've explored the continent? Well, here's a land vehicle you can use to get around this continent. Oh, action on the next continent! You're going to have to take a boat, but you can't bring your vehicle, you're hoofing it! Oh, you've explored two continents now? Awesome, here's an airship! Now you can fly around the whole world. Oh look, a new island has popped up. You fly there? Well, you're attacked, and now the airship has crashed. You're hoofing it again! Except in my games its more like, by the time they can instant travel in the world, they're planeshopping, so it makes it harder to instant travel. I try to organically prevent fast/instant travel, rather than saying, "Sorry, teleport spell doesn't exist!" That may be what you had in mind, but it didn't look like it.



Nope, not what I had in mind at all. In my game, it's basically all mundane travel unless you have a powerful magician (Passage specialist... basically teleportation magic), and even then, it costs him permanent resources (consumes a bit if his soul, by permanently reducing his Charisma, which you need an 18 or higher to cast spells at all). This makes it very, very rare. I'm not proposing this for D&D, since it's way too radical. I was just stating my preference of overland or boat travel most of the time, since it lets the world evolve. At high levels, with teleportation magic common, it's hard to have an army even begin to form without high level PCs (or even NPCs!) show up and nip it in the bud early. And that kills narratives, in my mind. Making teleportation rare but possible leaves narratives open, so it's my preference.



> Did you read his last L&L article? It's obvious he's getting ideas for 5e now, at least to me. I'm pretty excited to see what comes of this.



Yep. I really liked his take on magic items (it's basically what I did for my RPG). I hope he keeps up quality thoughts on the articles. And, just like Mr. Mearls said, "this is something Monte showed me that I liked," I hope we see Mr. Cook say, "this is something I was talking to Mike about. What do you guys think?"



> I like the more general skills, but that's preference again, I suppose. This could be another discussion, for another thread, I think.



Yep  



> I like everything. I think the best term for my games is cinematic. That's just because it fits my group. People want gritty? I can do gritty. But I give my players what they want. Since I've been playing with the same players since 4e came out (prior to 4e, I didn't play at all since about 2003, due to my group moving away), it works well. I'm enjoying the conversation as well. Thanks for it.



Yeah. It's nice to be able to converse and say, "play style difference, but that's cool" and not have the conversation dry up right away. I do find it interesting and informative. I hope others caught in our conversation do as well! As always, play what you like


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Guys - neither side is ever going to convince the other that they are right, and the number of unresolvable conflicts has escalated. 

Leave it at 'D&D is a game, and it is supposed to be fun. Some folks like Healing Surges and think that it enhances the fun, other do not think that healing surges enhance the fun at all.'

And

'D&D is a game, its mechanics do not always mirror reality. Hit points may or may not be abstract, or they may be a mix of the two, depending on which you think is more fun.'

Ye gods and little fishes, I remember arguing about hit points in '77... the argument is older than the internet. It can vote and go to the pub for a pint!

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dausuul

Here's an alternative solution for my fellow anti-surgers. It's not quite as pretty as the wound/vit solution, but much easier to implement within 4E as it stands. What do you think?

This would use the existing 4E rules, but being reduced to zero or less hit points incurs a "wound penalty." Let's say this is a 1d6 roll. If the result is 4 or less, you don't have to make death saves and are automatically stable. If it's 5 or more, you're making saves per normal.

Your wound penalty is applied as a negative to all of your attacks, ability checks, and skill checks. After each extended rest, you get a saving throw to reduce the penalty by 1 (DC 20 Heal check lets you roll twice and take the best result). Wound penalties are cumulative, so if you go down repeatedly, you'll accumulate a bigger penalty and are more likely to be making death saves. Regular healing magic cannot eliminate wound penalties, but they can be removed by a clerical ritual or certain potions.

The idea is to build on the concept "You're taking cuts and scrapes until you get to zero, and then you've taken a serious hit." This would resolve the Schrodinger issue and provide a way to have lasting, serious injuries. It would introduce injury penalties without creating a death spiral in any given combat. Finally, as a bonus, it would put a stop to the "jack-in-the-box" maneuver, where the party healer deliberately waits to heal the fighter until the fighter goes negative (thus maximizing the benefit of healing, since heal effects count up from zero).


----------



## Mallus

JamesonCourage said:


> Well, just to be clear, the context I used my example in was for dropping someone into the negatives; that is, their wounds are now bad enough that they cannot act, are unconscious, and are bleeding out. I'm sure you were just using my example as a jumping off point, but I thought I'd clarify so my example doesn't get taken the wrong way.



Aha... thanks for the clarification! I was just using your example as a jumping off point. It got me thinking about how I've seen damage values described in the game's fiction over the years. 



> On a different note, you spelled my user name incorrectly (James, instead of Jameson), though you got my real name correct.



I'm ashamed I got it wrong! I'm quite familiar with the courage found in a bottle of Jameson's. In fact, it may explain how I asked my now-wife out on our first date (unless it was clear, oily courage that lurks in a stiff gin and tonic).


----------



## DEFCON 1

Imaro said:


> Ok, isn't the whole premise of this thread for people who *do* have a problem with healing surges, if you didn't then I'm not sure what your point is.  Are you trying to show people the "error" of their preferences?  Trying to prove something... or what?  I'm genuinely curious about this.




Am I trying to show people the 'error' of their preferences?  You know... that's a good question.  And to be perfectly honest... I've rewritten this response line a couple different times now, trying to figure out whether the answer is yes or no.  I started with 'no' a couple times, and each time as I continued, my response was never to my satisfaction.

I think if I was completely honest with myself, the answer actually is 'yes'.

And here's the reason: I am a very logical person and I see things through the eyes of logic and reason.  And when people say things that don't seem to make sense to me... I question them on it.  Partly because I enjoy having discussions of this sort because they are about subjects I find very interesting and are a mental challenge to formulate response.  And partly because I enjoy trying to show other people the sides of the coin I'm seeing... invariably because in response someone will show me the side of the coin that I don't, and _my_ eyes get opened to some truths I might have missed.

Now let me state unequivocably that no malice is intended with any of this (although goodness knows I've been kicked out of a couple threads because the moderators have thought I've gone too far)... it's all just interesting and intriguing discussions about what someone else sees as a matter of course that I myself am blinded to.  And vice versa.

My feeling has always been that when I respond to things I see as false or just a small part of a big picture and make my points... if someone then responds back to me to counterpoint,  then they want the discussion just as much.  And so the thread goes.

Easiest way to get me to shut up is just by ignoring me.


----------



## DEFCON 1

TheAuldGrump said:


> Guys - neither side is ever going to convince the other that they are right, and the number of unresolvable conflicts has escalated.
> 
> Leave it at 'D&D is a game, and it is supposed to be fun. Some folks like Healing Surges and think that it enhances the fun, other do not think that healing surges enhance the fun at all.'
> 
> And
> 
> 'D&D is a game, its mechanics do not always mirror reality. Hit points may or may not be abstract, or they may be a mix of the two, depending on which you think is more fun.'
> 
> Ye gods and little fishes, I remember arguing about hit points in '77... the argument is older than the internet. It can vote and go to the pub for a pint!
> 
> The Auld Grump




WHAT?!?  What ELSE am I going to do while I'm at work?


----------



## Oryan77

DEFCON 1 said:


> WHAT?!?  What ELSE am I going to do while I'm at work?




You can help me prep for my D&D game/campaign. I could definitely use the help!


----------



## NewJeffCT

ok, it seems like a lot of people dislike healing surges because you get your hit points back instantly?  You've never had in-combat healing in your games when playing 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E or Pathfinder?  Players just sucked it up until they beat the bad guys or dropped below 0?  And, your only choice after a combat where you were knocked down to near 0 hit points was to rest & recover naturally at 1 hit point/night, d3 hit points/night or 1hp/level per night?  There was no magical healing right after a combat?  

I've been playing D&D since the late 70s with lots of players and with lots of and the players always exhausted whatever healing they had available ASAP.  Once the combat was over, it was time to do as much healing as possible because you don't know if another wave is coming the next round or the next turn or the next hour.

I had a 2 1/2 year long campaign in 3.5E where I felt I wasn't doing my job as a DM at higher levels if the PC cleric, the NPC cleric ally or the PC Psion weren't casting/manifesting "Revivify" at least once or twice per combat (or more), as well as casting spells like "Heal" or the Mass Cure spells (Cure Light Wounds, Mass, Cure Moderate Wounds, Mass, etc), and eventually things like Mass Heal and Miracle.  Or, how about a Quickened Revivify followed by a Heal?  Go from negative hit points and dying to full (or near full for the tanks) with only a standard action and a minor action by the party cleric.   And, for PCs that maybe were not quite within healing range on their turn, they sometimes had a healing potion to use.

And, the prior edition games I was involved with before made extensive use of in-combat healing, as well as healing up ASAP after combat, when available.  Sure, maybe some times at very low levels in 1E, you'd have to wait a few days in game for the party cleric to re-memorize and re-cast "Cure Light Wounds" enough times.  But, you didn't have a ton of hit points in the first place.

To me, it's just not a big deal that classes besides the cleric can perform healing, and can also heal in combat and after combat.  I don't see that big a difference between a cleric invoking his deity to heal and a Warlord using his or her Charisma to heal somebody through inspiration, or a Shaman healing through her connections to Nature.  In previous editions, other classes besides the cleric could heal (druid, ranger, paladin), just not as effectively as a cleric.  I don't think it's that huge of a change to upgrade the healing of some classes to put it on par with the cleric.

Oh, and when I'm narrating a game, be it 4E or previous editions, I have always described a player as taking damage when they take damage, especially from big hits.  I don't see a big difference between a 4E PC taking a hit and then getting to use a healing surge later that combat, and a 3E PC taking a hit and then being hit with healing magic from an ally.

As I stated way earlier in this thread, I don't love healing surges overall (too plentiful, I think, is my problem).  However, I think it's great that it's cut way down on the 15 minute adventuring day.  Instead of 1 combat per day that was standard in most previous editions, you can have 4-5-6 combats in a day.


----------



## tomBitonti

In regards to HP and notions of "damage", there is a target here which varies by the reader:

For some folks, a single major wound, say, a knife to the gut, or a non-grazing bullet wound, is debilitating, and either immediately lethal, or lethal if not treated immediately (because of shock or blood loss).

For other folks, the model is more akin to popular fiction, especially television, where a person can be shot in the shoulder or gut, pull together, at first struggling, but in a few minutes able to carry on with only a slight inconvenience.  This not limited to clearly extreme wounds (a shot to the gut), but also to blows that would in most cases be very very damaging.  Falling through plate glass, or getting a full kick to the head, normally are very damaging events.  Or, say, just standing within 10' of open lava would be lethal (to my understanding), not to mention contact or immersion.

In a similar vein, the potential for healing most wounds simply isn't there.  You can mend a broken bone (perhaps, but what about a compound fracture)?  Many injuries have permanent repercussions, that is, don't ever fully heal, and leave a lingering partial disability.

That means, right off, that one has to decide a level of "realism" for healing and damage, and have to decide how much to put in vigor (or exhaustion) as a property, and that will strongly color one's views on HP and the secondary issue of healing surges.

What I'm hearing as a criticism of healing surges (as unrealistic) seems more a statement either about hit points themselves, and that can only work (in my view) as a criticism of healing surges to the degree that healing surges amplify the underlying problem of hit points.

I'm also hearing, to a degree, complaints about how healing surges muddy the already murky description of hit points.  I can agree with this, especially considering the term "healing surge", emphasis on "healing".  Better, "heroic recovery" or "second wind", which are better aligned with renewed vigor, rather than the spontaneous healing of non-trivial injuries.  I can definitely see a Warlord literally cussing a fellow out, loudly, to get back into a fight, as a way of providing a "heroic recover".  (Although, that does run into a problem re: "Cure Wounds" from a Cleric.)

TomB


----------



## Ariosto

Mainly, it's just another complication -- basically functioning simply as another pile of hit points to plow through, but implemented not so simply. It prolongs what had already become (for my taste) too time consuming.


----------



## tomBitonti

Don't knock my wish fulfillment, bro ...

On the other hand, there is a certain aspect of satisfying a fantasy desire for simple actions (praying, "pulling it together", shouting at a person who seems to be drowned) to actually change the world state.  That is, it is pleasant to imagine that injury can be simply overcome, with no permanence to the harm, that notions such as "healing surges" (and, to an extent, with somewhat less abstraction, also provided healing potions or extended rest) that is built into the game.

There becomes a point where the issue becomes one of conflicting fantasies: If I want to imagine that a serious injury can be overcome by sheer willpower, that may conflict with someone else who doesn't want to follow the same fantasy.

TomB


----------



## Mallus

BryonD said:


> And in all those 26 years no one every questioned that there might be a better way to make the description match what was actually happening?



Oh sure... but invariable the DMs, myself included, drifted back to a direct correlation between damage rolled and wound severity, regardless of the target's remaining hit points. 

I think a big part of this is psychological. You roll a 17 on 3d6 and it's (relatively speaking) a big number. Probability-wise, a unlikely occurrence. So the natural tendency is to describe it as being "big", a serious injury, even though it's not really to a character with 80 HP. It's harder, or at least counter-intuitive, to base your descriptions on a PC's remaining HP total, and not on the damage dice, even though that would fit the system better. Maybe it's because dice-rolling is a physical action, it's easier to correlate with the blow landing, or a fireball exploding, whereas mental subtraction seems more passive, internal... I don't know, I don't pretend to be a psychologist .

So we have a history of D&D combat descriptions where colossal blows from giants barely rattle a PC's bones, let alone break them, and cuts the depth of cat-scratches that kill them.  



> I agree with you that what you describe is a problem.



For the record, I don't think it's a problem. It's just a consequence of D&D's implementation of an ablative hit point system. Frankly, it plays fast and well and at this point, is part of D&D's charm. 



> And I'm 42 now.



Hey, we're the same age!



> If you prefer everything be "flesh wounds"....



Let me be clear about what I mean re: flesh wounds.

D&D doesn't model specific injuries, nor impairment. So all damage done to a target could be described as flesh wounds (they don't hamper/decrease effectiveness). Up until the point the character keels over. 

I'm commenting on the way D&D has two character health states: fine and dying. Injuries (HP loss) have no effect other than to make the closer, mathematically, to dead. 



> But, I think it is a fair question to ask, can you see how surges would be a very unwelcome addition to the game played the way I play it?



Oh sure. I'm just (still) curious why people see them as significantly different from traditional HP. Narrating the effects of surges seem trickier to me than the stuff DM's have been doing all along; describing the injuries of a PC whose lost 99 out 100 HP to a bunch of irate frost giants, or how a thief caught in a room without cover survived a flight of fireballs.


----------



## Mallus

Ariosto said:


> Mainly, it's just another complication -- basically functioning simply as another pile of hit points to plow through, but implemented not so simply. It prolongs what had already become (for my taste) too time consuming.



Now this a completely valid observation/criticism of 4e's healing surges.


----------



## Darwinism

Ariosto said:


> Mainly, it's just another complication -- basically functioning simply as another pile of hit points to plow through, but implemented not so simply. It prolongs what had already become (for my taste) too time consuming.




If you're viewing them as another pile of HP to plow through you're viewing them from the perspective of a DM that wants to kill or incapacitate the party and sees that as the only way to give them a sense of threat. That's a sign of being not so great of a DM. I've found that simply making players expend more resources than they thought they would is a better tactic for that sense of urgency; not saying, "Oh no, I have more trouble asserting my dominance," but, "Yep, now they have to make greater risks if they want things to go their way because they spent more resources than they thought."

This is the same in 2E and 3E; it's just smoother. Saying, "And then the party spent eighteen hours fully healing," isn't conductive to the type of storytelling that D&D has been since 2E AD&D. It's not fantasy Vietnam anymore, where the slightest flesh wound leaves you incapacitated for days. It's heroic adventuring in the manner of the greats in mythology with one huge exception in that there's not one big bad ultrahero; it's a party of heroes. That's why 4E has done what it's done. It's about the entire group getting to feel like heroes, not just some of them and not just all of them _if_ it's agreed to not choose the horribly imbalanced caster options present in 2E and 3E.

If you want fantasy Vietnam, which is attractive in some cases, just play OD&D. If you want high fantasy, play 4E.


----------



## The Shaman

Crazy Jerome said:


> I don't visit that other board anymore, so I can't provide that link.  But a poster that goes by "Old Geezer" mentioned it more than once.



*Old Geezer* is Mike Mornard; he was a player in Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign, Gary Gygax's Greyhawk campaign, and Professor Barker's Tékumel campaign - some impressive gaming _bona fides_.

Here's one of Mr Morland Mornard's posts on rpg.net.







			
				Old Geezer said:
			
		

> Robin Hood (*the 1939 version with Errol Flynn*). Gary always said that the final fight between Robin and the Sherrif was what he had in mind when he designed the D&D combat system.



And here's another


			
				Old Geezer said:
			
		

> Also, about HP systems:
> 
> Gary Gygax always described the D&D hit point system as being derived from *Errol Flynn's "Robin Hood", *the final fight between Robin and the Sheriff. They roam around the castle swording* madly at each other but not taking any real hits, and then at the very end Robin kills the Sheriff.
> 
> Hit Points were specifically created to give that sort of a fight, and to make sure a lucky critical hit didn't end the movie fifteen minutes too soon.
> 
> Because back in the old time swashbuckler movies, the bad guy WAS OK right up until he was killed.
> 
> Now, that sort of combat may not be to everyone's taste, but that design was a feature, not a bug.



And another.







			
				Old Geezer said:
			
		

> Gary's entire aim with the D&D combat system was to emulate the fight at the end of the *Errol Flynn "Robin Hood"* movie where the two main characters have this long protracted sword fight with neither one taking any noticeable damage until the fatal blow is struck.
> 
> That's why there is no "critical hit" or "instant kill" rule; that might end the fight short.
> 
> A combat between two 15th level fighters SHOULD take 15 times longer (or so) than a fight between two first level types.



And one more


			
				Old Geezer said:
			
		

> Any of those movies could have happened in Gary's Greyhawk, and all the pre-1973 ones were definitely part of what influenced Gary. His explanation of hit points always used the final duel between *Basil Rathbone and Errol Flynn in "Robin Hood"* as an example of two blokes swording* away like mad at each other and leaking hit points the entire time.



(Emphasis added - TS)

There are more, but I think you get the idea.


----------



## Imaro

Mallus said:


> Now this a completely valid observation/criticism of 4e's healing surges.




Whew, that was close... we almost didn't get a valid (through Mallus's approval process) observation or criticism of 4e's healing surges... Glad to know at least one of us can have our thoughts on healing surges validated by you...


----------



## Mallus

Imaro said:


> Whew, that was close... we almost didn't get a valid (through Mallus's approval process) observation or criticism of 4e's healing surges... Glad to know at least one of us can have our thoughts on healing surges validated by you...



You're welcome !


----------



## Imaro

Darwinism said:


> If you're viewing them as another pile of HP to plow through you're viewing them from the perspective of a DM that wants to kill or incapacitate the party and sees that as the only way to give them a sense of threat. That's a sign of being not so great of a DM. I've found that simply making players expend more resources than they thought they would is a better tactic for that sense of urgency; not saying, "Oh no, I have more trouble asserting my dominance," but, "Yep, now they have to make greater risks if they want things to go their way because they spent more resources than they thought."
> 
> This is the same in 2E and 3E; it's just smoother. Saying, "And then the party spent eighteen hours fully healing," isn't conductive to the type of storytelling that D&D has been since 2E AD&D. It's not fantasy Vietnam anymore, where the slightest flesh wound leaves you incapacitated for days. It's heroic adventuring in the manner of the greats in mythology with one huge exception in that there's not one big bad ultrahero; it's a party of heroes. That's why 4E has done what it's done. It's about the entire group getting to feel like heroes, not just some of them and not just all of them _if_ it's agreed to not choose the horribly imbalanced caster options present in 2E and 3E.
> 
> If you want fantasy Vietnam, which is attractive in some cases, just play OD&D. If you want high fantasy, play 4E.




You do realize that for some the combat of 4e resembles fantasy grindfest as opposed to fantasy vietnam or a high fantasy battle out of literaure and movies... there's a ton of threads about it on here as well as various other gaming forums.  Just saying.

Also, what does the imbalance of casters have to do with this discussion?


----------



## Hassassin

Sorry for skipping about half the thread so I may be repeating someone else.

If healing surges worked like adrenaline I think I would be fine with them. However, the only general use of them that approximates that is the second wind. The main use is often after combat, when you should be coming down from the adrenaline "high" and if anything *losing* HP.

So if we really had "adrenaline surges" those should grant temporary HP.


----------



## GSHamster

NewJeffCT said:


> ok, it seems like a lot of people dislike healing surges because you get your hit points back instantly?  You've never had in-combat healing in your games when playing 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E or Pathfinder?  Players just sucked it up until they beat the bad guys or dropped below 0?  And, your only choice after a combat where you were knocked down to near 0 hit points was to rest & recover naturally at 1 hit point/night, d3 hit points/night or 1hp/level per night?  There was no magical healing right after a combat?




I think the general feeling is that *magic* healing is okay, because magic gets to break the rules, and pretty much do whatever it wants.

Healing surges are non-magical (especially via Second Wind or the warlord class), and thus have to obey the rules, or make some sort of narrative sense.

In some respects, it's a variant on the high-level fighter vs wizard argument. 4E introduced non-magical healing that worked exactly like magical healing. Some people are able to stretch the abstractness of hit points to cover the new case. Other people relied on the fact that previous healing was magical to handwave how people recovered from significant wounds.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

The Shaman said:


> There are more, but I think you get the idea.




Yes. In this case, I'm happy to have remembered it wrong. Your correct cite is a bigger supporter of my point than my vague, incorrect allusion was. 

The scene at the end of Robin and Marion is very similar in its D&D application, though not nearly as dynamic. Two old guys at the end of their careers, in a field, wearing heavy armor, smacking each other with big swords, isn't going to match dashing around a castle. But the pacing is certainly the same.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Hassassin said:


> So if we really had "adrenaline surges" those should grant temporary HP.




If you didn't mind complicating things a bit more, and liked the extra, critical decision it interjected, and wanted that kind of distinction: Then making all non-magical surge grants into temporary hit points wouldn't be a bad way to house rule. 

Now, taking that second wind in combat is not something you would ever do routinely. If you can stagger through to the end of the fight, you can make that surge count for more across the scope of the day. But if you don't take it now, you might not make it through the fight.

If you want all that, but you still want some surge spending during down time to keep the party moving, then tie the temporary/permanent hit points from surges to heal checks.  Fail the check, the surge is only temporary hit points. The heal skill is a bit weak anyway. This would make it very important.


----------



## The Shaman

Crazy Jerome said:


> In this case, I'm happy to have remembered it wrong. Your correct cite is a bigger supporter of my point than my vague, incorrect allusion was.



Glad I could help. 


Hassassin said:


> So if we really had "adrenaline surges" those should grant temporary HP.



That's a really interesting notion, actually.

Combat drug in original, "classic" _Traveller_ increases your character Strength and Endurance each by two; these are also used as the character's hit points, along with Dexterity. Once the drug wears off, however, the extra points are lost AND the character takes 1D6 wounds.

So you could have a rule where a character's physical attributes and/or hit points increase with adrenaline, and if the character loses more points than the base score in combat, then the character collapses when the adrenaline rush wears off.


----------



## Pentius

Imaro said:


> Are you trying to show people the "error" of their preferences?  Trying to prove something... or what?  I'm genuinely curious about this.




I took some time and thought about this, too, but I got a different answer than DEFCON1.  I don't care about people seeing the error of their preferences.  A preference simply is.  You like it, or you don't.  But I do want people to realize that it is just a preference.  It isn't that surges are any less realistic than the healing that came before, or that they're any less fantasy genre appropriate or more wahoo.  They don't make the game less of an rpg and more of a video game.  It isn't that they drag combat out any longer than previous editions' in-combat healing.  It's a preference.

Finally, let me flip that question(which I think is fair, given that I answered it first): Do you who dislike surges think that your posts on the subject will make we who like them see the error of our own preferences?


----------



## Imaro

Pentius said:


> Finally, let me flip that question(which I think is fair, given that I answered it first): Do you who dislike surges think that your posts on the subject will make we who like them see the error of our own preferences?




Uhm... no.  We didn't start a thread called  "Hey, I don't understand why you guys like healing surges..." 

I'm not making any pretense about trying to understand why you guys like them, I can accept that you do for your own reasons (the logic of which makes no difference to me)...but that's as far as it goes.  What I don't get is why people who like them come rushing into a thread asking why others don't, to defend and try to get them to see the error of their ways.... I thought the purpose was to get the reasons and try to understand them.  Instead we get people even resorting to old edition war arguments about casters and fighters that have nothing to do with the topic as they try to defend 4e.


----------



## NewJeffCT

GSHamster said:


> I think the general feeling is that *magic* healing is okay, because magic gets to break the rules, and pretty much do whatever it wants.
> 
> Healing surges are non-magical (especially via Second Wind or the warlord class), and thus have to obey the rules, or make some sort of narrative sense.
> 
> In some respects, it's a variant on the high-level fighter vs wizard argument. 4E introduced non-magical healing that worked exactly like magical healing. Some people are able to stretch the abstractness of hit points to cover the new case. Other people relied on the fact that previous healing was magical to handwave how people recovered from significant wounds.




ah, so invoking a mythical deity to heal your allies can be handwaved, but summoning a spirit of nature like a shaman, using your mind to heal somebody like an ardent, or arcane magic like a bard, or a martial power like a warlord cannot?  (the definition says they are not magic in the traditional sense, but some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals, which sounds like magic anyhow.)

If 3E introduced sorcerers and charisma based arcane magic instead of book learned arcane magic, I don't see it as that big of a jump to have other classes that can heal as effectively as a cleric.  Remember, bards, psions, druids, rangers and paladins (and others, I'm sure) could heal in previous editions as well - my 3.5E campaign had several psionic revivifies (an in combat Raise Dead if cast within a round of death...)


----------



## Bedrockgames

NewJeffCT said:


> ah, so invoking a mythical deity to heal your allies can be handwaved, but summoning a spirit of nature like a shaman, using your mind to heal somebody like an ardent, or arcane magic like a bard, or a martial power like a warlord cannot?  (the definition says they are not magic in the traditional sense, but some martial powers stand well beyond the capabilities of ordinary mortals, which sounds like magic anyhow.)
> 
> If 3E introduced sorcerers and charisma based arcane magic instead of book learned arcane magic, I don't see it as that big of a jump to have other classes that can heal as effectively as a cleric.  Remember, bards, psions, druids, rangers and paladins (and others, I'm sure) could heal in previous editions as well - my 3.5E campaign had several psionic revivifies (an in combat Raise Dead if cast within a round of death...)




I think it is a magic versus mundane concern. If the source of healing is at all supernatural it makes sense in a way. If it is mundane but really seems more like magic that is where tge disconnect arises.  Healing surges are described as mundane but don't seem mundane to me. And i think if you extend that kind of self heal power to all classes the flavor turns (at least for me) to something more like anime. This is just how it comes off to me; i can see how others would feel the same.


----------



## NewJeffCT

Bedrockgames said:


> I think it is a magic versus mundane concern. If the source of healing is at all supernatural it makes sense in a way. If it is mundane but really seems more like magic that is where tge disconnect arises.  Healing surges are described as mundane but don't seem mundane to me. And i think if you extend that kind of self heal power to all classes the flavor turns (at least for me) to something more like anime. This is just how it comes off to me; i can see how others would feel the same.




The definition of a healing surge (PHB, pg 293) does not say it is mundane - it says it restores lost hit points to your hit point total.


----------



## Darwinism

Imaro said:


> You do realize that for some the combat of 4e resembles fantasy grindfest as opposed to fantasy vietnam or a high fantasy battle out of literaure and movies... there's a ton of threads about it on here as well as various other gaming forums.  Just saying.




Oh, well, if there's threads on it!

Please, tell me how 4E combat is more grindy than, "I attack five times," or, "I move and attack once unless I have a combination of feats." I'd appreciate it if you could, because to me 4E combat makes my characters feel far more effective than just stating full round attack or move and attack or charge!

Just because people got used to that being the norm doesn't make it good; legacy mechanics have no value by themselves.




Imaro said:


> Also, what does the imbalance of casters have to do with this discussion?




Everything? Casters were the only source of healing quickly in a setting where healing is required unless you want to FTB and say, "Six weeks later..."

Healing surges counter that handily. PCs are heroes, heroes recover quickly unless plot dictates otherwise. Are they perfect? Nope. A fair amount of the categories for things in 4E are too literal so people who are used to taking their elfgames literally take those term literally. But, hey, we've dealt with imperfection in every RPG we've ever played, haven't we?


----------



## Gaerek

JamesonCourage said:


> Turning a blow into a less serious one implies a certain amount of activity to me, not passive forces like luck or fate (unless you can consciously affect those). However, I see how you can draw that interpretation, even if I wouldn't assume that to be the case. I still don't think that's what it means, but I wouldn't argue against it if you were GMing for me




I guess I can see it that was as well. It's funny, because I used that exact quote from the 3e PHB in, oh, around 2001 to show someone that HP were abstract, and not just a bucket of meat. If you are ok seeing HP in that way, then that's fine, if it works for you. But, I think that you start running into some very interesting (and immersion rending) problems. For example: How come a level-0 commoner can only take 1 sword hit, but the level 15 fighter can take several? If you put me (level 0 commoner) side by side with a Navy SEAL (say, level 15 fighter?) and shot us both, we would likely have the same fate. But according to "bucket of meat" HP, that Navy SEAL should be able to take a dozen or more shots before falling. That's just one of the problems.



> You know what's funny? Years ago, when I used to play WoW, I used to advocate for a "hardcore" server, where if you died, you had until the mandatory release time to be res'd or that's it, you start over from scratch. I thought it'd be cool. Even in WoW, I wanted permanent death as an option (as in mandatory, but only on one or two servers, which you get to pick). Even in Diablo II (which I didn't play much of), I only ever played on hardcore in the campaign mode. I think I made it through two acts before I got kind of tired of my barbarian and played other games.
> 
> But, yeah, different play styles. No right or wrong answer to that



Interesting idea. I'm sure there's a few people that would like that, but I know it wouldn't be for me, lol. I'm one of the masochists that used to raid Plane of Fear in Everquest, before all the corpse summoners and resurrection bots...

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, let's just say there was a very real possibility of losing your corpse (and all of your gear) and having it disappear with all your gear if you wiped and couldn't get another raid up there to rescue. Almost happened once. I had to skip classes that day or risk missing a chance at getting back to my corpse. Was a bad day I never wanted to repeat, lol.



> And the group I ran never went through dungeons or played modules, so they weren't as necessary (though they'd certainly have been useful at times). I've played through a dungeon-like environment or two, but it was low levels (1-3), so they didn't come up (750 gp is a lot to a first level character... way out of his price range).




Understandable. I think the way we used to balance encounters was that lower level combat tended to not be as draining. But at higher levels, all bets were off. That was my experience through about a dozen different groups I've played with in my 20 years.



> Well, the amount of combat is basically set by the players. They've tried to avoid fights where possible. The two fights have been instigated by me, when bandits have attacked the PCs when traveling along the road (traveling by yourself means that a group of 4-6 bandits might like their odds when they have ranged weapons and are on the mountainside, waiting for people to pass by). The players could definitely start more fights than they have (they've almost been in, I don't know, probably six fights so far), but they keep letting the negotiator talk people down (that's their preferred plan, but combat was always, "and in case he fails, we jump him...").



Again, interesting. But it's similar to what I do. The players, whether they know it or not call the shots. Though, I have the opposite problem. If I give them more RP style encounters, or non-combat encounters...they will turn them into combat encounters, heh.



> I think so, too. I think they'd have to shift healing surges away from the main healing mechanic (heals don't "activate" healing surges in other PCs anymore, but heal raw damage, even if it's 25% instead of a number). Leaving healing surges as the main mechanic for healing puts arbitrary hard caps on the amount of external healing one could receive in a day, which will still rub people the wrong way.
> 
> I also might have a fundamental misunderstanding of how healing works in 4e. And if so, ignore this



I think there's a general misunderstanding of healing surges. The name tends to evoke the idea that a player can heal themselves. And, to an extent, that's true. In combat, every player gets a second wind. This can be used as a standard action (meaning, you can basically only move this turn), once per encounter, that allows you to use a healing surge. A healing surge heals 25% of your HP (rounded down). In general, this is the only way a player can use a healing surge in combat. Abilities and healing potions do not heal directly, they allow the use of healing surges (in most cases, there are exceptions). A potion of healing allows a character to burn a healing surge in exchange for 10hp. A cleric can use healing word (twice per encounter) to allow a character to use a healing surge. A cleric can also choose Cure XXXX Wounds that heals back HP without a healing surge, but it's a daily spell, and the cleric would have had to take it in place of another daily. So in essense, a healing surge is a limitation on the amount of healing a player can receive in a day (after an extended rest, or 8 hours, they get all healing surges back). I think of it more like endurance. When you're out of surges, you're exhausted, and you need to rest. You simply cannot continue.

Most people are mostly ok (with some exceptions, not going into them here, as they've been discussed on this thread already) with that mechanic. What gets a lot of people is that between combats, during a short rest (5 minute break) a character can use as many surges as they want to heal themself up. So now, they're ready for the next fight, with no downtime. Anyway, that's how the mechanic works, basically, so if that's what you thought, then you understand. If not, well, now you do. 




> Well, in my game, when you level up, you don't automatically increase in anything (save free skill points, or a feat or stat hop). And, since it's a point buy system, you can dump all of your points into being an amazing butcher if you want to. You can have a 20th hit die scholar with 3 hit points, or a 5th hit die warrior with 50 hit points. So, I put the baseline at 4th hit die to set a certain level of proficiency within professions, not combat (though soldiers might average 4th or 5th level in combat proficiency).



Ahh, ok. Makes more sense now. 



> These are also settled adults, which means they aren't new or green. If you pick a fight with them at hit die 1, you will probably lose. As you should, in my mind. If you want to be heroic, start at a higher hit die. I wanted a system that could support a "farmboy to hero" story just as well as a "we're naturally the biggest, baddest guys around with little training" in my game. You can have a grizzled, trained warrior captain with decades of training in tactics and real life wars under his belt, and you can have a farm kid who gets dragged into the adventuring life, and becomes a hero.
> 
> In my ideal version of D&D, it should support different narrative ranges. I know that starting at 8th hit die means you miss out on a chunk of the game, but it's preferable to me than not being able to play a "zero to hero" type game, even if I wanted to. Give me the option for either, and let the group decide what to play.



I understand where you're coming from now. In context of D&D in general, it doesn't make much sense. But in the game you've created, well, that's the game you and your group want to play, and more power to you. 



> But, like you said, it's preference. I see the real downsides to doing it my way (you lose out on the early hit die, thus you might have a shorter long term game). But the upsides more than make up for it to me.



That's the grittyness you enjoy. For me, balance is a pretty important factor in the game.



> But, it's just preference in what we want in a system. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess that you'd rather have a specialized game this resonates with most of your wants, then a general game that adapts to different styles. Many people prefer the "I'd rather all games be specialized, so I can pick a game that is tailored to my wants, and that specializes in the things I desire, rather than doing it halfheartedly." I understand that mindset, but since D&D has such a broad base, I'd rather have it appeal to as many different styles as possible (which is a goal that might, ironically, lose it some gamers).



In my eyes, a generic, one size fits all system would be fairly boring. Even if your game supports the way my group wants to play, I'd rather play 4e since it will excell at what we want. Whereas in your system, it might be possible, but it's more of a jack of all trades, master of none. BUT, the benefit is, of course, being able to do whatever you want, and have the system support that. 4e supports a lot of options, but many things are pretty non-negotiable.



> Nope, not what I had in mind at all. In my game, it's basically all mundane travel unless you have a powerful magician (Passage specialist... basically teleportation magic), and even then, it costs him permanent resources (consumes a bit if his soul, by permanently reducing his Charisma, which you need an 18 or higher to cast spells at all). This makes it very, very rare. I'm not proposing this for D&D, since it's way too radical. I was just stating my preference of overland or boat travel most of the time, since it lets the world evolve. At high levels, with teleportation magic common, it's hard to have an army even begin to form without high level PCs (or even NPCs!) show up and nip it in the bud early. And that kills narratives, in my mind. Making teleportation rare but possible leaves narratives open, so it's my preference.



I can see that. Again, my thoughts follow the more heroic, cinematic feel. Whereas in your system, the journey is what's important, in 4e, the destination seems to be where it's at.



> Yep. I really liked his take on magic items (it's basically what I did for my RPG). I hope he keeps up quality thoughts on the articles. And, just like Mr. Mearls said, "this is something Monte showed me that I liked," I hope we see Mr. Cook say, "this is something I was talking to Mike about. What do you guys think?"



I still have my reservations with Monte on the team, but what I've seen so far, he has some pretty good ideas, and I know i'll be following his L&L column. I have a feeling that column will give a good prediction of what to expect with 5e.



> Yeah. It's nice to be able to converse and say, "play style difference, but that's cool" and not have the conversation dry up right away. I do find it interesting and informative. I hope others caught in our conversation do as well! As always, play what you like



I never understood the hate between the so-called grognards and the 4e fanboys. We're all gamers, but we all have our own preferences and opinions. I can't tell you that the way you play is wrong, because that's how you like to play. I may not like it, but that doesn't matter, at all. Have fun at your game today. Looking forward to my next!


----------



## Hussar

Aaron said:


> If you are a high level character I have no problem imagining him/her sustain an impressive amount of damage.
> 
> I can cite tons of fantasy characters from manga/comics/movies etc. that can sustain an absurd amount of damage. But none of them presents the Schrödinger issue.
> 
> 
> If that's the case:
> 
> 1) what happens if someone looks at the (eventually) wounded character? -what would someone see?
> Maybe an ally looks at his comrade to see if he can sustain more damage, and go and help him, even if they can't communicate for some reason.
> 
> Or maybe there's someone else watching the combat without being involved, and wants to act if and when the character is effectively wounded.
> 
> Heck, his enemies too are interested into see if their attacks are effective.




In the middle of a fight, with all the stuff flying around that's flying around in a fantasy combat, "I look at Bob to see how he's doing" isn't really going to reveal that much.  Bob is lying on the ground, there's blood around him and on him (might be his, might be someone else's) and he's on fire.  How's he doing?  Well, he might be dying, or his eye's might pop open, he rolls around to put out the fire and jumps back into the fight.  Take your pick.  If you used healing powers on him, then the latter is true.



> 2) what if the character for any reason can't use any HS for a long time after combat. Would he remain in this "cinematic" indetermination for hours?




This is really a corner case, but, I have seen it come up - my character had a disease which prevented him from using healing surges and was knocked below 0 hp.  No, he doesn't remain "cinematic" for hours because that wouldn't make much sense.  The event has been resolved - he's on the ground and he's dying and, without intervention, he will die.  



> 3) if there's no "gaping wound", what happens? If, for example, a character is on fire, what happens? Is he/she damaged by the fire? Can I see if he/she is damaged only after something else happens, like his/her death or he/she quenches the fire?




Someone is burning.  Can you tell how much it's actually hurting them while they are on fire?  How on fire is the person when he's taking Ongoing 5 fire damage?  In any edition?



> 4) What if the character falls unconscious after the combat. What would another character see looking at his/her body? A gaping wound or ...what else?




Why would a character fall unconscious after a combat?  This one I can't answer without a more specific example.


----------



## Hussar

Dausuul said:


> The reason I brought up that rule was that it's debatable whether you can "rest" while unconscious. The rule makes it clear that you can. Nothing in the "dying" rules would indicate that the dying form of unconsciousness works differently.
> 
> 
> 
> Spending a healing surge is not an action. If the cleric uses Healing Word on you, you can spend a healing surge, whether you're stunned, unconscious, or what have you. Same with anything else that says "You can spend a healing surge." (The use of "spend" here is another example of bad choice of rules terms--it implies an action is required when it isn't, and it implies you can do it at will when you can't.)




Sorry, no.

The rules work on exceptions.  You can ONLY spend a healing surge by either taking a short rest (an action) or by a second wind (an action) or an outside intervention.  From the Compendium:



> Duration: A short rest is about 5 minutes long.
> 
> No Limit per Day: You can take as many short rests per day as you want.
> 
> No Strenuous Activity: You have to rest during a short rest. You can stand guard, sit in place, ride on a wagon or other vehicle, or do other tasks that don’t require much exertion.




Right there, the bolded part is why you are mistaken.  You have to TAKE a short rest.  You cannot just have one automatically.


----------



## Summer-Knight925

21 pages? really?

if someone is looking at getting into this thread, I'm not sure what to say to you.


that being said, my two cents state that healing surges are unrealistic, as most of 4e is, however it is a game of magic, do we really need more explanation? Magic. plain and simple.

as for other games, 3e did much the same things, although not with healing, if a fireball goes off and you make your save, why don't you move?

AD&D had Thac0, some liked it, I could never get the hang of it, thats my fault, I'm sorry

OD&D used the charts, easy. Saves and such? it was make it or not, they didn't say what happened when you did or when you didn't, they left that up for the players and DM.

So how are any of these things related to healing surges? 
I hate to be a grognard, and usually this leads into 3e vs 4e or pathfinder vs 4e but honestly, I'm not that fond of 3e anymore, true I was raised on it, finding my fathers old 1e and 2e books made me look into it.

Compare and contrast time!
3e vs 4e

What 3e did good:Armor class: ascending armor class made it simple
What 4e did good:Rolling against the enemy's save: made it less work for the target
What they both did good: playability, you always have fun

what 3e did wrong: Skills: I don't like them, makes me feel to stuck in my character
what 4e did wrong: healing surges: suddenly that guy who liked to play the cleric feels very used, and I did like to play the cleric
what they both did wrong: artwork: i dont like the art for either edition.

I also am not to fond of powers but that's a different time.

So on the topic of healing surges, it is like handing out potions all the time, i honestly liked relying on the cleric, it made it intense, and the healing surges are dreadfully unrealistic, however, I did say "it is a world of magic" and if that is the excuse you want to go with, sure, but the only health system that ever made sense to me was in chess, or tag...


----------



## Bedrockgames

NewJeffCT said:


> The definition of a healing surge (PHB, pg 293) does not say it is mundane - it says it restores lost hit points to your hit point total.




I would read that as mundane. But if it isn't that is even worse imo. If hs are mundane they present a problem for me because seems toi abstract and not realistic for my tastes. If they are supernatural then that is a flavor of d&d i am not interested in. This is why hs were a strong turn off to me from the outset.


----------



## nightwyrm

I wonder if the HS/HP issue would be better resolved if they did it instead as an "encounter hp pool" that you fill up from a "daily hp pool".


----------



## Imaro

Darwinism said:


> Oh, well, if there's threads on it!
> 
> Please, tell me how 4E combat is more grindy than, "I attack five times," or, "I move and attack once unless I have a combination of feats." I'd appreciate it if you could, because to me 4E combat makes my characters feel far more effective than just stating full round attack or move and attack or charge!
> 
> Just because people got used to that being the norm doesn't make it good; legacy mechanics have no value by themselves.




If you want to know go read the numerous threads on 4e grind, otherwise it's not important to me whether you believe that some people think 4e combats are grindy. Apparently you don't think they are so why do you care what others think? 






Darwinism said:


> Everything? Casters were the only source of healing quickly in a setting where healing is required unless you want to FTB and say, "Six weeks later..."
> 
> Healing surges counter that handily. PCs are heroes, heroes recover quickly unless plot dictates otherwise. Are they perfect? Nope. A fair amount of the categories for things in 4E are too literal so people who are used to taking their elfgames literally take those term literally. But, hey, we've dealt with imperfection in every RPG we've ever played, haven't we?




Wow, so healing potions never existed in D&D (or if they did they didn't provide quick healing), glad you cleared that up for me... not. 

Look, I'm not in the mood to edition war (and by your tone I'm assuming that's what you're looking for, if not prove me wrong.) so I'm just going to walk away from this conversation. But you have fun.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Summer-Knight925 said:


> 21 pages? really?
> 
> if someone is looking at getting into this thread, I'm not sure what to say to you.



 I do:

Flee now! Save yourselves while there's still time! It's too late for _us!_

The Auld Grump


----------



## Summer-Knight925

Imaro said:


> Look, I'm not in the mood to edition war (and by your tone I'm assuming that's what you're looking for, if not prove me wrong.) so I'm just going to walk away from this conversation. But you have fun.




I tried that once too, it still started an edition war. 

But the healing potions...they were (usually) made by spellcasters, the usually being of course A.  finding them in a dungeon (in which we can assume they were made by a spellcaster) or B. some odd fountain that is best not talked about.

Another loop hole in this entire thread, it was what you DISLIKE/LIKE about them, not what they were like in older editions, I read through 21 pages of "but X was like Y and now X is like P" 
does it matter?
If you don't have fun with a game, don't play it. I use to fight in the edition war, and then I realized it isn't worth it because there are other games then D&D.


----------



## FireLance

Sorry for the delay, got caught up in Real Life.



TheAuldGrump said:


> Once more into the breach....
> 
> Second Wind and like 'healing in combat' are merely the most objectionable of the uses of Healing Surge - it _as a whole_ trivializes damage taken. Much of 4e seems built around trivializing what had been serious damage (example - petrification) further than the magic in previous editions.



Fair enough, but I would break down the actual cause of the "problem" into the following:

1. Every character can heal himself (via the Second Wind action and using healing surges out of combat). While the 4E implementation of self-healing uses healing surges, they are not actually necessary: the Star Wars Saga Edition second wind rule and the Iron Heroes reserve pool of hit points are game mechanics that accomplish the same without using healing surges.

2. Characters have too many healing surges, and each one recovers too many hit points. These are quantitative issues, not qualitative ones.



prosfilaes said:


> It's an abstract system; it supports a wide range of descriptions.
> 
> Same answer. Ultimately, it's probably going to be narrated more dramatically because it's a time for drama.



Hmmm. It seems to me that you are avoiding the question.


----------



## Summer-Knight925

TheAuldGrump said:


> I do:
> 
> Flee now! Save yourselves while there's still time! It's too late for _us!_
> 
> The Auld Grump




blah blah blah, can't add XP

but....

IT'S TO LATE! THEY CANNOT SAVE THEMSELVES! FLEE MY CHILDREN! FLEE!!!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Please, tell me how 4E combat is more grindy than, "I attack five times," or, "I move and attack once unless I have a combination of feats."



Speaking for my group only, we find it grinder because of the combination of:

1) Between actual HP, Surges and other effects, 4Ed foes have equivalent or more HP in a given combat than their 3.5Ed equivalents.

2) individual attacks do about the same damage/strike as they did in 3.5Ed

3) a virtually complete absence of iterative/multiple melee attacks and non-AoE multitargeting attack spells

Means it takes longer to get through a single combat...which _to us_ = "grind."


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Speaking for my group only, we find it grinder because of the combination of:
> 
> 1) Between actual HP, Surges and other effects, 4Ed foes have equivalent or more HP in a given combat than their 3.5Ed equivalents.
> 
> 2) individual attacks do about the same damage/strike as they did in 3.5Ed
> 
> 3) a virtually complete absence of iterative/multiple melee attacks and non-AoE multitargeting attack spells
> 
> Means it takes longer to get through a single combat...which _to us_ = "grind."




Just to point out - while there are a couple of exceptions, virtually no foes in 4e gain healing surges that can be used in combat.

Actual hp?  Oh, yeah, they got lots of those.  But healing surges actually aren't really going to add time to defeating foes.

As far as (3) goes, well, that's not entirely true.  For one, while a given PC might not have iterative attacks, it's pretty rare to go a round without making multiple attacks.  Between all of the effects that can give you extra actions, it's unlikely that at least one PC isn't getting one or more extra attacks in a round.

And non-AoE multitargeting effects?  You mean stuff that only targets enemies?  Umm... I gotta disagree 100% on this one.  Every class has burst/blast effects, and usually multiple ones.  Even the strikers get a fair number of them and most AoE powers don't target allies, outside of the wizard.

Heck, my fighter specialized in AoE effects - Cleave as a basic attack (2 targets damaged per attack), and various burst and blast AoE's because he used a vicious warpick and I wanted to capitalize on the extra damage done by critical hits.

In our current 4e game, we have 3 strikers, a monk, a ranger/monk and my Faelock, and all three of us are hitting multiple foes just about every round.


----------



## tomBitonti

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Speaking for my group only, we find it grinder because of the combination of:
> 
> 1) Between actual HP, Surges and other effects, 4Ed foes have equivalent or more HP in a given combat than their 3.5Ed equivalents.
> 
> 2) individual attacks do about the same damage/strike as they did in 3.5Ed
> 
> 3) a virtually complete absence of iterative/multiple melee attacks and non-AoE multitargeting attack spells
> 
> Means it takes longer to get through a single combat...which _to us_ = "grind."




A fun statistic that I found myself figuring while looking over 4E monsters is the "how many rounds does it take to kill itself" index.  That is, with average damage and factoring in monsters attack bonuses against its own ACs, with suitable rough estimates for special abilities, how long does a monster take to kill itself?

The numbers were quite higher than I thought was reasonable.

The problem seems to be undertuned monsters.  That does make fights a lot more predictable.  But, it also makes for less excitement (because of the lessened risk), and for more boredom (when fights drag on).

But, I would say that that is a tuning problem, not a problem with healing surges in an of themselves.

For strenuous activity, breaks can help one maintain high levels of performance for short periods of time.  And "muscle" recharge (not sure how to say it properly) has to have been studied and modeled, both for athletics, and the ability to concentrate has to have been studied, say, for pilots, or air traffic controllers, or for heavy machinery operators of any sort.

That is, I *like* the idea of a recharge mechanic.  Thought, I'm not sold on 4E healing surges as the best implementation.

TomB


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> It isn't that surges are any less realistic than the healing that came before,




If you assume certain definitions about what HP is, assumptions that you disagree with, then they are less realistic. And as I pointed out above, the RAW of 4e say that successful attack rolls do damage, so there is tension in the rules.



> or that they're any less fantasy genre appropriate or more wahoo.  They don't make the game less of an rpg and more of a video game.




You state these as facts. As others have pointed out, if they invoke video game feelings to you, they invoke video game feelings to you. 



> It isn't that they drag combat out any longer than previous editions' in-combat healing.




Facts not in evidence. It's entirely possible that it depends on playing style. Certainly the CO boards for 3.5 were disdainful of the idea of in-combat healing, so I suspect that certain 3.5 groups didn't have in-combat healing in practice.



FireLance said:


> Hmmm. It seems to me that you are avoiding the question.




It seems to me that you don't like the answer. For me, HP damage reflects real damage, and when enough of it is taken, game-defined effects like unconsciousness and death kick in. The first hitpoint of damage on a 100 HP character can be narrated as barely more than a papercut or as the weapon going all the way through. It doesn't matter to the game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Just to point out - while there are a couple of exceptions, virtually no foes in 4e gain healing surges that can be used in combat.




That doesn't match my play experience.  It doesnt happen every encounter, but it does happen every session.  Since I'm not the DM, I can't tell you if they are exceptions, unusual creatures, if we're encountering leaders or what, but we are DEFINITELY encountering foes that surge.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That doesn't match my play experience.  It doesnt happen every encounter, but it does happen every session.  Since I'm not the DM, I can't tell you if they are exceptions, unusual creatures, if we're encountering leaders or what, but we are DEFINITELY encountering foes that surge.




Ok, that's a DM issue, not a game one.  For one, leaders as a monster type don't generally grant healing to critters.  Secondly, critters (again, there are exceptions) only have, at most, 1 healing surge, so, you're looking at getting back, maybe, 10-20 hit points per encounter.  Or, effectively, gaining one more hit.

I'm going to point out your DM on this one because that's an odd duck right there.

Now, if you were facing off with a bunch of incorporeal weakening undead like wraiths, then I TOTALLY understand the grind.  Gack, I made that mistake.  Whoever thought it was a good idea to have a monster that takes half damage from attacks, and then add the power to half the damage that a given PC can do was doing some serious binge drinking at the time.

So, yeah, you can certainly have grind in 4e.  I get that.  But, a lot of the issue is with encounter design and a few outliers on the critter lists not so much with the system itself.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'm not sure it's a DM issue- he's using published adventures (I don't know which ones).


----------



## FireLance

prosfilaes said:


> It seems to me that you don't like the answer. For me, HP damage reflects real damage, and when enough of it is taken, game-defined effects like unconsciousness and death kick in. The first hitpoint of damage on a 100 HP character can be narrated as barely more than a papercut or as the weapon going all the way through. It doesn't matter to the game.



To me, "the first hit point of damage on a 100 hp character can be narrated as barely more than a papercut," means that hit points are not entirely physical. I have no problem with the concept that hit points can be _proportionately_ physical, i.e. if it takes 3 hp of damage to kill a normal man, then a high-level adventurer with 90 hit points who has taken 30 hp of damage is physically as beaten up as a normal man who has taken 1 hit point of damage. But for that 90-hit point adventurer to actually be sporting the equivalent of ten wounds, each of which would have been enough to kill a normal man, that strains _my_ suspension of disbelief.


----------



## gamerprinter

FireLance said:


> To me, "the first hit point of damage on a 100 hp character can be narrated as barely more than a papercut," means that hit points are not entirely physical.




A papercut is physical - ever get one on your tongue? Ouch!


----------



## MichaelSomething

I think I lost some hit points reading through this thread...

How do I get them back and how would you narrate it?


----------



## FireLance

gamerprinter said:


> A papercut is physical - ever get one on your tongue? Ouch!



Ah, but if you managed to convert a sword thrust to the head that would have split the skull of a normal man into a papercut on your tongue, not _all_ the damage you took was physical.



MichaelSomething said:


> I think I lost some hit points reading through this thread...
> 
> How do I get them back and how would you narrate it?



Go take a short rest and spend a healing surge. 

"And after five minutes spent recovering his composture, MichaelSomething felt capable of turning a sword thrust to the head that would have split the skull of a normal man into a papercut on his tongue again."


----------



## gamerprinter

FireLance said:


> Ah, but if you managed to convert a sword thrust to the head that would have split the skull of a normal man into a papercut on your tongue, not _all_ the damage you took was physical.
> 
> Go take a short rest and spend a healing surge.
> 
> "And after five minutes spent recovering his composture, MichaelSomething felt capable of turning a sword thrust to the head that would have split the skull of a normal man into a papercut on his tongue again."




It was self inflicted. I used a paper sword.


----------



## Pentius

prosfilaes said:


> If you assume certain definitions about what HP is, assumptions that you disagree with, then they are less realistic. And as I pointed out above, the RAW of 4e say that successful attack rolls do damage, so there is tension in the rules.



You're reaching pretty far here.  The assumptions you've chosen to make directly contradict the book.  If you want to play that way, then do, play what you like, but don't pretend that the system is at fault for not doing something it explicitly states it isn't trying to do.



> Facts not in evidence. It's entirely possible that it depends on playing style. Certainly the CO boards for 3.5 were disdainful of the idea of in-combat healing, so I suspect that certain 3.5 groups didn't have in-combat healing in practice.



And it's still a valid playstyle in 4e, to frontload damage and avoid healing in combat.  The Warlord and Runepriest play to this style pretty well.  But if 3.5 in-combat healing doesn't count as making combats longer because you don't have to do it, then 4e in-combat healing doesn't count as making combats longer, because you don't have to do it.


----------



## prosfilaes

FireLance said:


> To me, "the first hit point of damage on a 100 hp character can be narrated as barely more than a papercut," means that hit points are not entirely physical. I have no problem with the concept that hit points can be _proportionately_ physical




It has nothing to do with proportion. IMO, partially shaped by this thread, trying to treat HP as units or measurements is pointless. I take as given that each thing that does HP damage does real damage, and that when you're down to 0 HP, you're staggered, when you down to negative HP, you're unconscious, and when you're down to -10 HP you're dead. Beyond that, the exact connection between HP and damage is left to be narrated as people like.



> But for that 90-hit point adventurer to actually be sporting the equivalent of ten wounds, each of which would have been enough to kill a normal man, that strains _my_ suspension of disbelief.




I'm not standing here as an advocate of D&D-style HPs. I find the escalation of HPs from 1d10 for a first level fighter to 20d10 for a 20th level fighter (=an elephant for a fighter with 10 CON, or a  tyrannosaurus for 18 CON) to be ludicrous. But I find a system where a attacks do damage to "luck" or "divine protection" to be at least equally ludicrous, and I find a system where scoring a hit on an enemy that decreases HP (which, again, even the 4E PHB says does damage) may not actually be a hit and may not actually do damage to be unplayable.


----------



## wedgeski

Forgive me for skipping a couple of pages of posts... but this game that seems to be in dispute, this retro-linear narrative Schroedinger case-study where no-one in the group knows whether they're alive or dead or what the hell is going on until the fight's over...

What game is that again? Because I'll tell you straight: it bears no resemblance to the 4th Edition D&D we have an awesome time playing every Sunday afternoon.


----------



## Pentius

MichaelSomething said:


> I think I lost some hit points reading through this thread...
> 
> How do I get them back and how would you narrate it?




"Oh, for the love of God..."

*Pentius has used Divine Word!
*MichaelSomething regains 18hp!

Feeling the blessings of the Raven Queen upon him, MichaelSomething realizes his papercut has been healed.  However, he feels a strange urge to parry incoming sword attacks with his tongue!


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> The assumptions you've chosen to make directly contradict the book.




I quoted to you the section in the 4E PHB that said when you hit with a combat attack, you do damage. Someone else pointed out the Injury Poison section in 3.5, that connects HP loss to a wound. I don't think the book is consistent here.

If it helps to repeat it:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Injury
> 
> This poison must be delivered through a wound. If a creature has sufficient damage reduction to avoid taking any damage from the attack, the poison does not affect it.






> But if 3.5 in-combat healing doesn't count as making combats longer because you don't have to do it, then 4e in-combat healing doesn't count as making combats longer, because you don't have to do it.



If the dynamics of the game have changed such that people who didn't find it productive to heal in-combat in 3.5 found it productive to heal in 4e (and I get the impression there's less concern about getting the one character that can heal into touch range to heal in 4e) then that's a change that 4e made that it has to live up to.

In any case, it's beside the point. If one group is saying this is what happened to them when they played, and another group is saying that doesn't happen to them, the fairest explanation, the one you should start at, is that it is indeed happening to the first group and not the second.


----------



## Pentius

prosfilaes said:


> I quoted to you the section in the 4E PHB that said when you hit with a combat attack, you do damage. Someone else pointed out the Injury Poison section in 3.5, that connects HP loss to a wound. I don't think the book is consistent here.



I think you're on to something here.  Why, the 4e PHB isn't consistent with the 3.5 SRD at all!  That should come as a surprise to no one.



> If it helps to repeat it:
> 
> 
> If the dynamics of the game have changed such that people who didn't find it productive to heal in-combat in 3.5 found it productive to heal in 4e (and I get the impression there's less concern about getting the one character that can heal into touch range to heal in 4e) then that's a change that 4e made that it has to live up to.



Not buying it.  I'll buy that it was a workable strategy in 3.5 to ignore in combat healing in favor of winning faster.  In 4e, that is still a workable strategy.  And in both, I would assume the average group does use in combat healing.  



> In any case, it's beside the point. If one group is saying this is what happened to them when they played, and another group is saying that doesn't happen to them, the fairest explanation, the one you should start at, is that it is indeed happening to the first group and not the second.



I'm not saying, "Surges can't make combat longer."  I am saying that if PCs regaining HP in the middle of a battle makes that battle longer, it does not matter, to the length of the battle, whether those HP are from a surge or a cure spell, or a potion, or any other means of regaining HP in combat.

I'm saying healing in combat is nothing new.


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> I think you're on to something here.  Why, the 4e PHB isn't consistent with the 3.5 SRD at all!  That should come as a surprise to no one.




You're not reading what I'm writing. The 4e PHB says "If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. ... When you hit you usually do damage and sometimes produce some other effect." (page 276, left column, top two paragraphs.) Not "cause a lose of HP", "do damage".


----------



## Pentius

prosfilaes said:


> You're not reading what I'm writing. The 4e PHB says "If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. ... When you hit you usually do damage and sometimes produce some other effect." (page 276, left column, top two paragraphs.) Not "cause a lose of HP", "do damage".




No, I'm reading what you're saying, I'm just disagreeing.  I am disagreeing that the use of the word damage, here in layman's terms, overrides the spelled out definitions of hit points and healing.  You are claiming this creates tension and inconsistency within the rules.  I am contesting this as nitpicking.  I am also discounting your reference to the 3.5 SRD, which has no bearing on 4e rules.


----------



## NewJeffCT

Pentius said:


> Not buying it.  I'll buy that it was a workable strategy in 3.5 to ignore in combat healing in favor of winning faster.  In 4e, that is still a workable strategy.  And in both, I would assume the average group does use in combat healing.
> 
> 
> I'm not saying, "Surges can't make combat longer."  I am saying that if PCs regaining HP in the middle of a battle makes that battle longer, it does not matter, to the length of the battle, whether those HP are from a surge or a cure spell, or a potion, or any other means of regaining HP in combat.
> 
> I'm saying healing in combat is nothing new.




I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and I've never seen it where it's been workable to avoid healing in combat, across any edition.  As I said several pages back now, if my PCs weren't casting/manifesting "Revivify" at least once or twice or more times per combat in my 3.5E game, I felt I wasn't doing my job as DM.  (Revivify was an in combat Raise Dead that left a PC stable at -1 hit points if cast within one round of death - or longer if it's a Psionic Revivify.)  And, once a PC is Revivified, they can get additional healing and be back in the combat without missing their turn in the initiative.

And, if you think a Healing Surge is too much healing, what about Heal, Mass Cure spells or Mass Heal?


----------



## Dausuul

NewJeffCT said:


> I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and I've never seen it where it's been workable to avoid healing in combat, across any edition.  As I said several pages back now, if my PCs weren't casting/manifesting "Revivify" at least once or twice or more times per combat in my 3.5E game, I felt I wasn't doing my job as DM.  (Revivify was an in combat Raise Dead that left a PC stable at -1 hit points if cast within one round of death - or longer if it's a Psionic Revivify.)  And, once a PC is Revivified, they can get additional healing and be back in the combat without missing their turn in the initiative.




Most of us didn't play at a level where casting Revivify, Heal, or Mass Cure every combat was feasible. At lower levels (5-10, the "sweet spot"), healing spells in combat are generally a waste of the cleric's time. That's a round better used to cast a buff spell or attack the enemy.

In 4E, healing is usually a minor action, so the cleric isn't giving up an attack to use it. That makes it far more tactically sound.


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> I am disagreeing that the use of the word damage, here in layman's terms, overrides the spelled out definitions of hit points and healing.




I'm not interested in the rules lawyer interpretation of whether it overrides the spelled out definition. I'm interested in whether D&D coherently and consistently expresses the view you claim it does. You said:



Pentius said:


> *If your way of narrating the events doesn't match the boundaries the rules set, that is ON YOU.*   So maybe 4e doesn't quite jive with the way you've butchered the  system for 20 years.  That isn't 4e's fault.  The system has always been  intended for HP to be abstract.




If you're trying to teach a subtle point in a subject, you make sure you're clear about that point, especially if you _know_ you've got students who misunderstand it, you don't use language sloppily. That is 4e's fault. Furthermore, the 3.5 SRD goes to show that if the intent is for HP to be abstract, it wasn't expressed in at least the edition preceding 4e. In fact, the 3.5 SRD says



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. ... The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points.




and the glossary of the 3.5 PHB says



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> *hit points (hp)*: A measure of a character's health or an object's integrity. Damage decreases current hit points, and lost hit points return with healing or natural recovery.




and twice under Combat Basics (pg 135)



			
				PHB said:
			
		

> Hit points represent how much damage a character can take before falling unconscious or dying.




So the contention that all earlier editions had HP represent something besides simple damage seems incorrect, making this a change from the immediately preceding edition. Not only that, it's a change that's not clearly and consistently stated; it lapses back into a simple HP loss=damage. If we find it odd, it's not because we've been completely ignoring the system for 20 years.


----------



## NewJeffCT

Dausuul said:


> Most of us didn't play at a level where casting Revivify, Heal, or Mass Cure every combat was feasible. At lower levels (5-10, the "sweet spot"), healing spells in combat are generally a waste of the cleric's time. That's a round better used to cast a buff spell or attack the enemy.
> 
> In 4E, healing is usually a minor action, so the cleric isn't giving up an attack to use it. That makes it far more tactically sound.




Interesting - so, you never got up to a level where Close Wounds was an option in 3.5E?  (Immediate Action - cures d4 + 1hp/level - level 2 spell)

And, review the description - _If you cast this spell immediately after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage.  It would keep alive someone who had just dropped to -10 hit points._

Isn't that what everybody was complaining about with healing surges - it's like the damage never happened?  Yet, we had the same thing going on in previous editions.  (also, please note, I have not played that healing surges are like damage never happened - I play it like being hit with a Cure Light Wounds from previous editions)

And, Revivify is a level 5 spell, so it was available in that "sweet spot" you mentioned.  I guess my groups have felt that getting a comrade back into fighting shape to be more important than casting Prayer or Bless, especially if half the party is not within the range of the spell.


----------



## Pentius

prosfilaes said:


> I'm not interested in the rules lawyer interpretation of whether it overrides the spelled out definition. I'm interested in whether D&D coherently and consistently expresses the view you claim it does.



For someone not interested in rules lawyer interpretations, you are clinging really hard to one word that didn't get spelled out explicitly.





> If you're trying to teach a subtle point in a subject, you make sure you're clear about that point, especially if you _know_ you've got students who misunderstand it, you don't use language sloppily. That is 4e's fault. Furthermore, the 3.5 SRD goes to show that if the intent is for HP to be abstract, it wasn't expressed in at least the edition preceding 4e. In fact, the 3.5 SRD says



And it also says:
"What Hit Points Represent
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" -Link

And on page 145 of the 3.5 PHB, the full version:
"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the 
game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, 
and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For 
some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner 
power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to 
convince bystanders that she doesn’t have the favor of some higher 
power."



> So the contention that all earlier editions had HP represent something besides simple damage seems incorrect, making this a change from the immediately preceding edition. Not only that, it's a change that's not clearly and consistently stated; it lapses back into a simple HP loss=damage. If we find it odd, it's not because we've been completely ignoring the system for 20 years.



The claim that earlier editions intended HP to represent something besides physical bodily harm is not incorrect.  They may have done it inconsistently across various mechanics, but the intent is obvious in the paragraph I quoted, as well as numerous others I'll forego quoting since they have already been brought up in this thread.


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> And it also says:
> "What Hit Points Represent
> Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" -Link




Which is fundamentally what I've argued for; that high HP is about turning serious blows into less serious ones, not avoiding them altogether.


----------



## Hussar

Well, let's look at what 4e ACTUALLY says about hit points:



			
				Compendium said:
			
		

> Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.
> 
> When you create your character, you determine your maximum hit points. From this number, you derive your bloodied and healing surge values. When you take damage, subtract that number from your current hit points. As long as your current hit point total is higher than 0, you can keep on fighting.
> 
> When your current total drops to 0 or lower, however, you are dying.
> 
> Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing. You might regain hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic. When you heal, add the number to your current hit points. You can heal up to your maximum hit point total, but you can’t exceed it.
> /snipped for unnecessary verbiage.




Always useful to actually go to the source.  The SRD is so abbreviated, that it becomes quite misleading in conversations like these.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Well, let's look at what 4e ACTUALLY says about hit points:
> 
> 
> 
> Always useful to actually go to the source. The SRD is so abbreviated, that it becomes quite misleading in conversations like these.




I think this largely boils down to some people can buy that definition and other people have a harder time with it. This is all preference at this stage. If you like healing surges you like them; if you don't, you don't. Like all 4E debates it pretty much is that simple. Nothing I can say will convince Hussar to adopt my preferences (nor should it) and nothing Hussar can say will convince me to adopt his. This thread has gone on for a great length of time. I do not believe anyone has changed their mind in that time.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Imaro said:


> Uhm... no.  We didn't start a thread called  "Hey, I don't understand why you guys like healing surges..."
> 
> I'm not making any pretense about trying to understand why you guys like them, I can accept that you do for your own reasons (the logic of which makes no difference to me)...but that's as far as it goes.  What I don't get is why people who like them come rushing into a thread asking why others don't, to defend and try to get them to see the error of their ways....




Well, let's be honest here, Imaro... I was in this thread a full two pages before you showed up... so you aren't exactly the best person to complain about "rushing into a thread"...  

If Dannyalcatraz, Dausuul or Oryan77 got bent out of shape about us talking the other side of the thread they've been posting since the beginning... then maybe I'd concur.  You don't get to claim ownership though.


----------



## Bagpuss

Nagol said:


> A game with them reminds me of the movie the _Last Action Hero_  -- if the hero is alive, it's only a flesh wound.




D&D has always had that though a character on 1 hp is as effective as one on 30hp or 100hp.

Sure you us to have to have magical healing or lots of time to recover, but wounds never effected your performance like they do in most other systems.


----------



## Imaro

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, let's be honest here, Imaro... I was in this thread a full two pages before you showed up... so you aren't exactly the best person to complain about "rushing into a thread"...
> 
> If Dannyalcatraz, Dausuul or Oryan77 got bent out of shape about us talking the other side of the thread they've been posting since the beginning... then maybe I'd concur. You don't get to claim ownership though.




Hey... you asked a question and I gave you an honest answer. I feel like this always happens in threads where someone is curious about why certain people don't like a particular aspect of 4e. 

Reasons for not liking somethinng are posted in good faith in the thread... but really there's no effort of trying to understand it's more an opportunity for those who like whatever aspect of 4e we are discussing to rush in and tell all those who don't like that particular aspect why they should (very few posters try to understand the issues peole have and suggest ways to change 4e to suit their tastes)... it's pointless and tiring... and in all honesty has done more to put me off 4e than the actual game has.

A prime example is the grind and length of combat, the suggestions from posters on how to fix it has made 4e at least a little more palatable for me and my group.... telling me I'm imagining it or that if I dealt with the combat of earlier editions I should accept it in no way helps and in fact irritates me more. But hey to each his own.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> Hey... you asked a question and I gave you an honest answer. I feel like this always happens in threads where someone is curious about why certain people don't like a particular aspect of 4e.
> 
> Reasons for not liking somethinng are posted in good faith in the thread... but really there's no effort of trying to understand it's more an opportunity for those who like whatever aspect of 4e we are discussing to rush in and tell all those who don't like that particular aspect why they should (very few posters try to understand the issues peole have and suggest ways to change 4e to suit their tastes)... it's pointless and tiring... and in all honesty has done more to put me off 4e than the actual game has.
> 
> A prime example is the grind and length of combat, the suggestions from posters on how to fix it has made 4e at least a little more palatable for me and my group.... telling me I'm imagining it or that if I dealt with the combat of earlier editions I should accept it in no way helps and in fact irritates me more. But hey to each his own.




I think this is a big problem with these threads on 3E, 4E, etc. I assume the OP wants some insight into why some people don't like healing surges. But there will be no insight if posters give the reason for their preference, but are told their preference is wrong and a debate ensues. I also just don't get the point of these kinds of back and forth anymore.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Bedrockgames said:


> I think this is a big problem with these threads on 3E, 4E, etc. I assume the OP wants some insight into why some people don't like healing surges. But there will be no insight if posters give the reason for their preference, but are told their preference is wrong and a debate ensues. I also just don't get the point of these kinds of back and forth anymore.




But what's wrong with debate?  Debate is good.  Debate allows you to make your points and then see the other side, perhaps even expanding your own vision on the subject.

What would you prefer to have?  People come on here, say their one piece of why they don't like healing surges, and that's it?  The thread would pretty much have died out 6 pages ago because once you make that single post explaining why you don't like it... there's nothing more to say.  A dozen people rant for a paragraph, and then the thread goes away.  What would be the point?

The fact that someone on the _other side of the question_ asked the question in the first place pretty much presumes that there will be discussion on the subject.  The fact that people responded to him tells us that those who didn't like healing surges CARED ENOUGH about their opinions to try and make a point to someone who didn't hold the same.

This wasn't someone posting "I hate healing surges, who's with me?" and then getting a response from like-minded individuals.  This was someone on the other side asking a question TO GENERATE CONVERSATION.  So really... it's your side that resulted in all the debate in the first place... because your side felt the desire to respond to Mercurius with your opinions.  And don't get bent out of shape just because others on Mercurius' side felt like adding their voices to it.

If you didn't care to have the conversation, you wouldn't have taken Mercurius up on his question.


----------



## Nagol

Bagpuss said:


> D&D has always had that though a character on 1 hp is as effective as one on 30hp or 100hp.
> 
> Sure you us to have to have magical healing or lots of time to recover, but wounds never effected your performance like they do in most other systems.




It is true D&D always avoided the general combat death spiral, but not necessarily all aspects of "It's only a flesh wound!" situation.  One of my complaints with healing surges is the game device that below 0 your dying and as soon as you wake up it is a flesh wound and a few deep breaths and about 10 minutes or recovery and you'll be fine.  A good night's rest puts you back to the peak of health -- unless you're diseased, of course.  This is even better than the deal many of the cinematic good guys get - John McClane in _Die Hard_ has the persistent foot damage and is certainly showing wear and tear overall by the end of the movie, for instance.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it hasn't always been this case.  1e had the rule where if you fell below 0 then it was a BAD BAD thing and successful groups fought long and hard to keep people conscious and devise situations where the group was in control of the battelfield because the consequences could be so dire.

3e loosened the consequences, but even in it there certainly have been a bunch of times at my table where the group did not heal overnight because the damage outclassed their healing capability or they taken damage that wouldn't heal (ability damage/drain, vargiulle'skiss, whatever) and pressed on regardless in the morning because the party goals demanded it.


----------



## Nagol

DEFCON 1 said:


> <snip>
> 
> What would you prefer to have?  People come on here, say their one piece of why they don't like healing surges, and that's it?  The thread would pretty much have died out 6 pages ago because once you make that single post explaining why you don't like it... there's nothing more to say.  A dozen people rant for a paragraph, and then the thread goes away.  What would be the point?
> 
> <snip>




Yes; that's exactly what I'd like.  people come on, say their piece perhaps a request for clarity or further exposition if the original wasn't sufficient.  Perhaps pointing out when their rationale is objectively incorrect, i.e. I don't like chocolate ice cream because I hate its pink colour -- perhaps you meant strawberry? Chocolate is brown).

What I don't like is people jumping on and saying "I played the game for X years and I've never experienced that!  It's always worked like this for me!" or "It's works fine so long as you squint like this, don't think of that, and go with the flow!"  I'm sure their viewpoints and experiences are true.  However, they don't match mine.


*EDIT*

I come into the threads that ask for my experience to provide it, not to debate the validity of that experience.


----------



## Bedrockgames

DEFCON 1 said:


> But what's wrong with debate? Debate is good. Debate allows you to make your points and then see the other side, perhaps even expanding your own vision on the subject.




There is nothing wrong with a debate. But if someone is just asking "hey why are healing surges a problem for you", I don't think the best response to replies is to aggressively grill the people. The problem is people are debating preferences the same way they would debate facts. There are definitely threads where I think a debate about healing surges would be fine (though like I said these debates pretty much amount to nothing in the end). But the thread topic really seems more like a clarfication issue. Sort of like if I made a thread called "People who like 4E, help me understand your enjoyment of the edition." It wouldn't make much sense to jump on the posters who respond and get into a debate over 4E versus 3E. One certainly could do that, but it won't address the OPs original question really. 




> This wasn't someone posting "I hate healing surges, who's with me?" and then getting a response from like-minded individuals. This was someone on the other side asking a question TO GENERATE CONVERSATION. So really... it's your side that resulted in all the debate in the first place... because your side felt the desire to respond to Mercurius with your opinions. And don't get bent out of shape just because others on Mercurius' side felt like adding their voices to it.




The the "I hate healing surges, who is with me" thread souds like a much more appropriate platform for heated debate. If you disagree with the thread title you are going to want to put in your two cents. This thread is more "help me understand why you don't like healing surges" IMO. 

I am actually not getting bent out of shape at all (check out my posts I've been pretty calm). It doesn't bother me that people don't share my opinions. I am just agreeing with another poster's observation that it is not very productive to have a thread about clarifying the reason for the negative response toward healing surges to become a debate about healing surges.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> It is true D&D always avoided the general combat death spiral, but not necessarily all aspects of "It's only a flesh wound!" situation.  One of my complaints with healing surges is the game device that below 0 your dying and as soon as you wake up it is a flesh wound and a few deep breaths and about 10 minutes or recovery and you'll be fine.  A good night's rest puts you back to the peak of health -- unless you're diseased, of course.  This is even better than the deal many of the cinematic good guys get - John McClane in _Die Hard_ has the persistent foot damage and is certainly showing wear and tear overall by the end of the movie, for instance.
> 
> As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it hasn't always been this case.  1e had the rule where if you fell below 0 then it was a BAD BAD thing and successful groups fought long and hard to keep people conscious and devise situations where the group was in control of the battelfield because the consequences could be so dire.
> 
> 3e loosened the consequences, but even in it there certainly have been a bunch of times at my table where the group did not heal overnight because the damage outclassed their healing capability or they taken damage that wouldn't heal (ability damage/drain, vargiulle'skiss, whatever) and pressed on regardless in the morning because the party goals demanded it.




I can see why that would trip people up.  To be honest, it's never really been a consideration in my groups because we stopped playing 1e 20 years ago.  Since then, it's been, "Drop below 0 hp, the cleric steps in and hits you with cure light wounds and you're fresh as rain again."

And, depending on the edition, it was either a matter of a few minutes, or perhaps a day or two of rest and the cleric had all your hp's restored to you again.  So, again, this specific point isn't one where I see a huge difference.  Does it really matter that I'm right as rain the next day because the cleric healed me or because the game mechanics allow me to regain hp's that fast?  At the end of the day (or rather, at the start of the next one. ) I've still got all my hp's back and I'm good to go.

I guess I just look at the results.  How we got there just doesn't really matter to me.  

But I can totally grok that other people care about the process.  So, yeah, if the process really bugs you, then 4e is not going to do it for you.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Nagol said:


> I come into the threads that ask for my experience to provide it, not to debate the validity of that experience.




Well, then why do you continue to post here then?

You could have just read what others posted, then posted your own experience and then left the thread.  You would have gotten what you wanted.

Doesn't the fact that you continue to post and further the conversation tell us that just posting your experience isn't enough?  You want to make further points?


----------



## DEFCON 1

Bedrockgames said:


> The "I hate healing surges, who is with me" thread souds like a much more appropriate platform for heated debate. If you disagree with the thread title you are going to want to put in your two cents. This thread is more "help me understand why you don't like healing surges" IMO.




Which is the exact opposite of how I see it, funnily enough.

If I'm at a party and I say 'Everyone here who's left-handed, come join me in the kitchen to talk about being left-handed!'... and then a bunch of the right-handed people show up to say why being right-handed is better... to me, that's them being dicks and showing up uninvited.  NOT me opening up a conversation about which handedness is better.


----------



## Nagol

DEFCON 1 said:


> Well, then why do you continue to post here then?
> 
> You could have just read what others posted, then posted your own experience and then left the thread.  You would have gotten what you wanted.
> 
> Doesn't the fact that you continue to post and further the conversation tell us that just posting your experience isn't enough?  You want to make further points?




By and large, no.

If I were original poster, I prefer a brief explanation simply so collecting the rationales and seeing the types and level of response becomes simpler.

As a responder to the original post,  I have some interest in other experiences so I continue to read the thread.  As most conversations do, a thread can meander into new territory and elicit a new response from me. 

Looking at my postings in this thread, my general tendency is to present and clarify my position, correct objective mistakes, and to answer new tangential questions like "Would X relieve the difficulty I've experienced?" or "Would I prefer a conversation that goes like Y?".  

I try not to engage in debate surrounding how others play or perceive the game even when presented with statements that could be considered attempts to invalidate my experience.  I say general tendency because I am not perfect and can get drawn into pointless asides and/or arguments about experiential validity despite my best intentions.


----------



## Imaro

DEFCON 1 said:


> Which is the exact opposite of how I see it, funnily enough.
> 
> If I'm at a party and I say 'Everyone here who's left-handed, come join me in the kitchen to talk about being left-handed!'... and then a bunch of the right-handed people show up to say why being right-handed is better... to me, that's them being dicks and showing up uninvited. NOT me opening up a conversation about which handedness is better.




You mean like if you were at a a party and someone who was right-handed said... "Hey left-handers (people who don't like HS's), I'm not understanding why you guys prefer being left-handed to right...can those of you who do prefer it explaion to me why... and then 2 secs later someone whose right-handed (likes healing surges) decides to tell you, and all the left-handers that were giving you reasons (even though it was never askked),  why being right-handed is better?? You mean being that type of dick at a party that turns it into a pointless argument as opposed to the attempt at understanding a different PoV it was suppose to be?  Yeah, I could see that...


----------



## Bedrockgames

I dont think we need to get hostile toward one another. I am debating defcon on some things but he does make good points about the conversation. I guess to clarify i have no problem with people debating but i think much of the focus has shifted from measurable things to kess measurable things. Like I said saying hs don't feal realistic enough or tgat they disrupt continuity for me is a statement of preference it isn't an objective statement about the rules. And i can see how for others hs are perfectly realistic.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Just a little thought exercise:  Start with 3.5 (or 3E or PF or even Arcana Evolved, I'm not picky).  Decide that you want to entirely remove "save or die", and almost entirely remove "save or suck".  Decide what kind of pacing you want in combat, how intricate you want it to be, how long you want it to take.   Take a good shot at it.  Playtest it.  Release it into the wild.  

I practically guarantee that you'll miss either the pacing or the time targets, and probably both.  And this will have almost nothing to do with how much or what kind of healing is availabe in or out of combat.  If you radically overcompensate towards simple rules, fast combat, and don't care about the pacing, I might be wrong about healing--but you'll have other issues due to that radical shift.

Once it has been out awhile, adjust.  You'll get pretty close to what you wanted.  A lot of people that don't like your design goals will not like your healing paradigm, no matter what it is.  The comparative lack of save and die/suck will be ignored due to its absense in your ruleset.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Imaro said:


> You mean being that type of dick at a party that turns it into a pointless argument as opposed to the attempt at understanding a different PoV it was suppose to be?  Yeah, I could see that...




Actually... I don't feel this has been a pointless argument or thread at all.  And I HAVE been attempting to understand all of your points of view all along, which is why I keep asking questions of all of you.  In fact... I've re-thought a position of mine during the course of this thread that I hadn't really had before... so for my money, this thread has been a success because my mind has been changed in a minor way.  Not my major points... I still feel those are valid... but a minor point where I said to myself "Okay, I see where they're coming from, that actually makes more sense."

But if you're getting pissy because we're having the conversation, then as I said to Nagol... just don't have the conversation.  You don't have to address my posts.  In fact, you can put my on Ignore and not even see them if it bothers you that much.  Doesn't matter to me in the least.  But as I said above... since I've been talking to folks in this thread longer than you have... you don't get to decide whether I'm allowed in.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

DEFCON 1 said:


> But what's wrong with debate? Debate is good. Debate allows you to make your points and then see the other side, perhaps even expanding your own vision on the subject.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you didn't care to have the conversation, you wouldn't have taken Mercurius up on his question.




I mainly agree with you, but I think the hole in that argument is the difference between "debate" versus "conversation". The subject is a great conversation topic. It is a pretty lousy debate topic. That we have some debate in the conversation is natural and fine. That all of these topics tend to turn into lousy debates is often reflective of the topic itself. I suppose we really ought to branch the debates off into their own, better framed topics.

Suppose you ask me and people like me, "Why don't you like Dodge vehicles?" We can have a conversation about it, but we can't have a decent debate. A great deal of my dislike of Dodge vehicles is intuition, aesthetics, and even a bunch of stuff that has very little to do with the practical and logical requirements and uses of a vehicle. I'm sure a certain amount of it is irrational. But a certain amount that will seem irrational to other people has a stronger basis than that. Yet, I'll find it difficult to explain--because I don't like Dodge vehicles well enough to explore them more than I have. 

A better debate topic would be something like, "How do you prefer to see healing handled in D&D, and why?" That puts all D&D players that care enough to participate on an equal footing, and then they bring whatever experiences and insights they have to that topic. IMHO.

Edit, Re: Defcon 1's response:  Didn't mean to be nitpicky about word choices there.  The word choices happened to spark the thought, is all.


----------



## DEFCON 1

Crazy Jerome said:


> I mainly agree with you, but I think the hole in that argument is the difference between "debate" versus "conversation". The subject is a great conversation topic. It is a pretty lousy debate topic.




True enough.  Although truth be told I wasn't even thinking of the words that specifically when I used them as you mention here.  Replace 'debate' and 'conversation' with 'message board discussion' to get closer to what I really meant.

But anyway... since we've gotten away from the topics at hand and we've now moved into message board discussion formatting and etiquette... I'm going to just take my own advice and end the conversation for myself.


----------



## Imaro

DEFCON 1 said:


> Actually... I don't feel this has been a pointless argument or thread at all. And I HAVE been attempting to understand all of your points of view all along, which is why I keep asking questions of all of you. In fact... I've re-thought a position of mine during the course of this thread that I hadn't really had before... so for my money, this thread has been a success because my mind has been changed in a minor way. Not my major points... I still feel those are valid... but a minor point where I said to myself "Okay, I see where they're coming from, that actually makes more sense."
> 
> But if you're getting pissy because we're having the conversation, then as I said to Nagol... just don't have the conversation. You don't have to address my posts. In fact, you can put my on Ignore and not even see them if it bothers you that much. Doesn't matter to me in the least. But as I said above... since I've been talking to folks in this thread longer than you have... you don't get to decide whether I'm allowed in.




Not pissy at all, just showing how your analogy could go both ways, even though you may not see it.  I don't want to put you on ignore either, honestly you just came off to me as overly aggressive and sinking more into a 3.x vs. 4e mentality as opposed to a let's discuss healing surges mentality.  Now granted you aren't/weren't  the only one who was going there, but you were the one I felt that from.   No offense was  intended though.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Does it really matter that I'm right as rain the next day because the cleric healed me or because the game mechanics allow me to regain hp's that fast?  At the end of the day (or rather, at the start of the next one. ) I've still got all my hp's back and I'm good to go.
> 
> I guess I just look at the results.  How we got there just doesn't really matter to me.



If you "just look at the results" then absolutely, there is no reason to care.

If the game is just about how did THIS battle work out and how did THAT battle work out and did THIS have any direct impact on THAT, then it makes ZERO difference.

But, if the game is about the story OF THIS and THAT and ALSO about the story that lead to THIS and followed THAT and also about how everything happened going from THIS and getting to THAT, then the difference between narrative and gamist expediency is the difference between night and day.  The difference is everything.

Which again comes back to neither point of view is right or wrong, but they are radically different and it is a shame that the shadow of a brand name creates a false expectation of different paths to the same destination.


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> If you "just look at the results" then absolutely, there is no reason to care.
> 
> If the game is just about how did THIS battle work out and how did THAT battle work out and did THIS have any direct impact on THAT, then it makes ZERO difference.
> 
> But, if the game is about the story OF THIS and THAT and ALSO about the story that lead to THIS and followed THAT and also about how everything happened going from THIS and getting to THAT, then the difference between narrative and gamist expediency is the difference between night and day.  The difference is everything.
> 
> Which again comes back to neither point of view is right or wrong, but they are radically different and it is a shame that the shadow of a brand name creates a false expectation of different paths to the same destination.




OOoh, I was so with you right up to that last sentence.  Why is it people have to define D&D as "D&D is what I like"?  

You don't like healing surges.  That's groovy.  No worries.  But, why does that suddenly make 4e a "shadow of a brand name"?  

Every single edition caters to different tastes and styles.  To the point where those tastes and styles are actually contradictory.  Yet, I miss the point where you are claiming that 3e isn't D&D and is a "shadow of a brand name".  After all, 3e is much, much farther apart from, say, Basic/Expert D&D than it is to 4e.

Thing is, most of the time, the difference makes virtually no difference at all.  Sure, if someone gets dropped, then it might be difficult to narrate.  But, unless that happens, you narrate 4e pretty much the exact same way as every other edition (mostly linear) with the occasional hiccup when someone interrupts something.  This isn't going to happen every action, and, while it might happen every combat, it's again not going to happen every round.

It's a lot like the difference between 1-2-1 and 1-1-1.  90% of the time, it makes zero difference to the game.  None.  You move and take actions in exactly the same way.  It's just that there is this small subset of actions where it does make a difference.  And, given how much emphasis mobility has in 4e, it makes sense to streamline the rules so that that 10% doesn't bog the game down.

So, most of the time, healing surges work pretty much the same as healing always has.  Does it really matter if the cleric is healing "damage" (whatever that is)?  People talk about having a wounds/vitality system.  Not a bad idea.  Then again, if you swap out the word Hit Points for Vitality, suddenly there's no problem at all.  You run out of vitality, you fall down.  No one helps you and you die.  If someone helps you, then you weren't dying in the first place, you were just knocked out or whatever for a short while.

Again, totally fits with genre expectations and is fairly easy to play.

But, the constant cries of "IT'S NOT REALLY D&D" just take away so much of your point BryonD.  They take what is a really good criticism of 4e and make it so much edition warring crap.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> OOoh, I was so with you right up to that last sentence.  Why is it people have to define D&D as "D&D is what I like"?
> 
> You don't like healing surges.  That's groovy.  No worries.  But, why does that suddenly make 4e a "shadow of a brand name"?




Man, you COMPLETELY misread that.  I in NO WAY said 4E WAS "a shadow of a brand name".  I said "THE shadow of a brand name creates..."

3E is EVERY bit as far removed from older D&D as 4E is.  I make ZERO complaint against EITHER 3E or 4E for being unlike prior editions.

The "shadow" hangs over BOTH 3E and 4E equally and creates in so many people the false preconceived notion that they are the same destination and thus the reality that they are very different becomes a battle instead of "different strokes".

Does that help?


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Thing is, most of the time, the difference makes virtually no difference at all.  Sure, if someone gets dropped, then it might be difficult to narrate.  But, unless that happens, you narrate 4e pretty much the exact same way as every other edition (mostly linear) with the occasional hiccup when someone interrupts something.  This isn't going to happen every action, and, while it might happen every combat, it's again not going to happen every round.



I accept this is true for you.

Do you accept that, for me, EVERY TIME a surge is used it is a nonsensical anti-narrative game effect imposing on the story?

It depends on what is important to you.  And for what is important TO ME, it makes day and night difference perpetually.


----------



## Hussar

Ahhh... ermmmm.... ooops.  

Thanks for that.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> But, the constant cries of "IT'S NOT REALLY D&D" just take away so much of your point BryonD.  They take what is a really good criticism of 4e and make it so much edition warring crap.



Yeah, cause the guy who has READILY made the point that (to you specifically) that the whole is it or is it not "D&D" is stupid from the get go has been stated as my position OVER and OVER.  

You should really consider reading every post you write, finding the places where you put words in someone else's mouth and deleting that part.

Honest question: Are you willing to admit that I've never said "It isn't D&D" and retract your false claim there?


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> Yeah, cause the guy who has READILY made the point that (to you specifically) that the whole is it or is it not "D&D" is stupid from the get go has been stated as my position OVER and OVER.
> 
> You should really consider reading every post you write, finding the places where you put words in someone else's mouth and deleting that part.
> 
> Honest question: Are you willing to admit that I've never said "It isn't D&D" and retract your false claim there?






Hussar said:


> Ahhh... ermmmm.... ooops.
> 
> Thanks for that.




*points to his previous quote* I believe I just did.  

/snip for my own blinding stupidity.

Ahh, no.  My mistake was trying in the first place.  You have a good day now.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I've actually used the phrase "Its not D&D"- with the other phrase "to me"- many a time, though until now not in this thread.

Why?

Because, _as fine a game as 4Ed is,_ it doesn't feel like D&D to me.  Playing it feels like I'm playing some other FRPG.  That is my perception.  It is based on an accumulation of changes in 4Ed that result in the game not hitting my "D&D Button."

And there is no amount of discussion that will change that.

Its kind of like how some people only like Van Halen with David Lee Roth AND Michael Anthony, some prefer Sammy Hagar, 1 guy in 1 million prefers Gary Cherone lead work, and some like the lineup with Michael Anthony replaced by Wolfgang Van Halen.

...and some just like Van Halen.  Or hate the band in any lineup.

And in case you don't get it, the fact that I don't think 4ED feels like D&D to me is in no way a reflection upon your experience interacting with the game.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've actually used the phrase "Its not D&D"- with the other phrase "to me"- many a time, though until now not in this thread.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because, _as fine a game as 4Ed is,_ it doesn't feel like D&D to me.  Playing it feels like I'm playing some other FRPG.  That is my perception.  It is based on an accumulation of changes in 4Ed that result in the game not hitting my "D&D Button."
> 
> And there is no amount of discussion that will change that.
> 
> Its kind of like how some people only like Van Halen with David Lee Roth AND Michael Anthony, some prefer Sammy Hagar, 1 guy in 1 million prefers Gary Cherone lead work, and some like the lineup with Michael Anthony replaced by Wolfgang Van Halen.
> 
> ...and some just like Van Halen.  Or hate the band in any lineup.
> 
> And in case you don't get it, the fact that I don't think 4ED feels like D&D to me is in no way a reflection upon your experience interacting with the game.




And that's fair enough DannyA.  But, typically, "4e isn't really D&D" is never paired with "Because it's too much fun to be D&D."  It's overwhelmingly, "D&D isn't really D&D because I don't like it".  I'm not saying that's universal, but, it's probably the most common response.

How likely something is to be "D&D" is directly proportional to how much someone likes a given edition.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Gaerek said:


> I guess I can see it that was as well. It's funny, because I used that exact quote from the 3e PHB in, oh, around 2001 to show someone that HP were abstract, and not just a bucket of meat.



As far as I can tell, HP is very abstract with the 3.5 interpretation, in that all you know is that you got hit, and that you tried to make it not as bad as it could have been. It's always hitting meat in 3.5, but maybe not very badly.



> If you are ok seeing HP in that way, then that's fine, if it works for you. But, I think that you start running into some very interesting (and immersion rending) problems.



I agree, which is why I have put forth the proposal of two HP pools: physical and "other" (where "other can be tailor made from group to group).



> For example: How come a level-0 commoner can only take 1 sword hit, but the level 15 fighter can take several?



Well, this isn't a problem of 3.5's, actually (though it does have problems). How can that happen? Well, the 15th level Fighter is legendary at turning blows into less serious blows. That gash that takes does the level 1 Commoner? The 15th level Fighter is fast enough to make it a mere graze on his forehead; it broke his skin, but didn't slow him down.



> If you put me (level 0 commoner) side by side with a Navy SEAL (say, level 15 fighter?) and shot us both, we would likely have the same fate. But according to "bucket of meat" HP, that Navy SEAL should be able to take a dozen or more shots before falling. That's just one of the problems.



Navy SEAL = nowhere _near_ level 15 Fighter. Also, a coup de grace is a coup de grace... with bullet damage, you're likely both dead. It's more like, put both you and a Navy SEAL in a combat situation, and see who lasts longer under the same conditions. He wins most of the time.



> Interesting idea. I'm sure there's a few people that would like that, but I know it wouldn't be for me, lol. I'm one of the masochists that used to raid Plane of Fear in Everquest, before all the corpse summoners and resurrection bots...
> 
> If you're not sure what I'm talking about, let's just say there was a very real possibility of losing your corpse (and all of your gear) and having it disappear with all your gear if you wiped and couldn't get another raid up there to rescue. Almost happened once. I had to skip classes that day or risk missing a chance at getting back to my corpse. Was a bad day I never wanted to repeat, lol.



Oh yeah, I'm sure they servers would be pretty empty, with those few players  
who made it to higher level just ganking all the little guys for laughs. It'd be terrible. I'm not saying it's good for the public at large, I'm just commenting on my play style in general.



> Understandable. I think the way we used to balance encounters was that lower level combat tended to not be as draining. But at higher levels, all bets were off. That was my experience through about a dozen different groups I've played with in my 20 years.



I like lower level D&D play just because it seems to fit the stories I like better. You can get taken out by being overwhelmed by mundane forces, but you can still be a badass at times. If I ever run 3.5 again (outside of going back to one particular campaign), it'll be E6. I might play in one at some point, but I probably won't.



> Again, interesting. But it's similar to what I do. The players, whether they know it or not call the shots. Though, I have the opposite problem. If I give them more RP style encounters, or non-combat encounters...they will turn them into combat encounters, heh.



It really depends on the party that my players are playing as. In the past, they've been all about combat, killing demons left and right. This time, they're taking their time, being cautious, and trying to expand their territory as warlords.



> I think there's a general misunderstanding of healing surges. The name tends to evoke the idea that a player can heal themselves. And, to an extent, that's true. In combat, every player gets a second wind. This can be used as a standard action (meaning, you can basically only move this turn), once per encounter, that allows you to use a healing surge. A healing surge heals 25% of your HP (rounded down). In general, this is the only way a player can use a healing surge in combat. Abilities and healing potions do not heal directly, they allow the use of healing surges (in most cases, there are exceptions). A potion of healing allows a character to burn a healing surge in exchange for 10hp. A cleric can use healing word (twice per encounter) to allow a character to use a healing surge. A cleric can also choose Cure XXXX Wounds that heals back HP without a healing surge, but it's a daily spell, and the cleric would have had to take it in place of another daily. So in essense, a healing surge is a limitation on the amount of healing a player can receive in a day (after an extended rest, or 8 hours, they get all healing surges back). I think of it more like endurance. When you're out of surges, you're exhausted, and you need to rest. You simply cannot continue.



Yeah, that'd strike me as really wrong or immersion breaking. If someone is out of healing surges, why can't you magically heal them? If they're currently bloodied, why can they use a standard to heal wounds permanently? I can see the "Diehard" thing, maybe, with the bloodied incident, but it's still turning a potentially serious wound into a less serious wound via retconning, to many groups (you'd have to have a GM that's careful not to make any bloodied wound too serious to avoid it). And that would hurt my immersion.

However, if healing simply doesn't work anymore for some reason, that'd strike me as wrong. No matter how many healers we bring it, we can only heal him if we have the correct encounter power that heals "X" without using a surge? What do the other healing spells represent, then?



> Most people are mostly ok (with some exceptions, not going into them here, as they've been discussed on this thread already) with that mechanic. What gets a lot of people is that between combats, during a short rest (5 minute break) a character can use as many surges as they want to heal themself up. So now, they're ready for the next fight, with no downtime. Anyway, that's how the mechanic works, basically, so if that's what you thought, then you understand. If not, well, now you do.



It was very informative, thank you. Please don't think I'm challenging you. The questions above were rhetorical, to inform you of my objections based on the very useful information you provided me. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand this issue a little more clearly.



> Ahh, ok. Makes more sense now.



Yeah, not as bad as you might have thought!



> I understand where you're coming from now. In context of D&D in general, it doesn't make much sense. But in the game you've created, well, that's the game you and your group want to play, and more power to you.



Yes, D&D has always had the characters been a cut above most people. Most people are level 0's, or level 1 Commoners, or the like. So, I'm not saying that my game would work for D&D, and I don't want D&D to look like my game. However, I want D&D to support the amount of narrative range my game has available. Anything less, and I'll just play my game, where more stories can be told.



> That's the grittyness you enjoy. For me, balance is a pretty important factor in the game.



Oh, me too. I took three things into account when making my game: realism (which is mainly where grittiness kicked in), fantasy (which really offsets realism), and balance (nothing underpowered or overpowered). These were the big three. And, I think I achieved that. But, that dash of grittiness is ever-present, but people are very balanced at the same hit die, in my opinion. I've had playtesting occur for about two years as the system's been refined, and the system settled a couple months ago, when we ran out of problems to fix.



> In my eyes, a generic, one size fits all system would be fairly boring. Even if your game supports the way my group wants to play, I'd rather play 4e since it will excell at what we want. Whereas in your system, it might be possible, but it's more of a jack of all trades, master of none. BUT, the benefit is, of course, being able to do whatever you want, and have the system support that. 4e supports a lot of options, but many things are pretty non-negotiable.



Well, my game excels at combat if everyone invests in combat. My game excels at a diplomatic, court-focused game, if people invest in diplomatic, court-focused skills. My game excels at craftsmanship if people invest in craftsmanship. The only real thing you need total acceptance on if you want a very focused game is for player buy-in. If you want a combat-focused game, make sure everyone heavily invests in combat. Otherwise, you get a battlemage, a pyromancer, a sword and board two-weapon fighter, a dirty-fighting and backstabbing thief, a hulking barbarian with a massive axe, and a scholar. And in your game, since it's combat focused, the scholar will die. Mind you, he'll be really good at his duties, but he'll die in a combat-focused game.

Now, I know I say "my game excels at" but that's just taste. It doesn't support minis as well (though you could easily use them), nor does it support forced movement as well (though you could build a character that does so). So, 4e probably is better at what you want than my game would be.

However, my game was built for player options and a wide narrative range. Teleporting long distances permanently drains resources. Don't want it? Houserule: now it doesn't. It's quick, it's simple, it eliminates the problem. Your world just opened up to fit your narrative. I'd rather have built-in restrictions that are easy to lift off than no restrictions but a smaller narrative range.

Now, if there's restrictions, how can it support more narratives? Well, when teleporting long distances becomes commonplace for a party, then you wind up losing any sort of story where overt build-up is possible. You can't hear of the orcs to the far north building up an army without the PCs teleporting in and stopping it early. And, if the PCs aren't high enough levels, why not the NPCs? However, if you remove that option, then the game supports more narratives, in my opinion. And, you can choose to always strip away the restriction if on teleporting if you want to, or plane-hopping, or permanently enchanting people or items, or whatever.

