# Realism vs. Believability and the Design of HPs, Powers and Other Things



## Falling Icicle (Apr 10, 2012)

I posted this originally on the WotC messageboards, and thought it might be good to post it here also. Just to be clear, I'm not trying to start any kind of edition war. I'm just making some observations that I hope will lead to a constructive discussion about these things.

Alot of people use the word "realism" when actually the word they should have used is "believable." Obviously, DnD is a fantasy game and there are things in it which are completely unrealistic like magic and dragons. But things can be fantastic and yet still be believable. A cleric channeling the power of the gods into a healing spell to heal you, that's believable. A warlord shouting at you and your wounds just disappearing because his words made you feel encouraged, not so much, at least not IMHO.

Now, before somebody replies with the old "but hit points were never realistic!", let me stop you right there. You're right! They're never were realistic. To be honest, I've never liked the way hit points have worked in any edition of the game, especially how they scale multiplicatively with level. A 1st level wizard can stub his toe and die, while a 20th level fighter can be hacked with a greataxe dozens of times and live, something clearly unbelievable. Likewise, a jar of alchemist's fire or acid is a somewhat decent weapon to use at 1st level, but at higher levels the mere d6 damage it inflicts becomes next to worthless. In real life, not to mention fantasy novels, movies, etc. I dont care how experienced a fighter you are, having a jar of acid thrown on you will really ruin your day.

People often say that hit points aren't meant to represent real injury to the character. But then, what are they supposed to represent? Falling back on things like endurance and morale are really poor excuses, because hit points simulate those things even more poorly than they simulate injuries. Besides, everyone knows full well that the reason you lose hit points is because your character was injured by some attack or hazard. He fell 40 ft. off a cliff. He got engulfed by a dragon's flaming breath. He was critically hit by a barbarian's axe. Those are the reasons you lose hit points in DnD. If they were equally things like endurance or morale, why do I not lose hit points whenever I find out a loved one has died, or when I see the village I've lived in all my life burnt to the ground by some villianous horde? Those things are devastating to one's morale but don't inflict hit point loss, so obviously you can't say that hit points have anything whatsoever to do with morale. As for endurance, likewise, being hit by clearly life-threatening attacks is going to do alot more than make you tired.

The real reason hit points are so unbelievable, to be blunt, is simply a concession of game design. In a real sword fight, dozens, even hundreds of swings of a weapon might occur before someone actually lands a blow, and once they do, it's very often lethal or at least crippling. But in a game like DnD, if combat were that realistic, with so many misses being involved and the occasional hit being so deadly, well, let's just say it wouldn't be a very fun game to play. Playing through a several minute fight, one 6 second round at a time, swing by swing, rolling for each one only to find that 99% of them miss, who would want to play that game? Hit points are there to make players feel like they're steadily accomplishing something while still pacing battles to last for at least a certain amount of time. 

Other game systems over the years have devised other means of tracking injuries that are far closer to the threshold of believability than hit points are while still being playable and fun for an rpg. That said, DnD combat still tends to be one of the fastest, simplest and most fluid, mostly thanks to hit points. So really, even though everyone realized how unbelievable they are, we accept it for the good of the game. That said, when 4e came along and introduced healing surges and non-magical characters healing people by yelling at them like a drill sergeant, that pushed the game even further into the realm of unbelievability than it had ever gone before, and that pushed it outside of alot of people's comfort zones. 

Again, to be blunt, 4e's deisgn seems to disregard the believability of things in favor of "what works better for DnD combat as a miniatures wargame." (I'm not trying to start an edition war here, I'm just calling it as I see it. 4e's design clearly emphasized making things work well in combat as the highest priority.) Many of the powers seem to have been written primarily with their in-game effects in mind. "Let's make a power that deals X damage to this many creatures plus makes them all blinded until they make a save." The flavor text of the powers often seemed like fluff tacked on as an afterthought, like "a rogue throwing dozens of knives to accomplish the effect". Of course, many of us ask "how could the rogue possibly have done that?" It's not that the actual end result was unablanced in the game, it's just that the narrative used to describe it was totally unbelievable and for many people completely breaks their sense of immersion and roleplaying.

Unbelievable rules have always been a part of DnD, and rpgs in general, to some extent or another. 4e just embraced them to a point that had never been done before, and did so so transparently and blatantly that it insulted many people's sensibilities. I, for one, think that when people design powers they should start with the idea of what the player is doing in the world, in a way you can visualize and explain it, and _then_ make a set of rules for how to represent that in the game. I'm not trying to bash on 4e here, I'm just trying to explain why the design approach that was taken rubbed so many people the wrong way. 4e made alot of great advances in rpg rule design. Had they just taken a different approach and presentation and paid more deference to believability and immersion, I think 4e would have been far better accepted.

As for "DnD Next", I think most of the problems I have with hit points, such as the example of acid flasks I gave earlier, can be resolved simply by reducing the number of hit points people have, especially at higher levels. It's only because hit points and damage continue to increase at such a rate that things like alchemist's fire get left behind, as well as low-level spells, for that matter. 4e took the right approach by starting characters with more than single digit HP. Now, they just need to drastically scale back the rate at which they're gained. That will make them alot more believable and make the game more balanced as well.


----------



## Yora (Apr 10, 2012)

They stated that they want a "flatter math", which I assume means among other things avoiding a rapid bloat of hit points.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

I agree with most of your points (we are having a similar discussion in one of the other threads around here). But this will become a flamewar.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 10, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I agree with most of your points (we are having a similar discussion in one of the other threads around here). But this will become a flamewar.




I hope not. I tried to make my points in a non-confrontational manner, and hope others will do the same.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> I hope not. I tried to make my points in a non-confrontational manner, and hope others will do the same.




I can play by those rules. I am just going on past discussions here.

You may want to check out this thread as Believability versus Realism came up on the last several pages: http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-horizons-upcoming-edition-d-d/320561-april-3rd-rule-3-a-18.html


----------



## Yora (Apr 10, 2012)

It takes place in a forum, that is really the only requirement to start a flame war.


----------



## CM (Apr 10, 2012)

So you feel that 4e mundane healing is unrealistic because your interpretation of hit points differs from the definition of hit points of *every* edition so far? 

Good luck with that.


----------



## avin (Apr 10, 2012)

CM said:


> So you feel that 4e mundane healing is unrealistic because your interpretation of hit points differs from the definition of hit points of *every* edition so far?




He thinks. 
So do I.
And I like DMing 4E.
Mundane healing in 4E feels "unrealistic" to me.
That does not prevent me to DM or play it and have fun.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 10, 2012)

CM said:


> So you feel that 4e mundane healing is unrealistic because your interpretation of hit points differs from the definition of hit points of *every* edition so far?
> 
> Good luck with that.




It doesn't seem that different to me.  If HP was only mental or only luck or only whatever, a week of bedrest wouldn't be required in 1e, 2e, 3e etc to fully heal.  The barbarian could just get screamed at by the Bard until he was healed.
Obviously there is a physical component.  
If there is a physical component requiring that much time laid up in previous editions, some guy giving me the old "Win one for the Gipper" speech doesn't pass my believability test for getting someone back to full speed.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 10, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> It doesn't seem that different to me.  If HP was only mental or only luck or only whatever, a week of bedrest wouldn't be required in 1e, 2e, 3e etc to fully heal.  The barbarian could just get screamed at by the Bard until he was healed.
> Obviously there is a physical component.
> If there is a physical component requiring that much time laid up in previous editions, some guy giving me the old "Win one for the Gipper" speech doesn't pass my believability test for getting someone back to full speed.



On the other hand if I need to be laid up for a week to recover because I've just been hit hard by an axe, the fact that I am wandering around with absolutely no penalty doesn't pass _my_ believability test.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 10, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> It's not that the actual end result was unablanced in the game, it's just that the narrative used to describe it was totally unbelievable and for many people completely breaks their sense of immersion and roleplaying.



Yep, that's D&D. It's always been chock full of stuff that works as a game but doesn't make much sense. Hit points are just the tip of the iceberg. Classes, levels, AC, xp (particularly xp for gold), saving throws, extraordinary abilities (such as a troll's regeneration, dragon's flight, rogue's evasion and barbarian's DR) are non-magical, 3e/4e's staccato combat, everything of the same race has the same movement rate, dungeons, the plethora of monsters, Wild West goes medieval, and so forth. Almost nothing in the game is believable, when you think about it.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 10, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> People often say that hit points aren't meant to represent real injury to the character.




They represent _more_ than just physical injury.  And they always have, from the start of the game.



> But then, what are they supposed to represent? Falling back on things like endurance and morale are really poor excuses, because hit points simulate those things even more poorly than they simulate injuries.




They do?  I think they represent endurance and morale much more effectively than injuries.  Frankly, replace HP with a "Morale" score, and the whole game makes a lot more sense.



> Besides, everyone knows full well that the reason you lose hit points is because your character was injured by some attack or hazard. He fell 40 ft. off a cliff. He got engulfed by a dragon's flaming breath. He was critically hit by a barbarian's axe.




I don't know those things full well.  It could also be a narrow miss requiring major exertion or luck.



> If they were equally things like endurance or morale, why do I not lose hit points whenever I find out a loved one has died, or when I see the village I've lived in all my life burnt to the ground by some villianous horde? Those things are devastating to one's morale but don't inflict hit point loss, so obviously you can't say that hit points have anything whatsoever to do with morale.




Does not follow.

Just because some forms of fatigue/morale are tracked by HP doesn't mean all of them have to be.  Disease and poison can effect people in similar ways to physical injury, yet those are often tracked separately from HP.

"Attacks" do HP damage because there are game rules for attacks, and HP are the mechanical results.  DnD doesn't have rules for being really sad.  If a DM wanted to house rule them in, HP damage would make sense.

Except when it does.  In 4E, lots of attacks deal "psychic" damage, that are basically a serious blow to morale.  And I've often represented fatigue, from skill challenges as loss of healing surges, which is effectively the same as loss of HP.



> As for endurance, likewise, being hit by clearly life-threatening attacks is going to do alot more than make you tired.




Indeed it would.  It would cause serious wounds inflicting serious penalties to actions, and risk of death if not treated.  Since simple HP loss does not mean that, then "being hit by clearly life-threatening attacks" is very rare.  Most "hits" are really more about loss of intangibles, than actual injury.



> The real reason hit points are so unbelievable, to be blunt, is simply a concession of game design.




Hey, no need to apologize.  Knowing when to concede to better "game design" instead of pure simulation, is an important part of the art of making good games.  HP are a good design.



> That said, when 4e came along and introduced healing surges and non-magical characters healing people by yelling at them like a drill sergeant, that pushed the game even further into the realm of unbelievability than it had ever gone before, and that pushed it outside of alot of people's comfort zones.




While I can't deny that it did, I think it has more to do with people being familiar with HP, and not really internalizing what HP were always meant to represent, which was a whole host of intangible factors, with only a small component of actual physical damage.  If HP are taken to mean what they were always supposed to mean, non-magical healing makes perfect sense.



> Again, to be blunt, 4e's deisgn seems to disregard the believability of things in favor of "what works better for DnD combat as a miniatures wargame."




No need to apologize.  That's why I love it.  It finally embraced DnDs heritage, and delivered a _good game_ on that premise, first and foremost.  Just because the combat plays like a wargame doesn't mean it isn't an RPG.



> Of course, many of us ask "how could the rogue possibly have done that?" It's not that the actual end result was unablanced in the game, it's just that the narrative used to describe it was totally unbelievable and for many people completely breaks their sense of immersion and roleplaying.




I don't think throwing a bunch of knives within a few seconds is outside the realm of possibility.  Difficult, sure, but these are meant to be extraordinary people.



> I, for one, think that when people design powers they should start with the idea of what the player is doing in the world, in a way you can visualize and explain it, and _then_ make a set of rules for how to represent that in the game. I'm not trying to bash on 4e here, I'm just trying to explain why the design approach that was taken rubbed so many people the wrong way. 4e made alot of great advances in rpg rule design. Had they just taken a different approach and presentation and paid more deference to believability and immersion, I think 4e would have been far better accepted.




So, taking your example of Blinding Barrage, I'm not sure what should have been done differently.  The second line is a concise flavor text explaining what the character is doing: "A rapid flurry of projectiles leaves your enemies clearing the blood from their eyes.".  If that concept, of throwing projectiles in rapid succession at enemies eyes is not sufficiently realistic to you, then I'm not sure how it can be dressed up differently. I, for one, have no problem visualizing that attack.



> Now, they just need to drastically scale back the rate at which they're gained. That will make them alot more believable and make the game more balanced as well.




I disagree.  Embrace what HP have always meant, and make it truly clear that they don't just represent physical injury.  That will make them more believable.

And I don't see how fewer HP inherently improves balance.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 10, 2012)

Whatever the reasons people have for liking or not liking the hit point loss and recovery mechanics in 4E... the real issue going forward will be this:

_If rules for hit point loss/recovery you *don't* like are printed in the book as optional rules right next to rules for hit point loss/recovery you *DO* like... will their mere existence mean you refuse to try the game altogether?_

I find it saddening that it seems like many threads have had that reaction from some people.  That the mere existence of optional rules/modules they don't like means they will refuse to even play the game, regardless of how good the rest of the game might be.

I'm HOPING that those kinds of reactions have been more hyperbole than anything else... because it's that kind of "My way or the highway" attitude that seems to be the exact opposite of the inclusiveness that WotC is trying to put together.  Whatever the game ends up being... it'd be nice to think that we wouldn't write it off sight unseen just because they chose to include some optional rules that cater to fans of editions you choose not to play.  I'm not saying you need to USE those rules in your own game... not by a longshot... but hopefully we can all have a bit of "live and let live" perspective for our own gaming picadillos when reading the upcoming books and then choosing whether to use them for upcoming campaigns.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 10, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> It doesn't seem that different to me.  If HP was only mental or only luck or only whatever, a week of bedrest wouldn't be required in 1e, 2e, 3e etc to fully heal.  The barbarian could just get screamed at by the Bard until he was healed.
> Obviously there is a physical component.
> If there is a physical component requiring that much time laid up in previous editions, some guy giving me the old "Win one for the Gipper" speech doesn't pass my believability test for getting someone back to full speed.




Older editions were inconsistent.

When damage was being dealt, HP were treated as being primarily intangible, with just a small representing component physical injury.  Otherwise, carrying on without penalty (and no bleeding-out rules) would be completely absurd.

When healing was being applied, HP were treated as purely physical injury, and required that healing make sense on that basis.

To me, _that_ strains believably.  And I appreciate that 4E brought consistency to how HP operate.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Apr 10, 2012)

I think that the definitional problems with hp, and its massive implausibility predate 4e. I don't think 4e's nonmagical healing is at the heart of it's problems, it's more symptomatic of some deeper issues.

I do, however, think that hp is a dinosaur of a concept. It hasn't been replaced because, as some have said, it's simple and it keeps the game moving. But when the rest of the game became needlessly complex and hp remained as a vastly oversimplified construct, it caused some people's heads to explode (a situation not modeled well by the hp system). I think that if hp could be revised _without adding a great deal of complexity_, we could have a lot of design space to work on balance and plausibility issues. But it seems like hp just won't die.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 10, 2012)

Really, there's not a heck of a lot more that can be added to this discussion.  

It goes around and around and never achieves anything because neither side will actually pony up and state what they hope to achieve.  

What is added to the game by insisting that HP=Physical damage?  Is what's added to the game by insisting that HP=Physical damage worth what is lost?  Is it a net gain?

If the only issue here is believability, well, why should yours trump mine?  Why do you get to say, "Well, it must be this long and no shorter because any shorter hurts my suspension of disbelief"?  

Now, if there is an actual, tangible benefit that you can show for this interpretation, then fair enough, let's see it.  Convince me why it's better.  Don't tell me why you don't like my interpretation, tell me why I should like yours better.  Sell it to me.  

Because, from where I'm standing, right now, the price of admission is way too high.  HP=Physical Injury means you lose so much design space (any effect that hurts the character but doesn't actually cause physical damage must now be modeled another way, for example).  It also has serious pacing ramifications.  If HP=Physical Damage, then we need longer healing times, which means more down time, which means more screwing around waiting to get back to the adventure.  It also means that magical healing becomes the default method for all healing because, if HP=Physical damage is part of the resource management game, players are going to stock up on that resource in any way they can.  We go back to healing wands and barrels of healing potions.

Which, at the end of the day, brings us full circle back to basically zero healing time as all wounds are simply tapped away with wands of cure light.  

Granted, you can fix that by making wands more expensive.  And potions too.  But, that has the knock on effect of making wands and potions more valuable.  Now, groups flog unwanted potions and wands for large chunks of cash.  On and on and on.