Just my philosophy on it. I'd rather have to learn one system that supports a wide narrative range than learn a bunch of systems that allow different stories. But, that's preference, and I understand when people disagree. And I'm cool with that. I hope 5e focuses on narrative range, and if they follow the "dials" approach, maybe they will. I don't know if I like the idea of dials, but I don't know the implementation yet, so I can't say. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.



> I can see that. Again, my thoughts follow the more heroic, cinematic feel. Whereas in your system, the journey is what's important, in 4e, the destination seems to be where it's at.



Definitely the journey for us. Although you can definitely get a cinematic feel, if you want it. You can have a player take out 10 guys in 10 seconds in my game. You just need a big enough level gap, and a character pretty focused on fighting. Same thing with taking wounds and still going, or casting spells when you shouldn't be able to. Or getting mortally wounded and giving advice to the party on where to go to save the life of the character with a skull fracture, even though you're bleeding out and most people would be unconscious (happened in my game).



> I still have my reservations with Monte on the team, but what I've seen so far, he has some pretty good ideas, and I know i'll be following his L&L column. I have a feeling that column will give a good prediction of what to expect with 5e.



Hopefully. I'd like to see the wheels turn from week to week, similar to what we got with Mearls. It's very interesting, even if I don't like the end goal (not that I mind this one). I once watched a bunch of videos on youtube by a guy named John Wick. Really grates on my style of game, but his thought process was interesting.



> I never understood the hate between the so-called grognards and the 4e fanboys. We're all gamers, but we all have our own preferences and opinions. I can't tell you that the way you play is wrong, because that's how you like to play. I may not like it, but that doesn't matter, at all. Have fun at your game today. Looking forward to my next!



We did have fun, thanks. Same goes to you! As always, play what you like


----------



## Jon_Dahl

I just don't like anything that adds micromanagent.

_"Hmmm, how many healing surges does this merc NPC there in the corner has?"_

No way. Less to remember for DM = Right way to go.


----------



## Nagol

Jon_Dahl said:


> I just don't like anything that adds micromanagent.
> 
> _"Hmmm, how many healing surges does this merc NPC there in the corner has?"_
> 
> No way. Less to remember for DM = Right way to go.




That's part of the "one set of rules for the PCs and anothr for the rest of the world" in 4e.  There are very few creatures with healing surges.


----------



## Dice4Hire

Nagol said:


> That's part of the "one set of rules for the PCs and anothr for the rest of the world" in 4e.




One of the best parts of 4E design, for sure.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Dice4Hire said:
			
		

> One of the best parts of 4E design, for sure.



This would be an interesting thing to fork to a new thread. It's definitely not my preferred method, but I see the advantages.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Nagol said:


> That's part of the "one set of rules for the PCs and anothr for the rest of the world" in 4e.  There are very few creatures with healing surges.




IME, how many are in 4Ed doesn't matter- *how many are being used* in a given series of encounters or a campaign does.  If the featured creature has 'em- or has or benefits from a power or item that mimics them- it's a problem...for the DM to track and for the PCs to face.


----------



## Oryan77

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I've actually used the phrase "Its not D&D"- with the other phrase "to me"




4e is still D&D. You just gotta think about it _abstractly_.

Sorry, that word has been used in this thread so many times, I had to say it.


----------



## Gaerek

JamesonCourage said:


> As far as I can tell, HP is very abstract with the 3.5 interpretation, in that all you know is that you got hit, and that you tried to make it not as bad as it could have been. It's always hitting meat in 3.5, but maybe not very badly.
> 
> Well, this isn't a problem of 3.5's, actually (though it does have problems). How can that happen? Well, the 15th level Fighter is legendary at turning blows into less serious blows. That gash that takes does the level 1 Commoner? The 15th level Fighter is fast enough to make it a mere graze on his forehead; it broke his skin, but didn't slow him down.




Sure, I agree with you. I think we may be talking about the same thing here. A 15th level fighter has more HP than a 0 level commoner, not because he can somehow physically receive more damage than the commoner. It's because he's more skilled at doing something to prevent it. I threw luck in there because Gygax specifically mentioned it in his description of HP in the 1e rules. I think a better word than luck would be intuition. I'm an amateur photographer as my other hobby and a lot of times I'll say I got lucky with a shot I made. In reality, my experience behind the lens has lended me a certain amount of intuition and "gut feeling" about things that helps me to make that shot. But, in the narrative, I like to talk about how players got lucky with that one, even though it's more than likely intuition. Keeping in mind, in heroic stories, a very common trope is being "lucky."



> Navy SEAL = nowhere _near_ level 15 Fighter. Also, a coup de grace is a coup de grace... with bullet damage, you're likely both dead. It's more like, put both you and a Navy SEAL in a combat situation, and see who lasts longer under the same conditions. He wins most of the time.




Yeah, I think we're on the same page then. Something you said earlier had me thinking differently, but we agree here.



> Oh yeah, I'm sure they servers would be pretty empty, with those few players
> who made it to higher level just ganking all the little guys for laughs. It'd be terrible. I'm not saying it's good for the public at large, I'm just commenting on my play style in general.



Understood.  As a side not, I beta tested an MMO that had perm death, oh, 10 years ago. I got frustrated within a couple hours. In my final bug report, I just wrote, "Resurrection not working, fix with next build." That game came out of beta, but failed within months. Speculation was the perm death mechanic.



> It really depends on the party that my players are playing as. In the past, they've been all about combat, killing demons left and right. This time, they're taking their time, being cautious, and trying to expand their territory as warlords.



Been there, done both.  I enjoy both styles, and will play both. I've found that most of the people I've played with, however, prefer combat heavy.



> Yeah, that'd strike me as really wrong or immersion breaking. If someone is out of healing surges, why can't you magically heal them? If they're currently bloodied, why can they use a standard to heal wounds permanently? I can see the "Diehard" thing, maybe, with the bloodied incident, but it's still turning a potentially serious wound into a less serious wound via retconning, to many groups (you'd have to have a GM that's careful not to make any bloodied wound too serious to avoid it). And that would hurt my immersion.



It's all in how you work the narrative. My typical narrative involves essentially no real physical wounds being traded until the point where you go from positive to negative HP. This reflects the style of combat more realistically than taking real, physical wounds from the beginning. I commented on this earlier. In a sword fight, you either live from it, or die from it. Any wound you receive thats more than just a cut or scrape will likely be fatal. In this case, non-magical healing (again, I don't consider it actual healing of actual wounds) makes sense. In addition, the idea of not being able to heal, even magically when you're out of surges can start to make sense narratively. There also are ways of magically healing without surges, and those will still work, both narratively and mechanically. Of course, there are issues with this way of doing things as well. But in 95% of the circumstanses, there's no recursive narrative, and it flows quite well.

In addition, I don't like describing serious wounds to PCs. 4e isn't as deadly as other systems, and the chances of dying are pretty low. I've only killed a couple players in 3 years, and had one TPK running through ToH. In addition, I have been apt to "capture" characters instead of killing them outright when the situation makes sense. This makes my way of narrating combat work even better since the bad guys can tie up and revive the dead players. Then we get a nice little story break to try to rescue the characters. I used this for the Irontooth encounter in KotS. Two characters got captured, the others ran away. We spent the next session rescuing the player, with the group being filled out by swords for hire, played by the captured characters players. It was a lot of fun.



> However, if healing simply doesn't work anymore for some reason, that'd strike me as wrong. No matter how many healers we bring it, we can only heal him if we have the correct encounter power that heals "X" without using a surge? What do the other healing spells represent, then?



Again, all healing doesn't stop working. Certain types will, and narratively, this makes sense in most cases. Clerics (and other healers) can heal without burning a characters healing surges. A paladin, for example, can burn his own HS to heal someone else. So if the fighter is out of HS and the paladin is not, the paladin can still lay on hands. If the cleric has taken cure light/serious/etc., they can heal without HS as well. If you can think of HP as more than just physical wounds, the system actually make a lot more sense than people make it out to be. HP and HS together represent physical wounds, endurance, mental/physical exhaustion, will power, etc.

I will freely admit that there are times, narratively, that HS don't make sense, however, I would have to argue that those times are fewer than if your abstract of HP (in any edition) revolves solely around physical wounds. There's a lot of narrative weirdness you must contend with if HP are purely physical wounds.



> It was very informative, thank you. Please don't think I'm challenging you. The questions above were rhetorical, to inform you of my objections based on the very useful information you provided me. Thanks for taking the time to help me understand this issue a little more clearly.



No problem. 



> Yes, D&D has always had the characters been a cut above most people. Most people are level 0's, or level 1 Commoners, or the like. So, I'm not saying that my game would work for D&D, and I don't want D&D to look like my game. However, I want D&D to support the amount of narrative range my game has available. Anything less, and I'll just play my game, where more stories can be told.



I can respect that. Since D&D is about as mainstream as a geeky pasttime can be, I have a feeling that that will never be the case. If you'd prefer your game, there's nothing wrong with that at all. As you say, play what you like.



> Well, my game excels at combat if everyone invests in combat. My game excels at a diplomatic, court-focused game, if people invest in diplomatic, court-focused skills. My game excels at craftsmanship if people invest in craftsmanship. The only real thing you need total acceptance on if you want a very focused game is for player buy-in. If you want a combat-focused game, make sure everyone heavily invests in combat. Otherwise, you get a battlemage, a pyromancer, a sword and board two-weapon fighter, a dirty-fighting and backstabbing thief, a hulking barbarian with a massive axe, and a scholar. And in your game, since it's combat focused, the scholar will die. Mind you, he'll be really good at his duties, but he'll die in a combat-focused game.



That makes sense. I remember the old D6 Star Wars game (never played anything after that) that had both Bounty Hunters and Diplomats as character classes. In toe-to-toe combat, the diplomat wouldn't stand a chance against the BH. But you'd also never send your BH to negotiate a treaty between the Republic and a newly discovered world. I played some games where people were bored entire sessions (or more) because their choice of character simply couldn't survive in the current aspect of the game.



> Now, I know I say "my game excels at" but that's just taste. It doesn't support minis as well (though you could easily use them), nor does it support forced movement as well (though you could build a character that does so). So, 4e probably is better at what you want than my game would be.



4e took the foundation of tactical combat that was really first printed in the 2e Players Option: Combat and Tactics book, and refined it into a completely tactical system, so much so that nearly every option a player has in character design is build around being tactically viable in combat alone. Basically, toss everything out that doesn't actually need to be explained by rules (you want to be a blacksmith? Write down blacksmith on your character sheet, no need to dump skill points into it), and keep everything else that you need to make the game function. This works for some, doens't work for others. I personally love the bare bones approach. I love that the force RP aspects of other editions (alignment, class/race restrictions, etc) have been removed. It frees players up to RP their character how they want to, not based on what alignment they thought fit their character the best.



> However, my game was built for player options and a wide narrative range. Teleporting long distances permanently drains resources. Don't want it? Houserule: now it doesn't. It's quick, it's simple, it eliminates the problem. Your world just opened up to fit your narrative. I'd rather have built-in restrictions that are easy to lift off than no restrictions but a smaller narrative range.
> 
> Now, if there's restrictions, how can it support more narratives? Well, when teleporting long distances becomes commonplace for a party, then you wind up losing any sort of story where overt build-up is possible. You can't hear of the orcs to the far north building up an army without the PCs teleporting in and stopping it early. And, if the PCs aren't high enough levels, why not the NPCs? However, if you remove that option, then the game supports more narratives, in my opinion. And, you can choose to always strip away the restriction if on teleporting if you want to, or plane-hopping, or permanently enchanting people or items, or whatever.



Again, that makes sense. But as you said, your system required player  buy-in. Not saying that's a bad thing, just soemthing to think about.



> Just my philosophy on it. I'd rather have to learn one system that supports a wide narrative range than learn a bunch of systems that allow different stories. But, that's preference, and I understand when people disagree. And I'm cool with that. I hope 5e focuses on narrative range, and if they follow the "dials" approach, maybe they will. I don't know if I like the idea of dials, but I don't know the implementation yet, so I can't say. It'll be interesting to see what they come up with.
> 
> 
> Definitely the journey for us. Although you can definitely get a cinematic feel, if you want it. You can have a player take out 10 guys in 10 seconds in my game. You just need a big enough level gap, and a character pretty focused on fighting. Same thing with taking wounds and still going, or casting spells when you shouldn't be able to. Or getting mortally wounded and giving advice to the party on where to go to save the life of the character with a skull fracture, even though you're bleeding out and most people would be unconscious (happened in my game).



In the end, it's all down to preference. 




> Hopefully. I'd like to see the wheels turn from week to week, similar to what we got with Mearls. It's very interesting, even if I don't like the end goal (not that I mind this one). I once watched a bunch of videos on youtube by a guy named John Wick. Really grates on my style of game, but his thought process was interesting.



You can tell that Cook doesn't buy in to 4e. That's why I thought it was an interesting move to hire him. Why would you hire someone who isn't going to champion your livelyhood? It's because you want him to work on the next version.



> We did have fun, thanks. Same goes to you! As always, play what you like



Always!


----------



## JamesonCourage

Gaerek said:


> Sure, I agree with you. I think we may be talking about the same thing here. A 15th level fighter has more HP than a 0 level commoner, not because he can somehow physically receive more damage than the commoner. It's because he's more skilled at doing something to prevent it. I threw luck in there because Gygax specifically mentioned it in his description of HP in the 1e rules. I think a better word than luck would be intuition. I'm an amateur photographer as my other hobby and a lot of times I'll say I got lucky with a shot I made. In reality, my experience behind the lens has lended me a certain amount of intuition and "gut feeling" about things that helps me to make that shot. But, in the narrative, I like to talk about how players got lucky with that one, even though it's more than likely intuition. Keeping in mind, in heroic stories, a very common trope is being "lucky."



Yep. Although, I'd say that a 15th level warrior can usually take more damage than a 1st level commoner, just because of his line of work, getting used to taking a beating, etc. But, most of the HP is usually making wounds not quite as bad, I agree.



> Yeah, I think we're on the same page then. Something you said earlier had me thinking differently, but we agree here.



I love agreeing!



> Understood.  As a side not, I beta tested an MMO that had perm death, oh, 10 years ago. I got frustrated within a couple hours. In my final bug report, I just wrote, "Resurrection not working, fix with next build." That game came out of beta, but failed within months. Speculation was the perm death mechanic.



It probably was. That's why I wanted it on one or two servers. One PvP, one non-PvP. I would want to be able to build up normal characters after my mid-level character died because of lag. I wouldn't want a game with it as the only option.



> Been there, done both.  I enjoy both styles, and will play both. I've found that most of the people I've played with, however, prefer combat heavy.



Yeah, that seems to be D&D's roots, so I'm definitely in favor of D&D recognizing those roots. I just don't want it to stop there.



> It's all in how you work the narrative. My typical narrative involves essentially no real physical wounds being traded until the point where you go from positive to negative HP. This reflects the style of combat more realistically than taking real, physical wounds from the beginning. I commented on this earlier. In a sword fight, you either live from it, or die from it. Any wound you receive thats more than just a cut or scrape will likely be fatal. In this case, non-magical healing (again, I don't consider it actual healing of actual wounds) makes sense. In addition, the idea of not being able to heal, even magically when you're out of surges can start to make sense narratively. There also are ways of magically healing without surges, and those will still work, both narratively and mechanically. Of course, there are issues with this way of doing things as well. But in 95% of the circumstanses, there's no recursive narrative, and it flows quite well.
> 
> In addition, I don't like describing serious wounds to PCs. 4e isn't as deadly as other systems, and the chances of dying are pretty low. I've only killed a couple players in 3 years, and had one TPK running through ToH. In addition, I have been apt to "capture" characters instead of killing them outright when the situation makes sense. This makes my way of narrating combat work even better since the bad guys can tie up and revive the dead players. Then we get a nice little story break to try to rescue the characters. I used this for the Irontooth encounter in KotS. Two characters got captured, the others ran away. We spent the next session rescuing the player, with the group being filled out by swords for hire, played by the captured characters players. It was a lot of fun.



That sounds like fun, and I liked the way you handled it. 



> Again, all healing doesn't stop working. Certain types will, and narratively, this makes sense in most cases. Clerics (and other healers) can heal without burning a characters healing surges. A paladin, for example, can burn his own HS to heal someone else. So if the fighter is out of HS and the paladin is not, the paladin can still lay on hands. If the cleric has taken cure light/serious/etc., they can heal without HS as well. If you can think of HP as more than just physical wounds, the system actually make a lot more sense than people make it out to be. HP and HS together represent physical wounds, endurance, mental/physical exhaustion, will power, etc.
> 
> I will freely admit that there are times, narratively, that HS don't make sense, however, I would have to argue that those times are fewer than if your abstract of HP (in any edition) revolves solely around physical wounds. There's a lot of narrative weirdness you must contend with if HP are purely physical wounds.



I like the Lay on Hands mechanic. And as far as holes in the HP system, I know there will be some with healing surges, but there definitely are even if you think of HP as luck/skill/fate/damage/etc. Again, it's why I'm in favor of two HP pools. It's barely more complicated, but it's made a world of difference in my game.



> I can respect that. Since D&D is about as mainstream as a geeky pasttime can be, I have a feeling that that will never be the case. If you'd prefer your game, there's nothing wrong with that at all. As you say, play what you like.



Yeah. Preferably, like I said, I'd just like a wide range of narrative room. Maybe start the dial on "high" for PC heroicness, with options to dial it down.



> That makes sense. I remember the old D6 Star Wars game (never played anything after that) that had both Bounty Hunters and Diplomats as character classes. In toe-to-toe combat, the diplomat wouldn't stand a chance against the BH. But you'd also never send your BH to negotiate a treaty between the Republic and a newly discovered world. I played some games where people were bored entire sessions (or more) because their choice of character simply couldn't survive in the current aspect of the game.



Yeah, that can happen, so you have to be careful to get player buy-in for the group. If people are okay sitting out a lot while the other players do a lot of stuff, there's no problem. They should be aware and willing to do so, though, if they're going to break the party mold.



> 4e took the foundation of tactical combat that was really first printed in the 2e Players Option: Combat and Tactics book, and refined it into a completely tactical system, so much so that nearly every option a player has in character design is build around being tactically viable in combat alone. Basically, toss everything out that doesn't actually need to be explained by rules (you want to be a blacksmith? Write down blacksmith on your character sheet, no need to dump skill points into it), and keep everything else that you need to make the game function. This works for some, doens't work for others. I personally love the bare bones approach. I love that the force RP aspects of other editions (alignment, class/race restrictions, etc) have been removed. It frees players up to RP their character how they want to, not based on what alignment they thought fit their character the best.



Well, I got rid of alignment and classes, and all restrictions are built. You can get Complications, which are self-enforced personality traits (gambler, code of honor, coward, etc.), though you get bonuses when they hurt / help you. Alternatively, if you buy any special ability, you can limit it to an RP mechanic that you make up (limiting it saves you points), such as buying spell slots limited to as long as you don't break your code of conduct. Either way, the choice is yours, and you can always completely ignore the mechanics entirely. 

However, I don't want to just "blacksmith" and be done with it. I have a PC in this warlord party (who's probably the least evil of the bunch) who's exceptionally focused on crafting things. To give some context, there are five levels of quality in my game: poor (-1), normal (+0), masterwork (+1), masterpiece (+2), and mastercraft (+3). He's so focused, he can make mastercraft quality items in the time it would take to create normal items, and for the same cost (instead of about four times the cost). He's not just a blacksmith, he's amazing at his craftsmanship. There's literally no upside to him making normal, masterwork, or masterpiece quality work anymore (since he also bought the DC increase down).

If someone wants to invest in something, I'd like to explore that issue. And, all told, I've got about 250 pages of rules in a 350 page book (I have an Example Setting and a "Running a Game" section that are about 50 pages each), and I think the game is incredibly flexible in character builds, monster builds, narrative range, etc. So, D&D will have to at least keep my narrative range for me to be interested (I expect it to keep classes, alignment, etc.).



> Again, that makes sense. But as you said, your system required player  buy-in. Not saying that's a bad thing, just soemthing to think about.



Well, any system requires player buy-in. I meant that any particular campaign, in any system, should have player buy-in on the party dynamic, goals, etc. Even in D&D, everyone should be aware and okay with a dungeon delving party, or a warlord party, or whatever. 



> You can tell that Cook doesn't buy in to 4e. That's why I thought it was an interesting move to hire him. Why would you hire someone who isn't going to champion your livelyhood? It's because you want him to work on the next version.



Probably. Then again, for all I know, he plays it weekly. Having an ideas guy is good to have around even if he doesn't like the mechanics, since you can translate ideas into mechanics. I do this with a friend who I used to play with but no longer do. He played D&D with me, but doesn't know my system, so he helps me come up with ideas, and I make them work mechanically.

Then again, I suspect Monte wouldn't want to work on that. 5e... now that's an interesting project for him to tackle. I do suspect that's the goal for him, even if he hasn't started on it yet. It's probably something they want him for.

As always, play what you like


----------



## NewJeffCT

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Its kind of like how some people only like Van Halen with David Lee Roth AND Michael Anthony, some prefer Sammy Hagar, 1 guy in 1 million prefers Gary Cherone lead work, and some like the lineup with Michael Anthony replaced by Wolfgang Van Halen.
> 
> ...and some just like Van Halen.  Or hate the band in any lineup.
> 
> And in case you don't get it, the fact that I don't think 4ED feels like D&D to me is in no way a reflection upon your experience interacting with the game.




Dude - the only true version of Van Halen is the original lineup that appeared on their first several albums - David Lee Roth, Eddie Van Halen, Michael Anthony and Alex Van Halen.  Anything else just pales in comparison and is not the true VH.


----------



## Oryan77

NewJeffCT said:


> Dude - the only true version of Van Halen is the original lineup that appeared on their first several albums - David Lee Roth, Eddie Van Halen, Michael Anthony and Alex Van Halen.  Anything else just pales in comparison and is not the true VH.




What's a Van Halen? Is that the new Monte Cook creation that lets a bard spend a healing surge to heal the entire party to full hitpoints? That *rocks*!


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Oryan77 said:


> What's a Van Halen? Is that the new Monte Cook creation that lets a bard spend a healing surge to heal the entire party to full hitpoints? That *rocks*!




Naw, it's a new monster.  It's a cross between the siren and the banshee, but with better pitch and hair.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Crazy Jerome said:


> Naw, it's a new monster.  It's a cross between the siren and the banshee, but with better pitch and hair.




1) it's an old monster

2) you forgot it's high-kick & kalaidoscopic spandex powers


----------



## Asmo

Note that many adventurers have found that slayed Van Halens acutally wears fake hair.

Asmo


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> *points to his previous quote* I believe I just did.
> 
> /snip for my own blinding stupidity.
> 
> Ahh, no.  My mistake was trying in the first place.  You have a good day now.




Yep, you ninja'ed me and I missed it.

That is my fault.  I apologize.


----------



## tuxgeo

The thing I dislike about helium surges is that, when your character drops to 0 hit points and uses a helium surge, the character's body inflates and floats away into the sky, and you can't get it back down. 
(Kind of like Frisbeetarianism.) 


Oh, wait -- you said _"healing surges,"_ not "helium surges." Never mind.


----------



## jodyjohnson

I had issues with the rationalisation of HPs prior to 4e and felt like there should be a rules solution.

When 4e launched 3+ years ago, I was glad for a resolution to the 'speed of healing'/'divine only' issues we also had.  However we recognized the narrative problems with HS.  But in the end, we adapted and continue to play blissfully (with regard to HS at least).

This thread has clarified that what really bothered me about HP previously was apparent only with blow-by-blow narrative.  Since that aspect was something we had problems with anyway, it was easy for us to jettison and accept the narrative problems with HS by not trying to do blow-by-blow narration.

It also makes sense that the DMs that employed/enjoyed blow-by-blow narration didn't like 4e and have since switched to SW or PF.

This is also reminds me that TSR didn't IMO fragment the market but that the intensely personal/group nature of RPGs itself leads to fragmentation.  In some respect that fragmentation within even a small group of designer/players/non-players at TSR led to a fragmented product schedule to serve a continually fragmenting market.


With that in mind, I recall Mike Mearls reference to the 'Spaghetti sauce marketing guy' and the idea of not creating 'the perfect sauce', but of putting together a product stable of sauces.  Maybe WotC can't release 'the 31 flavors of D&D' but I think they are trying to do something similar with the modular system he keeps pimping.


----------



## Alzrius

Gaerek said:


> Alzrius said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Hit point loss represents taking physical damage. Conversely, regaining hit points represents physical healing.*
> 
> The above point is fundamental to understanding why I don't like healing surges - they necessitate that the above understanding be discarded and replaced with an alternative understanding for what hit points represent (e.g. that hit points are a character's "ability to keep fighting" or something similar).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This may have already been talked about, but I haven't read the thread to the end, since I wanted to reply to Jameson. But, unfortunately, Hit Point loss, has never fully represented taking physical damage. Not with OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x, PF, 4e, not with any of them. Hit points have always been a very abstract concept that includes a bunch of factors, including, but certainly not limited to, physical health, mental health, endurance, vitality, ability to mitigate damage, glancing blows, luck, etc. Gary Gygax himself spoke about this, as far as I know, as early as the 1e DMG.
Click to expand...



A few things I wanted to clear up.

First, the emboldened part of my previous post that you quoted wasn't me making any sort of statement about the game itself - it was my saying where I'm coming from on the issue of hit point loss and healing. For me, they always have been, and always will be, physical damage. What's in the books isn't really important on that score (though I personally think that the books agree with me, see below).



> _There are serious problems with thinking of HP as ONLY physical damage, more so than what you already spoke of. First and foremost, in my mind, if you take a sword hit that does 50% of your physical damage, how are you now able to continue fighting at 100%? I like to think of Boromir in LotR, when he takes the arrow in the chest. He's still conscious, he still has some motor activity, but he certainly cannot fight at 100%. He tries to fight of course, but as he keeps taking arrows, he becomes weaker and weaker._




See, I don't see that as having any impact on the question of whether or not hit point loss is due to physical damage whatsoever. The very nature of D&D combat is abstract, and so a lot of factors are simply not dealt with, such as hit locations, wound tracking, facing, combat fatigue, etc. 

Saying that "hit point loss cannot be physical damage since it doesn't impact your fighting ability" is, to my thinking, a failure to follow the game's own brand of logic - combat damage has no secondary effects, because it can only model so much. Now, there are some special effects for various things like feats, spells, etc. But these are explicitly called out as having a special effect.



> Here's a quote from the 1e DMG, written by Mr. Gygax himself. (It's the only one I could find in a short amount of time, without access to my books, and at work, but it should suffice).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain
> physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an
> assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust
> which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero
> could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why
> then the increase in hit points? *Because these reflect both the actual
> physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by
> constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill
> in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" whith
> warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck,
> and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine
> protection.* Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bolded area is key to understanding that HP do not completely reflect actual, physical damage.
Click to expand...



We're taking very different things away from that particular passage.

What I got from that is that Gary is giving us narrative devices to explain why physical damage that's taken is comparatively less severe at higher levels, even when the amount of damage remains the same. In other words, he's not denying that the character is still taking physical punishment, he's just taking less of it due to things like luck, a sixth sense, divine protection, etc. allowing him to take, as Gary put it, "five such thrusts."

Those thrusts are still hitting, in other words, just not as palpably, due to purely narrative explanations. But they're all still physically damaging blows taken in combat.

Of course, it's ultimately something of a moot point anyway. Not only because that's the 1E interpretation (as opposed to 3.X, which was much more explicit in saying that hit point loss was physical damage), but also because quoting somebody else's ideas aren't going to make me say "Oh, I've been doing it wrong."

The OP asked why we don't like healing surges, and my previous post was me saying why I don't. Hit point loss in my games is physical damage, and regaining hit points is wound closure. Having characters non-magically experience a burst of healing as a voluntary action on their part is, quite simply, too out there for me to accept.


----------



## pemerton

Alzrius said:


> Gary is giving us narrative devices to explain why physical damage that's taken is comparatively less severe at higher levels, even when the amount of damage remains the same. In other words, he's not denying that the character is still taking physical punishment, he's just taking less of it due to things like luck, a sixth sense, divine protection, etc.



This seems to me to imply that 4 hit points, which might be _fatal_ for a 0-level or 1st level PC (and hence anything but a light wound), would be the merest scratch when delivered to a high level fighter.

Which means that something is badly wrong with healing magic in AD&D (and also, I think, healing rates, although I have seen it argued that a high level fighter takes much longer to recover to peak than a 0-level PC). Would you agree?


----------



## Hussar

I wonder if people who have such difficulty with the narration of healing surges had similar issues with a one minute round?  Or, did people just sort of hand wave that away and ignore the fact that there were all sorts of things that were supposed to be happening in that round, but not movement (because disengaging from an enemy, or turning a flank had its own rules) and simply concentrate on the short period of time that the die roll actually represented?


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> I wonder if people who have such difficulty with the narration of healing surges had similar issues with a one minute round?



I was never a fan of the one minute round, but I don't really see a relationship between that and surges.

To me they just always seemed like an odd hold-over from the war game roots.  Using one minute rounds for a mass battle that may last a long time is reasonable.  But that doesn't provide a good representation of what happens in a skirmish.  And, of course, it is important to keep in mind that in my case, I preferred other games to AD&D anyway.

But it really isn't an equivalent issue because it didn't come into play.  First, you could easily completely ignore it.  You could run a combat that lasted 8 rounds and not care if it was 45 seconds or 8 minutes.  99+% of the time it had no bearing on anything.  Healing surges can't be ignored that way.

Second, it doesn't create a nonsense in the narrative.  It may not be the best option to describe your narrative in which everyone is feinting and dodging for a ridiculous amount of time between finding quality openings for the "attack", but there is no "nonsense" in it.  No one ever needed to defend that by saying "hey, the game is some abstract anyway, adding a little more here doesn't hurt anything".

I also find it interesting that you choose to use the phrase "have such difficulty with the narration of healing surges".  It seems to show a strong difference in understanding of the issue.

I can narrate healing surges as well as anyone else in this thread can.  And you could come sit at my table for us for the single purpose of narrating our healing surges if that made you feel better.  But it wouldn't solve the problem because you would still be creating the nonsense abstractions that so many other 4E advocates have already said are just something which should be ignored.

I have no problem with narration.  I have a problem with adding nonsense into my story.  I have a superior story telling tool and I use that.  Using a hammer to drive nails does not mean I have a problem with screw drivers.

You have also equated surges to an old rule that was found to be inferior and was discarded.  And, just speaking personally, that may be one thing I have NEVER heard anyone actually complain about.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> I wonder if people who have such difficulty with the narration of healing surges had similar issues with a one minute round?  Or, did people just sort of hand wave that away and ignore the fact that there were all sorts of things that were supposed to be happening in that round, but not movement (because disengaging from an enemy, or turning a flank had its own rules) and simply concentrate on the short period of time that the die roll actually represented?




The thing I had a problem with was AD&D had facing rules, but if you're dodging around, feinting, and trying for a telling blow, you'd likely be able to have a wider range of vision.

I always found it weird that D&D dropped facing at the same time it compressed a round to the point when it made narrative sense.  In 6 seconds facing a potentially lethal situation, you probably are concentrating in a particular direction.


----------



## billd91

Nagol said:


> I always found it weird that D&D dropped facing at the same time it compressed a round to the point when it made narrative sense.  In 6 seconds facing a potentially lethal situation, you probably are concentrating in a particular direction.




I don't know. I think by 3e, D&D had finally shed that vestige of mass wargame mentality where flanking actions and orientation of large groups of men mattered a lot. I suspect that mode of thought had a lot to do with why the differences between front facing, flanks, and rear mattered so much.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I wonder if people who have such difficulty with the narration of healing surges had similar issues with a one minute round? Or, did people just sort of hand wave that away and ignore the fact that there were all sorts of things that were supposed to be happening in that round, but not movement (because disengaging from an enemy, or turning a flank had its own rules) and simply concentrate on the short period of time that the die roll actually represented?




I had some issues with it, but it was far easier for me to explain than healing surges. For example I could see how the one attack I had in that 1 minute round was the "power shot", and it was just assumed a few feints and light strikes were occuring during the rest of the round (sort of like in a boxing match where a punch of throw away punches take place before the heavy hit or combo is thrown). But I still prefer a smaller round (between 10 to 20 seconds). The problem with healing surges is it forces me to take away things as a Gm. I like to interpret what 20 points of damage means for a 10th level fighter for example and give the player a description of that. As a player this is my preference as well. So I run into many of the issues people here have described. However I will say I have felt for a long time that a wound system would be much better if D&D embraced it for 5E. I like wounds because they represent a real injury and I like the idea of knowing my warrior is nursing a slice to his ribs or something to that effect.


----------



## Alzrius

pemerton said:


> This seems to me to imply that 4 hit points, which might be _fatal_ for a 0-level or 1st level PC (and hence anything but a light wound), would be the merest scratch when delivered to a high level fighter.
> 
> Which means that something is badly wrong with healing magic in AD&D (and also, I think, healing rates, although I have seen it argued that a high level fighter takes much longer to recover to peak than a 0-level PC). Would you agree?




I'll refer you to my previous post:



> There are some problem areas with this approach, to be sure. The converse of the above method of "damage as a percentage" is that magical healing actually becomes less effective at higher levels (e.g. a cure light wounds will restore that 1st-level commoner from dying to pristine condition...but for that 20th-level fighter it'll only heal scratches). Housecats can kill commoners with a swipe of the claws or two. High-level characters can fall off cliffs and reliably survive.
> 
> The thing is, most of these problems are either corner cases, or are easily ignored - they're the rough spots that come with that basic assumption about hit points, and I've long since accepted those problems as part-and-parcel of that way of looking at them.




To put it another way, you're right in pointing out that there's a problem, but I don't think that it's "badly wrong." I think it's a problem so small that it's easy to overlook without breaking the suspension of disbelief in the game. Healing surges, on the other hand, are too prominent to overlook, and utterly shatter my suspension of disbelief.

(And to head things off at the pass; no I don't think that magical healing in earlier editions of D&D is less prominent than healing surges are in 4E. I'm saying the problem of low-level healing magic being less effective as characters gain levels is a problem that's easy enough to overlook - unlike the problem of characters having at-will, non-magical bursts of regeneration.)


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Re: 4Hp, Cats & Early D&D

I had 2 Maine Coon Cats- a kind of housecat- one 15lb, her bro, 18lb.  They were runts- daddy was 25lbs and grampaw, 35lbs.

Had they not liked me, there could have been a problem, as illustrated by this report of a Cleveland, TX (near Houston) man who had a random encounter with a pissed-off feral cat in his house:

Feral Cat Attack Sends Man To Hospital - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston

Armed with a knife, having the advantage in reach, intelligence and body mass, he still wound up being rushed to the hospital via air ambulance in critical condition.  The cat- stabbed at least 3 times- had to be euthanized.  Not "died at the scene"- euthanized.

Sounds like AD&D to me...


----------



## TheUltramark

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: 4Hp, Cats & Early D&D
> 
> I had 2 Maine Coon Cats- a kind of housecat- one 15lb, her bro, 18lb.  They were runts- daddy was 25lbs and grampaw, 35lbs.
> 
> Had they not liked me, there could have been a problem, as illustrated by this report of a Cleveland, TX (near Houston) man who had a random encounter with a pissed-off feral cat in his house:
> 
> Feral Cat Attack Sends Man To Hospital - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston
> 
> Armed with a knife, having the advantage in reach, intelligence and body mass, he still wound up being rushed to the hospital via air ambulance in critical condition.  The cat- stabbed at least 3 times- had to be euthanized.  Not "died at the scene"- euthanized.
> 
> Sounds like AD&D to me...




so basically whatI get out of this is that fantasy RPG has a vastly superior health care system.  While the cleric may charge for a clw or a csw, etc...it is immediate and on the spot.  Wait until the clerics figure out how much profit they can make by getting in bed with the alchemists, the scroll writers, and the magic carpet drivers........

also coming soon new class: underwriter


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I had some issues with it, but it was far easier for me to explain than healing surges. For example I could see how the one attack I had in that 1 minute round was the "power shot", and it was just assumed a few feints and light strikes were occuring during the rest of the round (sort of like in a boxing match where a punch of throw away punches take place before the heavy hit or combo is thrown). But I still prefer a smaller round (between 10 to 20 seconds). The problem with healing surges is it forces me to take away things as a Gm. I like to interpret what 20 points of damage means for a 10th level fighter for example and give the player a description of that. As a player this is my preference as well. So I run into many of the issues people here have described. However I will say I have felt for a long time that a wound system would be much better if D&D embraced it for 5E. I like wounds because they represent a real injury and I like the idea of knowing my warrior is nursing a slice to his ribs or something to that effect.




Yeah, I can see that.  My problem is, 1 minute is a heck of a long time.  Heck, in boxing, a round is only 3 minutes.  And you see a lot more than 3 punishing attacks in 3 minutes of boxing by any one boxer (well, usually ).  

Thing is, why can't you interpret what 20 damage is to a 10th level fighter in 4e?  Yes, you cannot interpret that exactly - you cannot specify that it's a deep gash to the thigh, for example.  But, then again, you really never could.  A deep gash to the thigh slows you down.  It bleeds (typically quite a bit).  It has other effects.  Yet, in no version of D&D does 20 points of damage have any mechanical impact on the fighter, presuming he has HP left.  

But, by and large, we ignored that and gave the fighter a deep gash anyway.

Thing is, in 4e, you can do the same thing.  The fighter gets a deep gash on his leg.  The Warlord shouts at him and allows him to spend a healing surge.  We don't want to retcon but there's nothing saying that that deep gash just looked worse than it really was.  Lots of blood came out, but, it really wasn't that deep.  It's not that the deep gash goes away, it's just described in more detail.

I'd say that this covers about 90% of play.


----------



## tomBitonti

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Re: 4Hp, Cats & Early D&D
> 
> I had 2 Maine Coon Cats- a kind of housecat- one 15lb, her bro, 18lb.  They were runts- daddy was 25lbs and grampaw, 35lbs.
> 
> Had they not liked me, there could have been a problem, as illustrated by this report of a Cleveland, TX (near Houston) man who had a random encounter with a pissed-off feral cat in his house:
> 
> Feral Cat Attack Sends Man To Hospital - Houston News Story - KPRC Houston
> 
> Armed with a knife, having the advantage in reach, intelligence and body mass, he still wound up being rushed to the hospital via air ambulance in critical condition.  The cat- stabbed at least 3 times- had to be euthanized.  Not "died at the scene"- euthanized.
> 
> Sounds like AD&D to me...




Cat attacked the man in his bathroom, so they were effectively grappling.  With the cat inside the man's reach.  Slashing at a critter that is on you and raking is probably hard to do.  Plus, the attack may have taken all of just a few seconds.

The arm wound looked rather long and possibly deep.  Close to the wrist, and along the length; maybe a pretty bad bleeder.

Pretty much what to expect from a feral cat, which, at 20-35 points, is not the soft tubby that folks might expect.  A feral cat would be like a brick, and would have terribly sharp claws.  (Most folks have no experience with a fully developed intact male cat.  They are not soft and round; they are intense, densely muscled, and can be rather aggresive.)

Also to say, this points out the hugely understated danger of bleeding wounds, and of the value of even medium leather against an attack such as this.  Slicing / slashing attacks are very dangerous to a person armored in basically a thin shirt.  (Before battlefield advances, blood loss is a huge killer.  Getting to a wounded person very quickly and stopping bleeding makes a very big difference for battlefield survival.)

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

My point was that many people talk dismissively about how laughable it was that in AD&D, a 1st level wizard could be taken out by a cat.

Here, not only did a (admittedly largish) cat nearly kill a knife-wielding man- he *would* have died 30 years ago- it also survived its own knife wounds long enough so that they had to euthanize it.  IOW, the game was not all that far off from reality...at least, not at that data point.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Thing is, in 4e, you can do the same thing.  The fighter gets a deep gash on his leg.  The Warlord shouts at him and allows him to spend a healing surge.  We don't want to retcon but there's nothing saying that that deep gash just looked worse than it really was.  Lots of blood came out, but, it really wasn't that deep.  It's not that the deep gash goes away, it's just described in more detail.



But then he healing surges *again* and what looked like a deep gash a few moments before now is absolutely completely gone.  And this applies to any and every wound.

You can't take a small piece out of the larger context.

In 4E that doesn't apply to 90%, it is 100%.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> My point was that many people talk dismissively about how laughable it was that in AD&D, a 1st level wizard could be taken out by a cat.
> 
> Here, not only did a (admittedly largish) cat nearly kill a knife-wielding man- he *would* have died 30 years ago- it also survived its own knife wounds long enough so that they had to euthanize it.  IOW, the game was not all that far off from reality...at least, not at that data point.




I would point out here though, this isn't a housecat, nor is it an average member of its kind.

The existence of exceptions do not really speak to anything other than the existence of an exception.  Unless you're arguing that every average house cat could do the same thing.


----------



## pemerton

TheAuldGrump said:


> I do not like the mechanic, not because it is 'unrealistic' but because it is _boring._ It makes for boring combats in boring encounters that make up boring adventures.



Which just goes to show something about different tastes and all that. I find the dynamics and the pacing of 4e combat - which turn, in part, on the ability of the group to ensure that hit points are recovered by the PC who needs them in the right amount at the right time - contributes signifcantly to the interest of play.

I stopped playing AD&D for Rolemaster many years ago in part because I found Rolemaster combat much more engaging than AD&D hit point attrition. I find that 4e provides a version of combat that is recognisably D&D, but likewise (via its conditions, and its in combat healing mechanics) offers an alternative to the classic attrition model.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Hussar said:


> I would point out here though, this isn't a housecat, nor is it an average member of its kind.



A direkitty?

Musta had spike ridges and bone plates . . . Cuz that is how it has to be.


----------



## pemerton

Alzrius said:


> I'll you're right in pointing out that there's a problem, but I don't think that it's "badly wrong." I think it's a problem so small that it's easy to overlook without breaking the suspension of disbelief in the game. Healing surges, on the other hand, are too prominent to overlook, and utterly shatter my suspension of disbelief.
> 
> (And to head things off at the pass; no I don't think that magical healing in earlier editions of D&D is less prominent than healing surges are in 4E. I'm saying the problem of low-level healing magic being less effective as characters gain levels is a problem that's easy enough to overlook - unlike the problem of characters having at-will, non-magical bursts of regeneration.)



I think "easiness to overlook" is probably in the eye of the beholder. I find the reconciliation of AD&D/3E healing with the standard model of AD&D/3E hitpoints hard. Whereas I find healing surges easy - and, in particular, I don't find them to be burst of regeneration.



DEFCON 1 said:


> In actually swordfighting... especially between highly armored individuals, you usually don't see actual real injury occur until one of them manages a killing blow.  Instead, you see two guys getting bruised, getting tired, getting their bells rung, slowing down, perhaps get some small cuts across the face or arm... until _finally_ someone manages to get their weapon past their opponent's defenses and cuts off a limb, or guts the other guy in the stomach or face.  But once that happens, the _fight is over_.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> _if we assume_ that hit point loss is actual physical injury... you have a guy with 100 HPs taking anywhere from 3 to 15 physically damaging blows (attacks which cause hit point loss) over the course of an entire fight.  To me, _that_ seems patently ridiculous.  Especially when at the end of a fight when a guy only has 5 HPs left, the only way he can regain those hit points is through _magical_ healing potions or the blessed cures of a man of the cloth?
> 
> What kind of attacks were these things?  Somehow deadly enough that they _require_ magical healing to remove... but not deadly enough that the fighter could take 3 to 15 of them during the fight?  Doesn't make sense.  Sure, you might _occasionally_ see a guy take a massive gouge to a non-critical part of the body (say, the thigh or something) that would ordinarily require surgery (or magical healing)... but that would only account for _one_ of those 15 injurous attacks.
> 
> I dunno about anyone else... but if I see a swordfighter getting hit by a sword 15 times and is still fighting at full strength... those _aren't_ causing actual physical injury (save for maybe one or two, plus the actual killing blow.)  They just aren't.  They're just bruising.  They're just fatigue.  They're just superficial loss of energy that you can get past by getting a Second Wind or a having a friend to tell you to Rub Some Dirt Into It.



I agree with this. And it is a good explanation of why the disparity, in AD&D and 3E, between the hit point model and the healing model, is not easy for me to overlook.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> I'm at full health, but I'm down half my surges....exactly what kind of condition am I in? How do I make sense of that in the narrative of the game? It's not something 4eD&D provides a lot of guidance for.



I'm not sure it's as bad as that. When I'm at full hit points but down half my surges, I've recovered from the immediate drain, stress and fatigue of combat, but my ability to carry on without rest is seriously impeded. I can probably only make one or two more big efforts like that and I'll be too tired to parry, and won't be able to get my reserves back just by taking a breather.



Dausuul said:


> Which is fine, until the guy who had his limb cut off jumps back to his feet and announces it was just a flesh wound and he's had worse.





Dausuul said:


> Any time there isn't a source of magical healing in the party and someone is reduced to zero or less, the issue arises. You can spend any number of healing surges after a short rest; so, 5 minutes after you were dealt a "mortal wound," you're back on your feet and ready to roll.





Nagol said:


> And that's why you can only narrate in after the fact.



Or you can narrate it as something other than limbs being cut off, as something that heroic grit can overcome:



DEFCON 1 said:


> And that's why I never narrate a guy getting his limbs cut off, unless it was the monster taking the final attack that kills him.





Dausuul said:


> So you never narrate a guy being seriously injured, unless he goes from positive hit points to negative bloodied in one shot? Because that's the only attack you can know to be fatal at the time of narration. If the attack just takes the guy into negative hit points, it's possible--even likely--that he'll be up and about again when combat's over, apparently no worse for wear. Unless of course he bleeds out and dies, in which case he'll be dead.





DEFCON 1 said:


> Not against the PCs, no I don't.
> 
> Now when a PC strikes a killing blow on a _monster_, then sure... all those narrative techniques are fine.  Because I know the monster is dead.  He isn't healing himself back up.



I agree with everything that DEFCON 1 says here. Don't narrate the PCs into injuries that the mechanics don't support.



Dausuul said:


> So if a guy gets reduced to negative hit points (but _not_ negative bloodied)...  how do you narrate that? He's down; he might be up and fighting again in a couple of rounds, or he might be dead in a couple of rounds.





Hussar said:


> The fighter gets a deep gash on his leg.  The Warlord shouts at him and allows him to spend a healing surge.  We don't want to retcon but there's nothing saying that that deep gash just looked worse than it really was.  Lots of blood came out, but, it really wasn't that deep.  It's not that the deep gash goes away, it's just described in more detail.



What Hussar said.

Or, even, this: the wound was deep but the fighter, being heroic, got to his feet nevertheless. On a different day (in mechanical terms, if the death saves had come up differently, or the warlord had not been there), the fighter's heroism might have failed him and he would have failed to get to his feet, instead lying there and bleeding out as his soul is carried off by the Valkyries.



BryonD said:


> Does this mean that once combat is over and a "wound" is described, no later surge may remove that damage?



Yes. Of course, the heroes being heroes, said "damage" doesn't impede their performance.

As [MENTION=2198]Spatula[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, there are many facets to 4e's healing mechanics that are tending to be run together in this thread. The fact that all healing surges are recovered after a single extended rest is one distinct facet. It is obviously intended by the designers as an adventure pacing device. It makes next-to-no difference to the mechanical balance of the game to change this rule so that healing surges are recovered more slowly (say 1 per day for a 3E feel, or 1 per week for an AD&D feel). All this would do is change the adventure pacing, making it closer to the pacing of a 3E or AD&D in which natural healing is the only means of recovery.



wingsandsword said:


> Healing Surges are a very balanced, very sound game mechanic. . .but it makes for lousy roleplaying because of the suspension of disbelief it pushes beyond acceptable levels.



Again, I think this may differ from person to person and table to table. I have no trouble roleplaying in a game with healing surges. And it does no damage to my suspension of disbelief. The idea that a hero can disregard an injury that might impede a lesser mortal is one that I think fits very easily into the heroic fantasy genre.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I would point out here though, this isn't a housecat, nor is it an average member of its kind.




As I pointed out, it could be as much as 40% smaller than certain members of certain breeds of housecat- make no mistake, a pissed off cat of that size is dangerous, whether feral or domesticated.  The size of it's claws and fangs, the sheer mass and the mechanics behind its skeletal structure- all combine to make a nasty piece of work.

Remember, this is a _feral_ cat, a decendent of countless Muffins and Mr. Fuzzwinkles gone bad, not something like a lynx or bobcat (which would be worse).


----------



## Summer-Knight925

I liked the story about the cat....just thought I'd say something about that.
But are we really arguing over this?

Healing surges are not realistic, but honestly...neither is any of D&D, isn't that why we play it? to escape the real world into that kickass world where we slay dragons and save princesses?

I don't know about you, but I don't care how realistic something is, my dwarven fighter is heroic.

But does that make 4e better?
IMO no, but not for the 'unrealistic' argument, but the 'un-challenging' aspect. I don't feel they make the game scary anymore, I liked the eeriness of hoping and praying nothing attacks us that rest period.
So I dislike them because it takes part of the challenge away.

But again, that story with the cat was funny


----------



## prosfilaes

Summer-Knight925 said:


> Healing surges are not realistic, but honestly...neither is any of D&D, isn't that why we play it?




I thought this had been well-covered above. Like all fiction, D&D depends on a certain level of underlying reality. In virtually no fiction, and certainly not the fiction that inspires D&D, can normal humans walk around after someone cuts off their head; this is actually important, because the reader, watcher, or player knows when someone gets their head cut off and just stands up and ignores it, that the creature is not a normal human. That, and a thousand smaller things, make up the basis that keeps the fantastic fantastic and lets the reader/watcher/player make sense of the setting.

Does the percieved unrealism of healing surges matter in the warp and weave of D&D's unreality? I think it's completely obvious that for some people the answer is yes. They've explained how it matters to them at great length; but the fact that it does, and that detracts from the game for some people.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> <snip>
> 
> Or, even, this: the wound was deep but the fighter, being heroic, got to his feet nevertheless. On a different day (in mechanical terms, if the death saves had come up differently, or the warlord had not been there), the fighter's heroism might have failed him and he would have failed to get to his feet, instead lying there and bleeding out as his soul is carried off by the Valkyries.
> 
> 
> <snip>




Like I said, narration *after* the fact.  You cannot provide any narration of injury until the encounter is resolved and the state becomes known.  After all, how deep can the wound be if it is fully healed from a 5 minute rest and the fighter is as fresh as a daisy the next morning?  It was but a scratch!  Unless it killed him of course then it was a mortal blow that would fell the strongest of men.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Yes. Of course, the heroes being heroes, said "damage" doesn't impede their performance.
> 
> As [MENTION=2198]Spatula[/MENTION] pointed out upthread, there are many facets to 4e's healing mechanics that are tending to be run together in this thread. The fact that all healing surges are recovered after a single extended rest is one distinct facet. It is obviously intended by the designers as an adventure pacing device. It makes next-to-no difference to the mechanical balance of the game to change this rule so that healing surges are recovered more slowly (say 1 per day for a 3E feel, or 1 per week for an AD&D feel). All this would do is change the adventure pacing, making it closer to the pacing of a 3E or AD&D in which natural healing is the only means of recovery.



I agree that it makes no mechanical balance difference.  Hell, I readily agree that 4E is better at being a mechanically balanced game.  The math works.

But if I was reading a novel in which the characters each suddenly made their own wounds disappear once a day, I'd find that stupid and stop reading the book.   (Unless, of course, the book was built on a premise of a world in which people actually regenerated.)

I agree the balance works great.  Pacing is of no difference to me.
But the narrative quality is a total deal breaker.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg

Coming late to the party...

I've only played 4e a few times - most recently just this weekend.  The way I "rationalize" healing surges is the same way that Jack Bauer can get the crap beaten out of him, look like he's out of the fight, then suddenly be returning the beating on the bad guys.

One adjustment I would make to Healing Surges, if I really wanted to make the game a little more "realistic" would be to not allow Second Wind to be used after a PC is bloodied.  Once you hit that point, it would require a Cleric to use a power to heal your character.  It just seemed odd to me this weekend when we had a PC that became bloodied, then wasn't bloodied through a healing surge, was again a moment later, and then wasn't (this time from the cleric using a power) by his next turn.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means." 



I agree with much of the "after the fact" narration discussion, and that's the primary issue for me.

But the other issue is the name (or names). "Healing surges" don't actually "heal", particularly in the example of second wind. "Bloodied" doesn't actually mean one is bleeding. Heck a "hit" might not be narrated as the character actually having been hit.


If a game is to use terms such as these, and then expect players of the game to understand that the words don't mean healing, bloodied, and hit, then there needs to be some serious discussion in the rules books about what these things DO mean and how to narrate them well.

I'm not saying that this can't be done, but I'm saying I don't know how to do it. I'll readily admit there are those who can do it with some difficulty and those who can do it with ease. I suspect that the group of people who can do it with ease are those who find healing surges and the like the least problematic.


----------



## avin

Thornir Alekeg said:


> One adjustment I would make to Healing Surges, if I really wanted to make the game a little more "realistic" would be to not allow Second Wind to be used after a PC is bloodied.




On the opposite hand, I'd only allow them to use it while bloodied, as a desperature measure...


----------



## BryonD

Aberzanzorax said:


> I'll readily admit there are those who can do it with some difficulty and those who can do it with ease. I suspect that the group of people who can do it with ease are those who find healing surges and the like the least problematic.



I'd say that your suspicion is far off base.

As has been described before, making crap up on the fly to retcon things is trivially easy.

But healing surges ask you to bend your story that way for benefit to the game parts of the system.  There are other ways to handle it that doesn't ask the story to ne submissive to the mechanics.  And if the story is far and away more important to you than mechanical expediency, then it only makes sense to prefer systems which put story first.


----------



## BryonD

Thornir Alekeg said:


> The way I "rationalize" healing surges is the same way that Jack Bauer can get the crap beaten out of him, look like he's out of the fight, then suddenly be returning the beating on the bad guys.



Well, first of all, even people who LOVE high action stuff crack jokes about Bauer's "recoveries".  And even Jack needs actual medical aid from time to time.  

But I'm completely on board with a mechanic to model adrenaline surges to ignore wounds for a short period.  But ignoring wounds during crisis is not healing and not only still requires actual healing later, it frequently requires MORE healing.  Further, the coolness of ignoring wounds in a crisis is completely undermined when it becomes a 4X daily ability to be used when the mood strikes you.

In the end, 4E doesn't even present surges this way.  They don't let you ignore wounds, they heal wounds.  A surged away wound never ever requires any attention of any degree whatsoever.


----------



## BryonD

avin said:


> On the opposite hand, I'd only allow them to use it while bloodied, as a desperature measure...




Interesting thought.

You could just go a bit further and say that surges can never restore a characters HP to greater than 50%.  It kinda becomes a quick and dirty W/V system.


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> But healing surges ask you to bend your story that way for benefit to the game parts of the system.  There are other ways to handle it that doesn't ask the story to ne submissive to the mechanics.  And if the story is far and away more important to you than mechanical expediency, then it only makes sense to prefer systems which put story first.




What do you mean by "story"?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

BryonD said:


> But then he healing surges *again* and what looked like a deep gash a few moments before now is absolutely completely gone.




No, it's still there (although probably clotted up and starting to scab over); he's just, with a further heroic effort, ignoring the pain, or has taken one of his ubiquitous 3E belts (he's a converted character) and tightened it down over the wound.

In short, you can pretty easily narrate yourself out of any box you (foolishly?) narrate yourself into, if you actually want to put the effort into it.

Of course, it's far, far easier to just not narrate yourself into that box to begin with, don't you think?  I mean, I know in the 3.5E games I run, I don't describe my players' characters getting their arms and legs chopped off or suffering other terrible wounds when they get dropped below 0 HP or are otherwise damaged.  Why would I do that in 4E?  Why would I create a problem and then complain about its existence?


----------



## Dark Mistress

Nagol said:


> Like I said, narration *after* the fact.  You cannot provide any narration of injury until the encounter is resolved and the state becomes known.  After all, how deep can the wound be if it is fully healed from a 5 minute rest and the fighter is as fresh as a daisy the next morning?  It was but a scratch!  Unless it killed him of course then it was a mortal blow that would fell the strongest of men.




That is kinda the problem or part of it for me. In 4e characters seem to be in only 2 conditions. Dead or just had the wind knocked out of them. I mean after a single nights sleep they are perfectly fine means nothing was to serious or they died. All this with no magical help, just natural "healing". Honestly that bugs me.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Dark Mistress said:


> In 4e characters seem to be in only 2 conditions. Dead or just had the wind knocked out of them.




To be fair, this has been true throughout all of D&D's history (and is also true in quite a few of the wargames from which D&D came from).

The only thing 4E has changed is the fact that you don't need a Cleric to get back into the fight the next day.

In 3E, you needed a Cleric or a Cleric-on-a-stick (ubiquitous wand of CLW or lesser vigor).

In 2E and previous, you just needed an extra day or two.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Dark Mistress said:


> That is kinda the problem or part of it for me. In 4e characters seem to be in only 2 conditions. Dead or just had the wind knocked out of them. I mean after a single nights sleep they are perfectly fine means nothing was to serious or they died. All this with no magical help, just natural "healing". Honestly that bugs me.




Whereas for me, the three conditions are: "still in the fight", "temporarily out of the fight, but could get back in with help", or "out of the fight". Feel free to rename that middle one to something shorter, but I wanted it to be clear. 

For me, this works great with the way I want to play cinematic, and it also happens to fit 4E pretty well. But I prefer most hit point systems (absent something like RuneQuest, where the points are clearly physical only and very limited) to play this way, because of the lack of any death spiral effect. Anyone not yet started down the spiral is fully "in the fight". Anyone dead, unconscious, routed, completely intimidated, etc. is "out of the fight". Everyone else is in that middle condition.

BTW, you could certainly modify 4E to give a bit of a different slant on that same idea, but in ways that might be more palatable to some folks. Namely, you could make entering that middle condition more feared by making it a lot harder to recover from in combat. In turn, this would have characters fighting tooth and nail to avoid it, but once in it, it would rarely be worth it for anyone to do more than stablize them and/or grab them during a retreat. Then, if someone did enter that third condition, whether "dead" or something else, give them problems that take days or weeks to recover. This would be a less cinematic version of what we have now, using essentially all the same mechanics. You'd need a few tweaks on the edges and change the fluff a lot, but the mechanics would be the same.

Edit:  Make coming out of "blooded" very difficult *and* give major penalties to defend/attack while blooded, regards previous suggestions, and you'd get a very severe form of what I'm talking about here.  Given the huge amount of hit points in 4E, for both characters and monsters, this would even give something like a 1E feel in the right hands.  People between 0 and blooded would be bandaging wounds, trying to get away, etc.


----------



## TheUltramark

BryonD said:


> I'd say that your suspicion is far off base.
> 
> As has been described before, making crap up on the fly to retcon things is trivially easy.
> 
> *But healing surges ask you to bend your story that way for benefit to the game parts of the system.*  There are other ways to handle it that doesn't ask the story to ne submissive to the mechanics.  And if the story is far and away more important to you than mechanical expediency, then it only makes sense to prefer systems which put story first.




I am in NO way trying to question your methods in general, or disuade you from your style of play, but the highlighted portion of your comment has me somewhat baffled.  Why <how do you play> do surges require some sort of special narrative or "story bending" ?


----------



## Nagol

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> To be fair, this has been true throughout all of D&D's history (and is also true in quite a few of the wargames from which D&D came from).
> 
> The only thing 4E has changed is the fact that you don't need a Cleric to get back into the fight the next day.
> 
> In 3E, you needed a Cleric or a Cleric-on-a-stick (ubiquitous wand of CLW or lesser vigor).
> 
> In 2E and previous, you just needed an extra day or two.




As I've posted elsewhere, this is not true of 1e.

If you fell unconscious and lived then there was a short coma followed by no less than 1 week of recovery.  The recovery period prevented anything more strenuous than eating, sleeping, and slowly moving from place to place -- no spellcasting, no combat, no adventuring.  A character needed a _Heal_ spell or better to circumvent the recovery requirement.


----------



## BryonD

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> No, it's still there (although probably clotted up and starting to scab over); he's just, with a further heroic effort, ignoring the pain, or has taken one of his ubiquitous 3E belts (he's a converted character) and tightened it down over the wound.
> 
> In short, you can pretty easily narrate yourself out of any box you (foolishly?) narrate yourself into, if you actually want to put the effort into it.
> 
> Of course, it's far, far easier to just not narrate yourself into that box to begin with, don't you think?  I mean, I know in the 3.5E games I run, I don't describe my players' characters getting their arms and legs chopped off or suffering other terrible wounds when they get dropped below 0 HP or are otherwise damaged.  Why would I do that in 4E?  Why would I create a problem and then complain about its existence?



So no one in your game EVER receives ANY wound that can't be shrugged off without ANY actual healing?  And you would consider it foolish if they did?

Again, this just brings me back to the reality that people are playing VASTLY different games and it is absurd to try to equate them.

If you are trying to play a game that is about being in a cool story and involves a lot of combat and then you ban all injury that could possible require aid then you have created a HUGE irreconcilable problem.  But that is for what I want.

Edit: Not to mention that "arms chopped off" is more than a bit of a straw man when the point was a major gash that just goes away spontaneously.  There is a huge amount of more than reasonable space that is greater than "this is gonna need some medical attention or, at least, some down to to heal" and "arm chopped off".


----------



## BryonD

TheUltramark said:


> I am in NO way trying to question your methods in general, or disuade you from your style of play, but the highlighted portion of your comment has me somewhat baffled.  Why <how do you play> do surges require some sort of special narrative or "story bending" ?




Man, I'm sorry but we are 29 pages into a thread in which 4E fans have over and over ADVOCATED that retconing and working with the narrative is the solution to surges.  I don't see why you are asking ME that question.


----------



## BryonD

LostSoul said:


> What do you mean by "story"?



I mean I want to feel like I am in a novel and TO HELL with "game".

Winning and Losing and anything REMOTELY like that are negligible to the true fun of what I experience.  

I want great mechanics for creating a consistent model for how things interact.  So instantly that brings "game" into it.  And that is great.  I love the game that is there to support my story.  But the instant you start saying "yeah this isn't the way it would work in a novel, but it mechanically gets you to the same endpoint and is better for the game balance/game simplicity/game whatever, then you have gone off the rails for the experience I want.


----------



## BryonD

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> In 3E, you needed a Cleric or a Cleric-on-a-stick (ubiquitous wand of CLW or lesser vigor).



First, that is not true.  You certainly COULD play that way, 3E had nothing in it that stopped you.  But the presumption that because you played that way everyone else must have is simply wrong.

And I do find it interesting that over and over people who have zero problem with surges also presume that a wand of CLW can OBVIOUSLY just be declared ubiquitous.  If the word ubiquitous applies at all in your sentence then your perspective has NO insight into my games and so you are incapable of commenting on them.

Second, even in the games that DID have the ubiquitous wand, the two conditions did NOT exist as the only options.  You could be wounded and in need of actual medical care.  The fact that the medical care was, in that game, in the form of a wand that was three rounds of casting away doesn't change the fact that a different condition DID exist.

Again, it is the error in equating getting to the same end point as being no different regardless of the path taken.  To some people the path taken is the most important part of the process.  

In 4E you never receive a wound you can't "shrug off".  There is no need for healing, you just go "poof" and you are all better.  And this applies to any and every character concept.  It is truly, implicitly ubiquitous.  
One solution is to say that any and every wound can be shrugged off.
Another solution is to say that no combat injury short of a killing blow may EVER cause a true wound.
If I was reading a novel and EITHER of these options were presented as part of the narrative, I'd not bother to continue reading.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

BryonD said:


> So no one in your game EVER receives ANY wound that can't be shrugged off without ANY actual healing?




Pretty much, no.  If they were taking wounds which required actual healing (either magical or surgical), then you'd also have things like on-going bleeding damage, penalties to your attack rolls and skill checks, etc.  After all, if you've got a "wicked huge gash" in your leg, aren't you going to at least be hobbling around a bit, taking penalty to your speed and Tumble and Jump checks at least?



> And you would consider it foolish if they did?




If they narrated that a particular attack caused a particular wound (even though the rules don't say it does), but then complained when the effects of that wound weren't mechanically supported, then yes - they'd be acting foolishly.



> If you are trying to play a game that is about being in a cool story and involves a lot of combat and then you ban all injury that could possible require aid then you have created a HUGE irreconcilable problem.




No, you haven't.  By adding in meaningful injuries, *you* are creating the problem.



> Edit: Not to mention that "arms chopped off" is more than a bit of a straw man when the point was a major gash that just goes away spontaneously.




Why in the HELL are you narrating in a gash, anyway, since the rules don't require or meaningfully support it's existence?  And then why are you complaining when the rules don't mechanically support getting rid of something they never told you to put there in the first place?

"Doctor, it hurts when I keep doing this!"
"Well, then, stop doing that!"


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

BryonD said:


> First, that is not true.




Er, yes, it is.  In 3E, if you want to be back in the fight the next day, all you needed was a cleric or a cleric-in-a-can.

In what way is this a controversial statement?



> And I do find it interesting that over and over people who have zero problem with surges also presume that a wand of CLW can OBVIOUSLY just be declared ubiquitous.  If the word ubiquitous applies at all in your sentence then your perspective has NO insight into my games and so you are incapable of commenting on them.




It's 375gp + a handful of XP + a single day of downtime for *50* uses of Cure Light Wounds.  (And a feat, but Craft Wand's a damn good feat for a wizard to pick up anyway.)

It's cheaply available and ridiculously useful for the cost.  It's ~half the price of brewing potions of CLW, and even they aren't terribly expensive if you prefer that route.

The fact that you never had standard-issue-healsticks, IMO, marks you as more the outlier than my game.

But, even then, that's just _one option_.  The other option is the same one that's been there since forever - just bring a Cleric with you.  Then, he blows all his spells on healing, rests, and does it again (if necessary).  Everyone's back to fully capable!



> You could be wounded and in need of actual medical care.




... which was available, at worst, within 24 hours (e.g., the next time the Cleric regained his spells).

_That's_ the point I'm making.

The only real difference between 4E and 3E here is that you don't have to tote around Father Maynard if you don't want to.


----------



## billd91

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> The only real difference between 4E and 3E here is that you don't have to tote around Father Maynard if you don't want to.




That is, however, a pretty big difference. To bounce back in 3e requires some form of outside resource - wands, potions, healing spells, scrolls, etc. Those outside resources, and the delivery systems for them (Father Maynard, Sir Upstanding, or the enigmatic hermit Meadowman) may be completely or partially absent. They could be exhausted pending a return to a major town. They may not have survived the last night's fight at the adventure site. The rest of the adventuring party may have to get by on bandages and Ranger Rupert's injury-tending skills. And though the bounce back may still be unrealistically swift compared to real life, it isn't quite the same as just getting a 6 hours of sleep.


----------



## prosfilaes

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Pretty much, no.  If they were taking  wounds which required actual healing (either magical or surgical), then  you'd also have things like on-going bleeding damage, penalties to your  attack rolls and skill checks, etc.  After all, if you've got a "wicked  huge gash" in your leg, aren't you going to at least be hobbling around  a bit, taking penalty to your speed and Tumble and Jump checks at  least?




There's no rules for that in D&D. You interpret that as you can't take a wicked huge gash in D&D; I interpret that as D&D characters ignore the realistic effects of nasty wounds. 



Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> The only real difference between 4E and 3E here is that you don't have to tote around Father Maynard if you don't want to.




The only real difference to you. Some people find the in-world difference between calling on the power of the gods and using a healing surge to be real and important.


----------



## Nagol

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> <snip>
> 
> 
> The only real difference between 4E and 3E here is that you don't have to tote around Father Maynard if you don't want to.




Actually, the difference is that the play group could, should it so choose, decide to conduct adventures in an injured state a la _Tristian and Isolde_.  That adventure space has been shrinking since 1e and is completely gone in 4e.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Pretty much, no.  If they were taking wounds which required actual healing (either magical or surgical), then you'd also have things like on-going bleeding damage, penalties to your attack rolls and skill checks, etc.  After all, if you've got a "wicked huge gash" in your leg, aren't you going to at least be hobbling around a bit, taking penalty to your speed and Tumble and Jump checks at least?



So, if you're having to make saves before you die, is that enough of an indication that you can narrate a bad wound? I mean, your list includes "on-going bleeding damage, penalties to your attack rolls and skill checks, etc." If your character is incapacitated and having to make saves or die from being in the negatives, isn't that cause enough to narrate a "deep gash" by those terms?



> If they narrated that a particular attack caused a particular wound (even though the rules don't say it does), but then complained when the effects of that wound weren't mechanically supported, then yes - they'd be acting foolishly.



There seems to be some sort of gap here. In my eyes, the rules are supposed to be an abstract game model that helps progress the narration of the game. I feel like it's reasonable to have an attainable expectation of purposefully abstract rules supporting a narrative common within the genre. If the rules fall flat here, that's a problem with the rules. It might be foolish to buck against them, but the argument is, "the rule is bad for the type of narrative I'd like to see possible" and not, "the rules won't let me run my narrative, and I can't figure out why."



> BryonD said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are trying to play a game that is about being in a cool story and involves a lot of combat and then you ban all injury that could possible require aid then you have created a HUGE irreconcilable problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't.  By adding in meaningful injuries, *you* are creating the problem.
Click to expand...


First, I think you missed part of BryonD's quote. You left out the very short next sentence: "But that is for what I want." BryonD is saying that the rules are creating a "HUGE irreconcilable problem" for what he wants. Which, as he's indicated, is as follows:


			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I mean I want to feel like I am in a novel and TO HELL with "game".



So, the real context of what he quoted was basically, "when rules get in the way of making it feel like I'm in a novel because of arbitrary game mechanics, it's fails to conform to the model I want in a game." So, you telling him that adding meaningful injuries creates a problem does not make sense within the context he gave.

Second, the rules demonstrate that there is such a thing as meaningful injuries. That is, you can die from them. Obviously they're meaningful. If that's the case, it seems like narrating a "deep gash" to describe why someone drops in combat should be reasonable. After all, it meets your list of "on-going bleeding damage, penalties to your attack rolls and skill checks, etc." Some people complain when the rules go back and contradict what should be a perfectly reasonable narrative. Nobody is confused as to why this happens.



> Why in the HELL are you narrating in a gash, anyway, since the rules don't require or meaningfully support it's existence?  And then why are you complaining when the rules don't mechanically support getting rid of something they never told you to put there in the first place?



The rules do support meaningful wounds. You can die from them. Narrating a wound that causes ongoing bleeding damage, as well as more than adequate penalties on attack rolls and skill checks, it seems to fit what you're looking for. And yet, the rules contradict this narrative later on, either by saying "it wasn't really that bad" or by glossing over it and letting everyone heal to full health with little explanation.



> "Doctor, it hurts when I keep doing this!"
> "Well, then, stop doing that!"



The complaint is with the rules not supporting a common genre narrative. It's not "I can't get this to work." It'd be more akin to:

"Doctor, I can't lift my arm."
"Well, then, stop trying to lift it."

It's not really satisfactory if you want to lift your arm. In this case, saying, "well, the rules don't support that narrative" is like the following:

"Doctor, I can't lift my arm."
"Well, you can't lift your arm."

Yes, we know that. We know the rules don't fit that narrative. Saying, "that's how it works" isn't helpful, and saying "work around it" doesn't help when the goal requires that type of narrative to be an option. And, in a thread where the main question was, "why don't you like healing surges?", it seems like a more than reasonable thing to say.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> It's 375gp + a handful of XP + a single day of downtime for 50 uses of Cure Light Wounds. (And a feat, but Craft Wand's a damn good feat for a wizard to pick up anyway.)




And yet I have _never_ seen a player take this option in any 3Ed or 3.5Ed game.



> It's cheaply available and ridiculously useful for the cost. It's ~half the price of brewing potions of CLW, and even they aren't terribly expensive if you prefer that route.




Just because something may be cheap to make does not make it readily available.  Like any other product in the market, they can be "out of stock"- after all, the PCs aren't the only ones in the world risking life & limb.  And regardless of cost, they take time to make.



> The fact that you never had standard-issue-healsticks, IMO, marks you as more the outlier than my game.




1) I'm with him, obviously- CLW wands were treasure, not commodities, so they weren't always available.

2) since there is no published "census" of D&D campaigns (just postings on the Internet by those willing to talk), there is no way to know who the outliers really are.  To me, having never seen _Ye Olde CLW Wand Haus_ in 30+ years in the game (in 3 states, in 5 cities), _YOUR_ claim seems to be a statistical aberration.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

billd91 said:


> That is, however, a pretty big difference.




Certainly; I don't deny that it is.



prosfilaes said:


> There's no rules for that in D&D. You interpret that as you can't take a wicked huge gash in D&D; I interpret that as D&D characters ignore the realistic effects of nasty wounds.




Fine, then - if you want it that way, why can't they continue to ignore the effect of that nasty wound tomorrow, then?  Why must the "deep gash to the thigh" non-magically heal completely overnight, as Bryon would have it, rather than just continue to be ignored?



> The only real difference to you. Some people find the in-world difference between calling on the power of the gods and using a healing surge to be real and important.




Certainly there are differences in the flavor and narrative description of what happens.  At the end of the day, however, everyone is mechanically back at full HP the next morning.



Nagol said:


> Actually, the difference is that the play group could, should it so choose, decide to conduct adventures in an injured state a la _Tristian and Isolde_.  That adventure space has been shrinking since 1e and is completely gone in 4e.




... and you can continue to adventure in 4E while at fewer than maximum available healing surges, and can continue to press on rather than stopping for an extended rest (e.g., camp for the night), meaning you don't get all your surges back.  You can lose surges for failing your cross-country-travel skill challenges, or can be denied an extended rest for failure.

You can, should you wish to step into houserule territory, easily adjust the rate at which surges are regained (as mentioned earlier, 1 per day or 1 per week can quite easily give you the larger amount of "healing downtime" if that's what you really want).

So, no, I disagree - this is still possible in 4E.



JamesonCourage said:


> So, if you're having to make saves before you die, is that enough of an indication that you can narrate a bad wound?




Nope; it's possible to die of shock from an, all-else-considered, fairly minor wound, if you want a real-world explanation.



> First, I think you missed part of BryonD's quote. You left out the very short next sentence: "But that is for what I want." BryonD is saying that the rules are creating a "HUGE irreconcilable problem" for what he wants. Which, as he's indicated, is as follows:




I didn't miss it.  I just don't think it's a particularly germaine distinction.  The rules in 3E don't mechanically support getting terrible wounds in combat.  The rules in 4E don't mechanically support getting terrible wounds in combat.

He is willing to draw a "line in the sand" for 3E (and earlier) because they make HP take a relatively-long time to come back absent external help (but then make that external help routinely and plentifully available, so ...), and he calls that enough to support narrating bad wounds - even though it's a terrible simulation of bad wounds.

If you want to simulate bad wounds in 4E, the disease system works pretty darn well for it.



			
				Dannalcatraz said:
			
		

> And yet I have never seen a player take this option in any 3Ed or 3.5Ed game.




Really.



> Just because something may be cheap to make does not make it readily available.




Wands of Cure Light Wounds are, by the rules, available in Small Towns and larger a large percentage of the time (by PF rules, anyway; I can't find the 3.X ones).  That requires a settlement of no more than 200 people.

Now, if you decide not to use the rules for what items you can find, that's fine, but then you're arguing about DA's Personal D&D, and not the actual shared game.

And, again, that's assuming that your players aren't just making their own.


----------



## Nagol

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> <snip>
> 
> You can, should you wish to step into houserule territory, easily adjust the rate at which surges are regained (as mentioned earlier, 1 per day or 1 per week can quite easily give you the larger amount of "healing downtime" if that's what you really want).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If you want to simulate bad wounds in 4E, the disease system works pretty darn well for it.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Now, if you decide not to use the rules for what items you can find, that's fine, but then you're arguing about DA's Personal D&D, and not the actual shared game.




So you'll discuss house rule territory to allow 4e to achieve a style more in keeping with what I want, but dismiss it as stepping away from the shared game when others do?

BTW, Tristian was nursed back to health by Isolde for over a month of bed rest.  That's a REALLY substantial modification to the default healing rules (though he may have had a form of disease as well depending on the story).  The story fits in well with 1e and 2e healing though.

Ultimately, the rules as presented do not present opportunities to start at less than full strength.  

What the game has lost is the emergent strategic consequential choice: do we engage the adventure today even though we are under-strength or do we recover and hope our goal is still possible to achieve?

Can DM fiat change that?  Sure, DM fiat can change anything.  But it stops being a naturally occurring event in the game.  It only appears when the DM feels it is dramatically satisfying which makes it forced and potentially dickish.

None of my current players picked up Craft Wand.  Their first 7ish levels the group of six had only a druid for healing and that character preferred to use non-magical aid (Healing skill) for the most part.  They did pick up a few wands of CLW, both as treasure and purchased resources but often forgot/decided against using them.  Now at 19th level, there is a Fighter/Cleric with a Cleric cohort so healing is more available, but the group has split/gone on adventures without that pair.  The behaviour doesn't seem atypical.  As a DM, I've had groups in 1e, 2e, and 3e that had no healers.  The groups adapted and pursued challenges and used tactics suited to their strengths.


----------



## I'm A Banana

billd91 said:
			
		

> That is, however, a pretty big difference. To bounce back in 3e requires some form of outside resource - wands, potions, healing spells, scrolls, etc




Specifically, a kind of _magic_. Which is how it's easier to wrap your mind around it in pre-4e D&D: "It's MAGIC! It knits your arm right back on! It does that because it's MAGICAL!"

I mean, if 4e just decided to give everyone the ability to create X number of magical healing salves in a day, and each healing potion recovered 25% of your hit points, but you couldn't apply the healing salve without about 5 minutes to bandage yourself adequately and suchlike (though certain characters could spur you on to suddenly use a salve regardless), and described it as MAGIC, this wouldn't really be as much of an issue, I think. 

And still, it seems that it might cause problems in pacing. Healing is effectively an encounter-based resource, but that doesn't jive with folks who want a less-mythic period of convalescence.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Nope; it's possible to die of shock from an, all-else-considered, fairly minor wound, if you want a real-world explanation.



Well, I think you're really on the fringe of things, if that's your opinion. If the only way to die (via save or die while in the negatives) is by going into shock over fairly minor wounds in your game, I'd say you're detached from most groups. This is just a gut assessment, obviously, but it's nothing I've ever heard anyone else put forward before this moment.

Now, it's fine to be in a corner case scenario. I mean, it doesn't solve the problems of people who want to participate in standard fantasy genre narratives, but you didn't set out to solve that, either.



> I didn't miss it.  I just don't think it's a particularly germaine distinction.  The rules in 3E don't mechanically support getting terrible wounds in combat.  The rules in 4E don't mechanically support getting terrible wounds in combat.



The healing surge rules (including full recovery on an extended rest) make it much harder to mechanically support getting terrible wounds in combat. If you take a terrible wound in 3.X and are naturally heal, it'll take a few days (to a couple of weeks) while your wounds heal. This isn't the case in 4e. To this end, 3.X certainly doesn't shut off the narrative the way 4e does. Within this context, 3.X certainly has more mechanical support for getting terrible wounds in combat (it allows the simulation of slower healing over time) while 4e has a mechanic that actively denies this narrative, by your own admission (people can only "bleed out" over shock on minor wounds).



> He is willing to draw a "line in the sand" for 3E (and earlier) because they make HP take a relatively-long time to come back absent external help (but then make that external help routinely and plentifully available, so ...), and he calls that enough to support narrating bad wounds - even though it's a terrible simulation of bad wounds.



I think the issue is whether or not a particular type of narrative is available in the game. The question, "why don't you like healing surges?" was answered with, "because they close off this type of narrative to my group." Going into your opinion on the value of the mechanics isn't germane to this discussion. For example, I didn't keep the healing mechanics in my SRD-based RPG as they were written. However, the issue here is whether or not a narrative is available, not whether or not it's a good "simulation of bad wounds." The fact that bad wounds cannot be simulated well in your mind in 4e is problematic when the complaint is over narrative possibilities.



> If you want to simulate bad wounds in 4E, the disease system works pretty darn well for it.



Are their rules for it in the game?



> Really.



Same for my group. Not once did a player ever use a healing wand. Wands were used literally twice in the 7 or so years we played 3.X (including my long-running campaign with over 2,000 hours put into it).



> Wands of Cure Light Wounds are, by the rules, available in Small Towns and larger a large percentage of the time (by PF rules, anyway; I can't find the 3.X ones).  That requires a settlement of no more than 200 people.
> 
> Now, if you decide not to use the rules for what items you can find, that's fine, but then you're arguing about DA's Personal D&D, and not the actual shared game.



In 3.5, you need at least 901 people per town to buy that wand. On top of that, you'll need to run across a town that has it "in stock" as Danny indicated; this meshes well with the DMG's advice on a "living, breathing world" (page 131) and exceptions to towns and prices ("while exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought)", page 137). If the area of the world is affected by the setting in ways outside of what is assumed in the DMG (frontier settlements, low magic setting, wartime ("during wartime, authorities may restrict or even confiscate materials and supplies", page 133), etc.), it is encouraged that the towns differ from how they are presented in the DMG.

I think it's reasonable to say, "circumstances permitting" without taking it to the extreme of, "but now you're playing DA's Personal D&D, and not the shared actual game." Plenty of people play in or have played in low magic games, with the setting adjusted accordingly. The guidelines in the 3.5 DMG support changing the rules to reflect this. It's not controversial, and it's not playing a different game.



> And, again, that's assuming that your players aren't just making their own.



Which ours weren't. So, yes, it's assuming that.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Originally Posted by Dannalcatraz
> And yet I have never seen a player take this option in any 3Ed or 3.5Ed game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really.
Click to expand...


Yes, really.  IME, casters take Metamagic feats, get special familiars and so forth.  The only caster feats they have are built into their classes.



> I think it's reasonable to say, "circumstances permitting" without taking it to the extreme of, "but now you're playing DA's Personal D&D, and not the shared actual game." Plenty of people play in or have played in low magic games, with the setting adjusted accordingly. The guidelines in the 3.5 DMG support changing the rules to reflect this. It's not controversial, and it's not playing a different game.




Exactly.  "Available" means one or more exists within a given populace.  It does NOT mean "on the shelf at _every store in the city._"  It does not mean that the shopkeeper will sell it to you for a price you can pay if it IS in stock.  It does not mean the shopkeeper is willing to sell it to a member of your species or outsiders of any kind.  Or perhaps it's sale is restricted to members of a certain social class or organization...and you aren't either one.

It does not mean that the seller even knows what it is.

And, of course, if you don't ask the right people, you won't find it at all.

And to be perfectly clear:

1) I wasn't alone in playing this way- virtually every DM I've ever played with has done likewise.

2) this had nothing to do with magic items per se- even mundane items were subject to the laws of supply and demand.  In RtToEE, we spent a lot of time in small towns, so I couldn't find a smith able to make a plain dire pick...much less the masterwork one I _really_ wanted so I could get it enchanted.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> To be fair, this has been true throughout all of D&D's history (and is also true in quite a few of the wargames from which D&D came from).
> 
> The only thing 4E has changed is the fact that you don't need a Cleric to get back into the fight the next day.
> 
> In 3E, you needed a Cleric or a Cleric-on-a-stick (ubiquitous wand of CLW or lesser vigor).
> 
> In 2E and previous, you just needed an extra day or two.




True the difference is in 3e and what I remember of 1e (played very little 2e) you needed magical healing or it would take you days if not weeks to recover. Which implied you was hurt. In 4e a good nights rest and your fine. I am not saying it is good or bad, only saying that it bugs me and that I personally don't like it.


----------



## Dark Mistress

Crazy Jerome said:


> Whereas for me, the three conditions are: "still in the fight", "temporarily out of the fight, but could get back in with help", or "out of the fight". Feel free to rename that middle one to something shorter, but I wanted it to be clear.
> 
> For me, this works great with the way I want to play cinematic, and it also happens to fit 4E pretty well. But I prefer most hit point systems (absent something like RuneQuest, where the points are clearly physical only and very limited) to play this way, because of the lack of any death spiral effect. Anyone not yet started down the spiral is fully "in the fight". Anyone dead, unconscious, routed, completely intimidated, etc. is "out of the fight". Everyone else is in that middle condition.




Perfectly understandable. I do agree 4e does a very good job of capturing what I call high cinematic feel combat and games. Which if you like that, it works greats. Me I tend more towards gritty and dark style games. Which is why it bugs me on a personal level.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> Like I said, narration *after* the fact.  You cannot provide any narration of injury until the encounter is resolved and the state becomes known.  After all, how deep can the wound be if it is fully healed from a 5 minute rest and the fighter is as fresh as a daisy the next morning?  It was but a scratch!  Unless it killed him of course then it was a mortal blow that would fell the strongest of men.



I disagree that you cannot provide _any_ narration. You can provide _some _narration - but, as Hussar pointed out upthread, you can't provide _complete _narration. The analogy to the spear strike to Frodo in Moria, which has been made upthread, is apposite here. Some narration is given - the reader knows that Frodo has been knocked unconscious by a spear strike - but all the details are not known. They are revealed later. In the book, it is the author who keeps the reader in suspense. In a game, it is the mechanics that keep the players (including the player of the injured PC) in suspense.

As to the wound being fully healed from a 5 minute rest - why assume that that is the case? After a 5 minute rest the wound is no longer impeding the PC's performance. That is not the same as it being healed. And that is consistent with the general tenor of D&D for most of its history.

As to the wound being fully healed and the PC being fresh as a daisy the next morning - as I posted upthread, that is a discrete issue of design - completely separable from the other ways in which 4e healing works - which is obviously a decision taken to facilitate adventure pacing. The houseruling required to make the pacing more gritty - 1 surge per day, or 1 surge per week - is completely trivial. And there are alternative non-mechanical approaches available that likewise are trivial to implement - no houseruling of recovery, but an understanding among the group that much resting time - weeks, months, whatever - will pass between adventures, as the PCs sort out their ordinary lives and recover from the strain of their travails.



BryonD said:


> But if I was reading a novel in which the characters each suddenly made their own wounds disappear once a day, I'd find that stupid and stop reading the book.



As I posted upthread and have reiterated here, the houseruling or playstyle adjustment required to answer that objection is trivial.

To reiterate: The recovery of all surges after an extended rest is a discrete part of the 4e healing mechanics. It's soul function is to facilitate adventure pacing, by making recovery quick and by making sure that all PCs recover at the same rate. Changing it - either mechanically, by houseruling, or narratively, by the table agreeing to extensive downtime between adventures - is trivial and will have no other effect, that I can see, on the play of the game.

It is in the relationship between healing surge expenditure, hit point recovery and healing powers that 4e's healing rules demonstrate a mechanical intricacy, where damage to balance might be done by careless tinkering. The extend rest recovery rules are completely extraneous to this.



Dark Mistress said:


> In 4e characters seem to be in only 2 conditions. Dead or just had the wind knocked out of them.



This is not true of all characters in 4e. Just PCs. That's more or less what "hit points as plot protection " means!



Aberzanzorax said:


> If a game is to use terms such as these, and then expect players of the game to understand that the words don't mean healing, bloodied, and hit, then there needs to be some serious discussion in the rules books about what these things DO mean and how to narrate them well.
> 
> I'm not saying that this can't be done, but I'm saying I don't know how to do it.



I've often posted that the 4e rulebooks could benefit from more clearly indicating how the designers think the game is to be played. I don't think that healing is a particularly egregious case - it's certainly caused no trouble at my table - but I wouldn't object to it being given a makeover.


----------



## pemerton

On the question of past editions - it is impossible, in any edition of D&D, playing according to the combat mechanics, for any PC to suffer a non-fatal wound that cannot be fully recovered from by (i) minor first aid on the battlefield, and then (ii) some period of bedrest.

4e narrows further the range of possible, non-fatal wounds. And (via the death save mechanic) it introduces a fortune-in-the-middle dimension into the narration of them. The second of these changes might be radical for some. The first strikes me as nothing more than a difference of degree.


----------



## Dark Mistress

pemerton said:


> This is not true of all characters in 4e. Just PCs. That's more or less what "hit points as plot protection " means!




When i say character I mean PC. Though the rules applying to PC's and NPC's differently is another thing that bugs me. But I won't get into that since that is not on topic.


----------



## billd91

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Specifically, a kind of _magic_. Which is how it's easier to wrap your mind around it in pre-4e D&D: "It's MAGIC! It knits your arm right back on! It does that because it's MAGICAL!"
> 
> I mean, if 4e just decided to give everyone the ability to create X number of magical healing salves in a day, and each healing potion recovered 25% of your hit points, but you couldn't apply the healing salve without about 5 minutes to bandage yourself adequately and suchlike (though certain characters could spur you on to suddenly use a salve regardless), and described it as MAGIC, this wouldn't really be as much of an issue, I think.




It would depend. Is that healing salve only usable on themselves or can it transfer around? The internal resource nature of healing surges is one of my main criticisms. 



Kamikaze Midget said:


> And still, it seems that it might cause problems in pacing. Healing is effectively an encounter-based resource, but that doesn't jive with folks who want a less-mythic period of convalescence.




Indeed. Not my primary beef, but I can see it.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> As to the wound being fully healed from a 5 minute rest - why assume that that is the case? After a 5 minute rest the wound is no longer impeding the PC's performance. That is not the same as it being healed. And that is consistent with the general tenor of D&D for most of its history.



I think the difference being pointed out is not in terms of narrative given, but in mechanics reflecting narrative given. For example, in 3.X, that narratively nasty wound is marked by a mechanical wound that will take days or potentially a couple weeks to naturally heal. With 4e healing recovering outside of combat on an extended rest, you have a wound that might narratively persist, but the mechanics no longer reflect this (nobody is missing hit points or healing surges).

I don't think it's a matter of "I have 1 hit point as I can act unimpeded" so much as "I have 1 hit point but my wounds mechancially disappear overnight, which might be jarring to the narrative given". But, that's my take on what BryonD is trying to say, and I might be off-base.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> <snip>
> 
> As to the wound being fully healed from a 5 minute rest - why assume that that is the case? After a 5 minute rest the wound is no longer impeding the PC's performance. That is not the same as it being healed. And that is consistent with the general tenor of D&D for most of its history.




Because prior to the 5 minute rest, the PC was at death's door having failed 2 of the 3 required saving throws.  If X is the quality of being wounded and the PC has none of X then the PC is effectively unwounded.  If the PC was wounded and is not now wounded the PC healed.  Alternatively, the universe works like the movie-universe _The Last Action Hero_  where heroes only ever suffer flesh wounds or are killed.



> <snip>
> 
> The houseruling required to make the pacing more gritty - 1 surge per day, or 1 surge per week - is completely trivial. And there are alternative non-mechanical approaches available that likewise are trivial to implement - no houseruling of recovery, but an understanding among the group that much resting time - weeks, months, whatever - will pass between adventures, as the PCs sort out their ordinary lives and recover from the strain of their travails.
> 
> As I posted upthread and have reiterated here, the houseruling or playstyle adjustment required to answer that objection is trivial.
> 
> To reiterate: The recovery of all surges after an extended rest is a discrete part of the 4e healing mechanics. It's soul function is to facilitate adventure pacing, by making recovery quick and by making sure that all PCs recover at the same rate. Changing it - either mechanically, by houseruling, or narratively, by the table agreeing to extensive downtime between adventures - is trivial and will have no other effect, that I can see, on the play of the game.




Sure it's fixable -- the easiest method of fixing it is to play a different game regardless of how trivial a change it may appear -- but the question wasn't whether or not I play 4e; it was what is my problem with healing surges.

Healing surges and the other decisions surrounding healing present a game design pretty far from what I would prefer to see and introduce a unknown state into encounters where a character is down and may be fine or may be dying -- only further actions at the table can resolve the superposition.  The default is the character is likely to die unless someone intervenes, but once the intervention occurs the character will be fine before the next encounter.  The difficulty with the superposition is it interferes with on the spot description requiring the substitution of vague statements as "he's down" or the use of game terms "he's dropped below 0 hp and is down".  

Further, healing as it is presented in its entirety posits a reality where a character goes from death's door to winded (i.e. full hp but down a few healing surges) within 5 minutes to wholly refreshed and rested within a day -- all without any external agency other than someone administering minimal aid to wake the character from unconsciousness.  This is a terrific model if I were aiming for a very cinematic game like BESM, Feng Shui, or Reel Adventures, but does not fit well with a game aiming for different tropes which is what I use different editions of D&D to emulate.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> On the question of past editions - it is impossible, in any edition of D&D, playing according to the combat mechanics, for any PC to suffer a non-fatal wound that cannot be fully recovered from by (i) minor first aid on the battlefield, and then (ii) some period of bedrest.
> 
> 4e narrows further the range of possible, non-fatal wounds. And (via the death save mechanic) it introduces a fortune-in-the-middle dimension into the narration of them. The second of these changes might be radical for some. The first strikes me as nothing more than a difference of degree.




The sword of sharpness and staff of withering would disagree with your first point.  

And as for the matter of degree, a sunburn and a burn are spearated by a matter of degree as well.  A week of incapacity followed by a couple of months of bed rest on one hand and a 5 minute rest and continuing the adventure until there is a chance to completely sleep it off on the other.

Perhaps it is the degree of trivialisation that is affecting some people (in addition to the other issues like the narrative discontinuity, et al.)?


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> Like I said, narration *after* the fact.  You cannot provide any narration of injury until the encounter is resolved and the state becomes known.  After all, how deep can the wound be if it is fully healed from a 5 minute rest and the fighter is as fresh as a daisy the next morning?  It was but a scratch!  Unless it killed him of course then it was a mortal blow that would fell the strongest of men.




I'd point out that it'd be really, really difficult to narrate *before *the fact.  

Unless you have some seriously funky game mechanics.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> I'd point out that it'd be really, really difficult to narrate *before *the fact.
> 
> Unless you have some seriously funky game mechanics.




Certainly!  Though I know of a few including the infamous "railroading" where the GM has laid the narration for the events and is trying to get the PCs to the same point...

What I respond to is a game where the state is knowable (note knowable not necessarily known) at all times inside the game world.  The players may be on edge during a set of die rolls, but that is effectively instantaneous to the world.  The players may be on edge because they don't know the state, but that state can and probably has been determined for them to discover as they may.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> Certainly!  Though I know of a few including the infamous "railroading" where the GM has laid the narration for the events and is trying to get the PCs to the same point...
> 
> What I respond to is a game where the state is knowable (note knowable not necessarily known) at all times inside the game world.  The players may be on edge during a set of die rolls, but that is effectively instantaneous to the world.  The players may be on edge because they don't know the state, but that state can and probably has been determined for them to discover as they may.




Oh, and fair enough.  Like I said, WAYYY back in this thread, the issue didn't really exist in earlier versions of D&D because D&D has always held the "Turn" (not the game term of 10 minutes, but, one person's period of actoins) as a distinct unit.  

By and large, you couldn't do anything that would impact someone else's turn.  Yes, there are exceptions to this (Attacks of Opportunity for one) but, generally, if it's not your turn, there's very little you can actively do.

In 4e, this isn't true.  You have all sorts of things you can do on other people's turns, including effecting the attacks of enemies - turn a serious blow into a minor one a la a Warlord's healing powers.  So, yes, there is a degree of uncertainty that wasn't present in previous editions.

This isn't a bug, it's a feature.

On the subject of healing sticks:

WOTC had the RPGA to draw upon when deciding on what consists of an outlier or not.  And I'll be you dollars to donuts that healing wands were very, very commonly used in RPGA play.  I've always said that 4e is the RPGA edition.  That your particular group didn't use healing wands may be perfectly true.  I can totally accept that.  But, looking at things like the Adventure Paths, where that sort of thing IS presumed (and very frequently given as treasure), I'm going to go with any group that ignored the options was probably the outlier.

Certainly, even if it wasn't true, that was the presumption going into 4e.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> The sword of sharpness and staff of withering would disagree with your first point.



Neither of these interacts with the hit point mechanics in AD&D, as best I recall. A PC who loses a limb, for example, does not lose any hit points permanently, even though s/he now has less "meat".

Either could therefore be implemented without difficulty in 4e. You'd use exactly the same mechanics as in AD&D.


----------



## pemerton

There are two distinct issues (at least) in play here: recovery times, and PC plot protection implemented by way of fortune-in-the-middle.

*Recovery time*


Nagol said:


> So Tristian was nursed back to health by Isolde for over a month of bed rest.  That's a REALLY substantial modification to the default healing rules



No. It requires a mechanically trivial change - one that a rookie GM could make. Namely, have healing surges restore at the rate of 1 per week of rest. (If you think the nursing should matter, make it two per week with care - I think AD&D and maybe 3E had similar rules for doubling the healing rate with nursing care.)



Nagol said:


> healing as it is presented in its entirety posits a reality where a character goes from death's door to winded (i.e. full hp but down a few healing surges) within 5 minutes to wholly refreshed and rested within a day -- all without any external agency other than someone administering minimal aid to wake the character from unconsciousness.



The only difference in AD&D and 3E is increasing the time required. But time is in fact not sufficient external agency to recover from most serious injuries.



Dark Mistress said:


> True the difference is in 3e and what I remember of 1e (played very little 2e) you needed magical healing or it would take you days if not weeks to recover. Which implied you was hurt.





JamesonCourage said:


> The healing surge rules (including full recovery on an extended rest) make it much harder to mechanically support getting terrible wounds in combat. If you take a terrible wound in 3.X and are naturally heal, it'll take a few days (to a couple of weeks) while your wounds heal. This isn't the case in 4e.





JamesonCourage said:


> I think the difference being pointed out is not in terms of narrative given, but in mechanics reflecting narrative given. For example, in 3.X, that narratively nasty wound is marked by a mechanical wound that will take days or potentially a couple weeks to naturally heal.



Terrible, nasty wounds don't generally recover by means of natural healing, and even when they do don't recover in a few days or weeks. The sorts of injuries that recover in a few days or weeks are bruises, minor sprains, minor burns, and the like. And, at least in my view, there is nothing especially absurd about recovering sufficient grit and fighting spirit to ignore all these with a good night's rest. Yes, it's less gritty than saying that it takes a week's rest to recover that grit and spirit. But that's all that is at stake - the time required to recover the grit to shake off minor injuries.

Because the natural healing rules in AD&D and 3E _cannot_, on pain of absurdity, be taken to be rules for recovering from serious injury.



Nagol said:


> And as for the matter of degree, a sunburn and a burn are spearated by a matter of degree as well.  A week of incapacity followed by a couple of months of bed rest on one hand and a 5 minute rest and continuing the adventure until there is a chance to completely sleep it off on the other.
> 
> Perhaps it is the degree of trivialisation that is affecting some people



Perhaps it is. Nevertheless, there are few serious injuries that will be inflicted by a sword or spear that can be recovered from simply by bed rest.

I can see the issue of gritty vs cinematic flavour. I can't see the issue of realism vs absurdity.


*PC plot protection by means of fortune-in-the-middle*


Nagol said:


> If the PC was wounded and is not now wounded the PC healed.



Either the PC was wounded, and died, or wasn't wounded (or at least wasn't badly wounded) and stood back up.



Nagol said:


> Because prior to the 5 minute rest, the PC was at death's door having failed 2 of the 3 required saving throws.  If X is the quality of being wounded and the PC has none of X then the PC is effectively unwounded.



I don't follow this. The PC has the quality of "having been stabbed by a spear". Whether or not the PC survives (as determined by the dice rolls) doesn't determine whether or not that quality is possessed. It does determine whether or not the PC has the quality of "having been fatally stabbed by a spear".

Of course, one quality the PC does _not_ have, if the dice rolls are successful, is the quality of "being at death's door". That is, there is a distinction here between the gameworld and the mechanics. That a mechanical resolution is being applied - of rolling dice to see whether or not a PC has died - does not mean that the same process, or some analogue of it, is taking place in the gameworld.



JamesonCourage said:


> If the only way to die (via save or die while in the negatives) is by going into shock over fairly minor wounds in your game, I'd say you're detached from most groups.



This is not quite what [MENTION=23094]Patryn of Elvenshae[/MENTION] said. In 4e, the combat mechanics cannot bring it about that a PC dies by any other means that the one you indicate it. NPCs can die in all sorts of ways, in and out of combat. PCs can die in all sorts of ways out of combat.

I can see how this might be objectionable to those who want the mechanics governing the infliction of injury in combat to just be a special case of a general mechanic governing the infliction of injury. (I think hit points are also objectionable to many such people - hence the flight to RQ, RM etc in earlier times, and the innumerable variant rules for handling falling, poison etc in AD&D.)



Nagol said:


> Alternatively, the universe works like the movie-universe _The Last Action Hero_  where heroes only ever suffer flesh wounds or are killed.



In combat, heroes only ever suffer flesh wounds or are killed. That is correct. As I've indicated, I also think it's the only tenable interpretation of hit point mechanics in general. Because non-flesh wounds don't get better, by themselves, over the course of a few days or weeks.



Nagol said:


> This is a terrific model if I were aiming for a very cinematic game like BESM, Feng Shui, or Reel Adventures, but does not fit well with a game aiming for different tropes which is what I use different editions of D&D to emulate.



Sure. But this has nothing to do with a game being unplayable, or unable to be narrated, without either ignoring or distorting the mechanics.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> Terrible, nasty wounds don't generally recover by means of natural healing, and even when they do don't recover in a few days or weeks. The sorts of injuries that recover in a few days or weeks are bruises, minor sprains, minor burns, and the like. And, at least in my view, there is nothing especially absurd about recovering sufficient grit and fighting spirit to ignore all these with a good night's rest. Yes, it's less gritty than saying that it takes a week's rest to recover that grit and spirit. But that's all that is at stake - the time required to recover the grit to shake off minor injuries.



In 3.X, if someone gets knocked to -8 at level 1, and is stabilized, it'll take them 8 days of natural healing (and being treated) to hit 0 (where they're conscious but really messed up). Obviously, the abstract mechanic is simulating something worse than "bruises, minor sprains, minor burns, and the like." That's just obviously not the case. A character with 6 hit points would take two weeks to go from -8 to full health again. That's so far away from "bruises, minor sprains, minor burns, and the like" that it's very, very obvious to me.



> Because the natural healing rules in AD&D and 3E _cannot_, on pain of absurdity, be taken to be rules for recovering from serious injury.



This statement seems really odd to me. It can't? I mean, the system cannot simulate recovering from serious injury because...? I mean, yes, there are different levels of serious injuries, and it wouldn't make sense for many to heal naturally. However, the very idea that it can't represent that is very amusing to me. You made a statement and didn't provide reasoning, so I can't speak to that, all I can do is smile and disagree with your assertion. Surely if you can narrate a wound that isn't above minor in grade, you can narrate a wound that could heal naturally if treated? Flesh wounds that take days to heal are very standard within the fantasy genre.



> Perhaps it is. Nevertheless, there are few serious injuries that will be inflicted by a sword or spear that can be recovered from simply by bed rest.



In the fantasy genre? I disagree.



> I can see the issue of gritty vs cinematic flavour. I can't see the issue of realism vs absurdity.



What about gritty within the realm of fantasy? A nod towards realism (and not ruling out potential narratives) while embracing the genre?



> This is not quite what Patryn of Elvenshae said. In 4e, the combat mechanics cannot bring it about that a PC dies by any other means that the one you indicate it. NPCs can die in all sorts of ways, in and out of combat. PCs can die in all sorts of ways out of combat.



Um, I tried to comment that when dying in his game due to being in the negatives, you can only seem to die of shock to a minor wound. I didn't comment on any other way to die. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. I'm definitely not trying to misrepresent him, so next time I'll be more careful with my wording. I was just saying that every time someone is in the negatives, if they die, it's to shock from a minor wound.



> I can see how this might be objectionable to those who want the mechanics governing the infliction of injury in combat to just be a special case of a general mechanic governing the infliction of injury. (I think hit points are also objectionable to many such people - hence the flight to RQ, RM etc in earlier times, and the innumerable variant rules for handling falling, poison etc in AD&D.)



No doubt there's going to be some people that have problems with hit points as they stood (as am one of them, and changed it in my RPG). I agree that a lot of people who had problems with hit points might have other objections we're discussing as well.



> In combat, heroes only ever suffer flesh wounds or are killed. That is correct. As I've indicated, I also think it's the only tenable interpretation of hit point mechanics in general. Because non-flesh wounds don't get better, by themselves, over the course of a few days or weeks.



I'm almost certain that dividing HP into two pools ("physical" and "other") and making a fairly simple system that requires wounds being treated is pretty easy to implement. I don't think the "wounds need to be treated" should be the base assumption for D&D (though the different hit point pools should be), but I'd definitely like to see it as a "dial of complexity" that Mr. Mearls has been talking about.


----------



## Hussar

JamesonCourage said:


> In 3.X, if someone gets knocked to -8 at level 1, and is stabilized, it'll take them 8 days of natural healing (and being treated) to hit 0 (where they're conscious but really messed up). Obviously, the abstract mechanic is simulating something worse than "bruises, minor sprains, minor burns, and the like." That's just obviously not the case. A character with 6 hit points would take two weeks to go from -8 to full health again. That's so far away from "bruises, minor sprains, minor burns, and the like" that it's very, very obvious to me.




This is not actually correct.



			
				3.5 SRD on Healing said:
			
		

> Healing
> 
> After taking damage, you can recover hit points through natural healing or through magical healing. In any case, you can’t regain hit points past your full normal hit point total.
> Natural Healing
> 
> With a full night’s rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.
> 
> If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you recover twice your character level in hit points.
> Magical Healing
> 
> Various abilities and spells can restore hit points.
> Healing Limits
> 
> You can never recover more hit points than you lost. Magical healing won’t raise your current hit points higher than your full normal hit point total.
> Healing Ability Damage
> 
> Ability damage is temporary, just as hit point damage is. Ability damage returns at the rate of 1 point per night of rest (8 hours) for each affected ability score. Complete bed rest restores 2 points per day (24 hours) for each affected ability score.




Our 1st level character would heal 14 hit points in 7 days actually.

Name a potentially lethal wound that I can recover from in 7 days.  Heck, name a potentially lethal wound I can recover from in 14 days.  Completely recover from with no side effects.  

It takes longer than that to recover from a serious sprain.



> This statement seems really odd to me. It can't? I mean, the system cannot simulate recovering from serious injury because...? I mean, yes, there are different levels of serious injuries, and it wouldn't make sense for many to heal naturally. However, the very idea that it can't represent that is very amusing to me. You made a statement and didn't provide reasoning, so I can't speak to that, all I can do is smile and disagree with your assertion. Surely if you can narrate a wound that isn't above minor in grade, you can narrate a wound that could heal naturally if treated? Flesh wounds that take days to heal are very standard within the fantasy genre.
> /snip




I don't see why it is odd.  Again, name a life threatening wound that someone can 100% recover from in 7 days.  And that's using your very specific example.  Note, a second level character would heal that in 4 days.

4 days to go from a life threatening wound, a short step away from death to fully functional, not a scratch or a side effect.  

And you don't find this ludicrous?


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> This is not actually correct.



Oh, I doubt that's true.



> Our 1st level character would heal 14 hit points in 7 days actually.



Only if he had complete bed rest, which I never said was the case.



> Name a potentially lethal wound that I can recover from in 7 days.  Heck, name a potentially lethal wound I can recover from in 14 days.  Completely recover from with no side effects.
> 
> It takes longer than that to recover from a serious sprain.



In reality, yep. Then again, I've seen people recover from very serious wounds in a relatively short period of time (a few days to a few weeks) in the fantasy genre time and again. Which is what the game is based on.

The fantasy genre follows reality, but breaks at certain points; healing in 4e breaks from reality, and follows certain narrative paths within the fantasy genre. I dislike that it narrows my options substantially by doing so.



> I don't see why it is odd.  Again, name a life threatening wound that someone can 100% recover from in 7 days.  And that's using your very specific example.



No, my example was 14 days.



> Note, a second level character would heal that in 4 days.



No, he'd heal it in 7 days, and that's if he still only had 6 hit points at level 2.



> 4 days to go from a life threatening wound, a short step away from death to fully functional, not a scratch or a side effect.
> 
> And you don't find this ludicrous?



In reality? Yes. In the fantasy genre? No. Wounds that pierce the flesh, cause massive pain and significant blood loss, but miss vital organs and can be recovered from in record time? Right up the fantasy genre's ally. Wounds that only ever cause minor wounds, bruises, and sprains, or kill you outright? That's within the realm of some fantasy, but getting rid of serious injury or debilitating injury completely is shutting down potential narratives that are common to the genre.

People hear "it doesn't let me tell the story I want it too, because you heal too quickly" and tie it to realism. Yes, it's affected by realism, but that's because the modern fantasy genre is very much tied to it. Having wounds that are serious, take a little while to heal, but leave no lasting injuries is common enough within the genre (the wounds might leave scars that characters can absentmindedly rub while thinking, but they often won't leave lasting injuries).

I'm not sure why people are trying to make me defend pure realism; it's not what I want. I want to see a game reflect and mechanically support a range of fantasy genre narratives, and the healing mechanic we've been discussing limits it. This whole "name me a wound" thing isn't recognizing the problem that's being put forward. That's not touching on the issue.

I feel like there's a movement to refute what people are saying in this thread by shifting their arguments, and I'm personally trying to not do the same thing to others. I'm trying to be clear on my objections, so that we can have clarity within the discussion. I hope nobody thinks I'm speaking for them, or if they think I am, I hope they know I'm not trying to misrepresent them, and they're free to correct me. I hope people can see what I'm trying to communicate. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> I mean, the system cannot simulate recovering from serious injury because...? I mean, yes, there are different levels of serious injuries, and it wouldn't make sense for many to heal naturally. However, the very idea that it can't represent that is very amusing to me. You made a statement and didn't provide reasoning, so I can't speak to that, all I can do is smile and disagree with your assertion.



The reasoning, as restated by Hussar, is that in the real world humans don't recover from near-fatal wounds inflicted by bladed weapons with a few days to a few weeks of bedrest.

Hence, whatever injuries _are_ in 3E (and to a slightly lesser extent, given its longer recovery times, in AD&D) they are not near-fatal wounds inflicted by bladed weapons.



JamesonCourage said:


> Surely if you can narrate a wound that isn't above minor in grade, you can narrate a wound that could heal naturally if treated? Flesh wounds that take days to heal are very standard within the fantasy genre.



Sure. Which is what I said, ie, that wounds in 3E must be pretty much like wounds in 4e ie minor bruises, cuts, etc that are not "terrible, nasty wounds".



JamesonCourage said:


> Wounds that pierce the flesh, cause massive pain and significant blood loss, but miss vital organs and can be recovered from in record time? Right up the fantasy genre's ally.



At which point, the difference between a few hours, a few days and a few weeks strikes me as one of taste (and preference in adventure pacing), not one of realism.



JamesonCourage said:


> What about gritty within the realm of fantasy? A nod towards realism (and not ruling out potential narratives) while embracing the genre?





JamesonCourage said:


> The fantasy genre follows reality, but breaks at certain points; healing in 4e breaks from reality, and follows certain narrative paths within the fantasy genre. I dislike that it narrows my options substantially by doing so.



Well, 3E substantially narrows narrative options too - namely, it is impossible in 3E to narrate a fantasy game in which, flesh wounds being only flesh wounds, heroes can proceed without being hampered by them after a night's rest.



JamesonCourage said:


> getting rid of serious injury or debilitating injury completely is shutting down potential narratives that are common to the genre.



But opens up others.

And in any event, serious injury or debilitating injury is not completely shut out - it is only excluded by application of the combat mechanics. So, for example, nothing in the mechanics stops a GM having an NPC perform a coup-de-grace on a helpless or unconscious PC and narrating a death result (that is, a result which takes the game out of the combat mechanics, at least until upper Paragon and Epic tiers) as something else - a mortal wound, a limb severed, or whatever. That might be a little bit beyond the rookie GM level, although perhaps not all that much beyond it, and in any event I think there was a Dragon magazine article that discussed this. (The trickier element of this is actually deciding what ritual is required to deal with such an injury. In my own game, it's Remove Affliction. I can imagine others wanting to use Raise Dead instead.)

Anyway, and as I said upthread, I can understand why some prefer gritty to cinematic. But cinematic doesn't narrow the options of gritty-lovers any more than vice versa. And I can't see that either is open to accusations of being possible to narrate coherently or without absurdity. There is certainly nothing in 4e that differs from 3E such that it would require assuming that every PC has Wolverine-style regeneration (which some in this thread have asserted).



JamesonCourage said:


> I'm almost certain that dividing HP into two pools ("physical" and "other") and making a fairly simple system that requires wounds being treated is pretty easy to implement. I don't think the "wounds need to be treated" should be the base assumption for D&D (though the different hit point pools should be), but I'd definitely like to see it as a "dial of complexity" that Mr. Mearls has been talking about.



One such system was published in White Dwarf 30 or so years ago now - Roger Musson's "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive". I think that WotC's Wounds and Vitality system is nearly identical to Musson's system.

Another version, just as old, is Runequest's, which uses hit points to measure both damage to particular body locations, and to measure overall injury and hence fatigue/exhaustion/bleeding/concussion.

Another similar system is Rolemaster's, which uses hit points (called "concussion hits") to measure fatigue, some bruising, and bleeding, but uses wounds as superimposed conditions to reflect serious injury.  Concussion hits heal easily (either naturally or via magic), while wounds are generally hard to heal (and unless healed magically tend to leave permanent debilitation).

As to tweaking dials - having read this thread, it seems that more people object to the rate of surge recovery in 4e, than object to the intricate dynamics of healing that are part of the game's combat mechanics. If I was WotC wanting to incorporate dials, this one is trivially easy - just stick in a sidebar explaining that you can make the game grittier by slowing down surge recovery to one per exteneded rest, or one per week of extended rest. You could also include an optional role for the Healing skill. Nothing else about the game mechanics would have to change in light of such a sidebar (although adventure design might have to).


----------



## Bluenose

Hussar said:


> wound that I can recover from in 7 days.  Heck, name a potentially lethal wound I can recover from in 14 days.  Completely recover from with no side effects.
> 
> It takes longer than that to recover from a serious sprain.




Concussion. 

I mean, in general I agree with your point that D&D doesn't have wounds (has never really had wounds) that can be defined as serious or that have consequences that aren't sorted out by a little rest. In that respect it's very unlike a lot of other RPGs which do inflict long-term/permanent consequences on people. But concussion is a very obvious example of something potentially lethal that people recover from in a very short time. 

This doesn't exactly help the argument that anyone reduced to 0 hit points has to have been seriously wounded and needs long-term care, of course.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> The reasoning, as restated by Hussar, is that in the real world humans don't recover from near-fatal wounds inflicted by bladed weapons with a few days to a few weeks of bedrest.



Again, you're assuming the real world, rather than the modern fantasy genre, which is why I tried to be very clear on the distinction.



> Hence, whatever injuries _are_ in 3E (and to a slightly lesser extent, given its longer recovery times, in AD&D) they are not near-fatal wounds inflicted by bladed weapons.



This isn't matching up with what I'm asking for, which is the ability of the mechanics to handle a narrative of a serious wound that heals faster than in real life, as that follows the modern fantasy genre closely. Not all wounds need to be this way, obviously, but I'd like it to be an option.



> Sure. Which is what I said, ie, that wounds in 3E must be pretty much like wounds in 4e ie minor bruises, cuts, etc that are not "terrible, nasty wounds".



Not when they knock you unconscious for 8-9 days at level 1 (or the assumed majority of the population in 3.X). You're not unconscious for 8 days on a sprain or minor bruise. The mechanics are clearly simulating a serious wound as of that point, but within the realm of the modern fantasy genre, not reality.



> At which point, the difference between a few hours, a few days and a few weeks strikes me as one of taste (and preference in adventure pacing), not one of realism.



In both my response to you and Hussar, I've talked about the fantasy genre, and I keep getting the conversation directed to realism. I'm not sure why. Obviously it has to do with taste, but my objection in this discussion is the closing of the narrative (that is, every PC recovers quickly), rather than a mechanic that allows for multiple narratives (sometimes your wounds are light and recover quickly, and sometimes they're bad and take a while). 



> Well, 3E substantially narrows narrative options too - namely, it is impossible in 3E to narrate a fantasy game in which, flesh wounds being only flesh wounds, heroes can proceed without being hampered by them after a night's rest.



In 3.X, you can get injured in such a way that you heal overnight -the damage was light. If you're level 8 and you take 8 hit points, the damage was light, and it was bruising and so on; it's gone in the morning. Alternatively, you could go from 80 to -8, where it was much worse, where you were bleeding out, and where it took you 11 days to recover.

3.X supports both narratives, it just lets the dice decide how much damage you take.



> But opens up others.



3.X doesn't shut these narratives out. At least, I don't see a narrative based on the healing over night mechanic in 4e that is not available in 3.X.



> And in any event, serious injury or debilitating injury is not completely shut out - it is only excluded by application of the combat mechanics. So, for example, nothing in the mechanics stops a GM having an NPC perform a coup-de-grace on a helpless or unconscious PC and narrating a death result (that is, a result which takes the game out of the combat mechanics, at least until upper Paragon and Epic tiers) as something else - a mortal wound, a limb severed, or whatever. That might be a little bit beyond the rookie GM level, although perhaps not all that much beyond it, and in any event I think there was a Dragon magazine article that discussed this. (The trickier element of this is actually deciding what ritual is required to deal with such an injury. In my own game, it's Remove Affliction. I can imagine others wanting to use Raise Dead instead.)



This raises another problem for me, but it's immersion-related.



> Anyway, and as I said upthread, I can understand why some prefer gritty to cinematic. But cinematic doesn't narrow the options of gritty-lovers any more than vice versa. And I can't see that either is open to accusations of being possible to narrate coherently or without absurdity. There is certainly nothing in 4e that differs from 3E such that it would require assuming that every PC has Wolverine-style regeneration (which some in this thread have asserted).



If I'm not one of the people that have asserted it, I really don't feel like it has much to do with my take on this discussion.

In a system that supports wounds that naturally take some time to heal based on severity (how much HP damage you took), it allows for a narrative where the PCs escaped with light injuries (low damage taken), or with serious injuries (high damage taken). In a system that does not support wounds that naturally take some time to heal based on severity, it forces the narrative to be comprised of light injuries, or fatalities (with little room in between unless it's through GM fiat).



> One such system was published in White Dwarf 30 or so years ago now - Roger Musson's "How to Lose Hit Points and Survive". I think that WotC's Wounds and Vitality system is nearly identical to Musson's system.
> 
> Another version, just as old, is Runequest's, which uses hit points to measure both damage to particular body locations, and to measure overall injury and hence fatigue/exhaustion/bleeding/concussion.
> 
> Another similar system is Rolemaster's, which uses hit points (called "concussion hits") to measure fatigue, some bruising, and bleeding, but uses wounds as superimposed conditions to reflect serious injury.  Concussion hits heal easily (either naturally or via magic), while wounds are generally hard to heal (and unless healed magically tend to leave permanent debilitation).



In my RPG, I divided HP into two pools to separate physical from "other" but I don't have a hit location or a fatigue/exhaustion/bleeding/concussion track. I do, however, have a Hit Chart that can potentially lead to serious injury, as well as called shots to go for those shots. This opens up a massive array of narrative paths available when we watch the story unfold each session. I'd like to see that many narrative options available in a system, even if it's option -in this case, the dials Mr. Mearls was speaking of. You don't have to have a Hit Chart in the base rules, or long injuries. Those can be more complex dials. However, I don't want a system that prevents stories from being told, and 3.X and 4e were both too limiting for me.



> As to tweaking dials - having read this thread, it seems that more people object to the rate of surge recovery in 4e, than object to the intricate dynamics of healing that are part of the game's combat mechanics.



I think people object to the narrative issues caused (though not for the same reasons I do). It looked like most people objected to the difficulty in separating HP from physical wounds, and the limbo characters can find themselves in ("it turns out it wasn't as bad") that was a departure from the way older editions handled description (which was turn-by-turn).



> If I was WotC wanting to incorporate dials, this one is trivially easy - just stick in a sidebar explaining that you can make the game grittier by slowing down surge recovery to one per exteneded rest, or one per week of extended rest. You could also include an optional role for the Healing skill. Nothing else about the game mechanics would have to change in light of such a sidebar (although adventure design might have to).



I'd have the dial affect more than that, for sure. Healing surges also cause other problems in my mind (healing is mostly an internal resource rather than an external resource), but that's taste, too. I dislike that about them. They have multiple issues, but I don't think people minded the idea of a "second wind" for a heroic burst of vitality. People might be okay with a "feel free to slow the healing surge rate down" if healing surges didn't contradict description for more groups, but as it stands, I feel that's the main objection in this thread.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

Nagol said:


> So you'll discuss house rule territory to allow 4e to achieve a style more in keeping with what I want, but dismiss it as stepping away from the shared game when others do?




No.

I posted several non-houserule ways to do exactly (or, at worse, more-or-less) what you want in 4E.

I then provided an additional, optional, houserule way to do it (that is, as Pemerton said, trivially easy to implement).

So, again, no.



> Ultimately, the rules as presented do not present opportunities to start at less than full strength.




If you don't have all of your healing surges available, you are, by definition, at less than full strength.



> What the game has lost is the emergent strategic consequential choice: do we engage the adventure today even though we are under-strength or do we recover and hope our goal is still possible to achieve?




Do we stop for an extended rest, and regain all of our healing surges and daily powers and hope our goal is still possible to achieve, or do we press on even though we are under-strength?

Same question, neh?

Have you reviewed the disease rules at all in 4E?

Re: Dying from Shock:

You asked whether or not being driven into negative hit points and dying was sufficient reason to narrate a major wound occurring.

Since it is possible to narrate such an occurrence as being the result of an otherwise minor wound (flesh wound to the arm or leg, etc.) and then shock setting in, I maintain that it is not sufficient reason to narrate a "major wound" occurring.

Can you narrate a major wound occurring?  Sure.  But then you don't get to complain when the game mechanics do not meaningfully support the existence of that "major wound," since the game mechanics never dictate that such a major wound happened in the first place.


----------



## prosfilaes

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Can you narrate a major wound occurring?  Sure.  But then you don't get to complain when the game mechanics do not meaningfully support the existence of that "major wound," since the game mechanics never dictate that such a major wound happened in the first place.




No. If the game mechanics don't support what you want to do, the game mechanics have a problem for you.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

prosfilaes said:


> No. If the game mechanics don't support what you want to do, the game mechanics have a problem for you.




Okay, fine.

Given that no edition of D&D (excepting perhaps 1E; never really played it) has ever actually mechanically supported this thing you want, then arguing that 4E doesn't support this thing you want as if it is somehow unique is barmy.


----------



## prosfilaes

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Okay, fine.
> 
> Given that no edition of D&D (excepting perhaps 1E; never really played it) has ever actually mechanically supported this thing you want, then arguing that 4E doesn't support this thing you want as if it is somehow unique is barmy.




It's amazing; it's entirely appropriate to love the changes to 4E and consider them important, but if you dislike the changes, they were insignificant and unimportant.


----------



## Kobold Boots

So I'm answering why I dislike healing surges in the context of 4th edition and I'm not going to read any of the previous 31 pages.  If I repeat anything, forgive me.

*1. Hit points by any other name are still just hit points.*

Once you have hit points you don't need another mechanic, called something else, that grants you more hit points.  It's by definition redundant no matter what you call it or no matter what the cool game mechanic supposedly is.

*2. The game isn't hurting for ways to heal people.*

A party can have healing skills, potions, cure spells, disease removal, reincarnation and resurrection.  In the cases where a character doesn't have a healing specific ability or abiiity to create such, give that class more hit points as a balance to design.

*3. There are other D20 properties from the same company that simulate the same effect using other mechanisms with cinematic and elegant results.  *

Subtitled: if you're going to have different categories of hit points, call them that and explain fully what they are used for.  Star Wars revised had Vitality and Wounds.  I think D20 modern had the same.  

*4. I hate combat grind.  Something feels broken.*

In my experience core game mechanics are very rarely broken in concept.  I think the idea of surges as a mechanic is redundant but ok.  The problems arise in application of the game mechanic and the general usefulness of any effects triggered by it.

I believe that it's not the surge mechanic but some combination of the following: how many points given back, how often they can be triggered, how many are available and the general damage math.  

a. If I need to roll for damage then it stands to reason that any surge mechanic might benefit from a random outcome.

b. Has the math been done such that surge value is balanced as you obtain higher levels?  Should a surge heal you for more than one or two rounds of an enemy's average damage output at equivalent challenge level? (hypothetical question)

c. Lastly - and this is just a personal thing.  Sometimes I want to be an adversary to my players and I just don't like it when I roll three crits in a single round and my players respond with "I blow a surge".  This more than anything I feel is the crunchy core of the "I dislike surges' camp.


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> 3.X supports both narratives, it just lets the dice decide how much damage you take.



I don't really regard a system as supporting a cinematic narrative if it is capable of delivering a very different narrative (gritty "modern fantasy") at the whim of the dice.

What 4e offers, that 3E and AD&D don't, is _reliable_ support for the cinematic alternative.


----------



## pemerton

Kobold Boots, nice post.



Kobold Boots said:


> So Once you have hit points you don't need another mechanic, called something else, that grants you more hit points.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> if you're going to have different categories of hit points, call them that and explain fully what they are used for.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I hate combat grind.  Something feels broken.



Unlike the discussion over the past few pages about healing times, I think these points get to the mechanical heart of healing surges. Central to 4e's combat mechanics is the idea that hit point recovery by the PCs is a central element of combat - or, to put it another way, that PCs have resources which are deeper than those of the monsters, but which they can't access without affirmatively doing things (including spending actions).

For those who find that this is just grind-causing redundancy, healing surges will be an undesirable mechanic. For those who like the effect it has upon the dynamics and tactics of combat, healing surges will be a desirable mechanic.

And, whereas the healing rules around extended rests can be tweaked very easily, changing _this_ aspect of the 4e rules would require rewriting from the ground up - PC hit points, PC damage output, monster damage output, the action economy, the range of various effects, etc, are all balanced around it.


----------



## I'm A Banana

billd91 said:
			
		

> It would depend. Is that healing salve only usable on themselves or can it transfer around? The internal resource nature of healing surges is one of my main criticisms




This would actually "fix" one of the issues with healing surges currently: the fact that the Defender could be down to 2, but the ranged controller is still at full, making a split in how "risky" combat is perceived to be. So mechanically, there wouldn't be any issue with that. 

The encounter-based nature of it is a more delicate consideration. The fundamental question is one of pacing, and that's going to vary pretty dramatically with different styles of play (a gamist style doesn't give a fig as long as it doesn't interrupt the flow; a more sim style wants at least SOME consideration for the fact that yer face got chewed off; a narrative style doesn't mind long periods of down time since it gives a more long-term story effect). 

I think for me personally, its OK to have "full hit points" after a short rest, but I don't mind a more intensive tracking system per se. Our Dark Sun DM at the moment uses a wound system modeled on 4e's disease track (infection occurs at 0 hp!), which ain't too shabby to require a little "extra effort" to heal a wound, while remaining pretty heroic.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

prosfilaes said:


> It's amazing; it's entirely appropriate to love the changes to 4E and consider them important, but if you dislike the changes, they were insignificant and unimportant.




Or, you know, some changes haven't really changed all that much, when the rubber hits the road.

(Except, you know, in improving things such that someone in the party isn't forced to play the cleric / druid who memorizes a lot of healing / DM must make scads of potions available all the time or have adventurers that have to quit after a single meaningful fight.)


----------



## prosfilaes

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Or, you know, some changes haven't really changed all that much, when the rubber hits the road.
> 
> (Except, you know, in improving things such that someone in the party isn't forced to play the cleric / druid who memorizes a lot of healing / DM must make scads of potions available all the time or have adventurers that have to quit after a single meaningful fight.)




Isn't that exactly what I said? That people who feel it's negatively impacting their gaming are barmy, but those who feel it improves their game are quite reasonable.


----------



## Tony Vargas

Gargoyle said:


> As far as their abstract nature...
> 
> I had a discussion with a player about hit points years ago, I forget the edition.  I explained that I felt that hit points represented more than just damage taken, it was also exhaustion and luck.  The DMG at the time backed me up on that.  His reply was that "Well, then if that poisoned blade didn't actually hit me, why do I need to Save vs Poison?"
> 
> I didn't have a good response to that, and I still don't.



I remember a very similar conversation.  I was defending AD&D in general and hps in particular.  I explained that hps represented more than actual wounds, but endurance/luck/skill/divine-intervention/etc - prettymuch quoting EGG from the DMG - thus, a 'hit' that runs through a 0-level man at arms might only nick a fighter, and might not even touch a high-level one.  'Well, he asked, if that's the case, then how do you know if a 'hit' is real or 'psuedo hit' like that?  I replied:  If you really want to know, make a poison save.

Because that's something saving vs a poisoned blade could represent:   Did the 'hit' actually deliver the poison, or did it just bruise you a bit through your mail or even not touch you at all, just use up a little of your luck.

But what if you're a dwarf and you have a bonus to poison saves because of your 'hearty constitution?'  Doesn't that indicate that making a save means you've been exposed to the poison?  Again, look at the roll.  Did you make the save only because of your dwarfy bonus?  Well, then, yes, the poison was delivered, but your 'hearty constitution' was able to throw it off.


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae

prosfilaes said:


> Isn't that exactly what I said? That people who feel it's negatively impacting their gaming are barmy,




No, the people who are arguing that this is a an absolutely huge change and that it removes solid mechanical support for "terrible wounds" (something that was never mechanically supported to begin with) are barmy.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> No, the people who are arguing that this is a an absolutely huge change and that it removes solid mechanical support for "terrible wounds" (something that was never mechanically supported to begin with) are barmy.



in other words, "they're holding it wrong".


----------



## KidSnide

This thread definitely clarified my thinking about healing surges, albeit not enough to justify the time I spent reading (or skimming) it.  My two cents:

- I really like how healing surges make healing proportionate to the toughness of a character.  Now, curing a light wound actually cures a light wound as opposed to the sucking chest wound / paper cut problem.  Also, as a tactical matter, characters with more hit points can survive longer in combat even in an environment where healing dominates starting hit points.  I think this significant mechanical improvement was a little lost in the massive discussion of narrative implications.

- I also like how healing became something accessible through heroic (in additional to magical) means.  As a general matter, I think it opens D&D to a wider range of party types as well as low-magic (or just low-divine magic) settings.  But...

- I don't like how healing surges work once the character is reduced to zero hit points.  Healing characters once they go down is important (after all - combats get more exciting once characters go down), and I get why "healing starts from 0" instead of the current negative value.  However, I agree with the narrative issue: if a character is making death saves, I really want to narrate that character as having a life-threatening wound and the ready availability of non-magical healing white washes the wound a little too much for my taste.

Personally, I'd prefer some sort of optional wound/condition track that acknowledges that going to zero, going to negative surge value and/or failing death saves involves some sort of more permanent injury.  (A disease-track style solution was discussed above.  I'd be fine with that, but am not wedded to it.)  I don't mind if characters can "pull through" their injury with few mechanical penalties, but I really wish there was support for games where PCs have a higher incentive to pull back and heal after members get really smacked around.

But I do think this should be optional.  There is also plenty of room for games where the heroes keep pressing on, and the wounds they've received are nothing but make up...

-KS


----------



## Roland55

TheAuldGrump said:


> I do:
> 
> Flee now! Save yourselves while there's still time! It's too late for _us!_
> 
> The Auld Grump




Too late!!

I'm afraid I, too, don't care for the surges.

Why?  Entirely personal ... for me, it removes some of the fun of the game.  Since I game FOR fun, surges don't work for me.

QED.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> I don't really regard a system as supporting a cinematic narrative if it is capable of delivering a very different narrative (gritty "modern fantasy") at the whim of the dice.
> 
> What 4e offers, that 3E and AD&D don't, is _reliable_ support for the cinematic alternative.



But, contrary to your claim, 3.X doesn't substantially narrow narratives that 4e has (in regards to healing damage), as it's not impossible (as you said it was) for a character in 3.X to heal overnight (it's very much possible). 4e has less narratives than 3.X allows (in regards to healing damage).

I didn't use the 4e rules in my game, nor did I let 3.X survive unmodified, but I would certainly rather have a system that allows for both narratives, rather than limits them.

Yes, 4e supports your preference better in terms of cinematic feel, but it narrows down possible narratives (to a more cinematic feel). Sometimes in a fantasy movie, you get a slow motion moment where the Good Guy kills the Bad Guy, or the Good Guy summons all of his strength and pulls himself off the floor when lesser men wouldn't be able to. However, sometimes in fantasy movies you get a slow motion moment where the Good Guy gets mortally wounded, incapacitated, permanently crippled, or the like. I'd like those narratives available, even in a cinematic game, personally.

Yes, you're right that 4e offers a lot more reliable support for a type of game play, or a type of narrative. I was speaking to the breadth of narrative available, not the depth. I like depth, too, of course, but I want the possibility of different opportunities coming up, and the paths that they might lead to.

For example, last night, in my game, three PCs (all warlords of an area) got ambushed by bandits who wanted the players dead (the players had hired adventurers to rid the forest of these bandits, effectively betraying the bandits). It was five bandits versus the three players and an NPC wife of one of the players. The bandits hit the NPC wife, taking her down to -7 (in my game, while in the negatives you lose 1 hit point her round, dying at -10, though you have a 10% chance each round to stabilize without aid). Two rounds later, the PC ran to his wife, and assessed her wounds (catching that she was seconds from bleeding out), and that he couldn't save her in time. There was a lot of tension at the table, because the player knew that his character would take the death very hard (he is a warlord, chancellor, and interrogator, with most of his positive emotions being channeled into his friends and his wife), so everyone was getting ready for his character to take a dramatic shift in his personality (another player almost used character points to buy a spell that might save her, which would dramatically change his character, and potentially cause a low level of madness; he decided against it when the player with the dying wife said he thought it would be interesting to see how things turn out). Well, what do you know, but I roll a natural 10 on my d10, and she stabilizes on her own (I always roll every roll in the open, and the player had used a skill to get her hit point total at -9, so everyone knew that this wasn't me fudging at all). The expected narrative shifted dramatically based on that one die roll, and the build-up of tension is something I've come to love in my gaming experience.

Now, this could happen in 3.X or in 4e, probably, so I'm not saying this is impossible in those systems. What I am trying to say is that I want the narrative to be dramatically alterable based on the luck of the dice, and by what the rules inherently support. In this regard, both 4e and 3.X falls short (or I'd still be playing it now), at least for my wants in a fantasy-based game.

This isn't to say that your like of high action, gonzo, or cinematic (or whatever you find most appropriate) feel in a game is bad or wrong. I'm just expressing that I feel that the healing surge rules tend to damper potential narratives more than open them, from what I've read about in this thread and other places. I love the "getting to your feet" feel. That's a narrative that I like (and my game supports). I don't like feeling shackled by a rule, especially if it eliminates what I'm expecting out of the game.

To me, D&D is within the fantasy genre, and that's what I want it to support. You love that it supports the more cinematic aspect of the fantasy genre, and you find the narratives it offers compelling, suspenseful, and interesting. That's great, and I'd never say that's not how it plays to you. I'm just saying I'm looking for more options, and I feel the healing surge rules hurt more than they help, from what I've observed of them. It's just my opinion, and I put it forward because someone asked (in the original post).

I'm not making value judgments, I'm trying to state my preference, and give clear and precise reasoning on why I see it this way. I definitely support people playing 4e (or any edition) in any way that they like, and I think people can have tons of fun with any of them. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton

Tony Vargas said:


> 'Well, he asked, if that's the case, then how do you know if a 'hit' is real or 'psuedo hit' like that?  I replied:  If you really want to know, make a poison save.
> 
> Because that's something saving vs a poisoned blade could represent:   Did the 'hit' actually deliver the poison, or did it just bruise you a bit through your mail or even not touch you at all, just use up a little of your luck.



Yes!

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] has been pointing out upthread that 4e is distinctive, among editions of D&D, in using fortune-in-the-middle techniques - ie you can't narrate until the dice are rolled and the mechanical sequence of action resolved.

But AD&D had at least one element of FitM way back when, in it saving throws. (And Gygax even spells it out on the relevant page of the DMG, although he doesn't use the modern design terminology.)


----------



## pemerton

KidSnide said:


> I really like how healing surges make healing proportionate to the toughness of a character.  Now, curing a light wound actually cures a light wound as opposed to the sucking chest wound / paper cut problem.  Also, as a tactical matter, characters with more hit points can survive longer in combat even in an environment where healing dominates starting hit points.  I think this significant mechanical improvement was a little lost in the massive discussion of narrative implications.



Good point.



KidSnide said:


> I also like how healing became something accessible through heroic (in additional to magical) means.  As a general matter, I think it opens D&D to a wider range of party types as well as low-magic (or just low-divine magic) settings.



Another good point. This is one thing that 4e does that 3E (and earlier editions) don't.



JamesonCourage said:


> But, contrary to your claim, 3.X doesn't substantially narrow narratives that 4e has
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 4e supports your preference better in terms of cinematic feel, but it narrows down possible narratives (to a more cinematic feel).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> This isn't to say that your like of high action, gonzo, or cinematic (or whatever you find most appropriate) feel in a game is bad or wrong. I'm just expressing that I feel that the healing surge rules tend to damper potential narratives more than open them
> 
> <snip>
> 
> To me, D&D is within the fantasy genre, and that's what I want it to support. You love that it supports the more cinematic aspect of the fantasy genre, and you find the narratives it offers compelling, suspenseful, and interesting. That's great, and I'd never say that's not how it plays to you. I'm just saying I'm looking for more options, and I feel the healing surge rules hurt more than they help, from what I've observed of them.



I don't know if I agree with this or not.

I agree that 4e provides better support for cinematic, gonzo play than does 3E (which in turn supports it more than does RQ or RM). Is 4e therefore more narrow than 3E? I think it's more focused. I think it more reliably delivers a particular play experience.

If I wanted a different play experience - including the experience of cinematic vs gritty healing depending on the dice and the presence of a cleric in the party - then I'd play 3E. I don't think this shows that 3E is less narrow, however, because I don't really have any metric on which to compare the limitations to narratives.



JamesonCourage said:


> three PCs (all warlords of an area) got ambushed by bandits who wanted the players dead (the players had hired adventurers to rid the forest of these bandits, effectively betraying the bandits). It was five bandits versus the three players and an NPC wife of one of the players. The bandits hit the NPC wife, taking her down to -7 (in my game, while in the negatives you lose 1 hit point her round, dying at -10, though you have a 10% chance each round to stabilize without aid). Two rounds later, the PC ran to his wife, and assessed her wounds (catching that she was seconds from bleeding out), and that he couldn't save her in time. There was a lot of tension at the table, because the player knew that his character would take the death very hard (he is a warlord, chancellor, and interrogator, with most of his positive emotions being channeled into his friends and his wife), so everyone was getting ready for his character to take a dramatic shift in his personality (another player almost used character points to buy a spell that might save her, which would dramatically change his character, and potentially cause a low level of madness; he decided against it when the player with the dying wife said he thought it would be interesting to see how things turn out). Well, what do you know, but I roll a natural 10 on my d10, and she stabilizes on her own (I always roll every roll in the open, and the player had used a skill to get her hit point total at -9, so everyone knew that this wasn't me fudging at all). The expected narrative shifted dramatically based on that one die roll, and the build-up of tension is something I've come to love in my gaming experience.
> 
> Now, this could happen in 3.X or in 4e, probably, so I'm not saying this is impossible in those systems. What I am trying to say is that I want the narrative to be dramatically alterable based on the luck of the dice, and by what the rules inherently support.



This strikes me as completely orthogonal to the healing surge issue. I also "want the narrative to be dramatically alterable based on the luck of the dice". This is one reason I play 4e - it is a mechanically tight game in which the dice do their job of coming out when drama is in the offing, and delivering that drama via their results. Because of this, GMing advice for games that are more upfront about the relationship between dice and narrative - Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling - is in my view very applicable to GMing 4e.

And my comment upthread about not wanting cinematic vs gritty to turn on the luck of the dice doesn't contradict the previous paragraph at all. I want the dice to help shape the plot. I don't want the dice to help shape the genre - which is settled when the game is chosen - or the themes, which are injected by the players and the GM.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> I don't know if I agree with this or not.
> 
> I agree that 4e provides better support for cinematic, gonzo play than does 3E (which in turn supports it more than does RQ or RM). Is 4e therefore more narrow than 3E? I think it's more focused. I think it more reliably delivers a particular play experience.



Well, first of all, some context of my statement has been excised from when you quoted me. I was speaking in very specific terms: 4e narrows down narrative possibilities in regards to healing damage. I just underline it since it seems to have been missed, so I want it clear. I think certain restrictions in a system (or focus, separately) can really open up narrative opportunities. I've found that limiting long range teleportation (and plane shifting, without tight restrictions) really opens up narrative options in the game, not restricts them (so, in this respect, 3.X was terrible for my wants).



> If I wanted a different play experience - including the experience of cinematic vs gritty healing depending on the dice and the presence of a cleric in the party - then I'd play 3E. I don't think this shows that 3E is less narrow, however, because I don't really have any metric on which to compare the limitations to narratives.



I like that the game could support those options. You could have an all melee party, or a non-healing party, or an all-healer party, or the like, and the narrative changed dramatically based on the party make-up. With sufficient player and GM buy-in, a non-healing party (only healed naturally) will meet challenges as appropriate (so, less challenging encounters while recovering). This isn't optimal for me, but the system can easily support the different narratives out of the box, which I desire in a system. This option is eliminated with the addition of the healing surge and extended rest mechanics, which is suboptimal for my wants. My concern for healing surges isn't that they're bad at what they're trying to do, it's that they're doing something that I don't want done.



> This strikes me as completely orthogonal to the healing surge issue. I also "want the narrative to be dramatically alterable based on the luck of the dice". This is one reason I play 4e - it is a mechanically tight game in which the dice do their job of coming out when drama is in the offing, and delivering that drama via their results. Because of this, GMing advice for games that are more upfront about the relationship between dice and narrative - Burning Wheel, HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling - is in my view very applicable to GMing 4e.
> 
> And my comment upthread about not wanting cinematic vs gritty to turn on the luck of the dice doesn't contradict the previous paragraph at all. I want the dice to help shape the plot. I don't want the dice to help shape the genre - which is settled when the game is chosen - or the themes, which are injected by the players and the GM.



As I said, this can be done in 4e as well. However, I really don't agree with you about shaping the genre. Subgenre, maybe. That might sound particularly semantic, but it's not to me. In a fantasy game, I want the option of playing gritty swords and sorcery or cinematic high fantasy to be options within the rules. Personally, I want the system to support both, and my preferred method is to separate it by level. That is, if I want high fantasy, I just scale up the level base, and if I want gritty, I embrace lower levels (that, and my game has rules to adjust it to be less gritty).

Yes, I understand that the game can dramatically turn on a single die roll, which is why I said that 4e includes this option. However, I want the rules to inherently support drastic narrative changes that stem from the entire genre, not just a popular subgenre. Low magic and similar settings have been popular as long as D&D has; there's no reason to neglect it.

Again, just my reasons. I don't think the cinematic high fantasy subgenere should be neglected. In fact, I think it should be well supported. However, I want the rules to support gritty, low magic settings, and the like as well. And healing surges, as currently implemented, don't fulfill the narratives there as I'd like to see them fulfilled. But, as always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> I don't think the cinematic high fantasy subgenere should be neglected. In fact, I think it should be well supported. However, I want the rules to support gritty, low magic settings, and the like as well.



My own view is that it is very hard, if not impossible, to do both these things with a single set of mechanics.

The "level" solution, for example, seems to imply that cinematic PCs will never fight goblins or other low level monsters.

I regard 3E as a bit of a poster child for this sort of genre confusion - heroic hit points, semi-gritty natural healing that is completely obviated by gonzo magic, gritty skill points but non-gritty weapon proficiencies, etc.


----------



## Tony Vargas

JamesonCourage said:


> Yes, 4e supports your preference better in terms of cinematic feel, but it narrows down possible narratives (to a more cinematic feel). Sometimes in a fantasy movie, you get a slow motion moment where the Good Guy kills the Bad Guy, or the Good Guy summons all of his strength and pulls himself off the floor when lesser men wouldn't be able to. However, sometimes in fantasy movies you get a slow motion moment where the Good Guy gets mortally wounded, incapacitated, permanently crippled, or the like. I'd like those narratives available, even in a cinematic game, personally.



Mortally wounded means the character dies.  Characters /can/ die in 4e.  I've seen it happen.  Now, you can't know, when a character gets dropped by a big attack, if he's doing to die, but then, no matter how dramatic the slow-motion-death-scene, you can't be 100% sure the character is really truely dead until it's actually established.  So that's not a bad thing, really.   _(as an aside, is the problem that there's no normal-combat wound that can be healed by magic, but not by preternatural healing like that of the warlord?  Because that's about the only difference 'knowing' a wound is 'mortal' when it's inflicted, rather than when the character dies of it would make - this guy has a punctured spleen, an encouraging speech isn't gong to save him, bring on the divine band-aids or he dies.  Is that the distinction you're missing?)_

Being dropped to 0 is incapacitated, so that's also possibe.  So, really, what you're noting is the lack of rules to cover permanently crippling (or the like) a PC?

I think that lack is understandable.  A PC can be brought back from death.  It would be a little wierd if there were wounds that couldn't be cured, when death /can/ be cured.  Of course, it'd be easy enough to add such wounds as narrative.  A character who 'dies' could be ruled by the DM to be permanently crippled, instead.  He's not playable until his greivous injuries are somehow repaired (about on par with raise dead).

(Yeah, I just suggested re-skinning death.)

Ironically, 3.x doesn't have general rules for crippling wounds, either - but it does have a spell to cure them.  :shrug:  AD&D had a few specific rules for attacks that could lop off limbs - and as spell to re-grow them.

So, if you're looking for the drama of a 'good guy' being killed or crippled permanently, you're not going to find it in any version of D&D, these things could always be cured, somehow - if only by the expedient of a Wish or some other extreme agency.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> My own view is that it is very hard, if not impossible, to do both these things with a single set of mechanics.
> 
> The "level" solution, for example, seems to imply that cinematic PCs will never fight goblins or other low level monsters.



I disagree here, based on experience. In a cinematic game, it'd probably be higher level PCs against a lot of lower level goblins or other monsters (they'd be the equivalent of minions), while fighting the real threat (or just owning lower level goblins).



> I regard 3E as a bit of a poster child for this sort of genre confusion - heroic hit points, semi-gritty natural healing that is completely obviated by gonzo magic, gritty skill points but non-gritty weapon proficiencies, etc.



3.X certainly had problems. I think they can be fixed (and I tried to, at least to my satisfaction).



Tony Vargas said:


> Mortally wounded means the character dies.  Characters /can/ die in 4e.  I've seen it happen.  Now, you can't know, when a character gets dropped by a big attack, if he's doing to die, but then, no matter how dramatic the slow-motion-death-scene, you can't be 100% sure the character is really truely dead until it's actually established.  So that's not a bad thing, really.   _(as an aside, is the problem that there's no normal-combat wound that can be healed by magic, but not by preternatural healing like that of the warlord?  Because that's about the only difference 'knowing' a wound is 'mortal' when it's inflicted, rather than when the character dies of it would make - this guy has a punctured spleen, an encouraging speech isn't gong to save him, bring on the divine band-aids or he dies.  Is that the distinction you're missing?)_



Let's take this example: a PC is fighting, and gets dropped into the negatives, and has to start making saves or he dies. Another PC, and trained healer, asks how the injured PC looks, even going out of his way to move to the injured PC to inspect him. If the character is dying, the trained healer will stop -mid combat- to aid the PC. However, if he's just down, and can shrug it off (Warlord's "get up!" ability), the trained healer PC will say a quick encouraging word (for no mechanical benefit) and rejoin the fray.

My current understanding is that the mechanics get in the way of letting the player gain any concrete information -the PC might be fine with no aid, in which case the wound wasn't that bad (he will be fully healed on an extended rest). However, if the PC dies, then obviously the wound was much worse. This makes it hard to narrate as a GM when a player engages with an important portion of the game (PC mortality).

This is directly relevant to my last session, when a PC's wife was dropped into the negatives, and the PC let his allies mop up the enemies while he checked on his wife. She eventually stabilized on her own, so in 4e, this means she wouldn't have been that badly injured (she lived, will recover on an extended rest). However, when the PC checked, nobody has any idea if the PC's wife will stabilize or not, so an accurate description is basically impossible to give. The PC in my game stopped to give medical attention to his wife (he had minor training in healing) rather than continue. With the healing surge situation (and the Warlord in particular), I couldn't have given relevant information to the player. I could have said, "she's bloody but you don't know how bad" but that's pretty unsatisfactory when the player gets a high or very high result on the Heal check.



> Being dropped to 0 is incapacitated, so that's also possibe.  So, really, what you're noting is the lack of rules to cover permanently crippling (or the like) a PC?



Incapacitated includes the long term, so no, not just limited to permanently crippling someone. You know, a wound that takes someone out for a couple days, or a week, or two weeks, or something. They'll make a full recovery, but it''ll take a while as the wound heals.



> I think that lack is understandable.  A PC can be brought back from death.  It would be a little wierd if there were wounds that couldn't be cured, when death /can/ be cured.  Of course, it'd be easy enough to add such wounds as narrative.  A character who 'dies' could be ruled by the DM to be permanently crippled, instead.  He's not playable until his greivous injuries are somehow repaired (about on par with raise dead).
> 
> (Yeah, I just suggested re-skinning death.)



If the rules supported this as a mechanical alternative to death, I think that could be very interesting. I do want it in the rules, but as long as it's possible within the narrative via the base rules (or complexity dials, if Mr. Mearls wants it to be like that), I'd be pretty satisfied with it.



> Ironically, 3.x doesn't have general rules for crippling wounds, either - but it does have a spell to cure them.  :shrug:  AD&D had a few specific rules for attacks that could lop off limbs - and as spell to re-grow them.



I think it would be to heal them if they were lost out of combat, just like 4e; that is, if you lost an arm willingly, or you were held down while your tongue was removed, or the like. I'd like to see permanent injury possible within combat (as I find it much more likely to happen there), and 3.X certainly failed here for me.



> So, if you're looking for the drama of a 'good guy' being killed or crippled permanently, you're not going to find it in any version of D&D, these things could always be cured, somehow - if only by the expedient of a Wish or some other extreme agency.



It's not permanent even against magic. In fact, I think permanent _unless there's magical aid_ fits both cinematic high fantasy and gritty swords and sorcery very well. I'm saying mundanely permanent.


----------



## Imaro

pemerton said:


> The "level" solution, for example, seems to imply that cinematic PCs will never fight goblins or other low level monsters.




I may be misunderstanding your point here, but in 3.x/PF it remains feasible for even a high level PC to face goblins or other low level monsters since you can add NPC and PC classses to them in order to increase their CR.


----------



## Hussar

Imaro said:


> I may be misunderstanding your point here, but in 3.x/PF it remains feasible for even a high level PC to face goblins or other low level monsters since you can add NPC and PC classses to them in order to increase their CR.




But, wouldn't that mean that the creature is no longer a low level monster?

And, change it from humanoids, which can add class levels, to, say, animals or vermin, where you can't.

Yes, you can use bigger vermin and advance them that way, but, then again, they aren't the low level monster anymore.

The graduation from kobold to orc to ogre to troll to giant is pretty well established in play - all you have to do is look at the modules.  Keep on the Borderlands is distinctly lacking in giants whereas Queen of the Demonweb Pits has a dearth of kobolds.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> But, wouldn't that mean that the creature is no longer a low level monster?
> 
> And, change it from humanoids, which can add class levels, to, say, animals or vermin, where you can't.
> 
> Yes, you can use bigger vermin and advance them that way, but, then again, they aren't the low level monster anymore.
> 
> The graduation from kobold to orc to ogre to troll to giant is pretty well established in play - all you have to do is look at the modules. Keep on the Borderlands is distinctly lacking in giants whereas Queen of the Demonweb Pits has a dearth of kobolds.




I always saw this as being more about customization and creating cool monster encounters rather than allowing kobolds to remain viable at higher level. But it was one of my favorite innovations in the game. Since I ran a lot of Ravenloft games in 2E (where customization of monsters was expected) I found the templates, classed/leveled monsters, etc to be great for my GMing style.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> But, wouldn't that mean that the creature is no longer a low level monster?
> 
> And, change it from humanoids, which can add class levels, to, say, animals or vermin, where you can't.
> 
> Yes, you can use bigger vermin and advance them that way, but, then again, they aren't the low level monster anymore.




Wait what? So it's not about whether your high level fighter can beat down an iconic monster like goblins and it still be challenging... it's about whether your 15th level fighter can still fight a monster that is mechanically a challenge for 1st level characters? I'm not understanding this at alll.



Hussar said:


> The graduation from kobold to orc to ogre to troll to giant is pretty well established in play - all you have to do is look at the modules. Keep on the Borderlands is distinctly lacking in giants whereas Queen of the Demonweb Pits has a dearth of kobolds.




Not sure at all what this has to do with my point? You as DM can through class levels, templates, advancements, etc. create your own scale with these monsters in 3.x/PF?? I fail to see how it's hardcoded in??


----------



## Imaro

Bedrockgames said:


> I always saw this as being more about customization and creating cool monster encounters rather than allowing kobolds to remain viable at higher level. But it was one of my favorite innovations in the game. Since I ran a lot of Ravenloft games in 2E (where customization of monsters was expected) I found the templates, classed/leveled monsters, etc to be great for my GMing style.




I think this is how most people used them... however the tools could also be used to make more powerful versions of the base monster if you wanted to.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Imaro said:


> I think this is how most people used them... however the tools could also be used to make more powerful versions of the base monster if you wanted to.




I don't disagree. That was just the selling point for me. Ultimately the flexibility of it allowed you do all these things. I loved the idea of creating monsters and villains the same way you created PCs. Had loads of fun making my bad guys in 3E.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I always saw this as being more about customization and creating cool monster encounters rather than allowing kobolds to remain viable at higher level. But it was one of my favorite innovations in the game. Since I ran a lot of Ravenloft games in 2E (where customization of monsters was expected) I found the templates, classed/leveled monsters, etc to be great for my GMing style.




Oh, totally.  The customization of monsters is certainly one of the best things about 3e.  Fantastic idea and implementation.

But, that's a bit beside the point.  Imaro is saying that because you can add class levels to base monsters, you can keep those monsters viable throughout the duration of the campaign.

My point is, a 14th level barbarian kobold isn't a kobold anymore.  It's a short 14th level barbarian.


----------



## Imaro

Hussar said:


> Oh, totally. The customization of monsters is certainly one of the best things about 3e. Fantastic idea and implementation.
> 
> But, that's a bit beside the point. Imaro is saying that because you can add class levels to base monsters, you can keep those monsters viable throughout the duration of the campaign.
> 
> My point is, a 14th level barbarian kobold isn't a kobold anymore. It's a short 14th level barbarian.




First off this isn't what I'm saying... there is still a progression where eventually heroes don't, in general, fight kobolds and goblins anymore. However I am saying if you decide to start at 4th or 5th level which many would say is roughly equivalent to D&D 4e's 1st to 3rd level, because you want a more high fantasy campaign... then yes you can upgrade a kobold to be challenging at 4th-6th in 3.5 and PF. 

As to your point of it not being a kobold anymore... how is this any different, from a mechanical perspective, than what 4e does... except in 4e they give you pre-made bundles of race/powers/abilities and in 3.5/PF you have to construct it by mixing and matching your own bundles of race/powers and abilities? In 4e a single kobold can be a level 5 monster with abilities and powers no level 1 kobold posseses... again I'm not seeing your point.

EDIT: In other words, aren't classes like Barbarian or sorcerer or whatever just me constructing the "role" I want the kobold to be?  In game there is no Barbarian "class".


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> Oh, totally. The customization of monsters is certainly one of the best things about 3e. Fantastic idea and implementation.
> 
> But, that's a bit beside the point. Imaro is saying that because you can add class levels to base monsters, you can keep those monsters viable throughout the duration of the campaign.
> 
> My point is, a 14th level barbarian kobold isn't a kobold anymore. It's a short 14th level barbarian.




I would say it is both a kobold and a 14th level barbarian, which is what makes it interesting (otherwise I would just throw a 14th level human barbarian at the party). To me this is like the aged vampire categories they introduced in 2E. The whole point was to make vampires both interesting and viable at higher levels. A 500 year old vampire is still a vampire, just way more powerful. A 500 year old vampire 18th level necromancer is also still a vampire just more powerful and an 18th level necromancer on top of things.


----------



## BryonD

Patryn of Elvenshae said:


> Er, yes, it is.  In 3E, if you want to be back in the fight the next day, all you needed was a cleric or a cleric-in-a-can.
> 
> In what way is this a controversial statement?



That isn't what you said and it isn't what I challenged.

You said in 4E it is no different than any prior edition because there was no condition of being truly wounded.

But you are wrong because the fact that the condition *can be* very short lived in 3E doesn't make that condition no exist.

Under the rules of 3E a fighter alone in the wounds can survive a fight but be in need of healing that make take several days without finding aid.

In 4E a fighter alone in the woods who survives a fight can surge away any damage taken.  

The previous potential for being in a state of being wounded and needing healing is now gone.



> The fact that you never had standard-issue-healsticks, IMO, marks you as more the outlier than my game.



I think actual data trumps your assessment.  But, for sake of argument, lets presume you are correct.

Do you agree that your assessment offers nothing to "outliers" such as myself and that us "outliers" have decent reason to dislike surges?  What do surges offer to us "outliers" that doesn't reduce the quality of the game.




> The only real difference between 4E and 3E here is that you don't have to tote around Father Maynard if you don't want to.



Again, you are focusing on the GAME and completely ignoring the STORY.
Hypothetically let's agree that fighter 1 in a 3E game kills some BBEGs, loses HP and then gets back to full HP.  And fighter 2 in a 4E games does exactly the same thing.  

Yes, mechanically they are equal.  But the equality ends there.

In the 3E game the fighter may have taken wounds which required significant time to recover from.  It is only the application of divine aid that removes the wounds quickly.

In 4E you can describe the exact same wounds.  But then you need to describe the fighter simply making them disappear.  And not in a Jack Bauer, fight-now go to hospital when the terrorists are dead way, but in a the wounds are gone forever just because way.  Or you can limit your story in such a way that the fighter may not ever be truly wounded.  Both options work for 4E.  But you may not describe wounds which require true healing and maintain a quality narrative.

And, just as an aside, my current PF game has no cleric.....


----------



## KidSnide

Tony Vargas said:


> _is the problem that there's no normal-combat wound that can be healed by magic, but not by preternatural healing like that of the warlord?  Because that's about the only difference 'knowing' a wound is 'mortal' when it's inflicted, rather than when the character dies of it would make - this guy has a punctured spleen, an encouraging speech isn't gong to save him, bring on the divine band-aids or he dies.  Is that the distinction you're missing?_




At least for me, that exactly the problem.  When a character drops, I'd like that to be narratively associated with an actual serious wound.  

Personally, I'd put Inspiring Word and Healing Word on the same level (i.e. both are spiritual/moral encouragement and neither heal actual physical wounds by themselves).  I'd like to see a rule where - to bandage someone who has fallen down - the character must move adjacent to the character and either make a healing check or use some other ability to stabalize the character before they can stand up with a healing surge.  

If martial healers aren't quite as good as divine healers, and there is an extra tactical reason to heal someone before they go down (rather than the current bizarrely unintuitive incentive to heal _after_ the character goes down), then that's all for the best.

I don't mind magic that binds wounds, and I don't mind yelling across the room to inspire a bruised and exhausted character to keep fighting.  But I don't like yelling across the room to inspire an unconscious character back to his feet.  That always struck me as very odd.

-KS


----------



## Mort

BryonD said:


> That isn't what you said and it isn't what I challenged.
> 
> You said in 4E it is no different than any prior edition because there was no condition of being truly wounded.
> 
> But you are wrong because the fact that the condition *can be* very short lived in 3E doesn't make that condition no exist.
> 
> Under the rules of 3E a fighter alone in the wounds can survive a fight but be in need of healing that make take several days without finding aid.
> 
> In 4E a fighter alone in the woods who survives a fight can surge away any damage taken.
> 
> The previous potential for being in a state of being wounded and needing healing is now gone.




Only if you look at simple  physical damage, which has always had wonky treatment in every iteration of D&D.

 If you really want to harrass a 4e party simply use poisons, diseases and offshoots of that mechanic. A fighter alone in the woods who gets infected with some disease - he's not surging that away. Very easy to introduce other such conditions. I did this to my group a few sessions ago, a romp through a disease infested sewer ended up with half of them suffering from filth fever. You can't just surge it away and resting is a gamble because resting and failing a save will make it worse (in addition to taking lots of time the party didn't have). This really added a fun dynamic as the group had to weigh running back to get magical healing or finishing the time sensative mission. They powered through and finished the mission but the disease track added a fun new element.



BryonD said:


> I think actual data trumps your assessment.  But, for sake of argument, lets presume you are correct.
> 
> Do you agree that your assessment offers nothing to "outliers" such as myself and that us "outliers" have decent reason to dislike surges?  What do surges offer to us "outliers" that doesn't reduce the quality of the game.




I haven't read through the whole thread so have no idea if these concepts have already been beaten to death but there are so many things surges can do that were hard to model in prior edditions.

Easy example fatigue - best way to model fatigue I have yet seen in any edition of D&D. I love the fact that some rituals (such as knock) fatigue the caster (ie drain a surge) I wish this would be done more often.






BryonD said:


> Again, you are focusing on the GAME and completely ignoring the STORY.
> Hypothetically let's agree that fighter 1 in a 3E game kills some BBEGs, loses HP and then gets back to full HP.  And fighter 2 in a 4E games does exactly the same thing.
> 
> Yes, mechanically they are equal.  But the equality ends there.
> 
> In the 3E game the fighter may have taken wounds which required significant time to recover from.  It is only the application of divine aid that removes the wounds quickly.
> 
> In 4E you can describe the exact same wounds.  But then you need to describe the fighter simply making them disappear.  And not in a Jack Bauer, fight-now go to hospital when the terrorists are dead way, but in a the wounds are gone forever just because way.  Or you can limit your story in such a way that the fighter may not ever be truly wounded.  Both options work for 4E.  But you may not describe wounds which require true healing and maintain a quality narrative.




As stated above, my group was faced with this exact (hard) choice and it worked great.  I don't think you have to limit the story at all and in fact there are now outlets for more stories. HPs haven't gotten that much more abstract then they've always been (come on in 3e you received HPs back based on level which caused weird issues of the high HP fighters technically "healing" more slowly than the mage - how's that for odd?).





BryonD said:


> And, just as an aside, my current PF game has no cleric.....




Interesting, and are you saying the DM is not compensating at all - or that you're groups playstyle has not had to change to accomodate the lack of magical healing?


----------



## Imaro

Mort said:


> Easy example fatigue - best way to model fatigue I have yet seen in any edition of D&D. I love the fact that some rituals (such as knock) fatigue the caster (ie drain a surge) I wish this would be done more often.




How does this model fatigue?  I think the 3.5 "fatigue" condition does a much better job than this, loosing a healing surge doesn't in any way affect your actions or effectiveness in performing actions like one would expect being fatigued to do and, if one is able to rest before running out of healing surges... has no discernible effect at all.


----------



## avin

Mort said:


> Interesting, and are you saying the DM is not compensating at all - or that you're groups playstyle has not had to change to accomodate the lack of magical healing?




Bards heal in 3.5


----------



## Mallus

This thread has gotten me thinking of some ways I'd modify 4e's hit point and healing surge mechanics in a (currently hypothetical) new 4e campaign.

I'd tie Healing Surges to successful saving throws, and reintroduce pre-4e permanent conditions. For example, a PC would burn a healing surge on a successful save vs. a medusa's gaze attack. 

Rationalization: averting their gaze or shaking the petrification off depleted some of their heroic luck, meaning it's going to harder to turn the next sword blow into a graze.

More swingy-ness than present, but still more cushion than 1e.

I'd take the (relatively) old advice to use a modified disease track for serious wounds. A "serious wound" being any that drops a PC below zero, even if subsequent use of a surge brings them back to positive. That gives a concrete way of differentiating between "real" wounds and minor bruising, meaning easier narration of injury --not that I had a real problem with it under the 4e RAW-- plus the potential for lasting consequences.

Finally, I'd cut HP and number of surges across the board, like people have been suggesting since 4e hit,  to reduce combat length and increase tension

I think with a few tweaks like these you'd get something which combines the best features of both 4e and 1e combat.


----------



## Mort

Imaro said:


> How does this model fatigue?  I think the 3.5 "fatigue" condition does a much better job than this, loosing a healing surge doesn't in any way affect your actions or effectiveness in performing actions like one would expect being fatigued to do




Losing healing surges forces the player to seriously consider resting and recuperating before moving forward while at the same time avoiding the death spiral effect commonly associated with other mechanics that model this. Further the healing surge mechanic actually means the character *will* (barring very high level magics and effects) hit a wall where not resting is a really, really bad idea as oposed to 3.5 where even low level healing can keep a character up near indefinately.




Imaro said:


> and, if one is able to rest before running out of healing surges... has no discernible effect at all.




Not sure I get this - of course resting cures fatigue (it cures the fatigued and exhausted condition in 3.5 too). It may not cure some of the other conditions I discussed in my post though, for DMs wanting to impose more lasting penalties.


----------



## Imaro

Mort said:


> Losing healing surges forces the player to seriously consider resting and recuperating before moving forward while at the same time avoiding the death spiral effect commonly associated with other mechanics that model this. Further the healing surge mechanic actually means the character *will* (barring very high level magics and effects) hit a wall where not resting is a really, really bad idea as oposed to 3.5 where even low level healing can keep a character up near indefinately.




Again... how does this model fatigue? Fatigue usually has an impact on one's ability to perform tasks... In 3.5 "fatigued" is a condition that causes a character to take a -2 to Dex and Str...which has nothing to do with hit points, it affects a characters performance and requires 8 hours of rest to remove the condition... and if the character does anything else that would cause them to be fatigued they become exhausted instead.

Loosing a surge has no effect whatsoever on your immediate performance (you are just as good at doing everything as you were before loosing the healing surge) thus I am asking what part of this models being fatigued in any way?





Mort said:


> Not sure I get this - of course resting cures fatigue (it cures the fatigued and exhausted condition in 3.5 too). It may not cure some of the other conditions I discussed in my post though, for DMs wanting to impose more lasting penalties.




What exactly is the downside to being fatigued in loosing a healing surge? You are still able to perform all actions as if in tip top shape... You would have to reach the point where the loss of healing surges actually impede you in some way, and this is dependant upon so many factors that it seems a horrible way to model being fatigued since for some it will have virtually no effect (and thus they will rest and it will be like nothing happened), while for others it may have a slight to serious effect but nothing that seems to speak to one being fatigued..


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I'm with Imaro 100% here.


----------



## BryonD

Mort said:


> Only if you look at simple  physical damage, which has always had wonky treatment in every iteration of D&D.




We are talking about surges.  We are also talking about physical damage.
Are you conceding that topic and asking to move on?



> If you really want to harrass a 4e party simply use poisons, diseases and offshoots of that mechanic. A fighter alone in the woods who gets infected with some disease - he's not surging that away.



Right, he isn't surging them away.  This thread is about surges.  So talking about things that have no relation to surges isn't informative.

I'm not certain off the top of my head, but I'll presume for simplicity that 4E is equal in merit to 3E with regard to diseases.  

If I can choose between good for disease and good for wounds against good for disease and bad for wounds, I'll choose the former.


----------



## BryonD

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I'm with Imaro 100% here.



Me too.


----------



## Mort

Imaro said:


> Again... how does this model fatigue? Fatigue usually has an impact on one's ability to perform tasks... In 3.5 "fatigued" is a condition that causes a character to take a -2 to Dex and Str...which has nothing to do with hit points, it affects a characters performance and requires 8 hours of rest to remove the condition... and if the character does anything else that would cause them to be fatigued they become exhausted instead.
> 
> Loosing a surge has no effect whatsoever on your immediate performance (you are just as good at doing everything as you were before loosing the healing surge) thus I am asking what part of this models being fatigued in any way?




You are correct, most representation of fatigue in games impose a negative penalty to doing future tasks - thereby leading to a higher chance of mistakes and fumbling tasks (in many games the penalties are cumulative thereby leading to the death spiral mentioned above). While this is one of those things that intuitively makes sense, it's not necessarily accurate. Google up some studies on death spiral effects and you'll notice they mostly show a fight goes like this: fine, fine, fine, down/dead.

Healing surges model this form the point that eventually you run out of reserves, your body can no longer support the healing necessary to keep you going - rest or fall down/die. The character is not impared from a bonus/penalty perspective but is certainly impared from an effectiveness perspective and the loss of effectiveness can be attributed to fatigue as easily as anything else. It forces the player to make hard choices on continuing in a diminished capacity without punishing the player further with the imposition of a death spiral (I dislike death spirals in adition to not being that accurate they are no fun at all).






Imaro said:


> What exactly is the downside to being fatigued in loosing a healing surge?




In losing healing surges you are incrementaly less effective, even if your HPs are the same with 9/10 Healing surges you are pretty close to normal, 5/10 your ok but have to consider resting in the future, 0/10 you may be functional but  you are nearly walking dead, sure you don't have minuses but effectively every action you take has greater consequences because your reserves are so low and not resting risks serious injury or death. 



Imaro said:


> You are still able to perform all actions as if in tip top shape.




Not really, you may not suffer minuses but since your actions have more drastic consequences (HP loss without likely healing for example) you are effectively impared.


----------



## Imaro

Mort said:


> You are correct, most representation of fatigue in games impose a negative penalty to doing future tasks - thereby leading to a higher chance of mistakes and fumbling tasks (in many games the penalties are cumulative thereby leading to the death spiral mentioned above). While this is one of those things that intuitively makes sense, it's not necessarily accurate. Google up some studies on death spiral effects and you'll notice they mostly show a fight goes like this: fine, fine, fine, down/dead.




Wait a minute are we talking about modeling fatigue or death spirals in combat due to wounds? I don't believe they are the same thing. When one is fatigued in the real world science shows that it has an effect on one's ability and performance of tasks. Not sure what you telling me to google death spirals or even fights has to do with this since we are talking about fatigue. See the -2 to Str and Dex of 3.5 affects your ability to perform tasks inside and outside of combat... the loss of a healing surge does none of this. I'm just having a hard time understanding how you could feel the loss of healing surges models fatigue better than the condition in 3.5???



Mort said:


> Healing surges model this form the point that eventually you run out of reserves, your body can no longer support the healing necessary to keep you going - rest or fall down/die. The character is not impared from a bonus/penalty perspective but is certainly impared from an effectiveness perspective and the loss of effectiveness can be attributed to fatigue as easily as anything else. It forces the player to make hard choices on continuing in a diminished capacity without punishing the player further with the imposition of a death spiral (I dislike death spirals in adition to not being that accurate they are no fun at all).




This is not how most studies on sleep deprivation/fatigue/etc. claim that it works. A programmer running on no sleep doesn't perform at optimal effeciency until all of a sudden he collapses and can do nothing... you will notice a decrease in performance the longer he goes without rest thus normal->fatigued->exhausted (which is basically the lowest point of your effectiveness). 

It seems that one minute you're making the claim that it models fatigue the best of any edition but in the post above you're saying well yeah, you can just kinda say it's fatigue just like you could claim it's a bunch of other things that are causing you to loose healing surges... these two stances while not opposed to each other do not make a strong argument for your postion.

I am also still confused with your equating of the fatigued condition with a death spiral... which it doesn't create in 3.5 and is thus a moot point in this discussion. 




Mort said:


> In losing healing surges you are incrementaly less effective, even if your HPs are the same with 9/10 Healing surges you are pretty close to normal, 5/10 your ok but have to consider resting in the future, 0/10 you may be functional but you are nearly walking dead, sure you don't have minuses but effectively every action you take has greater consequences because your reserves are so low and not resting risks serious injury or death.




See the problem is that every action doesn't have greater consequences, only actions in which you risk hit point loss have greater consequences... anything else is just as easy as it was when you didn't have any surges fatigued away. So If you tried to lift and carry small boulders to clear a path, in 4e you suffer nothing even though you are supposed to be fatigued... in 3.5 lifting those boulders and carrying them is actuallyu harder because you are fatigued and you can only do it for so long before you become exhausted.





Mort said:


> Not really, you may not suffer minuses but since your actions have more drastic consequences (HP loss without likely healing for example) you are effectively impared.




Again, all of your actions don't.


----------



## Mort

Imaro said:


> Wait a minute are we talking about modeling fatigue or death spirals in combat due to wounds? I don't believe they are the same thing. When one is fatigued in the real world science shows that it has an effect on one's ability and performance of tasks. Not sure what you telling me to google death spirals or even fights has to do with this since we are talking about fatigue. See the -2 to Str and Dex of 3.5 affects your ability to perform tasks inside and outside of combat... the loss of a healing surge does none of this. I'm just having a hard time understanding how you could feel the loss of healing surges models fatigue better than the condition in 3.5???.




I'm going to go ahead and admit I improperly applied "fatigued" (probably from the getgo). I was more thinking of it as a "your body getting closer and closer to hitting a wall where it can go no farther" which is where I equated it with the death spiral and less the "you're tired and not fully functioning so have issues with tasks you might otherwise not" which is the more proper/correct definition. 

From this (more correct) perspective the 3.5 condition certainly models it decently and 4e suffers from its seeming allergy to conditions outside of combat (except again for disease/poison tracking a good mechanic which deserves a better core treatment). 

I still think the healing surge mechanic is quite useful in the context presented (just take out my incorrectly used fatigue language). It is a great way to divest the system from purely divine/magical healing and to track the bodies need to just simply shut down at some point - magic or no.


----------



## BryonD

Mort said:


> Not really, you may not suffer minuses but since your actions have more drastic consequences (HP loss without likely healing for example) you are effectively impared.



In poker terms, you seem to be mistaking "pot odds" for "hand strength".


----------



## BryonD

Mort said:


> It is a great way to divest the system from purely divine/magical healing and to track the bodies need to just simply shut down at some point - magic or no.



I still very strongly disagree with this.  *
Yes, it divests it from magical healing.

But the "shut down" claim is a stretch.  But they still heal and and every wound in a manner that has no analog to fiction, far less any kind of reality.  Yes, in fiction they ignore wounds during dramatic moments.  Ignore wounds and making them vanish forever are a far cry apart.  And even when you run out of surges, they come back REALLY easy.  So I don't think they even do very well as an "I"m out of reserves" feel.  

Frankly, just having a lot of hit points does that quite well.  When characters are fresh they take more risks.  when they start running low they start second guessing their choices, which seems to me to be exactly what you described.  So we already have that, and without the no-story healing.

Way back at the top of the thread Morrus pointed out that you now count surges more than HP and that is a key change.  He was right about that.  But simply counting surges to know when you are getting into the danger zone is really no different than looking at a low HP total.

(I'm picturing Ultraman with a flashing light on his chest now)


* - to be clear, if it works for you, awesome.  But that doesn't make the failure of it to work for other needs go away.


----------



## Mort

BryonD said:


> In poker terms, you seem to be mistaking "pot odds" for "hand strength".




See the dialing back of my earlier post on fatigue; BUT

to respond, as any good poker player knows pot odds and hand strength are significantly linked. Any poker player that does not learn this will either make a lot less than they should or more likely lose all their money quickly.



Mort said:


> Originally Posted by Mort
> It is a great way to divest the system from purely divine/magical healing and to track the bodies need to just simply shut down at some point - magic or no.






BryonD said:


> I still very strongly disagree with this. *
> Yes, it divests it from magical healing.
> 
> But the "shut down" claim is a stretch. But they still heal and and every wound in a manner that has no analog to fiction, far less any kind of reality. Yes, in fiction they ignore wounds during dramatic moments. Ignore wounds and making them vanish forever are a far cry apart. And even when you run out of surges, they come back REALLY easy. So I don't think they even do very well as an "I"m out of reserves" feel.
> 
> Frankly, just having a lot of hit points does that quite well. When characters are fresh they take more risks. when they start running low they start second guessing their choices, which seems to me to be exactly what you described. So we already have that, and without the no-story healing.
> 
> Way back at the top of the thread Morrus pointed out that you now count surges more than HP and that is a key change. He was right about that. But simply counting surges to know when you are getting into the danger zone is really no different than looking at a low HP total.
> 
> (I'm picturing Ultraman with a flashing light on his chest now)




And I believe the healing surge mechanic divests from magical healing while still maintaining a decent D&D/cinematic vibe - clearly we disagree.


----------



## Griego

BryonD said:


> Under the rules of 3E a fighter alone in the wounds can survive a fight but be in need of healing that make take several days without finding aid.
> 
> In 4E a fighter alone in the woods who survives a fight can surge away any damage taken.




Not if s/he's out of healing surges...


----------



## BryonD

Mort said:


> See the dialing back of my earlier post on fatigue; BUT
> 
> to respond, as any good poker player knows pot odds and hand strength are significantly linked. Any poker player that does not learn this will either make a lot less than they should or more likely lose all their money quickly.



I think you are missing the point.

Everything else being equal the odds of a given hand winning is in no way impacted by the pot.  Just as a character's ability to do things is in no way impacted by how many HP or surges he has left.

The willingness to take the risk depends on the risk/reward for that hand.  But that is a different point.  The hand (and the character) is not one bit less or more effective for any variation of pot and bet (or surges or lack thereof)




> And I believe the healing surge mechanic divests from magical healing while still maintaining a decent D&D/cinematic vibe - clearly we disagree.



Clearly we vastly disagree.  And if it is good for you then that is all that matters.  But this thread is about why would someone dislike them, so you having a different standard doesn't really have any relevance.

For me, I can't think of ANY cinematic example of a group of characters all incapable of receiving any wound that they could not simply ignore briefly but actually make truly and completely go away.


----------



## BryonD

Griego said:


> Not if s/he's out of healing surges...



Yes he can, he just has to recover surges first.

Surges recover easily and ALL wounds are fully removable by surges.

The distinction of potentially needed to recharge surges does nothing to mitigate the fact that surges remain capable of removing any and every wound.


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> a PC is fighting, and gets dropped into the negatives, and has to start making saves or he dies. Another PC, and trained healer, asks how the injured PC looks, even going out of his way to move to the injured PC to inspect him. If the character is dying, the trained healer will stop -mid combat- to aid the PC. However, if he's just down, and can shrug it off (Warlord's "get up!" ability), the trained healer PC will say a quick encouraging word (for no mechanical benefit) and rejoin the fray.



In 4e, the rules for this are fairly clear - to make that inspection takes a standard action, and triggers a Heal check. If the Heal check succeeds, then the inspection reveals that the fallen PC is not dying. If the Heal check fails, then the inspection reveals that the fallen PC may well be in mortal trouble (although the inspecting healer is not certain of that).



Imaro said:


> I may be misunderstanding your point here, but in 3.x/PF it remains feasible for even a high level PC to face goblins or other low level monsters since you can add NPC and PC classses to them in order to increase their CR.



Just adding to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s response - either the monsters are low level in which case the play is mechanically unsatisfying, or the monsters are levelled up or in sufficient numbers to pose a threat, in which case we won't get cinematic healing (which was the initial context in which JamesonCourage suggested using the level scale to move from gritty to cinematic). If the monsters pose a mechanicaly significant threat then we'll get real injuries with gritty healing times (assuming pre-4e natural healing).



BryonD said:


> In 4E you can describe the exact same wounds.  But then you need to describe the fighter simply making them disappear.



Why? All you need to describe is the fighter going on in spite of them.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> In 4e, the rules for this are fairly clear - to make that inspection takes a standard action, and triggers a Heal check. If the Heal check succeeds, then the inspection reveals that the fallen PC is not dying. If the Heal check fails, then the inspection reveals that the fallen PC may well be in mortal trouble (although the inspecting healer is not certain of that).



Is that an inspection, or is that treating the wound? The PC in question was just inspecting the wound, not treating it, in what I'm discussing.



> Just adding to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s response - either the monsters are low level in which case the play is mechanically unsatisfying, or the monsters are levelled up or in sufficient numbers to pose a thread, in which case we won't get cinematic healing (which was the initial context in which JamesonCourage suggested using the level scale to move from gritty to cinematic). If the monsters pose a mechanicaly significant threat then we'll get real injuries with gritty healing times (assuming pre-4e natural healing).



From my experience of cinematic moments in fantasy movies (Conan, LotR, etc.), most people that fight the "PCs" are just out of their league, and have no real chance of hurting them. That is, Conan can kill 20 guys, but might lose to either one of the priests in a one on one fight. In the LotR movies, Boromir can fight many orcs at once, but Lurtz can fell him with several arrows. So, like I suggested, if you want a cinematic feel, have the players be higher level, have them fight a horde of goblins or other low level creatures, but add another threat if you want them to be legitimately challenged. In most cinematic moments in fantasy movies, the minions aren't much of a threat, and might only be one if they sneak up on a hero and put a sword to the back of their neck.

If you want gritty, play lower level, where those goblins are a real threat, no matter how skilled you are. This just isn't the case from what I've observed of cinematic fantasy movies. As always, play what you like


----------



## Griego

BryonD said:


> Yes he can, he just has to recover surges first.
> 
> Surges recover easily and ALL wounds are fully removable by surges.
> 
> The distinction of potentially needed to recharge surges does nothing to mitigate the fact that surges remain capable of removing any and every wound.




Yeah, by taking a 6-hour rest. Sounds pretty risky for your hypothetical lone fighter in the woods.


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> Yes he can, he just has to recover surges first.
> 
> Surges recover easily and ALL wounds are fully removable by surges.
> 
> The distinction of potentially needed to recharge surges does nothing to mitigate the fact that surges remain capable of removing any and every wound.




It's the same for a low-HP 3E character.  Surprisingly, the high-HP 3E character needs to rest a whole lot more to get rid of the same degree of wounds.

I can't think of ANY cinematic example of frail characters recovering quicker than hardy characters from the same degree of wound.


----------



## Nagol

LostSoul said:


> It's the same for a low-HP 3E character.  Surprisingly, the high-HP 3E character needs to rest a whole lot more to get rid of the same degree of wounds.
> 
> I can't think of ANY cinematic example of frail characters recovering quicker than hardy characters from the same degree of wound.




The fact that Game A has a problematic mechanic is NOT mitigated by different problematic mechanics in Game B.


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> The fact that Game A has a problematic mechanic is NOT mitigated by different problematic mechanics in Game B.




It is when people are claiming that Game B has created problems where none existed before.  The fact that there ARE problems in Game A means that the changes in Game B are generally coming from a position of trying to resolve Game A's problems.

Granted, that might create new problems.  Fair enough.  But, it does mean that you can't keep touting Game A as THE ONE TRUE GAME that is beyond any criticism.

The Healing Surge mechanics might suffer from issues when it comes to narrating wounds particularly when a PC is facing death saves.  Fair enough.  But, the reason we have Healing Surges in the first place was to resolve issues created by earlier D&D's reliance on magical healing.

It's all about checks and balances.  You'll never create the perfect system that is all things to all people.  So, you pick and choose where to make changes in an attempt to create a middle ground.  People had problems with the idea that the group needed a magical healer and all the knock on effects that resulted in.  So, they removed the need for a magical healer at the expense (possibly) of some people's ability to narrate effectively.

Is the trade off worth it?  Well, that's for the consumer to decide.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> It is when people are claiming that Game B has created problems where none existed before.  The fact that there ARE problems in Game A means that the changes in Game B are generally coming from a position of trying to resolve Game A's problems.
> 
> Granted, that might create new problems.  Fair enough.  But, it does mean that you can't keep touting Game A as THE ONE TRUE GAME that is beyond any criticism.
> 
> The Healing Surge mechanics might suffer from issues when it comes to narrating wounds particularly when a PC is facing death saves.  Fair enough.  But, the reason we have Healing Surges in the first place was to resolve issues created by earlier D&D's reliance on magical healing.
> 
> It's all about checks and balances.  You'll never create the perfect system that is all things to all people.  So, you pick and choose where to make changes in an attempt to create a middle ground.  People had problems with the idea that the group needed a magical healer and all the knock on effects that resulted in.  So, they removed the need for a magical healer at the expense (possibly) of some people's ability to narrate effectively.
> 
> Is the trade off worth it?  Well, that's for the consumer to decide.




In my example A was 4e and B was 3.X; I think you got them reversed , but the order really doesn't matter.

The OP asked what people's issues with healing surges were, not what issues people expereinced with any other game system.  Do I like the healing in 3.X?  No, not really.  The natural recovery is far too fast for my taste.

If there were any posts suggesting 3.X was above reproach, I must have missed them.  I certainly have a quite a few complaints against the system though I still run it, but those complaints have no bearing on my critique of a mechanic in different game.

Every system is about emulating a genre and building mechanics that meet specific expectations for play as best as the designers can.  My critique addresses the mechanic as presented; why the designers chose to include it, whether as a reaction to other perceived problems or because they simply prefer its effect on game play, I cannot comment on.

I acknowledge that most of my issues with 4e -- and healing surges are no exception -- are my preferred play expectations for the sub-genre I would use these rules to cover appears to vary greatly from the designers.  In fact, I would go so far as to say the play style these rules fit well is one I don't enjoy.


----------



## Derren

One easy way to make both sides happy (imo) would be to combine the Vitality/Wound system from the old Star Wars game with Healing Surges.

Vitality represents skill/luck/fatigue/whatever so there is no problem explaining how to recover them with a quick, nonmagical prep talk.
Wounds are real physical resistances which can't be healed unless with magic, treat wounds (with limits) or resting.

Except for some special circumstances (for example the infamous falling damage) you have to go through the Vitality first before getting wounded.


----------



## Hussar

Honestly, I have no problems putting in a wounds/vitality system.  The only thing I would worry about is that it's just one more thing you have to track.  

And, really, if you have to blow through vitality to get to wounds, why bother?  Wouldn't it simply be easier to add in a rider effect on making death saves?  I mean, the Raise Dead ritual has the following rider:



			
				Compendium said:
			
		

> The subject returns with a death penalty: –1 to all attack rolls, skill checks, saving throws, and ability checks. This death penalty fades after the subject reaches three milestones.




Why not do the same thing with death saves?  Every failed death save eats a healing surge and adds a cumulative penalty to something or other?  That way, dropping below zero hit points has lasting impact and while you might get the healing surges back after a complete rest, the penalties (and possibly the healing surges too - after all the disease track rules allow for blocking the spending of healing surges) stay with you until you achieve a certain number of milestones.

Would work fairly easily and not require any new rules.


----------



## BryonD

LostSoul said:


> It's the same for a low-HP 3E character.  Surprisingly, the high-HP 3E character needs to rest a whole lot more to get rid of the same degree of wounds.
> 
> I can't think of ANY cinematic example of frail characters recovering quicker than hardy characters from the same degree of wound.



1) I readily agree that the 3E model could be improved and I'm eager to consider options that improve it.  I would not agree that having some issues with the 3E system makes it remotely ok to add further problems with no narrative merit.

2) We spent a ton of time in this thread debating the abstract vs. real elements of hit points and you are now basing a complaint on the assumption that wounds to high HP and low HP characters represent the same degree of physical harm.  Both wounding and healing in 3E include physical and abstract concepts in harmony.  The problem with surges is that they force 100% of the healing to be abstract because there is no such thing as a wound they can't heal.

Suppose a low level fighter and a high level fighter are together out in the woods and both survive an encounter but each have just 1 HP left at the end of the fight.  Now they have no healing available but time and natural healing.  For sake of discussing healing, we will assume they find a safe place hole up.  You are correct that the low level fighter will be back to 100% hit points more quickly than the high level fighter.  But there is no narrative or cinematic disconnect in saying that the low level fighter is physically healed before his full HP are restored and the last few HP represent the abstract "karma/luck/fate" element.  And, in exactly the same way the high level fighter could return to full physical recovery in the same time.  And, it is important to keep in mind that the high level fighter is regaining HP faster than the low level guy, he just has so much more that the healing still takes longer.  So it is acceptable to say that they are both fully recovered in exactly the same time.  But the high level fighter has both (a) more "fate" already regained on the day they are both healed and (b) will continue to regain fate for days to come, assuming he doesn't have another encounter.

And the key to all that is that, unlike surges, simple HP retains full narrative control because they do include both abstract and physical elements.  Surges discard that dynamic for game expediency.

And all that leads to :
3) You can fix surges if you make them acknowledge physical wounds.  For example, declare that surges may never heal a character above 50% of full HP.  Now Jack Bauer can be battered and bleeding, but he keeps surging back to 50% and saying "yeah, I'll need stitches and the like later, but I don't care right now, I'm here and I'm gonna kick your ass and bleed later."

As long as surges can restore any and all HP damage they don't fit with quality narrative that includes actually being wounded.  And the mechanics of surges require that you end up describing all wounds as gone forever, in all ways.  I'm not adding anything to that.  The 3E HP rules make no requirement on how you describe wounds and healing.  You have added something not found in the rules when you declare that the high HP guys takes longer to *physically* recover than the low HP guy.


----------



## BryonD

Griego said:


> Yeah, by taking a 6-hour rest. Sounds pretty risky for your hypothetical lone fighter in the woods.



Yes.  Agreed.

And surges can still heal any and every wound.


----------



## Nagol

BryonD said:


> 1)
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Suppose a low level fighter and a high level fighter are together out in the woods and both survive an encounter but each have just 1 HP left at the end of the fight.  Now they have no healing available but time and natural healing.  For sake of discussing healing, we will assume they find a safe place hole up.  You are correct that the low level fighter will be back to 100% hit points more quickly than the high level fighter.
> 
> <snip>




Ignoring Constitution variance, the low-level fighter will take a bit longer to heal than the high-level fighter in 3.X.  Since healing is level in hp per day, Getting from 1 to full is based on the average hp / level.  At first level you get max hp so it takes 9 days to go from 1 to max.  The high-level fighter almost certainly hasn't managed to roll max on the die every level and has a lower average.

The rest I pretty much agree with.


----------



## BryonD

Nagol said:


> Ignoring Constitution variance, the low-level fighter will take a bit longer to heal than the high-level fighter in 3.X.  Since healing is level in hp per day, Getting from 1 to full is based on the average hp / level.  At first level you get max hp so it takes 9 days to go from 1 to max.  The high-level fighter almost certainly hasn't managed to roll max on the die every level and has a lower average.
> 
> The rest I pretty much agree with.



edit: It seems in my experience that it still goes up.  I think this has to do with that over the long haul CON goes up for fighters.

But, you are correct.   Maybe I should have used a fighter and a sorcerer as the example....


----------



## Derren

Hussar said:


> Honestly, I have no problems putting in a wounds/vitality system.  The only thing I would worry about is that it's just one more thing you have to track.
> 
> And, really, if you have to blow through vitality to get to wounds, why bother?  Wouldn't it simply be easier to add in a rider effect on making death saves?  I mean, the Raise Dead ritual has the following rider:




What a W/V system would solve is the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of character health" as now you have a clear distinction between luck based HP and physical HP.
Also, such a system can be used to solve some of the traditional issues with teh HP system like falling or backstabbing/CDG.
Have such things simply ignore Vitality and decrease wound points directly (which according to the V/W system would be rather low. I think it was just your constitution score).
Now falling from high places would be dangerous while you still could have loads of HP for combat.

Depending on your need for "realism" you could also attach a stacking penalty to loosing WP to simulate wounds. Or ignore wound points altogether and just add your con score to vitality and play like with the 4E HP system.


----------



## LostSoul

First of all, that post I made last night was after a long game of D&D and didn't make the point I wanted.

A 3-CON Wizard is going to heal up a greater percentage of max HP a night's rest than a 20-CON Barbarian.  I think that's a head-scratcher, the same way that a Warlord's Inspiring Word can somehow make unconscious characters get back on their feet.  There's probably a way that you can make either case work in the game's fiction, but I don't think it's controversial to say that both pre-4E HP and 4E Healing Surges put stress on coming up with a coherent narrative.

Which gets me thinking - maybe all this talk about realism and narrative consistency is missing the point.

Lately I've been thinking of RPGs in terms of choices that the players make.  What kind of choices do we make when we play?  What kinds of choices do we _want_ to make?  That's what the game is about.  

It's my belief - biased by personal preference, I'm sure - that RPGs are more engaging when those choices are grounded in "fictional positioning".  That is, when you make your decisions, they are based on the details of the game world.  Mechanics provide value to those choices (and different games, being about different choices, give different values to choices).​
So anyway, HP and Surges.  If we look at the difference between them in terms of choices the players make - how HP support one set of choices and Surges another - what do we get?

I don't know what the answer to that is, but I'd bet that there is a fundamental difference in the kinds of choices a player can make.  The value that Healing Surges put on different player choices (making some choices more important, other choices less) are probably what accounts for the dislike that some people have.

*



BryonD said:


> 3) You can fix surges if you make them acknowledge physical wounds.  For example, declare that surges may never heal a character above 50% of full HP.  Now Jack Bauer can be battered and bleeding, but he keeps surging back to 50% and saying "yeah, I'll need stitches and the like later, but I don't care right now, I'm here and I'm gonna kick your ass and bleed later."




My 4E Hack has some rules for "maiming" characters.  They're not perfect but so far they've worked.  It goes like this:

If your action would result in a permanent injury to your target, the target of your attack is Bloodied, and the target has no way to avoid the damage, the target takes a permanent injury.

The obvious problem is that characters with more HP have a larger Bloodied range, and therefore are more susceptible to permanent injury.​
A simple example in game: A PC was hanging onto a wall from one hand.  On top of the wall were some goblins; they hacked at his hand and brought him below Bloodied.  Since he had no way to avoid the attack, his hand was chopped off.

That means I need to determine how fast you can heal such wounds, so I did:



		Code:
	

Healing
Type of Wound				Healing Required
Cuts, bruises, sprains, pulled muscles	Rest, bandages, sucking it up
Broken bones, torn ligaments		Lots of rest (1d4 weeks), any magic
Nerve damage, minor organ damage	Any magic that brings your HP total 
					above Bloodied
Severed limbs/appendages, missing 	Remove Affliction
organs


Interesting that I don't describe what type of healing a Healing Surge provides...


----------



## Pentius

BryonD said:


> As long as surges can restore any and all HP damage they don't fit with quality narrative that includes actually being wounded.  And the mechanics of surges require that you end up describing all wounds as gone forever, in all ways.  I'm not adding anything to that.  The 3E HP rules make no requirement on how you describe wounds and healing.  You have added something not found in the rules when you declare that the high HP guys takes longer to *physically* recover than the low HP guy.




This is only true if you hold that HP, on their own, mechanically fit any quality narrative about being wounded.  I don't see how they do.  Your 1hp fighter in the woods could decide to hop to his feet and run a marathon in his armor.  By raw, this marathon would go exactly as well as the same marathon at full HP.  HP damage, on it's own, never gives you any sort of quantifiable wound, unless it knocks you under 0, at which point things get cloudy.  

A character at full HP and a character at 1HP have the same physical abilities, with the lone exception of "HP damage one can take before dropping".  If surges can take our hypothetical fighter from "Able to run a marathon in his plate armor" to "Still equally able to run a marathon in his plate armor" then what wounds did those surges heal?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Your 1hp fighter in the woods could decide to hop to his feet and run a marathon in his armor. By raw, this marathon would go exactly as well as the same marathon at full HP.




Nope- not in 3Ed or 3.5Ed.



> *SRD*
> Hustle
> A character can hustle for 1 hour without a problem. Hustling for a second hour in between sleep cycles deals 1 point of nonlethal damage, and each additional hour deals twice the damage taken during the previous hour of hustling. A character who takes any nonlethal damage from hustling becomes fatigued.
> 
> A fatigued character can’t run or charge and takes a penalty of -2 to Strength and Dexterity. Eliminating the nonlethal damage also eliminates the fatigue.
> 
> Run
> A character can’t run for an extended period of time.
> 
> Attempts to run and rest in cycles effectively work out to a hustle.
> 
> _<snip>_
> 
> ...when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered, and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. It doesn’t matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down.




The guy at 1HP would be staggering around the woods, barely able to make much progress before he fell unconscious.  When he awoke- assuming it was less than 8 hours- he would be fatigued.  Attempting to resume his journey at any greater pace than a walk would render him unconscious again in an hour or 2.  It would take him many hours to reach his destination.

Meanwhile, the full HP guy would be at his destination, enjoying ale & whores.

...alongside _both_ the 1HP & full HP 4Ed PCs, unless I'm mistaken.


----------



## Pentius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Nope- not in 3Ed or 3.5Ed.
> 
> 
> 
> The guy at 1HP would be staggering around the woods, barely able to make much progress before he fell unconscious.  When he awoke- assuming it was less than 8 hours- he would be fatigued.  Attempting to resume his journey at any greater pace than a walk would render him unconscious again in an hour or 2.  It would take him many hours to reach his destination.
> 
> Meanwhile, the full HP guy would be at his destination, enjoying ale & whores.
> 
> ...alongside _both_ the 1HP & full HP 4Ed PCs, unless I'm mistaken.




Okay, I stand corrected.  But still not convinced, really.  The 1hp 3.5 fighter would run for an hour, then get a point of non-lethal damage and be staggered. 







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> A character whose nonlethal damage exactly equals his current hit points is staggered. A staggered character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions).
> 
> A character whose current hit points exceed his nonlethal damage is no longer staggered; a character whose nonlethal damage exceeds his hit points becomes unconscious.



So he runs for an hour without problem, then in the second hour(not sure whether that'd be at the start or the end or what, I'll go with the start) he gets staggered, which forces him to slow down to a walk for an hour, because  







			
				SRD said:
			
		

> You heal nonlethal damage at the rate of 1 hit point per hour per character level.



In the bit you quoted, it mentions that eliminating the non-lethal damage also eliminates the fatigue, so after an hour of walking, he can run another hour. Then repeat.  He misses the first drinks and the prettiest whores, but he's still capable of running for multiple hours in the day with no medical attention.  So, what wounds did he have that he can still run around in plate armor, for multiple, if non-consecutive, hours with no medical attention?  And how does this enable the hit point mechanics to support a quality narrative about being wounded?


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> This is only true if you hold that HP, on their own, mechanically fit any quality narrative about being wounded.  I don't see how they do.  Your 1hp fighter in the woods could decide to hop to his feet and run a marathon in his armor.  By raw, this marathon would go exactly as well as the same marathon at full HP.




So what? Wounds don't effect you in any form of D&D. A nasty cut across the hamstring doesn't slow you down in D&D 4 or D&D 3. Your answer is that there's no such thing as a nasty cut across the hamstring in D&D. My answer is that (a) our characters are the definition of badass and don't let things like that slow them down, and (b) it's a gameable approximation, designed for emulating the fantasy and action genres more than reality, and playable fun more than either of them. One can validly accept that approximation and not like the further minimizing of wounds that healing surges create.


----------



## Pentius

prosfilaes said:


> So what? Wounds don't effect you in any form of D&D. A nasty cut across the hamstring doesn't slow you down in D&D 4 or D&D 3. Your answer is that there's no such thing as a nasty cut across the hamstring in D&D. My answer is that (a) our characters are the definition of badass and don't let things like that slow them down, and (b) it's a gameable approximation, designed for emulating the fantasy and action genres more than reality, and playable fun more than either of them. One can validly accept that approximation and not like the further minimizing of wounds that healing surges create.




Right up until your last sentence, I'm with you.  My point is that HP didn't fit a quality narrative about taking wounds anyway, thus surges aren't taking anything away.


----------



## BryonD

Pentius said:


> This is only true if you hold that HP, on their own, mechanically fit any quality narrative about being wounded.  I don't see how they do.  Your 1hp fighter in the woods could decide to hop to his feet and run a marathon in his armor.  By raw, this marathon would go exactly as well as the same marathon at full HP.  HP damage, on it's own, never gives you any sort of quantifiable wound, unless it knocks you under 0, at which point things get cloudy.
> 
> A character at full HP and a character at 1HP have the same physical abilities, with the lone exception of "HP damage one can take before dropping".  If surges can take our hypothetical fighter from "Able to run a marathon in his plate armor" to "Still equally able to run a marathon in his plate armor" then what wounds did those surges heal?



Yes, your critical comment toward the 3E HP system is completely valid and I agree with it 100%. 

And that does NOTHING to make Surges any less flawed.  

You CAN work with the narrative issues of HP and describe the situation here.  You can not work with surges the same way.  Surges declare that any and all wounds can be NOT simply ignored by a hand wave of adrenaline or whatever heroic narrative one selects, but be made now and FOREVER GONE. Either fighter CAN NOT be wounded or fighters can heal flesh by thinking about it.  That is mechanically implicit to surges.

3E HP have issues.

4E HP have every issue that 3E HP have.  I'm fine with that.
4E surges bring a whole new realm of nonsense to the table.

I'm completely on board with accepting the high fantasy / heroic / Jack Bauer / Die Hard ignore my wounds and keep kicking ass cliche.  That is awesome.  And running a marathon when seriously wounded falls into that.  Being immune to being wounded does not.  Being able to be wounded but cause the wound to cease to exist does not.

It is 4E fans who have over and over POINTED OUT the Jack Bauer idea in an effort to hand wave away surges.  And yet suddenly it isn't ok under 3E?  That is more than a double standard.  Because running a marathon when highly wounded is consistent with cinematic stories and making wounds vanish is not.  If running the marathon at 1 HP is unacceptable to you then surges should make your head explode.  

If someone comes along and tells me that HP is one key reason they really dislike ALL versions of D&D and they prefer systems with wounds which cause the character to be less effective, then I completely respect that.  But that person isn't going to turn around and tell me that not being hurt by wounds is unacceptable but being immune to wounds or blinking them away is fine.  

This thread is about surges.  Telling me about a different issue that 3E and 4E share is not insightful.  

If you want to propose a better plan for HP that could, possibly, apply to both 3E and 4E, lets have a new thread.

Your post provide zero rebuttal to the actual issues with surges, which is the point here.


----------



## BryonD

Pentius said:


> Right up until your last sentence, I'm with you.  My point is that HP didn't fit a quality narrative about taking wounds anyway, thus surges aren't taking anything away.



This is just flat wrong.
And the distinction has been explained many times.

If you don't get it, then you don't get it.  And that is fine.

Surges "take away" the narrative connection between receiving actual wounds and recovering from actual wounds.  Playing bait and switch with heroic ignoring of wounds and the actual removal of wounds does not remove the issue, it just makes a feeble attempt to obfuscate it.


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> Right up until your last sentence, I'm with you.  My point is that HP didn't fit a quality narrative about taking wounds anyway, thus surges aren't taking anything away.




I don't care about your opinion of what a quality narrative is. You don't get to say that healing surges are fine because the type of gaming that they interfere with is badwrongfun.


----------



## Summer-Knight925

In general, hit points are not very narrative-like for gauging health.

Unless you add 'where you were hit' and adjust minuses for that

To make a realistic health system you would take forever for certain parts, like where you hit, how bad the limb was harmed, ect. ect.

While this could be fun, it should not be forced upon players.


As for healing surges, they're not realistic, they rob a tiny bit of fun (being the cleric) and that is why people don't like them, or at least me, and I think I'm a person....