This is not a simple issue.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

Sorry Hussar but the game matching my sense of believability (even if you disagree with it) is more important to me than what a rule achieves in term of game play because without the believability I can't get into the game. For me this has everything to do with my sense of believability and immersion. Granted we all have different threshholds, but believability issues are a chief complaint for 4e and I think that is because it crosses alot of peoples thresholds (everything from surges to mundane encounter and daily powers). you don't have to agree with me at all. You can think I am fool if you want, but lets stop with the implications that it is all "really about something else". Just take our critiques at face value move on. Because this is all in there with people saying our dislike of 4e is really about fear of change or a failure to understand 4e. I don't mean to single you out here, because even though we disagree, i usually get along with you just fine.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 10, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> the real issue going forward will be this:
> 
> _If rules for hit point loss/recovery you *don't* like are printed in the book as optional rules right next to rules for hit point loss/recovery you *DO* like... will their mere existence mean you refuse to try the game altogether?_
> 
> I find it saddening that it seems like many threads have had that reaction from some people.  That the mere existence of optional rules/modules they don't like means they will refuse to even play the game, regardless of how good the rest of the game might be.



What seems to drive some of these arguments is "which one is the core and which is the option?" Not that it makes your point any less valid, because that is essentially what I'm seeing, too. But it seems like those who like HP recovery* rule from 2nd Edition want that as the "core" with the 4th Edition rule as the "option," and those who are hardcore 4E fans want the HP recovery from 4th to be the "core" with the 2nd Edition as the "option."

That distinction seems to be the ultimate driving force behind more than a few of these discussions.

* Just an example. This applies equally to all sorts of these discussions, from classes to races, from Vancian magic to pure spell points, etc.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 10, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> On the other hand if I need to be laid up for a week to recover because I've just been hit hard by an axe, the fact that I am wandering around with absolutely no penalty doesn't pass _my_ believability test.




I think you're missing *the* penalty that reduced hit points impose - that you can't take as much of a beating before being killed. Your offense may not be directly compromised, but your defense certainly is.


----------



## pauljathome (Apr 10, 2012)

CM said:


> So you feel that 4e mundane healing is unrealistic because your interpretation of hit points differs from the definition of hit points of *every* edition so far?
> .




Or he recognizes the huge inconsistencies in the "definition" of hit points in every edition so far.

Hit points ARE hugely unrealistic. They are also hugely useful from a gaming perspective. And we've all internalized them so much that they now seem almost realistic. But if you look at how they actually work they clearly are VERY unrealistic.

Unfortunately, as far as I know nobody has so far come up with a better mechanism. "Better" in that they are more realistic, as useful from a gaming perspective, quick and easy to use, and scale across a wide range of power levels.

And before people ask, yes I've played Gurps, Hero, RQ, Shadowrun, M&M, RoleMaster, Star Wars and countless other games. All the systems with alternatives to hit points have flaws together with advantages. There is a reason that no single alternative has been adopted by the industry.


----------



## Starbuck_II (Apr 10, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> Those are the reasons you lose hit points in DnD. If they were equally things like endurance or morale, why do I not lose hit points whenever I find out a loved one has died, or when I see the village I've lived in all my life burnt to the ground by some villianous horde? Those things are devastating to one's morale but don't inflict hit point loss, so obviously you can't say that hit points have anything whatsoever to do with morale. As for endurance, likewise, being hit by clearly life-threatening attacks is going to do alot more than make you tired.



Wrong!
You lost a healing surge much more precious.
Yes, just because you didn't do it; doesn't mean it didn't work like that.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 10, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Sorry Hussar but the game matching my sense of believability (even if you disagree with it) is more important to me than what a rule achieves in term of game play because without the believability I can't get into the game. For me this has everything to do with my sense of believability and immersion. Granted we all have different threshholds, but believability issues are a chief complaint for 4e and I think that is because it crosses alot of peoples thresholds (everything from surges to mundane encounter and daily powers). you don't have to agree with me at all. You can think I am fool if you want, but lets stop with the implications that it is all "really about something else". Just take our critiques at face value move on. Because this is all in there with people saying our dislike of 4e is really about fear of change or a failure to understand 4e. I don't mean to single you out here, because even though we disagree, i usually get along with you just fine.




What I think is that you're kind of stating things incorrectly.

It's not a problem with 4e being unbelievable when it comes to hit points and healing, but a problem with 4e not matching your personal preference for how those mechanics are interpreted.

Nowhere in the rules does it indicate that the warlord's words literally stitch up physical wounds somehow. You are choosing to interpret it that way.

I think this is important. 

4e chooses not to interpret hit points as physical wounds, so healing by use of words is perfectly fine, and believable.

If you as a player have already at some point chosen to interpret hit points as (even in small part) a model of some type of physical injury then 4e is not going to match your interpretation, and you will have weird effects that feel unbelievable. 

We didn't encounter this prior to 4e because there wasn't anything that prevented HP from being interpreted as physical wounds (even though to many, myself included) the idea of modeling them as physical wounds is "unrealistic."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

Scribble said:


> What I think is that you're kind of stating things incorrectly.
> 
> It's not a problem with 4e being unbelievable when it comes to hit points and healing, but a problem with 4e not matching your personal preference for how those mechanics are interpreted.
> 
> ...




Except HP has always been a combination of physical damage and other things, so it isn't like I am coming out of left field with this notion that the Warlord shouting my HP back up is a bit unrealistic. I can certainly see how others dont see it that way, but this is the heart of why 4E had so much trouble with a large base of the fans. They insisted on a very unpopular interpetation of HP and then went and created a healing system that doesn't make sense outside of that interpetation. 

Not to rehash the debate we just had on the other thread, we aren't asking for 100% realism either. Nor do we want a wound simulator. But we do want a system that allows for characters to be physically hurt by attacks and not be glaringly unbelievable by incuding instant or single day natural healing. 

Obviously much of this will pivot on our core assumptions. I just dont think there is anything wrong or misguided about my core assumptions.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 10, 2012)

Dear WOTC 5E game designers,

Please put an entire page explaining the core definition of Hit Points in each of the core handbook. If core hit points losses are meat chunks and physical damage, say so. If core hit points is stamina, tell us so. If hit points is to some point the abilty to cause lethal attacks and obstacles to instead be cuts and bruise, can you write this in? If HP is partially morale and mental resolve to continue despite injury, explain to us this. If it is a combination of all of the above on a case by case basis, write that. This will make a lot of agruments about them to happen less frequently.

-Minigiant


----------



## Dragonblade (Apr 10, 2012)

Except Warlords don't heal physical wounds with words. They allow you to recover the portion of your hitpoints that constitutes morale and gritty determination, which is the same way that HP have worked in every edition of D&D.


----------



## CM (Apr 10, 2012)

So, those of you who feel that 4e mundane healing is unrealistic: what is stopping you as DM from disallowing mundane healer classes?

If warlord exists as a mundane healing class in 5e, why can't you just ignore it and let those of us who want it use it? This is all it really comes down to. Why must mundane healer classes be an optional module or eliminated entirely?

The only reasons I can see are:
  1. A warlord in some adventure module or splatbook somewhere down the road will threaten your worldview.
  2. A player will want to play a warlord despite your outlawing the class.

Neither of these is a very compelling argument.

For my part, a return to the days where the cleric (or his poor cousin, the druid) is the only option for the healer role is a deal-breaker.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 10, 2012)

CM said:


> So, those of you who feel that 4e mundane healing is unrealistic: what is stopping you as DM from disallowing mundane healer classes?
> 
> If warlord exists as a mundane healing class in 5e, why can't you just ignore it and let those of us who want it use it? This is all it really comes down to. Why must mundane healer classes be an optional module or eliminated entirely?
> 
> ...




The difference for me is that is a strictly 4e mechanic, better suited to a module than the base core game, in my opinion.  If you take a poll, it is one of the most divisive issues in 4e for people who never made the switch, aka how 4e handled healing in general.


----------



## hanez (Apr 10, 2012)

I have been playing since 2nd edition, and I must say I never really knew about the HP as things other then damage definition.  I mean in game, we almost always assume its damage to body and sometimes fatigue.    My players have always just thought of that as an assumption.  I recognize that this definition has problems, but I see things like healing surges and warlord type healing as adding to the problem.

Personally I never understood what the problem was with potions and other alchemy style solutions.  They are predominant in my campaigns.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> The difference for me is that is a strictly 4e mechanic, better suited to a module than the base core game, in my opinion.  If you take a poll, it is one of the most divisive issues in 4e for people who never made the switch, aka how 4e handled healing in general.




I think this is the heart of it. 4E approaches to healing were so controvertial that this stuff is much better suited to a module. If you want to inlcude a warlord in the core that can work, but it should do something more in linewith the assumptions of the core game (like bestow a morale bonus to attacks). But it is kind of wierd if they go back to pre 4e healing assumptions, yet included the warlord in the standard chatacter classes.


----------



## Scribble (Apr 10, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Except HP has always been a combination of physical damage and other things, so it isn't like I am coming out of left field with this notion that the Warlord shouting my HP back up is a bit unrealistic.




Well you are and you aren't and that's what I'm trying to say.

The idea of someone shouting wounds closed (without magic) is unbelievable no question.

I don't have any issue with you coming to that conclusion. The problem is saying that 4e forces this on you and causes an unrealistic/unbelievable situation.

It would be the same as if they for instance said elves are 80 feet tall, so they can't go into 5x5 rooms, or do other things that someone who is 80 feet tall can't do. And then I said no in my campaign they're just 5' tall... but then got upset because the rules still acted as if elves were 80' tall.

Essentially you're modifying one aspect of the game without following through to other parts, and then getting upset because your change had an effect...



> I can certainly see how others dont see it that way, but this is the heart of why 4E had so much trouble with a large base of the fans. They insisted on a very unpopular interpetation of HP and then went and created a healing system that doesn't make sense outside of that interpetation.




Well, I don't think either of us really have any data on how popular it was or was not, so there's not much we can say there... I mean it could be that it was a popular view of HPs  but they didn't realize how popular modeling them as physical wounds was as well?

So yeah I agree with your last part- they created a healing system that kind of left those that want HPs to model some form of physical wounds out. It doesn't create an unrealistic view of physical wound healing, it just doesn't account for them at all.


So they need to find some kind of way to model them so they can be interpreted in whatever way you want without sacrificing one or the other.

IE if they remove the idea of things like warlords and non magical healing from the ganme some people will be very upset. (Including me.)

If  they don't also include some way for people who want them to be a way to model physical Hps then those people will continue to be upset.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 10, 2012)

And to be fair, I have fewer problems with mundane healing when it involves a skill, alchemical potions, healing kits etc and only heals SOME damage.

If the warlord had a heal skill  that allowed to heal some amount of HPs via poultices, combat medicine, alchemical stuff, etc, I'd be ok with that.  

I have a problem with a guy being peptalked from about to drop to full hit points.
Partial healing, sure, I'm willing to buy into that.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

Scribble said:


> Well you are and you aren't and that's what I'm trying to say.
> 
> The idea of someone shouting wounds closed (without magic) is unbelievable no question.
> 
> I don't have any issue with you coming to that conclusion. The problem is saying that 4e forces this on you and causes an unrealistic/unbelievable situation.




I dont believe I ever said this. I just find its conclusion difficult to swallow. I understand that others are fine with the 4E explanation of HP and non magic healing.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 10, 2012)

hanez said:


> I have been playing since 2nd edition, and I must say I never really knew about the HP as things other then damage definition.  I mean in game, we almost always assume its damage to body and sometimes fatigue.    My players have always just thought of that as an assumption.  I recognize that this definition has problems, but I see things like healing surges and warlord type healing as adding to the problem.




I think the issue always comes down to those folks who are absolutely fine with 4Es methodology questioning the non-4E folks why some incongruities they are okay with, while other ones are dealbreakers.  Despite the fact there's no actual point to it, since the non-4Eers are quite fine with their own opinions on the matter.

For instance, Bedrockgames has always stated quite succinctly that the way of treating HP in 3E and earlier he is fine with (even with the knowledge that much of it is still 'illogical' or 'unrealistic'), but those extra steps to 4E he just doesn't like and won't ever like.  Contrast this with Hussar... who also states quite succinctly that he doesn't understand why a person is willing to give some 'unrealistic' rules a pass, while others not.  To him... it seems like it should be an all or nothing proposition-- if you're okay with some unrealisim, then why not accept all unrealism?

And this is something that will never get solved... because it's just a _feeling_ more than anything else.  There's no hard and fast demarcation line that Bedrockgames can point to and say "I need X many days to pass before I'm satisfied with 'natural healing' of wounds".  He just knows that the 6 hours of 4E Extended Rest doesn't do it, whereas the week or so of 3E natural recovery time does.  So there's no point in the 4Eers shouting out "What about 3 days?!?  What about 2 weeks?!?  What about 3 months?!?"  Because _they don't matter_.

All we can do is hope that D&DN has rules in the first books that cover both ends of the spectrum (as well as one or two in the middle) so that each DM can tailor for themselves the ideal rules for their style of game.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

Scribble said:


> Well, I don't think either of us really have any data on how popular it was or was not, so there's not much we can say there... I mean it could be that it was a popular view of HPs  but they didn't realize how popular modeling them as physical wounds was as well?




Since this was a chief complaint against 4E, i dont think it is unreasonable to suggest they presented an unpopular interpretation of HP and healing. 



> So yeah I agree with your last part- they created a healing system that kind of left those that want HPs to model some form of physical wounds out. It doesn't create an unrealistic view of physical wound healing, it just doesn't account for them at all.
> 
> 
> So they need to find some kind of way to model them so they can be interpreted in whatever way you want without sacrificing one or the other.
> ...




i dont want them to absorb my set of prefernces into HS, warlords etc....i want to go back to normal HP. They can ad on optional healing surge mechanics and warlords for 4e fans, but these are things i dont want in the core system. The old method worked just fine for most of us. I am not interested in being offered up another justification for 4e healing by the designers (not do i want them to make healing even more complex to accomodate wounds versus fatigue).


----------



## Kannik (Apr 10, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> People often say that hit points aren't meant to represent real injury to the character. But then, what are they supposed to represent? Falling back on things like endurance and morale are really poor excuses, because hit points simulate those things even more poorly than they simulate injuries.




In times like these, I think it is worth asking the people who wrote AD&D, and read the source document:



			
				Gary Gygax et Al said:
			
		

> Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. 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 portion 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. This is the equivalent of about 18 hit dice for creatures, about what it would take to kill four huge warhorses. It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment. The same holds true to a lesser extent for clerics, thieves, and the other classes. Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces.




I'm afraid you'll have no chance to discuss how poor of an excuse HP is, as both authors have now passed on to the planes beyond.  However, this poor excuse has been the foundation of HP and the game since 1977, or over 30 years.  And as such it has so much room to be used properly, without the unbelievableness of someone taking fourteen axe hits and whistling merrily along as they climb a 50' cliff.




Janaxstrus said:


> It doesn't seem that different to me.  If HP was only mental or only luck or only whatever, a week of bedrest wouldn't be required in 1e, 2e, 3e etc to fully heal.  The barbarian could just get screamed at by the Bard until he was healed.




And herein gets to the heart of the matter:  1e, 2e and 3e HP recovery was redonkulously slow by mundane means, and only accelerated by divine magic or potion means.  Thus, the recovery mechanic was unbelievable and incongruous with what HP were defined as.  THIS, more than anything, is where the confusion has arisen over these 30+ years about what HP are and how HP work.  

It's an amusing thing to note where we hang our "this is less believable" hat (fourteen axe hits vs having our stamina refreshed).  Familiarity and first impressions have lasting impressions. 




Minigiant said:


> Dear WOTC 5E game designers,
> Please put an entire page explaining the core definition of Hit Points in each of the core handbook.




It may not have been a full page, but as evidenced by the quote from the 1e AD&D PHB above, it was in there.  Maybe a full page will ensure everyone is on the same page (no pun intended).  Quote the 1e PHB as well on that page.

----

Ob: the title of this tread, YES, I agree.  Believability is likely a better word than "realism."  There's even a quote about that in the magical 1e PHB.     Call HP regaining "recovery" rather than healing may help... 

And maybe reprint this paragraph as well:



			
				Gary Gygax et al said:
			
		

> A few brief words are necessary to insure that the reader has actually obtained a game form which he or she desires. Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the other as the game school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school. It does not stress any realism (in the author's opinion an absurd effort at best considering the topic!). It does little to attempt to simulate anything either. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS is first and foremost a game for the fun and enjoyment of those who seek to use imagination and creativity.




peace,

Kannik


----------



## Ratskinner (Apr 10, 2012)

Personally, I don't find any more believability problems with healing and injury rules in 4e than I did in any other edition. I find problems all over the place in _every edition_. It goes hand in hand with D&D Combat's (un)abstract nature...Everything is abstract...until its not.