But if they had a different name (like Potions) then it would make more sense, or a dragon mark like thing, it is the idea we all have to ability to heal ourselves.

It made sense for the 3e monk to be able to heal his or her wounds as a monk ability, but everyone?

Last time I checked, Boromir died and could not heal himself. Gandalf doesn't count, since he technically died and came back all awesome, nothing to do with healing surges. 

And we all should know D&D was based off Lord of the Rings. Remember when halflings were hobbits?


----------



## BryonD

LostSoul said:


> First of all, that post I made last night was after a long game of D&D and didn't make the point I wanted.
> 
> A 3-CON Wizard is going to heal up a greater percentage of max HP a night's rest than a 20-CON Barbarian.  I think that's a head-scratcher, the same way that a Warlord's Inspiring Word can somehow make unconscious characters get back on their feet.




As I described before, I see little to no connection there at all.  The "head-scratcher" only comes in if you force HP into real or abstract boxes.

The 3 CON wizard has vastly less HP than the 20 CON Barbarian.  Now lets say an evil cleric has created two linked golems that both in perfect unison land identical blows, one on each.  Let's add that the wizard is not killed by this blow.  Now let's add that the encounter is resolved with zero further damage to either the wizard or the barbarian.

Now, what do we know?  Very little.

We can assume that both characters took 4 HP or they took 25 HP, or whatever, it makes no difference.

The first important thing to note is that they will both heal from THAT WOUND in the same amount of time.  (assuming they are the same level and they each heal naturally)

But how much of their total HP are physical and how much are fate?  The answer is that there is no answer.  No answer is needed.  (Unless you are using surges in which case 100% fate is needed)

They took the same blow.  But maybe the wizard took a lot more physical damage and the barbarian, who has a simply scratch from the attack that didn't manage to kill the wizard, probably dodged aside or deflected much of the blow.  Certainly you wound not describe the effect of a 25 HP blow on a 20 HP wizard the same as you would describe a 25 HP blow on a 100 HP barbarian would you?  I would not.  

So when they are healing their respective 25 HP back, the wizard is, mostly, healing physical damage, while the barbarian is healing, almost entirely, his "fate" back.  

There is no reason to be conflicted over comparing the rates of "fate" recovery and physical wound healing.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> Granted, that might create new problems.  Fair enough.  But, it does mean that you can't keep touting Game A as THE ONE TRUE GAME that is beyond any criticism.



I'm really curious where someone has indicated this.



> The Healing Surge mechanics might suffer from issues when it comes to narrating wounds particularly when a PC is facing death saves.  Fair enough.  But, the reason we have Healing Surges in the first place was to resolve issues created by earlier D&D's reliance on magical healing.
> 
> It's all about checks and balances.  You'll never create the perfect system that is all things to all people.  So, you pick and choose where to make changes in an attempt to create a middle ground.  People had problems with the idea that the group needed a magical healer and all the knock on effects that resulted in.  So, they removed the need for a magical healer at the expense (possibly) of some people's ability to narrate effectively.
> 
> Is the trade off worth it?  Well, that's for the consumer to decide.



Yep. Although, in a thread where the question was, "why don't you like healing surges?", I find it a little odd that people are flocking to defend them as a matter of taste. That's true, they are. So was THAC0. Some people liked it, some people didn't. It's taste. But, when someone says "I don't get why people don't like healing surges; why don't you like them?" and someone else says, "because of _Y_", I'm at a loss when people start debating taste with them.


----------



## BryonD

Summer-Knight925 said:


> It made sense for the 3e monk to be able to heal his or her wounds as a monk ability, but everyone?



Monk is a great example.  For all intents they have had surges all along.  
But there is a narrative justification.  It is both part of the concept and the story flow.  

The concept simply states that monks may close wounds to their flesh simply with the focus of their mind.  Cool.

If someone wants to say that ANYONE can close wounds with the power of their mind, then my issue with surges is immediately defeated for that game.  Of course, that needs to apply to everyone, PCs and NPCs alike, but it works.

I'm not interested in that game, but only in the same sense that I'm not interested in Spelljammer.  Just not to my taste.  I have no actual complaints about the quality of the system.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Pentius said:


> He misses the first drinks and the prettiest whores, but he's still capable of running for multiple hours in the day with no medical attention.




Because he is not staggered- fatigued or not- the Full HP PC can still do a double move.  He will finish the marathon before the 1HP PC, contrary to the assertion that there would be no difference between the results of a marathon between them.  

But if you want to REALLY see the difference, turn the marathon into an Iron Man competition.



> *SRD*
> Swim
> ...Each hour that you swim, you must make a DC 20 Swim check or take 1d6 points of nonlethal damage from fatigue.



When 1HP Harry and Full HP Fred hit the water, everything will be OK up until the first failed Swim check.  Fred has a decent chance of continuing, but Harry is guaranteed being staggered, and has a 5 in 6 chance of going unconscious and starting to drown.


----------



## Pentius

BryonD said:


> Yes, you critical comment toward the 3E HP system is completely valid and I agree with it 100%.
> 
> And that does NOTHING to make Surges any less flawed.



My comment is that the HP system does not fit a quality narrative about being wounded.  Surges cannot take away that quality if it wasn't there.



> You CAN work with the narrative issues of HP and describe the situation here.



Yes.  Yes, I can.  







> You can not work with surges the same way.



Actually, I can.  You claim to be unable to.  You've agreed with my premise(HP have issues), but not my conclusion, which only leaves me more confused.  







> Surges declare that any and all wounds can be NOT simply ignored by a hand wave of adrenaline or whatever heroic narrative one selects, but be made now and FOREVER GONE. Either fighter CAN NOT be wounded or fighters can heal flesh by thinking about it.  That is mechanically implicit to surges.



No, it is not.  Implicit to surges is the ability to restore lost hit points.  Hit point damage does not deal measurable wounds.  The restoration of hit points, be it by sleep, spell or surge, takes one from a state of "Fine."  to "Still fine, thanks." 



> 3E HP have issues.
> 
> 4E HP have every issue that 4E HP have.  I'm fine with that.
> 4E surges bring a whole new realm of nonsense to the table.
> 
> I'm completely on board with accepting the high fantasy / heroic / Jack Bauer / Die Hard ignore my wounds and keep kicking ass cliche.  That is awesome.  And running a marathon when seriously wounded falls into that.  Being immune to being wounded does not.  Being able to be wounded but cause the wound to cease to exist does not.



But a character, in D&D, who continues with strenuous physical activity is not ignoring his wounds.  Mechanically, he doesn't have any.  Can you narrate that he does, but is ignoring them? Yes.  But if you decide you don't want to narrate that you are ignoring the wounds, penalties do not appear.  



> It is 4E fans who have over and over POINTED OUT the Jack Bauer idea in an effort to hand wave away surges.  And yet suddenly it isn't ok under 3E?  That is more than a double standard.  Because running a marathon when highly wounded is consistent with cinematic stories and making wounds vanish is not.  If running the marathon at 1 HP is unacceptable to you then surges should make your head explode.
> 
> If someone comes along and tells me that HP is one key reason they really dislike ALL versions of D&D and they prefer systems with wounds which cause the character to be less effective, then I completely respect that.  But that person isn't going to turn around and tell me that not being hurt by wounds is unacceptable but being immune to wounds or blinking them away is fine.



I am entirely okay with Jack Bauer in 3e.  What I disagree with is the notion that surges remove wounds.  You're willing to say a hero ignores flesh wounds the day he gets them, why do they have to vanish overnight?  Why not do like the action heroes do, and just keep ignoring them the second day?  You seem to be saying that a character at full HP cannot have a single scratch on his body, presumably because HP are physical wounds.  I disagree.  Yesterday's scratch is tomorrow's bandage. 



> This thread is about surges.  Telling me about a different issue that 3E and 4E share is not insightful.



HP is not a different issue.  Surges begin and end with HP.



> If you want to propose a better plan for HP that could, possibly, apply to both 3E and 4E, lets have a new thread.



I don't, honestly.  I'm fine with HP as not being a model of physical harm.



> Your post provide zero rebuttal to the actual issues with surges, which is the point here.



Again, I disagree.  See above.


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> My comment is that the HP system does not fit a quality narrative about being wounded.  Surges cannot take away that quality if it wasn't there.




I could argue that D&D can't provide a quality narrative about combat if it can't handle wounds. And thus every single argument about D&D combat should be moot.

In general, I don't think A works well at B, therefore C, which makes A work less well at B, is not a problem, is not an argument for people who find B important. Maybe they should find a system where B works better; maybe there are a bunch of compromises making A the best system for them. Nonetheless, C is not a feature they're going to be happy with.


----------



## Pentius

Wow, serious cascade of responses.


BryonD said:


> This is just flat wrong.
> And the distinction has been explained many times.
> 
> If you don't get it, then you don't get it.  And that is fine.



It's true, I don't get it.  I'd kinda like to get it, thus I continue discussing it.



> Surges "take away" the narrative connection between receiving actual wounds and recovering from actual wounds.



What is the connection?  What wounds does HP damage give a character?  Danny has been doing a great job of finding and posting instances where being at low HP is detrimental to extended physical activity, via non-lethal damage.  But that doesn't tell me the character is wounded, it tells me he is tired.  He is unable to continue strenuous activity for as long before succumbing to fatigue.  But he is equally capable up until that point.



> Playing bait and switch with heroic ignoring of wounds and the actual removal of wounds does not remove the issue, it just makes a feeble attempt to obfuscate it.



I agree.  So, I ask you, what wounds does the HP system give you that surges are invalidating?


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> But a character, in D&D, who continues with strenuous physical activity is not ignoring his wounds.  Mechanically, he doesn't have any.



I disagree.


			
				3.5 Player's Handbook said:
			
		

> *What Hit Points Represent:* Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.


----------



## Pentius

prosfilaes said:


> I could argue that D&D can't provide a quality narrative about combat if it can't handle wounds. And thus every single argument about D&D combat should be moot.
> 
> In general, I don't think A works well at B, therefore C, which makes A work less well at B, is not a problem, is not an argument for people who find B important. Maybe they should find a system where B works better; maybe there are a bunch of compromises making A the best system for them. Nonetheless, C is not a feature they're going to be happy with.




I might agree with that, but what I am responding to is the assertion that A handled B just fine before C came along and mucked it up, therefore C is a problem.  I do not think A was doing a good job of handling B before or after the arrival of C, and therefore do not see why C is to blame for the failings of A.


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> As I described before, I see little to no connection there at all.  The "head-scratcher" only comes in if you force HP into real or abstract boxes.




Let me try and put this in my own words:  Pre-4E HP allow a much greater narrative range than 4E's Healing Surges, which create absurd narratives if you describe them as actual wounds; this means that there's more scope for how you decide to narrate wounds and healing using pre-4E HP.

Sound good?


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> I might agree with that, but what I am responding to is the assertion that A handled B just fine before C came along and mucked it up, therefore C is a problem.  I do not think A was doing a good job of handling B before or after the arrival of C, and therefore do not see why C is to blame for the failings of A.




You don't think that  A was doing a good job of handling B before or after the arrival of C, so I don't see why we who found that A was doing a satisfactory job of handling B before C should care about your opinion. People who only watch dramas on TV are not the people I turn to for their opinion about how the Simpsons are doing, and their loud assertions that comedy on TV has always sucked doesn't help them at all.


----------



## Summer-Knight925

Hit Points are an easy way of keeping track of how much damage your character can take before he or she dies.

The narrative aspect should totally be up to the DM/GM/Ref/Judge, if a book tells me how to narrarate, I will not buy it or I will not listen. The DM/GM/Ref/Judge should be incontrol, not a book.


So how do I justify it?

Ever been in a fist fight?
Those normal blows that barely hurt, theyre like normal hits, those times you get the wind knocked out of you or knock you down or hurt you more, those are critical hits.
Technicallly you can only take so much before you start to fall apart, so in theory if a normal hit does 1d3 non-lethal (which in itself is sort of unrealistic, but we'll go along with that) you (being a 1st level character [even though we are more like 0-levels, sorry if that offends you, but the majority of us are]) only have anywhere from 1 hit point to 7 hit points.

So can we only take 1 to 7 punches?
Depends on who is throwing the punch, but I've seen big guys knocked clean out by a single fist, critical hits perhaps?
This is the point I'm making, I have never used a healing surge, I have been in fights, both 'for real' and some for fun. But I have also never needed a day of rest to repair nor have I ever had to go to a church and ask for healing (although forgivness for one, but we're not going there)

You could argue "But that is non-lethal!"
I broke my nose in a fight, by the end of the day I was feeling better, I just had to catch my breath, a 2nd wind makes sense, but the overall healing I needed was minmal. Even when I had a PVC pipe broken across my back I didn't need a cleric's healing, I just walked it off, it left a cool bruise, kinda awkward to sleep but overall I was okay in about ten minutes.
So the narrative aspect of the game is what makes sense, but mechanics are, however, flawed. But it works the best so why complain?

Healing surges are a good idea, but mechanically wrong. I never willed myself back together (well..once was with ice, but it wasn't just my mind that did it) so I find it fairly 'fantastic'. But D&D being a fantasy game, it works for me. I do think a 'random' health regeneration would work better, but thats just me.


----------



## Pentius

prosfilaes said:


> You don't think that  A was doing a good job of handling B before or after the arrival of C, so I don't see why we who found that A was doing a satisfactory job of handling B before C should care about your opinion. People who only watch dramas on TV are not the people I turn to for their opinion about how the Simpsons are doing, and their loud assertions that comedy on TV has always sucked doesn't help them at all.




I disagree with you, therefore my opinion does not matter and I am also ill-informed?


----------



## prosfilaes

Pentius said:


> I disagree with you, therefore my opinion does not matter and I am also ill-informed?




No. You don't like HP=wounds. That makes your opinion uninteresting when it comes down to the impact of healing surges on HP=wounds. We've made an educated choice to choose HP=wounds, no matter how much you dislike it; telling us that HP=wounds sucks so much that healing surges are irrelevant isn't an interesting argument.


----------



## NewJeffCT

LostSoul said:


> Let me try and put this in my own words:  Pre-4E HP allow a much greater narrative range than 4E's Healing Surges, which create absurd narratives if you describe them as actual wounds; this means that there's more scope for how you decide to narrate wounds and healing using pre-4E HP.
> 
> Sound good?




Actually, no.

I think it's exactly the same as before.  The only difference is now that it is called "healing surges" instead of "Cure Light Wounds" or "Cure Serious Wounds" and is easier to access for other classes than it was prior to 4E.

I don't see that big a difference between a PC in any edition getting whomped for 40 points of damage and being dropped to a few hit points left, and then the party cleric casting Cure Critical Wounds on him and healing 20 points of damage (pre 4E), or the party leader (in 4E) using an ability to let the PC spend a healing surge and heal 20 points of damage.


----------



## prosfilaes

NewJeffCT said:


> I think it's exactly the same as before.  The only difference is now that it is called "healing surges" instead of "Cure Light Wounds" or "Cure Serious Wounds" and is easier to access for other classes than it was prior to 4E.




Except one is magic and one is not.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

I like Lostsoul's comment, and agree.


In terms of the magic versus not, check out the difference between the two polls I posted.

Again, I am not saying healing surges are inherently bad...but they ARE a different entity than magical healing.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/312559-do-healing-surges-close-wounds.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...magic-e-g-cure-light-wounds-close-wounds.html


----------



## NewJeffCT

prosfilaes said:


> Except one is magic and one is not.




I just consider them different forms of magic - i.e., nature's spiritual healing for a shaman, etc.

And, there was psionic healing in prior editions, which was done via the mind.  I'm sure I could come up with other examples from previous editions as well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I just consider them different forms of magic - i.e., nature's spiritual healing for a shaman, etc.




Good for you...but for those of us who found 4Ed's "every class has magic!" unpalatable, this just makes HSes even more disagreeable.

Prior editions had all kinds of magical healing, to be sure, but not every class had it at their fingertips.  And some of us liked it that way.

(FWIW, I drive to work in Dallas each day braving hordes of dino-riding phantom ninja demon pirates- uphill through the snow- and I like it that way too.)


----------



## LostSoul

NewJeffCT said:


> Actually, no.
> 
> I think it's exactly the same as before.  The only difference is now that it is called "healing surges" instead of "Cure Light Wounds" or "Cure Serious Wounds" and is easier to access for other classes than it was prior to 4E.
> 
> I don't see that big a difference between a PC in any edition getting whomped for 40 points of damage and being dropped to a few hit points left, and then the party cleric casting Cure Critical Wounds on him and healing 20 points of damage (pre 4E), or the party leader (in 4E) using an ability to let the PC spend a healing surge and heal 20 points of damage.




I think one variable here is how different people use - and want to use - HP and damage.  As far as I can tell, BryonD uses HP to help him build a narrative that makes him feel as though he's part of a novel.  In my case, I used HP simply to determine if someone could act or not.  There's a big difference between what we wanted out of those mechanics, and I think that difference leads to my acceptance of Healing Surges and his dislike of them.


----------



## NewJeffCT

LostSoul said:


> I think one variable here is how different people use - and want to use - HP and damage.  As far as I can tell, BryonD uses HP to help him build a narrative that makes him feel as though he's part of a novel.  In my case, I used HP simply to determine if someone could act or not.  There's a big difference between what we wanted out of those mechanics, and I think that difference leads to my acceptance of Healing Surges and his dislike of them.




That's fine, but I don't see how the narrative changes based on my example, which could have been used in 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, PF or 4E.  The only difference is that a cleric casts Cure Critical to heal 20 points in earlier editions, instead of having a leader use a power to heal 20 points in 4E.


----------



## Nagol

NewJeffCT said:


> That's fine, but I don't see how the narrative changes based on my example, which could have been used in 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, PF or 4E.  The only difference is that a cleric casts Cure Critical to heal 20 points in earlier editions, instead of having a leader use a power to heal 20 points in 4E.




The difference occurs when the Thief doesn't have a healer character handy -- and still manages to heal 15 of that 20 points during the combat and the rest 5 minutes after.


----------



## Hussar

LostSoul said:


> Let me try and put this in my own words:  Pre-4E HP allow a much greater narrative range than 4E's Healing Surges, which create absurd narratives if you describe them as actual wounds; this means that there's more scope for how you decide to narrate wounds and healing using pre-4E HP.
> 
> Sound good?




And therein lies the problem.  That "greater narrative range" never really existed.  Outside of some fairly corner case examples (the 1hp fighter running marathons - more on that later) being at 1 hp or being at full hit points made no mechanical difference.

Again, and outside of concussions, name me a potentially lethal wound that I can completely recover from in a week of bedrest.  As soon as you start actually narrating wounds in D&D, you have departed from what the mechanics actually represent.  

If I take a heavily bleeding leg wound, for example, I could possibly die.  But, since I can heal from this in a week of bedrest, it is impossible that that wound did any ligament damage, broke any bones or did any serious injury.  And, even a deep cut will take a heck of a lot longer than a week to get better.

Now, when you cloud the issue with genre conventions, I'd point out that by and large, genre books don't allow the hero to recover from potentially lethal wounds in a matter of days without magical intervention because to do so breaks the believability of the narrative.  When Conan gets nailed to a cross, he takes months to heal.  How long does Frodo take to recover in Rivendell, even with magical healing?

Now, on the point about running a marathon.  We're comparing apples to oranges.  In 3e, running a marathon uses the hit point mechanic.  Do really strenuous stuff and you lose temporary hit points which come back faster than regular hit points.  It's bolting on a sort of variant hit point mechanic onto the base mechanics.  And it works fairly well.

4e doesn't do this though.  There are no separate hit point pools in 4e.  In 4e, running a marathon is modeled by your Endurance skill.  If you fail your Endurance check, then you cannot make another Athletics check until you've had an Extended rest.

Since DC's in 4e are very much subject to DM interpretation (not that they aren't in 3e, I'm not saying that, but, 4e DC's are very explicitly the purview of the DM in 4e) a character with 1 hp and no healing surges would likely have a pretty high Endurance DC in order to run a marathon, and, it would likely be a DC that would continue to increase with each check.

IOW, 4e would model this action differently than 3e would.  Using this example to say how HP work differently between editions isn't really fair since 4e wouldn't use the 3e system at all.


----------



## Nagol

A second difference (and one I find more problematic) is what happens when a character is knocked unconscious.  

Without magical aid:

In 1e, there was a week+ recovery as a base and possibly months of bed rest.  Narration was simple if someone checked on the character -- the character was in obvious dire straits.  There was physical damage that could be described even if it was simple blood loss.

In 2e, there was weeks of bed rest.  Narration was simple if someone checked on the character -- the character was in obvious dire straits.  There was physical damage that could be described even if it was simple blood loss.

In 3e there was days of bed rest.  Narration was simple if someone checked on the character -- the character was in obvious dire straits.  There was simple physical damage like blood loss.

In 4e there is at least a 5 minute rest and maybe as much as a night's rest. Narration is more complex if someone checked on the character -- the character is dying, but there may not be any physical damage since a 5 minute rest offers complete repair.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> And therein lies the problem.  That "greater narrative range" never really existed.  Outside of some fairly corner case examples (the 1hp fighter running marathons - more on that later) being at 1 hp or being at full hit points made no mechanical difference.
> 
> Again, and outside of concussions, name me a potentially lethal wound that I can completely recover from in a week of bedrest.  As soon as you start actually narrating wounds in D&D, you have departed from what the mechanics actually represent.
> 
> If I take a heavily bleeding leg wound, for example, I could possibly die.  But, since I can heal from this in a week of bedrest, it is impossible that that wound did any ligament damage, broke any bones or did any serious injury.  And, even a deep cut will take a heck of a lot longer than a week to get better.



I feel like the fantasy genre is being applied sometimes but not others in this conversation.

"It's fantasy, and you're a hero, so your character can use a second wind to push himself when others would falter."

"No, you can't model long term wounds without significant impairment and permanent injuries, because that's not realistic."

Okay, I get the first one. The second one baffles me. Why not have it, "it's fantasy, and you're a hero, so your character can push himself when others would falter after a wound heals"? I mean, if 5e kept PC stats separate from NPC stats like 4e does, it's not like all NPCs would have to heal that quickly -you just say they don't!

I just don't get why the fantasy genre is suddenly overrun by a realism simulation as soon as the want of long term wounds is asked for. You can have a mechanic that handles long term wounds without crippling the characters or bogging the game down in conditions. HP can do that well enough. You're a hero, so you're getting out of bed after a week instead of the normal month it'd take other people. This happens in fantasy. Having no wounds that take a long time to heal happens in some fantasy, I'm guessing, but it's certainly going to be only a portion of fantasy. Wounds have been used as a plot point for years.



> Now, when you cloud the issue with genre conventions, I'd point out that by and large, genre books don't allow the hero to recover from potentially lethal wounds in a matter of days without magical intervention because to do so breaks the believability of the narrative.  When Conan gets nailed to a cross, he takes months to heal.  How long does Frodo take to recover in Rivendell, even with magical healing?



And, with sufficient mechanics, you could have an option of long recoveries or short recoveries -it'd just be left to the dice. For example, take Tony Vargas' suggestion to me in this thread: a character who "dies" can be permanently crippled instead.

If you had a system that made "dying" a little easier than 4e, but had a roll to change the outcome of death, that could be really interesting. When you would "die" due to failing death saves, you can make a check or save. If successful, you live for now, but the wound is bad: it takes a long time to heal (say, 1d6 weeks). You keep making saves against death, and if you would "die", make another save or check, with success indicating that you live for now, but now you're permanently crippled. That is, that bad gash on your leg has apparently permanently damaged you -you have a limp. Now, you keep making checks to see if you bleed out. If you "die" again, you can save yourself with another successful check, meaning the leg is now worthless. You keep making saves, and no saves or checks can prevent death, now; you bled out.

Now, I'm sure you can clean this up, and have an easy way to determine what's disabled. It allows for the narrative where your character recovers quickly (he never "died" to death saves), recovers slowly but presses on sooner than others (he "died" once but made his save), is permanently crippled (he "died" twice but made both saves), or permanently loses a limb (he "died" three times but made three saves), or, of course, just bleeds out (he "died" once and failed a "bad wound" save, or he "died" seven times [too many in my opinion!]).

This opens up narrative options, and that's a good thing to me. I'd still separate physical HP and "other" HP, as I think that'd be necessary for the narratives to be coherent without retconning.

Personally, I'm fine with just deciding how bad the wound is when you're hit, even if that leads to bleeding out with 100 hit points left. I'm okay with that, but I know most people don't want that in their D&D. Having a system in place (even if it's a more complex "dial" that's included in the core books) that allows for long term wounds isn't a bad thing, in my opinion. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> A second difference (and one I find more problematic) is what happens when a character is knocked unconscious.
> 
> Without magical aid:
> 
> In 1e, there was a week+ recovery as a base and possibly months of bed rest.  Narration was simple if someone checked on the character -- the character was in obvious dire straits.  There was physical damage that could be described even if it was simple blood loss.
> 
> In 2e, there was weeks of bed rest.  Narration was simple if someone checked on the character -- the character was in obvious dire straits.  There was physical damage that could be described even if it was simple blood loss.
> 
> In 3e there was days of bed rest.  Narration was simple if someone checked on the character -- the character was in obvious dire straits.  There was simple physical damage like blood loss.
> 
> In 4e there is at least a 5 minute rest and maybe as much as a night's rest. Narration is more complex if someone checked on the character -- the character is dying, but there may not be any physical damage since a 5 minute rest offers complete repair.




In 3e it's not that simple though.  3e, as you say, gives you "days of bed rest".  Again, name me a potentially lethal wound that I can narrate that I can recover from in a matter of days.

1e I'll totally give you.  That was certainly believable.  But 3e?  

Never minding the fact that in no edition could I ever do any actually debilitating injury since even after a few weeks of bedrest (I cannot remember exactly how long 1e and 2e forced bedrest after going negative, and as I recall, 2e didn't enforce it at all) I should not be recovered from any realistically narrated wound.


----------



## LostSoul

Hussar said:


> And therein lies the problem.  That "greater narrative range" never really existed.  Outside of some fairly corner case examples (the 1hp fighter running marathons - more on that later) being at 1 hp or being at full hit points made no mechanical difference.




A strange thing about RPGs - as compared to other games, like board games or chess - is that different people can get different things out of the same mechanics.  I always found HP problematic when I wanted to narrate wounds; back in the 2E/3E days I used a VP/WP system to try and make more sense of things.  But that's me.  Other people obviously didn't find HP problematic.

If someone says that they find a greater narrative range using pre-4E HP than they do with 4E's Healing Surges, then there must be a greater narrative range.  It might not exist for everyone, but it can still exist for some people.

I'd also say that being a 1 HP or full HP does make a mechanical difference in every iteration of D&D; whenever you spend character resources that's going to change how you view your choices, and that's a big deal.  Different numbers of HP might not affect character effectiveness and other character resources (except in corner cases, such as the _Power Word_ spells), but I don't think that means that losing character resources does not have a mechanical effect.​
I think the key to this discussion isn't focusing on whether or not descriptions of the events in the game world make sense, or if they're genre appropriate or realistic, or what you can narrate and what you can't.  I think you need to look at individual desires for play - what people want to get out of play - and how different people view the choices that pre-4E HP and 4E's Healing Surges present.

Another way to say that: do the mechanics support changes in the choices you have to make in the way that you want them to, or not?  (Keeping in mind that "what I can narrate about what's going on in the game world in a way that I like" is a choice.)


----------



## Wiseblood

Hussar said:


> When Conan gets nailed to a cross, he takes months to heal. How long does Frodo take to recover in Rivendell, even with magical healing?




After being nailed to the Tree of Woe Conan recieved magical healing. It was a few days IIRC. Frodo was stabbed by a Ringwraith wich was a supernatural being wielding a magically corrupted weapon.

In D&D natural healing is used as a way to recover, without expending resources, other than time. 4E suffers from a 24 hour non-magical total recuperation without the need for first aid. Earlier editions suffer from an unrealistic recovery time. 4e all but negates recovery time and resource management. This is like create water going from 4th level spell to 0-level.

Some people think the game is more immersive if the fantasy world at least pretends to acknowledge reality. I do not want a simulator. I do not want it to be easier to ignore the shared fantasy world in favor of mechanics.


----------



## LostSoul

NewJeffCT said:


> That's fine, but I don't see how the narrative changes based on my example, which could have been used in 1E, 2E, 3E, 3.5E, PF or 4E.  The only difference is that a cleric casts Cure Critical to heal 20 points in earlier editions, instead of having a leader use a power to heal 20 points in 4E.




Keep in mind that you can narrate whatever you feel like - even if it's nothing.  I could narrate that my PC brained a stone golem on a miss if I felt like it.  What's important is if the people that I'm playing with accept that into the game's fiction or not.  Different people (and different games) have different standards for what's acceptable to allow into the game's fiction, and how what's narrated figures into future choices/mechanical effects.


----------



## Nagol

Hussar said:


> In 3e it's not that simple though.  3e, as you say, gives you "days of bed rest".  Again, name me a potentially lethal wound that I can narrate that I can recover from in a matter of days.
> 
> 1e I'll totally give you.  That was certainly believable.  But 3e?
> 
> Never minding the fact that in no edition could I ever do any actually debilitating injury since even after a few weeks of bedrest (I cannot remember exactly how long 1e and 2e forced bedrest after going negative, and as I recall, 2e didn't enforce it at all) I should not be recovered from any realistically narrated wound.




Concussion, simple blood loss (pint or more), intestinal bruising/bleeding, ruptured spleen, bruised lung, bruised kidneys, cracked/broken mobile rib, nasty flesh wound in the thigh, upper arm, or above the ribs... I could go on.  Besides who said I was looking for terrific realism?  I JUST WANT SOME DESCRIPTIVE OPTION OF THE POTENTIAL DEATH INJURY THAT DOESN'T SHATTER MY IMMERSION BY HEALING WITHIN THE SAME DAY WITHOUT TREATMENT.

Also, again, I never said 3e was my preferred solution, just that it fits somewhat better than the 5 minute healing surge mechanic.

Here's my list of injuries that can both kill a character and be recovered from in a 5 minute span {} -- oh look! it's the null set.


----------



## Eric Tolle

prosfilaes said:


> No. You don't like HP=wounds. That makes your opinion uninteresting when it comes down to the impact of healing surges on HP=wounds. We've made an educated choice to choose HP=wounds, no matter how much you dislike it; telling us that HP=wounds sucks so much that healing surges are irrelevant isn't an interesting argument.




That's OK, as long as you acknowledge that characters have radically non-human, in fact non-vertebrate physiology. Animals don't take damage by being whittled away like a piece of wood; either the wound is minor, or something vital is hit, and the animal shuts down or is dying. The thing is, it has nothing to do with the number of wounds taken; the same person could walk away from being shot 20 times, or die from being stuck with  a pencil. This is a situation that  hit points in no ways resemble at all.

Myself, I tend too think of hit points as pure luck; characters die when their luck runs out. It works because it's a completely abstract measure. On the other hand, If hit points are physical damage, then characters most likely have no discrete internal anatomy- probably they ar luck-you only die if your luck runs out.e more similar to slime molds, or fleshy versions of warforged.

Of course both concepts of hit points conflicts with the idea of handing out crippling or permanent injuries. I have no problem  with that, because in my 33 years of playing D&D I've never seen such critical hit systems used as anything other than as an exercise in sadism and DM power, and to punish players. It's always been  some variation on the DM grinning and saying "He hits you and severs your sword arm.  You run? Ok, in the next room is an ogre with a greataxe- he hours and chops off your other arm. So now you're running around screaming and bleading everywhere, then an orc pokes out your right eye...". I have no problem with calling the use of crippling injuries badwronggaming, because I've never seen it used in any other context. I see no benefit in screwing over D&D characters that way, and a lot of abusive DMing.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Eric Tolle said:


> Of course both concepts of hit points conflicts with the idea of handing out crippling or permanent injuries. I have no problem  with that, because in my 33 years of playing D&D I've never seen such critical hit systems used as anything other than as an exercise in sadism and DM power, and to punish players. It's always been  some variation on the DM grinning and saying "He hits you and severs your sword arm.  You run? Ok, in the next room is an ogre with a greataxe- he hours and chops off your other arm. So now you're running around screaming and bleading everywhere, then an orc pokes out your right eye...". I have no problem with calling the use of crippling injuries badwronggaming, because I've never seen it used in any other context. I see no benefit in screwing over D&D characters that way, and a lot of abusive DMing.



I find this pretty amusing. My system has a wound system built-in as the default. I don't do it to torment my players, nor do I follow them around needlessly hacking limbs off. I've had a player bleed out when he had half his hit points left, and I've had a player kill enemies by taking them out in pretty violent ways from a lucky hit. It cuts both ways. In these scenarios, the system wasn't implemented to make players pay, or so that I can abuse them, or so that I can use them as an excuse to "exercise sadism", or the like.

I like every fight to be dangerous. I like that a lucky hit could lose the fight for you... or win it. The players appreciate the added variety, narrative paths that chance could take them down, nod to reality, and tension added in each and every fight (indeed, on each and every attack roll). The players can protect themselves by not getting hit, or having armor (which gives pretty impressive damage reduction), or by forcing me to reroll (Luck Point system, special abilities that they can purchase that force me to reroll, etc.). 

It might be wrong for you, but it's definitely not badwrongfun or any variation of it. I'm not sadistically trying to torture PCs and abuse players by having a wound system in place. The idea that it is badwrongfun is, as I said, quite amusing to me. As always, play what you like


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> I feel like the fantasy genre is being applied sometimes but not others in this conversation.
> 
> "It's fantasy, and you're a hero, so your character can use a second wind to push himself when others would falter."
> 
> "No, you can't model long term wounds without significant impairment and permanent injuries, because that's not realistic."
> 
> Okay, I get the first one. The second one baffles me.




I don't think a wound system necessarily needs to be super realistic, I just don't see how the HP system is such a wound system.  I can see thinking that the non lethal damage impairments at very low hp are maybe, *maybe* a nod to the idea, but even then a character with a wound doesn't have any identifiable part of their body wounded, and they aren't being impaired in any way that isn't mirrored simply by having less max HP(say, from being lower level or having less con).

I don't have a problem with a wounds system that isn't terribly realistic, but wouldn't it have to, you know, model being wounded?


As an aside, I feel like a large bit of this has moved away from surges themselves and into just the rate of HP recovery, which, though related, is at least tangential.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> I don't think a wound system necessarily needs to be super realistic, I just don't see how the HP system is such a wound system.  I can see thinking that the non lethal damage impairments at very low hp are maybe, *maybe* a nod to the idea, but even then a character with a wound doesn't have any identifiable part of their body wounded, and they aren't being impaired in any way that isn't mirrored simply by having less max HP(say, from being lower level or having less con).
> 
> I don't have a problem with a wounds system that isn't terribly realistic, but wouldn't it have to, you know, model being wounded?



Again, you're picking and choosing what it applies to. Shouldn't a bad hit be disabling? No, just hindering? Why? Shouldn't it take months to recover? No, weeks? Days? Only with magic?

You can model long term wounds without giving a nod to all realistic aspects of it. However, making it an option would be nice. If that means that the hit points take longer to heal, okay. If that means you take a penalty, okay. If that means you're disabled, okay. I can work with something.

However, a wound that could've killed you that you can heal with an extended rest? That bugs me. I don't need all realistic bases covered for a long term wound to be modeled. Again, that's something that one side is putting forward while also supporting the idea of "working through it because you're a hero" when it comes to healing surges. That's a disconnect that I don't get.



> As an aside, I feel like a large bit of this has moved away from surges themselves and into just the rate of HP recovery, which, though related, is at least tangential.



This doesn't bug me in the least. It's very tied to the healing surge implementation, which, as I've stated, is the part the bugs me the most. I like the idea of a second wind, or rising up when others wouldn't be able to. It's very fantasy-genre. I like it. I dislike how strongly healing is tied to healing surges (that is, most of the time I can only heal you if you have a surge left). I dislike that an extended rest recovers all of your healing surges, which lets you heal all of your wounds immediately following the rest. Yeah, the topic right now is about HP recovery rate, but healing surges have an incredibly noticeable effect on that with the current implementation. So, in regards to the implementation of healing surges, the topic at hand is very relevant to me.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar

Nagol said:


> Concussion, simple blood loss (pint or more), intestinal bruising/bleeding, ruptured spleen, bruised lung, bruised kidneys, cracked/broken mobile rib, nasty flesh wound in the thigh, upper arm, or above the ribs... I could go on.  Besides who said I was looking for terrific realism?  I JUST WANT SOME DESCRIPTIVE OPTION OF THE POTENTIAL DEATH INJURY THAT DOESN'T SHATTER MY IMMERSION BY HEALING WITHIN THE SAME DAY WITHOUT TREATMENT.
> 
> Also, again, I never said 3e was my preferred solution, just that it fits somewhat better than the 5 minute healing surge mechanic.
> 
> Here's my list of injuries that can both kill a character and be recovered from in a 5 minute span {} -- oh look! it's the null set.




Just out of curiousity, how would you narratively describe a ruptured spleen, a bruised lung or bruised kidneys?  

The problem I'm having is that the list of injuries that can both kill a character and be recovered from in a span of days is ALSO an null set.

A cut to the thigh that is deep enough to be life threatening can't be healed in a matter of days AND will have to have some debilitating effect.  The fact that you ignored that and found it believable doesn't really matter does it?  You're still applying narrative that is just as unbelievable as 4e's is. 

The only difference is, you're saying that it's believable that someone can heal completely from life threatening blood loss (which is a HELL of a lot more than a pint - they take a pint when you give blood and that still takes a MONTH to recover from) and then trying to say that that level of "realism" is better than what 4e offers you.

Jameson Courage - the reason that there seems to be two levels of criticism being applied is because there is.  4e is unbelievable because people heal too quickly.  But, apparently, 3e is perfectly believable, despite the fact that the people heal WAY too quickly.  

The problem that I see is that people are taking a purely gamist concept - HP and healing and trying to apply some level of simulationist concept to it.  HP are, and always were a gamist concept with a very, very bare nod to realism.

But, at the end of the day, I like 4e Healing surges because Healing surges allow me to narrate both of my favorite genre fight scenes from the same movie:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adVOWBDM-_8&t=1m55s]Inigo Montoya find the six fingered man - YouTube[/ame]

and 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-66KBi_NM0&t=18s]Inigo Montoya vs Dread Pirate Roberts.wmv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> Again, you're picking and choosing what it applies to.



Given that I just stated I don't care how realistic or fantastic a wound system is, I can only see one thing I am picking and choosing what it applies to.  That thing is "Modeling being wounded" and I am saying that it need only apply to systems intending to model wounds.  I don't think this is an unreasonable divergence in expectations. 







> Shouldn't a bad hit be disabling? No, just hindering? Why? Shouldn't it take months to recover? No, weeks? Days? Only with magic?



Any of the above, sure.  Any of those goes along with an attempt to model wounds, which is more than the HP system does.



> You can model long term wounds without giving a nod to all realistic aspects of it. However, making it an option would be nice. If that means that the hit points take longer to heal, okay. If that means you take a penalty, okay. If that means you're disabled, okay. I can work with something.
> 
> However, a wound that could've killed you that you can heal with an extended rest? That bugs me. I don't need all realistic bases covered for a long term wound to be modeled. Again, that's something that one side is putting forward while also supporting the idea of "working through it because you're a hero" when it comes to healing surges. That's a disconnect that I don't get.



Basically, I'm fine with saying and/or playing with the idea that HP system either does not give wounds, or does not give wounds that are not heroically ignored.  That is how I play.  But that is not a wound system in any meaningful way, as it does not include a state of being wound matter.

As I've said, I don't need all or even most realistic bases covered for a wound system.  But it needs to be trying to be a wound system.  Something as simple and patently unrealistic as "Wound: if you go under X% of your maximum HP, roll on the Wound Table.  You are Wounded until your HP goes over X%." where each result on the table applied some sort of penalty tied to a region of the body(ex: "Leg Wound: Your leg is hurt.  Reduce speed by X for Y period of time." Well, that would be a wound system.  And that's possibly one or two steps further than I'd need a wound system to go to call it such.  Heck, the 4e disease tracks and 3e ability score damage could be easily modified to be rudimentary wound systems.  But, as HP stands, the only penalties it gives for being low on HP are "Dead or Dying" and "Less likely to survive your next potentially lethal event."

Basically, what I'm getting at is that with or without surges, if you want to roleplay having a wound greater than scrapes, bruises or being winded, so, any major or even moderate wound, and actually have the wound matter instead of being heroically ignored, the HP system isn't backing you up.  In order to roleplay such a thing, you must go outside the mechanics and either houserule something, refuse to undertake tasks that you are mechanically capable of doing but would contradict your RP, or just paint the whole thing as flavor.  And if one is already comfortable with ignoring the actual implications of the HP system to do it, then why does it matter so much how quickly the HP are restored?  




> This doesn't bug me in the least. It's very tied to the healing surge implementation, which, as I've stated, is the part the bugs me the most. I like the idea of a second wind, or rising up when others wouldn't be able to. It's very fantasy-genre. I like it. I dislike how strongly healing is tied to healing surges (that is, most of the time I can only heal you if you have a surge left). I dislike that an extended rest recovers all of your healing surges, which lets you heal all of your wounds immediately following the rest. Yeah, the topic right now is about HP recovery rate, but healing surges have an incredibly noticeable effect on that with the current implementation. So, in regards to the implementation of healing surges, the topic at hand is very relevant to me.



Healing and surges are strongly tied, to be sure.  But if one were to take a scalpel and remove surges from 4e, HP would still come back entirely with an extended rest.  That happens without the input of surges.  By the same coin, as has been mentioned previously, to houserule in a change in the recovery rate of HP, surges or both would be easy, with few ripples in balance.  Basically, if only the rate of HP/surge recovery is an issue, a hypothetical 5e could quite easily keep surges while reducing the recovery rate.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> Jameson Courage - the reason that there seems to be two levels of criticism being applied is because there is.  4e is unbelievable because people heal too quickly.  But, apparently, 3e is perfectly believable, despite the fact that the people heal WAY too quickly.



No, you don't have a bunch of people saying that 3.X is perfectly believable. I mean, people will make that claim, yes. But I'm also advocating splitting HP into two pools, physical and non-physical, and other people support a wound/vitality system, and other people have other solutions. It's not even about believability (to me), it's about possible fantasy-genre narratives being excluded.

People heal way too quickly in 3.X _if you're looking at things purely realistically_. Again, the argument is "in 4e, people are heroes and can persevere through it (second wind, etc.)" while if you ask for a nod to long term wounds, it's "but now you need to take forever to heal, and you'll need penalties, etc." Suddenly you're not heroic enough to persevere without taking penalties. Suddenly you're not heroic enough to get up after 10 days when you should still be resting (but you're a hero so you persevere anyways).

I'm not sure why you suddenly lose this heroic aspect of your character, or why it's being applied to one instance and not the other. And you linking The Princess Bride (good movie) kind of makes the point for me again. In 4e, you can heroically push through it. If you take a wound that takes 10 days to heal naturally, why can't you heroically push through it when it's done mechanically healing?

Yeah, you almost died, and you've mostly healed (flavor-wise), but you push yourself to your feet and decide to go back to helping people that need you. You still have cracked ribs, or bruised bones, or you're a little shaky when you stand, but you push on through it (you don't take penalties).

Remember, in The Princess Bride, Wesley gets a very long term wound when he's tortured. He's not able to take an extended rest and be good to go. I support having a mechanic that makes the fight with the Six-Fingered Man possible, but I want the mechanics to allow me to have a character who's out of it because of injury, too. This is common in fantasy, and there's very little reason to deny that point.

I'm asking for a way for that narrative to be represented in the game. I want more possible narratives. I like seeing how the story will unfold. To that end, full healing after an extended rest prevents certain common fantasy-genre narratives, and rather needlessly in my mind. I don't care if people get up earlier than they should -that's heroic. I want there to be a possibility of them staying down for a while, though.



> The problem that I see is that people are taking a purely gamist concept - HP and healing and trying to apply some level of simulationist concept to it.  HP are, and always were a gamist concept with a very, very bare nod to realism.



The mechanic has always been very abstract, yes. In 3.X, I felt like it could support a wide array of narratives because of just how abstract it was. It wasn't perfect for what I wanted, which is why I changed it in my RPG. However, I do feel like the current healing surge implementation limits narrative paths more than opens them up. It's not about how simulationist it is (to me), it's about limiting fantasy-genre narrative opportunities that would be really interesting to experience during a campaign.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> Any of the above, sure. Any of those goes along with an attempt to model wounds, which is more than the HP system does.



Currently. More than the HP system does currently. I said, "shouldn't it take months to recover? No, weeks? Days?" In 3.X and previous editions, some wounds took days or weeks to recover.



> Basically, what I'm getting at is that with or without surges, if you want to roleplay having a wound greater than scrapes, bruises or being winded, so, any major or even moderate wound, and actually have the wound matter instead of being heroically ignored, the HP system isn't backing you up.



Currently. It's not backing me up currently. If the wound takes 10 days to heal, I feel like it's backing me up to some degree. The wound takes a while, but the hero presses on without penalty. He's a hero, after all. If you can get a second wind, you can press on without penalties. This is right up the modern fantasy-genre's ally, which is what I've been asking for support with. It doesn't need to be realistic. I'm getting heroism applied to the "second wind" mechanic but not HP (getting physically wounded but not taking penalties). I don't know why that is.



> Healing and surges are strongly tied, to be sure.  But if one were to take a scalpel and remove surges from 4e, HP would still come back entirely with an extended rest.  That happens without the input of surges.  By the same coin, as has been mentioned previously, to houserule in a change in the recovery rate of HP, surges or both would be easy, with few ripples in balance.  Basically, if only the rate of HP/surge recovery is an issue, a hypothetical 5e could quite easily keep surges while reducing the recovery rate.



I think the implementation is what needs improvement. Like I said, I don't mind the character pushing through injury to perform heroic feats. I enjoy that in modern fantasy, and I'd like to see it in the game.

Recovery rates is the basis for modeling a long term injury: indeed, it's the trademark of that injury. Again, just like second wind, I have no problem with the hero pushing through and fighting without disability or penalty. My system handles it otherwise (it has the option for penalty or disability), but I don't expect that out of D&D.

And, like I mentioned, I don't like that healing is an internal source.

House rules are nice. You can use the disease track, or lower recovery rates for healing surges. However, I'd like base support in a system. Give me options. I'd like more options in the base rules, not in optional rules, not in house rules. If pressed, I'll take them in optional rules in the core book, but I want as many rules that give me narrative options as possible to be the norm in a system. As always, play what you like


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> Currently. More than the HP system does currently. I said, "shouldn't it take months to recover? No, weeks? Days?" In 3.X and previous editions, some wounds took days or weeks to recover.
> 
> 
> Currently. It's not backing me up currently. If the wound takes 10 days to heal, I feel like it's backing me up to some degree. The wound takes a while, but the hero presses on without penalty. He's a hero, after all. If you can get a second wind, you can press on without penalties. This is right up the modern fantasy-genre's ally, which is what I've been asking for support with. It doesn't need to be realistic. I'm getting heroism applied to the "second wind" mechanic but not HP (getting physically wounded but not taking penalties). I don't know why that is.



I don't think that I am doing that.  If you want to get wounded and not feel any penalties for it, because you are an awesome hero, that can achieved with HP, because HP is not about giving you penalties for wounds.  I do not contest this idea.  Second winds and surges can help this along, but HP doesn't need any help to not give you penalties for wounds.  It has that covered.

If you want to get wounded, and not heroically ignore it, the HP system, with or without surges, is not really doing much for you.  Maybe you used the rate of HP recovery as a rough guide to when you can switch from still RPing your self-imposed penalties to heroically ignoring them, but I don't see that as a slower rate of HP recovery modeling caring about your wounds, so much as it is usable as rough guide for a timeline if you want to undertake that task yourself.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> I don't think that I am doing that.  If you want to get wounded and not feel any penalties for it, because you are an awesome hero, that can achieved with HP, because HP is not about giving you penalties for wounds.  I do not contest this idea.  Second winds and surges can help this along, but HP doesn't need any help to not give you penalties for wounds.  It has that covered.
> 
> If you want to get wounded, and not heroically ignore it, the HP system, with or without surges, is not really doing much for you.  Maybe you used the rate of HP recovery as a rough guide to when you can switch from still RPing your self-imposed penalties to heroically ignoring them, but I don't see that as a slower rate of HP recovery modeling caring about your wounds, so much as it is usable as rough guide for a timeline if you want to undertake that task yourself.



If the mechanical HP system says you can't heroically ignore your wounds, it's because you're disabled by those wounds. In 3.X, if you get hit to -5, you're unconscious. If you're level 1, it'll take you a few days of recovery to get back up to a place where you're conscious but messed up (0 HP), and then to where you can heroically ignore your wounds (1 HP).

You cannot ignore wound penalties until 1 HP. You're wounded at 0 or less. You're still wounded at 1 (taking nonlethal knocks you out), probably, but you're disabled at 0 or less, due to your wounds, and without being able to heroically push yourself through it. After several days of rest, you can describe the character as feverish, but physically strong, and it's no surprise when he collapses from running for too long, taking a single punch, or the like.

3.X supported this narrative. While I'd like to see a mechanic for a second wind, I didn't like losing support for long term wounds. I felt that 3.X presented both long term and short term wounds as possible narratives, and the current mechanic takes that away. The system certainly supported the narrative, in my mind, as it left plenty of room to heroically push through serious physical ails.


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> If the mechanical HP system says you can't heroically ignore your wounds, it's because you're disabled by those wounds. In 3.X, if you get hit to -5, you're unconscious. If you're level 1, it'll take you a few days of recovery to get back up to a place where you're conscious but messed up (0 HP), and then to where you can heroically ignore your wounds (1 HP).
> 
> You cannot ignore wound penalties until 1 HP. You're wounded at 0 or less. You're still wounded at 1 (taking nonlethal knocks you out), probably, but you're disabled at 0 or less, due to your wounds, and without being able to heroically push yourself through it. After several days of rest, you can describe the character as feverish, but physically strong, and it's no surprise when he collapses from running for too long, taking a single punch, or the like.
> 
> 3.X supported this narrative. While I'd like to see a mechanic for a second wind, I didn't like losing support for long term wounds. I felt that 3.X presented both long term and short term wounds as possible narratives, and the current mechanic takes that away. The system certainly supported the narrative, in my mind, as it left plenty of room to heroically push through serious physical ails.




I concede that you are correct about what happens when a PC is reduced to negative hit points.  That situation, though, is specifically not what I have been discussing since I returned to this thread on page 35.  In that post, and ones following, I have been arguing against the stance that quality narratives about suffering from wounds(as opposed to not receiving or ignoring wounds) are supported while at or above 1HP, or as I put it "HP damage, on its own, never gives you any sort of quantifiable wound, unless it knocks you under 0, at which point things get cloudy."


----------



## Hussar

Jameson Courage said:
			
		

> Yeah, you almost died, and you've mostly healed (flavor-wise), but you push yourself to your feet and decide to go back to helping people that need you. You still have cracked ribs, or bruised bones, or you're a little shaky when you stand, but you push on through it (you don't take penalties).




Because you can't ignore it pre-4e?  You can't push through it?  If you go into negatives, you are done.  Full stop.  End of story.  Unless someone uses magic on you, you cannot do what Inigo just did fighting the 6 fingered man.  

Nor, because every hit needs to be a wound, can two swordsmen do the Pirate Roberts vs Montoya fight because, until the very last few seconds, neither had taken a single point of damage.  Oooh, I got disarmed.  Well, he can't possibly kill me in a single hit with a sword, so I take my AOO and pick my sword up again.



> Remember, in The Princess Bride, Wesley gets a very long term wound when he's tortured. He's not able to take an extended rest and be good to go. I support having a mechanic that makes the fight with the Six-Fingered Man possible, but I want the mechanics to allow me to have a character who's out of it because of injury, too. This is common in fantasy, and there's very little reason to deny that point.




Actually, Wesley gets killed and Raised, which, if you look at the Raise Dead ritual is actually pretty much directly modeled - the dead guy takes penalties until such time as he's completed six encounters (3 milestones).  Fiddle with that mechanic slightly and you're good to go.

And, as far as torture goes, it would again be modeled with the Endurance skill.  Fail the check and you can no longer take certain actions.  It would be pretty easy to run an extended skill check where you get burned out of your healing surges every time you failed an endurance check.  When your last surge goes, you can only take, say, move actions until such time as you take an extended rest.


----------



## Pentius

Hussar said:


> When your last surge goes, you can only take, say, move actions until such time as you take an extended rest.




Or, in Wesley's case, Not-Moving Actions


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> I concede that you are correct about what happens when a PC is reduced to negative hit points.  That situation, though, is specifically not what I have been discussing since I returned to this thread on page 35.  In that post, and ones following, I have been arguing against the stance that quality narratives about suffering from wounds(as opposed to not receiving or ignoring wounds) are supported while at or above 1HP, or as I put it "HP damage, on its own, never gives you any sort of quantifiable wound, unless it knocks you under 0, at which point things get cloudy."



No, HP never gives you "my leg is hurt!" as a wound, but I don't think the call in this thread has been for that. So, I'm not really sure why it's being brought up as a defense. It's not about whether a wound affects a particular area, or how deep it is, etc. The HP system is supposed to be abstract enough to allow multiple ways of handling description.

No, what's being brought up is whether or not a wound can be theoretically long term. If the wound takes a long time to heal, you're probably pretty hurt. If the wound takes a short time to heal, you're probably not. It doesn't need to be completely "quantified", it just needs to be able to simulate short term wounds and long term wounds (to satisfy my narrative wants). I also wanted crippling as an option, and I think there's real potential there, too (if you're crippled instead of dead).



Hussar said:


> Because you can't ignore it pre-4e?  You can't push through it?  If you go into negatives, you are done.  Full stop.  End of story.  Unless someone uses magic on you, you cannot do what Inigo just did fighting the 6 fingered man.



... which is why I've said I'm for a mechanic that allows this to happen, like, oh I don't know, healing surges 

As a side note, Inigo wouldn't have been in the negatives in pre-4e, as he was still conscious. He may have been at 0 (badly wounded and staggered). A surge to get to his feet and continue.



> Nor, because every hit needs to be a wound, can two swordsmen do the Pirate Roberts vs Montoya fight because, until the very last few seconds, neither had taken a single point of damage.  Oooh, I got disarmed.  Well, he can't possibly kill me in a single hit with a sword, so I take my AOO and pick my sword up again.



And now you're reached where I want two HP pools! One for "physical" and one for "other". You whittle down the "other" pool and then you get to hit them physically.

My RPG even has an unrelated mechanic that would help here. If you ever deal physical damage to someone (so you're bypassed their other pool) with a melee weapon, you can skip dealing damage to keep a readied attack on them (if they do anything, hit them). If you choose to hit them, you deal not physical damage to them, even if their "other" HP pool is refreshed or in play (since it refreshes by round in my game).

This would mean that Wesley took down Inigo's "other" HP pool, disarmed him,  hit his "physical" HP pool but didn't deal damage (scratched his cheek), and readied to hurt him if he did anything (which Inigo knew would hit his "physical" HP pool), actually wounding or killing him. Thus, he didn't go for his sword.

I'm not arguing that 3.X is perfect. I'm saying healing surges are imperfect as implemented, and he's how I'd work them in with the changes I made from 3.X (as 3.X wasn't good enough for me).



> Actually, Wesley gets killed and Raised, which, if you look at the Raise Dead ritual is actually pretty much directly modeled - the dead guy takes penalties until such time as he's completed six encounters (3 milestones).  Fiddle with that mechanic slightly and you're good to go.



He was only _mostly_ dead 

According to Miracle Max, he wasn't truly dead. He was just really messed up -sounds like a long term wound to me. Miracle Max makes a distinction that there's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead -mostly dead is slightly alive.



> And, as far as torture goes, it would again be modeled with the Endurance skill.  Fail the check and you can no longer take certain actions.  It would be pretty easy to run an extended skill check where you get burned out of your healing surges every time you failed an endurance check.  When your last surge goes, you can only take, say, move actions until such time as you take an extended rest.



Well, that's way better than what Wesley had. That, and it's not in the rules. I think the idea of adding a long term injury to the rules is very reasonable, but that's me. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar

I believe that you are correct JamesonCourage, that torture is not specifically in the rules.  However, applying the Endurance skill here is probably the simplest interpretation.  And, that's how Endurance works in 4e.  You make your Endurance checks until you get through or fail and when you fail, you the ability to take actions (which actions depends on what you're enduring - fail Endurance while swimming and you can't take Athletics checks and you drown forex).

Since AFAIK, D&D has never really had specific rules for torture, we're going to have to go past RAW to interpret this action in any edition.  In 3e we'd use non-lethal damage points.  In 4e we'd use the Endurance check.  In earlier editions, we'd probably use some sort of saving throw mechanic and possibly the charm rules?

I wonder if the new Book of Vile Darkness will shed light on this sort of thing.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Perhaps. I know my RPG has rules on it, but that hardly helps! Too often, I think my personal wants get mixed up in what I want of D&D, if only because I addressed so many things I thought should be. Running territories, running a business, HP pools, revising or rebuilding skills (Diplomacy, Craft, etc.), adding new skills (Assess, Tactics, etc.), adding effects that govern attacks and damage types underwater, penalties for missing sleep, etc.

All of these things (and many others) are changed in my game, and I guess I want a game that continues to open up narrative possibilities in 5e. I want it to feel like D&D, which means keeping the class structure (even though I ditched it), etc., but I do want a lot of rule areas covered. I'd actually like to see them sell four core books: the PHB, DMG, MM, and CMC (Core Mechanic Collection).

The CMC would be a book of alternate uses for skills, attributes, and corner cases, as well as an in-depth look into the building blocks of mechanical creation. For example, they'd say, "here's how we mechanically value everything, and here's our own guideline for building races, classes, feats, and so on." So, now you know how to build everything you'd ever want to, but you'd get the real creative guys working for WotC, releasing books full of material that's able to be created via the rules, but that you'd have never thought to make, or giving "official" versions of stuff.

I have a concrete mechanical system for races in my game (and I could easily build classes). I know I could do it for feats easily enough. They'd just have to put the work in, but it's doable, in my opinion. Not that I think it would happen, but I can want it, can't I? As always, play what you like


----------



## Griego

Long-term wound healing is boring and tedious, which is why they removed it in 4e, I imagine. You lose the narrative of lying in bed for 6 weeks (wow, can't wait to roleplay that!) in exchange for gaining the narrative of taking a sucking chest wound at 4 in the afternoon and still being able to rescue the princess by midnight, when her soul would be sucked out by the evil sorcerer using a diabolic ritual. With long-term wound healing, your only choice is to ransom the dried husk of a corpse so her family can bury it properly. Oh, but there's always magic, magic trumps everything, which is a major failure of 3e, IMO. But that's another thread.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Griego said:


> Long-term wound healing is boring and tedious, which is why they removed it in 4e, I imagine. You lose the narrative of lying in bed for 6 weeks (wow, can't wait to roleplay that!) in exchange for gaining the narrative of taking a sucking chest wound at 4 in the afternoon and still being able to rescue the princess by midnight, when her soul would be sucked out by the evil sorcerer using a diabolic ritual. With long-term wound healing, your only choice is to ransom the dried husk of a corpse so her family can bury it properly. Oh, but there's always magic, magic trumps everything, which is a major failure of 3e, IMO. But that's another thread.




I think this is all a matter of taste and both sides are entitled to their point of view. I can see how some groups don't like being sidelined for a week to deal with the sucking chest wound. On the other hand for me (both as a player and GM) that always made more narrative sense and since I like urban adventure with very little combat I would still have a cool time even with a character recovering like that (though in most settings access to magic means you won't be sitting it out for a week). 

But for me taking a sucking chest wound at 4pm and then being able to rescue the princess that night without access to magical healing really disrupts my suspension of disbelief.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Griego said:


> Long-term wound healing is boring and tedious, which is why they removed it in 4e, I imagine. You lose the narrative of lying in bed for 6 weeks (wow, can't wait to roleplay that!) in exchange for gaining the narrative of taking a sucking chest wound at 4 in the afternoon and still being able to rescue the princess by midnight, when her soul would be sucked out by the evil sorcerer using a diabolic ritual. With long-term wound healing, your only choice is to ransom the dried husk of a corpse so her family can bury it properly. Oh, but there's always magic, magic trumps everything, which is a major failure of 3e, IMO. But that's another thread.



Well, I like the narrative options of:

(1) Taking the chest wound and dying. End of story for this character, but potentially very interesting to the other PCs, or your new character. This narrative might send your party into a revenge-driven rage, it might make them rethink every decision they made that led up to this, it might make them more cautious, or it might make them more reckless. The narratives are varied and interesting.

(2) Taking the chest wound and having to spend days or a couple weeks recovering (if you have no way to heal near you). This lets the setting evolve, and opens up narratives you wouldn't see if not for time spent recovering. For example, the princess dying might be a very interesting narrative to explore, since I assume she was killed for a reason. Non-death failures are very interesting much of the time.

(3) Taking the chest wound and not even slowing down. That is, it's not very much HP damage, and you push past it, or recover it overnight. This, too, opens up the narrative of being wounded but continuing to save the princess, which can open up some really interesting narratives that aren't able to be explored without this option.

I think there's a lot of interesting stories to be told in a system that allows all three. Number (2), however, is something I don't want to go without. I love things that give the setting time to evolve. That is, I don't like long distance teleports or plane shifting being a common option for the PCs or the setting (something 3.X failed hard at).

Having to hoof it everywhere gives the setting time to change naturally, which can really propel story forward. My 3.X game only got hard to run once transportation magic became common to the PCs and the setting (the setting couldn't use magic for a while for story reasons). It was hard for anything to build up without it getting beaten down before really getting off the ground (divination was another huge culprit here, and it really failed me in 3.X as well).

At any rate, it's not the "you're bedridden for a week!" that's interesting, which is why it usually gets skimmed over pretty quickly. It's what happens with the setting in that time that's really interesting. And that's why I want long term wounds in my game. But, as always, play what you like


----------



## Griego

You guys sound like DMs.  Most players I know don't like long periods where they're out of the action, or losing characters. There are a few hard-core roleplayers that get into that kind of thing, and some that don't get attached to their characters too much. But most players want to be kicking ass and taking names, not dying or nursing wounds for any length of time. 

I think the reason most players don't get into the drama of near-death experiences is that in stories, you always kinda know in the back of your mind that the hero will survive to fight another day (unless you're reading George R. R. Martin). But at the table, the risk of losing a beloved character for good, or even getting out of the action for a significant amount of time, is a downer to most players. At least in my experience. YMMV, agree to disagree, etc.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Griego said:


> You guys sound like DMs.  Most players I know don't like long periods where they're out of the action, or losing characters. There are a few hard-core roleplayers that get into that kind of thing, and some that don't get attached to their characters too much. But most players want to be kicking ass and taking names, not dying or nursing wounds for any length of time.



I am indeed a long term GM, and rarely do I get the opportunity to play. So, good call 

Yes, I figure most players won't like getting taken out of the action. Then again, most players don't like dying or losing, but I personally wouldn't want to run or play in a game where that's not a real option (not that you're saying that should be the case). My players and I just like a little more in the way of narrative paths available through wounds. Really, it's just a means to an end. We like mechanics that support the setting advancing, so that also means limiting things like teleportation, etc.



> I think the reason most players don't get into the drama of near-death experiences is that in stories, you always kinda know in the back of your mind that the hero will survive to fight another day (unless you're reading George R. R. Martin). But at the table, the risk of losing a beloved character for good, or even getting out of the action for a significant amount of time, is a downer to most players. At least in my experience. YMMV, agree to disagree, etc.



Yep, our mileage has varied, but I think I'm in the minority. My players have  lost a good number of characters over the years, but they're still into their characters. We play for immersion, so we really get into the game, and the character deaths usually serve to further the immersion, rather than pull people away. But, as I said, that's probably abnormal 

So, I think you're right, many players (probably most) don't like losing characters, or failing the quest, or what have you. We do, but we're weird. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar

I would argue that most players are far more inclined to be okay with losing the character than having their character sidelined for significant periods of time.  If you lost the character, you can promote an NPC and be playing again in a matter of moments.  Or parachute a new PC into the story, or whatever works for you.  IOW, you can add in a new character as soon as you make one.

If you character is sidelined for a month, unless the entire party decides that they will sit by your bed and hold your hand, you get to ride the pines and watch the game for however long it takes to roleplay through the next extended period of time.

I don't play RPG's to sit and watch for three hours.  No offense to the other people at the table, but watching D&D for 3 hours is not my idea of fun.

And I pick 3 hours specifically because I've actually HAD DM's who did this.  Character gets sidelined, but not killed, and play continues.  FOR AN ENTIRE SESSION.  Did it once, will never, ever do it again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> And I pick 3 hours specifically because I've actually HAD DM's who did this. Character gets sidelined, but not killed, and play continues. FOR AN ENTIRE SESSION. Did it once, will never, ever do it again.




Well, that's bad DMing- I'd have had you helping me run NPCs and critters, since many hands make light work.  (And it feels so _naughty_!)


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Well, that's bad DMing- I'd have had you helping me run NPCs and critters, since many hands make light work.  (And it feels so _naughty_!)




I agree.  However, while it might be bad DMing, it's hardly uncommon either.  At least IME.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> I would argue that most players are far more inclined to be okay with losing the character than having their character sidelined for significant periods of time.  If you lost the character, you can promote an NPC and be playing again in a matter of moments.  Or parachute a new PC into the story, or whatever works for you.  IOW, you can add in a new character as soon as you make one.
> 
> If you character is sidelined for a month, unless the entire party decides that they will sit by your bed and hold your hand, you get to ride the pines and watch the game for however long it takes to roleplay through the next extended period of time.
> 
> I don't play RPG's to sit and watch for three hours.  No offense to the other people at the table, but watching D&D for 3 hours is not my idea of fun.
> 
> And I pick 3 hours specifically because I've actually HAD DM's who did this.  Character gets sidelined, but not killed, and play continues.  FOR AN ENTIRE SESSION.  Did it once, will never, ever do it again.



Ha, my players willingly put themselves into these situations each week. I have one player who has actively gone with the other players one out of five sessions so far, and he stays at the castle when they go out most of the time, by choice. I've encouraged him to go out, or to swap characters, but he says he's happy to give talk when they're at the castle, give advice when they're not, and just stay at home and craft amazing objects the rest of the time. He does want to start a court in the castle, though.

Again, though, I think this group is in the minority. They're okay with these things, and I think that's abnormal, but I'm okay with it. I'm not surprised that people wouldn't want to get sidelined for a long time. As always, play what you like


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> Ha, my players willingly put themselves into these situations each week. I have one player who has actively gone with the other players one out of five sessions so far, and he stays at the castle when they go out most of the time, by choice. I've encouraged him to go out, or to swap characters, but he says he's happy to give talk when they're at the castle, give advice when they're not, and just stay at home and craft amazing objects the rest of the time. He does want to start a court in the castle, though.
> 
> Again, though, I think this group is in the minority. They're okay with these things, and I think that's abnormal, but I'm okay with it. I'm not surprised that people wouldn't want to get sidelined for a long time. As always, play what you like



I think it's notable here that how a player reacts to such a situation is often quite different when he puts himself into it knowingly and willingly, rather than at the hands of the party, the Dm, or the dice.


----------



## Hussar

JC - what does this player do when the other PC's are out doing other stuff?  Does he just sit there and watch the session?


----------



## molepunch

D&D is ultimately a game and not Acting or Dramaturgy 101, so even if healing surges are "video-gamey" I think it's fine. I currently play 4E and while I feel that the system often flatlines RP (because it's too easy to sit back and let the system take over the story or battle), it is also as to be expected; we cannot ignore the G part of RPG. Let's not be haters and think that it's suitably derogatory for 4E to resemble a (video) game. 

Besides, roleplaying is not the same thing as make-believe or acting workshop. I am a stage actor by profession and to me they are quite different. You shouldn't have dice in your game if you crave RP-or-else...


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> I think it's notable here that how a player reacts to such a situation is often quite different when he puts himself into it knowingly and willingly, rather than at the hands of the party, the Dm, or the dice.



True, and that's a good distinction. I've tried to get him more active, since he normally is, but he just hasn't budged on it, really.



Hussar said:


> JC - what does this player do when the other PC's are out doing other stuff?  Does he just sit there and watch the session?



He'll give his input on their situation. And, to be fair, most of the session takes place in or near the castle, so he gets to talk to them in character a lot of the time (well, "talk"... he's mute). But, when they leave to go on diplomatic missions, gather resources, confront threats, and the like, he stays back, hammering away in his forge.

I've tried to see if he wants to build something into his character to make him more proactive, or if he wants to swap characters, or if he wants to be more proactive in other ways. He wants to establish a court to socialize in, but that's about it. He's pretty insistent. And, I'm not afraid of him losing interest, either. We'll talk about the campaign between sessions (this happened today), he compliments me on my game versus past GMs (this happened today), and I've known him for over ten years, so we're pretty open to each other (we got into a discussion today where he voiced his frustration, so there's no problems there).

I think what happened is that he made a crafting character, built him to be mostly noncombat (though he got a wicked crit with his warhammer on a bandit the one time he left), and is stubbornly sticking to it, playing him as he thinks his character would act. I just don't want him to get tired of the game because he's so passive in-character.

Like I said, out of character he likes to give advice, give input, and the like, but he rarely does stuff with this character. And, since this hasn't been a problem with past characters, I'm sort of surprised to see it.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Herremann the Wise

molepunch said:


> D&D is ultimately a game and not Acting or Dramaturgy 101, so even if healing surges are "video-gamey" I think it's fine...
> Besides, roleplaying is not the same thing as make-believe or acting workshop. I am a stage actor by profession and to me they are quite different. You shouldn't have dice in your game if you crave RP-or-else...



I think D&D can be such an amalgam of so many different things for so many different groups that I don't think I'd ever feel confident saying something particular was _not _D&D (and particularly something as intrinsic to the game as role-playing and sometimes acting). For you as a professional stage actor, it is an interesting perspective to say that taking on a role and acting it out is not part of your particular group's style. You seem to be focusing more on the mechanical game. Our group on the other hand loves "acting" things out at the table; it forms an important immersive element of how we play. For our group healing surges work with the style of our 4e game even though for many in the group there are many strange looks when the use of healing surges produce conflicting narratives between what the DM is saying and what the mechanics are resulting in.

On a different thread I have highlighted the central issues our group has with this (as well as potential solutions). If we get into the 4e mindset though, we can generally ignore the various issues with the ruleset.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## molepunch

[MENTION=11300]Herremann the Wise[/MENTION]

 I agree somewhat but I'm more inclined to understand D&D as a game on top of it being about group storytelling.

We do take on the roleplaying, you misunderstand. We do not play D&D like it's Monopoly. I grill my players on their characters and can often properly RP them when they are absent. However, we also accept the game conventions that come with the system, healing surges included. The narration for negative hitpoints is never a "sucking chest wound" unless the player wants it so, in which case we pile on the negative modifiers etc. We do not always take the Dying condition literally.

I guess I just wanted to share that even as someone who values RP I do not dislike healing surges because I can work around it as a gaming convention. Is it gamey? Yes. Does it challenge "realism"? Yes. 

Is it okay to hate HS? Sure is! 



Herremann the Wise said:


> I think D&D can be such an amalgam of so many different things for so many different groups that I don't think I'd ever feel confident saying something particular was _not _D&D (and particularly something as intrinsic to the game as role-playing and sometimes acting). For you as a professional stage actor, it is an interesting perspective to say that taking on a role and acting it out is not part of your particular group's style. You seem to be focusing more on the mechanical game. Our group on the other hand loves "acting" things out at the table; it forms an important immersive element of how we play. For our group healing surges work with the style of our 4e game even though for many in the group there are many strange looks when the use of healing surges produce conflicting narratives between what the DM is saying and what the mechanics are resulting in.
> 
> On a different thread I have highlighted the central issues our group has with this (as well as potential solutions). If we get into the 4e mindset though, we can generally ignore the various issues with the ruleset.
> 
> Best Regards
> Herremann the Wise


----------



## MichaelSomething

How would injuries impair a PC long term in a 3.X game?  With healing items or a Cleric in the party, you should be able to bounce back in two/three days!


----------



## JamesonCourage

That's been discussed at some length.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> I would argue that most players are far more inclined to be okay with losing the character than having their character sidelined for significant periods of time. If you lost the character, you can promote an NPC and be playing again in a matter of moments. Or parachute a new PC into the story, or whatever works for you. IOW, you can add in a new character as soon as you make one.
> 
> If you character is sidelined for a month, unless the entire party decides that they will sit by your bed and hold your hand, you get to ride the pines and watch the game for however long it takes to roleplay through the next extended period of time.
> 
> I don't play RPG's to sit and watch for three hours. No offense to the other people at the table, but watching D&D for 3 hours is not my idea of fun.
> 
> And I pick 3 hours specifically because I've actually HAD DM's who did this. Character gets sidelined, but not killed, and play continues. FOR AN ENTIRE SESSION. Did it once, will never, ever do it again.




This depends on the group and there are numerous ways around the problem. I think this is a case where it is important to know your players. In my current group for example, my players would mostly prefer to keep things believable, if the character is seriously wounded, they would rather be sidelined or stay in the action knowing it may kill them (provided it is in character). But like I said, we are an RP heavy group and do a lot of urban investigations. So a sidelined character can still stay involved much of the time even if he isn't directly participating. 

One solution to the problem of sidelined characters (and this doesn't just come up from taking damage but can also be a product of the storyline of the campaign) is to allow players to take on the roles of NPCs when their character isn't present.

I even have one player who is more than happy to sit out three hours if it keeps him immersed in the game. This is very much a taste and style thing. Just like some groups don't mind character death being an ever present threat, and others prefer script immunity.


----------



## Hussar

Yeah, BRG, I can see that being a taste thing.  If a DM sidelined me for 3 hours (the entire duration of a session), I'd thank him politely for the game and walk.  Sorry, not interested in wasting my time thank you.  Either come up with a way to get me back in the game, or let me know and I'll just skip today's session and go do something else.

Like I said, I had a DM who did that before.  And, that's exactly what happened.  He sidelined my character, more than a few times, and we spent huge amounts of time screwing around not accomplishing anything.  To give you an idea, we were playing the first module of Shackled City and it took us SIXTEEN sessions to complete it.  Sixteen three hour sessions to do that one module.

I thanked him politely and walked.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul said:


> Pre-4E HP allow a much greater narrative range than 4E's Healing Surges, which create absurd narratives if you describe them as actual wounds; this means that there's more scope for how you decide to narrate wounds and healing using pre-4E HP.



What I'm confused by is what narrative has actually been lost.



Nagol said:


> I JUST WANT SOME DESCRIPTIVE OPTION OF THE POTENTIAL DEATH INJURY THAT DOESN'T SHATTER MY IMMERSION BY HEALING WITHIN THE SAME DAY WITHOUT TREATMENT.





BryonD said:


> Surges "take away" the narrative connection between receiving actual wounds and recovering from actual wounds.





Pentius said:


> What I disagree with is the notion that surges remove wounds.  You're willing to say a hero ignores flesh wounds the day he gets them, why do they have to vanish overnight?  Why not do like the action heroes do, and just keep ignoring them the second day?



I'm with Pentius. Why does the surge expenditure have to be narrated as "removing wounds"? Why can it not just be narrated as "ignoring wounds"?



JamesonCourage said:


> full healing after an extended rest prevents certain common fantasy-genre narratives, and rather needlessly in my mind. I don't care if people get up earlier than they should -that's heroic. I want there to be a possibility of them staying down for a while, though.



For NPCs, the GM can just stipulate that they are "still recovering". For PCs, it goes without saying (in 4e, at least) that they are heroic and therefore get up earlier than they should!



Pentius said:


> I feel like a large bit of this has moved away from surges themselves and into just the rate of HP recovery, which, though related, is at least tangential.



Agreed. Healing time is a red herring - it is a trivial house rule. The real contribution that surges make to the game is to dramatically change the dynamics of combat on the player side of the table.


----------



## pemerton

LostSoul said:


> It's my belief - biased by personal preference, I'm sure - that RPGs are more engaging when those choices are grounded in "fictional positioning".  That is, when you make your decisions, they are based on the details of the game world.



A good bias. I don't think any edition of D&D has ever made the extent and consequences of injury part of the fictional positioning (except perhaps in some very marginal cases, like the rules for caltrops in Unearthed Arcana), but I could be forgetting something.



LostSoul said:


> HP and Surges.  If we look at the difference between them in terms of choices the players make - how HP support one set of choices and Surges another - what do we get?
> 
> I don't know what the answer to that is, but I'd bet that there is a fundamental difference in the kinds of choices a player can make.



The most obvious difference that I see in action resolution is that the 4e mechanics make a whole lot of choices about how to gain access to a PC's surges very important - whereas, back when I played AD&D, recoving hit points during combat was at best a very minor element of play.

The dying rules also make a big difference to choices too. Being knocked unconscious, in 4e, is closer to being stunned or paralysed in earlier editions of the game, than to being knocked to negative hit points.

And I'm sure there are a lot of other differences too.



LostSoul said:


> My 4E Hack has some rules for "maiming" characters.
> 
> <snip>
> Severed limbs/appendages, missing organs       Remove Affliction



I've also treated Remove Affliction as what is required to restore severed limbs, heal major organ damage etc.

My take on maiming in 4e is that, so long as action is being resolved in accordance with the combat resolution mechanics, then no PC can be maimed by an attack, and no assailant can maim an NPC with an attack other than by dropping that NPC to 0 hp or below.

So I've had the PCs meet, and help, maimed NPCs, but that maiming was not the result of the application of the combat rules. (Also, the players had no trouble with the ruling that their Healing Words and the like couldn't restore missing limbs - they accepted it as obvious that healing which simply triggers a surge can't do that, since a surge can be triggered by getting one's Second Wind, and getting one's Second Wind obviously cannot regrow a limb.)



LostSoul said:


> A simple example in game: A PC was hanging onto a wall from one hand.  On top of the wall were some goblins; they hacked at his hand and brought him below Bloodied.  Since he had no way to avoid the attack, his hand was chopped off.



The way I run my game, I would be obliged to narrate that the PC moved his hand to dodge the goblin attacks. If he also failed his climbing check and fell, we would know why! If he didn't, that would mean that he was able to get his other hand up before dropping, and the goblins weren't quick enough to chop it off!


----------



## Herremann the Wise

pemerton said:


> What I'm confused by is what narrative has actually been lost.



Well you know the other thread... 



pemerton said:


> I'm with Pentius. Why does the surge expenditure have to be narrated as "removing wounds"? Why can it not just be narrated as "ignoring wounds"?



I think most people do view it as ignoring rather than removing wounds. A wound naturally recovered (hps restored) from in 3 days is not completely healed but simply not capable of disrupting the capacity of the PC any more. It might take several weeks to fully scar over. 

However, I find it difficult to narrate a serious wound if there is a significant chance that it can be practically "ignored" within the time it takes to have an extended rest (less than 24 hours and assuming no magical healing).

As a side thing, I like to think though that most divine magical healing doesn't leave a scar. However, for flavour I like druidic healing to restore healing BUT leave a scar but that's just my own flavour preference.



pemerton said:


> For NPCs, the GM can just stipulate that they are "still recovering". For PCs, it goes without saying (in 4e, at least) that they are heroic and therefore get up earlier than they should!



That's kind of boxing in character options a little if they are all so "heroic". Variety, spice, life and all that.



pemerton said:


> Agreed. Healing time is a red herring - it is a trivial house rule. The real contribution that surges make to the game is to dramatically change the dynamics of combat on the player side of the table.



I agree with this. The reason why perhaps it is such an "issue" for some (well at least me) is that hps and heaing has always bothered me in D&D and I keep getting drawn into these threads no matter how hard I try to ignore them. For others, it is just one of a long line of "gamist" issues with 4e that makes houseruling all of them difficult. Far easier to stick to a previous edition and highlight surges as one of the main issues I suppose.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Oryan77

Hitpoints don't represent physical damage. But when you are half your hitpoints, you're "bloodied".


----------



## Mallus

Oryan77 said:


> Hitpoints don't represent physical damage. But when you are half your hitpoints, you're "bloodied".



You could look at it from the other side...

Hit points _do_ represent physical damage, but when you lose half your hit points from a bunch of sword cuts or spear pokes, you don't _bleed_.

(unless your opponent was using a Sword of Wounding).

Both are equally silly. The difference is the first is New Silliness while the latter is Silliness Classic (which we've had years to get used to, and develop a taste for).


----------



## The Shaman

Herremann the Wise said:


> Variety, spice, life and all that.



I like my variety spicy!


----------



## Mallus

The Shaman said:


> I like my variety spicy!



Have you tried Spanish-language television?


----------



## Desdichado

Although I've never played 4e, I adopted healing surges--somewhat--into my house-ruled 3e game by making them something you can do with Action Points.  To me they aren't really too terribly unrealistic.  Or rather--they aren't too terribly out of genre, I should say.  

It's pretty much a staple of every good action movie I've ever seen that the protagonist is beat to within an inch of his life in one scene, and in the next (or heck, later in the same scene, often) he's up kicking butt and taking names as if nothing had happened other than that the actor is not covered in fake blood to simulate his earlier beating.  If anything, it _improves_ protagonist performance to have been beat to within an inch of your life.  It works even better if right before finishing the protagonist off, the antagonist makes some kind of smarmy remark that pisses the protagonist off.

Since a good action movie is often the genre and vibe I'd like my games to represent, I naturally saw healing surges as a valuable tool to emulate this curious convention of the genre.  And since I've pretty much house-ruled away a lot of the magical healing that standard D&D would assume, it also has a gamist/strategic element too--it keeps the game from bogging down while the PCs sit around for weeks healing after every major fight.

Also, my games are strictly low-level to low-mid-level games anyway.  In fact, I've toyed with officially adopting an E6 tophat, although it seems a bit of a moot point because my games tend to 1) have slowed advancement, and 2) not be open-ended, so they end before it becomes an issue anyway.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> For NPCs, the GM can just stipulate that they are "still recovering". For PCs, it goes without saying (in 4e, at least) that they are heroic and therefore get up earlier than they should!



This doesn't address my problem with _PCs_ getting up every day with wounds they can _always_ completely brush off without external healing. That bugs me, because you're losing a lot of potential narrative paths by that always happening.

As I've expressed before, I've probably had 8-10 different instances of long recovery significantly shaping the story over the past year. The party waits while someone is healed, or waits for a healer to arrive, or goes looking for a missing and injured party member, etc., and while this happens, NPCs progress with their plans, nations send forces to fight the demons that the players should (wasting resources), a fortress falls (or tightens security too much to handle), etc.

I feel these narratives paths are lost, where they were open before. Mind you, quick healing isn't the biggest culprit here (I'd peg long range teleportation), but it's a large contributing factor, and thus my complaint. It's cool if it's not a problem for other people, but it is for me. As always, though, play what you like


----------



## Mort

JamesonCourage said:


> This doesn't address my problem with _PCs_ getting up every day with wounds they can _always_ completely brush off without external healing. That bugs me, because you're losing a lot of potential narrative paths by that always happening.
> 
> As I've expressed before, I've probably had 8-10 different instances of long recovery significantly shaping the story over the past year. The party waits while someone is healed, or waits for a healer to arrive, or goes looking for a missing and injured party member, etc., and while this happens, NPCs progress with their plans, nations send forces to fight the demons that the players should (wasting resources), a fortress falls (or tightens security too much to handle), etc.
> 
> I feel these narratives paths are lost, where they were open before. Mind you, quick healing isn't the biggest culprit here (I'd peg long range teleportation), but it's a large contributing factor, and thus my complaint. It's cool if it's not a problem for other people, but it is for me. As always, though, play what you like




But this is easy, realy easy, to deal with in 4e. Just introduce more diseases and the like (I mentioned this in a prior post but it's a long thread).

Easy example - filth fever. Group gets into a fight in a filthy sewer. Every time a PC takes damage there's a chance they contract filth fever (save at the end if fail = filth fever). Suddenly resting becomes a gamble. Rest and fail an endurance check? You now have -2 to AC, Fortitude and reflex.  Try to rest again without treatment (which is harder in 4e than 3e) and fail another endurance check - lose all healing surges (and cannot regain HPs) - until treated (likely through a remove disease ritual).

Or how about - Rusty Paralysis (from a Dragon magazine) - if cut by rusty metal - need to save. If fail - lose a healing surge and the disease starts. If fail endurance check after a rest -2 to attack rolls and cannot spend healing surges. Final stage -you're restrained.

Point being - it's pretty easy to introduce lasting problems/damage that the party has to deal with in 4e (heck I did this a few sessions ago, the party, lacking a healer, had to track one down).


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> But this is easy, realy easy, to deal with in 4e. Just introduce more diseases and the like (I mentioned this in a prior post but it's a long thread).




No- one should not have to introduce diseases as a method of maintaining the narrative of lingering effects from 2 handed sword wounds.


----------



## Mort

Dannyalcatraz said:


> No- one should not have to introduce diseases as a method of maintaining the narrative of lingering effects from 2 handed sword wounds.




Disease, condition - whatever - its a mechanic. Want more realism? Don't call it a disease; just call it a consequence of getting hit by a big sword and have the save happen all the time (or if damage above a certain amount is taken, or whatever - set the condition to what you like).

Personaly, I don't like it to be the default condition as I don't usually like things that grim and gritty - doesn't mean it's not easy to do.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Mort said:


> Disease, condition - whatever - its a mechanic. Want more realism? Don't call it a disease; just call it a consequence of getting hit by a big sword and have the save happen all the time (or if damage above a certain amount is taken, or whatever - set the condition to what you like).
> 
> Personaly, I don't like it to be the default condition as I don't usually like things that grim and gritty - doesn't mean it's not easy to do.




Or you could get rid of the healing surge since that is what is causing issues for people.


----------



## Mort

Bedrockgames said:


> Or you could get rid of the healing surge since that is what is causing issues for people.




You could, but what do you use in its place? For me combining the two mechanics (healing surges and the disease track) does a decent job. It also allows for fun things like the cure disease ritual, which is actually dangerous and the player takes a risk for having it cast (the cure may well be worse than the disease).


----------



## Crispy Critter

Am I nuts to think that all healing surges are is a way for the players and DM to not have to worry about the long-term consequences of damage and healing? I mean it seems pretty clear to me that's why they are in the game. Folks screwing themselves into the ground over what they mean for the narrative and the abstraction of HPs I think are talking past what the purpose is for healing surges. The designers did not want players to rely on other players for healing and they did not want the consequences of long term damage getting in the way of the next day's encounter. I don't know why people feel like they have to dress this up as anything other than that. Trying to show how it gets in the way of the narrative or how it can be narrated is meaningless because it's pretty clear to me the designers goals with this mechanic had nothing to do with narration and everything to do with expediency. Characters get damaged in the encounter, get them healed up with as little fuss as possible and get on to the next encounter.


----------



## Desdichado

JamesonCourage said:


> This doesn't address my problem with _PCs_ getting up every day with wounds they can _always_ completely brush off without external healing. That bugs me, because you're losing a lot of potential narrative paths by that always happening.
> 
> As I've expressed before, I've probably had 8-10 different instances of long recovery significantly shaping the story over the past year. The party waits while someone is healed, or waits for a healer to arrive, or goes looking for a missing and injured party member, etc., and while this happens, NPCs progress with their plans, nations send forces to fight the demons that the players should (wasting resources), a fortress falls (or tightens security too much to handle), etc.
> 
> I feel these narratives paths are lost, where they were open before. Mind you, quick healing isn't the biggest culprit here (I'd peg long range teleportation), but it's a large contributing factor, and thus my complaint. It's cool if it's not a problem for other people, but it is for me. As always, though, play what you like



Well, you also seem to be operating under the impression that D&D is a system that's generic enough to emulate various different genres, and therefore facilitate a number of narrative paths, to use your terminology, that in fact D&D is not designed to do.  D&D isn't generic, it emulates a specific type of fantasy.  Arguably, different editions of D&D are better at emulating different sub-genres and their related "narrative paths" than others.  But healing surges are an important part of genre emulation that is key to the whole design principle of 4e.  To me, it seems that complaining about healing surges here is a bit of a red herring; healing surges are simply one symptom of a greater issue--you want to play a different kind of fantasy than (4e) D&D fantasy.  Naturally, it's making you feel artificially constrained and hampered in your efforts.  In all fairness, though, that should be expected.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Mort said:


> Disease, condition - whatever - its a mechanic. Want more realism? Don't call it a disease; just call it a consequence of getting hit by a big sword and have the save happen all the time (or if damage above a certain amount is taken, or whatever - set the condition to what you like).
> 
> Personaly, I don't like it to be the default condition as I don't usually like things that grim and gritty - doesn't mean it's not easy to do.




It's still adding a mechanic for correcting something that shouldn't need to be corrected.  I'm basically with Bedrockgames on this one.  For me, one HS is cool, but the numbers 4Ed PCs have is too many.



> You could, but what do you use in its place?




Actual magic from exterior sources- devices or casters- not one's own inner powers unless that is part of the essence of the class or race, like a shapeshifter, monk, paladins or certain kinds of psionic types.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> D&D isn't generic, it emulates a specific type of fantasy.




But for the fantasy versions of games like HERO, GURPS, and M&M (W&W), D&D is arguably the most generic major FRPG out there.


----------



## Nagol

Crispy Critter said:


> Am I nuts to think that all healing surges are is a way for the players and DM to not have to worry about the long-term consequences of damage and healing? I mean it seems pretty clear to me that's why they are in the game. Folks screwing themselves into the ground over what they mean for the narrative and the abstraction of HPs I think are talking past what the purpose is for healing surges. The designers did not want players to rely on other players for healing and they did not want the consequences of long term damage getting in the way of the next day's encounter. I don't know why people feel like they have to dress this up as anything other than that. Trying to show how it gets in the way of the narrative or how it can be narrated is meaningless because it's pretty clear to me the designers goals with this mechanic had nothing to do with narration and everything to do with expediency. Characters get damaged in the encounter, get them healed up with as little fuss as possible and get on to the next encounter.




That's pretty much the point.  That expediency comes at a cost.  Some people don't like that cost.  No one in the thread has expressed that HS aren't doing what the designers wanted... they are saying the effect of HS on the game is something they don't appreciate for their preferred style.  I don't recall anyone objecting to HS because they weren't effective in game terms.


----------



## Mort

Dannyalcatraz said:


> It's still adding a mechanic for correcting something that shouldn't need to be corrected.  I'm basically with Bedrockgames on this one.  For me, one HS is cool, but the numbers 4Ed PCs have is too many.




I think I agree that some classes get way too many healing surges - and for many campaigns its hard to impart a feeling of danger under these circumstances. That's not really a problem with the mechanic though, that's a bloat problem (same as for example you can easily cut HP of monsters in 4e by 1/3 or even 1/2 (and ramp up the damage they do) if you want a less grindy quicker play experience).





Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actual magic from exterior sources- devices or casters- not one's own inner powers unless that is part of the essence of the class or race, like a shapeshifter, monk, paladins or certain kinds of psionic types.




Then we are right back to dependance on magic for healing at any meaningful speed? no thanks (YMMV)!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Then we are right back to dependance on magic for healing at any meaningful speed? no thanks (YMMV)!




Yeah, I know.

Just like I feel that barely surviving a near lethal encounter with a guy using a 2Hd sword should require a bit more magic than a nice night's rest, I realize that not everyone agrees.

Which is why (in another current thread) I said that 5Ed will likely make permanent the rift caused by the introduction of 4Ed.


----------



## Hussar

JamesonCourage said:


> /snip
> 
> As I've expressed before, I've probably had 8-10 different instances of long recovery significantly shaping the story over the past year. The party waits while someone is healed, or waits for a healer to arrive, or goes looking for a missing and injured party member, etc., and while this happens, NPCs progress with their plans, nations send forces to fight the demons that the players should (wasting resources), a fortress falls (or tightens security too much to handle), etc.
> 
> I feel these narratives paths are lost, where they were open before. Mind you, quick healing isn't the biggest culprit here (I'd peg long range teleportation), but it's a large contributing factor, and thus my complaint. It's cool if it's not a problem for other people, but it is for me. As always, though, play what you like




JC, if you don't mind, could you please post these 8-10 examples in the Narrative Challenge thread to actually provide concrete examples of what you are talking about?  At least then I could possibly start to see how this is a large narrative space instead of the narrative puddle it looks like since everyone insists on speaking in broad generalities without any actual examples.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Mort said:


> Disease, condition - whatever - its a mechanic. Want more realism? Don't call it a disease; just call it a consequence of getting hit by a big sword and have the save happen all the time (or if damage above a certain amount is taken, or whatever - set the condition to what you like).
> 
> Personaly, I don't like it to be the default condition as I don't usually like things that grim and gritty - doesn't mean it's not easy to do.



My problem with that is the Oberoni fallacy:


			
				Oberoni Fallacy said:
			
		

> *Oberoni Fallacy (noun):* The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.



Yeah, it can be done. I dislike that it has to be a house rule.



Hobo said:


> Well, you also seem to be operating under the impression that D&D is a system that's generic enough to emulate various different genres, and therefore facilitate a number of narrative paths, to use your terminology, that in fact D&D is not designed to do.



Yeah, D&D definitely is generic enough to emulate various genres. Not all, mind you. Not even all modern fantasy genres. However, whether or not you think that's true, my want is for the game to embrace different genre tropes. That's not speaking to the abstract/narrative/simulation style of the game, either.



> D&D isn't generic, it emulates a specific type of fantasy.  Arguably, different editions of D&D are better at emulating different sub-genres and their related "narrative paths" than others.  But healing surges are an important part of genre emulation that is key to the whole design principle of 4e.  To me, it seems that complaining about healing surges here is a bit of a red herring; healing surges are simply one symptom of a greater issue--you want to play a different kind of fantasy than (4e) D&D fantasy.  Naturally, it's making you feel artificially constrained and hampered in your efforts.  In all fairness, though, that should be expected.



I'm not saying, "I'm surprised 4e does this." I'm saying, "I dislike that 4e does this." I'm saying, "I don't like that it does this, because it doesn't fit my preference or desire out of the game." To that end, getting back, "but you shouldn't be surprised" doesn't really change anything for me. I'm not surprised. I'm disappointed.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> JC, if you don't mind, could you please post these 8-10 examples in the Narrative Challenge thread to actually provide concrete examples of what you are talking about?  At least then I could possibly start to see how this is a large narrative space instead of the narrative puddle it looks like since everyone insists on speaking in broad generalities without any actual examples.




Hussar examples have been provided. You don't have to agree but this is one of the big complaints people have about 4e. And people have reasons for making this complaint. My issue with HS is it makes it harder to describe hit point loss as physical wounds. As I said I might describe 20 points of damage as a deep gash. I've always tracked HP as physical damage, and every campaign I've played in has done so as well. What I dislike is the HS basically nulifies my descriptions. Are there ways around tge problem? Sure every system has wiggle room in that respect. I just don't find the solutions to HS satisfactoru.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> JC, if you don't mind, could you please post these 8-10 examples in the Narrative Challenge thread to actually provide concrete examples of what you are talking about?



No. You keep asking for _description_, and that's not what I was addressing in this thread, nor is it what I've tried to express in another thread. When I posted a narrative of slow health and how it caused the party to retreat, find a town, and heal up, I "failed" you challenge. My point is that getting wounded and taking a long time to heal will produce a different story (narrative). When I presented it, you said I failed.

So, no, I don't feel like spending the time writing up another 8-10 examples when you've unreasonably objected my point before. Sorry. 



> At least then I could possibly start to see how this is a large narrative space instead of the narrative puddle it looks like since everyone insists on speaking in broad generalities without any actual examples.



Yeah, this isn't the open mind I'm trying to express things to. You've got your view. My reasonable statements haven't convinced you. Fine, that's your decision, and that's cool. But don't expect me to express the same thoughts for the umpteenth time (or more examples after you've rejected one already). As always, play what you like


----------



## Mort

JamesonCourage said:


> My problem with that is the Oberoni fallacy:
> 
> Yeah, it can be done. I dislike that it has to be a house rule.




It's not really a house rule though - it's the broader application of an existing rule. That might sound like a nitpick, but I don't think it is really. The rule exists and exists to be used with the existing mechanic - how often you use it *should* be campaign and taste specific.


----------



## Pentius

Mort said:


> It's not really a house rule though - it's the broader application of an existing rule. That might sound like a nitpick, but I don't think it is really. The rule exists and exists to be used with the existing mechanic - how often you use it *should* be campaign and taste specific.




Sorry, Mort.  Using the existing rules of the game in varying ways to suit your specific needs and tastes is an option only available with other systems.  We're not allowed to do it with 4e.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Mort said:


> It's not really a house rule though - it's the broader application of an existing rule. That might sound like a nitpick, but I don't think it is really. The rule exists and exists to be used with the existing mechanic - how often you use it *should* be campaign and taste specific.



Oh, with diseases you're completely correct (I was commenting on mimicking the system, bu not using diseases). I think changing the track so that it's a "wound" track but not a disease is my problem. That's a house rule. Yeah, you can disease people and use it, and that's fine. I'm totally down for that. A disease-heavy campaign might even be really cool.

I'd like it to be reflected by wounds, not just diseases, but diseases alone aren't a terrible workaround, and you're right, it's not a house rule to use it. I'd like for natural healing to fill this role, but I'm not married to it. I just want the narrative path available for long term recovery. As always, though, play what you like


----------



## pemerton

Oryan77 said:


> Hitpoints don't represent physical damage. But when you are half your hitpoints, you're "bloodied".



In my games, I narrate the hit that produces bloody-ing as causing some sort of physical damage - a cut, a burn or (if it is psychic damage, which is fairly common in my game) bleeding from the ears in classic X-Men style! I personally haven't found this to be a problem.

What would be trickier would be if the bloody-ing was the result of inflicting hit point damage by way of sheer demoralisation (eg as in the final encounter of the Winter King module in the Monster Vault). I'm sure I'd find a way to handle it, though - after all, there's always the possibility that blood starts welling from an earlier blow that appeared at the time to have been a mere touch or graze.



Herremann the Wise said:


> I find it difficult to narrate a serious wound if there is a significant chance that it can be practically "ignored" within the time it takes to have an extended rest (less than 24 hours and assuming no magical healing).



I can agree with this, but personally don't feel that the 3E healing times make a significant difference here - especially because the ignoring of the wound can begin right away (ie lost hit points don't impede performance) and the only way that the ignored wound impedes performance is the rather abstract one that later blows have a better chance of being killing blows.

Obviously in this discussion I'm closer to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - I'm a little curious about the narrative space in which exist wounds that (i) don't really impede performance at all, but (ii) in some sense (which is a bit obscure, given that they don't impede performance) take days or weeks to recover from, and which (iii) would strain verisimilitude or genre to be recovered from in the same obscure sense within several hours instead.

I'm not denying that the narrative space exists, but I'm not sure what its occupants are. What is particularly unclear to me is (ii) above: ie, what does "recovery" mean in AD&D or 3E, when at any time the "wounded" person can get out of bed and perform unimpeded. (I know that dropping below 0 hp in AD&D is an exception to this, but as Pentius stipulated upthread I'm interested here in wounds that don't cause unconsciousness.) Until I have a clearer handle on that, I don't have a handle on why (iii) narrows the narrative space for those who are OK with (ii).

I know people upthread have mentioned concussion, brusising etc, but either those things impede performance - in which case hit point loss in AD&D or 3E cannot be those things, any more than hit point and surge loss in 4e can be those things - or those things do not impede performance, in which case they can be narrated or not independently of the healing mechanics: I can describe my guy as being at full hp but covered in bruises, or at low hp but physically hale (all that I've used up is my luck!) or any other mixture that takes my fancy. Just as the scuffing and polishing of boots and armour is treated purely as a matter of free roleplaying, so can the scuffing and polishing of bodies!

Looked at in this way, with full regard being given to the non-impedence point, in any edition it seems that what is being "recovered" when hit points heal is luck or fate or verve or heroic capacity, and I don't see why several days is OK for that but several hours not.



JamesonCourage said:


> This doesn't address my problem with _PCs_ getting up every day with wounds they can _always_ completely brush off without external healing.



Like I've said earlier in this post, in 3E I can completely brush off those wounds too - the only effect they have is they make it harder for me to ignore wounds in the future (ie because my hp reserve is lower) - which means that rather than actual impeding wounds they are more like a loss of heroic verve. And I don't feel any particular loss of verisimilitude in verve returning over hours rather than days.



Herremann the Wise said:


> For others, it is just one of a long line of "gamist" issues with 4e that makes houseruling all of them difficult. Far easier to stick to a previous edition and highlight surges as one of the main issues I suppose.



My thinking is this: suppose I liked the way 4e combat plays, but for reasons of pacing or verisimilitude or whatever found the extended rest mechanics a bit over the top, I could trivially houserule the recovery times with no other adverse effects on the system. Whereas suppose I found the role of healing surges in 4e's combat dynamics irritating, then I would probably have to find another game, as they are pretty central. At which point the fact that the extended rest mechanics irritated me too might be icing on the cake of my decision, but hardly a determinative or even a significant factor.



Bedrockgames said:


> Or you could get rid of the healing surge since that is what is causing issues for people.



But at this point you're bascially committed to rebuilding and rebalancing the game - the healing surge mechanic is pretty inherent to the balance between classes, the balance of the action economy, the design of many powers, and the dynamics of combat.

The easier path - but one which narrows the story space quite a bit - would be to ban the warlord class, to abolish the Second Wind action, and to have each of the PCs bear a magical tatoo with a 1x/enc standard action healing power as a Second Wind substitute. (The dwarves, being masters of tatooing magic, would of course have tatoos that permit this healing as a minor action!)

But if you can't handle non-magical surges, and you don't want to do something like the above, then I think you have to seriously think about dropping 4e, given the work involved in stripping out the surge mechanics.



Herremann the Wise said:


> That's kind of boxing in character options a little if they are all so "heroic". Variety, spice, life and all that.





JamesonCourage said:


> you're losing a lot of potential narrative paths by that always happening.





Hobo said:


> D&D isn't generic, it emulates a specific type of fantasy.  Arguably, different editions of D&D are better at emulating different sub-genres and their related "narrative paths" than others.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> complaining about healing surges here is a bit of a red herring; healing surges are simply one symptom of a greater issue--you want to play a different kind of fantasy than (4e) D&D fantasy.  Naturally, it's making you feel artificially constrained and hampered in your efforts.  In all fairness, though, that should be expected.



Here I agree with Hobo. And I made a similar point to JamesonCourage upthread. If I want semi-gritty fantasy, 4e won't deliver it. But if I want gonzo heroic fantasy, 3E won't deliver it without a cleric or bard (because of its natural healing times). Each supports certain "narrative paths" but undercuts others.

I have played a lot of Rolemaster, which is a game where recovering from wounds takes significant ingame time, typically even after magical healing has been received. I personally don't think this works all that well for Rolemaster, which in many other respects is closer to D&D in its gonzo-ish orientation - so the gritty recovery can get in the way of "save the world" scenarios. Burning Wheel is also a game which builds extensive recovery times into the system, and does so I think in a more integrated way than Rolemaster.

But what both RM and BW have in common is that wounds actually play like wounds - they impede performance - and so when a recovering character hops out of bed because heroism demands it, the burden of the wound is still felt. Given that in any edition of D&D this is not the case - performance is unimpeded - I think that D&D copes fine with wounds, and recovery from them, being simply a matter of free narration.


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> My issue with HS is it makes it harder to describe hit point loss as physical wounds. As I said I might describe 20 points of damage as a deep gash. I've always tracked HP as physical damage, and every campaign I've played in has done so as well. What I dislike is the HS basically nulifies my descriptions.



Again, this is where I'm puzzled. Why not just say it's a deep gash?

When the healing surge is expended, the gash doesn't go away. The extent to which it impedes the character's performance (ie not at all) doesn't change. All that the expenditure of the healing surge does is change the likelihood that any future blow will be a (near-)fatal one. Which is all about restoring luck and heroic verve, not about clotting wounds.

It's true that this means the existence of the gash has no immediate mechanical significance (just like the scuffing of my armour in combat has no immediate mechanical significance). Or cousre, it might have indirect mechanical significance - for example, if the gash has been narrated, and then the PC jumps into a drain without mentioning any cleaning or dressing of the wound, the GM might require a save to avoid filth fever (just like, if the PCs have a big fight and then go into a skill challenge with the duke without mentioning any cleaning or polishing of themselves and their gear, the GM might impose penalties to diplomacy checks).

But _the lost hit points in 3E have no direct mechanical significance either_. They don't impede the character's performance. All they do is make it more likely that a future blow will be (near-)fatal. Which means they represent only a loss of luck/verve, not a physical impedence.

How quickly should heroic verve recover? I don't know - that looks to me like a pacing issue, and different tables and different games might want to answer it differently. _But I can't see how it has anything to do with the narration of the inflicting of, and the recovery from, wounds._


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> Oh, with diseases you're completely correct (I was commenting on mimicking the system, bu not using diseases). I think changing the track so that it's a "wound" track but not a disease is my problem. That's a house rule.



It's a house rule in the same sense that applying a class to a goblin in 3E is a houseruled monster.

One of the creatures in the Nentir Vale Monster Vault inflicts a curse that uses the disease track (but because it is a curse, uses Arcana (mabye?) rather than Endurance, and can't be helped with the Heal skill or Cure Disease).

There's a sense in which that's a mechanical innovation, but only in the same sense that the first 3E module to include a class-levelled goblin was exhibiting a mechanical innovation. It's a mechanical innovation, or "house rule", that the rules themselves virtually beg to be implemented.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I understand your position Hussar but that just doesn't work for me. I like HP as a clear mark of health.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> JamesonCourage said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't address my problem with PCs getting up every day with wounds they can always completely brush off without external healing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I've said earlier in this post, in 3E I can completely brush off those wounds too - the only effect they have is they make it harder for me to ignore wounds in the future (ie because my hp reserve is lower) - which means that rather than actual impeding wounds they are more like a loss of heroic verve. And I don't feel any particular loss of verisimilitude in verve returning over hours rather than days.
Click to expand...


I'm really not sure why you (and most other dissenters) are stuck on this line of thought when addressing me specifically. I feel as I've more than adequately expressed my view that _story paths are dying_ when every wound can be healed overnight. If it matters to you, ignore "without external healing" and focus on what I've been extremely clear (in my mind) on trying to express: that I prefer a system that allows for both long term wounds and short term wounds, _because both open up interesting narratives_. When you heal from every wound overnight, it works against many narrative paths I want available in the game.

I really hope this is clear. I'm not addressing verisimilitude. I'm not addressing realism. I'm not addressing how heroic the characters are. I'm not addressing anything besides the narrative paths shut down by only having wounds heal over night. I can address my other issues with healing surges (and have in this thread), but please don't get my "healing overnight" and "dislike healing surge implementation" views confused or crossed.


> Here I agree with Hobo. And I made a similar point to JamesonCourage upthread. If I want semi-gritty fantasy, 4e won't deliver it. But if I want gonzo heroic fantasy, 3E won't deliver it without a cleric or bard (because of its natural healing times). Each supports certain "narrative paths" but undercuts others.



Yes. I've expressed why when it comes to healing overnight, 3.X has more than 4e. I've said that 4e has more narrative paths than 3.X in other areas. However, considering the thread topic, I assumed this was in regards to healing surges, not overall with each game system.



> I have played a lot of Rolemaster, which is a game where recovering from wounds takes significant ingame time, typically even after magical healing has been received. I personally don't think this works all that well for Rolemaster, which in many other respects is closer to D&D in its gonzo-ish orientation - so the gritty recovery can get in the way of "save the world" scenarios. Burning Wheel is also a game which builds extensive recovery times into the system, and does so I think in a more integrated way than Rolemaster.
> 
> But what both RM and BW have in common is that wounds actually play like wounds - they impede performance - and so when a recovering character hops out of bed because heroism demands it, the burden of the wound is still felt. Given that in any edition of D&D this is not the case - performance is unimpeded - I think that D&D copes fine with wounds, and recovery from them, being simply a matter of free narration.



Cool. You like it. I dislike it. We're both right. And, me saying that "recovering all wounds overnight closes narrative paths that wasn't the case in at least 3.X" is true. Yes, 4e expands potential narrative paths in other areas, and that's a very good thing. That wasn't the point of this thread. It was, "why don't you like healing surges" which led us onto healing with an extended rest (I'm not sure how surges are related). I've stated what I don't like about healing surges, and what I don't like about always wounds healing overnight.

When you say that you like another way of doing it more, that's cool. I'm okay with that, and I'm glad you have fun with it. I'm answering why I don't. I'm not saying I expected 4e to be what I wanted out of a game (it was pretty clearly not what I wanted as of some individual previews). But, when someone says, "I don't understand why people don't like healing surges. If you're one of those people, why don't you like them, and what would you do to fix them?", then I'm not going to hesitate in answering it from a preference-first basis. I know it was designed differently from what I want. That's kinda my point. As always, play what you like 



pemerton said:


> It's a house rule in the same sense that applying a class to a goblin in 3E is a houseruled monster.



I disagree (I think). In 3.X, they say "here's how you use class levels with creatures." In 4e, my understanding is that they say, "here's how you handle diseases (disease track)." Applying class levels to monsters is covered explicitly within the rules. Applying a disease using the disease track is covered explicitly within the rules. Apply "wounds" to a disease track when there's no disease is _house ruling_, because it's not using the rules of the game, it's modifying, replacing, or dropping them.

Now, maybe I'm wrong on how they present the disease track (it's incredibly possible). If so, can someone correct me? I'm kind of curious if it's different from how I think it works. 



> One of the creatures in the Nentir Vale Monster Vault inflicts a curse that uses the disease track (but because it is a curse, uses Arcana (mabye?) rather than Endurance, and can't be helped with the Heal skill or Cure Disease).



This sounds like it's within the rules (as it's given mechanics to use). I wouldn't consider this house ruling. If a variant came out officially on using the disease track to model wounds, I wouldn't consider it house ruling. I'd still like it core, but at least you're using an official variant.



> There's a sense in which that's a mechanical innovation, but only in the same sense that the first 3E module to include a class-levelled goblin was exhibiting a mechanical innovation. It's a mechanical innovation, or "house rule", that the rules themselves virtually beg to be implemented.



Well, 3.X has rules in the Monster Manual on how to add class levels to creatures, so it's really not the case, here, as far as I know. I might be wrong, though. I'm much more familiar with 3.5 than 3.0. As always, play what you like


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> Oh, with diseases you're completely correct (I was commenting on mimicking the system, bu not using diseases). I think changing the track so that it's a "wound" track but not a disease is my problem. That's a house rule. Yeah, you can disease people and use it, and that's fine. I'm totally down for that. A disease-heavy campaign might even be really cool.
> 
> I'd like it to be reflected by wounds, not just diseases, but diseases alone aren't a terrible workaround, and you're right, it's not a house rule to use it. I'd like for natural healing to fill this role, but I'm not married to it. I just want the narrative path available for long term recovery. As always, though, play what you like




I would say this is a reflavor, not a houserule.  The underlying disease mechanic isn't changing, but what you call it and what it represents in the game world is.  In the same way that my home game has a Samurai despite 4e having no Samurai class(he's a Slayer).  Natural Healing: The HP recovery per day doesn't cover it, but it's still something that has to be healed over time and can be speeded with medical care.

The application might be considered a houserule, but a minor one.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> I would say this is a reflavor, not a houserule.  The underlying disease mechanic isn't changing, but what you call it and what it represents in the game world is.  In the same way that my home game has a Samurai despite 4e having no Samurai class(he's a Slayer).  Natural Healing: The HP recovery per day doesn't cover it, but it's still something that has to be healed over time and can be speeded with medical care.
> 
> The application might be considered a houserule, but a minor one.



Definitely a minor house rule. I agree. Again, I dislike that you have to house rule it. That means that it's not the assumed position of the game, and I want a game that supports as many narrative paths as possible (within the modern fantasy genre, at least).

The fallacy is, "you can house rule it, so it's not a problem." I'd consider it a fallacy because you only need to house rule something if it's a problem for what you're going for. It's "problem needs a house rule", not "house rule when there's no problem". Now, the problem I have might not be in every group, but when we're talking about objections I might have, here it is. I accept others don't agree, don't prefer that as the default, don't want the system to handle it, etc. I do want the system to handle it. And here we are.

As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> every wound can be healed overnight
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not addressing anything besides the narrative paths shut down by only having wounds heal over night
> 
> <snip>
> 
> healing overnight, 3.X has more than 4e. I've said that 4e has more narrative paths than 3.X in other
> 
> <snip>
> 
> recovering all wounds overnight closes narrative paths that wasn't the case in at least 3.X
> 
> <snip>
> 
> wounds healing overnight



As I said in the post to which you replied, and have posted earlier upthread, _there is no rule in 4e that says that wounds heal overnight_. Nor is there any rule that implies it. 

Thus my puzzlement - you seem to be concerned by an imputed feature of 4e that the game in fact lacks.

Like earlier editions of D&D, it is the case in 4e that wounds which don't kill or knock unconsious don't impede performance. Not when suffered. And not later, while being recovered from. (And hence, presumably, are not all that serious.)

Like earlier editions of D&D (and putting AD&D's death's door rules to one side), 4e _has no rule_ about how long wounds take to heal, anymore than it has a rule about how much polish is required to restore the shine to one's boots after wearing them on a dungeon expedition.

What 4e _does_ mandate is that, after an extended rest, a wounded hero is no closer to suffering a fatal blow than is an unwounded hero. It has a quicker recovery time for "heroic verve". That is the only difference from 3E and AD&D that I can see.


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> Definitely a minor house rule. I agree. Again, I dislike that you have to house rule it. That means that it's not the assumed position of the game, and I want a game that supports as many narrative paths as possible (within the modern fantasy genre, at least).
> 
> The fallacy is, "you can house rule it, so it's not a problem." I'd consider it a fallacy because you only need to house rule something if it's a problem for what you're going for. It's "problem needs a house rule", not "house rule when there's no problem". Now, the problem I have might not be in every group, but when we're talking about objections I might have, here it is. I accept others don't agree, don't prefer that as the default, don't want the system to handle it, etc. I do want the system to handle it. And here we are.
> 
> As always, play what you like



My main problem with that is that this change is no greater in scope than the dearth of magical healing, both via class and item, that is so crucial to getting the wounding narrative in 3e.

Thus my quip to Mort that we are not allowed to tweak 4e to taste.


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm really not sure why you (and most other dissenters) are stuck on this line of thought when addressing me specifically. I feel as I've more than adequately expressed my view that _story paths are dying_ when every wound can be healed overnight.




I missed this earlier, somehow(I blame the pagebreak).  I think I can answer this one for you.  The disconnect I have here is that you are equating the loss of HP with wounds, but these wounds have no mechanical or story impact, by RAW, other than making the next blow more likely to be (narrated as) fatal.  This means that any meaningful narrative and/or consequences of these wounds begins and ends in your hands already.  So, why is it then that you are unwilling to hold onto that narrative when the HP is restored?  The hp damage only ever served as a rough guideline by which you narrated the getting of wounds.  It never handled any consequence of the wound.  You were doing that yourself already.  So, why not just still do that?


----------



## pemerton

Pentius said:


> The disconnect I have here is that you are equating the loss of HP with wounds, but these wounds have no mechanical or story impact, by RAW, other than making the next blow more likely to be (narrated as) fatal.  This means that any meaningful narrative and/or consequences of these wounds begins and ends in your hands already.  So, why is it then that you are unwilling to hold onto that narrative when the HP is restored?  The hp damage only ever served as a rough guideline by which you narrated the getting of wounds.  It never handled any consequence of the wound.  You were doing that yourself already.  So, why not just still do that?



I have the same disconnect, and I've been pressing it for most of my participation in this thread. It's why I [-]necroed[/-] second winded the thread!


----------



## Herremann the Wise

pemerton said:


> Herremann the Wise said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find it difficult to narrate a serious wound if there is a significant chance that it can be practically "ignored" within the time it takes to have an extended rest (less than 24 hours and assuming no magical healing).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can agree with this, but personally don't feel that the 3E healing times make a significant difference here - especially because the ignoring of the wound can begin right away (ie lost hit points don't impede performance) and the only way that the ignored wound impedes performance is the rather abstract one that later blows have a better chance of being killing blows.
Click to expand...


The only time I pull out a "serious wound" description in 3e is when the character goes into the negatives. The only time I pull out a "serious wound" description in 4e is in retrospect when the party is examining the corpse of their former ally. "You remove his breastplate to find his ribs pressing out at different and unnatural angles"; or something else that was "hidden" and now can be revealed.

In 3e a character that goes into the negatives and is untended will likely die and so I do feel compelled by the mechanics to describe a serious if not immediately fatal wound.
In 4e a character that goes deep (but not fatally) into the negatives and with no surges still makes me hesitate to describe a "serious" wound although I will consider one of consequence where they are not getting up anytime soon without assistance. I would not feel mechanically supported though in describing a potentially fatal wound though.




pemerton said:


> Obviously in this discussion I'm closer to [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] - I'm a little curious about the narrative space in which exist wounds that (i) don't really impede performance at all, but (ii) in some sense (which is a bit obscure, given that they don't impede performance) take days or weeks to recover from, and which (iii) would strain verisimilitude or genre to be recovered from in the same obscure sense within several hours instead.



Perhaps theoretically, what seems quite small ends up in practice being very noticeable for a lot of players. Let's go for the most extreme example, the chest-sucking blood spurting critical wound. No expense has been spared in scaring the be-jesus out of the players that without immediate  assistance, their ally is going to be dead within seconds. How confident are you to give this narrative?

In 4e:
1) If he saves and second winds then he's acting at capacity within seconds. Fair to say major fail by the DM here.
2) If there's a warlord around, then through charisma or intelligence you're up and at them if you have surges left or not! Again, I would expect a few rolled eyes at the DM here in describing a wound that was obviously not that bad.
3) If he saves but can't second wind, then he's down until he spends surges during a short rest.
4) If he saves but can't second wind, and has no surges, he has to wait for the opportunity for an extended rest and 6 hours from there. By forcing a party to not achieve an extended rest, you can extend this out indefinitely but I dare say, the players will be rolling eyes at you for an additional reason, aside from sloppy and over-enthusiastic description.

I think in all cases, from the chest-sucking wound to even one quite serious, I have little confidence of my description not getting contradicted. Only if magical healing is used would I feel like I had "got away with it". The point being that this shuts off quite a few narrative options when describing wounds (to the point where when DMing 4e I simply state hit point loss when PCs go into the negatives.]

In 3e:
1) A character in the negatives needs to be successfully tended otherwise they are in a very bad way (as statistically described on the other thread - they are incredibly likely to die).

2) If they do get tended to successfully through only mundane means they regain hit points naturally and so will likely be conscious within the day (as long as they are of higher level; otherwise they might remain in the negatives for several days). [On that other thread, I have described healing as related to level a deplorable way of doing it as it produces so many anomalies, it should be related to constitution instead]. From this point they will take many days to reach full capacity (although more days for a hale barbarian than for an anemic and sickly wizard). 3e healing still has a lot to answer for you know. 
Is it perfect? Far from it. Is it even just a little bit better than 4e? Yes, if not by a huge margin. However, the clincher for all of this is not the theory but what typically happens in each game in practice.

3) The chance of the PC actually being forced to be naturally healed (particularly with a chest-sucker which focuses the group on producing the best magical healing available) is very low because of the ready access to this very same magical healing. Now this is the point, many see little difference between healing surges on one hand and magic sticks on the other; they are effectively performing exactly the same game function - they keep the party adventuring rather than twiddling their thumbs. *Except *that narratively speaking, magic cures all ills including over-enthusiastic DM wound descriptions! With magical healing as my backstop, I can be much more confident in practice than in theory that my outrageous wound narratives will never be contradicted in 3e. And it is this, perhaps more than the theoretical "ledge" that widens wound description options for the DM in 3e vastly more than how 4e potentially contracts them even further because of the common nature of restoring hit points through non-magical means.

Essentially, people will "buy" that magic is at work where as naturally they will not. My confidence for this wide range of wound narratives in 3e is substantially greater than I have when DMing 4e.

[By the way: No edition of D&D has ever produced healing to my liking because of the conjoining of physical damage with the abstract qualities of hit points.]

[As well: I actually like the idea of combat surges and hope that 5e will utilize them in a way so that you don't have the logjam of anomalies that you do with every other version of D&D.]

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Pentius

Herremann the Wise said:


> Perhaps theoretically, what seems quite small ends up in practice being very noticeable for a lot of players. Let's go for the most extreme example, the chest-sucking blood spurting critical wound. No expense has been spared in scaring the be-jesus out of the players that without immediate  assistance, their ally is going to be dead within seconds. How confident are you to give this narrative?




Honestly, the second we go in practice, 4e does just fine.  To paraphrase the last time a PC dropped into negatives in my 4e game:

"The kobold's sword slips between the scales in your armor, and comes out slicked with blood.  You drop to your knees, your vision clouded.  Then you drop to your face.  The others see a small, but growing pool of blood coming out from under you."

Maybe it was a bit, as some would call it, Heisenberg, but in practice that really doesn't matter.  The next turn, the PC rolled a 20 on his death save and got up.  I narrated that his bleeding stopped from the padding of his armor pressing against it, and he heard the voice of the paladin spirit haunting him tell him to get up right before he regained consciousness.

In practice, a lot of things that don't hold up under intense "What may have been" scrutiny never get held to that scrutiny, and the game is experienced as what happens, not what may have been.


----------



## pemerton

Herremann the Wise said:


> The only time I pull out a "serious wound" description in 3e is when the character goes into the negatives.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> The chance of the PC actually being forced to be naturally healed (particularly with a chest-sucker which focuses the group on producing the best magical healing available) is very low because of the ready access to this very same magical healing
> 
> <snip>
> 
> narratively speaking, magic cures all ills including over-enthusiastic DM wound descriptions!



All this makes perfect sense to me, and I would XP your post if I could.

In my last few posts I've followed Pentius in expressly excluding unconsciousness/near-fatality - in my case because I agree that 4e _does_ handle these very differently from 3E.

As I posted upthread in response to a post from [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION], in 4e properly inspecting an unconcsious ally requires a Heal check as a standard action (ie in mechanicanl terms, a stabilise roll) and the mechanics guarantee that the narrative will proceed in one of two ways - "S/he's fine, and should be up soon if we beat the goblins!", or "I'm not sure, but s/he might be in a bad way". In 4e there is no way of _confirming_ that a PC who is not yet dead is nevertheless dying (unless the group fudges the narrative of death, and allows a PC who "dies" in mechanical terms to be merely dying in the fiction and thus have time to utter famous last words, etc).

So there is never mechanical scope in 4e to narrate the "chest sucker", because this would be at odds with the mechanical requirements of the game set out in the previous paragraph.

So if one wants to narrate "chest suckers", 4e is definitely not the game!

(I don't really see this as an artefact of healing surges but rather of its death/dying rules. I seem to remember that a 3E variant of those rules was published on the WotC website during the transition period, and I imagine it might have produced the same issue without using surges to do it. But this is probably a minor point.)

Anyway, now come the bits of this reply where I think I disagree with you, but I hope in only a modest rather than a dramatic way!



Herremann the Wise said:


> In 3e a character that goes into the negatives and is untended will likely die and so I do feel compelled by the mechanics to describe a serious if not immediately fatal wound.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> A character in the negatives needs to be successfully tended otherwise they are in a very bad way (as statistically described on the other thread - they are incredibly likely to die).



I haven't seen this part of the other thread, but here's my maths for a PC dropped to -1 hp, and therefore losing 1 hp per round with a 10% chance to stabilise per round: the chance to recover is 0.1, +09*0.1, +0.9*0.9*0.1, and so on up to 0.9^8*0.1, = 0.1* (0.9 + 0.9^2 ... + 0.9^8) = 0.1 * 5.12579511, which is a little over one-half, and hence yields a chance of death a little under one half. Obviously this chance will grow as the initial wound becomes more serious - the chance to die if dropped to -9 hp is 90%!

I personally think that, if one is assuming that natural healing will be coming into play, this is a bit of an obstacle to narrating the chest-sucker - certainly with a 50% chance of natural recovery, this couldn't be narrated for a -1 wound, but even for a -9 wound one might wonder what sort of chest-sucker spontaneously stabilises within 6 seconds 90% of the time. (This is is one fact one aspect of the game where AD&D's one minute rounds probably aid rather than undercut verisimilitude.)

This is why I think your point about magic is so important - if you narrate the chest-sucker (or, frankly, just mention the negative hit points), the players _will_ reach for their magical healing, and this _will_ explain away the rapid recovery.



Herremann the Wise said:


> If they do get tended to successfully through only mundane means they regain hit points naturally and so will likely be conscious within the day (as long as they are of higher level; otherwise they might remain in the negatives for several days).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> From this point they will take many days to reach full capacity (although more days for a hale barbarian than for an anemic and sickly wizard).
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Is it even just a little bit better than 4e? Yes, if not by a huge margin.



Because the wounds don't impede the character during that recovery, except in the very abstract sense that the character is more likely, if struck again, to suffer a fatal rather than a glancing blow, I don't know that 3E is any better than 4e. It mandates a longer recovery time for "heroic verve" (the luck/fate part of hp) but I don't have any preconception as to how long this should take to recover.

Perhaps, in practice, many groups treat the recovery time as corresponding to actual physical healing, and just handwave over the fact that the imputed physical injuries have no impact on the character's performance. But then, following [MENTION=6676736]Pentius[/MENTION], it seems open to me, when playing 4e, to treat the recovery time as corresponding only to verve, and to treat the recovery of the actual injuries (which in any event don't affect performance) by way of handwaved free narration. Personally, I don't see any way to choose between those two even on aesthetic grounds - as [MENTION=3887]Mallus[/MENTION] has suggested upthread, I find it hard to see a preference for one rather than the other as anything but a preference of habit.

Which is not a criticism - habits are important and often make life easier and more comfortable - but does mean that the "narrative space" argument, at least as far as natural healing is concerned, is not very strong.



Herremann the Wise said:


> No edition of D&D has ever produced healing to my liking because of the conjoining of physical damage with the abstract qualities of hit points



It never occurred to me to narrate hit point loss short of death as serious physical injury until I saw the idea raised on these boards. But I was someone who migrated to Rolemaster in part out of dissatisfaction with hit points - they made no sense at a physical level, and I hadn't yet worked out how to use them as plot protection/heroic verve - and Rolemaster's treatment of wounds is mechanically reasonably satisfactory, although it doesn't always serve the pacing needs of the game that well.



Herremann the Wise said:


> I actually like the idea of combat surges



Besides their lack of verisimilitude when treated as physical damage, the other reason I disliked hit points is because I found "victory by abalation" boring. And still do. What I like about 4e is that its healing mechanics, plus its liberal use of conditions, positioning etc as important factors in combat, mean that it does not have a "victory by abalation" feel, at least for me.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> As I said in the post to which you replied, and have posted earlier upthread, _there is no rule in 4e that says that wounds heal overnight_. Nor is there any rule that implies it.
> 
> Thus my puzzlement - you seem to be concerned by an imputed feature of 4e that the game in fact lacks.



I don't know. I feel like I've been really clear about this, but I'm apparently missing the mark on this one. If so many people are missing what I've been trying to communicate over the past week, I can only assume it's my fault.

I'm saying that wounds always heal overnight _mechanically_ (that is, as hit points). This mechanically affects the story in a very direct, very real way. The decisions made based on this fact cuts off narrative paths (story paths) where it could otherwise be different (if wounds [hit points] don't heal naturally overnight, people might retreat, get reinforcements, proceed but fail, etc.). Does that help clear what I mean up?



pemerton said:


> I haven't seen this part of the other thread, but here's my maths for a PC dropped to -1 hp, and therefore losing 1 hp per round with a 10% chance to stabilise per round: the chance to recover is 0.1, +09*0.1, +0.9*0.9*0.1, and so on up to 0.9^8*0.1, = 0.1* (0.9 + 0.9^2 ... + 0.9^8) = 0.1 * 5.12579511, which is a little over one-half, and hence yields a chance of death a little under one half. Obviously this chance will grow as the initial wound becomes more serious - the chance to die if dropped to -9 hp is 90%!
> 
> I personally think that, if one is assuming that natural healing will be coming into play, this is a bit of an obstacle to narrating the chest-sucker - certainly with a 50% chance of natural recovery, this couldn't be narrated for a -1 wound, but even for a -9 wound one might wonder what sort of chest-sucker spontaneously stabilises within 6 seconds 90% of the time.



In the other Narrative "Challenge" thread, I wrote this (and Herremann wrote something similar):


JamesonCourage said:


> According to Herremann, if you're at -5 and you've got five shots at stabilizing before death, then you've got a 41% chance of stabilizing. Okay, that's a sizable chunk. So, we'll be generous and say that you stabilize every three rolls (fail, fail, succeed). You've stabilized at -7. Yay, right?
> 
> According to RAW, this is what it looks like without help:
> 
> 
> 
> SRD said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Recovering without Help
> A severely wounded character left alone usually dies. He has a small chance, however, of recovering on his own.
> 
> A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing.
> 
> Even once he becomes conscious and is disabled, an unaided character still does not recover hit points naturally. Instead, each day he has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, he loses 1 hit point.
> 
> Once an unaided character starts recovering hit points naturally, he is no longer in danger of naturally losing hit points (even if his current hit point total is negative).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you roll each hour, with a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. I said every two rolls, so you wake up at -9. However, you're still at -9, and you still don't recover wounds naturally, you've still got to roll 10% chances. Which means, yes, you lose another hit point and die at -10.
> 
> So, yeah, it's supported by 3.X mechanics. Without help, that character will almost certainly die.
Click to expand...





Pentius said:


> My main problem with that is that this change is no greater in scope than the dearth of magical healing, both via class and item, that is so crucial to getting the wounding narrative in 3e.
> 
> Thus my quip to Mort that we are not allowed to tweak 4e to taste.



Your proposition is to change mechanics (HP damage follows the disease track), whereas wound description and magical healing don't necessarily change mechanics (and probably don't, in fact). Thus, I would consider the former a house rule, but the latter flavor.



Pentius said:


> I missed this earlier, somehow(I blame the pagebreak).  I think I can answer this one for you.  The disconnect I have here is that you are equating the loss of HP with wounds, but these wounds have no mechanical or story impact, by RAW, other than making the next blow more likely to be (narrated as) fatal.  This means that any meaningful narrative and/or consequences of these wounds begins and ends in your hands already.  So, why is it then that you are unwilling to hold onto that narrative when the HP is restored?  The hp damage only ever served as a rough guideline by which you narrated the getting of wounds.  It never handled any consequence of the wound.  You were doing that yourself already.  So, why not just still do that?



Again, I feel like I've somehow colossally failed to communicate my point. I can only blame myself for that, as several very intelligent posters seem to be missing it.

I communicate HP as "wounds" because they inevitably are. That is, the only way one physically can die in 4e is, I believe, through HP damage. That means that at some point, they become wounds.

Now, that doesn't mean they're always wounds. And I'm not trying to say they are. I'm trying to express "wounds" in the sense of "mechanical loss of HP."

My point is when you mechanically lose HP, and you regain it back each night, you lose narratives where that wouldn't otherwise be the case, because the party has to make a very real and significant decision on what to do about it (press on, get reinforcements, retreat until healed, hide, give up, etc.).

Does that make sense? I'm not speaking of the description of wounds. I've tried to express that before, but I've apparently failed at that. I'm speaking of mechanical wounds. Saying, "wounds aren't there mechanically unless you make them be there by describing them" is missing the point, as I'm speaking of HP loss. I'm speaking of HP loss, and how always having rapid recovery of it (overnight) cuts out potential narrative paths (story branches) that might be there if wounds have a chance of lasting longer.

I think this should help clarify my view. I hope so, at least. As always, play what you like


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> Again, I feel like I've somehow colossally failed to communicate my point. I can only blame myself for that, as several very intelligent posters seem to be missing it.
> 
> I communicate HP as "wounds" because they inevitably are. That is, the only way one physically can die in 4e is, I believe, through HP damage. That means that at some point, they become wounds.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean they're always wounds. And I'm not trying to say they are. I'm trying to express "wounds" in the sense of "mechanical loss of HP."
> 
> My point is when you mechanically lose HP, and you regain it back each night, you lose narratives where that wouldn't otherwise be the case, because the party has to make a very real and significant decision on what to do about it (press on, get reinforcements, retreat until healed, hide, give up, etc.).
> 
> Does that make sense? I'm not speaking of narrative wounds. I've tried to express that before, but I've apparently failed at that. I'm speaking of mechanical wounds. Saying, "wounds are there mechanically unless you make them be" is missing the point, as I'm speaking of HP loss. I'm speaking of HP loss, and how always having rapid recovery of it (overnight) cuts out potential narrative paths (story branches) that might be there if wounds have a chance of lasting longer.
> 
> I think this should help clarify my view. I hope so, at least. As always, play what you like




I feel like I'm almost getting it, but still missing it.  Narratively, I'm not even sure how a difference in non-wound HP would be expressed.  The party simply lacks plot protection.  That narrates the same, differing only in the narration of how the party survives or doesn't survive another brush with death.

Now, meta-game, HP are a resource, and a party will be more cautious if they are low on such, but ime, surges and HP fit the same role.   A party low on surges faces the same decision, and the same narrative paths.  Do they rest and face the challenge at full resources later or press on face the challenge with less resources now?

In your experience the difference between days and one day may be pretty big, but given that there is no tenable reason for wounds to be the case, only verve, it seems very much arbitrary to me how long one waits.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> Now, meta-game, HP are a resource, and a party will be more cautious if they are low on such, but ime, surges and HP fit the same role.   A party low on surges faces the same decision, and the same narrative paths.  Do they rest and face the challenge at full resources later or press on face the challenge with less resources now?
> 
> In your experience the difference between days and one day may be pretty big, but given that there is no tenable reason for wounds to be the case, only verve, it seems very much arbitrary to me how long one waits.



In my experience, the difference between one day and several days can be literally insignificant, but it can also be massive.

Right now my party is tucked away in their castle. However, they've recently discovered that there's an assassin hiding somewhere inside the castle, and so they feel their safety is very much in jeopardy (the assassin has already taken a shot with a crossbow, hitting one of them). There's no healer in the party, but they do have a surgeon working for them (to help them heal naturally). Right now, the party has plans to make a move to take the nearby city, and have coordinated their allies to strike another castle and a second city on the same day. If the assassin injured two of them (say, the general PC and the negotiator PC) when they were attempting to leave to the city, the entire plan would be in jeopardy. Do they continue the two day trek to the city while injured? Do they go, and risk dying? Do they send someone in their place who is less capable, or certainly less trustworthy (either another general, another negotiator, or both)? Do they follow, but not engage directly?

All of these things are possibilities based on slow mechanical HP recovery, and as such, they are narrative paths lost from 4e. One day gives you some narrative paths. Three days gives you more. One month gives you more. Then again, in about 8 sessions, it's been a little over 26 months in-game already. So, time passes relatively quickly in my campaign. This makes HP damage heal quicker (even with a slow rate), but also makes HP damage more meaningful when time is important. I like this dynamic.

Does this help? As always, play what you like


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> All of these things are possibilities based on slow mechanical HP recovery, and as such, they are narrative paths lost from 4e. One day gives you some narrative paths. Three days gives you more. One month gives you more. Then again, in about 8 sessions, it's been a little over 26 months in-game already. So, time passes relatively quickly in my campaign. This makes HP damage heal quicker (even with a slow rate), but also makes HP damage more meaningful when time is important. I like this dynamic.
> 
> Does this help? As always, play what you like




It kind of helps.  All of these are based on a lot of meta-game knowledge that I recognize does impact play a lot.  Still, just as low recovery time opens the new path of reacting slowly, it cuts off the old path of reacting quickly.  The mechanics can't suggest both as the best course of action.  That suggests to me that it is a wash.  Maybe the precise path of restoring HP slower is preferable to you, and that's fine, but that undercuts the prevailing argument that we who switch to 4e have lost a huge swath of narrative ground.  Rather, it suggests we've made a trade-off of one path for another, which is much harder to assign a value judgement to.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> _Like earlier editions of D&D_ (and putting AD&D's death's door rules to one side), 4e has no rule about how long wounds take to heal...



(emphasis mine)

Not entirely accurate.



> *SRD*
> 
> Natural Healing
> With a full night’s rest (8 hours of sleep or more), you recover 1 hit point per character level. Any significant interruption during your rest prevents you from healing that night.
> 
> If you undergo complete bed rest for an entire day and night, you recover twice your character level in hit points.




(There's probably a similar rule in 1Ed or 2Ed, but I don't feel like looking it up at 3AM.)

So, the seriously wounded fighter (down to about 5% of his max total) all alone in the woods without magical healing will be:

1) completely fine by morning, if this is 4Ed.

2) probably still in trouble in 3.5Ed (or previous editions), and will likely be so for some time.


----------



## Rogue Agent

Pentius said:


> I missed this earlier, somehow(I blame the pagebreak).  I think I can answer this one for you.  The disconnect I have here is that you are equating the loss of HP with wounds, but these wounds have no mechanical or story impact, by RAW, other than making the next blow more likely to be (narrated as) fatal.  This means that any meaningful narrative and/or consequences of these wounds begins and ends in your hands already.  So, why is it then that you are unwilling to hold onto that narrative when the HP is restored?  The hp damage only ever served as a rough guideline by which you narrated the getting of wounds.  It never handled any consequence of the wound.  You were doing that yourself already.  So, why not just still do that?




This is true. Large chunks of 4E aren't roleplaying mechanics. You have to accept that mechanics like this have no association with the game world whatsoever. If you can do that, of course, the game works just fine.

But I tend to have problems with this because I keep trying to run 4E as a roleplaying game. When I do that, though, these mechanics are a huge impediment because I can never figure out how to describe the game world without having the mechanics contradict me five seconds later.

In the specific case of wound systems, I've never liked any system in which shooting someone with a gun causes a vague "maybe you got hit, maybe you just dodged and winded yourself really bad" resource depletion. (The old VP/WP system for Star Wars D20 suffered the same problem.) The mechanic doesn't make any sense in the context of the game world, so it inherently prevents me from roleplaying.

When I'm running games, I've got less of a problem with an explicit luck mechanic (where the character has a limited supply of luck for turning otherwise successful blows into unsuccessful blows). At least I know how to describe the outcome.

But 4E's hit-point-and-surge system just leaves me in the position of being unable to describe anything. Can't describe it as wound, because then somebody curing it by shouting at the character doesn't make any sense. Can't describe it as a lucky miss, because then somebody tending the nonexistent wound with a Heal check doesn't make any sense.

In pre-4E a depletion of hit points always represented a physical wound. The exact nature of that physical wound was completely nonspecific and could vary from character to character -- but it was always a physical wound. And while the _cure_ spells might get a little wacky if you look at them too closely in terms of how much physical healing they provided, all of the mechanics in the game reflected that every hit point lost was part of some physical wound inflicted on the character.

By way of metaphor, pre-4E hit points were like a bank account that inexplicably allows you to put in different currencies, simply total up the number of bills you deposited, and then withdraw that numeric value in whatever currency you'd like. A little weird if you think about it too hard, but at least it was all money. 4E hit points are more like a Schroedinger's piggy bank -- sometimes you put in a gold nugget and it comes out a gold nugget; sometimes you put in a bread crumb and it comes out a squirrel.

I find the whole discussion of "well, no edition of the game ever modeled the debilitating effects from wounds (until you got to 0 hp or thereabouts)" kind of a red herring. I may or may not care if a system _doesn't_ model something (no system worth playing is going to include a defecation mechanic; they're always inherently incomplete). My problem is when the system models something that _isn't there_. I dunno what to do with that in the context of a roleplaying game.



Pentius said:


> In your experience the difference between days  and one day may be pretty big, but given that there is no tenable reason  for wounds to be the case, only verve, it seems very much arbitrary to  me how long one waits.




To address this in another way: From my POV, the verve explanation of hit points never made any sense. It apparently did for some people who don't really care about dissociated mechanics, and that's great. But it didn't make any sense to me.

Fortunately, pre-4E, there was another explanation of hit points that made perfect sense to me.

But in 4E the only explanation that makes any sense is the verve explanation. Irrelevant to you if you were always comfortable with the verve explanation. But a huge frickin' deal for me and anyone else for whom the verve explanation doesn't make sense.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], that is a rule for recovering hit points. But it is not a rule for recovering wounds.

When the fighter has partially recovered his/her hit points, s/he can function without impairment (subect to some corner cases in 3E's fatigue rules, which don't exist in AD&D). Is this because s/he is now unwounded, or because s/he is wounded but is not impaired by those wounds due to herioc vigour/luck, or because s/he is wounded but the wounds are minor and non-impairing? The rules don't say.

When the fighter has fully recovered his/her hit points, s/he can function without impairment. Is this because s/he is now unwounded, or because s/he is wounded but is not impaired by those wounds due to herioc vigour/luck, or because s/he is wounded but the wounds are minor and non-impairing? The rules don't say.

The only difference between these two cases is that the fighter who has not recovered all his/her hit points is, due to the way the combat mechanics work, more likely to have the next blow suffered be a fatal one. That is, her heroic verve is reduced. (This cannot even be attributed to fatigue, and a correspondingly reduced ability to dodge/parry, because saving throws, attack rolls, open door rolls, etc are not impaired as they would be by such fatigue.)

So every edition of D&D definitely has rules for recovering hit points. But, other than AD&D 1st ed's death's door rules, there are no rules that I know of for recovering from wounds.


----------



## Pentius

Rogue Agent said:


> This is true. Large chunks of 4E aren't roleplaying mechanics.




I think you mean, "Large chunks of 4e aren't simulation mechanics."  The mechanics work within a roleplaying game just fine.  They just don't, on their own, tell you what exactly the narrative is(I don't hold that pre-4e HP did this, either).

To put it another way, maybe the HP=wounds explanation of HP made sense to those who don't care about disassociated mechanics, and that's great.  But it doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Samurai

My question is this:  Are there any other games out there in which a character can go from bleeding out on the ground, literally seconds away from dying, to full HP in just a 5 minute short rest, by himself, without magic or special regeneration powers of any kind?  There is only 1 game I can think of that has that... Toon:







Are there any others?  Pretty much every other RPG I know of has recovery times for hps.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> It kind of helps.  All of these are based on a lot of meta-game knowledge that I recognize does impact play a lot.  Still, just as low recovery time opens the new path of reacting slowly, it cuts off the old path of reacting quickly.



Which is why I like something like 3.X, which allows for both. If you have 100 hit points as a 10th level Fighter, you heal back 10 HP each night. If you take 10 damage, you can press on and be fine (thus you have the narrative path* of still reacting quickly). However, if you take 70 damage, it'll take a week of healing, which means you're debating what to do now. It presents more narrative paths*, as you can press on and be fine (low damage), or have a longer-lasting wound (mechanical HP damage, whatever) and a dilemma (high damage). I want a system that allows for both options.

_* Narrative path = story branch._



> The mechanics can't suggest both as the best course of action.  That suggests to me that it is a wash.  Maybe the precise path of restoring HP slower is preferable to you, and that's fine, but that undercuts the prevailing argument that we who switch to 4e have lost a huge swath of narrative ground.  Rather, it suggests we've made a trade-off of one path for another, which is much harder to assign a value judgement to.



It's only meta-game knowledge if there's no "serious" wounds (that is, HP damage is counted as a light wound that degrades your health in one way -you can take less punishment). There's been a debate on that, but I haven't really joined in yet.

Yeah, I get that people like the way it works. I said I don't like the way it works, and why I don't. I wasn't trying to convince anyone. Because, as always, play what you like


----------



## Pentius

Dannyalcatraz said:


> (emphasis mine)
> 
> Not entirely accurate.
> 
> 
> 
> (There's probably a similar rule in 1Ed or 2Ed, but I don't feel like looking it up at 3AM.)
> 
> So, the seriously wounded fighter (down to about 5% of his max total) all alone in the woods without magical healing will be:
> 
> 1) completely fine by morning, if this is 4Ed.
> 
> 2) probably still in trouble in 3.5Ed (or previous editions), and will likely be so for some time.




Okay, Danny.  Let's flip this around a bit.  We know that 1hp is bad territory for a 3e character, because of non-lethal HP.  I still don't see that this differs from being not in shape, but it is a form of impediment.

But what of the Fighter at 5 of 100hp?  Alone in the woods, in 3e, he's only really in trouble if he comes upon a fight.  He can run for 5 hours uninterrupted.  He can do half a dozen other types of physical activity not directly covered under non-lethal damage unimpeded.  Once the immediate impediment of strenuous running or swimming is covered by a handful of HP, he's not in bad shape.  

To put it another way, he can run, jump climb, attack, whatever, so long as he avoids 5 hour plus runs and getting hit.  We're considering him injured now, because of the low HP.  But what does he gain if he suddenly regains 95 hp?  Mostly, he regains the narrative ability to be in lethal circumstance and not die.  He is not any faster, stronger, or more agile than he was when "gravely injured".  So, if you really want to narrate a grave injury, what is stopping you?


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm saying that wounds always heal overnight _mechanically_ (that is, as hit points). This mechanically affects the story in a very direct, very real way.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I communicate HP as "wounds" because they inevitably are. That is, the only way one physically can die in 4e is, I believe, through HP damage. That means that at some point, they become wounds.
> 
> Now, that doesn't mean they're always wounds. And I'm not trying to say they are. I'm trying to express "wounds" in the sense of "mechanical loss of HP."
> 
> My point is when you mechanically lose HP, and you regain it back each night, you lose narratives where that wouldn't otherwise be the case, because the party has to make a very real and significant decision on what to do about it
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not speaking of the description of wounds. I've tried to express that before, but I've apparently failed at that. I'm speaking of mechanical wounds. Saying, "wounds aren't there mechanically unless you make them be there by describing them" is missing the point, as I'm speaking of HP loss. I'm speaking of HP loss, and how always having rapid recovery of it (overnight) cuts out potential narrative paths (story branches) that might be there if wounds have a chance of lasting longer.



That makes it clearer to me, thanks.

Yes, the rate at which a metagame resource like hit points is recovered has an effect on pacing and on player decisions. It could be hit points, it could be action points, it could be fate points.

Heck, it could even be an ingame resource: in games like D&D and high-level Rolemaster, for example, with readily available magical healing, the pacing pressures come not from recovery of hit points but from recovery of spells/spell points (which in those games are generally a PC resource and not just a player resource). And I can imagine a gritty game in which time spent making arrows and/or repairing armour is a major factor in pacing (the Burning Wheel rules are clearly written to support this sort of play, as they have detailed crafting rules and make acquisition of tools and workshops a potentially important part of character building).

Now that (I think) I've understood your point, I want to paraphrase it back to you this way: you dislike that 4e has no medium-to-long term resource recovery mechanism which might put a brake on the pace of play (or otherwise constrain or shape the direction of play); and 4e's approach to surge recovery is one respect in which it lacks such a mechanism (whereas natural healing in earlier editions served as such a mechanism at least when magical healing was not available). Is that right?



Pentius said:


> just as low recovery time opens the new path of reacting slowly, it cuts off the old path of reacting quickly.  The mechanics can't suggest both as the best course of action.  That suggests to me that it is a wash.  Maybe the precise path of restoring HP slower is preferable to you, and that's fine, but that undercuts the prevailing argument that we who switch to 4e have lost a huge swath of narrative ground.  Rather, it suggests we've made a trade-off of one path for another, which is much harder to assign a value judgement to.



Agreed. One door shuts, another opens. I think that 4e suits gonzo-fantasy better, with 4-colour comic, "save the world" style pressures that make long breaks to recover crucial metagame resources nothing but a drag on pacing.

A game like Burning Wheel, which is less gonzo in its default orientation, and therefore more tolerant of breaks in the narrative, and which also has other mechanics built in to suck up long periods of time (like training), probably handles lengthy healing better.

Rolemaster has lengthy healing, but as I think I posted upthread it also tends to favour gonzo plot lines (it certainly has the magic and the monsters to support them), which means it can be a bit confused in the approach to play that it supports. (And this wouldn't be the only respect in which it manifests such confusion . . .)


----------



## Samurai

It's not really meta-game knowledge if it is the character's reality.  To them, in the game world, they are back up to full HP after a 5 minute short rest, and they know that.  They also know they regain Encounter powers, etc.  This is the reality of their world, they need never worry about broken bones, punctured lungs, and other lingering wounds because they, and every other PC, has Wolverine's healing factor in the game, and they know it.


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> Which is why I like something like 3.X, which allows for both. If you have 100 hit points as a 10th level Fighter, you heal back 10 HP each night. If you take 10 damage, you can press on and be fine (thus you have the narrative path* of still reacting quickly). However, if you take 70 damage, it'll take a week of healing, which means you're debating what to do now. It presents more narrative paths*, as you can press on and be fine (low damage), or have a longer-lasting wound (mechanical HP damage, whatever) and a dilemma (high damage). I want a system that allows for both options.
> 
> _* Narrative path = story branch._




I think this is a false choice.  If you are hit for damage that will heal overnight in 3.x, that damage heals overnight, no choice involved.

If you are hit for a week's worth of damage, you can either wait a week, or if magic is available, not at all.  If any real consequence rides on the wait, and magic is at all a choice, then it isn't a choice.  You take the magic.  the magic will be back in the morning.

You only wait if magic is not available and high damage is dealt.  With the dice, though, not even the DM can make that choice for certain.


----------



## Pentius

Samurai said:


> It's not really meta-game knowledge if it is the character's reality.  To them, in the game world, they are back up to full HP after a 5 minute short rest, and they know that.  They also know they regain Encounter powers, etc.  This is the reality of their world, they need never worry about broken bones, punctured lungs, and other lingering wounds because they, and every other PC, has Wolverine's healing factor in the game, and they know it.




All this does is assume a hardline "HP=Wounds" stance, which, as I've described in detail, is far more damaging to my immersion than treating them as a narrative device.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], that is a rule for recovering hit points. But it is not a rule for recovering wounds.
> 
> When the fighter has partially recovered his/her hit points, s/he can function without impairment (subect to some corner cases in 3E's fatigue rules, which don't exist in AD&D). Is this because s/he is now unwounded, or because s/he is wounded but is not impaired by those wounds due to herioc vigour/luck, or because s/he is wounded but the wounds are minor and non-impairing? The rules don't say.
> 
> When the fighter has fully recovered his/her hit points, s/he can function without impairment. Is this because s/he is now unwounded, or because s/he is wounded but is not impaired by those wounds due to herioc vigour/luck, or because s/he is wounded but the wounds are minor and non-impairing? The rules don't say.
> 
> The only difference between these two cases is that the fighter who has not recovered all his/her hit points is, due to the way the combat mechanics work, more likely to have the next blow suffered be a fatal one. That is, her heroic verve is reduced. (This cannot even be attributed to fatigue, and a correspondingly reduced ability to dodge/parry, because saving throws, attack rolls, open door rolls, etc are not impaired as they would be by such fatigue.)
> 
> So every edition of D&D definitely has rules for recovering hit points. But, other than AD&D 1st ed's death's door rules, there are no rules that I know of for recovering from wounds.




I see your point...but don't exactly agree.



> Recovering without Help
> A severely wounded character left alone usually dies. He has a small chance, however, of recovering on his own.
> 
> A character who becomes stable on his own (by making the 10% roll while dying) and who has no one to tend to him still loses hit points, just at a slower rate. He has a 10% chance each hour of becoming conscious. Each time he misses his hourly roll to become conscious, he loses 1 hit point. He also does not recover hit points through natural healing.
> 
> Even once he becomes conscious and is disabled, an unaided character still does not recover hit points naturally. Instead, each day he has a 10% chance to start recovering hit points naturally (starting with that day); otherwise, he loses 1 hit point.




So, if our lonely wounded fighter takes a spill, and takes him below zero, but  makes his 10% roll, he stabilizes.  He may become disabled.



> A disabled character may take a single move action or standard action each round (but not both, nor can she take full-round actions). She moves at half speed. Taking move actions doesn’t risk further injury, but performing any standard action (or any other action the game master deems strenuous, including some free actions such as casting a quickened spell) deals 1 point of damage after the completion of the act. Unless the action increased the disabled character’s hit points, she is now in negative hit points and dying.




So, unlike a character who receives help, the lost 3.5Ed fighter in this case will have his movement hampered, and may actually fall unconscious or start dying again.  And he will remain hovering in this precarious state until he makes that 10% roll to start regaining HP normally.

And merely resting overnight gives no bonuses to that 10% roll to regain natural healing.

IOW, his movement is affected, his ability to fight is affected until he recovers his ability to heal naturally or he gets outside help.  He is suffering long-term effects from his injuries.

AFAIK, nothing like this can happen in 4Ed.


----------



## Oryan77

Crispy Critter said:


> Am I nuts to think that all healing surges are is a way for the players and DM to not have to worry about the long-term consequences of damage and healing?




That is the main reason I don't like Healing Surges.

You might as well just get rid of any sort of real-world challenge and just make the game even easier and simpler by saying, "Everyone gets a Healing Burst after every single encounter. It heals you to max and now you can go to the next encounter without any worries. Have fun!"

At least you admit to what they are really for. The thing is, nobody else seems to want to admit that all Healing Surges are is a way to implement "cheat codes" so the game is easier and you have less to deal with. Then everyone wants to rationalize it with incompatible explanations about what hitpoints, bloodied, and dying represent in order to feel ok for using cheat codes.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> The thing is, nobody else seems to want to admit that all Healing Surges are is a way to implement "cheat codes" so the game is easier and you have less to deal with. Then everyone wants to rationalize it with incompatible explanations about what hitpoints, bloodied, and dying represent in order to feel ok for using cheat codes.



Well, nobody who really loves 'em, at least, has stated such a position.

But I would not be surprised to learn that there is someone who has been waiting for that kind of rule change for a while.  That person may just not frequent the RPG boards.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> That makes it clearer to me, thanks.
> 
> Yes, the rate at which a metagame resource like hit points is recovered has an effect on pacing and on player decisions. It could be hit points, it could be action points, it could be fate points.
> 
> Heck, it could even be an ingame resource: in games like D&D and high-level Rolemaster, for example, with readily available magical healing, the pacing pressures come not from recovery of hit points but from recovery of spells/spell points (which in those games are generally a PC resource and not just a player resource). And I can imagine a gritty game in which time spent making arrows and/or repairing armour is a major factor in pacing (the Burning Wheel rules are clearly written to support this sort of play, as they have detailed crafting rules and make acquisition of tools and workshops a potentially important part of character building).



As a side note, my game has a rather detailed crafting section, and I have a PC currently is taking large advantage of it. The party often works around his crafting time (something was held back by two days last session while he crafted something to help the journey).



> Now that (I think) I've understood your point, I want to paraphrase it back to you this way: you dislike that 4e has no medium-to-long term resource recovery mechanism which might put a brake on the pace of play (or otherwise constrain or shape the direction of play); and 4e's approach to surge recovery is one respect in which it lacks such a mechanism (whereas natural healing in earlier editions served as such a mechanism at least when magical healing was not available). Is that right?



Um, I'll try to word it as simply as I can (I say "um" because I'm apparently not great at communication recently!): I like having many mechanical devices that allow for standard modern fantasy-genre fiction tropes to be realized in-game. I find that when it comes to natural healing, 4e has narrowed the window more than I find personally appealing (while it's widened it in other areas).

How was that?



Pentius said:


> I think this is a false choice.  If you are hit for damage that will heal overnight in 3.x, that damage heals overnight, no choice involved.



What "choice" are you talking about? I'm talking of a game that mechanically supports both narratives in the base mechanics. I'm saying that I want the game to mechanically support the storyline of "we were 'damaged' in a minor way, but pressed on without any real injury or impediments." This is would be low HP damage.

However, I also want the game to mechanically support the storyline of "we were 'damaged' in a serious way, and then we [insert PC decision] after considering our 'injuries'." This would be high HP damage.



> If you are hit for a week's worth of damage, you can either wait a week, or if magic is available, not at all.  If any real consequence rides on the wait, and magic is at all a choice, then it isn't a choice.  You take the magic.  the magic will be back in the morning.
> 
> You only wait if magic is not available and high damage is dealt.  With the dice, though, not even the DM can make that choice for certain.



It's not about forcing it, it's about supporting it mechanically. That is, if the mechanics support both, then both can theoretically be utilized. You can have someone who is injured and captured (and the captors don't waste magical healing on the PC, and might even lower his HP more), who is split off while injured (scouts ahead and is injured but escapes inside enemy territory, trap separates him from the party, sets off an alarm and gets injured and separated, ambushed and left for dead but someone comes along and finds him alive, etc.), the healer who is dropped in combat, a party without a healer (an all thief or warrior party), etc. In any of these situations (and others not listed, obviously), you can have a lot of interesting narratives open up if HP doesn't mechanically heal overnight. I've experienced it (that is, I've observed it while my players have experienced it). I find it interesting, and I don't want to lose those possible storylines.

I get that people don't agree. I'm fine with them voicing their opinion, and hoping that the game doesn't change. I'm not invested in D&D, so I'm not hugely invested in any decision Wizards makes. However, when it comes to game theory and what I like in a game, I am definitely invested in that, and this is my preference. As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton

Two weeks ago, I posted this upthread in reply to JamesonCourage:



pemerton said:


> I don't really regard a system as supporting a cinematic narrative if it is capable of delivering a very different narrative (gritty "modern fantasy") at the whim of the dice.
> 
> What 4e offers, that 3E and AD&D don't, is _reliable_ support for the cinematic alternative.




And now you say:



Pentius said:


> I think this is a false choice.  If you are hit for damage that will heal overnight in 3.x, that damage heals overnight, no choice involved.
> 
> If you are hit for a week's worth of damage, you can either wait a week, or if magic is available, not at all.  If any real consequence rides on the wait, and magic is at all a choice, then it isn't a choice.  You take the magic.  the magic will be back in the morning.
> 
> You only wait if magic is not available and high damage is dealt.  With the dice, though, not even the DM can make that choice for certain.



So I fully agree, but believe that I ninja-ed you by about 2 weeks!

(Great minds and all that ...)


----------



## Pentius

pemerton said:


> Two weeks ago, I posted this upthread in reply to JamesonCourage:
> 
> 
> 
> And now you say:
> 
> So I fully agree, but believe that I ninja-ed you by about 2 weeks!
> 
> (Great minds and all that ...)




Hahaha, consider my post an homage, then, my friend!

And props to my friend Jameson for continuing trying to explain his view in spite of my brickheadedness.


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> I'll try to word it as simply as I can (I say "um" because I'm apparently not great at communication recently!): I like having many mechanical devices that allow for standard modern fantasy-genre fiction tropes to be realized in-game. I find that when it comes to natural healing, 4e has narrowed the window more than I find personally appealing (while it's widened it in other areas).
> 
> How was that?



I think I get it, but I still find the emphasis on "natural healing" a bit unclear - because it's not really the healing of wounds we're talking about, but the recovery of hit points, which seem to me to be more of a metagame resource.

That said, I can see how the common equation of hit point recovery with healing makes the timing issue take on an air of verisimilitude that it otherwise might lack!



Dannyalcatraz said:


> So, unlike a character who receives help, the lost 3.5Ed fighter in this case will have his movement hampered, and may actually fall unconscious or start dying again.  And he will remain hovering in this precarious state until he makes that 10% roll to start regaining HP normally.
> 
> And merely resting overnight gives no bonuses to that 10% roll to regain natural healing.
> 
> IOW, his movement is affected, his ability to fight is affected until he recovers his ability to heal naturally or he gets outside help.  He is suffering long-term effects from his injuries.
> 
> AFAIK, nothing like this can happen in 4Ed.



OK, here you've caught me on my lack of familiarity with the details of 3E mechanics. This is why a few posts up I joined with Pentius in focusing only on hit point loss short of unconsciousness/death. And in my reply to you, when I excepted AD&D's death's door rules, I should have excepted 3E's death's door rules too!

Like I said upthread (post 640), 4e really does take a different approach to death's door. Personally I think this is pretty much independent of the surge rules - I think the WotC website had a 3E version of the 4e death's door rules at one stage - but it is certainly a change in approach from other editions.

I like it. I can easily see that others may not.



Oryan77 said:


> That is the main reason I don't like Healing Surges.
> 
> You might as well just get rid of any sort of real-world challenge and just make the game even easier and simpler by saying, "Everyone gets a Healing Burst after every single encounter. It heals you to max and now you can go to the next encounter without any worries. Have fun!"
> 
> At least you admit to what they are really for. The thing is, nobody else seems to want to admit that all Healing Surges are is a way to implement "cheat codes" so the game is easier and you have less to deal with.



I've been pretty upfront that I like the effect of healing surges on the dynamics of combat, and on the pacing of scenarios.

If you want to deride that as "cheat codes", that's your prerogative. Personally I don't GM a game aimed at providing the sort of challenge where the language of "cheat codes" even makes sense. The healing rules are part of the resources the players have ready to hand to engage the fiction via their PCs. Using them is not cheating; it's the game. It produces stories of near-defeat, dramatic recovery and (very occasional) tragedy.

If I wanted a different play experience, I'd GM a different game.


----------



## Pentius

Oryan77 said:
			
		

> That is the main reason I don't like Healing Surges.
> 
> You might as well just get rid of any sort of real-world challenge and just make the game even easier and simpler by saying, "Everyone gets a Healing Burst after every single encounter. It heals you to max and now you can go to the next encounter without any worries. Have fun!"
> 
> At least you admit to what they are really for. The thing is, nobody else seems to want to admit that all Healing Surges are is a way to implement "cheat codes" so the game is easier and you have less to deal with.




"Cheat Codes".  To think I once responded as though we could have any real conversation on an issue regarding the game.  I hang my head, now, in remembrance of the fool I have been.  Consider yourself ignored.


----------



## Samurai

Pentius said:


> All this does is assume a hardline "HP=Wounds" stance, which, as I've described in detail, is far more damaging to my immersion than treating them as a narrative device.




And as I said before, I can sort of agree with HP = Vitality, up until the point you are unconscious and making death saves each round to not die.  At that point, I simply have to believe that you've been wounded.  And you can recover from that to full health in 5 minutes.


----------



## pemerton

Samurai said:


> And as I said before, I can sort of agree with HP = Vitality, up until the point you are unconscious and making death saves each round to not die.  At that point, I simply have to believe that you've been wounded.  And you can recover from that to full health in 5 minutes.



Well, it's clear that you are only wounded if you die. Otherwise you weren't.

So the death saves don't tell us whether or not you die from your wound. Rather, they tell us whether or not you suffered a serious wound at all.

Likewise a stabilisation check using Heal. If it fails, the healer can't tell whether or not you're dying. If it succeeds, then you weren't particularly badly wounded, and the healer confirms this to be so.

In 4e's "death door" rules, _there is no such mechanically-induced state_ as "badly wounded but didn't end up dying". That is a difference from AD&D, and as [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] has pointed out recently, from 3E. It has nothing much to do with surges - you could introduce a similar rule into a surgeless game, I think.

Personally I like it - it introduces tension into the play of the game without needing to introduce wounds into the narrative of the game.

Others, of course, may dislike it. Perhaps because they want wounds. Or want wounds that don't result in death. Or don't want mechanics that leave the consequences of hit point loss to be determined by mechanical processes that happen later in time than that hit point loss. I know there are plenty of RPGers who fit one or more of these descriptions.


----------



## Pentius

Samurai said:


> And as I said before, I can sort of agree with HP = Vitality, up until the point you are unconscious and making death saves each round to not die.  At that point, I simply have to believe that you've been wounded.



Which is fair enough.  I make that assumption, too.







> And you can recover from that to full health in 5 minutes.




And you know, I've been seriously wounded four times in my still young life.  Three of which I still bear scars from.  All of them I was still walking within 5 minutes of getting the wound.  In all of them, recovery was an after the fact thing.  Now, indeed, 4e does nothing to represent the crutches I had after getting burns over my whole right leg.  Or the way I didn't have use of my right arm for awhile after it got covered in boiling oil.  Or the way my sternum was cracked by that car hitting me.  Admittedly, the brown recluse bite was cleared up quick by the anti-venom.  

But, really, HP in any edition does absolutely jack to represent any of these wounds.  4e is no worse off there than 3e.


----------



## Rogue Agent

Pentius said:


> (I don't hold that pre-4e HP did this, either).
> 
> To put it another way, maybe the HP=wounds explanation of HP made sense to those who don't care about disassociated mechanics, and that's great.  But it doesn't make any sense to me.




And this, right here, sums up the whole thread:

(1) If you prefer HP=verve then pre-4E and 4E equally serve your needs.

(2) If you prefer HP=wounds then pre-4E serves your needs, but 4E doesn't.

(3) If you are completely unable to understand the other person's POV (as you've admitted you are incapable of doing), you end up in threads that spin their wheels for 600+ posts.



pemerton said:


> Well, it's clear that you are only wounded if you die. Otherwise you weren't.




This is the Schrodinger's Wound I was talking about before. It makes it impossible to actually describe the game world except in a retcon after the fact.

And that, of course, is a huge impediment to actually roleplaying. How are you supposed to make choices as if you were your character (the definition of roleplaying) if the mechanics won't even let you see the game world?



Samurai said:


> It's not really meta-game knowledge if it is the  character's reality.  To them, in the game world, they are back up to  full HP after a 5 minute short rest, and they know that.  They also know  they regain Encounter powers, etc.  This is the reality of their world,  they need never worry about broken bones, punctured lungs, and other  lingering wounds because they, and every other PC, has Wolverine's  healing factor in the game, and they know it.




This is the trap, actually. If you try to treat these as roleplaying mechanics you end up with a universe where people really CAN heal their wounds by shouting at them. (Or, alternatively, be poisoned by blades that never touch them.)

You have to accept that these mechanics are not associated with the game world and that while you're using them you're not roleplaying. (Although you may be roleplaying near them and around them.)

The only other option, as you say, is to embrace a gaming universe where the fourth wall is broken and the characters know that they're just characters in a game.



Oryan77 said:


> You might as well just get rid of any sort of  real-world challenge and just make the game even easier and simpler by  saying, "Everyone gets a Healing Burst after every single encounter. It  heals you to max and now you can go to the next encounter without any  worries. Have fun!"




Actually, I don't understand why 4E doesn't do this. The entire system is designed to emphasize tactical challenge-by-encounter instead of long-term strategic challenges. But then they put this essentially meaningless and arbitrary limit on the number of encounters you can face in a single day.


----------



## Desdichado

JamesonCourage said:


> Yeah, D&D definitely is generic enough to emulate various genres. Not all, mind you. Not even all modern fantasy genres. However, whether or not you think that's true, my want is for the game to embrace different genre tropes. That's not speaking to the abstract/narrative/simulation style of the game, either.



Yeah, right.  My point exactly.  My _question_ though, is why healing surges?  Surely there are other factors of the game that pigeonhole 4e into the subgenre that it is that are at least as egregious as healing surges, if not more, at forcing the game into a specific subgenre?  Healing surges are easily house-ruled to taste.  The gonzo magic system, on the other hand, is much more difficult to work around if you want a grittier, more "realistic" type of fantasy.


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> I'm not saying, "I'm surprised 4e does this." I'm saying, "I dislike that 4e does this." I'm saying, "I don't like that it does this, because it doesn't fit my preference or desire out of the game." To that end, getting back, "but you shouldn't be surprised" doesn't really change anything for me. I'm not surprised. I'm disappointed.
> 
> As always, play what you like



I do, thanks.  And I don't play 4e--although not because of healing surges, which I actually think are a pretty good idea.  Out of curiousity, do you play 4e?


----------



## Desdichado

JamesonCourage said:


> I'm really not sure why you (and most other dissenters) are stuck on this line of thought when addressing me specifically. I feel as I've more than adequately expressed my view that _story paths are dying_ when every wound can be healed overnight. If it matters to you, ignore "without external healing" and focus on what I've been extremely clear (in my mind) on trying to express: that I prefer a system that allows for both long term wounds and short term wounds, _because both open up interesting narratives_. When you heal from every wound overnight, it works against many narrative paths I want available in the game.



But you do recognize, right, that it opens up many _other_ narrative paths that you otherwise would _not_ be able to traverse?  Granted, they may not be narrative paths that _you personally_ are interested in, but them's the trade-offs that designers make; they attempt to make the game that they believe the most players will enjoy the most, and recognize that they can't literally make _everyone_ happy.


----------



## Desdichado

Rogue Agent said:


> But in 4E the only explanation that makes any sense is the verve explanation. Irrelevant to you if you were always comfortable with the verve explanation. But a huge frickin' deal for me and anyone else for whom the verve explanation doesn't make sense.



But it doesn't need to be explained.  It isn't in other media, and that's fine.  In the martial arts or action movie, when the hero gets up after taking a beat-down and acts as if the blood all over his face is no big deal, is that ever explained?  I mean heck, that guy was shot and bludgeoned in a way that any "real" person would have died five times over from, yet here he is at the end of the movie, a few minutes in "movie time" later, acting like nothing's wrong.

Again; healing surges are _genre emulation_.  Trying to explain it is itself a red herring.  It's never explained in movies or books either.  Characters just keep on trucking, in spite of wounds, because that's what they do.  Healing surges very accurately emulate that.  If you want to say that it makes you unable to explain things from a realistic perspective, hey, OK, I can dig it.  But can you explain it in the movies?


----------



## Aberzanzorax

*A "fix"?*

A "fix"?


I was thinking about this, and the main problem with hp loss = wounds, at least in 3e, is the fairly-opposite understanding of healing magic (e.g. cure light wounds heals a smaller percentage of wounds on a lvl 10 guy than a lvl 1 guy).

So, I wonder, if it might be a narrative "fix" to consider/describe level 1 hp to be "wound related" and all other hp to be "verve related" in 3e. I think this might address that issue. 

Cuts on a lvl 10 warrior would be very small indeed, so small as to not be substantial wounds (more like scrapes...e.g. in the example of a poison sword poisoning him, a la Hamlet's end)...UNTIL he was at or below his level one number of hp, at which point, the wounds would be described as if they were the same as if he were a first lvl fighter (6 hp is a giant gash, 15 hp is a gaping chest wound). 


Might this address some/the rest/all of the wonkiness of 3e hp?

If it does, does it also address some/the rest/all of the wonkiness of 4e hp?


----------



## Desdichado

Samurai said:


> My question is this:  Are there any other games out there in which a character can go from bleeding out on the ground, literally seconds away from dying, to full HP in just a 5 minute short rest, by himself, without magic or special regeneration powers of any kind?  There is only 1 game I can think of that has that... Toon:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are there any others?  Pretty much every other RPG I know of has recovery times for hps.



Wrong question.  Who cares what other RPGs do?  Think of a classic action movie.  I dunno, Jackie Chain's _Legend of the Drunken Master II_.

You can literally almost _see_ the healing surges happen.

Drunken Master 2 (cantonese version) Final Fight - YouTube


----------



## Mallus

Oryan77 said:


> You might as well just get rid of any sort of real-world challenge and just make the game even easier and simpler by saying, "Everyone gets a Healing Burst after every single encounter. It heals you to max and now you can go to the next encounter without any worries. Have fun!"



Note that it was 3e that really trivialized the cost of healing, by granting casters more healing per level, and, more importantly, making healing items inexpensive (wand of cure light wounds). The default assumption was healing was cheap and easy to come by, as indicated by the low price.



> ..."cheat codes"...



The better analogy for using a cheat code is rolling a new PC when you die (allowing you to continue progress in the game). In fact, you could D&D pioneered the idea of "infinite continues" .


----------



## Mallus

Rogue Agent said:


> (2) If you prefer HP=wounds then pre-4E serves your needs, but 4E doesn't.



If you prefer HP=wounds, then pre-4e serves your needs... if you're willing to rationalize away all the ways HP don't behave like wounds in the slightest under those systems.


----------



## pemerton

Rogue Agent said:


> This is the Schrodinger's Wound I was talking about before.



The so-called Schrodinger's Wound problem is, in my view, grossly exaggerated. I've posted a couple of times upthread how the narration works.



Rogue Agent said:


> It makes it impossible to actually describe the game world except in a retcon after the fact.



It's not a retcon if nothing is overridden. It's rendering precise what was, earlier, ambiguous.



Rogue Agent said:


> And that, of course, is a huge impediment to actually roleplaying. How are you supposed to make choices as if you were your character (the definition of roleplaying) if the mechanics won't even let you see the game world?



Well, given that all you're doing is rolling death saves, the amount of choice to be made is pretty limited. But suppose that someone heals you, so you can spend a surge and recover from negative hit points - there is nothing stopping you roleplaying at that point (including describing both your unconsciousness and your recovery from it as you see fit).

It's not as if 4e is the only RPG ever to use fortune-in-the-middle mechanics.



Rogue Agent said:


> If you try to treat these as roleplaying mechanics you end up with a universe where people really CAN heal their wounds by shouting at them. (Or, alternatively, be poisoned by blades that never touch them.)



No. It's just about keeping the narration coherent. If the blade inflicted poison, it (at least) scratched you. If you then regained consciousness from the warlord healing you, maybe it was your memory of the warlord, and your resolution not to fail in the mission, that inspired you to get back up.



Rogue Agent said:


> You have to accept that these mechanics are not associated with the game world and that while you're using them you're not roleplaying.



Personally, I think that the experience of those who roleplay using these mechanics is a more reliable guide to how they work, and the sort of game they support.


----------



## Desdichado

It also occurs to me that all this isn't really a problem with hit points _per se_; but a lot of it is a problem with the _runaway accumulation of hitpoints_.

Once again, I find that higher level D&D--of any edition--is just plan difficult to rationalize.  If you keep hit points fairly low, then most of the problems described in this thread never really happen.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hobo said:


> It also occurs to me that all this isn't really a problem with hit points _per se_; but a lot of it is a problem with the _runaway accumulation of hitpoints_.
> 
> Once again, I find that higher level D&D--of any edition--is just plan difficult to rationalize.  If you keep hit points fairly low, then most of the problems described in this thread never really happen.




I have always prefered static HP in games where they stay the same no matter what level.


----------



## Desdichado

Bedrockgames said:


> I have always prefered static HP in games where they stay the same no matter what level.



Have you houseruled your D&D to play that way?  Or do you just prefer to play other games besides D&D?


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hobo said:


> Have you houseruled your D&D to play that way?  Or do you just prefer to play other games besides D&D?




No, i play D&D mostly by RAW. But I prefer damage and wound systems from other games ( and these days I am mostly playing other games).


----------



## wedgeski

Rogue Agent said:


> And that, of course, is a huge impediment to actually roleplaying. How are you supposed to make choices as if you were your character (the definition of roleplaying) if the mechanics won't even let you see the game world?



What choices are you denied, exactly? Has this been answered in the thread already?


----------



## Oryan77

Pentius said:


> "Cheat Codes".  To think I once responded as though we could have any real conversation on an issue regarding the game.  I hang my head, now, in remembrance of the fool I have been.



Please don't act high and mighty as if I'm not living up the your standard of conduct and degrade my post like that. I put the words in quote for a reason. It's an observation and if you take the time to consider why I may have said that, you might be less annoyed by it. I'm sure cheat code isn't the best way to describe it (which is why I quoted it), but it's a valid comparison:

My fighter heals up "magically" all the time. I have to come up with all kinds of explanations for why this happens, and all of it is contradicting. So then I have to think abstractly over & over to convince myself everything is ok with this ability.

It's pretty much the same thing is if I said, "I want my video game fighter to heal up "magically" but not refer to it as being magical. How can I do that? I'll just type in this Nintendo code after each fight and heal myself. I'll pretend (think abstractly) that it is not magical and it isn't really healing up physical wounds.

Dance around the issue all you want so you don't feel that way. But as often as I'm seeing people say, "think abstractly" and needing *all kinds* of explanations to defend the ability (which always breaks some other condition and then that needs explaining), it just bolsters my reasoning for disliking it even more. It seems the same to me as trying to justify using a cheat code in a video game.

I'm not trying to be annoying or insulting. This thread is about why we don't like Healing Surges. This is simply what I think. I'm having a real conversation here. If you need us to sugar coat everything so you don't feel insulted by what we think, then you never wanted to have a real conversation here.



> Consider yourself ignored.




That's a shame. My posts are known to add 10 years to yer life and occasionally give you good luck. I've even heard tales of those that came into good fortune after reading my posts!



Mallus said:


> The better analogy for using a cheat code is rolling a new PC when you die (allowing you to continue progress in the game). In fact, you could D&D pioneered the idea of "infinite continues" .



Very true. I'd say that is exactly like infinite continues. The difference is, I can continue with different characters with very straight forward explanations and everything makes sense. I don't have to think abstractly to get away with doing that. Healing Surges do not make sense and trying to justify their existence hurts the brain.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> This thread is about why we don't like Healing Surges. This is simply what I think. I'm having a real conversation here. If you need us to sugar coat everything so you don't feel insulted by what we think, then you never wanted to have a real conversation here.




Yup.


----------



## Desdichado

Bedrockgames said:


> No, i play D&D mostly by RAW. But I prefer damage and wound systems from other games ( and these days I am mostly playing other games).



That seems to often be the missing piece in a lot of these long discussions about game elements that people don't like.  Well, what are you playing, and does it actually affect you or not?  If so, why are you using an element you don't like?  That's often a more interesting discussion than all the theoretical handwaving.

It turns out there's a lot of things about D&D that I don't like.  It also turns out that they rarely (if ever) come up in my actual personal gaming, so I don't care very often.  High hit points is one of them, but since I dislike high levels for a lot of reasons besides just hit points, it really doesn't matter.  I never run high levels games and rarely play them.

It's actually amazing how many of D&D's problems (as percieved by me) are resolved by avoiding high level.  Not all of them, but at least two thirds to three fourths.  The rest are what my house rules are for.


----------



## Crispy Critter

Nagol said:


> That's pretty much the point.  That expediency comes at a cost.  Some people don't like that cost.  No one in the thread has expressed that HS aren't doing what the designers wanted... they are saying the effect of HS on the game is something they don't appreciate for their preferred style.  I don't recall anyone objecting to HS because they weren't effective in game terms.





Oh I know. I'm just trying to figure out why players are trying to defend the surges as making sense in the narrative when they never were put in place as anything other than a way to expedite healing so that the characters can go on adventuring. It's pretty clear that's all it is and it seems a majority of people who play 4E are fine with that. And if they are fine with that, why do they need to defend them by trying to prove they work in a way designers pretty clearly never intended them to work. They never were about simulating real healing. They were about getting characters back on their feet as quickly as possible because, I guess for some, trying to figure out how to parcel out healing the next day combined with rest was not enjoyable. They wanted to get on to the encounters. And there's nothing wrong with that if that's what they like and I don't understand trying to defend surges by trying to prove they are something else entirely.


----------



## Crispy Critter

Oryan77 said:


> That is the main reason I don't like Healing Surges.
> 
> You might as well just get rid of any sort of real-world challenge and just make the game even easier and simpler by saying, "Everyone gets a Healing Burst after every single encounter. It heals you to max and now you can go to the next encounter without any worries. Have fun!"
> 
> At least you admit to what they are really for. The thing is, nobody else seems to want to admit that all Healing Surges are is a way to implement "cheat codes" so the game is easier and you have less to deal with. Then everyone wants to rationalize it with incompatible explanations about what hitpoints, bloodied, and dying represent in order to feel ok for using cheat codes.




Hah. Well I'm not really admitting anything 'cuz I tried 4E, it wasn't for me and Pathfinder is my game of choice partially because I do like long term consequencies for damage and the magical/natural healing implemented with 3E/Pathfinder. I was just amazed that the conversation had turned into how healing surges could represent actual healing in the narrative when that really wasn't the point of them in the first place.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I don't understand trying to defend surges by trying to prove they are something else entirely.




Because of the combination of:

1) simple psychology- we are gregarious critters who want to be part of groups

2) when the group splits, we try to rejoin

3) the people who don't like HS are speaking in terms that don't relate to the designers' intents

4) to try to bridge the gap, HS fans are trying to speak in those same terms.

Ultimately, in this case, its just going to be a rhetorical merry-go-round.


----------



## D'karr

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ultimately, in this case, its just going to be a rhetorical merry-go-round.




I don't like the merry-go-round all it does is go around in circles.  I prefer the Ferris Wheel, because it reminds me of Ferris Buehler.

This is how the conversations sound.


----------



## Rogue Agent

wedgeski said:


> What choices are you denied, exactly? Has this been answered in the thread already?




Well, take the Schrodinger's Wound described in this thread for example: Your friend has just been hit by a troll and knocked to the ground. (Or did the troll actually miss him and he just threw himself backwards too vigorously in avoiding the blow?) Is he dying with blood pouring out everywhere? Or just lightly winded and waiting to catch his breath?

Note: This is how the pro-healing surge people have described the system.

It is impossible to make a meaningful decision regarding your friend's injuries (or lack thereof) because that information doesn't exist. Even if you specifically try to determine what that information is, it still doesn't exist. That information doesn't exist until it's retroactively created later on. It's like trying to pet Schrodinger's Cat.

DM: You enter a room.
Player: What's in it?
DM: Dunno yet.
Player: Okay. I walk across it.
DM: (rolls some dice) Turns out it had a pit in the middle of it. You fall down it.
Player: Like a hidden pit?
DM: Nope. Big ol' pit. Totally obvious, really. We just didn't know it was there until you crossed the room.

That's the same thing. Nothing wrong with it, per se. The current D&D boardgames include pretty much exactly that "discover the big, obvious trap after you've already crossed the room" mechanic. I have fun playing those.

But it is, of course, a mechanic completely dissociated from the game world and it is impossible to roleplay while using such a mechanic. (You can roleplay near it anda round it; just not while using it.)



Hobo said:


> If you want to say that it makes you unable to explain  things from a realistic perspective, hey, OK, I can dig it.




For literally 600 posts you've had people repeatedly saying that realism has nothing to do with it. And yet here you are, still rolling out the obvious strawman. Why is that, exactly?


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hobo said:


> Yeah, right.  My point exactly.  My _question_ though, is why healing surges?  Surely there are other factors of the game that pigeonhole 4e into the subgenre that it is that are at least as egregious as healing surges, if not more, at forcing the game into a specific subgenre?  Healing surges are easily house-ruled to taste.  The gonzo magic system, on the other hand, is much more difficult to work around if you want a grittier, more "realistic" type of fantasy.



Why healing surges? Because that's what the thread was about. It wasn't "how does 4e narratively fail you?" If it was, my list would be much longer. And, if it was, "how does 3.X narratively fail you?" I'd have a long list as well (or else I wouldn't have made my own game).

On a side note, I still don't like the "easily houes-ruled to taste" reasoning. Again, it's the Oberoni fallacy:


> *Oberoni Fallacy (noun):* The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.



In other words, just because you can house rule it, it doesn't mean that there isn't a problem. If you have to house rule it, the rules are a problem for you.



> I do, thanks.  And I don't play 4e--although not because of healing surges, which I actually think are a pretty good idea.  Out of curiousity, do you play 4e?



I do not play 4e. Then again, I don't play 3.X. Or any edition of D&D. I play the RPG I created when those RPGs failed in what I wanted out of a game. They're fun games, but they're too narratively limiting for what I want. So, when someone asks "what's wrong with healing surges?", I'll answer them. And, when they follow that up with, "what would you do to fix them?", I'll answer that, too.

I think that healing surges have a place in the game and genre conceptually. I don't like the implementation. I addressed both of these questions very early on in this thread (the first few pages, I believe). I'm not trying to broaden this to other areas of where 4e or 3.X have narratively failed me, but needless to say that though my game is based on the SRD, basically nothing survived untouched (including completely ripping out the magic system and implementing completely new rules of my own).

No system will be perfect for me unless I make it (and probably not even then). However, when asked why I don't prefer something in a game I don't play, it doesn't mean I can't speak very accurately on the subject from a game theory standpoint. As always, play what you like 



Hobo said:


> But you do recognize, right, that it opens up many _other_ narrative paths that you otherwise would _not_ be able to traverse?  Granted, they may not be narrative paths that _you personally_ are interested in, but them's the trade-offs that designers make; they attempt to make the game that they believe the most players will enjoy the most, and recognize that they can't literally make _everyone_ happy.



In terms of HP always mechanically healing overnight, there is no new narratives opened up over 3.X's implementation. That is, in 3.X, HP can heal overnight (if the damage light), giving you the same narrative as what's consistently achieved in 4e.

However, yes, there are definitely new narratives that have been opened up in 4e over older editions, and I feel as if I've said that a dozen times now in these two healing surge threads (this one and the Narrative "Challenge" thread). There are certainly ways in which 4e opened up the narrative. I don't believe that's the case when it comes to naturally recovering HP in 4e.

Healing surges attempt to open up new narratives. And, I think they do. I just don't like the implementation (but I've gone into that before). Natural healing though? No, I don't think that's the case, as nobody has pointed to something yet to make me believe so. As always, play what you like 



pemerton said:


> The so-called Schrodinger's Wound problem is, in my view, grossly exaggerated. I've posted a couple of times upthread how the narration works.
> 
> It's not a retcon if nothing is overridden. It's rendering precise what was, earlier, ambiguous.
> 
> Well, given that all you're doing is rolling death saves, the amount of choice to be made is pretty limited.



I think the problem comes when people investigate it in-game. As I mentioned a couple weeks ago to you, my players will do this in-game. If someone is injured, the guy with the Heal skill will stop in combat to assess someone's wounds before he makes a decision on continuing to fight or trying to heal them. If that happens, as far as I can tell, you have to say, "well, you don't know, it could go either way" (no matter how epicly trained they are), or you have to commit and possibly retcon. This is an impediment on the healer if he's trying to "roleplay" (that is, immerse, or achieve "actor stance", or whatever you want to call it).

You can end up changing the rules to be, "stabilizing someone is now changed to 'if you assess someone, and you succeed on the check, then you find that they're stabilized.'" That's a house rule (which I dislike as a "fix" in an established rule set; I love house rules, I just want a system that addresses most of my wants out of the gate, naturally), and it also might not fit with player wants. "I was looking to see if anyone was alive, but I was going to ask the party if I should stabilize them or not. We may just want to mercy kill them, and we haven't discussed it yet." If this is the case, you can ask your player beforehand, "do you want him to be stabilized if you succeed in assessing him?", but this brings the game out of a state of deep immersion (you might call it actor stance), which is a problem for some people (even if you quite enjoy it).

I think there can certainly be something to the Schrodinger's Wound problem, I just think it depends on the group. Which was the point, really. "Why don't you like healing surges?" "Schrodinger's Wound." "That's not too much of a problem." "It is for us." "We like it." "We don't." And etc.

As always, play what you like 



wedgeski said:


> What choices are you denied, exactly? Has this been answered in the thread already?



It's been touched on, but not really in-depth. It's about the investigation in-game, I think. Like the healer in my above example who inspects the wound (but doesn't try to treat it). He can't get a reliable in-game answer other than "it might be bad", even if he's Epic and unmatched in the Heal skill. At least, that's one way in which I think it's denying you a choice.

If you knew the wound was serious and potentially lethal, you can make the choice to stop in-game and affect that creature somehow (say, asking the party if you should stablize that creature). For example, the PC that's checking creatures might even be going around saying, "I assess the bodies of the enemies, looking for any survivors." In such a case, the PC certainly isn't rushing up to the first fallen body bandaging his wound. No, he's calmly checking to see if someone is alive or not. Then, he'll make a decision with the party on whether or not they should just coup de grace them, or try to revive them and take them as a prisoner/let them go/etc. However, that's a hard decision to make when you get back "you don't know, it might be bad" (no matter how skilled you are) or an answer that may not be true ("yes, it's bad" followed by stabilization and healing overnight; "no, it's not bad" followed by 3 failed saves and a dead NPC).

That's my take on it. I don't see how this isn't a legitimate Schrodinger's Wound problem that does take in-game choices away from the character while keeping a state of immersion. As I said, you can work around it, but you're basically forced out of "actor stance" to do so. Not a problem to some people, but it is a problem to others. Just depends on taste. Which, of course, leads us back to play what you like


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I think there can certainly be something to the Schrodinger's Wound problem, I just think it depends on the group. Which was the point, really. "Why don't you like healing surges?" "Schrodinger's Wound." "That's not too much of a problem." "It is for us." "We like it." "We don't." And etc.




I _love_ painted ponies and the sound of calliope music.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I _love_ painted ponies and the sound of calliope music.




I once did.  Then I read American Gods.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Crazy Jerome said:


> I once did.  Then I read American Gods.




Read it, loved it, and STILL love painted ponies & calliope music!


----------



## pemerton

Aberzanzorax said:


> A "fix"?
> 
> <snip proposal>
> 
> Might this address some/the rest/all of the wonkiness of 3e hp?
> 
> If it does, does it also address some/the rest/all of the wonkiness of 4e hp?



If I've followed it properly, your proposal interacts with the negative hit point aspect of the game, and the death and dying rules.

Because these are very different in 4e from what they are in 3E (which is, in turn, different from but closer to AD&D), I suspect that your "fix", even if it "worked" for 3E, wouldn't fit with 4e. (I'm scare-quoting "fix" and "work" because personally I find that 4e works fine and doesn't produce wonkiness - but also doesn't produce wounds, as I've explained above.)



JamesonCourage said:


> I think the problem comes when people investigate it in-game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> If someone is injured, the guy with the Heal skill will stop in combat to assess someone's wounds before he makes a decision on continuing to fight or trying to heal them. If that happens, as far as I can tell, you have to say, "well, you don't know, it could go either way" (no matter how epicly trained they are), or you have to commit and possibly retcon.





Rogue Agent said:


> It is impossible to make a meaningful decision regarding your friend's injuries (or lack thereof) because that information doesn't exist.



This isn't true. You know you friend has dropped. You can choose to inspect the wound. If you do, spend a standard action and make a Heal check. On a successful check, you learn that the wound is not too serious (because your friend is stable). On a failed check, you're not sure but are worried (because your friend must keep making death saves).

There is no barrier to meaningful decisions, and there is no need to retcon.



Crispy Critter said:


> I'm just trying to figure out why players are trying to defend the surges as making sense in the narrative when they never were put in place as anything other than a way to expedite healing so that the characters can go on adventuring.



In my case, because (i) I'm not persuaded that the 4e designers are uninterested in narration of the fiction, given posts that were being made by designers at the time (eg Chris Sims on these forums), and given the obvious influence of indie design on 4e, and (ii) I personally _am_ interested in having a coherent fiction in my game, and have not had any trouble incorporating healing surges into that.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> This isn't true. You know you friend has dropped. You can choose to inspect the wound. If you do, spend a standard action and make a Heal check. On a successful check, you learn that the wound is not too serious (because your friend is stable). On a failed check, you're not sure but are worried (because your friend must keep making death saves).
> 
> There is no barrier to meaningful decisions, and there is no need to retcon.



Is this explicitly explained in the Heal rules, and, if so, can you produce them? I'm not familiar enough with 4e.

If I'm clear on how it works, after a skirmish, the party healer can walk around inspecting enemy bodies for survivors (he's not trying to heal them, just see if they're alive). If he makes his successful Heal check to determine their health, then they're stabilized? This seems unlikely within the rules, which is why I ask if they're expressed as such explicitly.

Edit: All I've found is the following:


> *Heal*
> You know how to help someone recover from wounds or debilitating conditions, including disease.
> *First Aid*
> Make a Heal check to administer first aid.
> *First Aid:* Standard action.
> ✦ *DC:* Varies depending on the task you’re attempting.
> ✦ *Stabilize the Dying:* Make a DC 15 Heal check to stabilize an adjacent dying character. If you succeed, the character can stop making death saving throws until he or she takes damage. The character’s current hit point total doesn’t change as a result of being stabilized.


----------



## pemerton

The rules I describe apply to allies. And you've stated them in your post. The dying condition doesn't apply to monster and NPCs, only to PCs, so your question about inspecting enemies doesn't really apply. (This is a particular instance of the more general point that 4e's healing mechanics in general apply only to PCs.)

When a PC drops an enemy to 0 hp, the player gets to specify whether or not the enemy is dead or merely unconscious. Another PC could inspect the enemy fallen to see whether they are dead or unconscious - the DC for this is not specified in the rules that I can recall, but I would think it is a pretty easy check. But it does not give rise to any Schrodinger/retcon issues either. The status of the NPC is determined when the final blow is struck, and it is this status that an inspecting PC would determine.


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> Again, this is where I'm puzzled. Why not just say it's a deep gash?
> 
> When the healing surge is expended, the gash doesn't go away. The extent to which it impedes the character's performance (ie not at all) doesn't change. All that the expenditure of the healing surge does is change the likelihood that any future blow will be a (near-)fatal one. Which is all about restoring luck and heroic verve, not about clotting wounds.
> 
> It's true that this means the existence of the gash has no immediate mechanical significance (just like the scuffing of my armour in combat has no immediate mechanical significance). Or cousre, it might have indirect mechanical significance - for example, if the gash has been narrated, and then the PC jumps into a drain without mentioning any cleaning or dressing of the wound, the GM might require a save to avoid filth fever (just like, if the PCs have a big fight and then go into a skill challenge with the duke without mentioning any cleaning or polishing of themselves and their gear, the GM might impose penalties to diplomacy checks).
> 
> But _the lost hit points in 3E have no direct mechanical significance either_. They don't impede the character's performance. All they do is make it more likely that a future blow will be (near-)fatal. Which means they represent only a loss of luck/verve, not a physical impedence.
> 
> How quickly should heroic verve recover? I don't know - that looks to me like a pacing issue, and different tables and different games might want to answer it differently. _But I can't see how it has anything to do with the narration of the inflicting of, and the recovery from, wounds._



I don't think you are considering both sides of the coin.

I don't have an argument with your analysis of HP mechanically.
But again, months ago I was debating with you about the concept of whether the story follows the mechanics or the mechanics follow the story.

You are saying: here is what the mechanics say, now I will make up a story to fit that.

I want to say: here is what the story says, now I want to mechanics to model the results.  

When you put the mechanics first, elements of the narrative become ruled out. That isn't to say that you can't still create a valid narrative omitting those parts.  But, at least to some of us, simply being a valid narrative doe not make it the most enjoyable possible experience.

Before I sit down at the table I already know that the character are going to be in battles and, sometimes, they are going to receive wounds that require medical care.  Some fights they will get out of without needing any care.  And I can happily describe those in the same style that you are advocating.  

But what you are saying is that because you can always describe why no care is needed, the fact that care is never needed isn't a problem.  

To me this missed the point.  And I'm not speaking of the point of this debate, I'm speaking of the point of why *I* play the game.  I want that complete range of narrative.  If the game doesn't include the need for actual care at certain points, I'm going to find that game to be very unsatisfactory for my desires.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> The rules I describe apply to allies. And you've stated them in your post. The dying condition doesn't apply to monster and NPCs, only to PCs, so your question about inspecting enemies doesn't really apply. (This is a particular instance of the more general point that 4e's healing mechanics in general apply only to PCs.)



I don't see this getting resolved in our conversation, because if those rules I posted are correct, then it's very clear to me that you're house ruling in favor of narrative coherence. While I understand the motive, I dislike that it needs to be house ruled to achieve.

That is, if I want to "check" an ally, it doesn't mean I want to start to stabilize him. You say that the "stabilize the dying" action covers the narrative portion of checking a creature, where the mechanics disagree (as far as I can tell). This specific action seems intent on stopping the character from making death saving throws. I was asking about merely _inspecting the wound_, and nothing more.

To that end, I still hold that you've house ruled it as one and the same, "you didn't patch them up, you just discovered that they aren't bleeding out." I have two issues with this.
(1) It's a house rule "fix" to what I think shouldn't need to be fixed in the game.
(2) It's restrictive. It forces the player out of "actor stance" and into a place where he needs to narrate the fiction he wishes. To a group that wants to stay immersed, this is jarring enough to pull you out of a deep immersion state. If I checked on another PC to see if he was okay, and I heard, "do you want him to be stabilized?" I'd say, "uh, I was just curious if he was." I was taking an information-gathering action, and nothing more. I wasn't trying to shape the story other than by having my character investigate, and that's been taken away. By having a separate action that allows you to investigate in-game, you leave both avenues open. That is, you can investigate in-game (and stay in-character), or you can attempt to stabilize someone (and flavor it as in-game or from a more story perspective ["after inspecting him, you find out he's going to be fine."]).

To that end, can't you basically attempt to "stunt" or the like with skills with page 42? Shouldn't this cover areas that skills don't explicitly cover (like checking to see the physical state of a downed character)? If so, couldn't that be used to check the character in-game? And, if the above is true, wouldn't that produce the Schrodinger's Wound problem?

In other words, I think it leads back to being a problem to people that prefer to remain immersed in the game. If you don't mind getting pulled out of immersion (that's not to say the story or the game), it's probably fine (or even great). To others, I still hold that it's a problem.



> When a PC drops an enemy to 0 hp, the player gets to specify whether or not the enemy is dead or merely unconscious. Another PC could inspect the enemy fallen to see whether they are dead or unconscious - the DC for this is not specified in the rules that I can recall, but I would think it is a pretty easy check. But it does not give rise to any Schrodinger/retcon issues either. The status of the NPC is determined when the final blow is struck, and it is this status that an inspecting PC would determine.



I don't like that there's no wiggle room for NPCs (they're either unconscious or dead, not ever bleeding out), but that's just preference on my part (narrative paths and all that). So, fair enough on the mechanics (I assumed it applied to more since it referred to "characters", but that was my mistake).

As always, play what you like


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> you're house ruling in favor of narrative coherence.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I have two issues with this.
> (1) It's a house rule "fix" to what I think shouldn't need to be fixed in the game.
> (2) It's restrictive. It forces the player out of "actor stance" and into a place where he needs to narrate the fiction he wishes. To a group that wants to stay immersed, this is jarring enough to pull you out of a deep immersion state. If I checked on another PC to see if he was okay, and I heard, "do you want him to be stabilized?" I'd say, "uh, I was just curious if he was." I was taking an information-gathering action, and nothing more.



I've frequently expressed the view that the 4e rules aren't as well-expressed as they might be. This is one such case. But I don't think that drifting a slightly abashed ruleset so as to make it coherent is very serious house-ruling. Others may think differently - apparently you're one of them!

I don't really agree on the actor-stance point: the player says "I want to check", the GM says "Roll a Heal check", and based on the result of the check replies as appropriate: either the inspecting PC sees a stable, non-fatal wound, or is unsure but concerned.

That said, my general view, frequently expressed on these forums, is that 4e isn't aimed at those who want to play the game solely in actor stance. It encourages players to take some self-conscious responsibility for shaping the fiction.



BryonD said:


> If the game doesn't include the need for actual care at certain points, I'm going to find that game to be very unsatisfactory for my desires.



I can see that. 4e is very heroic/cinemtic/gonzo in this respect.



BryonD said:


> But again, months ago I was debating with you about the concept of whether the story follows the mechanics or the mechanics follow the story.
> 
> You are saying: here is what the mechanics say, now I will make up a story to fit that.
> 
> I want to say: here is what the story says, now I want to mechanics to model the results.



On the other hand, I don't really feel the force of this way of putting it, because (like Hussar) I want to say: in AD&D or 3E the mechanics also determine the story (eg if the damage roll is a fatal amount of hp, they dictate that the story is one about someone being killed).

Which is not to deny the contrast between 4e's rules and 3E's rules. My thoughts on that  contrast are in the thread I started on Monte Cook's account of the role of rules. (I think it is still on the front page.)


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> On the other hand, I don't really feel the force of this way of putting it, because (like Hussar) I want to say: in AD&D or 3E the mechanics also determine the story (eg if the damage roll is a fatal amount of hp, they dictate that the story is one about someone being killed).



I don't see that as remotely equivalent.

A giant's club has different dice than a goblin's short sword.  And those dice are informed by the intrinsic narrative qualities of the giant as opposed to the goblin.  Allowing a random range of outcomes within that narrative definition does nothing to undo the fact that it is still soundly based on the narrative concept.

In the same manner the fighter's chance to hit the ogre is defined by the narrative concept of the fighter and the ogre.  And the narrative concept of a 14th level fighter is distinctly different than the narrative concept of a 1st level fighter.  That the 14th level fighter MIGHT miss and the 1st level fighter MIGHT hit are not details that need to be predetermined.  It is that the chance of these happenings are acceptable to the players that is important and the differences in the chances are appropriate to the narrative instructions.

The idea that a fighter may never receive a wound that requires medical aid is a mechanical dictate that resides outside the range of narrative expectations.  

In my games the ranges of the possible are defined by the narrative*, the mechanics just decide where.  Surges trump narrative in defining the range of possibilities.  (And this is not the only place in 4E in which this happens)

* - I don't challenge the notion that you can present elements of 3E that don't do a great job of meeting my standard.  But I avoid or houserule those elements and I'm always open to better ideas.  If surges WERE the only issue like this in 4E AND they were less fundamental to the system, I'd just as happily play 4E and house rule them out.  But, this thread is about dislike of surges, so saying that I'd would play 4E without surges in that alternate universe really changes nothing I've said in this thread.


also interestingly:


> I can see that. 4e is very heroic/cinemtic/gonzo in this respect.



I've got no argument for your choice of terms in this context.

But it is interesting to note that my point has been that 4E FAILS, to me, in meeting the "cinematic" standard.  And several surge defenders have told me that "of course it doesn't", because fiction has different needs and expectations that it would be bad form for D&D to consider trying to match.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> I've frequently expressed the view that the 4e rules aren't as well-expressed as they might be. This is one such case. But I don't think that drifting a slightly abashed ruleset so as to make it coherent is very serious house-ruling. Others may think differently - apparently you're one of them!



I don't like a system that begs a house rule to help fill in a potential narrative conflict. I'd rather the system deal with it.

That said, I'm a big fan of systems that really help you "house rule", and things like page 42 are very nice (in my opinion).



> I don't really agree on the actor-stance point: the player says "I want to check", the GM says "Roll a Heal check", and based on the result of the check replies as appropriate: either the inspecting PC sees a stable, non-fatal wound, or is unsure but concerned.



Again, though, if it was me, I'd be a little annoyed (not greatly or anything) that the check was being used in a way I didn't intend it to be used. I'm trying to investigate the game as it currently stands, and my investigation is altering the past fiction (just how bad the wound was) based off of my investigation. To an extent, I'd consider this nearly retconning (nothing has actually been replaced, but past fiction is now being filled in).



> That said, my general view, frequently expressed on these forums, is that 4e isn't aimed at those who want to play the game solely in actor stance. It encourages players to take some self-conscious responsibility for shaping the fiction.



That's probably very true. As I said, though, it's going to justifiably cause some people to dislike the way the game operates. This happens no matter what (your view of 3.X mechanics did the same), but it boils down to preference more than what's "right" or "wrong". Which leads me, of course, to play what you like


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> That said, my general view, frequently expressed on these forums, is that 4e isn't aimed at those who want to play the game solely in actor stance. It encourages players to take some self-conscious responsibility for shaping the fiction.



Do you consider it at all a concern that the current edition of the D&D brand doesn't support that style of play?

Do you ever read any fiction and expect the characters to be responsible for "shaping the fiction" in the way you expect 4E players to?  I mean, my players "shape" the fiction all the time by choosing to attack the giant or parlay, or something as simple as going left or right.  But, correct me if I'm wrong, that really has nothing to do with what you mean by that.  You mean in the sense that players all share some measure of authorship control which completely transcends being in the shoes of a single character within the plot.