Hit Points can represent fatigue, physical trauma, sometimes even psychological damage, etc. Which implies...
Getting "Hit" doesn't actually mean steel meeting flesh. Except...
Sometimes attacks carry poison or some other "non-damage" effect, which is triggered by you getting "Hit". That doesn't make sense unless you actually got skewered by the giant scorpion's tail (or whatever). But that's okay because...
The rogue in your party just _evade_d a huge fireball without moving at all. Not that you can tell the difference between her and the Barbarian that failed his save because...
You really don't suffer any form of hindrance or penalty for sustaining almost any kind of injury, until....
You are almost dead from that last one. Which makes you wonder how you hopped back up and into the fight after the cleric cast Cure _Light_ wounds on you. Was it just a _particularly small_ sucking chest wound?
So really, the problem with hit points is their quantum-mechanical nature. That is, any given hit point of damage exists as an strange superposition of fatigue, morale, lost luck(?), and injury....until you recover that hit point. They're like Schrodinger's Cat. This is a problem that exists in every single edition of D&D. Non-magical healing in 4e only adds another way to collapse the superposition into morale as the Warlord tells you to "Keep on fighting, soldier!" 



Personally, I would love to ditch the hp system entirely. Its been a minor irritant to me for almost 30 years. Unfortunately, I haven't found another replacement system that meets my criteria for simple and fast and yet makes sense with some kind of save system and still feels relatively like D&D. I have tried several. So far, I haven't found a cure that's better than the disease. Its the worst system out there, except for all the others.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 10, 2012)

Why can we just have warlords provide temporary hit points and have that function as morale based defense.

Hobgoblins show up.

Warlord (or Bard) says "It's time to kick some butt!"

The warlord's (or bard's) allies get 20 temporary hit points because they are all hyped up and in butt-whooping mode.

Repeat until the warlord runs out of cool things to say.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 10, 2012)

DEFCON 1 said:


> I think the issue always comes down to those folks who are absolutely fine with 4Es methodology questioning the non-4E folks why some incongruities they are okay with, while other ones are dealbreakers.  Despite the fact there's no actual point to it, since the non-4Eers are quite fine with their own opinions on the matter.
> 
> For instance, Bedrockgames has always stated quite succinctly that the way of treating HP in 3E and earlier he is fine with (even with the knowledge that much of it is still 'illogical' or 'unrealistic'), but those extra steps to 4E he just doesn't like and won't ever like.  Contrast this with Hussar... who also states quite succinctly that he doesn't understand why a person is willing to give some 'unrealistic' rules a pass, while others not.  To him... it seems like it should be an all or nothing proposition-- if you're okay with some unrealisim, then why not accept all unrealism?
> 
> ...



That's kind of the thing, though.

What usually happens is this:

Joe: Healing system X is a problem.
Bob: Why?
Joe: Because its unrealistic.
Bob: What should we do instead?
Joe: Use healing system Y.
Bob: Healing system Y is also unrealistic.
Joe: I am ok with that.
Bob: So why is healing system X a problem?
Joe: Because its unrealistic.
Bob: Lack of realism does not explain your distinction between X and Y.
Joe: X is unrealistic. We should use Y. What is hard to understand?
Bob: Your continued use of the fallacy of the null comparison.

Its the same fight you get into with loads of other things, like dragonborn versus orc pcs, or spellcasting paladin wreathed in holy fire versus wuxia ronin wreathed in ki energies.  Its ok to like one and not the other.  But don't tell me that its because you don't like monster PCs, or because you don't like magical warriors.  That just tells me that you don't really KNOW why you like one and not the other.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

With all due respect Cadfan, that is straw man. People explain why they find pre 4E healing and HP more realistic than 4e heaing all the time. Your conversation above is not an accurate transcrpt of their explanation.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 10, 2012)

Cadfan said:


> That's kind of the thing, though.
> 
> What usually happens is this:
> 
> ...





I like 1e,2e,3e version because it's unrealistic with 34 years of tradition.  Regardless of how HPs were envisioned, the fact that it took weeks to get them back made them more like physical damage.
Being able to be magically healed makes MORE sense to me, than the 4e version.  It's not perfect, but I find it MORE believable to be healed via magic which restores luck/physical wounds/fatigue than the 4e version where a good speech restores your luck/physical damage/fatigue.

Neither method is perfect, one is just more believable, to me, personally.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 10, 2012)

Someone really needs to write the definitive guide to hit points in D&D, so we can just link to it every time these sorts of discussions arise. As Hussar says, the same points keep being made over and over. That said, Ratskinner's post upthread is one of the most elegant, succinct and yet thorough I've seen on the subject.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 10, 2012)

Kannik said:


> And herein gets to the heart of the matter:  1e, 2e and 3e HP recovery was redonkulously slow by mundane means, and only accelerated by divine magic or potion means.  Thus, the recovery mechanic was unbelievable and incongruous with what HP were defined as.  THIS, more than anything, is where the confusion has arisen over these 30+ years about what HP are and how HP work.




Is it really slow? What model do we have regarding the speed of recovery of luck? Divine providence? Elan? Morale? Whatever else loss of hit points is meant to reflect? I don't think we do so how can we say it's unbelievably slow?

Alternatively, maybe those hit points that were lost due to non-physical factors are the ones that heal first - the physical ones taking even longer to really start to heal?

There's no objective way of deciding whether healing is too fast or too slow. There are just subjective ways we feel either helps or hurts in the pacing of the game and shaping the decisions of the players.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

billd91 said:


> There's no objective way of deciding whether healing is too fast or too slow. There are just subjective ways we feel either helps or hurts in the pacing of the game and shaping the decisions of the players.




generally speaking i think the faster the healing the less realistic people are likely to find it.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 10, 2012)

Must spread some XP before giving them to Ratskinner again, but yes, this:


> Personally, I would love to ditch the hp system entirely. Its been a minor irritant to me for almost 30 years. Unfortunately, I haven't found another replacement system that meets my criteria for simple and fast and yet makes sense with some kind of save system and still feels relatively like D&D. I have tried several. So far, I haven't found a cure that's better than the disease. Its the worst system out there, except for all the others.



: is absolutely my experience as well. I like a lot of the other systems out there, but they don't feel like D&D to me. They all seem to work for whatever game they're intended, but they don't work for me in D&D.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 10, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> levels, AC, xp




Those three are simply a fudge - learning by doing makes sense, being harder to land an effective hit on with armour makes a surprising amount of sense, and levels are just a way of keeping score.  Sure you can have something finer grained than levels or AC but you need to have a value to really keep score.



> 3e/4e's staccato combat,




This actually makes a surprising amount of sense if you say that one turn is one  OODA (Observe, Orient, Decide, Act) cycle.  The time it takes someone to see what's going on, work out what they are doing, do it, and start to observe again.  This is the (or at least one) way real skirmishes last.  (Of course not everyone's OODA cycle is the same length and one purpose of military training is to lower the loop time).  What to me makes no sense at all is the AD&D 1 minute combat round.



Bedrockgames said:


> They insisted on a very unpopular interpetation of HP and then went and created a healing system that doesn't make sense outside of that interpetation.




They insisted on the fundamental orthodox interpretation of healing.  Where they screwed up was with the Extended Rest.  One of the few houserules I make for 4e is that an Extended Rest is actually extended.  It's at least a lazy weekend.  In LoTR terms Extended rests in the first few books happened at Tom Bombadil's, Rivendell, and Lorien.  And if the Company of the Ring were hurt by wargs or in Moria?  Tough.  They remained down healing surges.  Still hurt.  Just ready for the next fight.



> But we do want a system that allows for characters to be physically hurt by attacks and not be glaringly unbelievable by incuding instant or single day natural healing.




And here I agree 4e screwed up.  They did one thing right - putting fighters and wizards onto the same recharge cycle.  But they picked the wrong one.  They set the HP recharge cycle to match the old spell recharge cycle when it should have been the other way round.  Taking out the fifteen minute adventuring day by making recovery take considerably more than eight hours.  I fully agree that standardising on the one night recovery was a poor decision.

With my house rule of you only recover surges at a genuinely extended rest do you have any problems with 4e healing working?  And yes, I'm aware that this is the Oberoni Fallacy in action - I'm fixing a silly part of the game with a houserule.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 10, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Dear WOTC 5E game designers,
> 
> Please put an entire page explaining the core definition of Hit Points in each of the core handbook. If core hit points losses are meat chunks and physical damage, say so. If core hit points is stamina, tell us so. If hit points is to some point the abilty to cause lethal attacks and obstacles to instead be cuts and bruise, can you write this in? If HP is partially morale and mental resolve to continue despite injury, explain to us this. If it is a combination of all of the above on a case by case basis, write that. This will make a lot of agruments about them to happen less frequently.
> 
> -Minigiant



Doubtful. The problem with hitpoints is that the people who don't have a problem with them don't have a problem with them because they don't really think about them. This is key to not having a problem with hitpoints. Of course, the people who do have a problem with them won't accept that for an answer, so they constantly poke and prod until we have to make up elaborate justifications which are mostly baloney. Like Gary Gygax's in the 1e DMG.

Honestly, I don't think that any explicit explanation will actually capture why I'm fine with a mostly physical-based explanation of hitpoints. I've tried to explain it, but I mean it's mostly just made up.

The biggest fridge logic moment with hitpoints isn't even what damage and healing means in play, it's what's happening when you gain hitpoints when you level. I straight up just don't question that at all. Maybe I would say greater experience makes you harder to kill. That would be it.

I think what we're arguing about isn't actually the definition of hitpoints. Hitpoints just mean stamina. It conceptualizes stamina as a depletable resource that you manage.

What we're arguing about is what kinds of damage we want in the game. It's damage that colors the way we narrate and think about hitpoints.

Personally, I like to make the characters bloody. I like largely physical damage forms. I don't like "psychic damage", like damaging someone by insulting them. I think the reason I don't like this is not so much because it conflicts with my well-established, explicit definition of hitpoints. I just don't think it's cool.


----------



## Yora (Apr 10, 2012)

I think the easiest solution is to use a wording in cure spells, that they reinvigorate the character instead of healing wounds. Then you can hit point have to mean what you want them to mean.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 10, 2012)

Ratskinner said:


> So really, the problem with hit points is their quantum-mechanical nature. That is, any given hit point of damage exists as an strange superposition of fatigue, morale, lost luck(?), and injury....until you recover that hit point. They're like Schrodinger's Cat. This is a problem that exists in every single edition of D&D. Non-magical healing in 4e only adds another way to collapse the superposition into morale as the Warlord tells you to "Keep on fighting, soldier!"



Yes, OK. I just don't care for some of the 4e superpositions. I don't like the idea of my character losing the will to fight until another character shouts at them. I just don't like that image.


Minigiant said:


> Why can we just have warlords provide temporary  hit points and have that function as morale based defense.
> 
> Hobgoblins show up.
> 
> ...



Not a bad idea, I like this better.


----------



## ArmoredSaint (Apr 10, 2012)

I am one of the biggest proponents of preserving a high degree of realism/verisimilitude/believability in D&D and I have absolutely no problem with "mundane" healing like the Warlord.  It doesn't break my suspension of disbelief at all; it's not unrealistic--it's just an abstraction, like the hit points supposedly healed thereby.

Things that break my suspension of disbelief more include rust monsters, flying colossal dragons, and plate armour not being sufficiently effective.  Worst of all would be stupid, over-the-top, crazy anime/wuxia stunts like cleaving mountains and such being built into the fighter class without the option of easily ignoring them.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 10, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> With my house rule of you only recover surges at a genuinely extended rest do you have any problems with 4e healing working?  And yes, I'm aware that this is the Oberoni Fallacy in action - I'm fixing a silly part of the game with a houserule.




I would probably have to see thisin action but most likely no, because my issue isn't just the rate of recovery. The other issue healing surges create for me is their ability to undo something Inhave just described in a given combat.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 10, 2012)

I totally agree, that the idea, what a power does should primarily powered by the narrative.
HP is adifferent matter.
You acidflask example is good. But a fighter with many hp uses his sword to deflect the flask and only some of it splashes on him. While someone with low hp is hit well.
A fighter that can´t defend is hit by a "coup de crace" and has to make a saving throw or suffer ill effects (like dying)

So in my opinion believeability can really be restored, if the coup de grace mechanic of 3e is taken to a new level:

Maybe some attacks should be able to do wounds, if you attack a helpless combatant. It however is a dangerous thing, as hp bypassing can spoil a lot of fun if it can be done during regular combat. On the other hand, not beeing able to bypass hp to a certain degree out of combat could be unfun too. A very difficult balance point.

I also want to stress, that if the healing surge mechanic returns (which i hope) i don´t want to revise my narrative, when someone heals hp with a martial healing power.
If i received a wound, I want them either be healed by time or magic.

Maybe martial healing powers could work like this:
spend a healing surge. Recover 1/4 of your hp. For the next week or until magcally healed, you have a -1 penalty to all rolls to represent your lasting wounds.


----------



## CM (Apr 10, 2012)

I'm not going to disagree with the idea that 4e HP recovery via resting is quite rapid. I believe this was written this way intentionally to keep the action moving and avoid getting bogged down with lengthy rest periods. I think some of the complaints about recovery rates would have been removed with a few simple optional rules reducing the recovery rate of healing surges and eliminating the automatic recovery of all HP overnight.

In fact, I'm running a Fallout sci-fi game using 4e and to increase grittiness I did just that. After a full rest, characters recover 1+Con bonus surges (+1 if trained in Endurance), and (similar to 3e IIRC) recover 1HP/level or double if full bed rest). Usually this results in most of the party members being short a few surges at any given time, increasing tension on whether or not they should rest again or push on. 

I don't want rapid HP recovery to get conflated with mundane warlord HP restoration, however. These are entirely separate issues. A non-magical healing class should be able to coexist with magical healing classes whether or not natural HP restoration is slow or rapid.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 10, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> I like 1e,2e,3e version because it's unrealistic with 34 years of tradition.  Regardless of how HPs were envisioned, the fact that it took weeks to get them back made them more like physical damage.
> Being able to be magically healed makes MORE sense to me, than the 4e version.  It's not perfect, but I find it MORE believable to be healed via magic which restores luck/physical wounds/fatigue than the 4e version where a good speech restores your luck/physical damage/fatigue.
> 
> Neither method is perfect, one is just more believable, to me, personally.



I understand what you're saying.  I was actually writing in context of a conversation that occurred elsewhere between a couple of participants in this thread, in which everyone discussed the respective believability of healing from the brink of death via an overnight rest, versus healing from the brink of death via three overnight rests.

As for your position, I understand it.  I appreciate that you acknowledge up front that you're giving up the possibility of low magic settings in exchange for your preferred healing rules.


----------



## Tallifer (Apr 10, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> Alot of people use the word "realism" when actually the word they should have used is "believable." Obviously, DnD is a fantasy game and there are things in it which are completely unrealistic like magic and dragons. But things can be fantastic and yet still be believable. A cleric channeling the power of the gods into a healing spell to heal you, that's believable. A warlord shouting at you and your wounds just disappearing because his words made you feel encouraged, not so much, at least not IMHO.




Your biases show. I do not believe in any sort of faith healing in life, so I do not think it is in any way believable in a fantasy game. That is why it is called fantasy. I always groan when I see the pulp heroes in action movies or on television shows get up and keep fighting, and even get stronger, after being beaten to a pulp. But it is a common and expected trope in many stories, therefore it is just as much a legitimate part of unbelievable fantasy as completely unbelievable faith healing and fireballs.


----------



## Kannik (Apr 10, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Is it really slow? What model do we have regarding the speed of recovery of luck? Divine providence? Elan? Morale? Whatever else loss of hit points is meant to reflect? I don't think we do so how can we say it's unbelievably slow?




Natch, we have no model of recovery of luck or other esoteric factors, and stamina loss may be nebulous too.  I withdraw the redonkulous.  I continue to maintain that the slow rate of recovery was a large factor in the erroneous collapse of HP as physical wounds in our minds.  



> There's no objective way of deciding whether healing is too fast or too slow. There are just subjective ways we feel either helps or hurts in the pacing of the game and shaping the decisions of the players.




To whit that is what Gary chose, which was a level of healing that he felt was appropriate for his game, not based on simulation (explicitly stated in the 1e PHB/DMG).  

For my preferred game styles this way of healing had some drawbacks:  over reliance on clerics and the limitations on how the cleric could be played, longer downtimes than I would like, or a bag full of wands or potions.  



> Alternatively, maybe those hit points that were lost due to non-physical factors are the ones that heal first - the physical ones taking even longer to really start to heal?




Which was, I think, what the VP/WP system tried to introduce.  I for one would be happy to see (as an option) HP split into two bits that give me the best of both worlds:  a large HP pool (luck, skill, stamina, morale, magic protections, divine providence, etc) that rapidly recovers and can be recovered by warlords, clerics, and all else, and a smaller pool that takes damage only when all HP are depleted, represent more 'real' wounds, and can only be recovered through certain magics, potions, or natural healing.  