----------



## Hussar

Oryan77 said:


> That is the main reason I don't like Healing Surges.
> 
> You might as well just get rid of any sort of real-world challenge and just make the game even easier and simpler by saying, "Everyone gets a Healing Burst after every single encounter. It heals you to max and now you can go to the next encounter without any worries. Have fun!"
> 
> At least you admit to what they are really for. The thing is, nobody else seems to want to admit that all Healing Surges are is a way to implement "cheat codes" so the game is easier and you have less to deal with. Then everyone wants to rationalize it with incompatible explanations about what hitpoints, bloodied, and dying represent in order to feel ok for using cheat codes.




In 3e, it was called healing wands.  Same effect.


----------



## Hussar

Hobo said:


> But you do recognize, right, that it opens up many _other_ narrative paths that you otherwise would _not_ be able to traverse?  Granted, they may not be narrative paths that _you personally_ are interested in, but them's the trade-offs that designers make; they attempt to make the game that they believe the most players will enjoy the most, and recognize that they can't literally make _everyone_ happy.




Wow, this sounds familiar somehow... Oh yeah, I said pretty much exactly the same thing several pages back.


----------



## Hussar

JamesonCourage said:


> I don't see this getting resolved in our conversation, because if those rules I posted are correct, then it's very clear to me that you're house ruling in favor of narrative coherence. While I understand the motive, I dislike that it needs to be house ruled to achieve.
> 
> That is, if I want to "check" an ally, it doesn't mean I want to start to stabilize him. You say that the "stabilize the dying" action covers the narrative portion of checking a creature, where the mechanics disagree (as far as I can tell). This specific action seems intent on stopping the character from making death saving throws. I was asking about merely _inspecting the wound_, and nothing more.
> 
> To that end, I still hold that you've house ruled it as one and the same, "you didn't patch them up, you just discovered that they aren't bleeding out." I have two issues with this.
> (1) It's a house rule "fix" to what I think shouldn't need to be fixed in the game.
> (2) It's restrictive. It forces the player out of "actor stance" and into a place where he needs to narrate the fiction he wishes. To a group that wants to stay immersed, this is jarring enough to pull you out of a deep immersion state. If I checked on another PC to see if he was okay, and I heard, "do you want him to be stabilized?" I'd say, "uh, I was just curious if he was." I was taking an information-gathering action, and nothing more. I wasn't trying to shape the story other than by having my character investigate, and that's been taken away. By having a separate action that allows you to investigate in-game, you leave both avenues open. That is, you can investigate in-game (and stay in-character), or you can attempt to stabilize someone (and flavor it as in-game or from a more story perspective ["after inspecting him, you find out he's going to be fine."]).
> 
> To that end, can't you basically attempt to "stunt" or the like with skills with page 42? Shouldn't this cover areas that skills don't explicitly cover (like checking to see the physical state of a downed character)? If so, couldn't that be used to check the character in-game? And, if the above is true, wouldn't that produce the Schrodinger's Wound problem?
> 
> In other words, I think it leads back to being a problem to people that prefer to remain immersed in the game. If you don't mind getting pulled out of immersion (that's not to say the story or the game), it's probably fine (or even great). To others, I still hold that it's a problem.
> 
> 
> I don't like that there's no wiggle room for NPCs (they're either unconscious or dead, not ever bleeding out), but that's just preference on my part (narrative paths and all that). So, fair enough on the mechanics (I assumed it applied to more since it referred to "characters", but that was my mistake).
> 
> As always, play what you like




The problem here is, you're presuming that the mechanics dictate the description.  They don't.  That's how 3e works.  In 3e, the creature has dropped you into negative HP's, you ARE GOING TO DIE!  The mechanics tell you exactly what's happening, as it happens.

4e doesn't do that.  4e allows a small amount of player authorial control over the situation.  Making a Heal check, for example, could be stabilizing someone, or it could just be to determine how wounded the person is.  However, that's going to be very situational.  After all, how many people could actually tell you that someone has a ruptured spleen by looking at them while the injured person is wearing full plate armor?

Like I've said multiple times, people are willing to believe six impossible things, but apparently that seventh is just a step too far.

Me, I want a game where the players influence the story, rather than the game dictating the story.  Apparently, some are very content with having the mechanics dictate the story.


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> Do you consider it at all a concern that the current edition of the D&D brand doesn't support that style of play?
> 
> Do you ever read any fiction and expect the characters to be responsible for "shaping the fiction" in the way you expect 4E players to?  I mean, my players "shape" the fiction all the time by choosing to attack the giant or parlay, or something as simple as going left or right.  But, correct me if I'm wrong, that really has nothing to do with what you mean by that.  You mean in the sense that players all share some measure of authorship control which completely transcends being in the shoes of a single character within the plot.




To be frankly honest?  No.  Not in the slightest.  

For one, you're talking about a level of immersion that, IMO, is impossible in D&D.  I mean, after the first round of combat, most groups sound like a rather complicated version of Bingo.  Character's in stories don't crack wise at the table.  They don't make Monte Python (or pick your geek cultural reference of choice) jokes.  On and on and on.  

Players in D&D are players first.  The game is FAR too mechanical to ever be anything else.  The idea that D&D is as immersive as you're claiming, to me, is so far beyond anything I've seen or heard anywhere that it's not even close to reality.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I have never had an issue with immersion in earlier editions.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I have never had an issue with immersion in earlier editions.




Immersion to the point where all of your actions are 100% based in the narrative of the game and absolutely no meta-gaming is going on at all?  

I don't have a problem with immersion either.  In any edition.  But, to the degree that BryonD is talking about?  That I've never seen.

And, I'll give you a perfect example of why I don't think this is a consideration.  Take JamesonCourage for a moment.  Earlier, he talked about how serious wounds had an impact on his campaign some 8-10 times.  Sounds like a lot right?

But, IIRC, his last campaign was 5 years and some 2-3000 hours of gameplay long.  That means that serious wounds came into play once ever 200 hours of game play.  I don't know about you, but, I run entire campaigns in less play time than that.

This is why I characterize it as, not so much a large narrative space, but a narrative puddle.  If this is something that comes up once a campaign, at best, who cares?  Do we really want to have mechanics for that?

So, back to BryonD's question about supporting a playstyle, in light of JamesonCourage's post, this is why I couldn't really care less that this has been excised from 4e.  It's such a tiny corner case that why should I care?


----------



## Bedrockgames

I don't see what the serious wound issue has to do with the claim that D&D isn't an immersive game. 

I also think you are presenting and impossible standard for immersion there. Requiring thag rules considerations and metagame thinking never factor in for immersion to occur would pretty much eliminate any game with mechanics as an option.

When it comes to immersion, what people find disruptive is going to be a personal thing. In my view 1e and 2e enabled the most immersion (for me). 3e presented a few things i found disruptive but could overlook. 4e added more stuff to the point I found immersion difficult. But my business partner pretty much had the opposite experience. 4e enabled greater immersion for him. A lot of this just boils down to what matters to you as a player during character creation and play. In my opinion, no edition has a monopoly on immersion.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> Do you consider it at all a concern that the current edition of the D&D brand doesn't support that style of play?



No. It obviously is a concern for others, but for me, it's the reason I'm playing D&D at all. If I wanted to GM an actor-stance driven game, I'd be GMing HARP (or perhaps, despite my resolution never to GM it again, Rolemaster).



BryonD said:


> Do you ever read any fiction and expect the characters to be responsible for "shaping the fiction" in the way you expect 4E players to?



Generally not, although there are exceptions of the "Purple Rose of Cairo"/"Singing Detective" variety.

But playing an RPG isn't reading fiction. Nor is GMing it writing fiction. It has a participant/audience dimension. I expect my players to build the gameworld that surrounds their PCs (dwarvish customs, drow cults, fallen human cities, religious observances, etc) and am happy for them to take responsibility (where appropriate) for more immediate aspects of the fiction as well.



BryonD said:


> I mean, my players "shape" the fiction all the time by choosing to attack the giant or parlay, or something as simple as going left or right.  But, correct me if I'm wrong, that really has nothing to do with what you mean by that.  You mean in the sense that players all share some measure of authorship control which completely transcends being in the shoes of a single character within the plot.



Yes, but I think it is important not to over-emphasise the degree of transcendence. The players are still expected to advocate for their PCs - they are not expected to suspend that advocacy in order to consider the broader interests of the story. It's just that, in so advocating, they have entry points into the fiction other than those that come from declaring actions on the part of their PCs. It can be as simple as metagaming a convenient rendezvous, or spontaneously inventing a secret hand signal to try and identify fellow cult members among NPCs (the player was hoping for the captain, I gave him a lieutenant). It can be as complex as positing a reason why two gods would conspire to return a PC back to life rather than let him pass into death (which has turned out to be one of the major foci of the campaign - one PC's quest to restore the empire of Nerath by reconstructing the Sceptre of Erathis, aka the Rod of Seven Parts). Sometimes it is inherent in the mechanics - using Come and Get It (unerrated at my table) or choosing to be a Questing Knight (and therefore dictating that the Raven Queen - a divine NPC - has bestowed a quest upon the PC).

As I hope comes through in my posts - I certainly don't try and hide it! - the main influences on how I GM 4e are HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling, and Burning Wheel. 4e is not identical to any of these games, either mechanically or in terms of how the fiction is created among the participants (and of course they all differ from one another). But in terms of the expectations these games have about player participation in shaping the fiction, and the GM's responsibility to build the game around the thematic concerns the players evince by the way they build and play their PCs, I think there is a high degree of affinity.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> To be frankly honest?  No.  Not in the slightest.
> 
> For one, you're talking about a level of immersion that, IMO, is impossible in D&D.  I mean, after the first round of combat, most groups sound like a rather complicated version of Bingo.  Character's in stories don't crack wise at the table.  They don't make Monte Python (or pick your geek cultural reference of choice) jokes.  On and on and on.
> 
> Players in D&D are players first.  The game is FAR too mechanical to ever be anything else.  The idea that D&D is as immersive as you're claiming, to me, is so far beyond anything I've seen or heard anywhere that it's not even close to reality.



OK, so you are simply flat out stating that the game experience as I enjoy is inconceivable to you.

The next time someone says to you that 4E feels like a board game to them, remember that they may simply be speaking from a perspective in which that makes perfect sense to them.

If what you say is universally true, why do you think I've been sticking to my point for so long?  

And, lastly, I do find it a little sad that that you not only can't achieve the immersion I'm speaking about, but can't even accept that it is possible.  

I've been debating with you for years and now you flat out state that the topic is imperceptible to you.  It is like we have been debating the merits of Picasso vs. Monet and now you throw out that you are blind.  

Do you REALLY mean what you said, or were you simply wildly over-stating in order to make a point?  I truly hope it is the later.


----------



## Mort

BryonD said:


> Do you consider it at all a concern that the current edition of the D&D brand doesn't support that style of play?
> 
> Do you ever read any fiction and expect the characters to be responsible for "shaping the fiction" in the way you expect 4E players to?  I mean, my players "shape" the fiction all the time by choosing to attack the giant or parlay, or something as simple as going left or right.  But, correct me if I'm wrong, that really has nothing to do with what you mean by that.  You mean in the sense that players all share some measure of authorship control which completely transcends being in the shoes of a single character within the plot.




A D&D game is not a novel.  The characters are not (and should not be) merely pawns to be molded by an all-knowing writer. IMO any DM that thinks he and only he should have any control over the shape and direction of the game world is depriving both himself and his players.

I'm not necessarily talking world shattering stuff here realy. Lets say the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.

The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."

The DM looks at his map and sees that the villain is going by a direct route with the players unlikely to catch him.  Assuming teleportation magic is not at play does the DM a) give the players no option other than to try and catch the villain by directly following him or b) allow the player (assuming he rolled well on a geography check or similar skill roll) to find a previously unknown route (maybe not even on the map) that allows them to catch the villain (essentially changing the reality of the game world as he planned it)?

I think option b can be a great way for the players to influence the game world – yet too many DMs would look at their map, not see a route, and dismiss this out of hand because it doesn’t fit their (and only their) story.

Note the above is completely the same in 3e or 4e btw (and only tangential to the thread, but I thought I'd answer the question).


----------



## BryonD

pemerton said:


> No. It obviously is a concern for others, but for me, it's the reason I'm playing D&D at all. If I wanted to GM an actor-stance driven game, I'd be GMing HARP (or perhaps, despite my resolution never to GM it again, Rolemaster).



And that is certainly fair enough.

If I speak purely for my own interest the fact that 4E had turned away from that style is no skin off my nose.  I still have awesome games.

But I do feel that there would be some merit to the idea that the benchmark brand name both stay more true to its roots and also do a better job of casting a wider net for its fan base.

If 4E was a different game and you and I both completely loathed it for completely different reasons, but (1) we both still had games that offered what we each wanted and (2) D&D had a maximum possible appeal to the market as a whole, then that would be "better".



> Generally not, although there are exceptions of the "Purple Rose of Cairo"/"Singing Detective" variety.



Agreed, there are certainly "third wall" plays on fiction out there.  If someone wanted to play in that style the debate would be a whole new thing.



> But playing an RPG isn't reading fiction. Nor is GMing it writing fiction. It has a participant/audience dimension. I expect my players to build the gameworld that surrounds their PCs (dwarvish customs, drow cults, fallen human cities, religious observances, etc) and am happy for them to take responsibility (where appropriate) for more immediate aspects of the fiction as well.



eh, I often and readily incorporate ideas like these from my players.  But never in a way that is any different than what you would accept, and expect in reading a novel.

You could be 400 pages into a novel and have a protagonist use an old dwarven greeting that has never been previously established in the narrative, and then proceed to have a conversation with a dwarf about a fallen human city that has also never been mentioned before.  As long as these new elements don't *contradict* existing elements, then they are awesome.  

But this has nothing to do with the point I made.  "Shaping the fiction" as you describe here is completely compatible with being in the story.  Shaping the fiction by actually changing the world around you by whim is a completely different matter.  And whether that comes from explaining why an unintelligent plant responds to Come And Get It or why no fighter may EVER be wounded in a way that requires medical care, these are elements that create the break down in the narrative merit.

I remember being a little kid, maybe 9 or 10, and first hearing of D&D.  It was like lightbulbs going on in my head.  I already enjoyed various board games in which your pawn might be a "wizard", and I also enjoyed kids make believe.  And I knew that this new thing had elements of each but fully transcended either one.  And, truly, the only difference now is the level of sophistication.  



> Yes, but I think it is important not to over-emphasise the degree of transcendence. The players are still expected to advocate for their PCs - they are not expected to suspend that advocacy in order to consider the broader interests of the story. It's just that, in so advocating, they have entry points into the fiction other than those that come from declaring actions on the part of their PCs. It can be as simple as metagaming a convenient rendezvous, or spontaneously inventing a secret hand signal to try and identify fellow cult members among NPCs (the player was hoping for the captain, I gave him a lieutenant). It can be as complex as positing a reason why two gods would conspire to return a PC back to life rather than let him pass into death (which has turned out to be one of the major foci of the campaign - one PC's quest to restore the empire of Nerath by reconstructing the Sceptre of Erathis, aka the Rod of Seven Parts). Sometimes it is inherent in the mechanics - using Come and Get It (unerrated at my table) or choosing to be a Questing Knight (and therefore dictating that the Raven Queen - a divine NPC - has bestowed a quest upon the PC).



Again, most of this gets back to substituting things that DO fit into novels.  So it really doesn't help make the "fighters NEVER need medical care" and other disconnect problems that the 4E rule set does generate.

Every player in my games constantly advocates for their character.  Have I ever suggested that they would do any less?  But they accept and embrace that there are limits on what they can do in pursuit of that advocacy.  

You are turning the fact that your players have a lot more power into an incorrect suggestion that my players have both no power and no intent.

They have all the desire, but they also have all the power they want and we agree that more would actually make the game LESS satisfying.


----------



## BryonD

Mort said:


> A D&D game is not a novel.



As with Perm, you are dodging the complaints that I have offered and substituting non-issues.

Critically importantly, the scenario you described would work perfectly in a novel.  So how does that support your statement that "A D&D game is not a novel."  Things that make sense in a novel makes sense in games that strive to be like a novel.  This works.

Never being wounded in a way that requires medical care doesn't meet that standard.

I've stated many times before that the thing that makes *playing* so awesome is having the players do things I never expected and seeing the story go in directions I never imagined.  I have no desire to be "all-knowing" and, to the contrary, that the DM is not is just as important to the quality of the experience.  But everything they do fits within the boundaries of things that could also happen in a novel.  There is a VAST collection of potentials that meet that standard.  In practical terms the options are effectively uncountable.  But there are still things that don't qualify.  

If it fits in a novel, it is not going to be a valid example.


----------



## Matt James

D&D is a shared storytelling experience. For a few hours each week, participants can forget the office, school, or other laborious and mundane tasks. You get to be a shining knight or cunning thief, a powerful wizard or rampaging barbarian. The _*point*_ of the game is to hang out with friends and play out epic stories that we can't otherwise accomplish in real life. 

I loathe pretty much anyone that tries to detract from that point. The rules are a tool, and a means to an end. Play your game, but don't tell others they are doing it wrong. When you do that, or tell them their system isn't good enough, you're spitting in their face and diminishing their experience. Not cool.


----------



## BryonD

Matt James said:


> Play your game, but don't tell others they are doing it wrong. When you do that, or tell them their system isn't good enough, you're spitting in their face and diminishing their experience. Not cool.




I'm not assuming you are speaking to me, or any other specific person, here.

But if it has been AT ALL unclear, I don't expect anyone else to have the same goals as me.  I know I have made a point to say that several times, but in a lot of posts that go back and forth it is still easy to get lost.


----------



## Mort

BryonD said:


> As with Perm, you are dodging the complaints that I have offered and substituting non-issues.
> 
> Critically importantly, the scenario you described would work perfectly in a novel.  So how does that support your statement that "A D&D game is not a novel."  Things that make sense in a novel makes sense in games that strive to be like a novel.  This works.
> 
> Never being wounded in a way that requires medical care doesn't meet that standard.




You keep saying that. 

Yet in 3 of my last 4 sessions (for my 4e game) someone in the party has required some form of medical care (be it the ministrations of a healer/shaman or the attempted heal check of another party member). As a matter of fact this comes up significantly more in my current 4e game than my last 3e/3.5 game  as all too often that came down to "wave of the hand or the magic wand" as opposed to care of any kind.

Healing surges divorce the game from magical healing (and can limit magical healing as well) - this can easily make *more* room for dramatic life saving requirements be it through rescue of a dying PC (my last game had the PCs scrambling to rescue one of the party who was drowing as he had a lousy endurance check and no healing surges left - which led to a save the PC *or* run after the bad guy choice) or having to stop mid adventure to cure the disease after mucking through a filthy sewer.

I suppose I just disagree with your base assertion here:

1) D&D has *never* been good at dealing with wounds so saying a prior eddition is better in that regard is suspect.

2) I actually find 4e quite good at this aspect - I've been able to challenge my players with wounds (or as close as it makes no difference) and lasting conditions quite nicely using existing mechanics - so just don't see the problem.


----------



## UniversalMonster

"Retracted" section removed by moderator.

But lets put that aside. I retract it (I know this will get moderated to pieces, but I do retracxt it), 
because, as I said, it's an unfair argument., and it's not good manners to just keep on about your own inability to get what other people get. 

*Mod Edit:*  You retracted it, but didn't bother to actually remove it.  I have done so for you, so it is *actually* retracted.  Next time, try not to make your arguments personal in the first place, and it won't be necessary.  And, if you know it's gong to be moderated, don't say it in the first place, please.  ~Umbran

At some point you should accept that people have different tastes, and other peoples tastes are completely legitimate, and move on. I don't hang out here anymore because the sociopaths rule this place. 

*Mod Note:*  Yeah, so calling folks "sociopaths" for arguing on the internet isn't exactly making us think you're really retracting anything.  Please take the pseudo-psychological hyperbole elsewhere next time.  ~Umbran

They don't let it go. They have to show up and keep telling me why my awesome gaming experiences are somehow discounted. 

It all comes down to - as Matt says.. playing your own game in your own circles (we don't play these games alone), loving it, advancing the culture and community of the game and otherwise, shutting the flumph up about stuff you obviously lack experience with, because this isn't about editions, this is about how people are treating people. If a person - any person-- can't see that... it's sociopathy. Sociopathy thrives in our aspergers-infested world, it even gets a sort of half-waiver.. because yeah, we know how people are. But man, there has to be an end to patience at some point.


----------



## Mort

Peter said:


> Here's the thing though: if Bryon is the one that can't achieve immersion under 4e .. he's the stunted one. He's the one who simply can't arrive at that "level", he's the blind man debating Monet.
> 
> 
> If that sounds like an unfair argument, it is. It's the exact same argument, though that he's using, (and it's at least twice as true). Also, I have to wonder exactly how often Bryon finds himself playing 4e and suffering so haplessly. It must be quite a lot because I haven't seen him shut up about not enjoying playing it in 3.5 years (pun intended?)
> 
> But lets put that aside. I retract it (I know this will get moderated to pieces, but I do retracxt it), because, as I said, it's an unfair argument., and it's not good manners to just keep on about your own inability to get what other people get. At some point you should accept that people have different tastes, and other peoples tastes are completely legitimate, and move on. I don't hang out here anymore because the sociopaths rule this place. They don't let it go. They have to show up and keep telling me why my awesome gaming experiences are somehow discounted.
> 
> It all comes down to - as Matt says.. playing your own game in your own circles (we don't play these games alone), loving it, advancing the culture and community of the game and otherwise, shutting the flumph up about stuff you obviously lack experience with, because this isn't about editions, this is about how people are treating people. If a person - any person-- can't see that... it's sociopathy. Sociopathy thrives in our aspergers-infested world, it even gets a sort of half-waiver.. because yeah, we know how people are. But man, there has to be an end to patience at some point.




To be fair - If you're having fun playing your game it's not too hard to ignore the people telling you otherwise over an anonymous message board. It's sometimes just fun to see opposing points of view and I have more than a thick enough skin to take criticism (or even admit that, sometimes *gasp* I'm wrong)

On a more constructive note. Love the link in you're sig (makes me realise I need to devote more time to my wiki it's so out of date as to be near useless and that's terrible). You are absolutely right btw - I think I need to fit a beholder in to make my 6th level party panic!


----------



## Nagol

Matt James said:


> D&D is a shared storytelling experience. For a few hours each week, participants can forget the office, school, or other laborious and mundane tasks. You get to be a shining knight or cunning thief, a powerful wizard or rampaging barbarian. The _*point*_ of the game is to hang out with friends and play out epic stories that we can't otherwise accomplish in real life.
> 
> I loathe pretty much anyone that tries to detract from that point. The rules are a tool, and a means to an end. Play your game, but don't tell others they are doing it wrong. When you do that, or tell them their system isn't good enough, you're spitting in their face and diminishing their experience. Not cool.




If someone asks me "Why don't you like X?" and I reply, I am telling them why X isn't good enough and you know what?  I'm OK with that.

I am not "spitting in their face and diminishing their experience".  I am having a civil discussion regarding personal preferences and how they differ.


----------



## Bedrockgames

I think people need to take step back and breath here. I don't like the edition that Hussar or Defcon do; that doesn't mean they are doing it wrong. At the same time if Bryon finds 4e constrictive narratively that doesn't mean he is doing it wrong either. But lets remember the OP was askingcwhy people don't like healing surges. Most posters are just trying to give their honest opinion about tge mechanic, not accuse others of badwrongfun.


----------



## Imaro

Matt James said:


> D&D is a shared storytelling experience. For a few hours each week, participants can forget the office, school, or other laborious and mundane tasks. You get to be a shining knight or cunning thief, a powerful wizard or rampaging barbarian. The _*point*_ of the game is to hang out with friends and play out epic stories that we can't otherwise accomplish in real life.
> 
> I loathe pretty much anyone that tries to detract from that point. The rules are a tool, and a means to an end. Play your game, but don't tell others they are doing it wrong. When you do that, or tell them their system isn't good enough, you're spitting in their face and diminishing their experience. Not cool.




Wasn't the entire marketing campaign leading up to and after 4e's release based around telling (certiain) consumers they were doing it wrong and that their chosen game wasn't good enough?  Just saying...


----------



## Mort

Imaro said:


> Wasn't the entire marketing campaign leading up to and after 4e's release based around telling (certiain) consumers they were doing it wrong and that their chosen game wasn't good enough?  Just saying...




The fact that WoTC did a horrible job marketing 4e, which led to hurt feelings all over the place, should not be relevant to this discussion - particullarly re: mechanics.

But to somewhat answer, their chosen marketing tactic likely hurt more than it helped and quite likely turned off people who otherwise might have tried and liked 4e (I can think of 2 people I know personaly who refused to try 4e strictly because of this marketing - talk about backfire!) 

This means it should be looked on as what not to do, not as some weird "Well it's good enough for WoTC so.." example.


----------



## Imaro

Mort said:


> The fact that WoTC did a horrible job marketing 4e, which led to hurt feelings all over the place, should not be relevant to this discussion - particullarly re: mechanics.
> 
> But to somewhat answer, their chosen marketing tactic likely hurt more than it helped and quite likely turned off people who otherwise might have tried and liked 4e (I can think of 2 people I know personaly who refused to try 4e strictly because of this marketing - talk about backfire!)
> 
> This means it should be looked on as what not to do, not as some weird "Well it's good enough for WoTC so.." example.




Well that's hard to do in a thread created by a 4e fan that essentially asks people for their negative opinion on an aspect of 4e... wouldn't you agree?

EDIT: What I find hard to believe is how many people felt the need to rush into this thread and defend healing surges or try to counterpoint peoples likes and dislikes.  IMO, that's the problem.  Now if the thread had been called something like... "Tell me why you don't like HS's and I'll see if I can help you with your issues"... well then I'd understand the response of 4e fans in this thread.  But it's not.


----------



## Mort

Imaro said:


> Well that's hard to do in a thread created by a 4e fan that essentially asks people for their negative opinion on an aspect of 4e... wouldn't you agree?




Not really no.

The OP clearly likes 4e and healing surges and was having a hard time seeing the down side that people often express (as is usual, when you like something a lot, seeing the negatives others see is not always easy). Wanting to see it in one place, he asked the question.

Now, I can see how this could be a bit flame-baitey. But as long as the discussion is kept civil there's just no problem. It's been many, many pages so I can't vouch for every post but the ones I've seen are quite civil. Mostly on the line of "here's why healing surges don't work for me." 

Since this is a discussion thread there is also nothing wrong with taking those posts and  saying "Hmm, that's doesn't work for you? I don't see it." And expanding from there.

Heck that's the definition of a fun afternoon for quite a few people (or in my case staving off the boredom while waiting for my late client to show up!).


----------



## Imaro

Mort said:


> Not really no.
> 
> The OP clearly likes 4e and healing surges and was having a hard time seeing the down side that people often express (as is usual, when you like something a lot, seeing the negatives others see is not always easy). Wanting to see it in one place, he asked the question.
> 
> Now, I can see how this could be a bit flame-baitey. But as long as the discussion is kept civil. It's been many, many pages so I can't vouch for every post but the ones I've seen are quite civil. Mostly on the line of "here's why healing surges don't work for me."
> 
> Since this is a discussion thread there is also nothing wrong with taking those posts and saying "Hmm, that's doesn't work for you? I don't see it." And expanding from there.
> 
> Heck that's the definition of a fun afternoon for quite a few people (or in my case staving off the boredom while waiting for my late client to show up!).




Sure, but the so called "Doing it wrong." starts the minute someone comes in and tries to make people justify their likes and dislikes or tries to prove that those likes and dislikes are silly or that they don't really constitute much in the way of your play time (Though they have never played at your table a day in their life.). In other words instead of accepting and discussing your reasons they are now trying to dismiss them.

That's what I take from alot, though not all, of the healing surge fans in this thread, it's not about understanding people's reasons (because they often admit they do understand just not agree) it's about proving how unrealistic, or how corner case, or how absurd those reasons are and that's when people start to get frustrated... because you're now telling me I'm doing it wrong or my playstyle is a lie or whatever.


----------



## Mort

Imaro said:


> Sure, but the so called "Doing it wrong." starts the minute someone comes in and tries to make people justify their likes and dislikes or tries to prove that those likes and dislikes are silly or that they don't really constitute much in the way of your play time (Though they have never played at your table a day in their life.). In other words instead of accepting and discussing your reasons they are now trying to dismiss them.
> 
> That's what I take from alot, though not all, of the healing surge fans in this thread, it's not about understanding people's reasons (because they often admit they do understand just not agree) it's about proving how unrealistic, or how corner case, or how absurd those reasons are and that's when people start to get frustrated... because you're now telling me I'm doing it wrong or my playstyle is a lie or whatever.




That can happen in any discussion or disagreement, especially when people are as passionate about the subject (as the people here tend to be about  gaming of course).

Even your post is attempting to lay blame ("the healing surge fans" part of your post can just as easily and just as accurately be subsituted with "healing surge detractors"), perhaps subconsciously.  Likely because you are very passionate about gaming, which, considering we we are, is a good thing!

That said, I don't have much of a problem looking past that in posts and just looking at the argument itself - some, on both sides, are quite good (though naturaly, being pro healing surge I have my obvious bias).

This doesn't apply to Ad hominem of course, any poster resorting to anything resembling such needs to be dealt with (by the Mods and not other posters; this board is usually extremely good with that).


----------



## Oryan77

Hussar said:


> In 3e, it was called healing wands.  Same effect.




If that was true, they wouldn't have put Healing Surges in 4e. Completely different things. I don't have any healing wand issues in my game cause I don't hand them out like candy. In 4e, there's nothing I can do about Healing Surges.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Oryan77 said:


> If that was true, they wouldn't have put Healing Surges in 4e. Completely different things. I don't have any healing wand issues in my game cause I don't hand them out like candy. In 4e, there's nothing I can do about Healing Surges.




The other issue is one is magic and one isn't, which is what is what creates the believability/consistency issue for many.


----------



## Imaro

Mort said:


> That can happen in any discussion or disagreement, especially when people are as passionate about the subject (as the people here tend to be about gaming of course).
> 
> Even your post is attempting to lay blame ("the healing surge fans" part of your post can just as easily and just as accurately be subsituted with "healing surge detractors"), perhaps subconsciously. Likely because you are very passionate about gaming, which, considering we we are, is a good thing!
> 
> That said, I don't have much of a problem looking past that in posts and just looking at the argument itself - some, on both sides, are quite good (though naturaly, being pro healing surge I have my obvious bias).
> 
> This doesn't apply to Ad hominem of course, any poster resorting to anything resembling such needs to be dealt with (by the Mods and not other posters; this board is usually extremely good with that).




Perhaps blame does need to be attributed (especially when after all these posts certain people suddenly get snarky and want to pull the "You're telling me that I play wrong" card) , if this thread had been an invitation for pro-surgers to come in and help me understand why they like healing surges and a ton of peole who didn't like surges came in and started dismissing (as opposed to discussing) why they liked them I would say the same thing about them... especially if some of these same people started to pull that card in the discussion.  

I feel like it's disingenuous to have been going back and forth about people's likes and dislikes for the entire thread and then all of a suddenly someone is called out for doing just that.


----------



## Matt James

Oryan77 said:


> If that was true, they wouldn't have put Healing Surges in 4e. Completely different things. I don't have any healing wand issues in my game cause I don't hand them out like candy. *In 4e, there's nothing I can do about Healing Surges.*




Why is there nothing you can do? I regulate Healing Surges in my game differently than is presented. You don't automatically get them back as soon as you wake up the next day. I do the same with Daily powers. One interesting revelation of this thread is that people immediately stop the buck at 4e in regards to regulation of the rules. Somewhere along the line, RAW became a sacred cow.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Matt James said:


> Why is there nothing you can do? I regulate Healing Surges in my game differently than is presented. You don't automatically get them back as soon as you wake up the next day. I do the same with Daily powers. One interesting revelation of this thread is that people immediately stop the buck at 4e in regards to regulation of the rules. Somewhere along the line, RAW became a sacred cow.




As others have pointed out, the game is designed around healing surges, so you can remove them but it will impact play. Personally I am fine removing it, but haven't been able to convince any groups I've played 4E with to do the same. 

Really though, HS are just the tip of the iceberg for me with 4E. It is one of the major issues i have, but not the only. Rather than reworking the rules I find it much easier to either go back to 3E or play another game.


----------



## Matt James

I'm not advocating their removal. I love the Healing Surge system and how it prevents the infinite healing day. I never liked that since I started 2e. I'm sure a future system will refine and combine the two--making an adequate system. Either way, using tweaks of my own, the Healing Surge system works great. I even use it in other game systems.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Matt James said:


> I'm not advocating their removal. I love the Healing Surge system and how it prevents the infinite healing day. I never liked that since I started 2e. I'm sure a future system will refine and combine the two--making an adequate system. Either way, using tweaks of my own, the Healing Surge system works great. I even use it in other game systems.




Tweaking the system works great if it is something relatively minor like that. One tweak we used in our 3E games was to allow STR to modify intimidate rolls. It was a minor thing but made intimidate more believable to us. However we tweaked in the first place because the system as a whole worked and we liked the skill system. But I don't like the concept of healing surges to boot and the rest of the system just isn't my cup of tea. So I don't have have much of a desire to make tweaks.


----------



## Matt James

My apologize, I thought you played 4e (thus the participation).


----------



## Bedrockgames

Matt James said:


> My apologize, I thought you played 4e (thus the participation).




I play on occassion, but it isn't my prefered system. It depends on the group. Was participating because the OP seemed to be asking why some people don't like healing surges.


----------



## Umbran

Bedrockgames said:


> I think people need to take step back and breath here.





I thoroughly agree.

Take a breather, folks.  If someone's actively trying to get a rise out of you, then you shouldn't give them the satisfaction of succeeding.  If they aren't actively trying to get a rise out of you, your anger or upset is misplaced.  Either way you cut it, you shouldn't let what they say get to you.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Bedrockgames said:


> The other issue is one is magic and one isn't, which is what is what creates the believability/consistency issue for many.




Yep.


----------



## LostSoul

BryonD said:


> But this has nothing to do with the point I made.  "Shaping the fiction" as you describe here is completely compatible with being in the story.  Shaping the fiction by actually changing the world around you by whim is a completely different matter.  And whether that comes from explaining why an unintelligent plant responds to Come And Get It or why no fighter may EVER be wounded in a way that requires medical care, these are elements that create the break down in the narrative merit.




Let me try to put this in my own words in an attempt to understand where you are coming from:

You want to feel like you are inside a novel.  You get that feeling by making choices that _your character_ can make.  Mechanics that support choices that your character _would_ make help you get that feeling.  Mechanics that rely on you stepping outside of the role of your character defeat the purpose of playing the game.

So when it comes down to combat and injury, you want the mechanics to 1) support the chance that your character will have to deal with injury, 2) allow you to deal with injury as your character (instead of as an author), and 3) support choices that your character _would_ take to deal with that injury.  If the mechanics don't require your character to deal with injury, they require you to step out of your role, or they don't support choices that your character would take, those mechanics are not going to help you play the game that you want.

How's that?


----------



## BryonD

Mort said:


> You keep saying that.
> 
> Yet in 3 of my last 4 sessions (for my 4e game) someone in the party has required some form of medical care (be it the ministrations of a healer/shaman or the attempted heal check of another party member). As a matter of fact this comes up significantly more in my current 4e game than my last 3e/3.5 game  as all too often that came down to "wave of the hand or the magic wand" as opposed to care of any kind.



The thing I keep saying is that by the rules, any combat damage may be surged away by any character.



> Healing surges divorce the game from magical healing (and can limit magical healing as well)



True, but they divorce healing from EVERYTHING else at the same time.  You call it a hand wave in 3E, and yet a 4E fighter can literally remove ANY wound with just that.



> - this can easily make *more* room for dramatic life saving requirements be it through rescue of a dying PC (my last game had the PCs scrambling to rescue one of the party who was drowing as he had a lousy endurance check and no healing surges left - which led to a save the PC *or* run after the bad guy choice) or having to stop mid adventure to cure the disease after mucking through a filthy sewer.



First, disease, poison, etc... are a separate matter that have nothing to do with the surge discussion.  Second, you claim more room, and yet you provide no justification whatsoever that the rest doesn't happen in non 3E games.  Because it does AND I don't have surge issues.  



> I suppose I just disagree with your base assertion here:
> 
> 1) D&D has *never* been good at dealing with wounds so saying a prior eddition is better in that regard is suspect.
> 
> 2) I actually find 4e quite good at this aspect - I've been able to challenge my players with wounds (or as close as it makes no difference) and lasting conditions quite nicely using existing mechanics - so just don't see the problem.



This is where I get very frustrated.  This exact point has been beaten over and over through this thread and prior threads.  

Hit points have issues and I agree with that.  4E hit points have ALL the issues of HP and SURGES bring a whole new realm of problem on top of that.

You are going to go back and find where I already discussed all this or just not worry about it.  Because the second I repeat it all YET AGAIN, another person will drop into the thread and declare that I am required to start over from the beginning again.  

Lastly, you are mixing and match conditions and wounds.  Conditions are nothing new to 4E.  Conditions bring awesome benefits to the game.  I will, at least for sake of argument, just concede that conditions in 4E are every bit as awesome as they are in 3E.  But, in 3E I have conditions and I also have wounds that fighter may not simply surge out of existence.  The topic is surges and 4e fighter may surge away their (non-condition) wounds. 

The bottom line seem to be that what is "as close as it makes no difference" to you is nowhere near close enough for me.  And that is fine.  I'm not saying that I'm right and you are wrong.  I'm saying I have my opinion and tastes and you have yours and anyone who claims they can't "get" the dislike of surges simply needs to either ignore the point or work on understanding opposing viewpoints.  But the insistence that finding surges to fundamentally and negatively impact the quality of the game is unreasonable is just silly.


----------



## BryonD

LostSoul said:


> Let me try to put this in my own words in an attempt to understand where you are coming from:



OK



> You want to feel like you are inside a novel.  You get that feeling by making choices that _your character_ can make.



So far so good.



> Mechanics that support choices that your character _would_ make help you get that feeling.  Mechanics that rely on you stepping outside of the role of your character defeat the purpose of playing the game.



I can't say I would use these words.  You are not a million miles off, but the spin here seems to be stuck in a mechanics first perspective.  

Forget mechanics completely for a second.  Now, what does your character do in situation X?  Once that choice is made, now let the mechanics model that and establish an outcome, and a selecting from a range of the possible outcomes is part of that.

Now, of COURSE, a player (or character, if you will) is going to be informed on his choice by mechanics.  A 10th level fighter will much more readily charge a hill giant than a 1st level fighter.  And the mechanics, and the player's knowledge of them  define why that is.

But that is no problem.  Think about LotR.  Aragorn knows he can kick an orc's ass.  He knows he can probably hold off the Ring Wraiths for brief time.  He knows the Cave Troll is a serious problem.  And he knows that all he can do with the Balrog is carry hobbits, run like hell and hope Gandalf can buy enough time.  And he knows that for each of those (with the possible exception of the Balrag) that luck can make things go better or worse that he expected, possibly dramatically so.  When I read the books or watch the movies, I see all of that as understood knowledge.  And it has nothing to do with mechanics.  It is just an understanding of the narrative definitions of those various entities.  

And a player running a 10th level fighter doesn't need to think 10th level to simply think "bad ass guy who can charge a hill giant, even though that hill giant could take out a team of 25 commoners".  The mechanics PURELY come later as a reliable, consistent model for backing up that narrative definition.

Edit: I'd certainly loathe the idea of Aragorn's actions and results being defined not by a quality story but instead by concerns over how Frodo felt about the pacing.



> So when it comes down to combat and injury, you want the mechanics to 1) support the chance that your character will have to deal with injury, 2) allow you to deal with injury as your character (instead of as an author), and 3) support choices that your character _would_ take to deal with that injury.  If the mechanics don't require your character to deal with injury, they require you to step out of your role, or they don't support choices that your character would take, those mechanics are not going to help you play the game that you want.
> 
> How's that?



Again, I'm not really feeling the whole "mechanics require" me to "step out of my role".  I can do whatever the hell I want.  The mechanics can not EVER REQUIRE anything.  GOOD mechanics may prohibit things.

I think it can be said simply.

Anything that would make me declare a novel completely stupid and stop reading needs to be avoided.


Conan never receiving any wound that he couldn't make never require any further attention just by wishing it so would be on a list of things that would make me move on to something better to read.


----------



## JamesonCourage

I assume if I take damage and am still standing in 4e, it's a superficial wound, and that I'm heroically pushing past it (it does nothing to affect my performance, other than making me take less blows before I go down). Here's why:
(1) The Cleric can "heal" it by attempting to close wounds.
(2) The Warlord can "heal" it by boosting my morale.
(3) I can "heal" it by pushing through it with a second wind.
(4) As of 6 hours of rest, the missing HP is "healed", and the HP isn't even making it so that I take less blows anymore (I'm just pushing past wounds in a flavor sense, at best).

What this brings up to me is this:
(1) If I see an ally hit in combat, as a Cleric, I want to go inspect his wounds after combat. Are they bad? No, they aren't, he'll be fine. He might be a little wounded, and he's pushing through it. I could heal him to help with that. That makes sense.
(2) If I see an ally hit in combat, as a Warlord, I want to go inspect his wounds after combat. Are they bad? No, they aren't, he'll be fine. He might be a little wounded, and he's pushing through it. I could help him to deal with that. That makes sense.

It all makes sense so far. But, it only makes sense as long as every wound is superficial enough to shake off after 6 hours of rest, is an actual wound that the Cleric can heal, and is light enough that the Warlord can help push you through it.

The following is just my preference: I prefer a system that allows for this type of wound, but I don't want it to stop there. Maybe a wound that only the Warlord can heal, or only the Cleric can heal. I just want more possibilities. Overall, this is very minor, as it doesn't really force the overall story to branch one way or another. This is separate from long term wounds (where it eliminates the story branching certain ways).



Hussar said:


> In 3e, it was called healing wands.  Same effect.



My group never used them in the years we played. However, healing overnight in 4e is a base, core rule. We "escaped" healing wands with no house rules. We couldn't do that to healing overnight.



Hussar said:


> The problem here is, you're presuming that the mechanics dictate the description.  They don't.  That's how 3e works.  In 3e, the creature has dropped you into negative HP's, you ARE GOING TO DIE!  The mechanics tell you exactly what's happening, as it happens.
> 
> 4e doesn't do that.  4e allows a small amount of player authorial control over the situation.  Making a Heal check, for example, could be stabilizing someone, or it could just be to determine how wounded the person is.  However, that's going to be very situational.



Again, I addressed this in the post you quoted. I have two problems with this:


			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> (1) It's a house rule "fix" to what I think shouldn't need to be fixed in the game.
> (2) It's restrictive. It forces the player out of "actor stance" and into a place where he needs to narrate the fiction he wishes.



I want my players to stay in actor stance. They want to stay in actor stance most of the time. To us, this is a problem.



> After all, how many people could actually tell you that someone has a ruptured spleen by looking at them while the injured person is wearing full plate armor?
> 
> Like I've said multiple times, people are willing to believe six impossible things, but apparently that seventh is just a step too far.



Apparently you draw it at assessing a ruptured spleen while someone is in full plate.

Also, as far as I can tell from people talking about 4e in the past, levels 1-10 are barely within the realms of human capabilities (but maybe not 6+), but 11-20 is superhuman, and 21-30 is Epic (with a capital "E"). So, I'd say that as of level 11 or higher, I could probably expect someone to assess that ruptured spleen.



> Me, I want a game where the players influence the story, rather than the game dictating the story.  Apparently, some are very content with having the mechanics dictate the story.



Yes, exactly. That's exactly it, and exactly my point. You've worded it badly, in my opinion, but there it is (in essence). As long as decisions are meaningful, the players will influence the story (and greatly!), so this would apply to any edition of D&D that's not a railroad.

However, you like when the players have some narrative control over the story and when the rules facilitate that. I like when the players have are able to immerse in the game, and the rules facilitate that. You like when things get abstracted to a point where you can say "you find out that the blow wasn't as bad as it looked" instead of saying, "you patched up his wound." That's fine. But it's my point.

As always, play what you like 




Hussar said:


> For one, you're talking about a level of immersion that, IMO, is impossible in D&D.  I mean, after the first round of combat, most groups sound like a rather complicated version of Bingo.  Character's in stories don't crack wise at the table.  They don't make Monte Python (or pick your geek cultural reference of choice) jokes.  On and on and on.
> 
> Players in D&D are players first.  The game is FAR too mechanical to ever be anything else.  The idea that D&D is as immersive as you're claiming, to me, is so far beyond anything I've seen or heard anywhere that it's not even close to reality.



It's like you've had one set of experiences, and we've had another. Imagine that! 

I'd say our mileage has varied so very greatly that it's no wonder we want different things out of the game. I have a group that collectively wants to commit to the character, remain in-character, and see what story unfolds (this is fun for us). You have a different group, with different goals (I assume with fun being the end goal). I would prefer a game that reflects help achieve our version of fun, and you'd like your version. This seems like a taste issue, which is something I've said for a while now. As always, play what you like 



Hussar said:


> And, I'll give you a perfect example of why I don't think this is a consideration.  Take JamesonCourage for a moment.  Earlier, he talked about how serious wounds had an impact on his campaign some 8-10 times.  Sounds like a lot right?
> 
> But, IIRC, his last campaign was 5 years and some 2-3000 hours of gameplay long.  That means that serious wounds came into play once ever 200 hours of game play.  I don't know about you, but, I run entire campaigns in less play time than that.



About 2,000 hours of game play, and that was over 2½ years. And, I said that those 8-10 instances were over the last year (which none of that campaign has been in). Over the last year, I've probably gamed a lot (we play once per weeks, but it lasts about 8-10 hours). So, 52 weeks at 9 hours per session comes to 468 hours, which is once every 46.8 hours of game play, which means that it comes up about once every 5 sessions (5 weeks).

Having a significant impact on the story once a month is something I don't want to lose.



> This is why I characterize it as, not so much a large narrative space, but a narrative puddle.  If this is something that comes up once a campaign, at best, who cares?  Do we really want to have mechanics for that?



Um, it was about 6-8 times in my last campaign, and twice in this campaign (which has lasted two months). This is something that my group cares about. We want mechanics for it.

It's not a deal breaker for a system, but the rule wouldn't have survived (it would've been house ruled). I'd prefer a system that I don't have to house rule, which is why I moved away from 3.X. I can have fun with 3.X, and I could probably have fun with 4e (though it embraces more things that I dislike than 3.X did), but that's not the point. It comes back to preference.



> So, back to BryonD's question about supporting a playstyle, in light of JamesonCourage's post, this is why I couldn't really care less that this has been excised from 4e.  It's such a tiny corner case that why should I care?



One, my players and I played an incredible amount in that campaign, so I'm not sure it's fair to base it off of. Two, you didn't do the math right (assumed the 8-10 incidents came from that campaign, assumed it was all in one year). Three, we don't know what the other people's statistics are (if they average once every 5 sessions as well, it might be closer to 20 hours of play, rather than my 46 hours).

For me, it's not a corner case. It significantly alters the story a little under once a month. That's important to my group. It's not to you or your group. And here we are.

As always, play what you like 



Mort said:


> A D&D game is not a novel.  The characters are not (and should not be) merely pawns to be molded by an all-knowing writer. IMO any DM that thinks he and only he should have any control over the shape and direction of the game world is depriving both himself and his players.



Honestly, I'm more worried about this happening in a narrative style game than in a highly immersive experience. That is, in a game where story is the focus (and not the character), I'd be more worried that the GM would be pushing the story a certain direction, or even "taking control over the shape and direction of the game world".

I'd prefer that the rules let the game _unfold_ in such a way that it could be a novel, all while giving a highly immersive experience to the players. That's not saying to write a story that the players will assuredly walk down. It's saying I want mechanical devices set in place that help the game naturally feel like it's being in a novel, but in a way where the story isn't fudged by the mechanics themselves.



> I'm not necessarily talking world shattering stuff here realy. Lets say the characters are chasing a villain through the streets of a city that one of the PCs is intimately familiar with. The villain has a few minutes head start but the players know where he is likely going.
> 
> The PC (intimately familiar with the city) looks at the DM and says "I'm intimately familiar with this city, chances are I know a pretty good shortcut that the villain doesn't."
> 
> The DM looks at his map and sees that the villain is going by a direct route with the players unlikely to catch him.  Assuming teleportation magic is not at play does the DM a) give the players no option other than to try and catch the villain by directly following him or b) allow the player (assuming he rolled well on a geography check or similar skill roll) to find a previously unknown route (maybe not even on the map) that allows them to catch the villain (essentially changing the reality of the game world as he planned it)?
> 
> I think option b can be a great way for the players to influence the game world – yet too many DMs would look at their map, not see a route, and dismiss this out of hand because it doesn’t fit their (and only their) story.
> 
> Note the above is completely the same in 3e or 4e btw (and only tangential to the thread, but I thought I'd answer the question).



See, this is putting story ahead of setting, which is where I object, because it runs the risk of immersion being lost. Now, you can definitely keep players immersed while doing it, but I think it's akin to what certain posters have labeled "illusionism", which there's an objection to. I mean, you like that style of play, and a lot of other people do, too.

However, if it's ever discovered that this is what happened in my game, my players would be upset. They wouldn't consider it fair. They'd feel like I cheated to help them (this is close to how I'd feel as GM). And, I'd personally feel the need to disclose my gaming style to the group, as I find establishing the social contract very important. They should know what to expect out of me, and what to expect out of the game. We've specifically voiced that we wouldn't like the style you've described in the game, so changing it would be a major 180 on them.

Again, it's just preference. As always, play what you like 



Matt James said:


> The _*point*_ of the game is to hang out with friends and play out epic stories that we can't otherwise accomplish in real life.
> 
> I loathe pretty much anyone that tries to detract from that point.



Onetruewayism?



> Play your game, but don't tell others they are doing it wrong. When you do that, or tell them their system isn't good enough, you're spitting in their face and diminishing their experience. Not cool.



Irony?



Nagol said:


> If someone asks me "Why don't you like X?" and I reply, I am telling them why X isn't good enough and you know what?  I'm OK with that.
> 
> I am not "spitting in their face and diminishing their experience".  I am having a civil discussion regarding personal preferences and how they differ.



Totally agree. In a thread about "why don't you like healing surges?", I find it very odd that people are arguing so much over it. People answered the question, but were told they were completely wrong. Um, no, they aren't wrong in at least one way: they dislike healing surges, and for the reason they've stated. I guess people have been debating the reasoning, and that's understandable to some degree, but when people make points like, "I dislike it because it takes away from the immersive gaming experience my group enjoys" and they get back "nobody can ever achieve the type of immersion your group enjoys" then I just get confused.



Matt James said:


> Why is there nothing you can do? I regulate Healing Surges in my game differently than is presented. You don't automatically get them back as soon as you wake up the next day. I do the same with Daily powers. One interesting revelation of this thread is that people immediately stop the buck at 4e in regards to regulation of the rules. Somewhere along the line, RAW became a sacred cow.



It's the Oberoni fallacy:


> *Oberoni Fallacy (noun):* The fallacy that the existence of a rule stating that, ‘the rules can be changed,’ can be used to excuse design flaws in the actual rules. Etymology, D&D message boards, a fallacy first formalized by member Oberoni.



Most people prefer to work with the rules, not fight them. Most people are okay with house ruling on some level. As always, play what you like


----------



## LostSoul

Thanks for the reply!



BryonD said:


> I can't say I would use these words.  You are not a million miles off, but the spin here seems to be stuck in a mechanics first perspective.




My point of view: The game has rules which give value to different choices.  Those values should be balanced so that there's often a decision to be made; that is, there are often multiple choices that all _appear_ to be sound*.   The kinds of choices that we want to make should be supported by the rules by balancing the values given.  If not, the game isn't going to be satisfying.

* - That's what I mean when I say "balanced", by the way.  There can be an optimal choice to be made, but if that choice is hidden because it relies on perfect information, then it's still a valid option.​


BryonD said:


> The mechanics PURELY come later as a reliable, consistent model for backing up that narrative definition.




The way I read this is that you want mechanics that give the right values to choices made; that is, given that your character is a bad-ass fighter, it's a sound decision to charge the hill giant who can easily take out 25 commoners.  You wouldn't want it to be a sound decision for your "just got my first sword" character to do the same, and if the mechanics made that a valid choice (for example, if the monster's stats always scale to party level, so "hill giant" is just a skin slapped on the same stats anything else will have), it wouldn't work for you.

Question: assuming that is correct, is that because it means that you don't have to consider the mechanics when you make your decisions?  You can stay in the role of your character and make decisions from his point of view.  You can rely on the mechanics to produce acceptable outcomes - because they are "a reliable, consistent model" for determining what happens to the characters in the game world.



BryonD said:


> Again, I'm not really feeling the whole "mechanics require" me to "step out of my role".  I can do whatever the hell I want.  The mechanics can not EVER REQUIRE anything.  GOOD mechanics may prohibit things.
> 
> I think it can be said simply.
> 
> Anything that would make me declare a novel completely stupid and stop reading needs to be avoided.




I think there's another way to approach RPGs.  For example, in Prime-Time Adventures, when there's a conflict you draw a number of cards.  The number of cards you draw depends on a metagame resource (fan mail, or the "budget" if you're the DM) and some character resources (personal set, relationships).  If you have more red cards than the DM, you win the conflict.  Whoever draws the highest card gets to narrate what happens.

It's possible to build a narrative that you'd have no problem with, if you read a transcript of the RPG session after the fact.  But I'd guess that you wouldn't like those mechanics that much, because when you narrate (for example) you're not doing so from a point of view of your character.  That's what I mean by the mechanics requiring you to step out of your role.

*

Anyway.  I think that the way we think about RPGs is different, and hopefully there's something to be gained from looking at things in a different way.  I hope I didn't misrepresent your position in an attempt to understand it; if so, let me know where I went wrong.


----------



## Nagol

LostSoul said:


> Question: assuming that is correct, is that because it means that you don't have to consider the mechanics when you make your decisions?  You can stay in the role of your character and make decisions from his point of view.  You can rely on the mechanics to produce acceptable outcomes - because they are "a reliable, consistent model" for determining what happens to the characters in the game world.




This is true for me.  I run all sorts of game systems; in fact I choose the system for each game once I've determined what genre, power level, tone, and other expectations I want met from a game.  I choose a system that seems to best emulate the world as I see it as a setting.  That way, I and the players can make choices that are reasonable from the viewpoint of the in-game characters and expect reasonable in-genre results.



> I think there's another way to approach RPGs.  For example, in Prime-Time Adventures, when there's a conflict you draw a number of cards.  The number of cards you draw depends on a metagame resource (fan mail, or the "budget" if you're the DM) and some character resources (personal set, relationships).  If you have more red cards than the DM, you win the conflict.  Whoever draws the highest card gets to narrate what happens.
> 
> It's possible to build a narrative that you'd have no problem with, if you read a transcript of the RPG session after the fact.  But I'd guess that you wouldn't like those mechanics that much, because when you narrate (for example) you're not doing so from a point of view of your character.  That's what I mean by the mechanics requiring you to step out of your role.
> 
> *
> 
> Anyway.  I think that the way we think about RPGs is different, and hopefully there's something to be gained from looking at things in a different way.  I hope I didn't misrepresent your position in an attempt to understand it; if so, let me know where I went wrong.




One of our nods to that form of metagame action is the use of Whimsy Cards.  Most campaigns in our group add the use the old Lion Rampart product with varying constraints on redraws/usage.  This allows limited direct narrative control occasionally if the player wishes to use it.

Another time such activity seems more used by me is during long-term (days-weeks-months) activity as a way to determine incremental growth/overall result quality and the like.


----------



## Oryan77

Matt James said:


> I regulate Healing Surges in my game differently than is presented. You don't automatically get them back as soon as you wake up the next day.




I can get away with regulating or not using certain magic items. I don't like Healing Surges at all, so I'd rather not use them then simply regulate them. I seriously doubt any 4e players would be ok if I got rid of Healing Surges.  



Matt James said:


> I love the Healing Surge system and how it prevents the infinite healing day.




This is what I don't understand.

4e players complain about Healing Wands cause they prevented the 15 minute adventuring days. Then 4e players praise Healing Surges cause they prevent the 15 minute adventuring days.

I also don't see how there is any difference between the amount of healing you do in 4e compared to other editions using tons of wands. It's as "infinite" as anything else people got away with. If they had wands, then they might go several extra encounters before running out of other spells and needing to rest. In 4e, Healing Surges are made to purposely allow you to go several more encounters before you run out of powers and need to rest. 

The only difference I see is that Healing Surges don't cost anything, you're guaranteed to have them every day, everyone has them, and you don't need to rely on anyone else to use them. So why complain about wands as if they made the game too easy? Healing Surges are worse about making the game easier than wands could ever be.

Besides, anyone complaining about wands brought that problem on themselves. In my 12 years of running a *Planescape* campaign, I've never had that issue.


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> Every player in my games constantly advocates for their character.  Have I ever suggested that they would do any less?  But they accept and embrace that there are limits on what they can do in pursuit of that advocacy.
> 
> You are turning the fact that your players have a lot more power into an incorrect suggestion that my players have both no power and no intent.
> 
> They have all the desire, but they also have all the power they want and we agree that more would actually make the game LESS satisfying.



I think you misunderstood me. I wasn't suggesting that in a game limited to actor stance for players (which I assume includes your game) undermines player power or constrains advocacy. My point was the opposite, namely, that certain forms of expanded player authorial power (of the sort that 4e involves) have the potential to _undermine_ the player advocacy role, and I was trying to indicate that in my own game the goal is to avoid that undermining.

I made this point about my game in order to indicate that "transcending the actor role" (which is a notion you introduced) is not _so_ transcendent as to transcend the advocacy role.  (One might say that, in the same way that the threat that an actor stance game has to try and avoid is "mother may I" or railroading, so the threat that a player-authorship has to avoid is "conch passing" or a game that becomes incoherent when players both set the threats/surprises _and_ are meant to advocate for their PCs in resolving them. I assume you regard your game as avoiding the "mother may I" problem. I regard my game as avoiding the "conch passing" problem. For a discussion of this issue for narrativist RPGing, which was brought to my attention by [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] and has influenced my thinking quite a bit, see here.)


----------



## pemerton

Bedrockgames said:


> As others have pointed out, the game is designed around healing surges, so you can remove them but it will impact play.





Matt James said:


> I regulate Healing Surges in my game differently than is presented. You don't automatically get them back as soon as you wake up the next day.



Unless I've misunderstood, Matt James has implemented what upthread I described as a trivial house rule - namely, slowing down the recovery of expended healing surges.

LostSoul does the same in his 4e hack.



JamesonCourage said:


> It all makes sense so far. But, it only makes sense as long as every wound is superficial enough to shake off after 6 hours of rest, is an actual wound that the Cleric can heal, and is light enough that the Warlord can help push you through it.
> 
> The following is just my preference: I prefer a system that allows for this type of wound, but I don't want it to stop there.





BryonD said:


> Anything that would make me declare a novel completely stupid and stop reading needs to be avoided.
> 
> 
> Conan never receiving any wound that he couldn't make never require any further attention just by wishing it so would be on a list of things that would make me move on to something better to read.



I don't particularly share JC's preference - or, rather, I'm quite happy with a game (like 4e) that doesn't go further. And I don't follow BryonD's suggestion that the story not going further than this is stupid. Aragorn never suffers an injury that requires further attention. Nor does Boromir, except when he dies. Nor do Gimli or Legolas, despite fighting in several serious battles. I think the outcomes of either (more-or-less) fine, or dead, fit a certain fantasy genre quite well. And I'm quite happy to play a game that falls within those limits.

As for Conan _wishing_ things - of course it is not _Conan_ who makes himself survive by wishing. It is the author who wishes Conan to survive, and so writes the story that way. Likewise in a game with surge-style mechanics. It is not the PC who expends metagame resources. It is the player. Of course you'll get absurdities if you don't maintain this distinction, and assume that it is the PC who is exercising the privileges of author stance - I mean, the very idea is incoherent!



JamesonCourage said:


> I'm more worried about this happening in a narrative style game than in a highly immersive experience. That is, in a game where story is the focus (and not the character), I'd be more worried that the GM would be pushing the story a certain direction



In my game the focus is the characters, and the situation that they are engaged in. "Plot" is emergent from that - no one is playing the game with the intention of generating a plot. I, as GM, am focused on setting up situations that engage the players by putting pressure on their PCs. My players are focused on getting their PCs through those situations (and draw upon metagame as well as PC resources to do so).

(This is the main point of the blog I linked to in my earlier reply to BryonD - a good RPG of the sort I like should generate an engaging plot _without any participant_ having that be his/her job description. For me, that's the essence of good narrativist RPG design.)



JamesonCourage said:


> <snip quote of example of GM adjudicating a shortcut by changing the map>
> 
> if it's ever discovered that this is what happened in my game, my players would be upset. They wouldn't consider it fair. They'd feel like I cheated to help them



Whereas my players would, I think, see it as applying conflict resolution mechanics in a fair way. That is - until the enemy has actually won the challenge, it would be cheating for me to deem that s/he takes the best route regardless of what the players (and their PCs) do. Just as in a combat I can't narrate the NPC's deadly aim and trajectory until after the dice are rolled, so likewise in a chase.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> I don't particularly share JC's preference - or, rather, I'm quite happy with a game (like 4e) that doesn't go further.



Yay for preference.



> And I don't follow BryonD's suggestion that the story not going further than this is stupid. Aragorn never suffers an injury that requires further attention. Nor does Boromir, except when he dies. Nor do Gimli or Legolas, despite fighting in several serious battles. I think the outcomes of either (more-or-less) fine, or dead, fit a certain fantasy genre quite well. And I'm quite happy to play a game that falls within those limits.



Well, Boromir was certainly very injured in the movie before he was killed, or even on the ground dying. And, in the move, Strider does fall off of that cliff in the second movie, and is pretty badly wounded. I'd say both movies cover serious wounds. But, there will certainly be wounds that fit what you're describing, and it's cool with me if that's what you prefer and are comfortable with.



> In my game the focus is the characters, and the situation that they are engaged in. "Plot" is emergent from that - no one is playing the game with the intention of generating a plot. I, as GM, am focused on setting up situations that engage the players by putting pressure on their PCs. My players are focused on getting their PCs through those situations (and draw upon metagame as well as PC resources to do so).
> 
> (This is the main point of the blog I linked to in my earlier reply to BryonD - a good RPG of the sort I like should generate an engaging plot _without any participant_ having that be his/her job description. For me, that's the essence of good narrativist RPG design.)



Oh, I wasn't saying that a narrative-first style game would produce a railraod. I was saying that I think it's more likely there than in other games. I'm certainly not accusing you of doing such to your players.



> Whereas my players would, I think, see it as applying conflict resolution mechanics in a fair way. That is - until the enemy has actually won the challenge, it would be cheating for me to deem that s/he takes the best route regardless of what the players (and their PCs) do. Just as in a combat I can't narrate the NPC's deadly aim and trajectory until after the dice are rolled, so likewise in a chase.



This seems to be a matter of tactics, not of luck.
Player: "I run the most direct route I know of to get there." 
GM: *Looks at map, sees that it's following the NPC* "Okay, you're following the guy still, but it looks like he's taking the same route."

It's not luck, it's decision. It's not about aim, it's about decision. He took Route A, which is faster than Route B or Route C (indeed, it's the fastest route). That doesn't mean that he reaches the destination first, but it should mean that no other route should be faster (according to the map). If I then proceeded to fudge the results, my players would feel I cheated to help them.

Now, this could conceivably be different if the map wasn't set in stone, or if the NPC was only taking "a direct route" but not "the most direct route" to the destination, or if you rolled for NPC tactics. But, barring that, my players would probably feel I cheated to help them if they found out.

I don't think your comparison to attack rolls is equal unless you roll to see what route they're taking (which is possible), but with the example given, the route had been decided on a concrete map already. In such a case, my players would feel cheated.

It's just preference, though. Others players wouldn't like that style, and would prefer yours, obviously. My way isn't always right for everyone. I was just pointing out the problem with that style for my group (much like you did in reply to me). As always, play what you like


----------



## Pentius

JamesonCourage said:


> However, if it's ever discovered that this is what happened in my game, my players would be upset. They wouldn't consider it fair. They'd feel like I cheated to help them (this is close to how I'd feel as GM). And, I'd personally feel the need to disclose my gaming style to the group, as I find establishing the social contract very important. They should know what to expect out of me, and what to expect out of the game. We've specifically voiced that we wouldn't like the style you've described in the game, so changing it would be a major 180 on them.



There's a nuance here that seems rather important to me.  In pemerton's example, the player specifically asks if he knows an alternate route due to his intimate knowledge of the city.  If your players don't want an additional route to exist that was previously unmapped, they probably aren't going to ask for it.  If the DM initiated the possibility of the shortcut, it would be different, but the entire point of the example is that the player initiates the possibility.



> It's the Oberoni fallacy:
> 
> Most people prefer to work with the rules, not fight them. Most people are okay with house ruling on some level. As always, play what you like



You've mentioned the Oberoni fallacy more than once in this discussion, iirc(or one of the other surge threads?  They all seem to run together).  I think you are misusing it here, though.  The Oberoni fallacy is for flaws in game design or balance, and I don't think catering to a differing preference qualifies as such.  Slowing the rate of surge recovery is a taste issue.  You can house rule it all you want.  It doesn't necessarily mean that surges as presented in RAW were badly balanced or designed, just that they get in the way of something you were going for.

Perhaps you see them as a problem for you.  Fair enough.  Being able to fix a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem.  But at the same time, it doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the problem.  I know that you, personally, don't like to house rule things.  But you also made your own game.  Most of us haven't, though, and we tend to take a game that's pretty close to what we want and tweak it to taste.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Pentius said:


> There's a nuance here that seems rather important to me.  In pemerton's example, the player specifically asks if he knows an alternate route due to his intimate knowledge of the city.  If your players don't want an additional route to exist that was previously unmapped, they probably aren't going to ask for it.  If the DM initiated the possibility of the shortcut, it would be different, but the entire point of the example is that the player initiates the possibility.



He can initiate it because he doesn't know the answer yet. You can say, "no, there's not a faster route." That's valid. Yes, the player is hoping for one. Yes, my players would still feel cheated if I made one up because they asked for it.



> You've mentioned the Oberoni fallacy more than once in this discussion, iirc(or one of the other surge threads?  They all seem to run together).



That they do.



> I think you are misusing it here, though.  The Oberoni fallacy is for flaws in game design or balance, and I don't think catering to a differing preference qualifies as such.



I disagree. Many games are designed specifically with a style in mind. Saying, "yes, you can still play the way you want, as long as you change the game" seems to be the essence of the Oberoni fallacy, in my opinion.



> Slowing the rate of surge recovery is a taste issue.  You can house rule it all you want.  It doesn't necessarily mean that surges as presented in RAW were badly balanced or designed, just that they get in the way of something you were going for.



Right. And using the reasoning that you can just change the mechanics of the game to address of problem someone has is the essence of the Oberoni fallacy.



> Perhaps you see them as a problem for you.  Fair enough.  Being able to fix a problem doesn't mean it isn't a problem.  But at the same time, it doesn't mean you shouldn't fix the problem.  I know that you, personally, don't like to house rule things.



The only game I've never house ruled is M&M 2e. I've house ruled everything else. I love tinkering with mechanics and house ruling things.

However, in the course of a discussion, I find the reasoning, "well, change the mechanics" to be rather meaningless. If I say, "I have a problem with the game because of the way healing surges are implemented mechanically," saying "well, then, change the way healing surges work," isn't really going to help me. It's missing the point. The question in the thread was "why don't you like healing surges?" When that question is answered, I shouldn't get back "well, change the mechanics." Ideally (as in, my personal ideals in a game, not for everyone), the game should be in such a state where that isn't an issue. When discussing game theory, I should be able to state my ideals, my preferences, without getting back, "well, change the mechanics." No, that doesn't address my point: I dislike the current mechanical implementation of healing surges in any game, including 4e.



> But you also made your own game.  Most of us haven't, though, and we tend to take a game that's pretty close to what we want and tweak it to taste.



That's what I did for years, too. I'm all for house rules. In a discussion on overall game theory, though, I think they have little place. In a discussion on how to tweak a game to fit a certain theme, style, or feel, they're great. I just don't think they're appropriate in the discussion I'm trying to have. Feel free to have it with others, as I'd never try to deny you that. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar

BryonD said:


> /snip
> 
> I've been debating with you for years and now you flat out state that the topic is imperceptible to you.  It is like we have been debating the merits of Picasso vs. Monet and now you throw out that you are blind.
> 
> Do you REALLY mean what you said, or were you simply wildly over-stating in order to make a point?  I truly hope it is the later.




Yes, BryonD, the level of immersion you seem to be positing has never occurred at any table I've participated in.  The idea that the game should "play like we're in a novel" where the players never break immersion, where every decision is 100% in-character with no meta-game concerns is a mythical beast as far as I'm concerned.

I've played with way too many people to believe that I'm the outlier here.  Doesn't matter how old or where or in what circumstance.  At no point have I ever seen a group for any real length of time, achieve the immersion that you're talking about.



Bedrockgames said:


> I think people need to take step back and breath here. I don't like the edition that Hussar or Defcon do; /snip




What's wrong with 3e?  I LIKE 3e.  I really, really do.  I played it for ten years.  Played the HELL out of it.  However, liking a game does not preclude me for recognizing its short comings.  4e has all sorts of issues as well.

It just doesn't really have THIS issue.


----------



## Hussar

Orius said:
			
		

> 4e players complain about Healing Wands cause they prevented the 15 minute adventuring days. Then 4e players praise Healing Surges cause they prevent the 15 minute adventuring days.




Wait... What?

Does anyone actually want a 15 minute adventuring day?  Wands are the cause of it.  Wands are the cure.  If you have healing sticks, you can go a LOT longer in 3e than without.

I'm thinking that's not what you actually meant.


----------



## Mort

JamesonCourage said:


> He can initiate it because he doesn't know the answer yet. You can say, "no, there's not a faster route." That's valid. Yes, the player is hoping for one. Yes, my players would still feel cheated if I made one up because they asked for it.




What you are actually doing is not "cheating" (nor do I believe is it putting story over setting, quite the reverse), you are giving the player a slight bit of narrative control over the setting. You can (and probably should) ask players if they are comfortable with such control (minor as it is) before giving it and I would be a bit surprised if many disliked it. 

I think this is a great topic for a new thread actually.


----------



## Oryan77

Hussar said:


> Wait... What?
> 
> Does anyone actually want a 15 minute adventuring day?  Wands are the cause of it.  Wands are the cure.  If you have healing sticks, you can go a LOT longer in 3e than without.
> 
> I'm thinking that's not what you actually meant.




You quoted me but you have the wrong name in the quote. 

I wasn't complaining about avoiding a 15 minute adventuring day.

My point behind my statement is that 4e players seem to *complain* about what the healing wand did (allowed PCs to avoid 15 minute adventuring days). 

Then 4e players turn around and *praise* Healing Surges because they do the exact same thing, only better!

I'm not sure why someone can use wands as a negative but then use Healing Surges as a positive. Is it because they find wands make the game easier? If not, then what is the complaint about groups that use wands like that? Cause to me, Healing Surges seem to make the game even easier than a wand does.


----------



## tomBitonti

Oryan77 said:


> I'm not sure why someone can use wands as a negative but then use Healing Surges as a positive. Is it because they find wands make the game easier? If not, then what is the complaint about groups that use wands like that? Cause to me, Healing Surges seem to make the game even easier than a wand does.




Wait ... healing wands and healing surges are not quite the same.

Healing wands don't innately recharge; one must purchase new wands.  Nor are they usable by all.

Not putting myself on either side (I rather don't like 4E), but I gather that those folks who dislike healing wands and like healing surges do so because of *how* they work, not because of *what* they achieve.

Even though I dislike 4E, the regular stocking up on Cure Light wands and healing up after fights does get mundane, after only a short while.  I'd say, any mechanic that becomes assumed, and that does not add to the play value of the game, should be edited out of a game. 

(Incidentally, that's why I dislike the automatically scaling bonuses in 4E.  The game _really_ seems to be about a characters relative level, rather than their absolute.  What matters about an opponent is if they are *+2* level, say, as opposed to *-2*.  That's built into the attack bonus and defenses to the point that actual level is largely irrelevant.  By my prestated design principle, actual level should be removed, and relative level put in its place.)

TomB


----------



## JamesonCourage

Mort said:


> What you are actually doing is not "cheating" (nor do I believe is it putting story over setting, quite the reverse), you are giving the player a slight bit of narrative control over the setting. You can (and probably should) ask players if they are comfortable with such control (minor as it is) before giving it and I would be a bit surprised if many disliked it.
> 
> I think this is a great topic for a new thread actually.



That's what I was pointing out. Our social contract is for this to _not happen_ when we play a fantasy RPG (we're a little more open with M&M 2e). They don't want it, and so they feel like I'm cheating for them. It's similar to fudging in their favor, in their eyes (and in mine). It's not a feature of the game, whereas it is to us with M&M 2e.

But, that doesn't mean it should be that way for everyone. I understand it's not cheating as a blanket rule. I understand some groups like it, and have every right to. They're not wrong for playing that way. It's not right for us, but more power to you if you play differently. As always, play what you like


----------



## Oryan77

tomBitonti said:


> Wait ... healing wands and healing surges are not quite the same.



I just mean that their end result and purpose of existing in the game is the same.



> I gather that those folks who dislike healing wands and like healing surges do so because of *how* they work, not because of *what* they achieve.....




That makes sense. So heal wands made the game easy, but not easy enough! Healing Surges were implemented only to make the game even easier and take away the challenge of needing to worry about getting your next heal. 

That's a perfectly valid reason for liking them for people that like to do that to their game. It's just not my thing. I actually like the challenge of trying to get my heals. It's not tedious to me at all. It makes the game more realistic and fun for me.


----------



## tomBitonti

Oryan77 said:


> I just mean that their end result and purpose of existing in the game is the same.
> 
> That makes sense. So heal wands made the game easy, but not easy enough! Healing Surges were implemented only to make the game even easier and take away the challenge of needing to worry about getting your next heal.
> 
> That's a perfectly valid reason for liking them for people that like to do that to their game. It's just not my thing. I actually like the challenge of trying to get my heals. It's not tedious to me at all. It makes the game more realistic and fun for me.




That does highlight an issue, which is, how much state to retain between fights or sessions?

On one hand, an evening can be managed as a sequence of skirmishes, with a near total reset between each skirmish.

Or, one can have effects linger not only between fights, but between sessions, or even longer for games that include more severe damage.

Perhaps the problem with healing surges is that they take away a lot of the control over which mode is used.  Narrative concerns aside, use of healing surges "out of the box" takes away a lot of control: Play as a sequence of skirmishes with frequent state resets is the imposed mode.

That works for some, but not for others.  Some dislike the imposed mode.  Some are irked as well that the choice between modes was removed.

TomB


----------



## Hussar

Oryan77 said:


> You quoted me but you have the wrong name in the quote.
> 
> I wasn't complaining about avoiding a 15 minute adventuring day.
> 
> My point behind my statement is that 4e players seem to *complain* about what the healing wand did (allowed PCs to avoid 15 minute adventuring days).
> 
> Then 4e players turn around and *praise* Healing Surges because they do the exact same thing, only better!
> 
> I'm not sure why someone can use wands as a negative but then use Healing Surges as a positive. Is it because they find wands make the game easier? If not, then what is the complaint about groups that use wands like that? Cause to me, Healing Surges seem to make the game even easier than a wand does.




The people who complain about healing wands are not those who favor healing surges.  The people who complain about healing wands are those who claim that there is no need for them in the game at all.  I have no problems with healing wands honestly.  I see them as part and parcel to 3e play.  They are the solution to the problems caused by having monsters who can kill PC's in a single round of combat and the need for healing magic.

You've got your crowds mixed up.  Most people who favor healing surges point to 3e healing wands and say that, at the end of the day, both games wind up in the same place.  It's the people who claim that they never used healing surges, never had any clerics in the party and yet were still capable of having half a dozen encounters between rest periods that are questioning healing wands.

Y'know, I've still never really heard a decent explaination as to how they managed to achieve that when virtually no one else was - not the RPGA, not playtesters for Dungeon, no one.  But, hey, apparently they could.


----------



## Orius

Hussar said:


> Orius  said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4e players complain about Healing Wands cause they prevented the 15 minute adventuring days. Then 4e players praise Healing Surges cause they prevent the 15 minute adventuring days.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait... What?
> 
> Does anyone actually want a 15 minute adventuring day?  Wands are the cause of it.  Wands are the cure.  If you have healing sticks, you can go a LOT longer in 3e than without.
> 
> I'm thinking that's not what you actually meant.
Click to expand...



Huh?  I don't remember posting in this thread.


----------



## pemerton

JamesonCourage said:


> I wasn't saying that a narrative-first style game would produce a railraod. I was saying that I think it's more likely there than in other games.



Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but I think your intuition here is off. Good contemporary narrative design makes the game reasonably railroad-proof - the players build their PCs (which include the thematic hooks for the GM), the GM builds encounters/situations that engage those hooks, then everyone presses "play" and we see what happens! The whole promise of this school of game design is that it will produce satisfactory stories although _no one at the table is responsible for doing so_. The promise is of story emerging out of the players doing their job (ie building PCs with hooks for the GM), and the GM doing his/hers (ie building encounters that bite on those hooks).

This sort of game can fizzle for any number of reasons, including if the players don't build decent PCs (eg they turtle) or if the GM builds boring situations. But railroading shouldn't be one of them.

To bring this back a little bit on topic: one of the techniques that 4e offers for supporting this sort of play is the interaction between the particular powers that players get to choose for their PCs, and the general action economy of the game. This is intended to mean that if the players just do their job - do their best to use their PCs' powers to win combats in cooperation with their fellows - and the GM just does his/her job - builds encouners with an interesting mix of NPCs/monsters and terrain (as per the guidelines in the various manuals) - then dynamic, engaging combats will result.  In my experience, the design realises this intention most of the time. Furthermore, in my experience it's fairly easy to build both PCs and monsters/NPCs/encounter settings that have sufficient thematic "oomph" to their mechanical elements that the mechanically dynamic combat will also produce a reasonably thematically dynamic combat.

Healing surges, and the various steps that must be taken to gain access to them, are a key part of these mechanical and thematic dynamics.

That said, I think it is probably fairly easy in 4e to build boring PCs who don't contribute that much to the thematic dynamics, in part because they kill off the mechanical dynamics - archer rangers tend in this direction, in my view, and I would find it easy to believe that pacifist clerics do also. Luckily, there is an easy solution: build more interesting PCs!

As has often been noted, these same aspects of 4e's design - the centrality of powers, of encounter terrain, etc - can create some challenges in relation to fictional positioning. Some think that the game tends to collapse into nothing but dice rolls and moving miniatures around on a battlemat. On the other hand, in my game I haven't had much trouble keeping fictional positioning central. I think the focus on thematic as well as mechanical dynamics helps with that - fictional stakes that the players care about will go a long way to making fictional positioning matter - but there are other techniques that I use as well.



tomBitonti said:


> I dislike the automatically scaling bonuses in 4E.  The game _really_ seems to be about a characters relative level, rather than their absolute.  What matters about an opponent is if they are *+2* level, say, as opposed to *-2*.  That's built into the attack bonus and defenses to the point that actual level is largely irrelevant.  By my prestated design principle, actual level should be removed, and relative level put in its place.



I can see the force of your point. My own view is that the scaling, in combination with the default monsters from the various published sources, produces a game that, very roughly, tells "the story of D&D" ie the PCs begin by confronting kobolds, and end by confronting Orcus.

I know that others also see the scaling as corresponding more-or-less directly to ingame toughness of characters and monsters, but I personally don't make that assumption. When I'm desigining encounters, I do think just in terms of relative levels, as you describe.



Oryan77 said:


> 4e players seem to *complain* about what the healing wand did (allowed PCs to avoid 15 minute adventuring days).
> 
> Then 4e players turn around and *praise* Healing Surges because they do the exact same thing, only better!
> 
> I'm not sure why someone can use wands as a negative but then use Healing Surges as a positive.



In my own case, it would be because I find that wands of divine juice on tap are kind of lame, whereas heroically turning the tide by drawing on your own reserves of heroism - perhaps when spurred on by a valiant leader - is kind of exciting and evocative of LotR, Arthurian romance, etc. But then I never played very much 3E, and so may be an outlier here.


----------



## JamesonCourage

pemerton said:


> Perhaps this is a topic for another thread, but I think your intuition here is off.



Not by what I was saying. I was saying that a story-first style game would be more likely to railroad the players. I did not mention narrative design or mechanics in the least. The reason for this is that railroads tend to be when you're forced into a specific story (or kept "on the rails"). In a story-first style of game, this would seem to be more likely. In a game that didn't rely on story, it wouldn't matter as much.



> Good contemporary narrative design makes the game reasonably railroad-proof - the players build their PCs (which include the thematic hooks for the GM), the GM builds encounters/situations that engage those hooks, then everyone presses "play" and we see what happens! The whole promise of this school of game design is that it will produce satisfactory stories although _no one at the table is responsible for doing so_. The promise is of story emerging out of the players doing their job (ie building PCs with hooks for the GM), and the GM doing his/hers (ie building encounters that bite on those hooks).



This is definitely good design, and is definitely achievable. However, I hold to the statement that a game that cares about story is more likely to have someone that keeps the players to a "storyline" or the like.



> This sort of game can fizzle for any number of reasons, including if the players don't build decent PCs (eg they turtle) or if the GM builds boring situations. But railroading shouldn't be one of them.



Just like with any style, it can be a problem. I think it's more likely to happen than other styles, not that it _is_ likely to happen.



> To bring this back a little bit on topic: one of the techniques that 4e offers for supporting this sort of play is the interaction between the particular powers that players get to choose for their PCs, and the general action economy of the game. This is intended to mean that if the players just do their job - do their best to use their PCs' powers to win combats in cooperation with their fellows - and the GM just does his/her job - builds encouners with an interesting mix of NPCs/monsters and terrain (as per the guidelines in the various manuals) - then dynamic, engaging combats will result.  In my experience, the design realises this intention most of the time. Furthermore, in my experience it's fairly easy to build both PCs and monsters/NPCs/encounter settings that have sufficient thematic "oomph" to their mechanical elements that the mechanically dynamic combat will also produce a reasonably thematically dynamic combat.
> 
> Healing surges, and the various steps that must be taken to gain access to them, are a key part of these mechanical and thematic dynamics.
> 
> That said, I think it is probably fairly easy in 4e to build boring PCs who don't contribute that much to the thematic dynamics, in part because they kill off the mechanical dynamics - archer rangers tend in this direction, in my view, and I would find it easy to believe that pacifist clerics do also. Luckily, there is an easy solution: build more interesting PCs!
> 
> As has often been noted, these same aspects of 4e's design - the centrality of powers, of encounter terrain, etc - can create some challenges in relation to fictional positioning. Some think that the game tends to collapse into nothing but dice rolls and moving miniatures around on a battlemat. On the other hand, in my game I haven't had much trouble keeping fictional positioning central. I think the focus on thematic as well as mechanical dynamics helps with that - fictional stakes that the players care about will go a long way to making fictional positioning matter - but there are other techniques that I use as well.



I think you may have thought I was somehow attacking narrative play, when I wasn't speaking of it directly. You can have simulationist play that focuses takes a narrative-first style approach to the game. In my opinion, this hard focus on the "story" will be more likely to produce a railroad (the direct result of someone -usually the GM- focusing on the story). There's no way to prove it, and I'm not trying to. You've disagreed, and I see what you're saying, and it makes sense. There's nothing illogical in it. We just disagree, and that's fine by me. As always, play what you like


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> You've got your crowds mixed up.  Most people who favor healing surges point to 3e healing wands and say that, at the end of the day, both games wind up in the same place.  It's the people who claim that they never used healing surges, never had any clerics in the party and yet were still capable of having half a dozen encounters between rest periods that are questioning healing




I think you are mixing up a bunch of different statements made by posters here and turning them into absolute statements. Most of my parties had clerics, but not all. I've run all kinds of games, everything from a party of clerics to a party without any. In most games I've run or played in magic wands of healing were a rarity because we don't like the whole magic item emporium thing (magic shops are uncommon). When we did have combat heavy games we pressed on, because the world was in motion. We found the idea of fighting your way through a third of the dungeon, then sleeping so the cleric can get cure light wounds a little silly. If it was clear the party was in serious trouble we'd retreat, but because it is a world in motion that often made coming back to fight the big bady a near- impossible task.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> What's wrong with 3e? I LIKE 3e. I really, really do. I played it for ten years. Played the HELL out of it. However, liking a game does not preclude me for recognizing its short comings. 4e has all sorts of issues as well.
> 
> It just doesn't really have THIS issue.




I appologize if I implied you disliked an edition that you enjoy. The point really was you like 4E, and I don't, but at the end of the day that is totally fine. I live in Boston and some people here love greek style pizza, others prefer italian style. Both can state very good reasons for their preference, and even make compelling cases that one does something the other can't. In the end, it is just a pizza. There is no use getting riled up because someone's opinion about it differs from your own...and there is no need at all to feel threatened. If Hussar can play 4E without running into the consistency/believability issue I perceive there, that doesn't mean one of us is wrong or insane. Just trying to help lower the volume a bit.


----------



## Hussar

Orius said:


> Huh?  I don't remember posting in this thread.




LOL.  I actually had to reread things two or three times to realize what I'd done.  Wow.  My bad.    brain fart.


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> I think you are mixing up a bunch of different statements made by posters here and turning them into absolute statements. Most of my parties had clerics, but not all. I've run all kinds of games, everything from a party of clerics to a party without any. In most games I've run or played in magic wands of healing were a rarity because we don't like the whole magic item emporium thing (magic shops are uncommon). When we did have combat heavy games we pressed on, because the world was in motion. We found the idea of fighting your way through a third of the dungeon, then sleeping so the cleric can get cure light wounds a little silly. If it was clear the party was in serious trouble we'd retreat, but because it is a world in motion that often made coming back to fight the big bady a near- impossible task.




And that's perfectly fine for your game.  I would assume that the DM adjusts things to suit your taste.  But, I don't play your game.  3e presumes that you can buy magic items and that those are pretty easily available.  It presumes that healing magic is widely available.

I've still never really seen a satisfactory answer on how groups managed to achieve this when the game designers nor the tens of thousands of RPGA players couldn't.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Hussar said:


> And that's perfectly fine for your game.  I would assume that the DM adjusts things to suit your taste.  But, I don't play your game.  3e presumes that you can buy magic items and that those are pretty easily available.  It presumes that healing magic is widely available.
> 
> I've still never really seen a satisfactory answer on how groups managed to achieve this when the game designers nor the tens of thousands of RPGA players couldn't.




Most of my games had plenty of divine healing magic, but some didn't. We almost never had things like magic healing wands though and never ran into any issues.  And we never found world in motion / pressing on to be much on an issue (except it led to more caution and occassional retreats or character death--something we were fine with). Games without vlerics are easy enough to run as well, you just need to know how to balance rncounters to the party. The simplest solution is fewer combats (which suits me since I hate when D&D turns into tactical mini games or constant dungeon crawls). The other option is weaker encounters. Seriously never had issues running interesting games in 3e (or 2e).


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Most of my games had plenty of divine healing magic, but some didn't. We almost never had things like magic healing wands though and never ran into any issues.  And we never found world in motion / pressing on to be much on an issue (except it led to more caution and occassional retreats or character death--something we were fine with). *Games without vlerics are easy enough to run as well, you just need to know how to balance rncounters to the party. The simplest solution is fewer combats (which suits me since I hate when D&D turns into tactical mini games or constant dungeon crawls). The other option is weaker encounters.* Seriously never had issues running interesting games in 3e (or 2e).




Bold mine

Bingo, right there.  That's the missing ingredient.  To play without clerics, you need to depart from the play assumptions of the game.  In other words, you need to change the game to suit your tastes.

But, that's the whole point isn't it?  When you talk about not having healing wands, the game doesn't run no problem.  You have to change the game in order to fit your tastes.

Which gets back to my point about me not playing your version of D&D.  What I wonder is, why would you expect any version of D&D to suit your tastes when the one you're playing doesn't?  If you get an interesting game in 3e (or 2e) by changing the play assumptions, then the baseline games don't actually suit your tastes.

So, when you talk about how healing surges don't fit into D&D, what you actuary mean is, they don't fit into the version of D&D you and your group play which is an idiosyncratic version that is limited to your table.

Hey, I get that.  I totally agree.  But, to talk about how healing wands interact in your game and how they aren't necessary, only tells half the story.  Healing wands aren't necessary if you are willing to rework the game in order to take into account the reduced healing.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Actually I don't think we altered play assumptions. A key assumption of 3e is tailoring encounters to the party. Even magic item avaability wasn't expected to be uniform. Just because an item was in the dmg it wasn't assumed the players would have easy total access to it. Another big assumption is different settings with different types of adventures. The thing is 1e, 2e, and 3e could accomodate a range of playstyles. It feels to me 4e was designed to reinforce one approach to the game.

What about my playstyle breaks the assumptions of 3e?


----------



## Hussar

Bedrockgames said:


> Actually I don't think we altered play assumptions. A key assumption of 3e is tailoring encounters to the party. Even magic item avaability wasn't expected to be uniform. Just because an item was in the dmg it wasn't assumed the players would have easy total access to it. Another big assumption is different settings with different types of adventures. The thing is 1e, 2e, and 3e could accomodate a range of playstyles. It feels to me 4e was designed to reinforce one approach to the game.
> 
> What about my playstyle breaks the assumptions of 3e?




Actually it was assumed that magic items would be easily accessed.  For one, every town should have a set GP buy limit and anything under that limit was presumed to be available and easily purchasable.  

Secondly, the entire CR system is based in part, on character wealth.  Change the wealth guidelines by not having magical items easily available and the CR/EL system becomes less and less accurate.  

Thirdly, less difficult encounters and fewer encounter overall would play a role in things as well.  With fewer and/or less difficult encounters, PC's would expend less resources and would be able to go longer than assumed.

So, right there, that's how your play assumptions change how the 3e mechanics work.

Now, there's nothing wrong with that.  I played the World's Largest Dungeon which turns the whole game economy thing on its head.  But, I also found as soon as we started playing with healing wands we suddenly went from 2-3 encounters between rest periods to 4-6 encounters between rest periods.  The only thing that changed was healing wands, so, I conclude that healing wands have a huge effect on how the game is played.  

Then again, I played almost exclusively modules, so, the encounters were designed pretty strongly with the 3e DMG in mind and not tailored to my particular group at all.


----------



## Pentius

Bedrockgames said:


> Actually I don't think we altered play assumptions. A key assumption of 3e is tailoring encounters to the party. Even magic item avaability wasn't expected to be uniform. Just because an item was in the dmg it wasn't assumed the players would have easy total access to it. Another big assumption is different settings with different types of adventures. The thing is 1e, 2e, and 3e could accomodate a range of playstyles. It feels to me 4e was designed to reinforce one approach to the game.
> 
> What about my playstyle breaks the assumptions of 3e?




Like Hussar pointed out, a number of those things break base assumptions of 3e.  Now, your games worked fine, I'm sure.  With a bit of tweaking here and there to make sure of it.  The 3e chassis can handle a number of different playstyles.  So can 4e.  I think it's easy to lose sight of that if you only have exposure to one or two groups of the system's players for too long.  For example, going solely by what I read on these boards, your playstyle(not always clerics, not usually wands, low magic everywhere, few combats, etc) would seem to be the dominant style of 3e players.  But that style is nothing like any group I've ever played 3e with was like, and isn't what any modules I've ever read for 3e seem geared toward.  Those games worked out, too, though.

If you've a mind to, maybe read the 4e boards sometimes(I lurk the PF and Legacy boards a bit.  Always puts things in perspective to see that we all discuss more or less the same things).  You'll see a variety of playstyles put forth there.  Just for example, you wanna do your style in 4e?  Low magic, few combats, little magic healing?  4e can handle it.


----------



## Rogue Agent

Hussar said:


> Change the wealth guidelines by not having magical items easily available and the CR/EL system becomes less and less accurate.




I'm not sure you entirely understand what the word "guideline" means.


----------



## Bedrockgames

Well CR was a tool, a guideline, not a core assumption of play IMO. I do not believe it was ever stated that a given item had to be present simply because GP limit, nor did the have to assume tge existence of magic shops. My players all had magic items and were generally on par with character wealth. They never had 7 wands of healing.

In terms of number of encounters the whole premise in 3e was to build them around character resources. Which is exactly what I did. It is sll about presenting a fair but adequate challenge to the players. That can be achieved in a variety of ways.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Exactly- just because something is commonly available in the world does not mean it is in stock _today._

I have never told players they couldn't buy magic items.  In fact, I treated them just like mundane ones.  In fact, this is basically the way every DM in our group runs them.  That means that sometimes, demand outstripped supply...or vice versa.  That also means sometimes that you needed to go to more than one store...or that the item in question simply wasn't available in that town (due to local rarity, population size, or even certain laws).  Because we all run it the same way, we all understand this.

And as stated in numerous other threads, as yet, nobody has made a crafter caster.


----------



## LostSoul

Bedrockgames said:


> I do not believe it was ever stated that a given item had to be present simply because GP limit, nor did the have to assume tge existence of magic shops.




Here's what it says:

DMG, page 137:
GENERATING TOWNS
When the PCs come into a town and you need to generate the facts about that town quickly, you can use the following material.  To randomly determine the size of a community, roll on Table 5-2 below:

[table cut]

Community Wealth and Population
Every community has a gold piece limit based on its size and population.  The gold piece limit (see Table 5-2) is an indicator of the price of the most expensive item available in that community.  Nothing that costs more than a community's gp limit is available for purchase in that community.  Anything having a price under that limit is most likely available, whether it be mundane or magical.  While exceptions are certainly possible (a boomtown near a newly discovered mine, a farming community impoverished after a prolonged drought), these exceptions are temporary; all communities will conform to the norm over time.

To determine the amount of ready cash in a community, or the total value of any given item of equipment for sale at any give time, multiply half the gp limit by 1/10 of the community's population.  [cutting example]  The coins are not all bright, shiny gold pieces.  They should include a large number of battered and well-worn silver pieces and copper pieces as well, especially in a small or poor community.

If those same adventurers hope to buy longswords (price 15 gp each) for their mercenary hirelings, they'll discover that the hamlet can offer only 30 such swords for sale, because the same 450 gp limit applies whether you're buying or selling in a given community.​
That's what the DMG says.  I think it's a decent set of rules; not great, but usable.  

I think it's helpful for the _players_ to have a consistent base upon which to make decisions.  If you have no idea how big a town needs to be to have a scroll of Stone to Flesh available, for example, what do you do when someone gets petrified?  

Guidelines or rules?  I can see it either way.  I don't think anyone's going to say that a DM can't change things for his game, though given a generic D&D setting without some kind of house rule, I think it would be poor DMing not to conform to these standards.

*

A party that uses wands of Cure Light Wounds for healing is more effective than a party that doesn't.  That should be pretty obvious.

Not everyone who plays D&D cares if their party is effective or not.  If you do care about being effective, then you'll want to use wands of Cure Light Wounds; if you don't care, then you don't care about getting them.


----------



## Herschel

Nagol said:


> Healing surges are the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle of character health once a character takes damage. The narrative can only be presented in hindsight once the outcome has been determined.
> 
> The PC doesn't blow healing surge? His wounds are life-threatening and he is seriously courting death every round. That last blow drew a mortal wound...
> 
> The PC blows a surge? 'Tis only a flesh wound! There was never any REAL damage! The last blow barely scraped the hero...
> 
> A game with them reminds me of the movie the _Last Action Hero_ -- if the hero is alive, it's only a flesh wound.




Here though is whre you have changed the meaning of HP/Surges from what is and has been presented. Knocking someone below 0 has not been a "mortal wound" since characters started going to -10. Below 0 has simply been a "knockout punch". Once you're out you may bleed out, be stepped on, hit as collateral damage or whatever but below 0 you're just "out" just like fighters can get knocked down/out but aren't dead. And "out" isn't necessarily out-of-touch with what's happening, it's just you're in a helpless state in the progression of active-dazed-stunned-helpless. 

Surges are triggered in different ways, either by magic or adrenalin and the mind is powerful. 

Cinematically an example is in Silverado where Scott Glenn's character is beaten and down in the cave where Danny Glover stashed him but when he's told his nephew has been kidnapped the adrenalin rush takes over and Danny Glover's words are what triggers it. 

In real life deer get hit by vehicles and the adrenalin gets them up and running away from the scene, sometimes for miles, and at the end they either stop and rest (or even die).

If you have ever been part of competitive athletics you also know there are ebbs and flows of energy at different times triggered by different stimulii. In football if I was tackled particularly hard it may hurt, but if I got teh first down or the touchdown I was also bolstered. A big play by a teammate could also pick up my performance in a hard-fought game. 

And resting means you're back to functional full strength, not that all hurts are gone. I may have been still bruised and the cut merely stitched shut or the ankle taped by the next game but I was out there performing just the same if I wanted to keep my job.  

The body has pools and reserves of energy that can be tapped in many different ways.  Healing surges are actually the most accurate way of representing that. It just does so in a cinematic way and simplified way instead of devoting volumes of rule books to kinetics, physiology and psychology.


----------



## Hussar

Rogue Agent said:


> I'm not sure you entirely understand what the word "guideline" means.




Well, a guideline would become less accurate the further you depart from baseline assumptions, wouldn't it?  That would make the guideline less and less accurate.  

Now, I totally agree, you certainly CAN depart from these guidelines.  Too true.  But, the recognition has to be there that that is precisely what you did.  You've departed from the guidelines, and the further you move from those guidelines, the further your game departs from the baseline assumptions of the game itself.

This should be pretty obvious I would think.  What part of "guideline" am I failing to understand.

---------



			
				DannyA said:
			
		

> Exactly- just because something is commonly available in the world does not mean it is in stock today.
> 
> I have never told players they couldn't buy magic items. In fact, I treated them just like mundane ones. In fact, this is basically the way every DM in our group runs them. That means that sometimes, demand outstripped supply...or vice versa. That also means sometimes that you needed to go to more than one store...or that the item in question simply wasn't available in that town (due to local rarity, population size, or even certain laws). Because we all run it the same way, we all understand this.
> 
> And as stated in numerous other threads, as yet, nobody has made a crafter caster.




See, but this is what I could never,  ever understand in your games DannyA.  You claim that you regularly had six or more encounters between rest sessions, never used any healing magic items and had no cleric.  All while playing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.

How in the hell were you not dying left, right and center?  There's something in this equation that just doesn't add up at all.  That is a meat grinder adventure with tons of very, very difficult encounters which can easily mow down PC's.

So, I do totally believe you when you say you did that.  But, there's more to that story, there has to be.  Either you were playing with huge groups that were very high powered, or your DM was fudging nearly every encounter.  I can't think of how else you got that result.

There are too many encounters for you to be able to do that over the long run.  The odds are too high.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I've not played much 3E, and own but have not read all of, let alone played, RtToEE. So I've got no basis on which to question your judgement of the module. And, in fact, your judgement fits with the general impression I have of the module from reading posts about it over the years.

But I _can_ say that experiences with a system can be very varied. So, for example, I've seen it said that 4e combats are deadly without a dedicated leader in the party. But for the first 8 or so levels of my 4e game there was no dedicated leader - there was a paladin, and a couple of PCs with multiclass cleric, bard or warlord, plus the fighter had a couple of self-healing fighter powers. And the only time we've had a TPK in the game - which is, also, only the second time there has been a PC death at all - a dedicated healer wouldn't have made a difference, because the PC's died from action denial (a spectre with a daze aura, I think, plus some other lockdown stuff) - so healing almost certainly wouldn't have helped.

Even now, the party has only the paladin, the fighter (a dwarf fighter with cloak of the walking wounded, but nevertheless not a leader) and a hybrid archer-cleric. The other two PCs - a wizard and a sorcerer - have no healing, and the party does not use very many potions (maybe 1 every 5 encounters or so). And they routinely take on and win encounters +3 or more above party level (and this is using the MM3/MV maths).

Why is our experience so different from what I read about as the deadly 4e norm? I don't know. I don't fudge as a GM, but I'm not a tactical genius. And I do play the NPCs and monsters as having character and personality, even at the cost of tactical acumen on occasion. Some of my players are very tactically strong as wargamers/PBMers and the like, but they player their PCs as characters as well as as units in a tactical game.

I don't know what the explanation is, I just know what my experience is. I don't know what's going at other table such that they find 4e such a deadly game. But any way, maybe [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION]'s table plays 3E in the same way that my table plays 4e, whatever exactly that way is.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> You claim that you regularly had six or more encounters between rest sessions, never used any healing magic items and had no cleric. All while playing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil.




Whoa!

Never claimed not to have Clerics in the party, just no* pure* Clerics.  Those we have had have all been multiclassed, usually with some other base class, like Fighter, or in my case, Sorcerer.  The only pure full divine casters we've had in the group were a Favored Soul and a Druid, each at a different point in the campaign, and only for a couple months of play (@6-10 sessions).  Without them, we relied on the healing power of multiclassed divine casters who were not really devoted to healing- a Ftr/Clc and Brb/Druid, as I recall, were the best we had...and after 10th level, that simply wasn't going to cut it.

My Clc/Sorc/MT/Geomancer in question was made because the players of the FS and the Druid left the group.  I retired my Whip & pick dual-wielding Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/Spellsword at 10th level in favor of the new PC.  He does the bulk of his healing via CompDiv's Sacred Healing feat, in which he burns a Turn Undead to give the equivalent of Fast Healing 3 for 5 rounds to all creatures within a 30' radius.