That would be cool with me.  

peace,

Kannik


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 11, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Your biases show. I do not believe in any sort of faith healing in life, so I do not think it is in any way believable in a fantasy game. That is why it is called fantasy. I always groan when I see the pulp heroes in action movies or on television shows get up and keep fighting, and even get stronger, after being beaten to a pulp. But it is a common and expected trope in many stories, therefore it is just as much a legitimate part of unbelievable fantasy as completely unbelievable faith healing and fireballs.



I think what he's saying is that a cleric's channeling of the power of the gods is believable within the context of the story, in which gods are real and regularly channel their power through clerics.  Meanwhile he finds the warlord shouting at someone to get back up and get into the fight to be unbelievable, because even if that much makes sense, there should still be lingering wounds remaining afterward once the adrenaline and determination wears off.

I'm of mixed feelings on the subject.  I always just presumed that the game was assuming that part of taking a short or extended rest was putting bandages on your injuries and doing other miscellaneous first aid related activities.  There's nothing against the tropes of fantasy for a barbarian to drag himself back to his feet after his best friend yells at him to get up off the ground and quit shaming his ancestors, and then after the fight, to bandage his wounds and continue onward.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 11, 2012)

Cadfan said:


> I understand what you're saying.  I was actually writing in context of a conversation that occurred elsewhere between a couple of participants in this thread, in which everyone discussed the respective believability of healing from the brink of death via an overnight rest, versus healing from the brink of death via three overnight rests.
> 
> As for your position, I understand it.  I appreciate that you acknowledge up front that you're giving up the possibility of low magic settings in exchange for your preferred healing rules.




Only to a point, in your last comment.  I am fine with using a heal skill, poultices, etc to heal some damage.  I'll buy into a Warlord class healing someone to a point.  Where I find myself checking out is when non-magically, someone goes from death's door to fully healed.


----------



## Aenghus (Apr 11, 2012)

I think the other element to consider here is transparency, which is what I think 4e favoured over simulation and opaqueness. Some people have said they don't like transparency, which is weird to me as I vastly prefer it.

Basically separating effect from flavour for abilities makes it more likely that the ability will work as written all the time, and not be randomly nerfed or buffed by scenario specifics or the referee thinking Power A shoudn't work on a Tuesday. 

The more opaque and subjective rules mechanics are, the more likely there will be genuine disagreements amongst the players and the referee as to how particular rules elements work, and particularly how they interact with each other. 

The more subjective the rules are, the more I feel I have to play the referee not the game, and I hate it. I'm not good at it, and I want to play the game, not constantly find out my impression of the rules and setting is at odds with the referee or other players.

I don't like opaque rules which need interpretation and could be read in multiple ways , often with  significant differences in outcome - I prefer transparent ones which do just what it says on the tin, to minimise the amount of special pleading with the referee that needs to be made to affect the game world.

I don't think abilities should be arbitrarily made useless or negated, something that happened in some D&D editions, to some classes more than others. I can see a place for weakening abilities somewhat in rare encounters, but too many global immunities and random nerfing can make lots of valid character concepts very unfun to play. 

Obviously tastes differ, and if they differ too much maybe players won't collaborate well together.  But the idea of the next edition is to be flexible enough to allow most players to coexist and mostly enjoy a game together.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Sorry Hussar but the game matching my sense of believability (even if you disagree with it) is more important to me than what a rule achieves in term of game play because without the believability I can't get into the game. For me this has everything to do with my sense of believability and immersion. Granted we all have different threshholds, but believability issues are a chief complaint for 4e and I think that is because it crosses alot of peoples thresholds (everything from surges to mundane encounter and daily powers). you don't have to agree with me at all. You can think I am fool if you want, but lets stop with the implications that it is all "really about something else". Just take our critiques at face value move on. Because this is all in there with people saying our dislike of 4e is really about fear of change or a failure to understand 4e. I don't mean to single you out here, because even though we disagree, i usually get along with you just fine.




But, you failed to answer my question.  Why does your sense of aesthetic get to trump mine?  If the only issue here is aesthetic, then it's simply a matter of taste and, well, my taste is every bit as good as yours.

So, which one should the designer listen to?  It's not like the simple majority game works, since, at least on En World, about 2/3rds of gamers play 4e.  Certainly more than half.  So, on simple numbers, my tastes win.  Shouldn't you just suck it up?  After all, that's what you expect me to do.

Or, could we burrow down a bit farther, try to find a way that both of our sense of aesthetic are satisfied?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, you failed to answer my question.  Why does your sense of aesthetic get to trump mine?  If the only issue here is aesthetic, then it's simply a matter of taste and, well, my taste is every bit as good as yours.
> 
> So, which one should the designer listen to?  It's not like the simple majority game works, since, at least on En World, about 2/3rds of gamers play 4e.  Certainly more than half.  So, on simple numbers, my tastes win.  Shouldn't you just suck it up?  After all, that's what you expect me to do.
> 
> Or, could we burrow down a bit farther, try to find a way that both of our sense of aesthetic are satisfied?




I didn't answer because that isnt for me to decide. We each get to say what we want and the designers decide what to do. I doubt burrowing down will help we have seriously different preferences.surges are something i dont like and dont want in core 5e. You like them. My solution would be to include surges as an option that can be added in but not default. That way you can play the style D&D you want and so can i.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I didn't answer because that isnt for me to decide. We each get to say what we want and the designers decide what to do. I doubt burrowing down will help we have seriously different preferences.surges are something i dont like and dont want in core 5e. You like them. My solution would be to include surges as an option that can be added in but not default. That way you can play the style D&D you want and so can i.




Would you accept surges as the default with traditional healing as a module?

See, as to the whole taste discussion, this is where I really don't understand.  If your issue is purely an aesthetic one, just change the numbers.  You have no problem with 1 week plus for natural healing.  Ok, Extended Rest now returns 10% of your HP per extended rest.  Done.

If martial healers tip you over, why not just not use them?  There is exactly one martial healer in 4e out of what, 36 classes in the game?  There's about 8 or 9 (I actually don't know the exact number) leader role classes in the game, all of which have non-mundane healing.  Since you have no problems with clerics healing wounds, that would seem to resolve your issues.

Why are these fixes not acceptable?


----------



## BryonD (Apr 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> On the other hand if I need to be laid up for a week to recover because I've just been hit hard by an axe, the fact that I am wandering around with absolutely no penalty doesn't pass _my_ believability test.



Who said anything about being "laid up"?
You need a week before the effects of the prior damage are completely gone.

You continue to fight 3 seconds after the axe strike.
You can fight 5 minutes after the axe strike.
You can fight that night.
You can fight the next day and the day after.

During all that fighting it is possible that your total HP pool has never fully recovered from receiving that axe strike.  Eventually it will.  But it takes time.  During that time, you can fight.

"Laid up" is either a serious misunderstanding or a simple red herring.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Why are these fixes not acceptable?




Those fixes would be completely acceptable to me.
But it is pretty unlikely that a game built with that default perspective is going to be SUPERIOR to what I have already.
I'm open to waiting and seeing.  But it would be a very tall order.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Would you accept surges as the default with traditional healing as a module?



I do have to ask, if it is down to petty disputes over which side is in the "options" column and which is default, then why should something new to 4E trump every other edition prior to it if 5E is supposed to appeal to everyone?


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 11, 2012)

CM said:


> So you feel that 4e mundane healing is unrealistic because your interpretation of hit points differs from the definition of hit points of *every* edition so far?
> 
> Good luck with that.




The point I was trying to make in regards to 4e is that alot of its innovations (many of which were very good, btw) might have been better accepted by alot of people had they just been presented differently. For example, instead of the warlord healing people by shouting words of encouragement, he could have been portrayed as a combat medic and master of first aid. His powers that grant people heroic surges of inspiration could have granted temporary hit points instead, which to alot of people would have made much more sense, while relying on his medic skill for out-of-combat recovery.

Even healing surges may have been much better accepted had they been presented differently. The very name "healing surge" admits that hit points are all about injury, and healing surges heal them back. You can't have healing absent injury, can you?


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I do have to ask, if it is down to petty disputes over which side is in the "options" column and which is default, then why should something new to 4E trump every other edition prior to it if 5E is supposed to appeal to everyone?




No particular reason.  I'm just curious if it's the existence of the rules at all that's the sticking point.  After all, 4e's interpretation of HP is provably closer to the original interpretation of HP than any other editions, so, why should faulty interpretations carry the day?

Me, I'd be happiest of both are presented as equal options with no default, that way groups can choose without bias.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 11, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Your biases show. I do not believe in any sort of faith healing in life, so I do not think it is in any way believable in a fantasy game. That is why it is called fantasy. I always groan when I see the pulp heroes in action movies or on television shows get up and keep fighting, and even get stronger, after being beaten to a pulp. But it is a common and expected trope in many stories, therefore it is just as much a legitimate part of unbelievable fantasy as completely unbelievable faith healing and fireballs.




Cleric healing is more believable because it's magic. Magic, by its very definition, is a supernatural power which breaks the laws of our reality. Can you honestly look me straight in the face and say that there's no difference in believability between a magical spell that makes someone's injuries disappear vs. a person just speaking mundane words of encouragement to accomplish the same effect?

As for the heroes that get back up and keep fighting, their injuries don't just disappear. They may have a surge of adrenaline that let's them ignore the pain for a while, or they press on just a bit longer through strength of will and determination, but they usually also fall right back down as soon as the BBEG is dead. Some of them even die after their heroic last stand. This kind of thing is much better represented in the game by temporary hit points, not by instant healing.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Would you accept surges as the default with traditional healing as a module?
> 
> See, as to the whole taste discussion, this is where I really don't understand.  If your issue is purely an aesthetic one, just change the numbers.  You have no problem with 1 week plus for natural healing.  Ok, Extended Rest now returns 10% of your HP per extended rest.  Done.
> 
> ...




Or we could just use the old HP system which I had no problem with. We have covered this ground before and I and other posters have answered those questions before (and you were the one asknig them).


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Or we could just use the old HP system which I had no problem with. We have covered this ground before and I and other posters have answered those questions before (and you were the one asknig them).




So, in other words, anyone who does not share your aesthetic preferences can take a hike and just suck it up, so long as your tastes are catered to.

Ahh, I see now.  You're not interested in D&D, you want BRG D&D, the one true game.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 11, 2012)

Doug McCrae said:


> Someone really needs to write the definitive guide to hit points in D&D, so we can just link to it every time these sorts of discussions arise. As Hussar says, the same points keep being made over and over. That said, Ratskinner's post upthread is one of the most elegant, succinct and yet thorough I've seen on the subject.




If they do what I hope they're going to do, and keep 4e's higher starting HP while drastically reducing the rate at which HP are gained as part of their "flatter math" goal, then we don't really need to resort to explaining HP as some nonsensical mixture of physical well being, endurance, luck, and morale. If a character will never have more than a few dozen HP, they won't be able to survive being hacked by a greataxe dozens of time or submerged in acid repeatedly, so there wouldn't be anywhere near as much unbelievability there that needs to be explained away.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, in other words, anyone who does not share your aesthetic preferences can take a hike and just suck it up, so long as your tastes are catered to.
> 
> Ahh, I see now.  You're not interested in D&D, you want BRG D&D, the one true game.




Never said that. I just said I am not interested in having 4e forced on me and having to completely alter those elements to suit my tastes. It is much easier to have those 4e fixes as optional ad ons than have to take them out. 

Please don't try to read my mind Hussar. You have been pressuring me and other posters to embrace 4e forever now. When we say we dont like it, you ask why. When we give a reason, you deconstruct it and try to tell us that really isn't our problem. Ultimatley your solution is what we need is a dose of 4e. This is getting very old.

And BRG doesn't make D&D, it makes gritty modern, horror and historical games


----------



## BryonD (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> No particular reason.  I'm just curious if it's the existence of the rules at all that's the sticking point.



Not for me.



> After all, 4e's interpretation of HP is provably closer to the original interpretation of HP than any other editions



That is a rather bizarre claim.  Again, I'll point out that I think HP in 4E really are not different than HP in 3E or any other edition.  So word for word what you said is just bizarre because it is pretty much meaningless.

But in terms of how surges fit into things, the idea of fighters making their wounds vanish is a very new thing. Do you mean HP or a system with surges?



> Me, I'd be happiest of both are presented as equal options with no default, that way groups can choose without bias.



I want a system at least as good as what I have now.  
I'd rather a bias toward quality than no bias.

What I don't want is some milk toast consensus that no one likes.


----------



## CM (Apr 11, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> The point I was trying to make in regards to 4e is that alot of its innovations (many of which were very good, btw) might have been better accepted by alot of people had they just been presented differently. For example, instead of the warlord healing people by shouting words of encouragement, he could have been portrayed as a combat medic and master of first aid. His powers that grant people heroic surges of inspiration could have granted temporary hit points instead, which to alot of people would have made much more sense, while relying on his medic skill for out-of-combat recovery.
> 
> Even healing surges may have been much better accepted had they been presented differently. The very name "healing surge" admits that hit points are all about injury, and healing surges heal them back. You can't have healing absent injury, can you?




We have already established that the term "healing" in D&D means restoring HP. The warlord does not shout wounds closed, he restores HP. If anything, 4e's biggest failure is terminology. Healing Surge, Healer, Leader, Controller, Defender, Striker. These all became loaded terms that rub some people the wrong way. "Healing" is brief and gets the point across. "Restoring," "Invigorating," "Recuperating" don't have the same connotations, but they would only serve to confuse.

Warlord cast as a combat medic would have a very different feel than the 4e warlord. The 4e warlord is frontline melee combatant (in most builds) who leads by example, inspiring, rallying, and sacrificing for the troops. Many of the warlord's healing abilities are interrupts in which the warlord retaliates against a foe which has damaged a companion or throws himself in the path of the attack. Limiting the warlord to proactive "buffing" type heals via temporary HP would hamstring its ability to function as a primary healing (sorry, "HP-restoring") class. It would have a hard time dealing with surprise situations and unexpected critical hits. Limiting the warlord healing to minor wound binding and healing poultices to me is no better. I find that spending an indeterminate fraction of 6 seconds to apply a healing poultice in combat just as ludicrous as shouting wounds closed. 

So once again, I'll ask my original question again--Why can't the warlord peacefully coexist in its current form as a primary "HP-restoring" class. DMs who dislike it are completely free to disallow it. Many DMs dislike psionics as genre-breaking and disallow those classes, but they don't feel the need to vociferously reiterate their dislike at every opportunity.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 11, 2012)

CM said:


> We have already established that the term "healing" in D&D means restoring HP. The warlord does not shout wounds closed, he restores HP. If anything, 4e's biggest failure is terminology. Healing Surge, Healer, Leader, Controller, Defender, Striker. These all became loaded terms that rub some people the wrong way. "Healing" is brief and gets the point across. "Restoring," "Invigorating," "Recuperating" don't have the same connotations, but they would only serve to confuse.
> 
> Warlord cast as a combat medic would have a very different feel than the 4e warlord. The 4e warlord is frontline melee combatant (in most builds) who leads by example, inspiring, rallying, and sacrificing for the troops. Many of the warlord's healing abilities are interrupts in which the warlord retaliates against a foe which has damaged a companion or throws himself in the path of the attack. Limiting the warlord to proactive "buffing" type heals via temporary HP would hamstring its ability to function as a primary healing (sorry, "HP-restoring") class. It would have a hard time dealing with surprise situations and unexpected critical hits. Limiting the warlord healing to minor wound binding and healing poultices to me is no better. I find that spending an indeterminate fraction of 6 seconds to apply a healing poultice in combat just as ludicrous as shouting wounds closed.
> 
> So once again, I'll ask my original question again--Why can't the warlord peacefully coexist in its current form as a primary "HP-restoring" class. DMs who dislike it are completely free to disallow it. Many DMs dislike psionics as genre-breaking and disallow those classes, but they don't feel the need to vociferously reiterate their dislike at every opportunity.




Psionics aren't core in 1st, 2nd or 3rd edition.  They were add-ons.

I have no issues with non-magical healers being add-ons, I don't care for them in the core game.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 11, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> The point I was trying to make in regards to 4e is that alot of its innovations (many of which were very good, btw) might have been better accepted by alot of people had they just been presented differently. For example, instead of the warlord healing people by shouting words of encouragement, he could have been portrayed as a combat medic and master of first aid. His powers that grant people heroic surges of inspiration could have granted temporary hit points instead, which to alot of people would have made much more sense, while relying on his medic skill for out-of-combat recovery.
> 
> Even healing surges may have been much better accepted had they been presented differently. The very name "healing surge" admits that hit points are all about injury, and healing surges heal them back. You can't have healing absent injury, can you?



I think you are completely wrong here.

And, just to specifically address the last point, the idea that HP in pre-4E D&D represent a combination of both actual wounds and abstracts is widely accepted and endorsed in writing in a lot of places.  And yet healing spells can restore those HP regardless.  In D&D you can without question have "healing" absent injury.  That is not the issue here.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 11, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> Psionics aren't core in 1st, 2nd or 3rd edition.  They were add-ons.
> 
> I have no issues with non-magical healers being add-ons, I don't care for them in the core game.



Wrong.

Go grab a 1E PH.  Psionics are right there.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, in other words, anyone who does not share your aesthetic preferences can take a hike and just suck it up, so long as your tastes are catered to.
> 
> Ahh, I see now.  You're not interested in D&D, you want BRG D&D, the one true game.




Let's be real, that's what everybody wants. We all want a D&D that works for our own preferences. So do you and you know it. Everybody else's preferences are secondary to us. WotC's job is to figure out how best to serve as many of us as possible and, in doing so, serve themselves with a sustainable product and revenue.


----------



## Janaxstrus (Apr 11, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Go grab a 1E PH.  Psionics are right there.




I stand corrected, there were only core in 1e.  They were an add-on in Basic/OD&D, 2, 3 and 3.5 and 4

HOWEVER, they were not a class in 1e, simply an (optional) chance that someone could develop the wild talents.


----------



## CM (Apr 11, 2012)

Seeing as how the terms "leader" and "healer" have entirely unwanted connotations and implications, I declare henceforth that all classes which can serve in a primary HP-restoring capacity, whether that ability is gained through invigorating and inspiring allies, stitching wounds via arcane magic, regenerating flesh through primal magic, or channeling divine might, be known not as healers or leaders, but rather as "Freshmakers." 

Freshmakers shall carry in their possession at all times a paper-wrapped stick of chewable mints, and shall upon expenditure of any HP-restoring power, gesture towards the subject of such with said stick of candies in the form of a "thumbs-up" and grin knowingly.

I am certain that this move will immediately calm the great majority of tensions and assist in the settling of many disputes regarding the verisimilitude of HP restoration.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 11, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I think you are completely wrong here.
> 
> And, just to specifically address the last point, the idea that HP in pre-4E D&D represent a combination of both actual wounds and abstracts is widely accepted and endorsed in writing in a lot of places.




I discussed the unbelievability of HP going all the way back to the original edition of the game in my first post. I've never liked the abstraction or multiplicative scaling of HP, ever, in any edition. The idea of the frail 1st level wizard that can be slain by a house cat and the 20th level fighter that can survive being submerged in lava has always bothered me, not only because its unbelievable but also because I think it's bad game design, as I pointed out with the acid flask example. 4e may have embraced the mentality that "HP are more than just wounds" to a degree never seen before, but it's one that has been a part of the game from the very beginning, and one I've never, ever liked.

With the new edition of the game, I hope they take a different approach. I'm not saying that they should get rid of HP. But I do want them to drastically cut back on how much HP and damage scale by level. If they do that, then things like acid flasks will remain somewhat effective weapons throughout the game, and HP will be much more believable as a portrayal of one's ability to endure injuries, so that we don't need to resort to using silly excuses to rationalize them.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

CM said:


> Seeing as how the terms "leader" and "healer" have entirely unwanted connotations and implications, I declare henceforth that all classes which can serve in a primary HP-restoring capacity, whether that ability is gained through invigorating and inspiring allies, stitching wounds via arcane magic, regenerating flesh through primal magic, or channeling divine might, be known not as healers or leaders, but rather as "Freshmakers."
> 
> Freshmakers shall carry in their possession at all times a paper-wrapped stick of chewable mints, and shall upon expenditure of any HP-restoring power, gesture towards the subject of such with said stick of candies in the form of a "thumbs-up" and grin knowingly.
> 
> I am certain that this move will immediately calm the great majority of tensions and assist in the settling of many disputes regarding the verisimilitude of HP restoration.




If mentos cannot unite us we are doomed.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Never said that. I just said I am not interested in having 4e forced on me and having to completely alter those elements to suit my tastes. It is much easier to have those 4e fixes as optional ad ons than have to take them out.
> 
> Please don't try to read my mind Hussar. You have been pressuring me and other posters to embrace 4e forever now. When we say we dont like it, you ask why. When we give a reason, you deconstruct it and try to tell us that really isn't our problem. Ultimatley your solution is what we need is a dose of 4e. This is getting very old.
> 
> And BRG doesn't make D&D, it makes gritty modern, horror and historical games




And I'm not interested in having 3e foisted on me either.  So, again, why is your taste better than mine?  I'm perfectly willing to accept 4e style healing being a module. Fine, I won't be dancing in the streets, but, I'll adapt and overcome.

OTOH, you've repeatedly stated that unless we follow your style of HP as the default, you won't buy the game.  

I'm not saying you need a dose of 4e.  What I'm saying is that your tastes in no way are better than mine.



			
				BryonD said:
			
		

> I'd rather a bias toward quality than no bias.




Again, quality for you.  Going back to 3e and earlier style healing would be a huge step backward for me.  You keep insisting that your taste has some sort of objective value.  Sorry, like BRG, your tastes in no way are superior to mine.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Wrong.
> 
> Go grab a 1E PH.  Psionics are right there.




Psionics were presented as an optional rule in the 1e PHB, so, no, he's not wrong.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 11, 2012)

Aenghus said:


> I think the other element to consider here is transparency, which is what I think 4e favoured over simulation and opaqueness. Some people have said they don't like transparency, which is weird to me as I vastly prefer it.
> 
> Basically separating effect from flavour for abilities makes it more likely that the ability will work as written all the time, and not be randomly nerfed or buffed by scenario specifics or the referee thinking Power A shoudn't work on a Tuesday.
> 
> ...



I completely disagree with you here, although your language is sort of vague and philosophical as it were, which likely is exaggerating our actual difference in taste when it comes to D&D play at the table.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm a numbers guy, and looking at the numbers, I think that we can have the simplicity of tracking one hp total (no need for a VP/WP split) and have non-magical restoration of hit points in the same system, with the following assumptions:

1. Hit points are composed of physical hit points and intangible hit points (vigor, morale, luck, divine favor, etc.).

2. Physical hit points can only be recovered through magic or time. Intangible hit points can be recovered quickly, through a short rest, being inspired by a warlord, etc.

3. A 1st-level character has only physical hit points (based on Constitution). From 2nd level onward, a character's increases in hit points are solely due to intangible factors.

4. When a character loses hit points, he loses physical and intangible hit points roughly in proportion to his current physical and intangible hit point values, with a bias in favor of losing intangible hit points. For example, if a character has 10 physical hit points and 20 intangible hit points, and he loses 9 hp, he loses 3 physical hp and 6 intangible hp. If he loses 11 hp instead, he loses 3 physical hp and 8 intangible hp.

Now, assuming a typical character has a Constitution of 12 and gains 5 hit points per level after 1st, a character's intangible hit points would have overtaken his physical hit points around level 4 (12 physical, 15 intangible). So, a 4th-level character who has been reduced to less than half his hit points ("bloodied" in 4e) would have lost at least half his intangible hit points, and since his intangible hit points are more than half his total hit points, the intangible hit points lost would be more than one-quarter his total hit points. This means that when a 4th-level character has lost half his total hit points, we can restore one-quarter of his total hit points and quite safely attribute it entirely to the recovery of intangible hit points.

After we have done so, the character now has proportionately more intangible hit points and so will lose proportionately more intangible hit points each time he loses hit points. The next time he drops to half his total normal hit points, we can again restore one-quarter of his total hit points and quite safely attribute it to the recovery of intangible hit points. 

This allows you to set the following relatively simple rule:
At 4th level, a character who is below half his total normal hit points may take a short rest to recover one-quarter his total normal hit points. In combat, he may do the same by spending a standard action to take a second wind (and a warlord or other non-magical "healer" may allow a character to take a second wind without the need to spend any actions). He may do so a total of X times per day (where X is some number which may be dependent on class or Constitution, or may be set by the DM depending on his preferred game style). 

Under this system, an extended rest (or a day's rest) restores 1 hit point (assumed to be physical) and resets the number of times the character can take short rests and second wind actions. This means that while the character is on an adventure, he will normally be operating between 50% and 75% of his full normal hit points without magical healing. He can only recover all his hit points (non-magically) by taking a full rest, which is defined as a week (or more, at the DM's preference) of rest (no strenuous activity, so no adventuring!) in a comfortable environment.

What happens to characters who drop below 0 hit points and who do not have access to magical healing will depend on the DM and the style of campaign he wishes to run. A DM who wants to run a more realistic campaign may require the character to have a full rest before he can regain any hit points. One who wants to run a more heroic campaign may allow the character to continue adventuring without penalty. A more middle of the road approach could be to allow the character to continue adventuring, but at a penalty to indicate that he is operating at 0 physical hit points. This penalty disappears after he has taken a full rest.

This system effectively treads a middle ground between the 4e approach of non-magical healing being almost as good as magical healing, and the approach in previous editions of non-magical healing being almost ineffective in the short term. A party that only has access to non-magical healing will have to operate on a narrower hit point buffer, but can still recover some hit points fairly quickly when wounded, and push on.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Apr 11, 2012)

Kudos to the OP. Believability over realism a great point. And you didn't even bring up the V-word [Verisimilitude (or truthlikeness)]


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

There is another way to view it, kinda along the way that Firelance talks about.  Every HP is vitality/luck/mojo except for your last one.

Would fit how HP's are described rather well.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> And I'm not interested in having 3e foisted on me either.  So, again, why is your taste better than mine?  I'm perfectly willing to accept 4e style healing being a module. Fine, I won't be dancing in the streets, but, I'll adapt and overcome.
> 
> OTOH, you've repeatedly stated that unless we follow your style of HP as the default, you won't buy the game.
> 
> ...




we aren't arguing that our tastes are superior (i have tried to be that thesse are merely subjective preferences). But since 4e healing is built on pre 4e healing (i am actually arguing for the 2e approach to much of this stuff--not 3e), it just makes so much more sense to use standard HP as the core and allow 4e healing to be added in as a module. The issue is they are trying to unite the fans of four editions and the core needs to be basic enough to that. If the core is set up like 4E, they will attract fansof 4e but not the others. Lets remember this arose mostly because of the splintering in the wake of 4E's release. So many of the 4e elements (powers, surges, etc) are going to be dealbreakees for many pre 4e and pathfinder fans (because those are the reasons they left the edition in the first place). So no one is saying our preferences are better than yours, just that there are some basic realities the designers need to confront. You jave alread stated you can handle surges as an ad on (and that is a solution that i am fine with), so clearly there is something to that approach.

I am not trying to be mean or attack your preferences when i say i am uninterested n a D&D that uses surges and 4e powers as core. It is just that my time is important to me and i want to spend it playing rpgsthat don't disrupt my immerssion andthat have mechanics that make the game fun for me----and i dont want to have to surgically remove components that do the opposite. I am find adding in many of my preferences to a neutral core system, i just dont want to have to take stuff out.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 11, 2012)

Libramarian said:


> Doubtful. The problem with hitpoints is that the people who don't have a problem with them don't have a problem with them because they don't really think about them. This is key to not having a problem with hitpoints. Of course, the people who do have a problem with them won't accept that for an answer, so they constantly poke and prod until we have to make up elaborate justifications which are mostly baloney. Like Gary Gygax's in the 1e DMG.




And that's the problem with classic hit points.  They make absolutely no sense when you look at them closely but are simple enough to use that many people don't.  4e instead of simply saying "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" attempts to justify them - which makes them stand out much more.  So people who don't care about the curtain now see it drawn back.



Bedrockgames said:


> I would probably have to see thisin action but most likely no, because my issue isn't just the rate of recovery. The other issue healing surges create for me is their ability to undo something Inhave just described in a given combat.




Then don't describe the things they can undo.



Falling Icicle said:


> The point I was trying to make in regards to 4e is that alot of its innovations (many of which were very good, btw) might have been better accepted by alot of people had they just been presented differently. For example, instead of the warlord healing people by shouting words of encouragement, he could have been portrayed as a combat medic and master of first aid.




I really, really dislike this idea.  The inspiring leader telling someone to get back to his feet is a cinematic staple and works well for a reason.  The combat medic would just be another incarnation of the healbot - thanks but no thanks.



> Even healing surges may have been much better accepted had they been presented differently. The very name "healing surge" admits that hit points are all about injury, and healing surges heal them back. You can't have healing absent injury, can you?




Oh, I agree the names are all wrong.  I think that the term "Hit point" is used in exactly the wrong place in 4e - and that your hit point total should actually be the number of _healing surges_ you have.  This is your total physical damage.  What are called hit points in 4e would be much better off called something like "Shock value".


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Then don't describe the things they can undo.
> ".




That isn't how I like to play. I like describing Hp loss as physical damage. I dont want to have to work around healing surges to accomodate my style.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> That isn't how I like to play. I like describing Hp loss as physical damage. I dont want to have to work around healing surges to accomodate my style.



Start doing that too much and hit points just break for me.  Why are you still standing and not crippled if you've just been given a solid direct hit by an orc with an axe?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Start doing that too much and hit points just break for me.  Why are you still standing and not crippled if you've just been given a solid direct hit by an orc with an axe?




Different strokes.


----------



## Minigiant (Apr 11, 2012)

Hit points, like armor class and attack bonus,   is a thing that doesn't make sense if you look at too hard. They are just ways to get a desired result.


An orc tries to kill a hero. He swings his axe, hits, and deals 7 damage. The hero still has 10 hp and is still alive.

Desire: Make the level 3 hero not die from one success from the or's axe.

Solution: Made the orc's average damage less than the hero's HP.

Personally I don't care how people roleplay and describe their character's hp loss. I do have preferences but whatever.. I do care if the result I was expecting does not appear.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Different strokes.



And a different understanding of what a healing surge is.  If your hit points are full but your healing surges down _you're still hurt_.  You're just able to cope.  And as far as I'm aware there's no warlord power that grants surgeless healing (which is genuinely magical healing).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And a different understanding of what a healing surge is.  If your hit points are full but your healing surges down _you're still hurt_.  You're just able to cope.  And as far as I'm aware there's no warlord power that grants surgeless healing (which is genuinely magical healing).




Yes, i realize this. That explanation isn't one that has ever worked for me. If it makes sense to you, that is great. People should play what they like and use the explanations that they find believable


----------



## pauljathome (Apr 11, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> But I do want them to drastically cut back on how much HP and damage scale by level..




Their current stated plan is to seriously scale back the power in other ways (greatly reduced or eliminated to hit bonuses, armour class bonuses, skill bonuses, etc).

If they ALSO scale back hit points then advancing levels is going to gain one very little in terms of power.

While I like some games with very flat power curves they do NOT seem at all like D&D to me. To me, at least, a big part of D&D is the very, very significant difference in power between low, middle and high level characters.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Yes, i realize this. That explanation isn't one that has ever worked for me. If it makes sense to you, that is great. People should play what they like and use the explanations that they find believable




See, but here's the thing.  You have stated multiple times that it's not really a mechanical issue, but one of aesthetics.  You want to be able to describe wounds a certain way, you want believable, natural healing rates, etc.  Ok, fine.  

But, since it's a purely flavour issue, and not a mechanical one, you can achieve this with 4e healing mechanics pretty easily.

1.  Characters regain 1 healing surge per day of rest.
2. No Warlords.

There, I just recreated 2e's healing system.  The only difference is that you have a second wind mechanic once per encounter.  Everything else is magical healing.  If the second wind bothers you that much, get rid of it.  It's not like the game breaks if you do.

So, we both get what we want.  You get slower healing, the ability to narrate wounds as physical damage, and I get faster healing rates and abstract hit points by not making these changes.

But, if we go back to earlier edition mechanics, I don't get what I want.  You do, and that's great for you, but, I get left out in the cold.  

When I brought this up before, you brushed it off by saying that you could simply use earlier edition mechanics.  This says to me that you don't care in the slightest about any sort of compromise.  If D&D Next isn't specifically geared for you, it's a failure as far as you're concerned.  

From my point of view, my attitude is, well, don't let the door smack you on the ass on the way out.  I'm more than willing to find a common ground here where we're both happy.  What I'm not willing to do is take it up the hoop so that you get everything you want.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> When I brought this up before, you brushed it off by saying that you could simply use earlier edition mechanics.  This says to me that you don't care in the slightest about any sort of compromise.  If D&D Next isn't specifically geared for you, it's a failure as far as you're concerned.
> 
> From my point of view, my attitude is, well, don't let the door smack you on the ass on the way out.  I'm more than willing to find a common ground here where we're both happy.  What I'm not willing to do is take it up the hoop so that you get everything you want.




and your solution is I should accept 4e design and remove change, or reimagine the parts i dont like. How is that any different from me asking you to accept surges and warlords as optional ad ons?