Not usable in combat, but before or afterwards, its pretty powerful.  Burn 3 of my otherwise useless Turn Undeads and *everyone* in the party- and *anyone* we've saved- is back up 45HP.  Done before combat, ongoing wounds auto-close, fallen comrades auto-stabilize.

So far, I've only cast a handful of actual healing spells.

You will also note that I never said we didn't have healing items.  We did: each PC carries 1-2 Healing Potions.  We just don't buy wands.   I think we've_ found_ perhaps 1 CLW wand.  And that was ages ago...as in, pre-10th level.  Its long since used up.  But like I DID say, we don't go buying them because its easier for us to acquire potions AND _anyone _can use one. 

(We haven't used any potions since my Geomancer joined the fun.)

As for our playstyle?

Well, the artillery stops shelling when the situation is well in hand.  "Going Nova" is simply not going to happen until we meet the BBEG, and sometimes not even then.  The Wiz uses his spells to soften up foes or impede the nastier foes, then uses his dagger to Coup de Grace the fallen while the rest mop up.  This means he almost always has something nasty in reserve.  And no, its not like he's a team player:  early on in the campaign, I suggested once that we could double our low-level spell power by copying spells from each others' spellbooks (his Wiz's, my Diviner's).  He didn't go for it, so my guy only had a single Orb spell at his disposal for offense for some time.


----------



## Herschel

pemerton said:


> Even now, the party has only the paladin, the fighter (a dwarf fighter with cloak of the walking wounded, but nevertheless not a leader) and a hybrid archer-cleric.




You have the healing a leader brings, just spread out throughout the party. The dwarf fighter has a built-in two-surge heal that's as much or more as a leader would grant himself, which as he's the primary focus of many heals works out well. The Hybrid Cleric also has Clerical healing powers, just one less Healing Word. With the Dwarf that makes essentially a fuill leader worth of healing, just without the buffs. Add in the Paladin with emergency Lay On Hands and the party has built in a buffer that offers as much, or more, healing than a standard leader.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=78357]Herschel[/MENTION], what you say is probably right.

Putting the dwarf to one side, I would say it's on the lighter side - the cleric has the 1x/enc healing word, and one other minor action healing utility, and the paladin has 3x/day lay on hands, which - given the flexibility with which it can be deployed - is probably equivalent to another 1 per enc.

But you are right that the dwarf's self heal brings a lot of resilience to that character, especially with the cloak.

Maybe those who find 4e deadly, even with a dedicated leader, just aren't playing with non-leader PCs who have any built-in healing. Whereas I'd always assumed that they were somehow taking more damage from the NPCs/monsters.


----------



## Hussar

DannyA said:
			
		

> My Clc/Sorc/MT/Geomancer in question was made because the players of the FS and the Druid left the group. I retired my Whip & pick dual-wielding Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/Spellsword at 10th level in favor of the new PC. He does the bulk of his healing via CompDiv's Sacred Healing feat, in which he burns a Turn Undead to give the equivalent of Fast Healing 3 for 5 rounds to all creatures within a 30' radius.
> 
> Not usable in combat, but before or afterwards, its pretty powerful. Burn 3 of my otherwise useless Turn Undeads and everyone in the party- and anyone we've saved- is back up 45HP. Done before combat, ongoing wounds auto-close, fallen comrades auto-stabilize.




And right there we have the solution that's been missing all this time.  You don't have wands because you have a character that is a built in wand.  Plus, you have a MT character, meaning your multiclass cleric isn't actually losing a whole lot of levels of casting at all.

See, this is my point.  Sure, you didn't need healing wands or a lot of magical healing items because you chose feats (notably absent when that module was written) that allowed you to bypass the healing/day mechanics.  

It would help, when talking about these sorts of things to say, "Hey, we didn't need to use healing wands because we used feats from a book published four years after the game came out that allows you to heal massive amounts of damage by burning turn attempts. "  

Tends to sound a lot less impressive than "Hey, my group didn't need to use healing wands, why does everyone talk about using healing wands?  You don't need them."


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

I think part of your misunderstanding of our game was jumping to conclusions.  You went from "we don't buy CLW wands and we have no crafters to make them" to thinking we had no healers.  I never said that.

Like I said, we never bought CLW wands, but we DID have divine casters.  But the facts are:

1) Except for about 2 months of play, the party played RttToEE from lvls 1-10 with only a Ftr/Clc and a Brb/Druid, both heavily weighted towards their warrior sides.

2) My healer was created _after_ 10th level so that the campaign could continue because the other players playing divine casters moved away, and the Ftr/Clc retrained away his 2 Clc levels.  As he stands, he's a 9th level divine caster in a Lvl 13 campaign.  Had I not been playing 3.5Ed, he'd probably have been a straight Cleric or Druid.

Make of that what you will.

3) Except for a single wand found in treasure, we have had only one CLW wand.  The only healing items we have had were potions.  That, BTW, is not unusual from my perspective.  My current group- together since 1997- rarely uses them and nobody plays crafter casters: we only have the ones we find in treasure.  Before that, the only healing I saw in D&D was via potions or Clerics.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

53 pages already? Oi!

I had a suspicion that agreement was not in the offing, but 53 pages worth...? 

The Auld Grump, no game at all last week, feeling... twitchy....


----------



## pemerton

TheAuldGrump said:


> 53 pages already? Oi!



You need to do like I do and set your preferences to 20 posts a page. Then it's only 40 pages!


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> I think part of your misunderstanding of our game was jumping to conclusions.  You went from "we don't buy CLW wands and we have no crafters to make them" to thinking we had no healers.  I never said that.
> 
> Like I said, we never bought CLW wands, but we DID have divine casters.  But the facts are:
> 
> 1) Except for about 2 months of play, the party played RttToEE from lvls 1-10 with only a Ftr/Clc and a Brb/Druid, both heavily weighted towards their warrior sides.
> 
> 2) My healer was created _after_ 10th level so that the campaign could continue because the other players playing divine casters moved away, and the Ftr/Clc retrained away his 2 Clc levels.  As he stands, he's a 9th level divine caster in a Lvl 13 campaign.  Had I not been playing 3.5Ed, he'd probably have been a straight Cleric or Druid.
> 
> Make of that what you will.
> 
> 3) Except for a single wand found in treasure, we have had only one CLW wand.  The only healing items we have had were potions.  That, BTW, is not unusual from my perspective.  My current group- together since 1997- rarely uses them and nobody plays crafter casters: we only have the ones we find in treasure.  Before that, the only healing I saw in D&D was via potions or Clerics.




Well, again, the missing element was a specific feat which allowed you to essentially have unlimited (or a least a HELL of a lot of) healing.  

It's not that you don't need healing wands.  It's that you didn't need healing wands because of certain feat choices and builds.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> It's not that you don't need healing wands. It's that you didn't need healing wands because of certain feat choices and builds.




You're missing a _very_ important point in what I said.

Yes, its true this particular PC can heal fairly nutty amounts of HP albeit in small chunks.

But also as I said, we generally didn't use healing wands _*even before that particular PC was created.*_ Not in that multi-year campaign.  Not in that 14 year old group.  Not in my personal gaming experience going back 33+ years.  IOW, our magical healing came from a bottle or a divine caster about 99.9% of the time.

And within the first 10 levels of progress in that RttToEE campaign, that generally meant getting it from potions _and PCs that were poor healers at best._

This means, for instance, that when the party got mortally messed up by a combination of a DBF and some police robots in Expedition to the Barrier Peaks that claimed the life of THE cleric and others besides- all after the use of our potions from damage sustained in other encounters- that was it.  There was no more healing to be had, and the party had to retreat, dragging their dead behind them.

Its a very different playstyle than when there are several other PCs who could say "I grab the wand, cast a few CLWs and we get back underway."

Our playstyle hasn't changed.  CLWs are not a factor for us.  The element that you're looking at- my Geomancer- is inordinately good at healing lots of damage in small chunks, but its also an anomalous PC that has been inserted into an established playstyle.

Had I REALLY wanted to be an ultra-healer, I'd have made the PC a pure Cleric, taken the Healing domain, and _still_ taken Sacred Healing.


----------



## Hussar

DannyA - I'll totally agree that pre-3e, healing wands were never an issue.  But, that's a separate thing.  For one, PC's generally had a lot less HP's.  For two, it was entirely possible in AD&D to go an entire combat without anyone taking any damage and, even if they did take damage, it was relatively minor - around 10% of their total HP, simply because the monsters did so little damage.  Death was more often due to Save or Die than anything else.

See, now we're back to square one with 3e though.  You've repeatedly claimed that your group, adventuring in RttTOEE could do 4-6 encounters between rest periods, without any core healer (only poor healers at best).  Yet NO ONE ELSE CAN REPLICATE YOUR RESULTS.  The game designers couldn't do it, the RPGA couldn't do it and most people reading this can't do it.

So how did you do it?  If it wasn't because of using rules from splats, the only thing I'm left with is DM fudging.  The numbers simply don't add up.  A creature in 3e can do a character's full HP in a single round of combat.  Granted, the odds aren't high, but, you're doing 4-6 encounters between rest periods and going into encounters at less than full HP.  That only raises the odds.

How was your group not having a PC fatality every third encounter?  By all rights, they should be.  RttToEE is a meat grinder dungeon.  The baddies are full on nasty.  FFS, there's a bloody DRAGON in the first real encounter.  Yet, you managed to breeze through this module, suffering virtually no losses, at a pace that no one else can replicate.

Do you not see how this doesn't add up?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> So how did you do it?




Hussar, my keyboard is blue in the face from the number of times I've told you.  Rather than make you go look, I'll repeat it:

1) Spellcasters- NEVER "Nova".  When the fight is in control, *stop casting.*  This lets you have something in reserve if/when the unexpected occurs.

2) Don't fight unless you have to- evading a foe by subterfuge, stealth or spell is just as good as a slaying.  Convincing a foe to surrender or let you pass works just as well as melee.  You don't have to kill everyone, just certain _key_ foes.

3) Do as much as you can to use the terrain to your advantage.  If you have spells that can "manufacture" terrain or affect its type, use them: Wall spells don't just protect, they can be used to create choke points at which you have the advantage over your foes.

4) Play the odds: as has been pointed out numerous times, for the most part, martial PCs do not lose efficacy as their HP wane.  We won a LOT of battles limping in with only 20% of our HP- which, to be fair, we had a lot of since most PCs had MCed into some kind of warrior class- and a few key spells.



> Do you not see how this doesn't add up?




It is what it is: our experience in playing that module...which is the same experience we've been having in others campaigns- 3Ed and other- for more than a decade.


----------



## Hussar

DannyA said:
			
		

> 4) Play the odds: as has been pointed out numerous times, for the most part, martial PCs do not lose efficacy as their HP wane. We won a LOT of battles limping in with only 20% of our HP- which, to be fair, we had a lot of since most PCs had MCed into some kind of warrior class- and a few key spells.




ARRRRGHGHGHGH!

Right there.  Now, if a LOT of battles you were limping away with only 20% of your HP, how were you doing 4-6 encounters without having a core healer or healing wands?

See, that's the problem.  You keep saying the same thing and the same thing just doesn't add up.  You've got three claims here:

1.  You could regularly do many encounters per rest period
2.  You had no core healers and little or no healing items.
3.  You had many encounters that left you with 20% of HP.

Do you not see what the problem here is?  1 and 3 are contradictory.  

See, I too ran a meat grinder module (World's Largest Dungeon) without a core healer or healing items (or at least not many).  But, the difference IME was that I was whacking a PC every 3 sessions on average.  And most of those were through HP death.  There were maybe 8-10 save or die effects, but easily 2/3rds of the PC fatalities were due to HP loss.

This is why I really question what you're saying.  Because it just doesn't make sense.

Hang on... Do you count avoiding an encounter as an encounter?  When you say multiple encounters between rest periods, how many actual combat encounters do you mean?


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> ARRRRGHGHGHGH!
> 
> Right there.  Now, if a LOT of battles you were limping away with only 20% of your HP, how were you doing 4-6 encounters without having a core healer or healing wands?
> 
> See, that's the problem.  You keep saying the same thing and the same thing just doesn't add up.  You've got three claims here:
> 
> 1.  You could regularly do many encounters per rest period
> 2.  You had no core healers and little or no healing items.
> 3.  You had many encounters that left you with 20% of HP.
> 
> Do you not see what the problem here is?  1 and 3 are contradictory.
> 
> See, I too ran a meat grinder module (World's Largest Dungeon) without a core healer or healing items (or at least not many).  But, the difference IME was that I was whacking a PC every 3 sessions on average.  And most of those were through HP death.  There were maybe 8-10 save or die effects, but easily 2/3rds of the PC fatalities were due to HP loss.
> 
> This is why I really question what you're saying.  Because it just doesn't make sense.
> 
> Hang on... Do you count avoiding an encounter as an encounter?  When you say multiple encounters between rest periods, how many actual combat encounters do you mean?




I guess he's been playing it wrong? Is that what you're saying? Your experiences are so much more right than his that you can't conceive of the way he group plays?

And yes, avoiding an encounter or resolving it without fighting is still an encounter. Worth XPs too.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> DannyA - I'll totally agree that pre-3e, healing wands were never an issue.  But, that's a separate thing.  For one, PC's generally had a lot less HP's.  For two, it was entirely possible in AD&D to go an entire combat without anyone taking any damage and, even if they did take damage, it was relatively minor - around 10% of their total HP, simply because the monsters did so little damage.  Death was more often due to Save or Die than anything else.




I would disagree with many of these assessments, particularly when looking at games 10th level and lower where PC hit points are actually very similar (and the levels most people played at in both editions), particularly if you rolled hit points and stats the same way between the two games.


----------



## Nagol

billd91 said:


> I would disagree with many of these assessments, particularly when looking at games 10th level and lower where PC hit points are actually very similar (and the levels most people played at in both editions), particularly if you rolled hit points and stats the same way between the two games.




Even by 10th level, hit point inflation really gets going in 3e.  The Con bonus was _hard_ to acquire in pre-3e games and was stringently limited to no more than +2 at 16+ Con.

A 8th level Wizard in 1e would have 8d4 + 8xCon mod.  Even with a 16 Con (and the incentive to get higher was almost non-existent), the Wizard is looking at 36 hp.

In 3.X, the same Wizard has 4 + 7d4 + 24 = 45.5 hp (>125% of the pre-3e version) and the incentive to improve Con is much greater.  Every additional +1 Con modifier grants another 8 hp.

With a 14 Con, the 1e wizard has 8d4 (~20 hp) hp and the 3e has 20 + 7d4 (~37.5 hp) -- over 187% of the 1e character.

The Dwarf Wizard in my campaign by 8th level had a Belt of Endurance (character-created) for a total 22 Con and had 67 hitpoints! (He rolled lower than average).


----------



## Oryan77

Hussar said:


> DannyA - I'll totally agree that pre-3e, healing wands were never an issue.




Healing wands were never an issue even in 3e. It was the individual groups/players that made it an issue in their games.

Somehow you've taken that statement and turned it around into a debate about whether or not DannyA had proper healing abilities in his group.

He's been telling you this entire time that his group didn't need tons of healing wands like people seem to think (and those people are the ones saying that healing surges are so great because they eliminate the need for the wands).

He never said they *didn't* have any way to heal up. He's been saying they didn't need the infinite wands! So I'm not sure why you keep focusing on whether or not his group had a good healer. All you're doing is pointing out how his group had good enough healing abilities. Which you're proving our point as to why we didn't need to have wands and the ability to buy wands at magic shops. So we should thank you. 

My fighter types don't have lots of wands in 3e, and they don't have healing surges, and they get by just fine. You are also showing how DannyA didn't need healing wands, nor did he need a full blown cleric, and they still came up with alternative ways to get enough healing abilities to go several encounters. That's the whole point for why the healing surge/wand comparison is bunk.

Healing surges aren't changing anything other than making the game _easier_ to play.


----------



## billd91

Nagol said:


> Even by 10th level, hit point inflation really gets going in 3e.  The Con bonus was _hard_ to acquire in pre-3e games and was stringently limited to no more than +2 at 16+ Con.
> 
> A 8th level Wizard in 1e would have 8d4 + 8xCon mod.  Even with a 16 Con (and the incentive to get higher was almost non-existent), the Wizard is looking at 36 hp.
> 
> In 3.X, the same Wizard has 4 + 7d4 + 24 = 45.5 hp (>125% of the pre-3e version) and the incentive to improve Con is much greater.  Every additional +1 Con modifier grants another 8 hp.
> 
> With a 14 Con, the 1e wizard has 8d4 (~20 hp) hp and the 3e has 20 + 7d4 (~37.5 hp) -- over 187% of the 1e character.
> 
> The Dwarf Wizard in my campaign by 8th level had a Belt of Endurance (character-created) for a total 22 Con and had 67 hitpoints! (He rolled lower than average).




It's true that in 3e, a Con modifier is easier to acquire... should you choose to buy one. And you could get the same result out of a Con of 14 in 3e that you got with a Con of 16. 

But the 8th level wizard in 1e and 3e still has pretty much the same hit points - 8d4 + 8x Con modifier. Maybe he's invested in a higher Con modifier, maybe not. It's not like there aren't plenty of other things to choose to invest in. All things considered, the typical wizard in 3e might have 1 extra hit point per level before the 1e character caps out his hit dice. Not a really huge difference, and proportionally less of one when you consider characters who start with larger hit dice like clerics or fighters.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> 1. You could regularly do many encounters per rest period
> 2. You had no core healers and little or no healing items.
> 3. You had many encounters that left you with 20% of HP.
> 
> Do you not see what the problem here is? 1 and 3 are contradictory.




1) "Contradictory" means "mutually opposed or inconsistent", not "mutually exclusionary".  The fact is, we regularly went into encounters low on HP, and having gotten through one, continued to play through to yet another, etc., until we felt we could go no further.  The decision point would be how far we thought we could go away from an area we had picked out to be a "safe" camp.  This sometimes meant my Whip & ShSwd wielding Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/SpSword was _the_ front-line fighter while we fought our way back because the main fighter was barely still in double-digit HPs.

2) If by "core healer", you mean "single class full divine caster", then no, we rarely had one.  We had 2 different players at 2 different times play a Druid and a Favored Soul, and only for 2-3 months each...and we only had 2 gaming sessions per month max.


----------



## Griego

Hussar, I'd xp you if I could, but let me just add that I'm having a hard time with those assertions too. Something had to give; in most campaigns that kind of behavior would result in a lot of dead PCs.


----------



## LostSoul

DannyA: What I find interesting is that you chose _not_ to use wands in your game.  Given that the costs are rather low (750 GP and some travel time/a quick Teleport to Verbobonc) for good return (having max HP, or nearly so, for each encounter), why didn't you make that decision?  You didn't _need_ those wands, obviously, but it seems like they could have helped or made things easier - especially since you didn't know, at the time, whether or not you'd need them.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> What I find interesting is that you chose not to use wands in your game.




While you raise good points, it comes down to just a few reasons:

1) No crafter casters in the party.

2) Where we are, it's easier to buy potions than wands.

3) Potions can be used by anyone, wands require being a caster or taking ranks in UMD.  Nobody has taken ranks in UMD.


----------



## pemerton

Oryan77 said:


> Healing surges aren't changing anything other than making the game _easier_ to play.



I replied to this upthread, and will have another go now.

First, not everyone plays the game in the sort of challenge-mode that your comment presupposes.

Second, difficulty is reletive to the encounters/challenges placed by the GM and taken on by the players. So for all you know, 4e games see more/more difficult encounters between rest periods.

Third, the main effect of healing surges on 4e play is to change the dynamics of combat, via the role they play in in-combat healing. This is not about being easier or harder, but about being different.

Fourth, the extended rest rules in 4e affect the pacing of the game (less ingame time is spent recovering). This isn't an issue of easier or harder either. Just different.

The idea of "cheat codes" makes some sense in the context of a challenge-based video game. But in a game in which the challenges are being set by one participant (the GM) based on constantly-updated information about the status of the PCs, in which the players are able to choose if/how/when they tackle those challenges, and in which the main aim of the players probably isn't just to win challenges, but to achieve some story goal which has also been negotiated with the GM, the idea has (in my view) no work to do.


----------



## LostSoul

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While you raise good points, it comes down to just a few reasons:
> 
> 1) No crafter casters in the party.
> 
> 2) Where we are, it's easier to buy potions than wands.
> 
> 3) Potions can be used by anyone, wands require being a caster or taking ranks in UMD.  Nobody has taken ranks in UMD.




Thanks for the reply.  That makes sense to me, especially if you didn't come across the need for a wand.

I'm playing a 3.5 game as a fighter/magic-user (fighter/wizard/prcs) alongside a githzerai psi-warrior.  We have a bunch of NPC henchmen (9!) along with us, but, even though I know it would be much easier on us, I've chosen _not_ to recruit a cleric or divine caster-type.  The reason for this is that my PC doesn't want to have to deal with religion.  Seems likely to cause a lot of problems I don't have time for.  If we come across a cleric that would get along with our party I'd hire him or her, but the only one we've met so far that fits the bill declined our invitation.


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> I guess he's been playing it wrong? Is that what you're saying? Your experiences are so much more right than his that you can't conceive of the way he group plays?
> 
> And yes, avoiding an encounter or resolving it without fighting is still an encounter. Worth XPs too.




Wow, way to miss the point.

Look at the math.  It doesn't add up.  I'm not saying he did it wrong.  I'm saying that there is something here that is not being brought up that would allow him to actually do this on any regular basis.  It has nothing to do with how I play.



Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1) "Contradictory" means "mutually opposed or inconsistent", not "mutually exclusionary".  The fact is, we regularly went into encounters low on HP, and having gotten through one, continued to play through to yet another, etc., until we felt we could go no further.  The decision point would be how far we thought we could go away from an area we had picked out to be a "safe" camp.  This sometimes meant my Whip & ShSwd wielding Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/SpSword was _the_ front-line fighter while we fought our way back because the main fighter was barely still in double-digit HPs.




How many PC's are you playing with?  Because if you have only one character standing in the front, he dies.  End of story.  3e bad guys just do that much damage.



> 2) If by "core healer", you mean "single class full divine caster", then no, we rarely had one.  We had 2 different players at 2 different times play a Druid and a Favored Soul, and only for 2-3 months each...and we only had 2 gaming sessions per month max.




But, that's the point.  If you're down to 20% HP after a fight, then the casters have to blow healing spells to keep you going.  Why aren't you dying like flies if you actually go into combat at 20% HP?


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Wow, way to miss the point.
> 
> Look at the math.  It doesn't add up.  I'm not saying he did it wrong.  I'm saying that there is something here that is not being brought up that would allow him to actually do this on any regular basis.  It has nothing to do with how I play.




*You* think the math doesn't add up. Me, I'm not so sure. I've seen parties, through good use of tactics and caution, turn modules that people complain about as meat grinders into near cakewalks. For that matter, I've also seen the reverse in which parties get taken apart by relatively weak encounters because they let their caution slip.

But I don't think it's particularly productive to keep hectoring DA because his results don't match your expectations.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> How many PC's are you playing with?  Because if you have only one character standing in the front, he dies.  End of story.  3e bad guys just do that much damage.




1 per player; 5-7 PCs on a given night, depending on who can or cannot attend.



> But, that's the point.  If you're down to 20% HP after a fight, then the casters have to blow healing spells to keep you going.




No you dont.



> Why aren't you dying like flies if you actually go into combat at 20% HP?




Better tactics, like making the NPCs surrender, no "Nova-ing" means having nasty spells to use even in the 5th or 6th encounter?  Multiclassing into warrior classes so common we have more HP than average?  Luck of the dice?

I can't tell you with any specificity why our party wins a given combat others seem to think we shouldn't be able to- there are simply too many variables.

But my gut tells me it's the arcanists' spell hoarding.  After just a few spells being cast, we'd typically have the worst of the foes on the ropes or down.  The other NPCs usually don't have the offensive oomph to be a real threat to the meleers without support from the bigbads, so the arcanists turn miserly and the warriors play the odds.


----------



## tomBitonti

Hussar said:


> How many PC's are you playing with?  Because if you have only one character standing in the front, he dies.  End of story.  3e bad guys just do that much damage.




(Additional text omitted.)

I'd say, the key is to do as much as possible to control the encounter ground.  In this sense, I mean all of the situation details, not just literally the ground on which the players stand (although that is a part of it).

One issue with 3E and 4E, at least in what seems to me to be typical play, is the mode of "open door" then "roll initiative".  There seems to be no setup, no step of estimating the opponent, and little opportunity other than to accept the encounter in it's fixed setup.  I see this in 4E, but it's there in 3E too, in both cases depending on how the GM is running the game.

To address your point, having one player standing up front, with a result of the opponents focusing on that player, is exactly the worse encounter setup.  Unless the player up front is wired to explode, they'll probably die, and quickly at that, with little loss to the opponents.

But, for a cautious, or at least prepared and observant party, this should almost never happen.  The players, understanding the danger of this mode of encounter, will work pretty hard to avoid it.

Also, there seems to be little attention to social engagement as a prelude to actual combat.  Although, to be honest, I don't see that the rules support this very well.

Either way, that allows "encounters" to be resolved less often as up and up fights.  And less often with fixed ground.

I do think the game will turn out differently if the players are not involved in the encounter setup.  In that case, it becomes an issue that the GM must decide, and the GM will have to very carefully set the encounter difficulty, since they will be, in essence, doing an internal simulation of the encounter setup, for the players benefit.

TomB


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> But, for a cautious, or at least prepared and observant party, this should almost never happen. The players, understanding the danger of this mode of encounter, will work pretty hard to avoid it.




Yep.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 1 per player; 5-7 PCs on a given night, depending on who can or cannot attend.




Ahh, now here we get to a decent point.  So, on any given night, you have more PC's than are standard, almost to the point of having twice as many PC's as presumed.  I assume your DM did not alter the module to suit that fact.  

So, right off the bat, your party is about 1-3 levels higher than the presumed party average, depending on how many show up that night.  Or, to put it another way, any EL par encounter is now an easy encounter.

And, just as a wild guess, I'd say you die rolled all your characters and, if you actually converted them to point buy, even the weakest would still be well higher than 25 point buy.  Likely well into the 30's.

Again, that bumps your effective party level by at least one level.




> No you dont.




Yes, you do.  Heck, the designers DESIGNED it so that you do.  4 EL par encounters is meant to be the upper limit of an adventuring day.  That 5th one is SUPPOSED to kill PC's.  If you are regularly going into encounters at 20% of resources, then you are supposed to be losing PC's.



> Better tactics, like making the NPCs surrender,



How do you do that?



> no "Nova-ing" means having nasty spells to use even in the 5th or 6th encounter?  Multiclassing into warrior classes so common we have more HP than average?  Luck of the dice?




If you're multiclassing into warrior classes, then at 5th or 6th level, you don't HAVE any nasty spells to use.  You've got second level spells at best.



> I can't tell you with any specificity why our party wins a given combat others seem to think we shouldn't be able to- there are simply too many variables.
> 
> But my gut tells me it's the arcanists' spell hoarding.  After just a few spells being cast, we'd typically have the worst of the foes on the ropes or down.  The other NPCs usually don't have the offensive oomph to be a real threat to the meleers without support from the bigbads, so the arcanists turn miserly and the warriors play the odds.




I think the fact that you have a large sized party, and likely were making characters with very high point buy value made the largest difference.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Yes, BryonD, the level of immersion you seem to be positing has never occurred at any table I've participated in.  The idea that the game should "play like we're in a novel" where the players never break immersion, where every decision is 100% in-character with no meta-game concerns is a mythical beast as far as I'm concerned.



Ok, so the point here is, you and I are having such radically different experiences that we can't really comment on each other.  And, that doesn't contradict my position but it DOES contradict yours.



> I've played with way too many people to believe that I'm the outlier here.  Doesn't matter how old or where or in what circumstance.  At no point have I ever seen a group for any real length of time, achieve the immersion that you're talking about.



Ok, I won't claim you are an "outlier" here.  But this is not a case where one or the other of us must be an outlier.  

I've played with enough groups to know that I'm also not an outlier.  But I'll also readily agree that I don't know the minds of the people I've gamed with.  It could even be that some people at the same table have different perceptions.

But I'll give you one telling example. When 3E came out I had recently changed jobs.  A new co-worker of mine and a long time gamer friend of his joined my first 3E game.   After a few months both of them came to me to express just how much they were enjoying the game and both made comments specifically saying that my D&D games were completely unlike any other game that they had ever played in.  And they described in terms that made it clear that they were talking about exactly this point.  The depth and richness of being *IN* the story was new to them and they loved it.

What does that anecdote show?  Well, it proves there are people out there with your experience.  It still surprises me after all this time to hear that you are one of them.  But, it is not news to me that they are out there.  And it also demonstrates that those people can discover more and go "holy crap, that's awesome!"  It doesn't say anything about proportions or "outliers", but it allows that BOTH can be true.  Hell, it demonstrates that to some finite amount both ARE true.



> 4e has all sorts of issues as well.
> 
> It just doesn't really have THIS issue.



See, that's the classic "confusing personal preference for objective truth" thing.

You statement would be true if you had said "It just doesn't really have THIS issue *for the way Hussar plays*"

I know you have seen me say numerous times before that I find 3E does 4E style VASTLY better than 4E does 3E style.  It now seems clear that for all that time you were playing 3E, you were playing in what I would now call "4E style".  Which is cool.  I've got no debate with that whatsoever.  Play what, and how, you like.  

That is one of the reasons I've said WotC can't just crank out 5E and put this genie back in the bottle.  They use to have 3E fans playing both "3E style" and "4E style".  Now they have lost a lot of "3E style fans".  But while 3E did "4E style" well, 4E does "4E style" excellent.  So those two groups will not easily go back together.  The genie is flying free now.

This point also brings to my mind the debate we had some months ago regarding online play.  I was saying that I enjoyed online play but there were aspects of face to face play that I'd never seen captured by online.  You said (as I recall, please correct me as needed) that you agreed there were pluses and minuses to online, but that the fundamental quality of the experience was unchanged.  We never agreed on that.  But , in this light, I can see how that would be true.  Take out the sense of depth and a lot of what online is missing melts away. 

So you do not experience it.  I don't dispute that.  I do find it a bit of a shame, but if you are having a blast then that is all that matters.  

So now we are done to the point of: Do you REALLY reject my claims?  Are you incapable of accepting the idea that I'm telling the truth.

"4E just doesn't really have THIS issue." - for Hussar's style.
4E has this issue TERMINALLY for Bryon's style.

Can you accept that?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> Ahh, now here we get to a decent point.  So, on any given night, you have more PC's than are standard, almost to the point of having twice as many PC's as presumed.  I assume your DM did not alter the module to suit that fact.



Your assumption would be incorrect.

In fact, part of the reason we took as long as we did was so the DM- a guy with more than a decade's experience behind the screen- could take time to alter encounter strengths upward.  (In addition, even though largeish, given that the party consisted of a Ftr and a Wizard partnered with builds like a Ftr with 2 Clc levels, a Rog with 1 Sorc level, a Brb/Drd, a _multiclassed_ Monk and my Ftr/Rgr/Div/SpSwd, it's not like these were all optimized PCs.)

It's not like his guy pulled punches, either.  We almost lost the party's "legitimate businessman" to _drowning_ after he got paralyzed by some critter (a Hag?  I don't recall) and fell in the water.  My Ftr/Rgr/Div/SpSwd was the only PC in the party with ranks in Swimming...



> And, just as a wild guess, I'd say you die rolled all your characters




The DM didn't care whether we used point buy or not.  I rolled my Ftr/Rgr/Div/SpSword's stats, but I know at least 2 guys used point buy.



> Yes, you do.




No, you really don't.  You're talking theory, _I'm talking *what actually happened.*_  We burned healing spells if and when we felt it necessary, not when game designer statistics predicted we should.



> How do you do that?




Roleplay, a good roll on a skill like Bluff, etc.





> If you're multiclassing into warrior classes, then at 5th or 6th level, you don't HAVE any nasty spells to use.




There was one single classed Wizard in the party, played by a guy who plays single classed Wizards 89%+ of the time I've gamed with him since 1985.  Most optimizers could probably recite his spell list by memory.

Nearly everyone else had warrior class levels, including the divine casters, except for the 2 short-timers.



> I think the fact that you have a large sized party, and likely were making characters with very high point buy value made the largest difference.




And I have shown your assumptions are not really justified enough to support this theory.


----------



## Griego

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], I'm still not buying it. Sorry.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Yes, BryonD, the level of immersion you seem to be positing has never occurred at any table I've participated in.  The idea that the game should "play like we're in a novel" where the players never break immersion, where every decision is 100% in-character with no meta-game concerns is a mythical beast as far as I'm concerned.



Sorry to re-quote, I've been guilty of that a few times lately.  But I just had a "wait a minute" moment.

I know that the whole "4E is WoW" and "4E is a board game" debate is touchy, but...

I enjoy WoW (well, I used to until I quit a couple years ago) and I enjoy fantasy board games with a dash of RPG (Descent, etc).  But if you asked me what the one real differences is between those and RPGs, it would absolutely be the immersion.  The "in a novel" model is what takes these things to a whole new realm.  (no pun intended)

If you were to take that away then, to me, ANY RPG would instantly become JUST WoW or JUST a board game.  So the connection there in my mind is actually quite strengthened by this line of reasoning.

But the connection is NOT to say that 4E = Wow or 4E = a boardgame.  I still don't buy that because if I WERE to play 4E, I'd be focusing on the things that make it different.  And, of course, I just have to deal with the short comings.  

But when someone says those shortcoming don't exist to them and that they saw 3E as no different, then suddenly it seems to me that their experience for BOTH 3E and 4E was a hell of a lot like what I consider to be the experience of WoW.  Now, just as I don't experience D&D the same, I have no reason to claim that these people experience WoW the same.  

But if Peter's D&D experience is insignificantly different than Paul's WoW experience, then it is completely reasonable for Paul to describe Peter's D&D experience as being "just like WoW" upon having it described to him.

This also fits into the whole "too much work" argument.    As you know, I've continuously challenged that idea because I love spending time prepping for game.  It is vastly fun and I never get the idea of "work".  But that "fun" comes entirely from seeing that immersive world growing and being detailed, like a painting appearing on a blank sheet.  If it were not for that massively enjoyable aspect of it, I would find it completely not worthwhile.  It is a night and day difference.  I'd never consider doing that for my "WoW-style" experience.

You have, without a doubt, caused me to revise my assessment.  In the end this comes back to the same point I've made many times before.  Specifically: We are playing such radically different experiences that it is pointless to try to compare them.  But even that point appears to have been grossly understated.


----------



## BryonD

[MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION] Works for me.


----------



## Rogue Agent

Hussar said:


> 4) Play the odds: as has been pointed out numerous times, for the most  part, martial PCs do not lose efficacy as their HP wane. We won a LOT of  battles *limping in* with only 20% of our HP- which, to be fair, we had a  lot of since most PCs had MCed into some kind of warrior class- and a  few key spells.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right there.  Now, if a LOT of battles you were *limping away* with only 20% of your HP, how were you doing 4-6 encounters without having a core healer or healing wands?
Click to expand...



First, notice the switcheroo you pulled there. I suspect it's contributing to your misunderstanding.



> 1.  You could regularly do many encounters per rest period
> 2.  You had no core healers and little or no healing items.
> 3.  You had many encounters that left you with 20% of HP.
> 
> Do you not see what the problem here is?  1 and 3 are contradictory.




I'm not really seeing the contradiction. It's not like the only way to reach 20% of your HP is in one big encounter that costs you 80% of your hit points. You can also suffer slow attrition over the course of several encounters.

If you follow that pattern even 25% of the time, you'll still end up limping into "A LOT" of encounters with 20% of your hit points over the course of a campaign.

Maybe you're interpreting the words "a lot" to mean "most"? But that's not what the words actually mean.

As for the general viability of the scenario DA describes, I'd like to hear more about the total number of PCs and the relative ELs of the encounters they're facing. If you get 6-8 PCs facing a mixture of encounters with ELs equal to or lower than the APL, the game plays a lot more like old school AD&D (because that's generally how encounters were designed in AD&D).

That's how we generally play, and the result isn't too dissimilar from what DA describes: Anywhere from 5-10 encounters per day, with the last 2 or 3 featuring the wizard blasting the party clear to a safe zone because the fighters have been attritioned. (Where we differ is that our group sometimes gets into epic fights with dozens of strong opponents... at which point we fall back on our healing wands and other resources to win the day.)

As DA describes, the trick is effective arcanist casting: Soften up melee mobs or take out the "tentpole" elites in mixed groups; then stop casting while the rest of the group mops up. Nova-blasting completely dominates a tactical encounter; it almost always sucks at achieving strategic goals.

With that being said, I find DA's claim that they played levels 1-10 in _Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil_ -- an adventure designed for 4th to 14th level characters -- to be the truly extraordinary part of the campaign he describes. IIRC, the first combat encounter in the Moathouse is a CR 5 dragon dealing 6d8 damage with its breath weapon. That's an average of 27 points of damage. Even on a successful save, that'll wipe out everybody in a 1st level party except a barbarian or fighter.

My guess is that the module must have been heavily altered by his DM. (Although I guess if they managed to take out that dragon somehow they'd start leveling up pretty quick.)



Hussar said:


> Yes, you do.  Heck, the designers DESIGNED it so  that you do.  4 EL par encounters is meant to be the upper limit of an  adventuring day.  That 5th one is SUPPOSED to kill PC's.  If you are  regularly going into encounters at 20% of resources, then you are  supposed to be losing PC's.




It's true. The DMG did say, "A fifth encounter [with an EL equal to the APL] would probably wipe them out."

But do you know what the very next sentence in the DMG is? "The party should be able to take on many more encounters lower than their level but fewer encounters with ELs higher than their level."

And on the page before that: "Parties with five or more members can often take on monsters with higher CRs, and parties with three or fewer are challenged by monsters with lower CRs. The game rules account for these facts by dividing the XP earned by the number of characters in the party."

The game is capable of supporting a wide range of groups and a wide range of playing styles. Your desire to treat guidelines as rules while simultaneously ignoring significant portions of those guidelines (a) doesn't tell us much about how the game actually plays; and (b) is counter-productive when it comes to enjoying the game.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Griego said:


> [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], I'm still not buying it. Sorry.




Not buying what?  That my experiences are what I say they are?

C'est la vie- believe what you will, but I was there.  With witnesses.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> to be the truly extraordinary part of the campaign he describes. IIRC, the first combat encounter in the Moathouse is a CR 5 dragon dealing 6d8 damage with its breath weapon. That's an average of 27 points of damage.




The only creature that faced the dragon directly for any length of time was *Masterson*, my Ftr/Rgr/Div/SpSwd's* *Bat *familiar.  He was eaten.  We made him work hard to get a bead on any other target, and when he did, he got hit from another angle.  Attrition taking its toll, he eventually decided to retreat, and got ganked by the Wizard's Ray of Frost.

I will say of that encounter that *we* rolled particularly well- the dragon took _several_ crits- and the *DM * rolled extremely poorly- the first use of the BW, the highest single die roll result was a _lone 3._  That hurts, but it wasn't fatal...especially since everyone saved.

IOW, chalk _that _victory up to luck more than anything else.


* At the time, I believe he was just a Ftr/Div


----------



## Oryan77

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not buying what?  That my experiences are what I say they are?
> 
> C'est la vie- believe what you will, but I was there.  With witnesses.




Yer either:

1. A liar trying to impress the ladies around here with your l33t gaming skillz.

2. An idiot that was probably playing Quest for Glory part 3 and yer getting it confused with your D&D game.

3. Frustrated trying to defend yourself so you got your mom to post for you long ago.

Cause unless your group belongs to the RPGA or yer a game designer, what you say has gotta be a lie. Just like the other people that had similar games like yours but are not RPGA members or designers.

You and your mom should be ashamed of yourselves!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Actually, I'm 

4) Captain Kirk, and I reprogrammed the DM- a Mr. K. Maru- to run things in my favor.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Dannyalcatraz said:


> my Ftr/Rgr/Div/SpSwd's*



Like dipping, do you? (I want a smiley, but none here seem appropriate.) 

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

TheAuldGrump said:


> Like dipping, do you? (I want a smiley, but none here seem appropriate.)
> 
> The Auld Grump




Do I?

If you went back through my 34 years of D&D PCs, you'd find 80%+ are some form of multiclassed, including the 1Ed & 2Ed humans.  And a portion of those that aren't are not because the campaign ended before I could multiclass as planned.

(For the record, that PC was more Diviner and SpSwd than anything else- as I recall, he only had 3 or 4 levels of Ftr & Rgr combined.)


----------



## pemerton

BryonD said:


> I'll give you one telling example.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> it proves there are people out there with your experience.  It still surprises me after all this time to hear that you are one of them.  But, it is not news to me that they are out there.  And it also demonstrates that those people can discover more and go "holy crap, that's awesome!"
> 
> <snip>
> 
> "4E just doesn't really have THIS issue." - for Hussar's style.
> 4E has this issue TERMINALLY for Bryon's style.



As long as we also acknowledge that 3E has certain issues - terminally - for _my_ style, and that the players who have come to my 4e game having played only 3E, and not having experienced my Rolemaster game, have discovered _more_.



BryonD said:


> I enjoy WoW (well, I used to until I quit a couple years ago) and I enjoy fantasy board games with a dash of RPG (Descent, etc).  But if you asked me what the one real differences is between those and RPGs, it would absolutely be the immersion.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> when someone says those shortcoming don't exist to them and that they saw 3E as no different, then suddenly it seems to me that their experience for BOTH 3E and 4E was a hell of a lot like what I consider to be the experience of WoW.



I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove here.

Here are some actual play reports of my by-the-book 4e campaign. Please show me where the WoW-ish shallowness, or the "fantasy board game with a dash of RPG", is to be found. I missed it while I was GMing those sessions.

To put it another way. I've got nothing against you enjoying the BryonD 3E experience. I get a bit frustrated with these ongoing assertions and implications that no one else's game using a different system was ever as deep or compelling.


----------



## Rogue Agent

pemerton said:


> Here are some actual play reports of my by-the-book 4e campaign. Please show me where the WoW-ish shallowness, or the "fantasy board game with a dash of RPG", is to be found. I missed it while I was GMing those sessions.




I'm not Bryon. And I would tend to categorize 4th Edition as being "too much boardgame in an RPG" rather than trying to claim that it's not a roleplaying game.

But for me it really does boil down to associated and dissociated mechanics: When you're using mechanics which are associated with the game world and with your character, your mechanical decisions -- the act of actually _playing the game_ -- is roleplaying.

OTOH, when you're using mechanics which are dissociated from the game world, your mechanical decisions -- the act of playing the game -- isn't roleplaying.

This is, IMO, the essential, defining feature of a "roleplaying game". If the mechanics of a game _aren't roleplaying_, then it's not a roleplaying game.

With that being said, you can still roleplay in the vicinity of non-roleplaying mechanics. And lots of people clearly have fun doing that. But you can also do that with lots of other non-roleplaying games -- _Arkham Horror_, _Clue_, whatever.

For me, unfortunately, the particular mix of roleplaying and non-roleplaying mechanics in D&D4 is simply not palatable. I have the continual sensation of getting into character only to have the dissociated mechanics yank me out of it again. I'm not certain if this is specific to D&D (which I expect to be a roleplaying game), specific to this particular mixture, or general to any such mixing.

(I suspect it's the second: I don't mind light roleplaying mechanics injected into other game forms. And I'm generally a fan of story games which feature lots of dissociated, narrative control mechanics. I think it's the sheer pointlessness of 4th Edition's dissociated mechanics that turns my taste against it so thoroughly.

For an example that I ran into over the weekend: In Gamma World the Alien origin features three powers: One of these allows you to call your spaceship to teleport you; but oddly this teleport can only move you 10 squares. Another explicitly allows you to command your mothership to translocate a mini-nuke... as long as it translocates within 20 squares of you. It's not just that I can't take these powers seriously; it's that there's a complete disconnect between the mechanics and what the mechanics are supposedly modeling.)

Long story short: When people talk about how "shallow" they find 4E or that it reminds them of a video game, I think they're generally struggling to figure out why large chunks of the system simply don't play like a roleplaying game. (And this is because large chunks of the system isn't.)

It's long been held that roleplaying is something that happens outside of the mechanics of the game. That whole "roleplayer vs. rollplayer" thing. But that's not actually true. The gameplay of roleplaying games has always featured mechanical decisions which are simultaneously character decisions: The act of making the mechanical decision is an act of roleplaying.

4E moved away from that. And it's one of the major problems people have with it.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

pemerton said:


> Here are some actual play reports of my by-the-book 4e campaign. Please show me where the WoW-ish shallowness, or the "fantasy board game with a dash of RPG", is to be found. I missed it while I was GMing those sessions.
> 
> To put it another way. I've got nothing against you enjoying the BryonD 3E experience. I get a bit frustrated with these ongoing assertions and implications that no one else's game using a different system was ever as deep or compelling.



I am not certain that 'shallowness' is quite what he meant, but since I can't _know_ what he meant, I will instead answer for myself, with the acknowledgement that your experiences are quite likely different from my own.

It seems to me that 4e is built more around the encounter than the day, and that further the game wants everybody to share in every aspect of those encounters. Not being relegated to healing, not being just a glass cannon, not just being a buffer, etc.. In part a response to the 15 MAD that some folks experienced. As a result the mechanics of play is built more around the encounters than the scenario.

For those of us that have had little or no experience with the 15 MAD it is a fix for something that we do not think is broken. We like more of a focus on resource management, and less on risk management. (Neither game is wholly one or the other - a 3.X player has to gauge risk, while a 4e player does have to monitor some resources.) We like the scenario more than the encounter.

It can also make the classes seem very samey, that which class you play does not matter in a number of significant ways.

WoW is also more about risk management, with resources also being marked by time rather than by expenditure, potions and the like aside. (WoW is likewise not entirely about risk management.) Likewise, a typical quest is either built around a specific encounter, or a bunny hunt. (Praise the gods and little fishes, I don't think that much of anyone bases their 4e games around 'Kill 15 foozles, and bring me their ears. I am making foozle ear soup!')

For those of us who prefer the passage of time being the measure of resources the encounter based measuring of resources feels artificial. It feels like the _world_ is being built around the encounters, rather than the encounters taking place in the world. We want adventures that are based around a scenario, not scenarios that are based around a series of encounters.

It is also that same encounter based usage of resources that makes it feel like a boardgame to us, and WotC encourages that viewpoint with the way the Encounters program functions - often treating the game _as_ a tactical boardgame.

Now, I am _not_ saying that is the only way the game _can_ be run - looking at the 4e version of Zeitgeist shows little of that mode of thought. But, if you play the game as WotC frequently demonstrates it then it can very much seem that way. (A quick hint - well designed scenarios can likely _eliminate_ this problem, as can encounters that reward more than tactical thinking.)

This is more of a problem with WotC's presentation than with the game itself - they demonstrate it as a boardgame, and those that _don't_ run it like a boardgame are left arguing against public experience.

Hell, when 4e first came out there were 4e _supporters_ that were touting its boardgame aspect. It made the game a heck of a lot easier to run and to prepare for. The problem was that thisboardgame aspect was equally true for the detractors.

Hopefully I have explained my point of view without denigrating 4e.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I see that I am not the only one answering a question posed to Bryon for myself...


----------



## pemerton

TheAuldGrump said:


> It seems to me that 4e is built more around the encounter than the day
> 
> <snip>
> 
> For those of us who prefer the passage of time being the measure of resources the encounter based measuring of resources feels artificial.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> It is also that same encounter based usage of resources that makes it feel like a boardgame to us



"Yes" to the first sentence, "tastes vary" to the second and third.

I've GMed a lot of Rolemaster, where resources for melee PCs tend to be per-encounter (lighter injuries can be healed quickly by magic once PCs reach mid- to high levels, and special combat moves - Adrenal Moves - work on a type of encounter reset), and where spellcasters tend to have sufficient resources (in terms of opportunities to ensure spell recovery) that they can turn their spell points into a quasi-per encounter resource also. So I find that 4e's resource management suits me well - the healing surges and dailies, offset to an extent by milestones, do just enough to anchor the encounters into a larger sense of the passage of ingame time. (And the associated metagame aspect of resource management.)



TheAuldGrump said:


> the game wants everybody to share in every aspect of those encounters.



This is true, although the "every aspect" idea needs to be handled with care. In the second of the three actual play reports that I linked to, you'll see that the resolution of the social skill challenge turned very signficantly on the fact that the dwarf PC was both the centre of the social action (being the party's military leader in a town that they had entered as military heroes) but socially unsophisticated (having low skill bonuses in social skills, and hence being easily manipulated in conversation by rival NPCs).'

So "sharing" needn't mean "equally mechanically capable of winning". I think of it as something to "it making a difference that the PC was present in the scene".



TheAuldGrump said:


> We want adventures that are based around a scenario, not scenarios that are based around a series of encounters.



I'm not entirely sure what "scenario" means here. I tend to think of the overall plot of the campaign as emerging from the choices made by the players (via their PCs) in the encounters those PCs find themselves in. And I frame those encounters so as to make sure that story-driving choices will have to be made by the players. Where it will end up is often hard to guess in advance.

(This is a GMing approach that works better with 4e than a game like Rolemaster, for various reasons that I've posted in the past but won't bore you with here! It's an approach that I started developing when I started GMing Oriental Adventures in 1986, but have got better at under the influence of Forge-y GMing advice - both literally from reading stuff at the Forge, but also from the manuals for other games like HeroWars/Quest, Maelstrom Storytelling and the Burning Wheel. The 4e DMGs have received a lot of praise, but I think they could be significantly improved by looking at what these other games have to offer. I don't think I could GM 4e as I do if I had only its manuals to rely upon.)



TheAuldGrump said:


> It can also make the classes seem very samey, that which class you play does not matter in a number of significant ways.



Obviously you're not the only person I've seen post this. Because a metric for same-iness is a bit hard to settle on via internet discussion, it's hard to know whether we differ in experience or in metric! Still, I think this is the one point where (if I may say so) I think there may be a difference of opinion as opposed to a mere difference of taste.

I personally find a big difference between (for example) a PC who uses elemental/energy AoEs, a PC who uses archery, a PC who attacks multiple foes with a polearm, and a PC who locks down single foes with a sword (the examples are drawn from my own game). But perhaps others do not, or have players who build PCs that are less different.

In the non-combat sphere I also find the PCs in my game quite different - there is the holy knight whose purity (rather than his physique) is his strength, the athlete wapriest, the acrobat/scout devotee of the Raven Queen, the ritualist scholar, and the magical assassin/trickster who wields the power of chaos by wearing the skins of demons - but perhaps others run games where these sorts of differences don't become relevant in play, or again perhaps they have players who build PCs that are less different.



Rogue Agent said:


> when you're using mechanics which are dissociated from the game world, your mechanical decisions -- the act of playing the game -- isn't roleplaying.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm generally a fan of story games which feature lots of dissociated, narrative control mechanics. I think it's the sheer pointlessness of 4th Edition's dissociated mechanics that turns my taste against it so thoroughly.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> When people talk about how "shallow" they find 4E or that it reminds them of a video game, I think they're generally struggling to figure out why large chunks of the system simply don't play like a roleplaying game. (And this is because large chunks of the system isn't.)
> 
> It's long been held that roleplaying is something that happens outside of the mechanics of the game. That whole "roleplayer vs. rollplayer" thing. But that's not actually true. The gameplay of roleplaying games has always featured mechanical decisions which are simultaneously character decisions: The act of making the mechanical decision is an act of roleplaying.
> 
> 4E moved away from that. And it's one of the major problems people have with it.



I'm not trying to tell anyone what game they should or shouldn't like. After all, I don't particularly 3E, whereas many posters on this board (including [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]) do.

And I can explain why I don't like 3E. For me, it is because I look at the game and see an incoherent mix of gonzo (eg hit points, many of the spells) and gritty (eg the skill rules). If I want gonzo I have what I find to be better systems (eg 4e). If I want gritty I have better systems too (RQ, RM or for a more modern experience BW). But I'm not interested in playing what strikes me as an incoherent hybrid.

So I don't mind others explaining what they don't like about 4e, even in fairly robust terms. Including that they cannot achieve their desired immersion while playing it.

What tends to frustrate me is the repeated suggestion, or sometimes (as in your post) the apparent assertion, that a game with metagame mechanics (or, at least, with 4e's metagame mechanics) is not roleplaying. As if fortune-in-the-middle is fine for Maelstrom Storytelling, or HeroWars/Quest, but suddenly takes on a whole new heretical and shallow - heck, _pointless_ - character when incorporated into a gonzo fanatsy RPG.

I mean, there is no functional difference between 4e's dying mechanics and the resolution of a combat via extended conflict in HeroWars/Quest - the narration of injuries can't be fully settled until the conflict is over. I've never seen anyone suggest that this makes HW/Q not be a RPG. Why is 4e different?



Rogue Agent said:


> for me it really does boil down to associated and dissociated mechanics: When you're using mechanics which are associated with the game world and with your character, your mechanical decisions -- the act of actually playing the game -- is roleplaying.
> 
> OTOH, when you're using mechanics which are dissociated from the game world, your mechanical decisions -- the act of playing the game -- isn't roleplaying.



On the last big "dissociated mecahnics" thread - a few months ago now - I posted the following episode of play:

A PC paladin was subject to an effect from a human transmuter - turned into a frog and therefore unable to attack or use powers until the end of the transmuter's next turn. The player of the paladin therefore missed a turn in the combat - he didn't want his frog-paladin to move - and muttered about not liking it very much while the rest of the table made jokes about not stepping on the frog as the other PCs moved in to confront the transmuter and her flunkies.

The transmuter's next turn duly ended, and the paladin was the next character in the turn sequence. I told the player of the paladin that his PC turned from a frog back to himself. The player then declared his action, which was to move into melee range with the transmuter. And he said, in character, something to the effect that the transmuter was now going to get it (while laying down a Divine Challenge as a minor action). The transmuter replied something along the lines of "I don't think so - after all, I turned you into a frog!". And without pausing, the player of the paladin responded (in character), "Ah - but the Raven Queen turned me back." And the paladin then proceeded to beat up the transmuter.​
This is just one example of a player using the mechanical outcomes of the game - in this case, an effect ends according to the game's timing rules - to inhabit and roleplay his character - expressing his conviction of faith in his god (and also making it true, in the fiction, that his god _had_ turned him back - so he was able to exercise narrative control without ever departing from in-character play).

The mechanics of the NPC power ("baleful polymorph") are "dissociated" from the gameworld, in the sense that the mechanical description of the power _does not explain_ why, in the fiction, it comes to an end at the end of the NPC's next turn. As the example shows, this had no impeding effect on roleplaying.

The posts I linked to upthread have more descriptions of the 4e mechanics in actual play. I don't think that they reveal any absence of roleplaying either.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

pemerton said:


> I'm not really sure what you're trying to prove here.
> 
> Here are some actual play reports of my by-the-book 4e campaign. Please show me where the WoW-ish shallowness, or the "fantasy board game with a dash of RPG", is to be found. I missed it while I was GMing those sessions.
> 
> To put it another way. I've got nothing against you enjoying the BryonD 3E experience. I get a bit frustrated with these ongoing assertions and implications that no one else's game using a different system was ever as deep or compelling.



I reckon if I sat at your 4e table, I would thoroughly enjoy myself! If you were running Rolemaster, I would equally be able to enjoy what you present and what I could add to it. Even if you decided to check out Pathfinder and run a game, I would equally love that I believe. My point being, from reading a lot of what you have written here at EN World, I would enjoy "Pemerton's" style regardless of system. I reckon equally, I would like BryonD's table. In this regard, I think the style a group plays with is far more important than the rules they play under.

The thing is, it is far easier to classify a ruleset than it is to classify the intricacies of a playstyle. However the problem I think here is if people link a play style to a ruleset, they are bound to make assumptions that may not be true, and from there, you end up with muddied discussion. I'm sure you could attempt to validly generalise a connection but by then, you are going to just upset people for whom the generalisation does not apply. 

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## LurkAway

Herremann the Wise said:


> However the problem I think here is if people link a play style to a ruleset, they are bound to make assumptions that may not be true, and from there, you end up with muddied discussion. I'm sure you could attempt to validly generalise a connection but by then, you are going to just upset people for whom the generalisation does not apply.



In today's Rule-of-Three: 11/07/2011, I think Richard Baker did indirectly link 3E and 4E skill rules to a possible non-immersionist playstyle. But really he was suggesting a link between playstyle and typical player usage that is made probable by a ruleset. I guess people get lazy when they directly link playstyle directly to ruleset, or when people misread a person's intent. As per some other threads, many of us are just banging away a quick post during lunch break, so giving someone the benefit of the doubt can often be closer to a truthful conclusion.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

This is a theory, and not meant to be offensive to anyone mentioned.

I suspect that @Hussar and @pemerton (both of whom ardently enjoy 4e) have drastically different playstyles; perhaps to the point of being almost totally opposite.

I suspect that my own, @Dannyalcatraz @BryonD @TheAuldGrump (all of whom appear to prefer 3e/pathfinder) have styles that are neither completely like Hussar or Pemerton's.


I chose these posters because I am somewhat aware of them from their multiple posts, and they are all posters I respect. 


If I'm right (and I rarely am), Hussar seems to enjoy a more strategic game, with clear rules and limits on play to structure combat and conflict. Pemerton, on the other hand, seems to enjoy a story that provides good structure, but really enjoys the openness of the narrative as the primary feature of 4e.

Whereas, DA, Bryon, and TAG, as well as myself, appear (obviously with potentially huge variation and degree) to enjoy clear rules and limits on the details of the world and the narrative that structure it.

Or in more edition related terms, Hussar seems to like the balance of 4e, Pemerton likes the narrative freedom, and 3e offers less narrative freedom and less balance, but creates more narrative structure, and for some, along with that, immersion.

(Oh, and @Herreman_the_wise, I respect you too, and recognize you've been taking part in the conversation but don't know you well enough to guess how you play).




Sooo, now everyone can tell me how far off I am.


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=64209]Aberzanzorax[/MENTION], what I enjoy about 4e is the way it supports gonzo fantasy play of a narrativist bent.

By "narrativist", I mean "narrativist in the Forge sense". This is, roughly, that the game produces thematically compelling play _without it being anyone's job to achieve that_.

What the players have to do is build and play their PCs, pushing towards their character goals in the encounters that occur. What I as GM have to do is to build my encounters having regard to the players' thematic concerns (as revealed through the build and play of their PCs), and then to adjudicate those encounters in a way that keeps pouring the pressure onto the PCs (and, hence, the players) up until the encounter resolves.

4e is (obviously) not the only game that supports this sort of play. And unlike the indie games normally associated with the Forge, I think that the range of themes it allows players to focus on is more traditional (and gonzo). But within those parameters, I find it does a great job. It allows pouring on the pressure with (in my experience) very minimal likelihood of a combat encounter fizzling (either for being too easy, for being boring, or for being a pointless TPK). And (with help from non-4e rulebooks plus [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] on these boards) I've learned how to run skill challenges in a way that keeps the pressure on.

The game has a lot of support for encounter design and resolution, both prepared and just-in-time (monster stats by level, DCs by level, standard conditions, lots of pre-designed terrain, page 42, etc, etc). And (to link this back to the thread topic) its approach to healing, and its reliance on shared genre expectations rather than mechanics to mediate transition between encounters, makes a scene/encounter-driven approach to play easier than in a game like Rolemaster (or, I suspect, 3E - at least based on its rulebooks), which tends to make it much harder for the players and/or the GM to bring a scene to an end without violating the action resolution rules. (The same reliance on genre expectations rather than mechanics outside the context of actual action resolution at the table also makes it easier to introduce a range of gonzo fantasy story elements without having to worry about things like spell level, item prerequisites etc.)

For the sort of play that I find support for from 4e - that illustrates what I mean by encounters or situations that "pour on the pressure" - see any of the links in my earlier post above, or my new thread on PCs negotiating with Kas.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

I'm becoming more and more convinced that a significant percentage of the edition wars and other disagreements over pretending to be an elf boil down to those who cross a certain threshold of immersion versus those who don't. Of maybe those who *prefer* to cross that threshold versus those who don't.

There are apparently things happening on the "deep" immersion side of that threshold that are very valuable to some people, which they have a difficult time adequately explaining to those not on that side. I'm still waiting for the first really good treatise so explaining it. Maybe it can't be explained, like trying to explain how your favorite food tastes to another person. 

I know there are things on the mere "shallow" immersion side, coupled with metagaming techniques, for story telling, that I find _valuable as story telling*_, that are apparently also hard to explain to someone who hasn't experienced them. 

* i.e. not because I like gamist play, or tactical play, or board games in my RPGs, or however you want to put it. I do enjoy some of those things in moderation, but this is a storytelling technique I am referencing here.


----------



## LurkAway

Crazy Jerome said:


> There are apparently things happening on the "deep" immersion side of that threshold that are very valuable to some people, which they have a difficult time adequately explaining to those not on that side. I'm still waiting for the first really good treatise so explaining it. Maybe it can't be explained, like trying to explain how your favorite food tastes to another person.



I don't know anything about the author, but coincidentally, there is a "Simulationist Manifesto" today on rpg.net which tries to explain immersion, and, so far, the replies/comments are supportive.


----------



## billd91

Griego said:


> [MENTION=19675]Dannyalcatraz[/MENTION], I'm still not buying it. Sorry.




Is there a point to calling DA out as not telling the truth? Does this contribute to the discussion of this topic or to the atmosphere of the board or does it detract?


----------



## billd91

Crazy Jerome said:


> I'm becoming more and more convinced that a significant percentage of the edition wars and other disagreements over pretending to be an elf boil down to those who cross a certain threshold of immersion versus those who don't. Of maybe those who *prefer* to cross that threshold versus those who don't.




I think it may contribute to differences in opinion over particular editions and styles of play. But in order to really be an edition war, I think you fundamentally have to add in people not listening to each other, getting defensive, and making personal attacks. In other words, I don't think edition warring has much to do with opinions on editions at all and everything to do with dysfunctional behavior in the discussions.


----------



## Rogue Agent

pemerton said:


> What tends to frustrate me is the repeated suggestion, or sometimes (as in your post) the apparent assertion, that a game with metagame mechanics (or, at least, with 4e's metagame mechanics) is not roleplaying.




I'm sorry that it frustrates you. But, ultimately, the question I had to answer for myself was: Why, when playing 4th Edition, do I so frequently feel as if I'm playing _Arkham Horror_ instead of _Call of Cthulhu_?

And the answer essentially boiled down to the types of mechanics used in the game: When mechanical decisions are roleplaying decisions, it feels like a roleplaying game. When mechanical decisions aren't character decisions, it feels like something else.



> This is just one example of a player using the mechanical outcomes of  the game - in this case, an effect ends according to the game's timing  rules - to inhabit and roleplay his character - expressing his  conviction of faith in his god (and also making it true, in the fiction,  that his god _had_ turned him back - so he was able to exercise narrative control without ever departing from in-character play).




Notably, what you describe there doesn't seem to have anything to do with dissociated mechanics.



> The mechanics of the NPC power ("baleful polymorph") are "dissociated"  from the gameworld, in the sense that the mechanical description of the  power _does not explain_ why, in the fiction, it comes to an end at the end of the NPC's next turn.




For example, I'm hazy on why you would think that effects with a limited duration are inherently dissociated.



> As the example shows, this had no impeding effect on roleplaying.




You may also want to note that I said absolutely nothing about "impeding" roleplaying. In fact, I said the exact opposite of that.


----------



## Rogue Agent

pemerton said:


> By "narrativist", I mean "narrativist in the Forge sense". This is, roughly, that the game produces thematically compelling play _without it being anyone's job to achieve that_.
> 
> What the players have to do is build and play their PCs, pushing towards  their character goals in the encounters that occur. What I as GM have  to do is to build my encounters having regard to the players' thematic  concerns (as revealed through the build and play of their PCs), and then  to adjudicate those encounters in a way that keeps pouring the pressure  onto the PCs (and, hence, the players) up until the encounter resolves.




Whenever I read descriptions of what you do with 4E, it sounds like a lovely kitbash. And I'm glad it works for you.

But, unlike an actual story game, there is nothing mechanical in the game that results in PCs pushing their character goals or the GM building encounters to the players' thematic concerns.

To be clear: I am not saying there's anything wrong with what you're doing. But I am saying that what you're doing has pretty much everything to do with how you're playing the game and pretty much nothing to do with the actual rules of the game.

With that being said...



> For the sort of play that I find support for from 4e - that illustrates what I mean by encounters or situations that "pour on the pressure" - see any of the links in my earlier post above, or my new thread on PCs negotiating with Kas.




Every time you link to one of these AP reports, I click through hoping to get some elucidation of your position. But although you claim they'll show how 4E specifically and mechanically supports your style of play, these reports never seem to actually contain any information about the mechanical resolution of the actions you're describing.

In short, these reports aren't doing what you apparently think they should be doing.

To be clear: I can see that the encounters you're creating "pour on the pressure" and are created using Forge-like narrativist techniques. But none of it seems to be coming out of the mechanics of the system. And I'm not seeing anything about these encounters that couldn't be just as easily done in 3E or any other system that doesn't feature 4E's dissociated mechanics.


----------



## Nagol

Rogue Agent said:


> I'm sorry that it frustrates you. But, ultimately, the question I had to answer for myself was: Why, when playing 4th Edition, do I so frequently feel as if I'm playing _Arkham Horror_ instead of _Call of Cthulhu_?
> 
> And the answer essentially boiled down to the types of mechanics used in the game: When mechanical decisions are roleplaying decisions, it feels like a roleplaying game. When mechanical decisions aren't character decisions, it feels like something else.
> 
> 
> 
> Notably, what you describe there doesn't seem to have anything to do with dissociated mechanics.
> 
> 
> 
> For example, I'm hazy on why you would think that effects with a limited duration are inherently dissociated.




In [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s case, he is taking undefined rationale (why does the polymorph end after one round) and adding new associations based upon player input (because the paladin's god intervened).  In effect, pemerton is building a interwoven narrative on the fly that maps to the mechanics and effects presented but ties the result into the wider universe based upon player input and expressed interest.  The mechanics of polymorph are disassociated for pemerton, because in effect, the rationale for why it works that way is dependent on someone explaining it at the time -- the paladin's god got involved, the wizard knew a counter-spell, etc.

This style breaks down when the players don't bother explaining the results in the world's terms and simply accept the mechanics.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Thanks for the response @pemerton !

I figured it was somewhat like that, and your gaming is pretty foreign, but intriguing to me (in a good way).


@rogueagent

I can't speak for Pemerton (especially given how foreign his style is to my own), but maybe I can explain it as I've come to understand it from my own perspective?

I THINK Pemerton is more of a "use the mechanics to define the outer boundaries of the story in the moment" and then follow with "define, within those (somewhat broad) boundaries, an exciting narrative".

Whereas I'm more of a "use the mechanics to tell the narrative, filling in elements that are missing, or embelish beyond what is present" kinda guy.


As far as I can tell, 4e DOES allow for more narrative freedom (but that the freedom comes at a cost of "built in descripton" which some (such as myself) tend to link with immersion. Immersion might not be the right word though, I think specificity might be better. 

I want to know what happens in the game when I roll dice.

For some it's freeing to not know. For others, not knowing diminishes "roleplaying" or "immersion" depending on what people are utilizing the rules for.

No one way is correct, but the different rules appeal differently to different styles.


----------



## Griego

billd91 said:


> Is there a point to calling DA out as not telling the truth? Does this contribute to the discussion of this topic or to the atmosphere of the board or does it detract?




I'm not going so far as to say he's lying, but there's gotta be something he's forgetting or neglecting to tell us. It just doesn't fly. Now, even if everything's on the up-and-up, then he should realize his experience is far from common in 3e. Maybe his party is full of skilled optimizers with free reign to use any splatbook, but again, is that the norm for a 3e campaign? No.


----------



## Hussar

Funnily enough, RogueAgent pretty much hit it on the head.  The DM is running more, weaker encounters.  That would jive pretty strongly with what was said many pages ago on how to do this.  IOW, change the baseline assumptions to allow for more encounters per day and you can get away without needing all the healing.

Take a module, use more characters than the module is presumed to use, use characters that are significantly stronger than the baseline, and voila, you can burn through multiple encounters per adventuring day.  Oh, and be fairly generous when interpreting the results of skill checks like Bluff and "roleplay".

Might result in some swinginess, particularly with regards to critical attacks and the like, but, it will work.

What bugs me, more than anything else, is the somewhat smug answer of "well, we just played really well".  It's smug because it's so condescending.  Anyone who doesn't get the same results obviously isn't playing very well.  If we all just "played better", then we'd have no problems, just like DA and others.

OTOH, if you actually play to baseline assumptions, small group, 25-27 point buy characters, then suddenly "smart play" doesn't work.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Hussar said:


> What bugs me, more than anything else, is the somewhat smug answer of "well, we just played really well". It's smug because it's so condescending. Anyone who doesn't get the same results obviously isn't playing very well. If we all just "played better", then we'd have no problems, just like DA and others.
> 
> OTOH, if you actually play to baseline assumptions, small group, 25-27 point buy characters, then suddenly "smart play" doesn't work.




I don't think it was meant that way. But I see the line between "smart play" and "DM let us get away with something ridiculous" as both fairly narrow, and something that is drawn all over the map. 

I'm sure plenty of people here would find how I DM to be on either side of the line, at one time or another. I'll remind the players of key abilities during combat, mention a few tactical options they may haven't considered, etc. And then I'll put their characters in a very tough situation where if they don't play smart, they wil be in a world of hurt. This is because I want the players challenged, and this group is better at strategic and situational problems than they are tactical or resources problems. 

There are also pacing concerns, that I'm sure affects how DMs handle these kind of issues. Perhaps Danny's group simply prefers to have several easier encounters instead of fewer tougher encounters, for pacing reasons, and thus made it so. I'll never take out the penultimate encounter in a module to make it easier on the group, but I have removed it so that we can finish an adventure by the time the all-day session ends (and then adjust the XP down accordingly). Objectively, I'm making the adventure easier on the players, but the motive is pure pacing.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Funnily enough, RogueAgent pretty much hit it on the head.  The DM is running more, weaker encounters.  That would jive pretty strongly with what was said many pages ago on how to do this.  IOW, change the baseline assumptions to allow for more encounters per day and you can get away without needing all the healing.
> 
> Take a module, use more characters than the module is presumed to use, use characters that are significantly stronger than the baseline, and voila, you can burn through multiple encounters per adventuring day.  Oh, and be fairly generous when interpreting the results of skill checks like Bluff and "roleplay".
> 
> Might result in some swinginess, particularly with regards to critical attacks and the like, but, it will work.
> 
> What bugs me, more than anything else, is the somewhat smug answer of "well, we just played really well".  It's smug because it's so condescending.  Anyone who doesn't get the same results obviously isn't playing very well.  If we all just "played better", then we'd have no problems, just like DA and others.
> 
> OTOH, if you actually play to baseline assumptions, small group, 25-27 point buy characters, then suddenly "smart play" doesn't work.




Yeah, funny thing going on here. You're grabbing at straws based on what RogueAgent said, while ignoring what DannyAlcatraz said about his DM adjusting the difficult of encounters *upward* to account for extra players.

How important is it to have your assumptions about how 3e should play validated? Is there a reason you *won't* accept what DA says about his experiences?


----------



## Hussar

billd91 said:


> Yeah, funny thing going on here. You're grabbing at straws based on what RogueAgent said, while ignoring what DannyAlcatraz said about his DM adjusting the difficult of encounters *upward* to account for extra players.
> 
> How important is it to have your assumptions about how 3e should play validated? Is there a reason you *won't* accept what DA says about his experiences?




If I claimed that I routinely, regularly golfed at 20 under par, would you accept that at face value?  Or would you question me about it?  Because, this is what DannyA is doing.  

He's claiming that not only were they blowing through 4-6 encounters per rest period, but also they did it without any serious magical item healing (beyond a few healing potions), not one PC ever used any item creation feats ever, AND the DM adjusted encounters upwards to account for having more PC's.

I'd point out that this isn't just MY assumptions.  These are the DESIGNER assumptions.  If you're running EL=Par encounters, you shouldn't be able to do more than 4 per rest period, and that's assuming that you have a core healer.

If someone is doing more than that, then obviously there must be some changes going on in the baseline assumptions.  But, every time I try to pin down how this was done, all I get are vague lines and contradictions.  The casters didn't "nova".  There was no core healer and little healing magic.  The encounters weren't easier or set at EL under par.  On and on and on.

So, I'm sorry for being skeptical here, but, DannyA's claims run in the face of experience AND the stated assumptions of the game.  

Once you eliminate the possible, whatever remains must be the truth.  The problem is, we're running out of possible things, so what remains becomes impossible.  There's something missing from this equation and, despite repeated attempts, it never seems to surface.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Hussar said:


> There's something missing from this equation and, despite repeated attempts, it never seems to surface.



How about a thought exercise. 

There are certain expectations built into 3e regarding resources. The dynamic however goes two ways. The system needs to assume an average or baseline (which in this case you seem to be correctly using). However, the players understanding the "generosity" of this baseline will throw their characters at a situation using up their resources according to the formula. Think of it, if you're thirsty and someone pours you a drink, you'll generally drink all of it, regardless (within reason) of how much you were actually given. I think a similar situation is perhaps going on here with DA's game. It is like they were poured 500mL of drink but damn it if any one in the party is going to drink more than 100mL. They have treated their resources like gold, rather than a daily allowance of bread that's expected to be consumed. This style of play is completely foreign to most players.

We successfully played a 3e conversion of Return to the Tomb of Horrors and only lost a single character through incredibly anal conservation of resources as well as precautions every step of the way. I can understand with a similar (or perhaps greater) attention to detail, DA's group may have achieved what you are regarding as the impossible.

Whatever the case, I don't see much point in badgering DA further.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Hussar

But, Herremann, here's the question.  Ok, you only lost one PC.  Did you go through six or more encounters before resting?  Did you enter encounters at 20% of resources?  What kind of characters were you playing?  What additional rules were you using?  These are all pretty reasonable questions that should be simple to answer and will likely shed a fair bit of light on why you did this.

I think that there is far more credence being given to player choice here than is realistic.  You are going to get into combat encounters.  That's inevitable.  Particularly in a dungeon like RttToEE where you have literally hundreds of combat encounters.  

Now, even with the most careful of play, you're going to get unlucky sometimes.  You cannot get lucky every time.  That bad guy is going to roll that nasty crit, you're going to fail a skill check and get smacked with the trap, the random encounter is going to find you.  This is a fact of play.

Yet, the claim here is that all the baseline assumptions that are built into the game are apparently false and can be successfully ignored.

You guys can call it badgering all you like.  As I said before, if I claimed to score 20 under par at golf, you can bet that I'd be called on for proof.  Yet, when I ask for proof here, all I get is contradictions and vague assertions.  The PC's were point bought, but, what was the actual point buy value?  PC's could bluff through encounters, but, how exactly does that lead to bad guys surrendering (because, if you'll recall, that was the claim)?  On and on and on.

It's funny.  I said that combat in AD&D was far more forgiving than in 3e.  Bill91 immedietely questioned me on it.  Yet, it's pretty easy to prove.  Monsters in 3e do about 4 times as much damage (they hit twice as often and twice as hard) in 3e and have about twice (or more) as many HP as AD&D monsters.  Additionally, AD&D PC's can deal (at least up to about level 10) about twice as much damage per round as a 3e PC (fighter types anyway).

See, right there, I can point to facts about why I have the opinion that I do.  These are verifiable.  I could be wrong.  Fair enough.  Show me where I'm wrong.

But, as I said before, I keep trying to uncover facts and it's all just cobwebs and tissue paper.


----------



## Herremann the Wise

Hussar said:


> But, Herremann, here's the question.  Ok, you only lost one PC.  Did you go through six or more encounters before resting?



It depended. Because we were using high level characters (above 15th level ending in almost epic), you can kind of rest where and when you want. Conserving resources usually meant resting at about 40 to 50 percent of resources used. At that level, you can keep going, so long as the casters are conservative with the big stuff. You just have so many resources at your disposal.



Hussar said:


> Did you enter encounters at 20% of resources?



I played a wizard alienist and can verify that resources never got this low. He had so many resources, I made up about 8 spell selection sheets, depending upon the focus for the day. Otherwise, running a high level wizard was just impossible. Occasionally, you would have an all out encounter that sucked all the big stuff but they would be somewhat rare and to be purposefully avoided.



Hussar said:


> What kind of characters were you playing?



Typical party with an extra cleric (5 PCs). All high level.



Hussar said:


> What additional rules were you using?



3.5 core and complete only and the DM was regularly using the epic book towards the end.



Hussar said:


> These are all pretty reasonable questions that should be simple to answer and will likely shed a fair bit of light on why you did this.



Certainly. Chalk it up to PCs at very high levels.



Hussar said:


> I think that there is far more credence being given to player choice here than is realistic.  You are going to get into combat encounters.  That's inevitable.  Particularly in a dungeon like RttToEE where you have literally hundreds of combat encounters.



A conservative party however can use a minimum of resources if that is their aim. I can't see too much wrong with a typical 4 to 6 encounters. I'm sure there were also times when the first encounter blew the party out of the water but this would be atypical from DA's description. I'm also sure there were times that they went past 6 encounters too. The thing with a large party at an average resource level of 20% is that you still have one or two characters that are OK in the frontline with those characters with resources almost used out the back. A good group controls things so they don't get easily ambushed so mix these together, I don't see any reason not to believe DA; even though I imagine other groups would play it differently.



Hussar said:


> Now, even with the most careful of play, you're going to get unlucky sometimes.  You cannot get lucky every time.  That bad guy is going to roll that nasty crit, you're going to fail a skill check and get smacked with the trap, the random encounter is going to find you.  This is a fact of play.



And I'm sure it did, (even though it would not have been typical) and upon these occasions, the group may have had to bunker down. 



Hussar said:


> Yet, the claim here is that all the baseline assumptions that are built into the game are apparently false and can be successfully ignored.



I think it would take a high degree of skill and occasionally luck for sure. A group focusing on not using resources though can stray a fair way from the baseline assumptions in my opinion (particularly at higher levels - if not quite the levels we did for RttToH.) Please understand, I'm not trying to be contrary here, I'm just imagining a group being able to accomplish this most of the time if that is their focus and style of play.



Hussar said:


> You guys can call it badgering all you like.  As I said before, if I claimed to score 20 under par at golf, you can bet that I'd be called on for proof.  Yet, when I ask for proof here, all I get is contradictions and vague assertions.  The PC's were point bought, but, what was the actual point buy value?  PC's could bluff through encounters, but, how exactly does that lead to bad guys surrendering (because, if you'll recall, that was the claim)?  On and on and on.



I don't know. I'm just working on the same information as you are in this thread. Remarkable yes! Impossible... I sincerely don't think so.



Hussar said:


> It's funny.  I said that combat in AD&D was far more forgiving than in 3e.  Bill91 immedietely questioned me on it.  Yet, it's pretty easy to prove.  Monsters in 3e do about 4 times as much damage (they hit twice as often and twice as hard) in 3e and have about twice (or more) as many HP as AD&D monsters.  Additionally, AD&D PC's can deal (at least up to about level 10) about twice as much damage per round as a 3e PC (fighter types anyway).
> 
> See, right there, I can point to facts about why I have the opinion that I do.  These are verifiable.  I could be wrong.  Fair enough.  Show me where I'm wrong.



Your not wrong (or at least those facts sound in the ballpark). But if you have smart players who can regularly control the field of combat (as DA alluded to), you minimize the damage that those creatures do. The biggest issue I have with 3e combat is the typical thoughtless rush to the middle style of hp attrition that it implicitly encourages. If however you ignore that, and control the battlefield and "what" gets hit, you can minimize damage significantly. I bet that DAs DM would have had a Dickens of a time trying to get full attacks on those PCs. Your numbers above are based on the enemy optimising their attacks and I am guessing that this did not happen that often in that campaign.

I suppose one thing that this assumes is that the DM plays his monsters in a consistent way. Too often, I have seen a DM looking to compete against their players good tactics by playing their bad guys better than they should. Perhaps DAs DM was most consistent in this regard, allowing good tactics to consistently reap benefits where a lesser DM would try too hard to "do something" against the PCs. If an enemy leader went down, chances are the morale of the enemy plummeted making those bluff/intimidate checks of value. I know this is how we play and expect to be rewarded (and how I reward my PCs when DMing).



Hussar said:


> But, as I said before, I keep trying to uncover facts and it's all just cobwebs and tissue paper.



I can understand and appreciate your frustration. For what it's worth though, perhaps you have been playing 4e and it's mathematical dynamic of forced attrition over a number of rounds and forget how forgiving (and quick) 3e combat can be if the PCs can effectively control the field of battle. I would still consider DAs play remarkable and highly effective and not something typical for most groups.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## pemerton

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], I don't have anything like your familiarity with 3E, and like I said upthread I don't know the module very well, but I do see where you are coming from.

In 3E, how hard is it to use Bluff to pretend to be a representative of a rival temple/node/whatever the RttToEE factions are called? That could be one way in which encounters are bypassed/dealt with.

The PCs were said to be a Ftr, a Wizard, a Ftr with 2 Clc levels, a Rog with 1 Sorc level, a Brb/Drd, a multiclassed Monk and a Ftr/Rgr/Div/SpSwd (#808). And the most valuable tactic was said to be spell conservation, and the use of spells to end encounters with the non-spell users then mopping up (#803).

Suppose a 5th level Fighter has a 16 CON, and therefore 15 (for stat) + 10 (1st level) + 4d10 = 47 hp. 20% of that would be 10 or fewer hp. I assume from what you say that it is not that hard for a 5HD monster in 3E to do 10 hp on a hit. I'm not sure what monsters are in RttToEE, but I'm looking at an ogre: it has +8 to hit and deals 2d8+7 damage. So a hit from one of them is autokill against that 5th level fighter on 20% hp.

Let's say that the fighter has full plate and shield for base AC 20 or so (I'm a bit hazy on my 3E armour types) and has +3 AC from magic (that seems generous to me for a 5th level fighter, but again I don't know the system or the module that well). That means the ogre needs a 15 or better to hit the fighter's AC 23. DA used the phrase upthread of "the fighter's playing the odds", and it certainly is a bit of roulette wheel to be a 5th level fighter on 20% hp against that ogre. (Even on half hit points the fighter will find a hit from it pretty severe.)

But the ogre is AC 16 - suppose the 5th level melee-types have +8 to hit or so, then they hit it two-thirds of the time - so 6 of them will do 4 hits a round, and provided they average at least 7 points per hit they'll drop it in that round. 

And it gets better against a worg - CR 2 rather than CR 3 - which has one more hp but is only AC 18 with a +7 to hit for 1d6+4. It will take two hits, and so typically more than 4 rounds, to drop the fighter even at 20% hp. In 6 rounds (say) the fighter will hit it 3 times, dropping it if the fighter averages 10 hp or more on a hit (say d8 weapon +3 from stat +1 from magic +2 from specialisation).

3 worgs would be an EL 5 encounter, wouldn't they, and fairly easy for the melee types to deal with according to my maths. Two ogres, on the other hand - also EL 5, I think - would have to be expected to kill at least one fighter on 20% hp. How likely is a 5th level party in RttToEE to come across worgs? ogres?


----------



## Rogue Agent

Hussar said:


> OTOH, if you actually play to baseline assumptions, small group, 25-27 point buy characters, then suddenly "smart play" doesn't work.




When even the DMG tells you that it's not necessary to play strictly and exclusively by the "baseline assumptions", though, how relevant is that?

With that being said...



billd91 said:


> Yeah, funny thing going on here. You're grabbing  at straws based on what RogueAgent said, while ignoring what  DannyAlcatraz said about his DM adjusting the difficult of encounters *upward* to account for extra players.




DannyA is claiming that:

(a) The group was facing encounters 4 levels above their pay grade;
(b) Those encounters were actually being made even more difficult by their DM; and
(c) They were not being significantly injured in these encounters. (With significant injury being defined as 20% of their hit points.)

Even I'm having problems swallowing that package.

In the 1st-10th level range, a +5 CR adjustment on a creature will result (roughly speaking) in a tripling of their hit points, a shift from a 25% hit rate to a 75% hit rate, and a doubling of their expected damage output.

I'll accept that smart play can minimize risk. But at some point the monsters are going to get these guys into a fair fight, and then they're going to get their clocks cleaned.



Hussar said:


> I'd point out that this isn't just MY assumptions.   These are the DESIGNER assumptions.  If you're running EL=Par  encounters, you shouldn't be able to do more than 4 per rest period, and  that's assuming that you have a core healer.




Strategic play that significantly shifts encounters in your direction from Round 1 will increase that. You'll also see an increase in encounters if DM simulates morale effects for the monsters (having them break and run as the battle turns against them). Superior shepherding and expenditure of resources can also radically shift the daily limit.

On the flip side, a sandbox campaign makes it impossible for the GM to "enforce" any sort of "baseline".

And so forth. The thing is, the assumption (contrary to what the DMG and the designers of 3E actually tell you to do) that the only acceptable form of play is rigid adherence to an imaginary "baseline" results in what I've seen referred to as My Perfect Encounter design. It mandates that you railroad your players and strictly limit any sort of non-tactical or strategic approach to the game. 

Once you


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Maybe his party is full of skilled optimizers with free reign to use any splatbook




PHB + first 4 Completes only, no Psi, no MIC, no SC.

Considering I've already discussed our party contains a multiclass Monk and my Whip & ShSwd TWF Ftr/Rgr/Div/SpSwd, I'm amused you would even think we had a bunch of optimizers.  We have one player who remotely qualifies as an optimizer- the Wiz player- who prefers Metamagic over Crafting; doesn't even Scribe scrolls.



> (a) The group was facing encounters 4 levels above their pay grade;
> (b) Those encounters were actually being made even more difficult by their DM; and




You're making an erroneous assumption: AFAIK, no encounter was _both_ above our level as written _and_ subsequently adjusted upward in difficulty to account for party size.  Our DM isn't that dumb.  If an encounter was too weak for our party size, he would adjust it up.  If it was higher level, he'd leave it be.

And again, some encounters we're avoided without fighting.  For example, there is one with some kind of fire giant or fire elemental (or some such) we encountered while messed up.  Him we avoided, and found another path to our destination.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> Yet, the claim here is that all the baseline assumptions that are built into the game are apparently false and can be successfully ignored.




If that's what you are taking away from this discussion, then I believe you are misinterpreting the discussion. What I believe you should be taking away from this is: *your mileage may vary* on a number of factors - including play style. Baseline assumptions are just that - *baseline* assumptions. Individual tables will probably deviate from those in substantial ways. And yet they'll still be playing D&D as it was intended to be played.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> How likely is a 5th level party in RttToEE to come across worgs? ogres?




I remember bandits/mercenaries, frogs, cultists, a dragon, elementals, divine casters, Tharizdun messing with the heads of my PC and the Ftr, a fiendish T-Rex or 3, giants (?), duregar...maybe a few ogres.  Not too many worgs.


----------



## LostSoul

pemerton said:


> In 3E, how hard is it to use Bluff to pretend to be a representative of a rival temple/node/whatever the RttToEE factions are called? That could be one way in which encounters are bypassed/dealt with.




I think it depends on the DM.  The various temples in the crater ridge mines all hate each other; I personally think that's something that could easily be exploited, while other DMs might make all NPCs paranoid and very likely to attack on sight.

That's why I like the reaction roll from B/X.  Makes it easier for the DM to be impartial when judging this sort of material.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Originally Posted by pemerton
> In 3E, how hard is it to use Bluff to pretend to be a representative of a rival temple/node/whatever the RttToEE factions are called? That could be one way in which encounters are bypassed/dealt with.



Some we did, some we didn't.  And some we managed to fool until it was too late for them...


----------



## Hassassin

pemerton said:


> <snip ogre example>




Two ogres against a 5th level party is a good example. Your AC 23 and +8 attack are reasonable for a sword+shield Fighter at that level (though 25 and +10 wouldn't be impossible). Approximately 2/3 chance to hit an ogre, 1/4 chance to be hit. For damage lets say 9 (1d10 + 4), though this is probably too low.

Simulate combat between two fighters and two ogres. Straight up fight, no tactics, ogres go first.

Ogres do an average of 4 damage/round each, fighters do an average of 6. The first ogre drops on average after five fighter turns, i.e. it gets three actions of 4 damage average each. The second gets another two on top for a total of 32 damage from the both of them.

If the fighters go first instead its a total of six actions for the ogres, for 24 damage.

That damage is approximately 25% of the total hp resources of the two fighters. No other resources (e.g. magic items) from them were consumed, nor anything from the other PCs. No real tactics were used, the contribution of other party members was ignored, there was no surprise round.

I think you can imagine how a real party might have done *much* better than this <10% loss of resources.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Well, since we're discussing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil....

My "group" ran it with 4 pcs (my "group" was myself, another player -each of us running two guys-, and a DM). 

There were:
A dexterity based fighter (swashbuckler?).
A rogue (maybe shadowdancer?).
A barbarian.
A mystic theurge (who did not memorize healing spells).

We regularly completed six or more encounters on a regular basis, without the use of healing wands (spells were sometimes burned to keep us at full hp between fights, but this was not commonly needed).

How?

It was a stealth party. All characters had (from skills, feats, magic items, etc) average or above hide and move silently skills.

Our usual tactics were to ambush (free standard action of attacks for 3 damage doers, one or two of which had extra precision based damage). This also provided the benefit of US getting to decide positioning and tactics, rather than the enemy doing so, and allowed us to take out more dangerous targets (like enemy spellcasters). It also prevented enemies from raising the alarm in the complex crawling with enemies.

The mystic theurge never really did any damage. His name was Ulee, but his offical name/nickname in campaign was "Ulee Fixit", as his job was battlefield control (a "controller" in 4e). He put up walls, cast entangle, web, a few buffs (which were easy since we called the shots), dismissal, etc. etc.

Because of the style, this was (as I hope people can see) not a hit point attrition type of game. There were other challenges (precision damage against elementals is not effective; true seeing can be a p.i.t.a. against a party that relys upon stealth) and it was a fun module/experience.

But, to claim that D&D can only be played as hit point attrition is false. There are a dozen or more ways to make parties that overcome obstacles on a regular basis without letting hit points be the primary measure of capability.




For what it's worth, this was one group. My other D&D group (across the country at the time) was also running the module. I wasn't a part of this other group at the time. They WERE running a hp attrition style game (standard party makeup, healing wands, cleric based on healing). There's an evil priest in the module, name starts with an "H", I think (can't remember it though)***. He became a major recurring villain and killed several of them on more than one occasion, and nearly caused a TPK. My group doesn't remember his name because he was dead in 2 or 3 rounds.

The point here isn't "my group is tha awesomez!" It's about how healing is one of many resources, and you can set up an adventuring party to focus on lots of resources (stunning, instakill saves, battlefield control, stealth, divination, buffing, charm/domination/diplomacy/bluff, demolitions, etc. etc.).

It's not about "playing smart"...it's about choosing the limiting resource, or the focus on strengths, to be something other than HP. At that point, healing becomes less important.


***EDIT. Looked it up. The name was Hedrack.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> In effect, pemerton is building a interwoven narrative on the fly that maps to the mechanics and effects presented but ties the result into the wider universe based upon player input and expressed interest.  The mechanics of polymorph are disassociated for pemerton, because in effect, the rationale for why it works that way is dependent on someone explaining it at the time -- the paladin's god got involved, the wizard knew a counter-spell, etc.



Yep.



Nagol said:


> This style breaks down when the players don't bother explaining the results in the world's terms and simply accept the mechanics.



I see this as relating to the vexed issue of 4e and fictional positioning.

Some people take the view that 4e's action resolution mechanics can be applied without regard to fictional positioning, and thus that the game has a built-in tendency (or, at least, a capacity), to degenerate into a series of dice rolls. (Personally, I think that this is where the "board game" thing comes from. In a board game there is no fictional positioning.)

But I don't agree with this claim. I think that 4e's action resolution mechanics do make the fiction relevant. On that same "dissociated mechanics" thread, I expressed some views about this.

I think that skill challenges, as written obviously make fictional positioning important, becaue the GM has to frame the initial situation, and then reframe as part of each new skill roll (PHB p 259; DMG p 74):

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you [the player] face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks . . .

You [the GM] describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results.​
I interpret the plurals here as distributed, not collective - ie after each description a player responds, makes a check, and a result is narrated which provides the new environment to which a player then responds - because the other reading - describe the environment, let the players make X checks without any connection to the fiction, then narrate the overall outcome of the challenge, (i) seems to produce a crappy game and (ii) is at odds with the examples of play that are found in the DMG and RC.

Because of the role of the battlemat and tokens/minis, I think that the significance of fictional positioning in 4e combat is more contested. I think how 4e combat is experienced may depend a lot on whether, for any given group, the stuff that is drawn on the battlemap is first and foremost _fictional_ stuff - trees, rubble, fog, walls with doors and windows, etc - or first and foremost _mechanical_ stuff - cover, difficult terrain, obscuring terrain etc. Perhaps in part because my maps are fairly sketchy and my group uses board game tokens rather than miniatures or even WotC's picture tokens, I think that the fictional stuff prevails. And this is reinforced by the resolution of interactions with it that obviously involve fictionl positioning - treating the map as a guide to the fiction rather than just a mechanical artefact to be manipulated - like climbing walls, overturning furniture, opening or closing doors and shutters, etc.

I also think that there are mechanical aspects of 4e action resolution that mandate the importance of fictional positioning - the rules on damaging objects, for example, make it clear that keywords (like fire, ice, teleportation etc) have fictional signficance. A tree can be set alight, for instance, but a stone pillar can't - so here we have ficitonal positioning that matters. Icy terrain can be used to cross a river, whereas a grasping vines spell that also creates difficult terrain probably can't. And so on.

So I think that playing the game as just a series of dice rolls requres ignoring things like the signficance of keywords + fiction to action resolution that are expressly called out in the game rules.

How common this is, I don't know. My gut feel would be that skill challenges and page 42 in the way I've talked about them in this post do not loom large in Encounters or Lair Assault. (I don't actually know, not having played either.) But my gut feel is also that these are best treated as degenerate cases of what the game can offer.



Rogue Agent said:


> unlike an actual story game, there is nothing mechanical in the game that results in PCs pushing their character goals or the GM building encounters to the players' thematic concerns.



Well, this is true of HeroWars/Quest also. And it is incorporated into The Dying Earth only somewhat indirectly, via the advancement rles.

But in my view a game can mechanically support narrativist play without having the sorts of direct mechanics that I take you to be referring to (I'm thinking eg Burning Wheel Beliefs).



Rogue Agent said:


> I am saying that what you're doing has pretty much everything to do with how you're playing the game and pretty much nothing to do with the actual rules of the game.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> I'm not seeing anything about these encounters that couldn't be just as easily done in 3E or any other system that doesn't feature 4E's dissociated mechanics.



Besides the example that I gave and that Nagol elucidated upthread, I think there is some more general features of 4e that support my preferred playstyle in a way that 3E (I think) wouldn't.

First, at least in my view the game comes with a lot of built-in story elements, for both GMs and players, that make it easy to introduce thematic material into the game. Perhaps it is because I read the 4e monster books in light of Worlds and Monsters, but I find them richer than other monster books I'm familiar with, and I find also that more effort has been made by the designers to have that thematic richness actually emerge through the mechanical play. (Obviously there are exceptions, like Kruthiks and Bulettes. I don't use them.)

Second, the game's action resolution is (in my experience) very forgiving of variations in player choice, meaning it tends not to funnel the players into mechanically optimal choices in the course of play. It leaves room for other considerations to matter.

Third, and related, the action resolution mechanics themselves create "space" in play for things to happen. The absent of instakill combat resolution, combined with the dynamics of incombat healing, create space for the injection of material that (at least in my experience) tends not to be there in a game like Rolemaster, where (at mid- to high levels) getting off the first shot tends to be the overwhelming consideration in resolving a combat. And in skill challenges, the same "space" is created by the X before 3 mechanic - the GM _has_ to keep the encounter alive, by introducing new complications in response to player successes or player failures, and - at least in my experience - this leads to things happening in the fiction that don't happen in a less structured resolution system.

Fourth, and also related, these "spaces" in action resolution create room to solve the fictional positioning issue, that I noted above, in another way - introduce _thematic_ fictional content that matters to the resolution, by affecting both player choices, and NPC choices, and hence (in combat) who fights whom how, or (out of combat) the unfolding dynamics of a skill challenge.

I know that none of this can be done so easily in Rolemaster, because the mechanics push against it. And the experience and knowledge that I do have of 3E suggest that it would resemble RM more than 4e in this respect.


----------



## Nagol

pemerton said:


> <snip>
> 
> I also think that there are mechanical aspects of 4e action resolution that mandate the importance of fictional positioning - the rules on damaging objects, for example, make it clear that keywords (like fire, ice, teleportation etc) have fictional signficance. A tree can be set alight, for instance, but a stone pillar can't - so here we have ficitonal positioning that matters. Icy terrain can be used to cross a river, whereas a grasping vines spell that also creates difficult terrain probably can't. And so on.
> 
> So I think that playing the game as just a series of dice rolls requres ignoring things like the signficance of keywords + fiction to action resolution that are expressly called out in the game rules.




Where this breaks for me is where an effect's specific mechanic -- which will always come into pla y--  is tied to any target's fiction when the target has no particular investment in the result.

Polymorph is a great example of this.  The victim will always revert to the original shape the next round.  No god-like interference necessary -- no counter-spell.  The character can be a godless, friendless, sleeping, helpless, first level ally of the PCs -- and the mechanics say the effect will end.  Full stop.  It doesn't matter who is targeted, there is no greater effect that can come about except through DM fiat.

Tying that ending mechanic to the fiction around a character is neat and all, but for me it obfuscates the way the universe operates (there is always areason the effect ends) and removes or at least hides forms of meaningful choice (e.g. the paladin directly calling for divine aid) and strategic play (e.g. bringing counter-spell reagents, curative magicks, or picking the battlefield wisely).



> <snip>
> 
> Fourth, and also related, these "spaces" in action resolution create room to solve the fictional positioning issue, that I noted above, in another way - introduce _thematic_ fictional content that matters to the resolution, by affecting both player choices, and NPC choices, and hence (in combat) who fights whom how, or (out of combat) the unfolding dynamics of a skill challenge.
> 
> I know that none of this can be done so easily in Rolemaster, because the mechanics push against it. And the experience and knowledge that I do have of 3E suggest that it would resemble RM more than 4e in this respect.




See, many of the 4e mechanics make it immaterial who fights whom; the narration changes, but "ze game remains ze same".


----------



## Crazy Jerome

My style overlaps somewhat with pemertons' style, but also has some differences.  The point he makes here is a major piece of the overlap:



pemerton said:


> Third, and related, the action resolution mechanics themselves create "space" in play for things to happen. The absent of instakill combat resolution, combined with the dynamics of incombat healing, create space for the injection of material that (at least in my experience) tends not to be there in a game like Rolemaster, where (at mid- to high levels) getting off the first shot tends to be the overwhelming consideration in resolving a combat. And in skill challenges, the same "space" is created by the X before 3 mechanic - the GM _has_ to keep the encounter alive, by introducing new complications in response to player successes or player failures, and - at least in my experience - this leads to things happening in the fiction that don't happen in a less structured resolution system.




It is not so much that 4E does a lot to *force* one into a narrative style, though it does hint at it rather pervasively.  If nothing else, the metagaming constructs create a vaccuum that, for anyone used to a narrative style, beg to be exploited by that style.  See for example, the original Come and Get It.  You have to really *work* to make that work in a traditional manner.  If you *want* to narrate a broad variety of results, as partially determined by the situation at hand, then the vaccuum created in the story begs for you to pull something into it, rather than the mechanic pushing you to do that.  

But for those of us who wanted something more like this when we first played Basic D&D, it is more about the lack of narrative restraints than anything else.  Ignoring the Forge "narrative" in favor of a broader, earlier, literary conception mixed with gaming--"narrative" is about getting the story result consistent with what you want, versus following a process and hoping you get it.

That is, this is for me not a traditional versus indy (Forge), Big Model, Creative Agenda question as much as it is a metagaming versus immersion question.  Immersion demands process, preferably at some risk.  The satisfaction is in experiencing the process.  Metagaming pushes a result, but preferably at some cost.  The satisfaction is in reaching the goal, or failing to do so in an interesting way.

Of course, to be much of a story or a game, both methods need meaningful decision points.  In their purer forms (neither of which exists in any version of D&D), I'd say that the decision points for immersion involve "risk A for a chance to get X."  In contrast, the metagaming decision points involve "trade A for X, with a risk of consequence Y."


----------



## pemerton

Another comment on fictional positioning.

I've been following the Tomb of Horrors thread. The general view seems to be that the best way to "beat" the Tomb is to use a flying thief on a rope, lots of divination, etc.

There's no doubt that this makes fictional positioning matter - to resolve the actions of the thief on a rope, for example, requires drawing on the properties and relations of the rope to other things and events in the shared fiction.

Still, I personally have close to zero interest in that sort of play. I find that sort of operational dungeon crawl, where nothing higher is at stake, quite tedious both to GM and to play.

From which I infer that it is not _just_ fictional positioning that makes for a fun RPG experience. The fiction has to be engaging.

This also relates to healing and healing surges. In 4e there _is_ fictional positioning based on injuries taken - for example, NPCs who see all the scrapes and cuts on the PCs might draw certain inferences and act appropriately. But the fiction - as that example shows - will not be a fiction about physiology and recovery.


----------



## pemerton

Nagol said:


> See, many of the 4e mechanics make it immaterial who fights whom; the narration changes, but "ze game remains ze same".



If I've undestood you then I think I disagree, but it might turn on the metric for "many".

If you mean "immaterial as far as the mechanical resolution is concerned" then I would tend to agree. In this respect 4e is closer to a traditional RPG then (eg) HeroWars/Quest, where relationships etc matter to action resolution. Although this is not universally true in 4e - page 42 resolution can (at my table, at least) make these sorts of things matter, and WotC seem to recognise this too, in the mechanical suggestions for at least some combats. (I'm thinking of Heathen, in an early 4e Dragon, and Cairn of the Winter King, from Monster Vault. Both allow emotional/relational aspects to play into the climactic combat resolution.)

The mechanical elements of resolution are sometimes suggestive of thematic/relational matters, however - the most obvious being the divine mastery of radiant powers. Another that comes up frequently in my game is the consequence - on a 1 or 20 - of the chaos sorcerer's attempt to control is power.

And then, once we look at materiality beyond the mechanics of resolution, and involving the broader elements of the fiction, then this is as important in 4e as in any other traditional game - but, as I tried to explain in my earlier post, 4e creates a "space" for these elements to emerge which is, in my view, different from other games that create much more pressure towards mechanically optimal choices.


----------



## tomBitonti

Hassassin said:


> Two ogres against a 5th level party is a good example. Your AC 23 and +8 attack are reasonable for a sword+shield Fighter at that level (though 25 and +10 wouldn't be impossible). Approximately 2/3 chance to hit an ogre, 1/4 chance to be hit. For damage lets say 9 (1d10 + 4), though this is probably too low.
> 
> Simulate combat between two fighters and two ogres. Straight up fight, no tactics, ogres go first.
> 
> Ogres do an average of 4 damage/round each, fighters do an average of 6. The first ogre drops on average after five fighter turns, i.e. it gets three actions of 4 damage average each. The second gets another two on top for a total of 32 damage from the both of them.
> 
> If the fighters go first instead its a total of six actions for the ogres, for 24 damage.
> 
> That damage is approximately 25% of the total hp resources of the two fighters. No other resources (e.g. magic items) from them were consumed, nor anything from the other PCs. No real tactics were used, the contribution of other party members was ignored, there was no surprise round.
> 
> I think you can imagine how a real party might have done *much* better than this <10% loss of resources.




Oh wow; I'm thinking that the fight could swing a lot worse, either way.

Don't Ogres have greatclubs, for 1d10+4?  They also have power attack, with a +4 bonus would make damage up to 1d10+12.

If, on the first round, the Ogres charge (they were hiding on the sides of the road), then both Ogres get a +2 for charging, and one gets +2 on top of that for a flank.  Plus whatever penalty the player gets for being flat footed.

At 4th level, a 21-22 AC for a fighter (+8 Plate, +2 Shield, +1 Magic, +1 Dex) is very normal.  On the other hand, that might be: (+4 Chain, +1 Buckler, +3 Dex, +1 Magic) for 19, with a 16 when flat footed.

A +8 attack against AC 21 with either 2 PA or 4 PA would be:

0.4 * 1d10 + 8: 
0.4 * 1d10 + 12

0.8 * 31 or about 24 points.

Here is a breakdown of the damage ranges:

0.36 (Both miss)
0.24 (9-18) (One hit)
0.24 (13-22) (The other hit)
0.16 (22-40) (Both hit)

That is a little low because crits are ignored.  And a lot low if the second target is used.

And then, this becomes much worse if the Ogres also win initiative.  Another round of attacks!

Of course, that is pretty much a worst case scenario.  And a rather contrived circumstance: Except in very hostile regions, how often do two bloodthirsty Ogres jump out of the roadside offering no quarter?  Then, if the area is so hostile, why is the party traipsing down the road oblivious to the danger?  A careful party would be cautious around any obvious hiding points.  (As a parallel example: I'm continuous adjusting my driving to keep away potential hazards.  Well in advance of an actual hazard.)

Fights are often *very* sensitive to the starting conditions.

TomB


----------



## Hassassin

tomBitonti said:


> Don't Ogres have greatclubs, for 1d10+4?  They also have power attack, with a +4 bonus would make damage up to 1d10+12.




They have large greatclubs that deal 2d8+7. They don't have Power Attack (by the book).



tomBitonti said:


> At 4th level, a 21-22 AC for a fighter (+8 Plate, +2 Shield, +1 Magic, +1 Dex) is very normal.  On the other hand, that might be: (+4 Chain, +1 Buckler, +3 Dex, +1 Magic) for 19, with a 16 when flat footed.




The fighters were 5th level in my/pemerton's example (because two ogres are EL 5). I'd say +2 magic (i.e. armor +1, shield +1) or even a ring or amulet on top wouldn't be out of the ordinary with 9k WBL.



tomBitonti said:


> A +8 attack against AC 21 with either 2 PA or 4 PA would be:
> 
> 0.4 * 1d10 + 8:
> 0.4 * 1d10 + 12
> 
> 0.8 * 31 or about 24 points.




You are double counting. 0.4 * (1d10 + 8) + 0.4 * (1d10 + 12)  = average 0.4 * 31 = 11-12.

(Although the premise is wrong due to the above.)



tomBitonti said:


> Fights are often *very* sensitive to the starting conditions.




This.


----------



## Wiseblood

Hussar said:


> It's funny. I said that combat in AD&D was far more forgiving than in 3e. Bill91 immedietely questioned me on it. Yet, it's pretty easy to prove. Monsters in 3e do about 4 times as much damage (they hit twice as often and twice as hard) in 3e and have about twice (or more) as many HP as AD&D monsters. Additionally, AD&D PC's can deal (at least up to about level 10) about twice as much damage per round as a 3e PC (fighter types anyway).




I had to go find where you said that. Having read the posts I understand you meant from a melee damage standpoint.

I couldhave listed 20+ things that show that 3e was vastly more forgiving than AD&D.

On a side note I played RttToEE our DM took it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy on us. I would have LOVED the threat of dying. I did not feel that tingle of fear except when fighting the dragon in the beginning. Oh, that was a very long campaign.


----------



## Hussar

Wiseblood - IMO, the lethality in AD&D generally came from save or die effects which everyone and his bloody dog got.    Outright combat damage?  Not so much.  3e monsters are just so much bigger and output so much more damage than AD&D monsters.  Never minding that at least by 2e anyway, the fighter types do considerably more damage while the monsters aren't typically (with a few notable exceptions - giants and dragons) much higher HP than their 1e counterparts.

But, as I said, that wasn't really the point.  I'm more than willing to debate this and examine it further, although that would derail this thread even further.  It was more the fact that this actually could be discussed using facts.

------------

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick here.  Really I'm not.  HOnest.  No stop laughing.  I'm really not.  Ok.  I'll wait until you clean up your monitor.  Yes. yes.  Ok.  

Take Az(sp)'s group.  Nice group.  The only problem is, eventually you're going to fail stealth checks.  That's going to happen.  And, when it does, this group is going to die.  It has no healing beyond potions.  The MT didn't memorize healing spells, so, no healing in combat.  The party has AC's that are easily hit (unless the party is lazer beam focusing) and the first mass Will save and the MT is toast as the other three characters obliterate him.

Heck, Harpies would absolutely destroy this party, just as an easy example.  

If you're regularly scoring surprise on every encounter, something funky is going on.  There's just too many die rolls for you to succeed that often.  This particular group would be Fine.. Fine... Fine... DEAD.

I have a very strong suspicion that these playstyles are being aided considerably by the playstyle of the DM.  That the ability to play this way has a lot less to do with mechanics and a lot more to do with what the DM brings to the table.


----------



## LostSoul

A lot depends on how the DM runs things.  I once played in a game where I was playing a Ranger/Barbarian in a party that moved 20'.  I went 60' ahead of the party in stealth mode - moving at half speed - through the wilderness.

Next thing that happened was that we were all standing at the edge of a clearing making Will saves from the songs the harpies flying around a tree were singing.  I'm not sure if we got to roll Init or not.

Didn't play with that guy again.

While for some people the lack of consistency in _how_ to run a 3E game is seen as a benefit, in my case I don't like it much.  I'd much rather a clear process - similar to what's found in B/X with its turn structure.  Each action you take eats up time, which calls for a wandering monster check, which requires a reaction roll, which can lead into group initiative.  Marching order and the role of the caller helped to cut down the "murk" that can arise between "free-play" - which 3E has a lot of - and structured play.

One of the most interesting games I played was with a 3E guy running 4E for the first time at a con; he ran everything in initiative order.  Very clear procedures for play.  Though not my preference, it was a good game and I can see how it helped the game proceed.

*

From what I recall of my AD&D days, aside from giants and the like (rarely encountered, we never hit high levels), the most dangerous foes were clerics with their Hold Person spells.  The best defence was always the magic-user casting Magic Missile to spank each one for assured damage until the fighter could close - assuming we went first.  (This is 2E, with its speed factors and such.)


----------



## Wiseblood

Hussar said:


> Wiseblood - IMO, the lethality in AD&D generally came from save or die effects which everyone and his bloody dog got.  Outright combat damage? Not so much. 3e monsters are just so much bigger and output so much more damage than AD&D monsters. Never minding that at least by 2e anyway, the fighter types do considerably more damage while the monsters aren't typically (with a few notable exceptions - giants and dragons) much higher HP than their 1e counterparts.
> .




Yeah, that is where I was going with my post, save or die effects. Well it was before I read upthread and I cought on.

I agree, damage was higher. It was also much more viable because of the low HP totals. I guess that's why there were so many SOD.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> I have a very strong suspicion that these playstyles are being aided considerably by the playstyle of the DM. That the ability to play this way has a lot less to do with mechanics and a lot more to do with what the DM brings to the table.




Well, I'm pretty sure a DM who was willing to let an experienced PC die from drowning isn't exactly pulling punches.

We also had to deal with bosses who would escape encounters that were going badly and attacked us later.  At least one fought us twice and ultimately got away.

And speaking as someone who also DMed for this group on other occasions and faced the same tactics, I can tell you that _I_ didn't pull punches myself.  Being a magic miser is very effective resource management, and makes it much tougher to challenge a party.  A caster who only casts 1-3 spells per combat is damn near impossible to "bankrupt". He'll typically have 1-2 top ranked soells still available after encounter #4...and maybe even as the party sets up camp.


----------



## Rogue Agent

Crazy Jerome said:


> It is not so much that 4E does a lot to *force* one into a narrative style, though it does hint at it rather pervasively.  If nothing else, the metagaming constructs create a vaccuum that, for anyone used to a narrative style, beg to be exploited by that style.  See for example, the original Come and Get It.  You have to really *work* to make that work in a traditional manner.  If you *want* to narrate a broad variety of results, as partially determined by the situation at hand, then the vaccuum created in the story begs for you to pull something into it, rather than the mechanic pushing you to do that.




When I read that in the specific context of 4E, what I see is: "Since significant chunks of 4E aren't roleplaying mechanics, if you want to have roleplaying you'll need to pull it into the game through sheer force of will."

Which is true. And which is exactly what most of the 4E games I've played in have looked like. (I've also had a couple of completely miserable sessions where that _hasn't_ been a priority for the group.)

So why isn't that good enough? Well, largely because the mechanics have become primarily a liability at that point. Playing 4E feels like an unnecessary wrestling match. I'm having to do a lot of heavy lifting to carry use over the gaps left by those large chunks of non-roleplaying mechanics.



> But for those of us who wanted something more like this when we first played Basic D&D, it is more about the lack of narrative restraints than anything else.




Honest question here: Why wouldn't you prefer to use a system that actually supported your narrative goals? Or simply a system that was a hell of a lot less bulky than D&D4?

I mean, if the only thing the mechanics are contributing to your goals is that they mostly aren't in the way, what's the point of using them at all?



pemerton said:


> I think that skill challenges, as written  obviously make fictional positioning important, becaue the GM has to  frame the initial situation, and then reframe as part of each new skill  roll (PHB p 259; DMG p 74):




I think this is the core of what I, honestly, read as the gaping fallacy in your interpretation of 4th Edition.

You seem to be saying, "Skill challenges require you to use fictional positioning because they'd be pretty  for roleplaying/storytelling if you didn't do it."

But what mechanic wouldn't that be true for?

When you play 4E you seem to put a lot more into the game than what the game provides. And that's great. I'm not trying to diss that or dismiss that. I did the exact same thing when I ran 4E.

I just don't credit 4E for accomplishing those things.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Hussar said:


> Take Az(sp)'s group. Nice group. The only problem is, eventually you're going to fail stealth checks. That's going to happen. And, when it does, this group is going to die. It has no healing beyond potions. The MT didn't memorize healing spells, so, no healing in combat. The party has AC's that are easily hit (unless the party is lazer beam focusing) and the first mass Will save and the MT is toast as the other three characters obliterate him.
> 
> Heck, Harpies would absolutely destroy this party, just as an easy example.
> 
> If you're regularly scoring surprise on every encounter, something funky is going on. There's just too many die rolls for you to succeed that often. This particular group would be Fine.. Fine... Fine... DEAD.
> 
> I have a very strong suspicion that these playstyles are being aided considerably by the playstyle of the DM. That the ability to play this way has a lot less to do with mechanics and a lot more to do with what the DM brings to the table.




Well, I don't know about the playstyle of the DM aiding us, as it was a module rather than a homebrew campaign. We played Return to the temple of Elemental Evil straight (DM didn't downscale or upscale monsters/traps/etc). That's why it was two players each playing 2 pcs (to make a party of 4 pcs total, which is what the module was designed for).

Perhaps a more wildernessy campaign might have been a problem for this group. As it was RTtToEE is an almost city-like complex, so our move silently checks were almost a secondary measure much of the time (it wasn't like humanoids were uncommon. 

Also, though we didn't have healing, we did have dispel magic and such to remove conditions. People failed will saves, to be sure, but no more than other parties (and often less as spellcasters were our number one threat, and usually started the battle surrounded by us if we got surprise.)

Add in things like invisibility and move silently for those extra touchy/dangerous occasions, and it was relatively rare that we'd fail an important move silently or hide check when it really mattered. 

Also, sometimes we ran. We retreated from some fights like mad, with the controller throwing up walls, held portals, webs, etc to get us away.


I don't know what to tell you, Hussar. I know you think something is up to allow this to have happened, or that it's outside the norm, and you're trying to quantify how we were able to do it. Maybe I'm leaving out an important detail I haven't thought of.

But the fact of the matter is that this group played through RTtToEE from start to finish, and in this fashion. That's real experience, not theory.


----------



## Crazy Jerome

Rogue Agent said:


> Honest question here: Why wouldn't you prefer to use a system that actually supported your narrative goals? Or simply a system that was a hell of a lot less bulky than D&D4?
> 
> I mean, if the only thing the mechanics are contributing to your goals is that they mostly aren't in the way, what's the point of using them at all?




I'm not a Forge-ite. I reject utterly the idea that a group must be focused on a given creative agenda at a given time, lest the game become disfunctional. I like peanut butter in my chocolate. I like my game play mixed heavily with metagaming constructs that move the story forward and "just enough" simulation of the world to ground the players in the setting. I don't want a great novel. I want a Fafhrd and Gray Mouser short story, with continuing characters. 

No game really does exactly what I want. 4E does a pretty good job of actively supporting part of what I want, and staying the hell out of the way on most of the rest of it. (It's native magic items are a negative exception, but they are gradually moving the design to something more palatable.) 

I like Burning Wheel, too. For a more hard-core version of what I like, BW works great. But there are two problems with it, for me:

1. I really don't like scripting, and I doubt the players in our group will ever master the mechanics enough to make it sing the way it is supposed to.

2. BW is high energy, all the time. Right now, I'm low energy, all the time. 4E requires a much lower expenditure of energy at the gaming table to make it work well. The ceiling is higher with BW than with 4E, but the floor is lower. I know my current limits.

I like Fantasy Hero and Runequest. Right now, too much prep work to make them sing, and there are a host of minor irritants in the rule set that I keep trying to tweak, but am never quite satisfied with. I'd rather deal with one big irritant of 4E magic items (which I can deal with), than a list of minor irritants that are like ants at the picnic. 

I think the concept of "disassociation" is a fundamental misunderstanding of how 4E works, which like pemerton, I wrote what I had to say in the massive topic of that name. There is a sense in which anyone thinking that "disassociation" is a good concept has a mental block that will prohibit them from understanding why I would like 4E. I direct interested parties wishing to bridge that barrier to that topic, as I have already said my piece on it.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> Wiseblood - IMO, the lethality in AD&D generally came from save or die effects which everyone and his bloody dog got.    Outright combat damage?  Not so much.  3e monsters are just so much bigger and output so much more damage than AD&D monsters.




It's a matter of scale.  3e monsters do more damage, but 3e players have way more hit points.  For instance, in my current game (it's Becmi, not AD&D, but statwise they are almost the same- hit dice are smaller, but bonuses are also easier to get), the 4th level cleric has 7 hit points, the 4th level fighter has the most at 17, and the elf has 6.  One shot from an ogre's club can easily kill the cleric or elf.  The elf can fall in a 10 foot deep pit and die.  AD&D is slightly less lethal than Basic, due to not dying at 0 hp, but still way more lethal than 3e.  3e has crits, so it's occasionally very lethal especially at low levels, but not generally.


----------



## pemerton

Rogue Agent said:


> When I read that in the specific context of 4E, what I see is: "Since significant chunks of 4E aren't roleplaying mechanics, if you want to have roleplaying you'll need to pull it into the game through sheer force of will."
> 
> <snip>
> 
> Playing 4E feels like an unnecessary wrestling match. I'm having to do a lot of heavy lifting to carry use over the gaps left by those large chunks of non-roleplaying mechanics.



I'm not sure what you have in mind here as your contrast. Are you contrasting 4e with other traditional fantasy RPGs (3E, classic D&D, RQ, RM etc)? Or with modern game designs?

If I think about AD&D, for example, I would say that significant chunks of the game - perhaps all of it, as far as PCs are concerned - are not roleplaying mechanics. It's principal action resolution mechanics - namely, it's combat mechanics - dont make fictional positioning very important except for facing, which can be treated purely mechanically via minis/token.

Resolving a host of spells in AD&D does rely on fictional positioning (I'm thinking of things like Rock to Mud, Stone Shape etc) but personally I don't really find the quibbling over the imaginary details of rock formations that these spells can tend to engender the height of roleplaying.

And as I posted upthread, even a modern game like The Dying Earth has goal-oriented roleplaying mechanics only indirectly, via its reward mechanicsm. And 4e has a not entirely dissimilar reward mechanism in terms of quest XP for player-determined quests.



Rogue Agent said:


> I think this is the core of what I, honestly, read as the gaping fallacy in your interpretation of 4th Edition.
> 
> You seem to be saying, "Skill challenges require you to use fictional positioning because they'd be pretty  for roleplaying/storytelling if you didn't do it."
> 
> But what mechanic wouldn't that be true for?
> 
> When you play 4E you seem to put a lot more into the game than what the game provides. And that's great. I'm not trying to diss that or dismiss that. I did the exact same thing when I ran 4E.
> 
> I just don't credit 4E for accomplishing those things.



Again, I'm not sure what systems you have in mind as the contrast with 4e.

If you're thinking of traditional task-based non-combat resolution systems (RM, RQ etc) then I know from my own experience that they don't produce the same results, in play, as a 4e skill challenge, because they don't create the "space" in which the challenge unfolds. (Maybe you could try and run one of those systems using Burning Wheel-style "intent and task" plus "let it ride" to try and get a different sort of play. I think that would probably require some tweaking both of target numbers and character advancement mechanics, but I'll admit I haven't thought it through in much detail and maybe am overestimating the issues. But still, why not just run BW?)

If you're saying that I could get the results I'm getting from 4e more easily playing a modern game, I'm not sure that's true. 4e makes mechanical encounter design very easy. I'm using the same approach to the thematics of encounter design as I would use running a game like HeroQuest or Maelstrom Storytelling or Burning Wheel. And I'm using the same techniques in skill challenge resolution as I would use in HQ or Maelstrom storytelling. (Including in the way that fictional positioning comes into play.)

Combat resolution would be quicker in a mechanically lighter game, true, but for my group 4e's combat resolution mechanics are a feature, not a bug. Which brings me to this:



Rogue Agent said:


> Honest question here: Why wouldn't you prefer to use a system that actually supported your narrative goals? Or simply a system that was a hell of a lot less bulky than D&D4?



I will answer for myself here, even though the question was directed to Crazy Jerome.

I GM 4e because I and my players enjoy it. I see it a traditional/modern crossover game. It has the traditional emphasis on mechanics-heavy combat resolution and PC building, but with the metagame-oriented mechanics and situation-focused play of a modern game. My group likes complex PC build rules - the last game I GMed was Rolemaster - and likes mechanically heavy combat resolution. A game like HeroQuest or Maelstrom has the metagame mechanics and the situation-focused play, but not the complex mechanics.

Similar to Crazy Jerome, Burning Wheel would probably also be a good fit for my group, but it is gritty fantasy rather than gonzo fantasy, and at the moment at least my group is enoying playing gonzo.

In the end, I'm just not sure what game you're saying would produce the same result as I'm getting from 4e with less effort. If you've got a different modern game in mind, I've tried to explain why my group likes 4e's heavy mechanics (and upthread I've explained why I don't see these heavy mechanics getting in the way of story - many of them are thematically laden, and they are ripe for metagaming). If you've got in mind traditional games, I know from experience that they don't produce the same results, because the mechanics (i) compress or crowd out the narrative space, and (ii) get in the way of robust scene framing.


----------



## Hussar

JRRNeiklot said:


> It's a matter of scale.  3e monsters do more damage, but 3e players have way more hit points.  For instance, in my current game (it's Becmi, not AD&D, but statwise they are almost the same- hit dice are smaller, but bonuses are also easier to get), the 4th level cleric has 7 hit points, the 4th level fighter has the most at 17, and the elf has 6.  One shot from an ogre's club can easily kill the cleric or elf.  The elf can fall in a 10 foot deep pit and die.  AD&D is slightly less lethal than Basic, due to not dying at 0 hp, but still way more lethal than 3e.  3e has crits, so it's occasionally very lethal especially at low levels, but not generally.




This is why I find these discussions so difficult.  I mean, 4th level cleric with 7 HP.  Ok.  Now, how in the world is that anywhere near average?  A cleric, even in B/E get's d6 or d8 hp? I forget which.  But, either way, 4d6 averages to 14 hp and 4d8 averages to 20.  So, your lethality has a lot more to do with the fact that your characters are runnign around with HALF their average hp.  Heck, even your fighter is significantly below average.  

So, how does that show anything?  Yup, if your characters are running extremely bad luck, they die more often.  Well, that's 100% true I suppose.

OTOH, if we actually wanted to talk averages, 3ed characters up to 10th level have pretty much the same average hp (maybe slightly higher since they start at max hp at 1st level) as their AD&D counterparts.  After 10th?  Sure, no problem.  3e characters get a lot more hp.

OTOH, the monsters average FOUR TIMES more damage.  Do 3e characters have 4 times more hit points on average?  And, let's not forget to actually compare apples to apples and the presumed 25 point buy character.  Now, you've got maybe a 12, 14 Con, for +2 per HD.  My 3e character on average has maybe 20-30 more HP by 10th level.  Given that CR 10 creatures in 3e can deal out over 100 points of damage in a single round (something that NOTHING besides unique monsters can do in AD&D) I'm thinking that 3e characters are really not more durable.

I'll stand by the idea that it's the SoD stuff that makes AD&D more lethal.  Combat damage?  Small potatoes.

----------

Just a point about discussing game presumptions.  I'm not, in any way, denying that Az (sp) or DannyA had the experiences they had.  I totally believe both of them.  I do think that what they claimed happened in their games really happened.

What I'm trying to drill down to is how

Whenever this topic comes up, it can generally get pinned down to a combination of one or more of the following three elements:

1.  Houserules.  And, in here I'd include rule misinterpretations too.  

2.  Design choices by the DM.  If the DM, in 3e, is using mostly classes humanoids, for example, then all the encounters are going to be on the weaker end of the CR scale.  While the mechanics say a 5th level monk is a CR 5 encounter, I'm going to say it's not as dangerous as a Troll.  There are loads of other ways the choices of the DM can facilitate specific playstyles.

3.  Strength of the PC's.  Point buy value is a good measure of this and I know I've harped on it a few times.  When you have PC's that are running in the mid 30's (or higher) for their point buy value, they act at least a level higher than what it says on their character sheet.  An entire group of this can really make a large difference, particularly up to about 10th or 12 level.  Also, let's not forget group size which includes the PC's, NPC's, pets, helpers, and various other hangers on.  This can also radically change how the group operates.

And, generally, these three elements do pin down most of the reasons why a specific group might have experiences which are different from the game assumptions.  Look at discussions of 1e for extreme examples of all three.


----------



## Wiseblood

Hussar said:


> This is why I find these discussions so difficult. I mean, 4th level cleric with 7 HP. Ok. Now, how in the world is that anywhere near average? A cleric, even in B/E get's d6 or d8 hp? I forget which. But, either way, 4d6 averages to 14 hp and 4d8 averages to 20. So, your lethality has a lot more to do with the fact that your characters are runnign around with HALF their average hp. Heck, even your fighter is significantly below average.
> 
> So, how does that show anything? Yup, if your characters are running extremely bad luck, they die more often. Well, that's 100% true I suppose.
> 
> OTOH, if we actually wanted to talk averages, 3ed characters up to 10th level have pretty much the same average hp (maybe slightly higher since they start at max hp at 1st level) as their AD&D counterparts. After 10th? Sure, no problem. 3e characters get a lot more hp.
> 
> OTOH, the monsters average FOUR TIMES more damage. Do 3e characters have 4 times more hit points on average? And, let's not forget to actually compare apples to apples and the presumed 25 point buy character. Now, you've got maybe a 12, 14 Con, for +2 per HD. My 3e character on average has maybe 20-30 more HP by 10th level. Given that CR 10 creatures in 3e can deal out over 100 points of damage in a single round (something that NOTHING besides unique monsters can do in AD&D) I'm thinking that 3e characters are really not more durable.
> 
> I'll stand by the idea that it's the SoD stuff that makes AD&D more lethal. Combat damage? Small potatoes.




I thought the math you presented was over simplified.

First and foremost monsters in AD&D are encountered much earlier than they are in 3E. Second PC HP are not nearly as good nor do they have as good of a spell load (less healing). Last, attack bonuses are lower in AD&D and they have fewer attacks . A thief at 20th level has the equivalent of a BAB of +9 with a maximum ability score bonus of +1. 

To compare a trio of Iconic Monsters.

AD&D Goblin Damage 3.5 (HP 4)

3E Goblin damage 3.5 (HP 5.5)

AD&D Chimera damage 21.5 (HP 40.5)

3E Chimera damage 39 (HP 67.5)

AD&D Storm Giant  damage 24.5 (7th level ish One or more pc's will probably die) (HP 72)

3e Storm Giant damage 105 ( CR 13 would eat a 7th level party in one round maybe 2) (HP 199)

I should also point out the sheer amount of killing you had to do in AD&D. You were exposed to more threats.

AD&D Goblins slain to get to LVL 2 as Fighter (considering average HP)+1xp for gold.
105 (95 if you have 16 str)

3e Goblins Slain to get to LVL 2 as Fighter.
20


----------



## TheAuldGrump

Hussar said:


> This is why I find these discussions so difficult.  I mean, 4th level cleric with 7 HP.  Ok.  Now, how in the world is that anywhere near average?  A cleric, even in B/E get's d6 or d8 hp? I forget which.  But, either way, 4d6 averages to 14 hp and 4d8 averages to 20.  So, your lethality has a lot more to do with the fact that your characters are runnign around with HALF their average hp.  Heck, even your fighter is significantly below average.
> 
> So, how does that show anything?  Yup, if your characters are running extremely bad luck, they die more often.  Well, that's 100% true I suppose.
> 
> OTOH, if we actually wanted to talk averages, 3ed characters up to 10th level have pretty much the same average hp (maybe slightly higher since they start at max hp at 1st level) as their AD&D counterparts.  After 10th?  Sure, no problem.  3e characters get a lot more hp.



 True, except for Con bonuses. It is a _lot_ easier to get Con bonuses to HP in 3e.

Not really disagreeing, over all, but it can make a difference.



> OTOH, the monsters average FOUR TIMES more damage.  Do 3e characters have 4 times more hit points on average?  And, let's not forget to actually compare apples to apples and the presumed 25 point buy character.  Now, you've got maybe a 12, 14 Con, for +2 per HD.  My 3e character on average has maybe 20-30 more HP by 10th level.  Given that CR 10 creatures in 3e can deal out over 100 points of damage in a single round (something that NOTHING besides unique monsters can do in AD&D) I'm thinking that 3e characters are really not more durable.



But they can also put out a lot more damage in the same number of rounds. By and large characters got more deadly. But then, so are some monsters....



> I'll stand by the idea that it's the SoD stuff that makes AD&D more lethal.  Combat damage?  Small potatoes.



 And let us not forget 'Save or take a boatload of damage'. Fireball used to really be something to fear. 

And often the fireball that killed you was from your own magic-user forgetting how _big_ fireballs were when he cast his first one... My first bit of kindness as a DM - allowing the magic-user to _not_ cast that fireball once he realized that it filled that 30' x 30' X 10' room, then flushed back down several hundred feet of 10 X 10 corridor.... 



> Just a point about discussing game presumptions.  I'm not, in any way, denying that Az (sp) or DannyA had the experiences they had.  I totally believe both of them.  I do think that what they claimed happened in their games really happened.



 I have seen extremes go both ways - it was almost a given in one game that I ran that the party would face a young dragon, and get away singed but still well up in HP, but then would get slaughtered by four goblins with bows.... There used to be jokes that the BBEG would prepare for battle by tying banana peels to his feet, but his henchmen might as well have RPGs.... 

For some reason that problem never cropped up in 3.X, but I blame luck of the dice more than anything.



> What I'm trying to drill down to is how.



Sometimes it _is_ just luck of the dice.



> Whenever this topic comes up, it can generally get pinned down to a combination of one or more of the following three elements:
> 
> 1.  Houserules.  And, in here I'd include rule misinterpretations too.
> 
> 2.  Design choices by the DM.  If the DM, in 3e, is using mostly classes humanoids, for example, then all the encounters are going to be on the weaker end of the CR scale.  While the mechanics say a 5th level monk is a CR 5 encounter, I'm going to say it's not as dangerous as a Troll.  There are loads of other ways the choices of the DM can facilitate specific playstyles.
> 
> 3.  Strength of the PC's.  Point buy value is a good measure of this and I know I've harped on it a few times.  When you have PC's that are running in the mid 30's (or higher) for their point buy value, they act at least a level higher than what it says on their character sheet.  An entire group of this can really make a large difference, particularly up to about 10th or 12 level.  Also, let's not forget group size which includes the PC's, NPC's, pets, helpers, and various other hangers on.  This can also radically change how the group operates.
> 
> And, generally, these three elements do pin down most of the reasons why a specific group might have experiences which are different from the game assumptions.  Look at discussions of 1e for extreme examples of all three.



For what it is worth, Pathfinder does not treat a level 5 fighter as a CR5 encounter.... So at least some folks agree with you on that. 

That said, I have never used point buy, and I am stingy with rerolling characters, so the numbers can go either way.

The Auld Grump


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> And often the fireball that killed you was from your own magic-user forgetting how big fireballs were when he cast his first one... My first bit of kindness as a DM - allowing the magic-user to not cast that fireball once he realized that it filled that 30' x 30' X 10' room, then flushed back down several hundred feet of 10 X 10 corridor....




_*raises hand, eyes downcast*_

I cast a ramped up DBF  (from an artifact-level ring of spell storing) on some police robots in _Expedition to the Barrier Peaks_, set on max delay, so we could get away.

Did you know they move *96'*?  We didn't...until it was too late.

They not only caught us before the DBF blew up, they got to hammer on us for 3 rounds too!  There were multiple deaths, and we had to retreat from the adventure, carrying our dead...which included the cleric.  We spent a lot of platinum getting everyone brought back.

And FWIW, that party was of high enough level that the adventure should have been, if not easy, only moderately difficult.

As for luck of the dice...



> *The Battle of the Brutal Slaughter of the Harpies*
> 
> We were attacked by Harpies, and the quick-thinking Druid hit them with an Entangle as they did a strafing run through some foliage- snagged them all!
> 
> That was when the dice went sour.
> 
> We only had a few PCs with ranged weaponry- a guy with a bow, a guy with a throwing hammer, one with a sling, and the Wiz had a dagger.
> 
> The guy with the Hammer is venturing into the area of the Entangle to retrieve his hammer and the Wiz' dagger.
> 
> Most of the to-hit rolls were low. When we did hit, no attack did more than 3HP damage. We finish off the first Harpy just as the Entangle is starting to expire...
> 
> So the Druid does Entangle #2...and our futility continues. The dice continue to stay as low as a soldier under fire.
> 
> The guy with the Hammer is, by now, having to venture into the area of the Entangle to retrieve arrows that have missed. The PC with the sling is now using rocks.
> 
> Harpy #2 is near death but still fighting and Harpy #3 is untouched when Entangle #2 is expiring, so the Druid pops Entangle #3.
> 
> My PC and the hammer-thrower are apologizing to the Harpies- in character- for the cruel deaths that we are inflicting upon them...especially after the hammer-thrower retrieved the Wizard's dagger out of the still-living Harpy#2 so the Wizard could throw it again. But he doesn't leave the Entangle area until after he stabs the dying Harpy with that dagger to finish it off.
> 
> By now, all of the arrows have been used, either striking the Harpies or being broken downrange. *EVERYONE ELSE IS THROWING ROCKS.*
> 
> The last Harpy dies just before Entangle #3 does.
> 
> All of this time, our DM has been flabbergasted- absolutely red faced and flustered- at the action. "F$%^&ing Entangle! That spell is broken!" *rant*rant*rant*
> 
> To which the Druid's player huffily responded "Well, it was either that or Create Food & Water! The Harpies could have had a meal and a bath!"
> 
> LOLs abounded.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> This is why I find these discussions so difficult.  I mean, 4th level cleric with 7 HP.  Ok.  Now, how in the world is that anywhere near average?  A cleric, even in B/E get's d6 or d8 hp? I forget which.  But, either way, 4d6 averages to 14 hp and 4d8 averages to 20.  So, your lethality has a lot more to do with the fact that your characters are runnign around with HALF their average hp.  Heck, even your fighter is significantly below average.
> 
> So, how does that show anything?  Yup, if your characters are running extremely bad luck, they die more often.  Well, that's 100% true I suppose.
> 
> OTOH, if we actually wanted to talk averages, 3ed characters up to 10th level have pretty much the same average hp (maybe slightly higher since they start at max hp at 1st level) as their AD&D counterparts.  After 10th?  Sure, no problem.  3e characters get a lot more hp.
> 
> OTOH, the monsters average FOUR TIMES more damage.  Do 3e characters have 4 times more hit points on average?  And, let's not forget to actually compare apples to apples and the presumed 25 point buy character.  Now, you've got maybe a 12, 14 Con, for +2 per HD.  My 3e character on average has maybe 20-30 more HP by 10th level.  Given that CR 10 creatures in 3e can deal out over 100 points of damage in a single round (something that NOTHING besides unique monsters can do in AD&D) I'm thinking that 3e characters are really not more durable.
> 
> I'll stand by the idea that it's the SoD stuff that makes AD&D more lethal.  Combat damage?  Small potatoes.




In Basic, clerics get d6 hp.  So average is 14.  He has a 7 con, so that's -1 per level.  Throw in a bit of bad luck on rolls and a seven is easy to get.  And with 3d6 in order, it's pretty easy to end up with a crappy con.  Hell, the elf had ONE hit point at first level  And only then because one is the minimum.

Also, there are other reasons than hit points that make 3e characters tougher.  A 1e character who really tries can get his ac to what?  Let's see plate mail +5, shield +5 (the shield works only from the front and against up to 3 attacks a round assuming it's a large shield), dex of 18 is -12.

In 3e, there is no limit, really, other than the dm, and cash on hand.  +5 mithril full plate, +5 shield,  ( +5 rop, +5 amulet of natural armor, 20 dex, etc.  

Surprise!  A 1e surprise round can let opponents have up to 5 times their normal attacks a round.  3e surprise rounds grant the attacker 1 partial action.  

You move, get hit, even use your dex bonus to ac and your spell is GONE in 1e.

20d6 fireballs.

3e characters also recover faster.  Wands of CLW and twice as many spells helps in this respect.

3e characters can fire into melee.

3e characters can move and attack.  This can help bring the opponent down faster.

You move, get hit, even use your dex bonus to ac and your spell is GONE in 1e.

20d6 fireballs.

Saving throws vs items.

The list goes on.


----------



## Hussar

It's interesting.  JRRNeikalot's point actually doesn't prove what he thinks it does.

Presuming that your characters actually leveled up to level 4, shouldn't a system that is more lethal have culled these characters by now?  When the entire group is below average HP, and some are actually HALF their average?  Yet, they've not only managed to not die, they've managed to advance three times.

This does not say, "Very lethal game" to me.

But, let's keep going with this shall we?

Sure, -10 AC is as good as it gets for a PC in AD&D.  But, look at the THAC0 for any non-unique monster.  It tops out at about 7, not counting dinosaurs.  

Heck, let's take a good example.  4th level AD&D fighter has a 1 AC.  That's pretty easily done - plate and shield +1 by 4th level isn't out of line at all.  An ogre has a 15 THAC0 and does a d10 points of damage.  We'll use your 17 hp 4th level fighter if you don't mind JRRNiekalot.  

So, Mr Ogre hits on a 14+, 30% chance of hitting and averages 5 points per hit.  That means he has to attack the fighter about 12 times on average to drop the fighter.  Note, this is a weak fighter, not a strong one.

3e fighter, 4th level, sword and board to make him as good as he can for AC.  3 points below average hp, gives him 27 hp (10+5*3+Con 13 for +4 - Remember 25 point buy value).  Full plate+1, shield +1 and dex for another +1 gives him a 23 AC.  Again, this is about as good as it gets.  You might get it up to 25 if you really cheese weasel, but, this is pretty good.

Mr 3e Ogre has a +8 attack bonus and does 2d8+7 (average 16) points per hit.  He's only hitting on a 15, that's true, he's actually hitting just a little bit less.  But, he's also doing THREE TIMES AS MUCH DAMAGE.  Or, putting it another way, he only has to attack about 6 times on average to drop the fighter.  

Our 3e fighter dies in half the time.

As far as 20d6 fireballs go, well, I did say combat damage, not spells.  Heck, are you honestly going to claim that monsters don't get a huge bump in magical abilities in 3e?  Good grief, dragons go from casting minor magics to being ARCH MAGES.  

----------

But, this really is all a tangent.  The point is, JRRNeikalot's experience is actually nicely summed up in the three points I listed earlier.  Why does he have the experience he has?  Because of the point buy value.  While you don't specifically have point buy characters, the fact that the party is below averages explains why you might think that a system is more dangerous than it really is.

JRRNeiklot, you are extrapolating from a single example and it's pretty easy to show why you get the results you get.  Reverse it.  Take a B/E group which gets lucky - 75% HP, high die rolls on all stats and watch what happens.


----------



## Greg K

Is it that difficult to have sessions where you can handle more than 5 encounters without resting . The suggestion for a good adventure (assuming tailored vs. status quo)

10%  Easy  (lower than party level) the party should be able to do these encounters all day
20%  Easy  if handled correctly otherwise may be challenging or difficult
50%  Challenging = EC = Party level  expected to use 20% of party resources
15%  Very Difficult EL (1-4 levels higher than party)
5%    Overwhelming: The party should run or will probably lose

If the adventure has 20 Encounters, the break down is:

2 Easy
4 Easy if handled correctly
10 Challenging
3 Very Difficult
1 Overwhelming


The very difficult are, probably, near the end, of the adventure because the players are expected to run from the Overwhelming making Very Difficult the most likely candidate for a "boss" fight.

Say the party faces:
1 Easy encounter: minimal  resources used if any
2 Easy encounters if handled correctly: minimal resources used
4 Challenging encounters  80% resources

Assuming everything done right in the two "Easy if handled correctly" encounters,   the players just did 7 encounters are expected to have 20% (or roughly thereabout) of their resource left,  It may be a good time to rest, because another challenging encounter will probably result in deaths and a Very Difficult is even more likely to do so.

Yet, if they were to press on despite being at (or expected to be at) 20% of their resources, they might encounter the remaining Easy and/or Easy if handled properly encounters.  If so, they may be able to handle 8-10 encounters before needing to rest if they were to handle those "Easy if handled properly" encounters.  If my own experience with D&D is common (not saying it is), I  suspect that  encountering the Easy or Easy if handled correctly  and, thus 8-10 encounters,  might be more likely toward  the beginning of an adventure as things often tend to get harder as the party moves further into it.

Regardless 7 encounters? I don't think it is that unreasonable to do at times if the DM is using  a mix of ELs rather than just Challenging or Very Difficult (I have seen some DMs claim that they will not throw Easy or Easy if handled correctly encounters, because they believe they should always be pushing the party to the limit, but they are going against the default assumptions).


----------



## tomBitonti

Greg K said:


> 2 Easy
> 4 Easy if handled correctly
> 10 Challenging
> 3 Very Difficult
> 1 Overwhelming




No "Normal" between "Easy" and Challenging?

Also, only "Easy" has a modifier "if handled correctly"?

And, no player control (except to run from Overwhelming) over which encounters they face?

I think a fixed and mostly random structure like this is what *some* folks rail against.  You will have that in a dungeon crawl, but in an open wilderness (as typifying more of a sandbox style) or open city, the players will have a lot more opportunities to gather information about the possible encounters,  to prepare, and to avoid high risk encounters.

TomB


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> I have a very strong suspicion that these playstyles are being aided considerably by the playstyle of the DM.  That the ability to play this way has a lot less to do with mechanics and a lot more to do with what the DM brings to the table.



Without getting into the weeds here, I think this statement is STRONGLY true in a wide range of circumstances.

At the end of the day DM play style is a bit more important than player style and player play style is vastly more important than the mechanics.

But it is also pretty much completely irrelevant to most insightful conversation.  That is because when I am playing with a group, our play styles are there regardless.  So the important factor is picking a mechanical system that work WITH our playstyles.  

The controlling significance of player style does nothing to reduce the night or day difference that selecting quality mechanics still makes.


----------



## Greg K

'Tom,
The percentages and categories are the actual suggestions/recommendations in the 3e DMG for building a good adventure (and note: running from Overwhelming is  the given recommendation. Players can choose to fight, but will most likely lose).  My point was that following those guidelines from the DMG itself, it was not impossible to have sessions where the party could have more than 4 encounters in a session without needing to rest or resort to healing wands.

Now, as for using those recommendations, I never did use them (nor will I if I were to run 3e, again, for a group rather than Savage Worlds).  I believe in building the same way that I did in 1e and 2e- use a mix of tailored and status quo.   I, occasionally, use tailored (level appropriate) for an initial adventure or, afterwards, hooks, or specific encounters. When doing so, I eyeball based on my actual party.  However, since I place a lot of things in appropriate locations and write them up before the campaign, there are a lot of status quo. And, since, it is up to my players to choose hooks I set up or those they create from their own background/motivation, It is up to the player's to do their research or use caution when choosing which hooks to follow. 

Still, I think, the percentage table has its usage. It is a good guideline for new DMs. It reminds DMs that a mix of ECls is good if tailoring to the party and serves as a guide to pace the resource usage.

As for Wilderness or Sandbox vs. Dungeon crawl, I specified tailored (accounting for party level and composition) as opposed to status quo (things are where are appropriate for the world without regard to party level). I assumed that people read the DMG which discusses the two and understood the difference.





tomBitonti said:


> No "Normal" between "Easy" and Challenging?
> 
> Also, only "Easy" has a modifier "if handled correctly"?
> 
> And, no player control (except to run from Overwhelming) over which encounters they face?
> 
> I think a fixed and mostly random structure like this is what *some* folks rail against.  You will have that in a dungeon crawl, but in an open wilderness (as typifying more of a sandbox style) or open city, the players will have a lot more opportunities to gather information about the possible encounters,  to prepare, and to avoid high risk encounters.
> 
> TomB


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> It's interesting.  JRRNeikalot's point actually doesn't prove what he thinks it does.
> 
> Presuming that your characters actually leveled up to level 4, shouldn't a system that is more lethal have culled these characters by now?  When the entire group is below average HP, and some are actually HALF their average?  Yet, they've not only managed to not die, they've managed to advance three times.




Heh, The game has made it to 4th level, but there has been over a dozen casualties.  The cleric has managed to survive by staying the hell out of melee.  It's also a group made of mostly 30 year veterans of D&D.


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Hussar said:


> But, let's keep going with this shall we?
> 
> Sure, -10 AC is as good as it gets for a PC in AD&D.  But, look at the THAC0 for any non-unique monster.  It tops out at about 7, not counting dinosaurs.
> 
> Heck, let's take a good example.  4th level AD&D fighter has a 1 AC.  That's pretty easily done - plate and shield +1 by 4th level isn't out of line at all.  An ogre has a 15 THAC0 and does a d10 points of damage.  We'll use your 17 hp 4th level fighter if you don't mind JRRNiekalot.
> 
> So, Mr Ogre hits on a 14+, 30% chance of hitting and averages 5 points per hit.  That means he has to attack the fighter about 12 times on average to drop the fighter.  Note, this is a weak fighter, not a strong one.
> 
> 3e fighter, 4th level, sword and board to make him as good as he can for AC.  3 points below average hp, gives him 27 hp (10+5*3+Con 13 for +4 - Remember 25 point buy value).  Full plate+1, shield +1 and dex for another +1 gives him a 23 AC.  Again, this is about as good as it gets.  You might get it up to 25 if you really cheese weasel, but, this is pretty good.
> 
> Mr 3e Ogre has a +8 attack bonus and does 2d8+7 (average 16) points per hit.  He's only hitting on a 15, that's true, he's actually hitting just a little bit less.  But, he's also doing THREE TIMES AS MUCH DAMAGE.  Or, putting it another way, he only has to attack about 6 times on average to drop the fighter.
> 
> Our 3e fighter dies in half the time.






There's also the fact that 3e characters take out the opposition much faster.  Feats like rapid shot and cleave thin out the numbers a lot faster.  3e characters also deal with a lot less numbers generally, too.  The # appearing for ogres is 2-20.  While I haven't seen that extreme, 3-18 hobgoblins can show up in the current adventure as wandering monsters.  Or 1-4 were tigers if you prefer a smaller battle:  3 at 1-6, 1-6, 2-12.

Can 3e be as deadly as 1e?  Absolutely, but straight out of the box, there's not a chance in hell.


----------



## Wiseblood

JRRNeiklot said:


> There's also the fact that 3e characters take out the opposition much faster. Feats like rapid shot and cleave thin out the numbers a lot faster. 3e characters also deal with a lot less numbers generally, too. The # appearing for ogres is 2-20. While I haven't seen that extreme, 3-18 hobgoblins can show up in the current adventure as wandering monsters. Or 1-4 were tigers if you prefer a smaller battle: 3 at 1-6, 1-6, 2-12.
> 
> Can 3e be as deadly as 1e? Absolutely, but straight out of the box, there's not a chance in hell.




I forgot about the # app. the average ogre encounter in AD&D exceeds the max number recommended in 3e.


----------



## Wiseblood

Hussar said:


> But, this really is all a tangent. The point is, JRRNeikalot's experience is actually nicely summed up in the three points I listed earlier. Why does he have the experience he has? Because of the point buy value. While you don't specifically have point buy characters, the fact that the party is below averages explains why you might think that a system is more dangerous than it really is.
> 
> JRRNeiklot, you are extrapolating from a single example and it's pretty easy to show why you get the results you get. Reverse it. Take a B/E group which gets lucky - 75% HP, high die rolls on all stats and watch what happens.




You should change that to Very High Stats. Most ability scores below 15 did not net a bonus. What exactly happens?


----------



## Hussar

Thing to remember though is, those ogres in Basic D&D?  They're carrying 100-600 gp EACH.  More if they're in their lair.  On average, an ogre in Basic is worth about 400 xp.  Not a bad net.  

And, let's not forget that there's a reason you meet 2-20 ogres.  One ogre shouldn't be able to seriously challenge a lone 4th level fighter, let alone an entire group.  Remember?  12 rounds to drop the below average fighter?  That B/E group should have anywhere from 6-12 characters (between PC's, Henchmen and hirelings) in the group.  Mr. Ogre only has 16 hp and an AC of 5.  Our 4th level fighter is hitting him a tad less than 50% of the time and is doing d12 points of damage (presuming a longsword and no strength bonus)  IOW, the ogre dies in about 5 or 6 rounds on average, while the fighter is still sitting at 1/2 HP.

It would take 2 ogres just to seriously challenge that ONE fighter.  Never mind his two buddies and their half dozen peons armed with bows getting two attacks per round.  Or, even just give them longswords and the ogres are still dying like flies.

JRRNeiklot, 12 deaths.  OK.  How many sessions are we talking about here?  And are all of these PC deaths or are you counting flunkies in here too?


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Let's see, the campaign started sometime in late September, playing weekly, so 6-7 weeks.  There are 7 pcs.  Early on they were dropping like flies.  One pc was directly responsible for 2 deaths, as he didn't think before firing into melee - in basic, you just can't fire into melee, but they wanted to be able to in a pinch, so we adopted the 1e 50% chance to hit either combatant rule.  Since they hit 4th level (except the elf), there's only been one death, although there's been a couple of close calls.  Green slime almost did the halfling in.  Or rather, the party setting him on fire to kill the slime, heh.  As far as henchmen, they had 2 early on, now they have none.  Keep in mind, unless you specifically hire mercenaries or soldiers, you can't order hirelings into battle, as a general rule.  They are going to revolt.  There's a nice table for that.  

     If you take one static encounter, 3e may well be as deadly as 1e or Basic, but our group has one cleric.  He can possibly cast TWO cure light wound spells, if he doesn't memorize something else instead.  He also has a staff of healing, so he can heal each party member once a day for 1-6+1.  That's it.  After that, they're not gonna recover hit points until they rest.  And we've never experienced the 15 minute work day.  It makes no sense to us to stop adventuring just because we're down a few spells and hit points.  If one party member is hurt seriously, they just change the marching order, slap a range weapon in his hands and move on.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> And we've never experienced the 15 minute work day. It makes no sense to us to stop adventuring just because we're down a few spells and hit points. If one party member is hurt seriously, they just change the marching order, slap a range weapon in his hands and move on




Sounds like us.


----------



## Greg K

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sounds like us.




Same here. Sounds like every group that I have played in or DM'd as well.


----------



## Hussar

JRRNeiklot - look at what you're saying though.  If someone is down HP, you simply swap out another PC and move around the order a bit and soldier on.

That means that that is a viable tactic.  Or, to put it another way, you can afford to have PC's stand in front and take the beating.  When you have 7 PC's, that does help considerably as well.  

Now, try that with only 4 PC's and up the monster damage three to four times.  By the math, that's what 3e should play like.  Yes, your 3e PC will have more HP, I won't deny that.  But 3 times more HP?  I don't think so.

Note, again, what you said about character deaths - "Green slime" almost did them in.  Sure.  I already said that the save or die stuff is bloody lethal in earlier D&D.  IIRC, my exact words were something to the effect that it was almost entirely the SoD stuff that makes earlier D&D so deadly.

I don't need 8 ogres to challenge the party because 8 ogres will obliterate a 3e 4th level party.  OTOH, 8 ogres vs an AD&D party is a pretty standard encounter which I would expect a 4th level party of 7 PC's to be able to handle with some difficulty.


----------



## Fox Lee

Personally I dig surges, for several main reasons, starting with my feeling that they've really opened up the possibility for a variety of healing powers (as opposed to the traditional "dx hp" sets). Healing is a more abstract, and much less owned by divine classes.

I value tremendously the fact that they get better for characters with bigger hp pools. It's awful to feel that you have made a healer's job harder by having a bigger hit point pool, and I have always found that the best way to address that is to express healing as a percentage of the recipient's total. Healing surges are the solution to making that work in a system where you don't want to waste time calculating those percentages in play.

They are an excellent resource. As soon as you give the characters a new resource pool, you can use it to fuel other things - for example, penalising a failed skill check/challenge with surge loss, using them to activate items, and so forth.

Since there aren't many "per day" resources in 4e (as opposed to per-encounter), They are important for maintaining a good move/rest pattern for adventuring.

My only gripe is that I rather wish they had left off "healing" from the name. A more generically-named "surge" could have had even more interesting applications as a resource, especially for cinematic plot devices and other things that aren't strictly rules-appropriate. Want to throw yourself in front of the sword to save that civilian? Sure, you sacrifice a surge and get a dramatic shoulder injury. Your heroic act inspires the crowd to turn on the aggressor! Villain uses deus ex machina to escape, so as not to ruin the major plot? Your pride wells up as you swear you'll track him down, granting you an extra surge!

I dunno, it sounds pretty compelling to me. Your Game May Vary.


----------



## JamesonCourage

A well designed and synergistic selection of characters in 3.X just using the core PHB would probably win against those 8 ogres. It depends on some factors, but if things are going the PCs way based on some controllable factors (stealth, fighting outside, etc.), then I can see winning that fight without too much hurt on the party. I'd feel pretty good about fighting those 8 ogres with a level 4 human fighter or barbarian, human wizard or sorcerer, halfling rogue, and human druid.

Opening a room and finding 8 ogres? Well, you can keep them stuck fighting in the doorway. It's going to be a little tougher, but bottlenecking them will help a lot. If the Wizard uses a _Glitterdust_ spell, half the group might well be blind (DC 17 ish vs. their +1 to Will). A well aimed _Grease_ spell will incapacitate most of them (they get +0 Reflex, and it makes them able to be Sneak Attacked if they fail a DC 10 Balance check [they get -4]), and that means that the halfling rogue is going to be getting +2d6 Sneak Attack damage (hits on an 5+, which isn't too bad). Being blinded and flat-footed really hurts. The wizard can probably follow thing up with a well-placed Ghost Sound to mimic the party, perhaps getting blind ogres to attack one another. The druid can use a Spider Swarm to attack up to four ogres at once (if they're crowded together), each round dealing 1d6 plus poison (ogres only have about a 20% chance of failing a save, but it makes them make two saves, one of which nauseates them [means they can't attack]). With 8 saves at 20% being made per round, odds are alright that 1-2 saves will fail. Additionally, the druid can clog up the doorway with a Summon Nature's Ally I (which he can spontaneously convert to), tanking for the party by blocking the door (sure, it only lasts three rounds, but the blinded ogres miss 50% of the time, and have a 20% chance to be nauseated). The fighter can attack using his ranged weapon, and use his tower shield for full cover when the ogres finally get through (readying to 5-ft. step back and let another Summon Nature's Ally I take his place). The brunt of the assault will be within three rounds, but it's definitely doable. The party has used up substantial resources (probably half), but they're taking on a very tough challenge.

If the party is in the wilderness, casting the _Entangle_ spell (80 feet wide) will catch most of them (DC 15 ish vs +0 Reflex), keeping them rooted in place. The others will be lowered to half their normal speed, and the area will keep trying to entangle them each turn. Circling around the area to avoid escaping ogres or picking them off is possible. Hit and run tactics with spells and bows on horseback is also an option (trap them, pepper them, run around or away).

In either situation, with a well organized party, I think it's very doable. And this is just the core PHB. Throw in some more options, and the party can improve (I haven't factored for magic items, only masterwork weapons, as that's core PHB). Yes, it'd be tough to keep the pace up (well, for the room, at least... you could perform quite a few hit and run tactics against ogres for relatively minor resources), but a well oiled 3.X party will not be "obliterated" by 8 ogres. If ambushed, then yes, they're probably screwed. If it's an even fight, I give the adventurers a fair shot (ogre's get -1 initiative). If the adventurers are very careful and are picking and choosing their battles, then I give it to the adventurers.

Anyways, just thought I'd throw that out there. If you increased the party size of the 3e party to 7, I'd say it swings considerably in favor of the PCs. It just depends on party tactics (which, I think, was the point of some people this entire time). As always, play what you like


----------



## LurkAway

Fox Lee said:


> A more generically-named "surge" could have had even more interesting applications as a resource, especially for cinematic plot devices and other things that aren't strictly rules-appropriate. Want to throw yourself in front of the sword to save that civilian? Sure, you sacrifice a surge and get a dramatic shoulder injury. Your heroic act inspires the crowd to turn on the aggressor! Villain uses deus ex machina to escape, so as not to ruin the major plot? Your pride wells up as you swear you'll track him down, granting you an extra surge!



I love the idea, although what is the mechanical consequences that models the shoulder injury (to add weight to the role-playing with roll-playing).

Hit points/healing surges is conflating 2 different narrative and/or simultationist goals:
1) the dramatic ebb and flow of heroic potential (alas I am too tired, I shall die now, NO!!! not my them too! I. WILL. KILL. YOU!)
2) the gritty dramatic ebb and flow of a hero in real danger (thrills and tension when a hero puts him/herself at risk of mortal danger from which they may or may not recover)

It seems to me that expecting D&D to satisfy both narrative expectations with the same hit point mechanic seems doomed to failure.

In a modular 5E, I think it's possible to have both. In the base/core ruleset, you default to #1 and players can worry less about clerics and healing wands. In the advanced ruleset, you have a Vitality/Wounds track, and a healer is strongly encouraged. So everyone's happy, right?


----------



## Fox Lee

LurkAway said:


> I love the idea, although what is the mechanical consequences that models the shoulder injury (to add weight to the role-playing with roll-playing).



That would be the loss of the surge ^_^; Otherwise the whole thing is just roleplay.


----------



## Hussar

Jameson Courage - in other words, it's doable by abusing some of the most broken spells in the game - Glitterdust and Grease and Entangle.  Note, we're not supposed to be using spells here since we have to save our highest level spells for later.  4th level wizard isn't supposed to need to cast his Glitterdust spell according to some.

Or, to put it another way, get a caster or go home.  

Note, the AD&D party is doing this without a caster.  They can take on 8 ogres at any time and can probably do it multiple times per day, so long as their HP hold out.

Oh, and btw, Glitterdust is a 10 foot radius spread.  Sure, if 4 of the ogres are standing shoulder to shoulder, then you could get half of them.  Never mind that the other 4 are STILL going to obliterate your party.  Bottlenecking?  Good grief, you just want your fighter to die don't you?  I've got reach and you don't.  I don't need to get into the doorway to hit the fighter.  2 ogres can attack from 10 feet back and the fighter gets kersplatted.

Once the fighter goes down, everyone else has a serious, serious problem.

8 Ogres is a CR 9 encounter.  If you are regularly doing EL+5 encounters without much difficulty, it's time to brush up on your monster tactics.  That or the writers of 3.5 D&D were completely off base when they tried to determine how difficult encounters should be.

I will agree that 7 PC's make an ENORMOUS difference.  Then again, a party of 7 PC's is about +3-4 levels on their effective party level.  That makes 8 ogres about a par encounter.

-------

Edit to add a later thought.

Throughout this thread, I've been told that the reason parties don't need healing is smart play.  That they would simply run away from encounter like this and never engage.  Yet, when I bring up a virtually overwhelming encounter, the first reaction is to charge right in, blow spells and away we go.


----------



## pemerton

If I was taking on 8 ogres in AD&D I would want an UA 4th level Ranger with two-handed sword specialisation: 55% chance to hit (assuming 16 or lower STR), damage of 3d6+6 (specialisation and class bonus) or 16.5 on a hit. An AD&D ogre has, on average, 19 hp (4+1 HD). My ranger will have, on average, 27.5 hit points (5d8+5 with 15 CON) and AC 3 or better (plate mail armour). I won't be able to take on all 8 ogres by myself, but could probably take 3 or 4 solo and survive.

My impression is that 3E doesn't have offer quite as good an ogre-killing build.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

If we're talking strictly melee, I'd start off with a high-damage reach weapon.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> Jameson Courage - in other words, it's doable by abusing some of the most broken spells in the game - Glitterdust and Grease and Entangle.



Well, you're the one who said it'd obliterate them. I showed that's not necessarily true (using the base assumptions of the game, just like you were talking about). And, you've been talking about the core assumptions of the game recently, right? I mean, wands of CLW are assumed because they're cheap and available according to the DMG? By that token, shouldn't these level 1 & 2 spells be available to level 4 characters? 

Your statement wasn't "magic is broken." It has problems, which is why I toned it down in my RPG. Your statement was basically "8 ogres will obliterate a 4th level 3.X party, where that's not the case in earlier editions." I disagreed, and showed why. Passing it off as "well, magic is broken" is true in a sense, but it demonstrates that your point isn't as valid as it was presented.



> Note, we're not supposed to be using spells here since we have to save our highest level spells for later.



As I pointed out, if you're picking the right fights, you won't be. _Entangle_ is a level 1 spell that lasts 4 minutes at level 4, and it uses up a single level 1 spell slot (you have 4 level 1's, and 3 level 2's). So, 1/7 of your spells above level 0. Then, you just ride around on horseback, picking off ogres while skirting the edge of the _Entangle_ spell.

I talked about the "open a door and there's 8 ogres" to show that's it's possible to not be "obliterated" by your 8 ogres example, even when it's not what you were aiming for (which is picking and choosing your battles).



> 4th level wizard isn't supposed to need to cast his Glitterdust spell according to some.
> 
> Or, to put it another way, get a caster or go home.



It's very much in line with 4e's controller role. While magic is too powerful in 3.X from a game balance perspective (in my opinion), I have no idea how that proves your point (that 3.X is more deadly using base assumptions).



> Note, the AD&D party is doing this without a caster.  They can take on 8 ogres at any time and can probably do it multiple times per day, so long as their HP hold out.



The one with 7 players and henchmen? I'd trust 7 non-casters to take out 8 ogres on horseback in 3.X. Again, picking and choosing your battles. Pepper them at ranged, focus fire, and keep moving. All out run, stop and shoot, all out run, stop and shoot. Dead ogres.



> Oh, and btw, Glitterdust is a 10 foot radius spread.  Sure, if 4 of the ogres are standing shoulder to shoulder, then you could get half of them.  Never mind that the other 4 are STILL going to obliterate your party.



They'd have to get to you, right? Didn't I mention bottlenecking?



> Bottlenecking?  Good grief, you just want your fighter to die don't you?  I've got reach and you don't.  I don't need to get into the doorway to hit the fighter.  2 ogres can attack from 10 feet back and the fighter gets kersplatted.



Blind ogres that are probably prone from _Grease_, while the Fighter is sitting back with a Summon Nature's Ally I in between him and them (with him 10 feet behind the summon). I think I addressed all of this in my post.



> Once the fighter goes down, everyone else has a serious, serious problem.



But he probably won't go down. If he does, you keep spontaneously casting summons and staying 10 feet behind them. They'll clog the corridor and keep you out of range.



> 8 Ogres is a CR 9 encounter.  If you are regularly doing EL+5 encounters without much difficulty, it's time to brush up on your monster tactics.  That or the writers of 3.5 D&D were completely off base when they tried to determine how difficult encounters should be.



I was just pointing out that with proper player tactics, you can do a lot. You seemed to not be able to fathom how. I hope you can see how, now. A _Grease_ spell will basically immobilize a Frost Giant Jarl at CR 17 (make a DC 10 Balance check at -5). That's a level 1 spell.

No, 3.X wasn't great at placing CR or as good at making out-of-the-gate balanced encounters as 4e is. However, you're basing your assumption that beating higher CR enemies this easily is basically impossible. I'm saying that in 3.X, that may not be the right call to make.



> I will agree that 7 PC's make an ENORMOUS difference.  Then again, a party of 7 PC's is about +3-4 levels on their effective party level.  That makes 8 ogres about a par encounter.



Yeah, we're close to agreement with this. Though, in 3.X it'd be assumed that you're have 5-ish spellcasters out of 7 PCs (if you count paladins and rangers [and rangers get _Entangle_, too]).



> Edit to add a later thought.
> 
> Throughout this thread, I've been told that the reason parties don't need healing is smart play.  That they would simply run away from encounter like this and never engage.  Yet, when I bring up a virtually overwhelming encounter, the first reaction is to charge right in, blow spells and away we go.



I was specifically countering your "if they fought 8 ogres, they'd be obliterated" comment. And, I hope you can see that it's very possible to blow one _Grease_ and a summoned monster and run away. And that you could fight them with one _Entangle_ while pinging them with bows from 300 feet and probably suffer no losses other than ammo and a spell slot. The ogres will only have javelins, and those aren't flying the 300 feet necessary to get to you. _Entangle_, focus fire ping, dead. You could even attempt to draw the 8 ogres from that room out if you are prepared for it. You blow maybe 3 level 1 slots from two casters, leaving yourself with 5/8 level 1's and 6/6 level 2's. Load up your saddlebags with ammo and you're good.

And heck, since it's assumed that wands are so cheap, buy a _Wand of Entangle_, and _Wand of Grease_, and a _Wand of Summon Nature's Ally I_. More expensive than a healing wand, sure, but you can do so many more encounters with good tactics and those three wands than bludgeoning your way through. Which, again, I think was the point. With a different type of play, you can bypass, take out, or otherwise overcome challenges using the base assumptions of the game.

You can call foul on 3.X magic and CR calculating, and that's not invalid. However, you're the one who was making the argument that the base assumptions of the game assume the party won't win. I used _very_ base mechanics to show that it isn't the case.

As always, play what you like


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

_Entangle_, in the right environment, is amazingly powerful.  A low-level party completely obliterated some harpies without taking damage due to that spell.

(I've retold the story many times here.)


----------



## Hussar

Jameson Courage said:
			
		

> Blind ogres that are probably prone from Grease, while the Fighter is sitting back with a Summon Nature's Ally I in between him and them (with him 10 feet behind the summon). I think I addressed all of this in my post.
> 
> 
> But he probably won't go down. If he does, you keep spontaneously casting summons and staying 10 feet behind them. They'll clog the corridor and keep you out of range.




And say hello to the 15 minute adventuring day.

And, as a question, why are the 4 blind ogres the ones standing in front?  Why wouldn't they move back and let the 4 not blind ogres step up?  Note, you're limited to 4th level casters, which means at most 2 summon monster 2's and 4 or 5 Summon Monster 1's (remember, you've already cast Glitterdust).  None of these creatures is large, so, I can simply reach over them to hit the fighter.  Granted, you can summon 1-3 monsters with Summon 2, but, they're still medium sized at best and a speed bump of less than a round for the 4 ogres that can reach them.

Isn't it funny though.  When I talk about how lethal 3e combat is, suddenly we only pick situations where the PC's have every possible advantage (outdoor, everyone mounted and capable of fighting from horseback (did you spend that feat?) and lots of open ground with no cover) or tiny, dead end rooms where the ogres are packed in like sardines.

Yup, if your DM has the tactical skills of a concussed gerbil, then sure, these encounters get very easy.  Which just goes to prove my point - that the DM will have a huge impact on how you view things.  Much more than the mechanics themselves.  Mechanically speaking, this should be a death trap encounter - that's what the mechanics ACTUALLY tell you.  But, DM's throwing softball encounters, allowing the players every possible advantage and suddenly people start claiming that 3e let's you do 8 encounters between rest periods.


----------



## Hussar

I would point out one additional thing as well.

It doesn't really matter if the 3e party could possibly defeat this encounter.  The fact that you have to play silly buggers with the set up in order to allow it just proves my point.

The AD&D party doesn't need any set up to win this encounter.  This is a bog standard 1e encounter.  The AD&D party should be able to do this one and five more just like it and not really worry about it.  

The 3e party, as has been shown, might be able to do it once.  Try doing it five times.


----------



## BryonD

Hussar said:


> Isn't it funny though.  When I talk about how lethal 3e combat is, suddenly we only pick situations where the PC's have every possible advantage (outdoor, everyone mounted and capable of fighting from horseback (did you spend that feat?) and lots of open ground with no cover) or tiny, dead end rooms where the ogres are packed in like sardines.



But the other side of that coin is that not all monsters translated to the same lethality in 3E as they were in prior editions.

I do, in fact, agree with you that 3E is probably more lethal in 3E than 1E/2E.  But throwing 2E Ogres against 2E PCs compared to 3E Ogres vs 3E PCs is stacking the deck in favor of lethality just as much as circumstances are against.  

I think over the course of honest, organic play the lethality is a bit more, but not wildly so.  

It is more important to keep in mind that the concept of character level drifted slightly in 3E and the concept of CR substantially moved the idea of "balance".

Of course, keep in mind that I will forever greatly admire OD&D through 1E as ground-breaking.  But I also believed the game design world had evolved past them before 3E came along.  3E simply caught back up.  (And did really well at that).  So, for me personally, the comparison of anything to 1E may be interesting, but it says nothing of real importance.

Also, even a total agreement that 3E is VASTLY more lethal than prior editions would do NOTHING to solve the narrative gap that causes surges to be deeply flawed for delivering the play style I prefer.  All, of course, IMO.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> And say hello to the 15 minute adventuring day.



That's _if_ he goes down, which he probably won't.



> And, as a question, why are the 4 blind ogres the ones standing in front?  Why wouldn't they move back and let the 4 not blind ogres step up?



They potentially could, but _Grease_ probably keeps them prone. And, 6 Int means they may not (according the MM, ogre gangs and bands fight as unorganized individuals).



> Note, you're limited to 4th level casters, which means at most 2 summon monster 2's and 4 or 5 Summon Monster 1's (remember, you've already cast Glitterdust).  None of these creatures is large, so, I can simply reach over them to hit the fighter.



Dude, I mentioned this. _The Fighter is 10 feet behind the summoned creature in the corridor._ He's out of reach of the ogre.



> Granted, you can summon 1-3 monsters with Summon 2, but, they're still medium sized at best and a speed bump of less than a round for the 4 ogres that can reach them.



With proper positioning, only one ogre can reach them. When you open the door, you move back, throwing the summoned creature into the corridor far enough in that an ogre has to move in to attack it. If it does, this means that no other ogres are withing reach of it, and if you're 10 feet or more behind the summon, it can't reach over to hit you.



> Isn't it funny though.  When I talk about how lethal 3e combat is, suddenly we only pick situations where the PC's have every possible advantage (outdoor, everyone mounted and capable of fighting from horseback (did you spend that feat?) and lots of open ground with no cover) or tiny, dead end rooms where the ogres are packed in like sardines.



Yeah, it's like it relates back to tactics and picking your battles (and you don't need to spend a feat to fight from horseback. At all). Like I said, you can always clog the corridor with one _Summon Nature's Ally_ spell and one _Grease_ spell. If you're picking your battles, _they'll be favorable_. Opening a door and finding 8 ogres is improbable most of the time, but I could potentially see it, and fighting in the hallway makes perfect sense. If they're trying to get to you, I don't feel that it's unbelievable that they'd all run as close as possible to attack (6 Int), grouping them together.



> Yup, if your DM has the tactical skills of a concussed gerbil, then sure, these encounters get very easy.



No, that's the tactical skills of an ogre. You know, major morons. Same thing for something like wild animals. Most people that are picking their fights stay far away from dragons without wild preparation or special cheese prepared (_Shivering Touch_, for example).



> Which just goes to prove my point - that the DM will have a huge impact on how you view things.  Much more than the mechanics themselves.



Yep. I would expect the GM to play the enemies at their intelligence and skill level. Some GMs will just play all enemies at the same skill level. I should know, I started out that way. Then again, I wasn't really a good GM when I started (in my opinion), and I feel that I've learned a lot. One of those things was role playing creatures, and that includes strategy and tactics. In this line, ogres are Grade A morons. I'd expect them to fight like them.



> Mechanically speaking, this should be a death trap encounter - that's what the mechanics ACTUALLY tell you.



That's what the _designers_ actually tell you. They say that mechanically, you should die. This leads back to hazy or bad CR placement. You shouldn't necessarily die _mechanically_. You should die according to the designers and their interpretations of the mechanics they created.



> But, DM's throwing softball encounters, allowing the players every possible advantage and suddenly people start claiming that 3e let's you do 8 encounters between rest periods.



... you said that you couldn't understand how, and people said it depends on how you approach encounters. While I'm not huge into tactical wargaming in 3.X (well, wasn't when I played), I can certainly do it. I'm saying that if players want to, they'll take down encounters by being very careful and only getting into fights that they think they can win, and probably easily at that. You said you didn't think it was possible that players could go through 7 fights without healing. Do you see how it definitely is possible?



> I would point out one additional thing as well.
> 
> It doesn't really matter if the 3e party could possibly defeat this encounter. The fact that you have to play silly buggers with the set up in order to allow it just proves my point.



Um, wasn't the point you were disagreeing with "it works for some people using certain tactics?" And, if so, doesn't this demonstrate that point, not prove yours (since you disagreed)?



> The AD&D party doesn't need any set up to win this encounter. This is a bog standard 1e encounter. The AD&D party should be able to do this one and five more just like it and not really worry about it.



The party with 7 PCs, right?



> The 3e party, as has been shown, might be able to do it once. Try doing it five times.



With 7 PCs? I'd bet on us. Just my two cents, though. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar

I love it when people start selectively quoting to prove their point:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Ogres favor overwhelming odds, sneak attacks, and ambushes over a fair fight. They are intelligent enough to fire ranged weapons first to soften up their foes before closing, but ogre gangs and bands fight as unorganized individuals.




So, I'm intelligent enough to use ranged weapons and organize ambushes, but, I'm too stupid to step back and let you come to me?

The point about the 7 PC's and the 4 PC's though gets back to the GAME ASSUMPTIONS.  Basic D&D PRESUMES 7 PC's (well, 6-8) whereas 3e doesn't.  I've already stated that the farther you get from game basic presumptions the more different play will be. 

But, I'm not talking about your game or my game, I'm talking about how the game is presented.

Funnily enough though, your tactics won't work more than once JamesonCourage.  After all, you've blown through all your spells in the first fight.  Let's see you do it four more times, all without your wizard anymore.  

Like I said, if the DM insists on softballing encounters and giving the PC's every possible advantage and ignoring what's actually written in the rules, then sure, you're going to get results that are very different than what's presumed by the rules.  That's pretty much obvious.

Yes, you'd get through this fight with those certain tactics, but, those "certain tactics" are only viable because you're insisting on softball encounters.  

But, this is just going around in circles.  Insisting on very specific examples and then trying to extrapolate from that is pointless.  "Oh, well, the group can win in this very small corner case where they have every possible advantage."  We'll just ignore the fact that ogres have ranged attacks.  8 javelin shots and dead horse.  No more running away for this group.  Why am I stepping in the grease when I've got 4 ranged attacks per round on the fighter?  And, because you've nicely greased the entrance, your summonings can't come in either.  Of course, the fact that you've set the encounter in a dead end.. well... doesn't every ogre always lair in a dead end cave?  *uhoh*

Yeah, I'm done here.  You guys are taking your specific, idiosyncratic games and then applying it to mean that this is anything other than your idiosyncratic game.  The mechanics disagree with you.  The designers disagree with you.  But, apparently, that doesn't mean anything.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Why am I stepping in the grease when I've got 4 ranged attacks per round on the fighter? And, because you've nicely greased the entrance, your summonings can't come in either.




Not all summoned creatures walk, you know, meaning grease isn't of concern to them.



> Yeah, I'm done here. You guys are taking your specific, idiosyncratic games and then applying it to mean that this is anything other than your idiosyncratic game. The mechanics disagree with you. The designers disagree with you. But, apparently, that doesn't mean anything.




I'll just say this: I have never claimed that the tactics our group uses are effective 100% of the time, only that they work well enough for us to do what you say we cannot possibly be doing, namely, averaging more than 4 encounters between rests.

We've had serious setbacks.  At least one campaign ended in a virtual TPK.  Sometimes, we even screw ourselves with our own tactics.  And of course, smarter foes present greater challenges.

But, by and large, our magic miserliness and melee tactics enable us to expect to do 4+ encounters between replenishing our resources.


----------



## billd91

Hussar said:


> But, this is just going around in circles.  Insisting on very specific examples and then trying to extrapolate from that is pointless.  "Oh, well, the group can win in this very small corner case where they have every possible advantage."  We'll just ignore the fact that ogres have ranged attacks.  8 javelin shots and dead horse.  No more running away for this group.  Why am I stepping in the grease when I've got 4 ranged attacks per round on the fighter?




Well, there is a 7 point difference in attack values. They may do substantial damage if they hit, but the likelihood of doing so is a lot less than in melee. They'll need to roll a 13, assuming no range penalties, to hit a warhorse. They'll need a 17 to hit a fighter in breastplate and shield with moderate Dex, a 20 if the target is a dwarf or he grabs even the slightest cover. Meanwhile, the archer PC with better range is having an easier time peppering the ogre.

All things considered, the party is probably much better off trading missiles with the ogres, and probably suffering less than 20% loss in resources despite facing an encounter with EL equal to or better than the group's average character level.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> I love it when people start selectively quoting to prove their point:
> 
> So, I'm intelligent enough to use ranged weapons and organize ambushes, but, I'm too stupid to step back and let you come to me?



You might, but not in concert with the other ogres. You'll move back if you're blind, perhaps, but you won't move the four blind ogres away so that the other four can cram in (as you suggested). That's not fighting as an unorganized individual (which they do).



> The point about the 7 PC's and the 4 PC's though gets back to the GAME ASSUMPTIONS.  Basic D&D PRESUMES 7 PC's (well, 6-8) whereas 3e doesn't.  I've already stated that the farther you get from game basic presumptions the more different play will be.



Okay, fair enough. I'm trying to show that designer assumptions are off when it comes to 3.X, so using them as a base for your argument isn't a great tactic in my mind.



> But, I'm not talking about your game or my game, I'm talking about how the game is presented.



And I'm talking about how it's played using the base mechanics.



> Funnily enough though, your tactics won't work more than once JamesonCourage.  After all, you've blown through all your spells in the first fight.  Let's see you do it four more times, all without your wizard anymore.



Dude, I covered the spells. You lose 1 level 2 and two level 1's. That leaves you able to repeat that one more time, and that's if you decide to stand and fight (I also mentioned retreating after spending two level 1's, drawing them out, and fighting them on better terms). Yeah, standing and fighting would essentially be two fights without basic magic equipment (like scrolls or wands). In a fight that you said "would obliterate them" and according to you is CR+5.

In a CR 4 fight, it's what, maybe two ogres? One _Grease_ will probably handle them while the rogue deals sneak attack. If you want to feel extra safe, block them with a _Summon Nature's Ally_. You'll take them down with ranged attacks before they get up and make it to you. When you do, you've used 2 level 1 spell slots. This is 2 out of 14 spell slots above level 0. You can do this 7 times with base spell slots, and that's not using base assumptions of the system (scrolls and wands).



> Like I said, if the DM insists on softballing encounters and giving the PC's every possible advantage and ignoring what's actually written in the rules, then sure, you're going to get results that are very different than what's presumed by the rules.  That's pretty much obvious.



This is amusing, since you're taking the designer's assumption as correct and throwing a CR+5 encounter at the party (overwhelming, according to the designers). Either the assumptions about the game as presented are correct and the GM isn't softballing, or the assumptions are wrong and some creatures aren't appropriately challenging as presented against certain tactics (which would mean, of course, that an anomaly like a party taking more encounters "than it should be able to" shouldn't really be unbelievable.



> Yes, you'd get through this fight with those certain tactics, but, those "certain tactics" are only viable because you're insisting on softball encounters.



The rogue probably has +15 or so to Hide and Move Silently. If he's sneaking ahead, he'll be able to detect the ogres much, much more easily than they can detect him (they get +2 to Spot and Listen). So, yeah, if you can make out what your enemies are, you can often arrange to foil their ambushes or prepare for the fight in favorable ways.



> But, this is just going around in circles.  Insisting on very specific examples and then trying to extrapolate from that is pointless.  "Oh, well, the group can win in this very small corner case where they have every possible advantage."



I actually talked about a few scenarios where the players used tactics that favored them. Were you thinking something more like a gladiatorial arena?



> We'll just ignore the fact that ogres have ranged attacks.  8 javelin shots and dead horse.  No more running away for this group.



I think I mentioned being 300 feet away. You aren't throwing it that far. If the horse all out runs, even if they all out run, you've doubled their distance. That's an all out run, stop and focus fire, and repeat. They can never hit you.



> Why am I stepping in the grease when I've got 4 ranged attacks per round on the fighter?  And, because you've nicely greased the entrance, your summonings can't come in either.



Well to be fair, if the summon entered, he'd be mush. We want him to clog the doorway, not fight. And, some ogres could definitely use javelins. Depending on preparedness, tables could be set up for full or partial cover, or you could even draw the ogres to the previous room, trap him in the next doorway, and move around the corner so you can hit him but he can't hit you, and neither of the others would have line of sight to you. Hell, you can do that last tactic even if you aren't prepared.



> Of course, the fact that you've set the encounter in a dead end.. well... doesn't every ogre always lair in a dead end cave?  *uhoh*



I know they're in temperate hills. That's about it. In a generic "we open the door and find 8 ogres", I was pointing out that it's not going to be "the party is obliterated" necessarily. You threw what you thought was a really rigged fight out there, and I'm trying to show how that's not the case. Throw two ogres at the party and see how it goes.



> Yeah, I'm done here.  You guys are taking your specific, idiosyncratic games and then applying it to mean that this is anything other than your idiosyncratic game.  The mechanics disagree with you.  The designers disagree with you.  But, apparently, that doesn't mean anything.



If what I'm saying works mechanically, _the mechanics agree with me_. The designers disagreed with me, but I have a feeling they don't as of this point in the life cycle of the game. The books disagree with me, yeah, but I think I've shown where they're lacking.

You argued that 7 PCs against 8 ogres is a base assumption for Basic D&D. I said make it 7 PCs against 8 ogres in 3.X and I'll bet on the PCs, and you said "no, that's not the core assumption!" If we're going by core assumptions, _Grease_, _Summoned_ monsters, _Gitterdust_, _Web_ (which would own that corridor and give total cover against ranged weapons, as well as lasting 40 minutes), scrolls, wands, etc. are all part of base assumptions in 3.X. If you're looking at a base fight, it's 2 ogres against 4 PCs. I think that the PCs can reasonably tear up those two ogres, especially with tactics.

You can't say "7 PCs can take 8 ogres in Basic, so it's more lethal" and turn around and say "7 PCs can't fight 8 ogres in 3.X, that's not the base assumption!" Isn't the point the numbers? And, if we're just going by the core assumptions, isn't that all I've worked with (except for some reason I'm fighting a CR+5 fight instead of 2 ogres)? Which is it, are we using the same numbers to look at lethality, or the base assumptions of the system (Basic of 7 PCs against 8 ogres or 3.X 4 PCs against 2 ogres)?

I feel like the goalposts are shifting, here. Maybe you feel I'm softballing, but if you think the designers are right, a CR+5 fight isn't softballing. It's "overpowering" to the PCs. According to the DMG, "the players should run. If they don't, they will almost certainly lose. The Encounter Level is five or more levels higher than the party." Softball... yeah. Good PC strategy and tactics can win this fight, but it's no "softball" encounter. And, judging by your initial "they'd obliterate the PCs" comment, you didn't think so either.

I'll say this much, 4e is a lot more solid than 3.X when it comes to judging difficulty of monsters. A lot more solid. I think basing your opinion on designer assumptions is a mistake against certain PC tactics, _which was the point all along_. Certain PC tactics will let you go up against a fight you "should" lose and come out victorious. Danny A originally presented this line of thought, and you couldn't fathom how. You've reduced it to broken magic ("go caster or go home") and "softballing" (even against an "overpowering" encounter, since you're sticking to the designer's assumptions, and not the mechanics). Broken magic was never in question (that's in many other threads), and softballing seems rather unreasonable if you believe the designer assumptions were correct.

I think my well-oiled party with base assumptions (wands, scrolls, standard spells) could go through 7 CR appropriate fights without needing to heal. That's what, two ogres 7 times? Makes me wish I had said I'd pick a dwarven fighter, they get a nice +4 dodge bonus to AC against ogres. Yeah, I feel okay with certain players saying they take more than 4 fights per rest cycle. Especially once you get away from core books. YMMV, but this thing you can't fathom? It's not unfathomable to me. As always, play what you like


----------



## Hussar

Let's actually walk through this shall we?

Heck, we'll really softball the encounter and give PC's surprise.

Surprise round:  Wizard drops Glitterdust, catching all 4 ogres and they all fail their save.  Fighter falls back a bit to block up the doorway.

Round 1:  PC's get initiative.  Wizard drops Grease in the doorway.  Fighter shoots arrows through.  Ogre uses his reach and closes the door.  Oops, we're not supposed to be that smart.  Ok, 4 ogres throw javelins at the wizard.  Wizard dies.


What?  You mean I'm only allowed to attack the fighter?  Ok, fine, we're really going to softball this encounter.

Ogre charges fighter, slipping in the grease and stopping prone at the fighter's feet, still in the grease zone.  Three ogres pepper the fighter with javelins.

Round 2.  Wizard starts casting summon monster.  Fighter and prone ogre trade blows.  Three ogres pepper the fighter with javelins.  Cleric heals fighter who's probably well below half hp now.  Rogue stands back and shoots at blind ogres.  Wizard summons 2 celestial owls (for flight).

Fight continues.  As one ogre finally dies, Ogre #2 steps into grease, followed by Ogre 3 and Ogre 4.  Cleric runs out of healing LONG before I run out of ogres, fighter dies.  Then cleric dies.  Wizard and rogue beat feet.



			
				JamesonCourage said:
			
		

> And I'm talking about how it's played using the base mechanics.




No, you're showing how its played when the DM softballs encounters and gives the PC's every possible advantage.

See, the thing is, even in a standard encounter with 2 ogres (standard EL encounter for a 4th level party), I've got a very, very good chance of killing PC's.  I'm certainly going to force you to use your 25% of resources.  Which, according to those in this thread, you should never have to do, since you can routinely go through 6-8 encounters per day.

I totally agree that you can.  But, to do so, you have to change around a few play assumptions - namely you have to use a lot of softball encounters.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Surprise round: Wizard drops Glitterdust, catching all 4 ogres and they all fail their save. Fighter falls back a bit to block up the doorway.
> 
> Round 1: PC's get initiative. Wizard drops Grease in the doorway. Fighter shoots arrows through. Ogre uses his reach and closes the door. Oops, we're not supposed to be that smart. Ok, 4 ogres throw javelins at the wizard. Wizard dies.




Have you forgotten that you assumed the ogres all failed their saves vs Glitterdust?  They're all blind for at least 4 rounds, meaning a 50% miss chance against all foes- FTR or Mage- plus an AC penalty and no dex bonuses.  They're going to be easier to hit, and their odds of hitting are poor.  Because of total concealment due to blindness, they can't even attack the PCs normally- they have to guess what square their targets are in.  They move half speed, max.

If nothing else, this begs the question of why cast Grease?

The party shouldn't retreat to take advantage of bottlenecking- they should advance to take advantage of foes who can't even take AoOs against them.  This means positioning for flanking could be fairly easy (depending on actual positioning), letting the party stack a combat bonus (flanking) on top of a combat penalty (the ogres' AC penalties due to blindness).

In our party, that means the Wiz doesn't have to do much for a couple of rounds, and should enjoy putting crossbow bolts in ogres while the melee types get some quality carving in.

If the ogres survive to round 3, he might _consider_ casting another spell...like Grease.  But if things are as well in hand as I'd expect them to be, there wouldn't be much point.

Assuming they were still around and not in horrible condition, the Wiz doesn't cast his second spell- Grease- until the round before the Glitterdust expires.  With a penalty to their Dex, the blinded ogres are almost sure to fall prone, allowing the melee types to continue carving them up with a minimum of risk.


----------



## LostSoul

Some thoughts:

The wizard should probably start off with a Web instead of Glitterdust.  It'll entangle (-4 dex) them, provide cover (-4 to ranged attacks) or total cover (which is better than a 50% miss chance), and hold them back for a while.  Keep the Glitterdust if they start breaking free and things are looking dire.

Grease can be jumped over pretty easily.

Summon Nature's Ally I would not be a good bet; Summon Nature's Ally II would be better.  A wolverine could last a while and give you time to summon some wolves.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Dont get me wrong-Web is a solid choice- but the main problem with it in this instance is the DC20 Str check to escape it- the easiest way to escape it, basically, and Str being something the ogres have in abundance.  Despite its otherwise superior duration and AoE, it runs a greater risk of being overcome by the ogres.

 (It's probably ideal if they're pursuing, though.)

The beauty of Grease as Glitterdust expires is that the blinded ogres will be at an additional penalty to make their reflex checks due to being blind.  This virtually assures the survivors end up prone...and thus, unlikely to be jumping anywhere.


----------



## JamesonCourage

Hussar said:


> Let's actually walk through this shall we?
> 
> Heck, we'll really softball the encounter and give PC's surprise.



Though this is not unlikely in reality.



> Surprise round:  Wizard drops Glitterdust, catching all 4 ogres and they all fail their save.  Fighter falls back a bit to block up the doorway.



Where the heck is the druid and and rogue (putting a creature blocking the doorway and using sneak attack)?



> Round 1:  PC's get initiative.  Wizard drops Grease in the doorway.  Fighter shoots arrows through.  Ogre uses his reach and closes the door.  Oops, we're not supposed to be that smart.  Ok, 4 ogres throw javelins at the wizard.  Wizard dies.



Hang on, where is the rogue and druid? And, why is the wizard getting hit four times when the ogres get +1 to attack? And, why is he visible? Did the PCs open the door? If so, why didn't they draw them back to the last room to clog them like I mentioned in my last post?



> What?  You mean I'm only allowed to attack the fighter?  Ok, fine, we're really going to softball this encounter.



Um, I'm just not sure how this is working out so far.



> Ogre charges fighter, slipping in the grease and stopping prone at the fighter's feet, still in the grease zone.  Three ogres pepper the fighter with javelins.



And hitting him only on a natural 16, right (10 + 6 banded mail + 1 Dex = 17 AC)? Or a natural 20 if he had his tower shield, right? Though, he probably has total cover from it, too, so not hitting him even then (they hit the shield). I guess you assumed all four ogres failed their will saves, so it's fair to assume that one javelin hits the fighter. Again, not going to happen if they used the last tactic I mentioned and drew them back to the previous room to bottelneck them with readied actions.



> Round 2.  Wizard starts casting summon monster.



This is the druids job. Is there only a fighter and a wizard?



> Fighter and prone ogre trade blows.  Three ogres pepper the fighter with javelins.



Why is he slugging it out?! Didn't I specifically mention him either using a tower shield to clog the corridor or using a ranged weapon from out of reach?



> Cleric heals fighter who's probably well below half hp now.  Rogue stands back and shoots at blind ogres.  Wizard summons 2 celestial owls (for flight).



Summoned creatures aren't the way to go, and we should have a druid and not a cleric, but at least the rogue is finally acting. You know, on round 2, after losing out on 4d6 sneak attack (plus another 2d4 from a bow).



> Fight continues.  As one ogre finally dies, Ogre #2 steps into grease, followed by Ogre 3 and Ogre 4.  Cleric runs out of healing LONG before I run out of ogres, fighter dies.  Then cleric dies.  Wizard and rogue beat feet.



Why the heck did they slug it out after I've mentioned tactics where they specifically aren't supposed to? Is this your standard PC tactics (it basically is for mine)? If so, can you see how following the tactics I've mentioned might, you know, not result in this? Especially if there's the group I mentioned, and they all act during surprise and round 1 



> No, you're showing how its played when the DM softballs encounters and gives the PC's every possible advantage.



When the players go out of there way to gain every possible advantage, really.



> See, the thing is, even in a standard encounter with 2 ogres (standard EL encounter for a 4th level party), I've got a very, very good chance of killing PC's.  I'm certainly going to force you to use your 25% of resources.  Which, according to those in this thread, you should never have to do, since you can routinely go through 6-8 encounters per day.
> 
> I totally agree that you can.  But, to do so, you have to change around a few play assumptions - namely you have to use a lot of softball encounters.



Are you against the players being very careful, gaining surprise, and using tactics, teamwork, obstacles, and terrain to their advantage? I doubt you are opposed to it, but with the players and PCs working in concert, it makes a world of difference in play.



LostSoul said:


> Some thoughts:
> 
> The wizard should probably start off with a Web instead of Glitterdust.  It'll entangle (-4 dex) them, provide cover (-4 to ranged attacks) or total cover (which is better than a 50% miss chance), and hold them back for a while.  Keep the Glitterdust if they start breaking free and things are looking dire.



I did mention _Web_ in my last post, but apparently Hussar disregarded it (which is fine, I also mentioned _Grease_ and _Glitterdust_). If it's giving total cover (which is will from far enough away), it'll literally block attacks. Total concealment is 50% miss chance, total cover just makes you hit the _Web_.



> Grease can be jumped over pretty easily.



Depending on the size of the ceiling, that's true. It should be avoided if that's the case.



> Summon Nature's Ally I would not be a good bet; Summon Nature's Ally II would be better.  A wolverine could last a while and give you time to summon some wolves.



I'm not planning on them winning in melee, they're just there to clog the corridor to keep PCs safe. If anything, a _Summon Nature's Ally II_ for 1d3 creatures, perhaps.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The party shouldn't retreat to take advantage of bottlenecking- they should advance to take advantage of foes who can't even take AoOs against them. This means positioning for flanking could be fairly easy (depending on actual positioning), letting the party stack a combat bonus (flanking) on top of a combat penalty (the ogres' AC penalties due to blindness).



I wouldn't close in, personally, but I would use a Ghost Sound to make the ogres think I did, and get them swinging at each other (or at least grappling or something). Get the focus away from the PCs. Their bad AC against ranged attacks should be more than good enough. Just a different tactical decision, though.


----------



## Hussar

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Have you forgotten that you assumed the ogres all failed their saves vs Glitterdust?  They're all blind for at least 4 rounds, meaning a 50% miss chance against all foes- FTR or Mage- plus an AC penalty and no dex bonuses.  They're going to be easier to hit, and their odds of hitting are poor.  Because of total concealment due to blindness, they can't even attack the PCs normally- they have to guess what square their targets are in.  They move half speed, max.
> 
> If nothing else, this begs the question of why cast Grease?
> 
> The party shouldn't retreat to take advantage of bottlenecking- they should advance to take advantage of foes who can't even take AoOs against them.  This means positioning for flanking could be fairly easy (depending on actual positioning), letting the party stack a combat bonus (flanking) on top of a combat penalty (the ogres' AC penalties due to blindness).
> 
> In our party, that means the Wiz doesn't have to do much for a couple of rounds, and should enjoy putting crossbow bolts in ogres while the melee types get some quality carving in.
> 
> If the ogres survive to round 3, he might _consider_ casting another spell...like Grease.  But if things are as well in hand as I'd expect them to be, there wouldn't be much point.
> 
> Assuming they were still around and not in horrible condition, the Wiz doesn't cast his second spell- Grease- until the round before the Glitterdust expires.  With a penalty to their Dex, the blinded ogres are almost sure to fall prone, allowing the melee types to continue carving them up with a minimum of risk.




What happened to the other 4 ogres?  There were 8 in the group after all.  You only blinded half of them and I would assume that the blinded ogres would just fall back and the sighted ogres would attack.  After the 4 rounds of the 4 ogres beating on the party, the other 4 ogres would be back into it.

So, no I didn't forget anything.  I just ignored the blinded ogres because they'd likely be innefectual.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Hussar said:


> What happened to the other 4 ogres?  There were 8 in the group after all.




Well, as stated in your post:



> Surprise round: Wizard drops Glitterdust, catching all 4 ogres and they all fail their save. Fighter falls back a bit to block up the doorway.




There was no mention of 8 ogres, just the "all 4".  I missed that this was a continuation of other posts.

But in the case of the 8, I'd actually go with LostSoul's Web, anchored in the doorway and into the room.  The spell completely clogs the doorway, acting as entangling spell, obscuring protection, and absolute bar on LoS for 10 min/level. (_This nixes their javelin strikes entirely_.)  Even if the ogres start making the aforementioned DC20 Str rolls, this gives me time to think- their movement will still be hampered.

So I can start considering all kinds of options: simply avoiding the room, for instance, if the adventure permits; using the bottleneck effect if one or more advance towards the be webbed door; lighting the web on fire for some freebie damage on the ogres as they try to get out.

And I'd definitely have to consider whatever resources the party has beyond the Wiz's spells and the fighter's sword arm.  For example, given the above, the druid's casting Flaming Sphere seems a good place to start- it would ignite the Web, doing 2d4 from the Web's ignition going up and 2d6 of its own damage.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

Ya know, I'm not accusing anyone of this, but this current part of the thread/conversation is reminding me of a DM I had in the past in which "magic didn't work" and "tactics didn't work". (This was when we were younger, he's much improved in terms of degree and flexibility now, btw.)

His favorite class was fighter, and he basically viewed D&D as trading hps back and forth. It was a fairly constricted view of the game, and was fine when he played. Well, fine-ish, as he would frequently charge into groups of low level enemies which could have been wiped away by a single fireball, and used up far less party resources than all of the hps he (and others) traded.

As DM, if a player had "Freedom of movement" on him, it was usually more of a "target of hold person deflector" in that he would never target that player with hold person, and would instead pick the next best target. If players fought a group of zombies, the zombies would use intelligent tactics to battle us. I don't mean intelligent in the sense of clever (these he would feel would be cheating...like if the zombies forced a bottleneck, or attacked from two sides or coordinated with a trap). I mean that zombies would all attack the same pc, selecting the least armored one and surrounding it, all the while ignoring all other pcs (basically using knowledge and working as a coordinated group despite being mindless).

To him, using tactics was "cheating the game" and he'd even call basic tactics (such as the ones described in this thread) "metagaming". GOD HELP YOU if you used magic in a creative way (like trying to bring down a cavern with soften earth and stone on the ceiling instead of the common use of the floor)..it simply would never work.


My point here is that he's an extreme example of how some DMs view the game and their own DMing style. He still has a flavor of his prior behavior, and sometimes has to be reminded (e.g. Why isn't the guy targeting me with hold person?..."oh yeah, right....he targets you and it fizzles). 

Sometimes DMs feel as though awarding players "easy" wins with minimal loss of resources is bad dming or player cheating, even if done well within the constraints of the game (and even within the constraints of what the characters would know...without any metagaming occuring). If a "hard" combat isn't "hard" there must be some shennanigans, right? My example DM still has a bit of this attitude, and has to remind himself that when players win through in game tactics, it's not an "easy win" because they're cheating...it's an easy win because they're playing well.



If it rankles some that playing well results in less need for healing because of less hp loss, I wonder if some of this is from a perspective on how the game is "supposed" to work, as with my DM example? Like I said, I'm not accusing anyone of this. I don't even think it's something one can be "accused" of. It seems like merely a different perspective on what people want to get out of the game, and what they think is central to the game.

(BTW, lest people think I'm ragging on him too much, the person I mention still DMs for me, I enjoy his campaigns, he plays in mine, and he's a lot of fun. I merely mean to bring up his style and attitude as one that is somewhat central to his understanding of how he thinks the game works/wants the game to work.)


----------



## pemerton

Aberzanzorax said:


> Sometimes DMs feel as though awarding players "easy" wins with minimal loss of resources is bad dming or player cheating, even if done well within the constraints of the game (and even within the constraints of what the characters would know...without any metagaming occuring).



This is one reason why I prefer to play a game in which the overcoming of tactical/mechanical challenges by the players is a means to an end (in Forge terms, a _technique_) rather than an end in itself.

Once it becomes an end in itself, all the issues you raise in your post raise their heads.


----------



## Aberzanzorax

I learned that the hard way, Pemerton, with my own experience as a "Bad DM (tm)".

I ran a campaign where I ratcheted up the challenges to excruciating difficulty, so that only through clever tactics could the players win. If they tried to play HP attrition style, they would lose, and TPK.

Exactly what you say:


> This is one reason why I prefer to play a game in which the overcoming of tactical/mechanical challenges by the players is a means to an end (in Forge terms, a _technique_) rather than an end in itself.



was the lesson I learned when that campaign failed. Thankfully the group doesn't hold it against me, and our campaigns (even the ones I DM) have improved (just as my friend, the DM I mention, has improved as well).


----------



## JRRNeiklot

Let's compare how badly an ogre encounter can go in both editions.

1e, ogres gain maximum suprise.  Let's suppose there are only 2 ogres.  The first ogre charges, hitting 5 times for an average of 27 points of damage, or a max of 50.  The 2nd ogre does the same  Our fighter has 25 hp on average (we'll be generous and give him a 16 con.)  So, two fighters dead before they even get to roll initiative.  Actually, assuming average damage, they're not dead, only at -2, they don't die till -3, so they'll only need a week of bed rest.

3e, the first ogre partial charges, doing 12 points of damage on average, maximum of 23.  Or 46 on a crit.  The 2nd ogre does the same.  Our fighter has 35 hp on average (16 con).  So, only on a crit can our fighter be killed, and then just barely.   2 crits means two 20s in a row, though admittedly, that's about as likely as 5 10s.  

This is with TWO ogres.  Many more are likely to be encountered in either edition.  

Which is more deadly?  Only with extreme damage rolls and crits does someone die in 3e.  In 1e, we have two characters down before initiative is even rolled.  Now, does 5 surprise segments come up often?  No, but it's not that rare, either.  With a dex penalty, you might get even MORE surprise segments.

And honestly, the 2 ogres fight would go better for the 1e group than say 12 goblins.


----------



## TheAuldGrump

This is the thread that never ends.
It just goes on and on my friends.
Some gamers started posting here, not knowing what it was.
They'll keep on posting here forever, just because,

This is the thread that never ends..... 

Oy!

I find it amusing when a person who moves the goal posts is annoyed when the other side does so as well....

The Auld Grump


----------



## pemerton

TheAuldGrump said:


> This is the thread that never ends.



But I think it's become better since it shifted from debating taste in recovery mechanics (which I think is a bit pointless) to looking at the action resolution dynamics of various editions, and their interaction with character build rules (which I think is pretty interesting).


----------