This remedy seems like more work than I want on my end and it still requires an explanation of Hs that i dont accept. And if I really want it to work I will need to remove the secondwind mechanic and any trace of mundane surges. So what does this approach give me that HP doesn't besides some extra work and vestigial 4e mechanics?

Look Hussar, i am happy to talk reasonably with you about this subject....but i feel like you wont accept anything short of me embracing 4e or recanting my stated reasons for disliking stuff like healing surges. I dont like 4e. I dont want to play it. That is why i am not doing so. Right now I am happy playing 2e, savage worlds, rune quest and my own games. If WOTC can make a new version of the game that suits my taste, i will be more than haooy to buy it and play it. But i am not going to play something i dont like in the name of compromise or uniting the editions. But that shouldn't bother you at all because I am not on the 5e design team...all i am doing is stating what I would like to play and why.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> and your solution is I should accept 4e design and remove change, or reimagine the parts i dont like. How is that any different from me asking you to accept surges and warlords as optional ad ons?
> /snip




Really?  Two minor changes and that's all it takes to get what you want.

Sure, if they stick healing surges and whatnot into a module, I'll accept that.

Would you accept the other way though?  Your preferences in the module with healing surges as the default?  Because, I get a strong sense that you wouldn't.  That if your way isn't the default, it's a non-starter.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> See, but here's the thing.  You have stated multiple times that it's not really a mechanical issue, but one of aesthetics.  You want to be able to describe wounds a certain way, you want believable, natural healing rates, etc.  Ok, fine.
> 
> nt.




Let me clarify this. My primary issue with 4e is one of believabiity. That is what immediately jumps out at me during play (feels overly metagamey and i run into constant believability issues). But i also dislike the feel of the mechanics themselves. And they offer a solution for a problem I never had with the game in the first place.

Personally i love trying out new systems and games (i really dont play much D&D these days) but when i do play D&D i want to to have the things I associate with D&D (just like i want coke to taste like coke even if I can enjoy beverages that spicier or sweeter): classic spell list, vancian casting, HP, levels, classes, etc. For me stuff like healing surges and 4e powers turn it into a different game. I played D&D because i enjoy its classic elements and how it feels in play. Change those elements and you basically have to sell me on a new game (and the 4e sales pitch doesn't appeal to me).


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Two minor changes and that's all it takes to get what you want.
> 
> Sure, if they stick healing surges and whatnot into a module, I'll accept that.
> 
> Would you accept the other way though?  Your preferences in the module with healing surges as the default?  Because, I get a strong sense that you wouldn't.  That if your way isn't the default, it's a non-starter.




If HS and 4e power are in the core, no I probably wouldn't make the switch. I just see it as more work to port them out than port them in. Like i said HS are built on top of HP, so it is a lot easier to us Hp as the base system. But I have to ask why it is such a bad thing for me to want the game to exclude aspects of the previous edition I strongly disliked? I mean would you want overpowered wizards as core if they could be optionally removed?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

One thing i can say that may help explain my position to hussar is I am not a loyal D&D cutomer at this point. 4e really hurt the brand for me. It was such the opposite of what I wanted that I started focusing a lot more on toher games ( i had always played other games but till then D&D was my group's standard). So now I am not just automatically going to buy the next edition of the game or play it. I treat it like any other game out there, which means i am only going to invest the time and money into it if it has strong appeal to me and suits my preferences.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Apr 11, 2012)

Look, can we all just get over the idea of trying to explain to people who like healing surges why the fluff of them doesn't really work, and explain to people who don't like healing surges how to "rethink" things so that they do?  THERE'S NO POINT IN IT.

Constantly trying to provide examples how someone can "think differently" doesn't do anything... ESPECIALLY when they've stated time and time again they have NO DESIRE to "think differently".

If they wanted to play the game in that way THEY WOULD.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 11, 2012)

You know what? I couldn't resist. 
That healing surge, that healing surge.
I do not like that healing surge.
It's not a part of D&D.
I do not want it in 5e.
I don't like hitting things to heal.
I don't like insults that can kill.
I do not like that shouty 'lord.
Schrodinger's wounds are not adored.
I do not like that second wind
Dragging out my fights again.
I do not like the high hp,
Or mundane fast recovery.
I do not want it in the core.
I do not want it anymore.
I do not like that healing surge.
I do not like it, Urge-to-Merge*!​* Frankly, I just wanted a name that would rhyme with "surge", and now I have this image of a monster who's the personification of 5e as the "unity" edition. He's probably a chimera.


----------



## vagabundo (Apr 11, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> ..The idea of the frail 1st level wizard that can be slain by a house cat ...




I just want to say I've seen feral "house" cats in Australia and I can totally see how they could kill someone. And we let these little monsters in our homes. Will someone please think of the children!

Anyway, carry on...


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 11, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Really?  Two minor changes and that's all it takes to get what you want.
> 
> Sure, if they stick healing surges and whatnot into a module, I'll accept that.
> 
> Would you accept the other way though?  Your preferences in the module with healing surges as the default?  Because, I get a strong sense that you wouldn't.  That if your way isn't the default, it's a non-starter.




I know I'm probably intruding into a priveate discussion, but anyway.

I want healing surges and stuff into a module, not because I hate them or feel like they disrupt my vision of the fluff (which I do and have my reasons), but rather because they are such a global-affecting mechanic it would be disruptive otherwise. If healing surges and generally speaking high healing are the baseline and default assumption then removing them to make use of a module (or to acomodate a player that really wishes to play a healbot for all that is worth) then you are taking things from the players, if the opposite happens then it is just easier, no player feels robbed of things the core grants when you want to play without surges, and  groups that want surges can just put them in. It isn't the same with feats for example, if they are baseline and somebody wants to opt out of it, he /she just erases them of his/her sheet or never picks them in the first place and goes ahead, it doesn't disrupts the game flow, the same is impossible with the healing system as it is interactive by default, no player can just opt out of the system used by the group, if a player wants surges in a non-surges group then that player will be unable to benefit from the healing the group is using and will get isolated from the rest. In the other hand a non-surge player in a surges group won't make it beyond an encounter or two unless he/she is a healer and uses up all of his/her resources just to stay alive, and then he/she just gets isolated from the group too as that means he/she isn't contributing to the battle but rather keeping himself/herself alive and not being of much use to the rest of the group as a healer as he/she isn't compatible with their healing system, and the healer role is moot anyway in such a group. 

To put it in less confussing words additive modules=good, substractive modules = bad unless they have only individual consecuences. Healing surges have global consecuences and are additional complexity. The most important part of the new edition for me is to have an enjoyable game that is simple to learn and teach and which can be played with more people, if I have a core that is too complex and which I don't enjoy/have to go out of my way too much to enjoy and can't easilly be thaught to other people, then Next sure has failed for me and I'll have to go back at trying to teach Pathfinder to others.


----------



## Grell (Apr 11, 2012)

So, to further best this horse... I agree with the original poster. I've argued this point a number of times including against some real WotC debs and designs, and ultimately things probably won't change for number of reasons. I'm ok with that; as the OP stated, it does work mechanically very well for HP to be ambiguous, and as others have said, it first within the traditions of DD mechanics that hit points be ambiguous in their meaning.

The real problem with hit points isn't that they are an admixture of physical damage, mental resolve, and stain, but that the terminology involved in their loss implied physical damage. When you roll, you roll "to hit", not "to cause a near miss". When you actually succeed, you are said to "hit" not to "cause strain". When you roll for the affect, you roll "damage" not "fatigue" or "loss of morale". The words used to describe the combat help  create the narrative of that combat; even though we KNOW that real combat is misses and parries and shield blocks and weapons sliding off of armor, we seldom describe D&D combat that way, instead simplifying it down to hits and misses. Not everyone does this, but I think it's probably ok to say that the majority of us don't describe every combat round in exacting detail.

The combat narrative as it is spelled out with rules is a binary hit or miss with a hit causing a roll for damage, and e subsequent loss of hit points based on that damage. This creates a narrative where the damage the ax inflicts is the loss of hit points, IE physical damage. If a priest heals that damage, it's the divine power closing the wounds. I a warlord does it.... What happens? The guy realizes that wound isn't as deep as the thought and just shakes it off?

That doesn't work for me, but the alternatives are worse; if you want HP to be more than physical, then weapons and combat need new terms to remove the implied physicality of their usage into something that reflects that accurately. If you want HP as damage only, then you close off a lot of options mechanically... It's tough to decide.

Oh, some one mentioned the idea that hit points had to be mental because of various mind affecting spells that delt damage... To me, that's where 3rd Ed's nonlethal damage worked nicely; psionics and fatigue could go play with nonlethal, no leave HP to the swords and fireballs.


----------



## Derren (Apr 11, 2012)

dkyle said:


> And I appreciate that 4E brought consistency to how HP operate.




Consistency in 4E?

So I guess that assassin just poisoned your morale?
And your luck is bleeding you to death?
4E is at least as inconsistent as previous editions because there is clearly physical damage in the game which still can be shouted away.

If you want consistency (I do) then you need either have only one type of damage (morale or physical) with no exceptions or a clear way to differentiate between the two types. (See the older Star Wars D20 for an example with Vitality and Wounds).


----------



## dkyle (Apr 11, 2012)

Derren said:


> Consistency in 4E?
> 
> So I guess that assassin just poisoned your morale?
> And your luck is bleeding you to death?
> 4E is at least as inconsistent as previous editions because there is clearly physical damage in the game which still can be shouted away.




Fiction is rife with characters overcoming poisons through sheer force of will, and not medical intervention.  Why shouldn't a Warlord be able to bolster that force of will?

Ongoing damage could easily logically represent growing fatigue or loss of focus, and Warlord inspiring his ally to take a moment to snap out of it.  Just because HP _can_ represent Luck doesn't mean that luck must be a possible logical interpretation of any and all HP loss.

Also, bear in mind that just because a point of HP lost is physical, doesn't mean that points of HP _gained_ have to be physical.  HP is abstract and represents many things.  There's no reason a character couldn't start out a combat at full HP, with them representing 50% Health, and 50% Morale, and end the combat at full HP, but with them representing 20% Health and 80% Morale.  Even 0 HP doesn't necessarily mean 0% Health; it could be 20% Health, and -20% Morale.



> If you want consistency (I do) then you need either have only one type of damage (morale or physical) with no exceptions or a clear way to differentiate between the two types. (See the older Star Wars D20 for an example with Vitality and Wounds).




HP in 4E are consistently abstract.  What you desire is concreteness, not consistency.  Systems where HP are always abstract, and systems where HP always represent physical damage, are equally consistent.  The former is simply more abstract than the latter.

The inconsistency in previous editions was that HP appeared to be abstract when it came to damage, but concretely physical when it came to healing.  4E treats them as consistently abstract (and as they've always been described), whether they're increasing or decreasing.


----------



## Tallifer (Apr 11, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> Cleric healing is more believable because it's magic. Magic, by its very definition, is a supernatural power which breaks the laws of our reality. Can you honestly look me straight in the face and say that there's no difference in believability between a magical spell that makes someone's injuries disappear vs. a person just speaking mundane words of encouragement to accomplish the same effect?




Yes I can look you straight in the face and tell you that magic is never believable. That is why many people (my father for one) refuse to watch fantasy movies and mock elves and wizards, but will happily watch various modern action heroes  enact impossible feats. There is a whole movie based on the idea that if the hero stops running and moving he will die. In those movies, the heroes injuries usually manifest as flesh wounds and smears of blood only. There are also standard tropes wherein the hero is jolted back into action by encouragement, by memory of a loved one, by anger. I find action movies almost entirely unbelievable as well, but for some reason many people can accept them before they will ever enjoy the Lord of the Rings.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Yes I can look you straight in the face and tell you that magic is never believable. That is why many people (my father for one) refuse to watch fantasy movies and mock elves and wizards, but will happily watch various modern action heroes  enact impossible feats. There is a whole movie based on the idea that if the hero stops running and moving he will die. In those movies, the heroes injuries usually manifest as flesh wounds and smears of blood only. There are also standard tropes wherein the hero is jolted back into action by encouragement, by memory of a loved one, by anger. I find action movies almost entirely unbelievable as well, but for some reason many people can accept them before they will ever enjoy the Lord of the Rings.




This i find very unconvincing. Some people may have difficulty swallowing fantasy, but people who watch or read it still have basic expectationa of internal consistency and physics. If frodo breaks his shin bone but the next minute it is fixed, i expect a reason to be offered (or i expect some kind of time to elapse prior to him doing so). In action movies the concession is usually that the character is martialling through the injury, but even then the assumptions sems to be they are operating atvless than optimal performance (usually indicated through gasping, occassional limp, etc).


----------



## dkyle (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> If frodo breaks his shin bone but the next minute it is fixed, i expect a reason to be offered (or i expect some kind of time to elapse prior to him doing so).




While that makes sense, it's not really relevant, as there is no way to break a shin bone, or any bone, short of pure DM fiat, in any edition of DnD.



> In action movies the concession is usually that the character is martialling through the injury, but even then the assumptions sems to be they are operating atvless than optimal performance (usually indicated through gasping, occassional limp, etc).




Which points to injuries in DnD being even more superficial than the ones in those movies, since we don't operate at less than optimal performance even at 1 HP out of 100.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

dkyle said:


> While that makes sense, it's not really relevant, as there is no way to break a shin bone, or any bone, short of pure DM fiat, in any edition of DnD.




It is relevant because it shows that even these genres pay some lip service to believability. Someone was arguing otherwise.




> Which points to injuries in DnD being even more superficial than the ones in those movies, since we don't operate at less than optimal performance even at 1 HP out of 100.




you cant have it both ways though. You cant respond to a criticism of HS saying that the movies D&D is modeled after ignore physical damage as well, then turn around when peope show that these movies do not ignore said damage and argue that D&D is meant to be more superficial anyways so it doesn't matter. Why bring up the movies in the first place if they have no bearing on your position?

Now you are right that D&D doesn't model the effect of wounds well (aside from just having lower HP) but it does share the consistency of physicial damage you see in a lot of these movies. Somone doesn't get cut across the chest and then have no cut inthe next scene (and if that does happen people point and laugh because it is a consistency error---usually a bad edit). If someone cuts me with a sword I take ten points of damage, i find it hard to believe that that damage can be healed becauee I dug deep or my warlord shouted in my ear. If it was temporary HP at least the digging deep might make sense ( because digging deep doesn't restore you it just allows you to temporarily ignore the effects of being hurt).


----------



## dkyle (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> It is relevant because it shows that even these genres pay some lip service to believability. Someone was arguing otherwise.




And DnD pays similar "lip service" by not having concrete serious injuries as a result of HP loss in the first place.



> you cant have it both ways though. You cant respond to a criticism of HS saying that the movies D&D is modeled after ignore physical damage as well, then turn around when peope show that these movies do not ignore said damage and argue that D&D is meant to be more superficial anyways so it doesn't matter. Why bring up the movies in the first place if they have no bearing on your position?




The argument is that those movies portray characters overcoming being beat down and, and even out of the fight, by sheer force of will.  Not that those movies show people shaking of broken limbs, sucking chest wounds, or other injuries that cannot simply be shaken off.  Those injuries are besides the point, because they are not inflicted according to the rules (except possibly as flavor when a creature actually dies).

I think the poster you responded to was a little unclear; obviously, action movies don't show wounds literally going away from inspiration.  But they do often show the _effects_ of those wounds going away.  And that's ultimately what matters; how a wound _affects_ a character, not whether they have superficial scrapes and bruises appearing on their body.  A Cleric removes the wounds, a Warlord just makes you not care you have them.  And that's assuming there are any wounds actually being inflicted by HP loss to begin with.



> If someone cuts me with a sword I take ten points of damage, i find it hard to believe that that damage can be healed becauee I dug deep or my warlord shouted in my ear.




The only reason it's hard to believe is because you decided to interpret those ten points of damage as a wound from a sword slice, and the warlord's inspiration as actually removing that wound.  The rules make no such statement.  10 points of HP loss do not necessarily mean any physical damage (and never have in any edition), and 10 points of HP gain do not necessarily mean any repair of physical damage (this is a consistency with HP loss that is largely new to 4E).  If you choose to interpret the rules in a way that produces a nonsensical story, that's hardly the rules' fault.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

dkyle said:


> loss to begin with.
> 
> 
> 
> The only reason it's hard to believe is because you decided to interpret those ten points of damage as a wound from a sword slice, and the warlord's inspiration as actually removing that wound.  The rules make no such statement.  10 points of HP loss do not necessarily mean any physical damage (and never have in any edition), and 10 points of HP gain do not necessarily mean any repair of physical damage (this is a consistency with HP loss that is largely new to 4E).  If you choose to interpret the rules in a way that produces a nonsensical story, that's hardly the rules' fault.




but the rules dont support viewing it as purely non physical either. Hp has always been a combo of real damagr and other things (and traditional healing rules supported and reinforced this interpretation). It isn't like this is some bizarre personal explanation of HP i have come up with on my own. It is very widespread and is one of the major reasons lots of people dont like healing surges. I think you are dismissing how common it is for people to treat 10 points of damage as actual physical harm to the character that shouldn't just be blown off by a pep talk.


----------



## nightwalker450 (Apr 11, 2012)

I'm fine with sword slashes being wounds.. But the warlord is my ally telling me to ignore the wounds and push on. The cleric likewise, is using the blessings of his deity to keep us moving. Once the combat is over though, we bandage up the wounds and move on.  After combat is fluff, not actual healing.

I can't think of many fictions where healing in combat is done, any serious wounds did put the character out for the rest of the battle and the following few days.  But from a gaming perspective, those are plot points, not to be handled by rules.  (Damn, Bill's Wife called, she's having the baby now... so his character takes a severe wound, that will take the next few sessions to recover from...  Good luck Bill, now it's Mark's turn in the initiative.) There are a helluva lot more instances of heroes overcoming their wounds, to carry on, through their own inner strength, or the faith and support of their allies.

I have dealt severe wounds to characters who were going on vacation... but no my gaming group has never had a wife go into labor during a gaming session.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 11, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> but the rules dont support viewing it as purely non physical either.




Indeed.  And I'm not.  HP loss _can_ represent physical wounds, in addition to other intangibles.  But the physical component is clearly not broken bones, or serious bleeding-out injuries.  When there _is_ damage, it's clearly not something that is serious enough to hinder the character.  And the point with the action movies was that such injuries are shaken off all the time in them.



> Hp has always been a combo of real damagr and other things (and traditional healing rules supported and reinforced this interpretation).




Except that traditional healing rules only reflected the "real damage" part of HP, and ignored the "other things".  For some reason, when it came time to do healing, HP weren't treated as the abstract things they clearly are when damage is being dealt.



> It isn't like this is some bizarre personal explanation of HP i have come up with on my own. It is very widespread and is one of the major reasons lots of people dont like healing surges. I think you are dismissing how common it is for people to treat 10 points of damage as actual physical harm to the character that shouldn't just be blown off by a pep talk.




I understand that lots of people like to interpret it that way.  But it's effectively a popular houserule, since it goes directly against how the game has described HP, from the start.  Should there be an option for strict HP-as-wounds?  Sure.  Personally, I'd want a bona-fide wounds system for that, since I find strict HP-as-wounds completely nonsensical, but I know not everyone else does.

But the _baseline_ should be core DnD, not houserules.  And that means abstract HP.  And once you have abstract HP, non-magical healing is completely logical.


----------



## Derren (Apr 11, 2012)

dkyle said:


> Indeed.  And I'm not.  HP loss _can_ represent physical wounds, in addition to other intangibles.  But the physical component is clearly not broken bones, or serious bleeding-out injuries.  When there _is_ damage, it's clearly not something that is serious enough to hinder the character.  And the point with the action movies was that such injuries are shaken off all the time in them.




No you are just bleeding to death and will die in seconds.
Unless someone shouts at you.

Or do your PCs tend to weep themselves to death because of morale loss?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Dkyle: respectfully disagree. Not only was the "popoular houserule" supported by the healing rules, it was supported by the language and fluff of the rest pf the game. No one was looking for a wound system. The simple hp of d&d in the first three editions supply a certain level of believability but allow for heroic levels of play. I am also with others that dont see the 4e approach as any more consistent. While true the rules described hp as a combo of physical and other things, the physical element was still in there.


----------



## dkyle (Apr 11, 2012)

Derren said:


> No you are just bleeding to death and will die in seconds.
> Unless someone shouts at you.




If shouting at you gets you on your feet, then you weren't bleeding out and about to die in seconds.  Negative HP in 4E means you are unconscious, and if you fail enough death saving throws, you will die.  Being unconscious does not mean you cannot be jarred awake by sound.  And death saving throws do not necessarily represent bleeding.

Even in 3.X, the only way to be "bleeding to death and will die in seconds" was to be at exactly -10.  In old editions, there was literally no such thing as "bleeding to death".  You were either fine (1 HP or more), or dead (0 HP).



> Or do your PCs tend to weep themselves to death because of moral loss?




What mechanical outcome are you referring to, where that is the best story explanation for what is going on?

Just because some HP loss can be represented as Morale loss, doesn't mean that the HP loss that represents the killing blow is Morale loss.  If a hit kills something, then it is entirely logical to describe that as a physical hit dealing mortal damage.


----------



## Derren (Apr 11, 2012)

dkyle said:


> If shouting at you gets you on your feet, then you weren't bleeding out and about to die in seconds.  Negative HP in 4E means you are unconscious, and if you fail enough death saving throws, you will die.  Being unconscious does not mean you cannot be jarred awake by sound.  And death saving throws do not necessarily represent bleeding.
> 
> Even in 3.X, the only way to be "bleeding to death and will die in seconds" was to be at exactly -10.  In old editions, there was literally no such thing as "bleeding to death".  You were either fine (1 HP or more), or dead (0 HP).
> 
> ...




Thats the point. You can't know how injured a PC is before you know how will he be healed.

Following example:
A Orc critically hits a PC with a greataxe and the PC goes down and has to start doing death saves.

Is this a serious, life threatening physical wound or not?


----------



## billd91 (Apr 11, 2012)

dkyle said:


> Even in 3.X, the only way to be "bleeding to death and will die in seconds" was to be at exactly -10.  In old editions, there was literally no such thing as "bleeding to death".  You were either fine (1 HP or more), or dead (0 HP).




Whether it's technically bleeding or non-respiration, shock, or whatever were also included in 1e's description, I think, is largely immaterial. The specifics could be up to player/DM interpretation and none of them in 1e are non-dire. The PC is unconscious and dying in both 1e and 3e (it's an optional rule in 2e). So yes, there literally is such a thing as bleeding to death in older editions, including editions before 3e.


----------



## Kannik (Apr 11, 2012)

Grell said:


> The real problem with hit points isn't that they are an admixture of physical damage, mental resolve, and stain, but that the terminology involved in their loss implied physical damage. When you roll, you roll "to hit", not "to cause a near miss". When you actually succeed, you are said to "hit" not to "cause strain". When you roll for the affect, you roll "damage" not "fatigue" or "loss of morale".




Indeed, the terminology used misdirected many... 



> That doesn't work for me, but the alternatives are worse; if you want HP to be more than physical, then weapons and combat need new terms to remove the implied physicality of their usage into something that reflects that accurately. If you want HP as damage only, then you close off a lot of options mechanically... It's tough to decide.




Or, instead, we recognize that, like the term Hit Point, the terms hit and damage are just abstract terms used to represent that you have damaged the character's hit point value (in whatever manner is appropriate for the type of attack).  Defences are abstract;  hitting means you got past these abstract defences to affect a character's overall combat/action capacity, known as hit points, which is itself an abstracted entity that has no effect until it hits 0 (except in 4e, where at 50% value it can trigger certain things).  Yes, you did damage -- to hit points.  

The terms are all used to represent the abstract notions, and have a meaning specific to the game of D&D.  (Queue the old "level" terminology humour...)  When a player says "hit me" in blackjack, it has a meaning that has nothing to do with being physically smacked in the face (well, I dunno, maybe there are kinds of blackjack like that ).  

Can it be confused?  Yes, sure, by many including myself.  Should we alter the meaning of HP because of it?  I say no, read on...



			
				bedrockgames said:
			
		

> It isn't like this is some bizarre personal explanation of HP i have come up with on my own. It is very widespread and is one of the major reasons lots of people dont like healing surges. I think you are dismissing how common it is for people to treat 10 points of damage as actual physical harm to the character that shouldn't just be blown off by a pep talk.




And I think you are dismissing how "common" (a subjective term) it is for people to find it very odd that someone can take 10 points of physical damage (your chest wound example) 10 times in a fight and keep whistling merrily along.  At the end of any encounter, the average party would look like they've just fallen through a box of rusty razor blades, that were moving, and on fire.  And that 50 point critical... did the person lose an arm?  Ouch!  Amazing that they can keep swinging that two handed sword so easily.

If instead we say "well, those cuts are all superficial, it's all flesh wounds due to their experience in turning the blows away," ok then, no problem -- but then the pain of bruises and nicks can be overcome by a pep talk just fine, adrenaline is an amazing thing.  Not to mention this matches the fiction quite well, no shin bones showing in sight.

You yourself are saying "Hp has always been a combo of real damage and other things."  But then it appears to me that you turn around and say "but don't get other things in my HP, it's gotta be all physical wounds, all the time!"  So I'm not sure where the confusion lies.  It is both physical and other things, and as Gary wrote in the source document:  the majority of HP at higher levels is not physical capacity but those very other things.  And given that, other things therefore can be "healed" by other things than bandages, ointment and divine radiance.

Note that this doesn't mean that I don't think there isn't some oddity with how an Inspiring Word interacts with the hard rule of 0 HP = unconscious and dying saves.  That I would like to see resolved.  

peace,

Kannik


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Kannik: Gary got the ball rolling for the hobby but that doesn't mean his definition of HP was universally embraced. And I am not trying to be dissmissive of other approaches. i get that some people prefer things abstract and say "you take twenty points pf damage" instead of "the wolf's bite rends your leg". I also get that my approach isn't gritty realism. For me it is a good believable medium that allows for fun and interesting combats, makes some kind of sense and makes for heroic game play.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Apr 11, 2012)

I think that one big problem with the 'Hit Points as abstract concept' issue is that the way hit points are defined by the writers of the game are often not at all the way that hit points are described during gameplay.

If I am running a fight between a giant and a group of players, when I describe damage, I don't say, "The giant scared the poop out of you with his club for 17 points of damage, you're going to need new underwears."  I say, "The giant knocked your liver out of your body for 17 points of damage, you're going to need to stop at the convenience store and get another one."


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 11, 2012)

Michael Silverbane said:


> I think that one big problem with the 'Hit Points as abstract concept' issue is that the way hit points are defined by the writers of the game are often not at all the way that hit points are described during gameplay.
> 
> If I am running a fight between a giant and a group of players, when I describe damage, I don't say, "The giant scared the poop out of you with his club for 17 points of damage, you're going to need new underwears."  I say, "The giant knocked your liver out of your body for 17 points of damage, you're going to need to stop at the convenience store and get another one."




Not to mention a lot of GM advice in official products over the years has suggested describing HP loss as you do here (physical damage).


----------



## BryonD (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Psionics were presented as an optional rule in the 1e PHB, so, no, he's not wrong.




He didn't say optional.
He said "core".

I'm pretty sure the PH is core.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Again, quality for you.



No this is flat out wrong and if you would pay attention to comments I've made over and over you would know that.

If they make a game that a lot of people like and I happen NOT to be one of them, then that will be quality.



> Going back to 3e and earlier style healing would be a huge step backward for me.  You keep insisting that your taste has some sort of objective value.  Sorry, like BRG, your tastes in no way are superior to mine.



Again, it is YOU talking about *your* individual taste.
If you truly mean what you say then you should instantly concede that they should accept that you taste is valid but not nearly as marketable as other options available.

The simple truth of person A's opinion being worth the same as person's B's opinion is little more than a worthless red herring when the question at hand is how does the dollar generating value of an opinion held by a lot of people compare to the dollar generating value of a few people.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 12, 2012)

Michael Silverbane said:


> If I am running a fight between a giant and a group of players, when I describe damage, I don't say, "The giant scared the poop out of you with his club for 17 points of damage, you're going to need new underwears."  I say, "The giant knocked your liver out of your body for 17 points of damage, you're going to need to stop at the convenience store and get another one."



If I was to be excruciatingly honest, I would normally say, "The giant hits. You take 17 hit points of damage." 

However, on the infrequent occasions that I did want to add a bit more description, I would say something along the lines of, "The giant deals you a glancing blow with his club" (if the PC still had quite a few hp left) or "The giant's club catches you in your side. You think you might have cracked a rib" (if the PC was quite low on hp afterwards). As long as the PC was high on hp, arrows "graze", swords and stingers "nick", "cut" or "scratch", blunt weapons leave "bruises". If the PC was low on hp, I might describe something more serious, e.g. a deep wound in a non-vital part or cracked bones, but again, nothing life-threatening or that could significantly impact the PC's ability to make attack rolls without penalty. It's only when the PC dropped to 0 hp or less that I actually described life-threatening wounds, but again, nothing that a PC could not recover from completely in time (no decapitatons or loss of limbs).

I guess I had gotten into the habit of describing hit point loss in this manner even before 4e because because hit points have always been presented to me as more than physical - a high-level fighter low on hit points would be covered in nicks and scratches, but the sum total of all those nicks and scratches wouldn't even be enough to cause an actual hit point worth of damage. A normal man, or even a frail and weak man with 1 hp, covered in those same nicks and scratches wouldn't be dead, or even significantly hindered. So, while there was always a physical component to hit point loss, it was miniscule.

So, fast forward to 4e. What changed for me?

1. Hit point loss can be entirely non-physical. Magic can frighten a man to death, depress him to death or insult him to death. Fine. I can deal with that. It's magic. If a magic ray of green light can kill a man even though he is completely fine physically, I can accept that magically-induced fear, depression and anger can also kill.

2. Hit points can be restored more easily through non-magical means. Not an issue for me since I've never gotten into the habit of describing gory wounds. I just pile on the nicks, scratches and bruises.

3. A character can drop below 0 hp, be in danger of death, and recover back to full hit points within 5 minutes by non-magical means. This part is more tricky, but fortunately, I've never gotten into the habit of describing dropping below 0 hp as anything that could cause permanent impairment. What I have to be careful about now (when there is no magic healer in the party) is to ensure I don't describe dropping below 0 hp as anything that could cause temporary impairment, either - no broken bones, for example. These days, on the occasions when it happens, my preference is for profuse bleeding. It's possible that a character could die from it, but it's also plausible (at least to me) that once the wound is bandaged up and the blood loss is stemmed, a character could ignore the pain and press on.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> If HS and 4e power are in the core, no I probably wouldn't make the switch. I just see it as more work to port them out than port them in. Like i said HS are built on top of HP, so it is a lot easier to us Hp as the base system. But I have to ask why it is such a bad thing for me to want the game to exclude aspects of the previous edition I strongly disliked? I mean would you want overpowered wizards as core if they could be optionally removed?




Honestly?  If they could be removed as easily as the changes to the HP mechanic and with the same lack of effect?  Not a problem in the slightest.

Then again, I have no real problems with taking stuff in D&D and then changing it to suit my tastes.  I've been doing it for 30+ years, I don't know why it would change now.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 12, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> I discussed the unbelievability of HP going all the way back to the original edition of the game in my first post. I've never liked the abstraction or multiplicative scaling of HP, ever, in any edition. The idea of the frail 1st level wizard that can be slain by a house cat and the 20th level fighter that can survive being submerged in lava has always bothered me, not only because its unbelievable but also because I think it's bad game design, as I pointed out with the acid flask example. 4e may have embraced the mentality that "HP are more than just wounds" to a degree never seen before, but it's one that has been a part of the game from the very beginning, and one I've never, ever liked.
> 
> With the new edition of the game, I hope they take a different approach. I'm not saying that they should get rid of HP. But I do want them to drastically cut back on how much HP and damage scale by level. If they do that, then things like acid flasks will remain somewhat effective weapons throughout the game, and HP will be much more believable as a portrayal of one's ability to endure injuries, so that we don't need to resort to using silly excuses to rationalize them.



Fair enough.  But that is not what you said in the post I replied to and I still stand by my assessment that your claim there was simply wrong.

As to this point, it may be completely valid.  But it also seems pointless to discuss abandoning one the few key elements that crosses every editions when the goal is to recreate the experience of any and every prior edition.

So if you really dislike HP, I'd politely suggest that other games may be better for you.  And I really mean that with ZERO snark.  I went through a period when I was completely dissatisfied with D&D and the HP issue you describe was part of it.  I went to other systems.  My personal taste has changed over time.  But I fully respect what you are saying.   But D&D won't scratch that itch.  You either need to get over it because the rest of D&D is cool enough for you to accept HP, or you need to move on.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 12, 2012)

FireLance said:


> So, fast forward to 4e. What changed for me?
> 
> 1. Hit point loss can be entirely non-physical. Magic can frighten a man to death, depress him to death or insult him to death. Fine. I can deal with that. It's magic. If a magic ray of green light can kill a man even though he is completely fine physically, I can accept that magically-induced fear, depression and anger can also kill.



I'd challenge you here.
Simply because I don't see any barrier to this is pre-4E D&D.
If you want to say that 4E proactively embraces this idea much more and that you like that, then cool.  No argument.  But it can (and infrequently does) happen in my games and has for years.



> 2. Hit points can be restored more easily through non-magical means. Not an issue for me since I've never gotten into the habit of describing gory wounds. I just pile on the nicks, scratches and bruises.
> 
> 3. A character can drop below 0 hp, be in danger of death, and recover back to full hit points within 5 minutes by non-magical means. This part is more tricky, but fortunately, I've never gotten into the habit of describing dropping below 0 hp as anything that could cause permanent impairment. What I have to be careful about now (when there is no magic healer in the party) is to ensure I don't describe dropping below 0 hp as anything that could cause temporary impairment, either - no broken bones, for example. These days, on the occasions when it happens, my preference is for profuse bleeding. It's possible that a character could die from it, but it's also plausible (at least to me) that once the wound is bandaged up and the blood loss is stemmed, a character could ignore the pain and press on.



Thumbs up.

Not my taste, but if you were never using any wounds then the removal of wounds is a non-issue.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2012)

Derren said:


> Thats the point. You can't know how injured a PC is before you know how will he be healed.
> 
> Following example:
> A Orc critically hits a PC with a greataxe and the PC goes down and has to start doing death saves.
> ...




Now, describe this as a life threatening physical wound, that can be 100% recovered from in 5 days.

Since we're talking about consistency and all that.

But, to answer your question, it's a serious wound.  Or, rather, it certainly look serious.  But, if the PC gets up the next round, it's just a head wound with lots of blood - they look really bad but they're really not.  Or maybe the hobbit was saved by his Mithril shirt and just looked dead.  OTOH, if he actually dies, then, yup, it was a lethal wound.

If it works for the Professor, it works for me.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2012)

BryonD said:


> No this is flat out wrong and if you would pay attention to comments I've made over and over you would know that.
> 
> If they make a game that a lot of people like and I happen NOT to be one of them, then that will be quality.
> 
> ...




Why is my taste not nearly as marketable?  Or is this your mystical chicken entrails knowledge coming to the fore yet again to inform you of the exact state of the industry which just happens to line up with your personal tastes?

Hey, here's a question, how much money is WOTC making right now?  Gross from D&D.  Now, how much money is Paizo making?  Gross is fine.  

What, you don't know that?  But, you're claiming that you know for a fact that my tastes are less marketable than yours.  How can you claim that when you don't have any basic facts?

Oh, right, back to chicken entrails.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Why is my taste not nearly as marketable?  Or is this your mystical chicken entrails knowledge coming to the fore yet again to inform you of the exact state of the industry which just happens to line up with your personal tastes?
> 
> Hey, here's a question, how much money is WOTC making right now?  Gross from D&D.  Now, how much money is Paizo making?  Gross is fine.
> 
> ...



Yeah, because your unending red herring questions trying to replace big picture issues with 5th decimal place issues establishes a reasonable assessment.

You can tell me up is down and I can never make you say otherwise.  But it doesn't change that up is up and down is down.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 12, 2012)

Falling Icicle said:


> Even healing surges may have been much better accepted had they been presented differently. The very name "healing surge" admits that hit points are all about injury, and healing surges heal them back. You can't have healing absent injury, can you?




It's a term that they then define. Certainly there's connatations to the word, but I would think everyone could accept how the word/concept is being used in the context of the game. I don't play Blackjack and expect the dealer to physically punch me when I say "hit me", because I understand that in the context of the game, the term means to deal me another card, not assualt me.

We speak of all kinds of healing, not just physical. There's psychological healing, emotional healing, even spiritual healing. We don't all immediately balk at these alternate forms of healing in general, so why is it some do when it comes to a game?

Would older edition players really be satisfied if in 4E they called hit points something like 'encounter survival points' and healing as 'restoration' and damage as 'encounter shorterning points' or what-have-you? Are people really that ingrained into the words that they can't extrapolate that something like a hit doesn't necessarily mean the opponent insta-dies? You can 'hit' a dart board for 1 point, or hit the bullseye. Both are still hits.




Bedrockgames said:


> Now you are right that D&D doesn't model the effect of wounds well (aside from just having lower HP) but it does share the consistency of physicial damage you see in a lot of these movies. Somone doesn't get cut across the chest and then have no cut inthe next scene (and if that does happen people point and laugh because it is a consistency error---usually a bad edit). If someone cuts me with a sword I take ten points of damage, i find it hard to believe that that damage can be healed becauee I dug deep or my warlord shouted in my ear. If it was temporary HP at least the digging deep might make sense ( because digging deep doesn't restore you it just allows you to temporarily ignore the effects of being hurt).




Yes, and often by the next scene, the cut aross the chest is all but ignored. The action hero certainly didn't have a cleric with them or drink a potion, so why is the wound suddenly a non-issue? Because the hero has recovered enough from the wound to make it so (i.e., mundane healing).

Even if you take HP to be all, or virutally all, physical damage capacity, there had to be a part in you that was changing how that damage was implemented. If HP is all meat, then we can form a basis of just how damaging a weapon is against a character by comparing a hit to their start HP. A long sword averages 5 damage, you have 8 HP, so you take a heavy blow to the side nearly crippling you.

But as soon as we start levelling up the character, why doesn't the near-crippling sword hit at first level not do the same relative amount of damage at level 10 or 20? Most usually say that the character is more experienced, able to avoid the blow better now. But now we've suddenly introduced intangibles to the concept of HP.

The only way you could play HP as purely physical is to never change them from 1st level (or increment in extremely small amounts). Either that, or your heroes bulk up immensely every level.

I'm a fan of healing surges, I think they help emulate the dynamic heroic charactes we often see in movies, able to take a hefty beating but still win through, and then pull themselves together for the next challenge. I do agree that the rest periods were poorly implemented, at least extended rests. It does break things a little when characters can bounce back and forth between being okay to nearly dead to okay to nearly dead, then sleep a night and be 100% fine. I think I would have preferred a slower surge recovery rate, though I also acknowledge that this could end up slowing down the pace of the game.


----------



## wrightdjohn (Apr 12, 2012)

Hit points in prior editions have always been defined as a mixture of physical wounds, and other stuff (vitality, fatigue, morale, whatever).  It was definitely a mixture though and not purely non-physical.  The hero was assumed to be able to fight through his wounds because he was a hero.  That was the 1e,2e,3e D&D definition.  This definition precludes saying only the last hit point is physical too.

The problem with 4e martial healing is it can't explain the physical part.  It works 100% of the time and we know that some percentage of damage greater than 0% is physical.  That part cannot be explained by martial healing.

Second.  I think morale is a crazy measure.  So when the dragon hits you with a fear effect and you fail your save and are running for your life how many hit points of damage did you take.  Unless the dragon breaths or attacks in some other way you took no damage.  The game is rife with examples of physical attacks being the only way to reduce these supposedly morale based hit points.  Also when you go down, you are unconscious.  Not in shock, not dazed or stunned or anything else.  You are out.  A martial healer healing you from this state is completely unbelievable.

Let's face it.  All the editions of D&D prior to 4e really did treat it like physical damage in every single way except in the one paragraph describing them.  All other rules etc.. treated them as physical.   It is why people rejected 4e in this area.  4e started treating hit points like they were almost entirely non-physical.

The solution:
We all want a game we can play.  If I can't rid the game of healing surges and martial dailies with very minimal effort I won't bother.  How that is accomplished can be debated.  I believe though a lot more people want traditional hit points than 4e's version of them.  I feel the 3e/Pathfinder group and the 1e/2e group in combination are bigger than the 4e group.   

So let's just advocate for a system that can cleanly play both ways if surges/martial dailes really are necessary for the 4e crowd.  (Personally I think even half those people would gladly toss them.)


----------



## billd91 (Apr 12, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> I'm a fan of healing surges, I think they help emulate the dynamic heroic charactes we often see in movies, able to take a hefty beating but still win through, and then pull themselves together for the next challenge. I do agree that the rest periods were poorly implemented, at least extended rests. It does break things a little when characters can bounce back and forth between being okay to nearly dead to okay to nearly dead, then sleep a night and be 100% fine. I think I would have preferred a slower surge recovery rate, though I also acknowledge that this could end up slowing down the pace of the game.




Slowing down the pace of the game, at least narratively, isn't necessarily a bad thing. But that's not my main point of posting here.

You've just written, in part, why I like the Second Wind mechanic as implemented by Star Wars Saga Edition. It's dramatic and, because it's more limited than healing surges, it remains dramatic. If i can surge every fight, the drama of doing so is leeched away.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 12, 2012)

wrightdjohn said:


> Hit points in prior editions have always been defined as a mixture of physical wounds, and other stuff (vitality, fatigue, morale, whatever).  It was definitely a mixture though and not purely non-physical.  The hero was assumed to be able to fight through his wounds because he was a hero.  That was the 1e,2e,3e D&D definition.



This is also the 4e definition (and maybe even more so, for purely non-magical healing). 



> The problem with 4e martial healing is it can't explain the physical part.  It works 100% of the time and we know that some percentage fof damage greater than 0% is physical.  That part cannot be explained by martial healing.



So cap it so that non-magical healing cannot restore you to above 75% of your full maximum hit points. That's a middle road that allows non-magical healing to get you out of danger, but not as much as magical healing.



> Second.  I think morale is a crazy measure.  So when the dragon hits you with a fear effect and you fail your save and are running for your life how many hit points of damage did you take.  Unless the dragon breaths or attacks in some other way you took no damage.  The game is rife with examples of physical attacks being the only way to reduce these supposedly morale based hit points.



Physical attacks _and magic_. Plus, equating intangible hit points _only_ with morale is an over-simplification. They can be anything that allows you to turn a lethal wound into a non-lethal, non-hindering one.



> Also when you go down, you are unconscious.  Not in shock, not dazed or stunned or anything else.  You are out.  A martial healer healing you from this state is completely unbelievable.



Really? I see this as a martial healer helping you to fight through your wounds because you are a hero.



> Let's face it.  All the editions of D&D prior to 4e really did treat it like physical damage in every single way except in the one paragraph describing them.



And the fact that a high-level fighter who has lost 99 hp still makes attack rolls as if he was unwounded. Whatever his "physical" wounds are, they are obviously not hindering him in any way.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 12, 2012)

wrightdjohn said:


> Hit points in prior editions have always been defined as a mixture of physical wounds, and other stuff (vitality, fatigue, morale, whatever).  It was definitely a mixture though and not purely non-physical.  The hero was assumed to be able to fight through his wounds because he was a hero.  That was the 1e,2e,3e D&D definition.  This definition precludes saying only the last hit point is physical too.
> 
> The problem with 4e martial healing is it can't explain the physical part.  It works 100% of the time and we know that some percentage of damage greater than 0% is physical.  That part cannot be explained by martial




This


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2012)

BryonD said:


> Yeah, because your unending red herring questions trying to replace big picture issues with 5th decimal place issues establishes a reasonable assessment.
> 
> You can tell me up is down and I can never make you say otherwise.  But it doesn't change that up is up and down is down.




Fifth decimal place?  Dude, I'd be happy with anything approaching a number at all.  Any number.  Ballpark is fine.  I'd be pretty content with a margin of error of about 30% in either direction.

The problem is, your opinion is based on about as much fact as is contained in the average Weekly World News.  Hearsay, third hand anecdote and coincidence.

Ok, how about this one.  Can you provide any evidence that prior edition gamers significantly out number 4e gamers?  Because, if you can't, then losing a 4e gamer to gain a 2e gamer is a net loss.  They HAVE the 4e gamer right now.  They don't have to spend millions of dollars to get him.  They are, however, spending millions of dollars on 5e in an attempt to make us both happy with a game flexible enough to satisfy both our tastes.

That doesn't mean that you get pandered to and anything else gets shoved off into the corner.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> This




And that's totally fair.

No one is saying that 5e should port in 4e's healing system 100% without any changes.  Well, if anyone's saying that, I dunno.  I know I'm not saying that.

But, can we change the 4e healing system to achieve what you want?  I think yes, you can.  If it's martial healing that tips your boat, well, eject the warlord.  It's not like that matters.  Or does having the warlord as a character option mean that the game is now broken and totally not to your taste?

If you want slower healing rates, that's also a very easy fix.  You regain healing surges more slowly.  There, done.  Maybe go with Bill91's idea of SWSE's second wind mechanics to further reduce things.  Whatever, it's fairly simple changes to achieve what you want.

Now, let's see you change the 3e HP recovery system to meet my needs.  I can change my system to match yours pretty easily.  But, if you want to keep your definition of HP, how can that system achieve what I want - faster recovery, martial healing, and the design space to use non-tangible effects as damage (Ie, scaring you deals damage)?

Because, that's what it comes down to.  We want to design a system that is flexible enough to encompass both approaches.  I think that the 4e system, because it's so abstract, is far easier to adapt.  But, again, as I asked several pages ago, sell me on the earlier interpretation.  How can I adapt that system to what I want?  

If you can't, then that is a bad system.  It only supports your playstyle and not mine.  The 4e system can support both pretty easily and that's been shown multiple times in this thread.  How do we both get what we want?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar, i said already, the easiest way is to have surges as an optional ad on. It is like i said before, i am not interested in 4e elements like HS (i dont want mundane heals like that in my game and like i said before my big concern is believability but i also dislike the mechanic itself). My hope is for 5e to fee more like D&D again to me. Stuff like HS and 4e powers dont achieve that IMO. If they decide to cater more to 4e fans by packing the core system with those things, i am fine with that--i have others games i am playing---but i am not interested in paying D&D if they continue on the path of 4E style innovation. From the beginning i have said i dont think you can bring 4e players and pre 4e players to the same table. You can bring them to the same system, provided there are enough options for each side to create the experience it wants.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 12, 2012)

So, in other words BRG, you're not interested in what makes a better game.  You're only interested in what makes a better game for you.

Ahh, ok.  I have to wonder then, why bother discussing the game?  I mean, you're not interested in any sort of mechanics other than what came before.   I have to give you full credit for honesty though.  It's not like you're even trying to be conciliatory or even bothering sugar coating it.

For you, it's "go back to older editions" full stop.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, in other words BRG, you're not interested in what makes a better game.  You're only interested in what makes a better game for you.
> 
> Ahh, ok.  I have to wonder then, why bother discussing the game?  I mean, you're not interested in any sort of mechanics other than what came before.   I have to give you full credit for honesty though.  It's not like you're even trying to be conciliatory or even bothering sugar coating it.
> 
> For you, it's "go back to older editions" full stop.




Now you are just putting words in my mouth


----------



## Umbran (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, in other words BRG, you're not interested in what makes a better game.  You're only interested in what makes a better game for you.





You're making this personal.  Are you sure that's the road you want to take?

Address the logic of the post, not the person of the poster.  Whether he has some specific motive doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 12, 2012)

wrightdjohn said:


> The problem with 4e martial healing is it can't explain the physical part.  It works 100% of the time and we know that some percentage of damage greater than 0% is physical.  That part cannot be explained by martial healing.




I have two questions (and I am sorry if these have been effectively answered):

1) In practice (not in theory, but in actual play) how often do you see martial healing powers healing someone up to full hit points?  I have to admit that I, personally, don't find some problems worth worrying about if they *might* happen, but in practice isn't too common.  I accept a design that has the occasional edge-case that I have to wave my hands over.  Others, I know, are really bothered by theoretical issues.

2) Are you not open to the effect seen in all the major action heroes - "Yes, I still have physical damage, but I *don't care*, I'm pushing through anyway!"  Martial healing may not fix the physical damage, but gives the character a boost in other areas that overrides those physical issues, especially given that the game doesn't have a "death spiral".


----------



## nightwalker450 (Apr 12, 2012)

I think the point is, classes will need to be defined how many healing surges they get.  It's better to make this core, since it needs to be defined on a per class basis.  For those that don't want it, it's simple to say all classes get 0 healing surges (or 1 if you feel generous).

For abilities, there's a strong line between surgeless healing and when a heal costs a surge.  So we'll need this defined for spells and abilities.  For you it's simple to say all healing is surgeless.

Little to say, there's grades of power in spells when surges are used.  Whereas going without surges, just simplifies everything down to "heal".  So with surges as optional, you'll need a rewrite of half the spells, abilities, and classes.... With surges as the standard, and having without being the option, you need a paragraph or two.


----------



## Libramarian (Apr 12, 2012)

Time-based healing works for all interpretations of HP, because of course: "time heals all wounds".

Whether you're thinking of hitpoint loss as damage to bodily tissue or fatigue, or loss of morale/will/focus, it makes sense that resting over time will heal that.

Now obviously serious physical wounds take much longer to heal in reality than the other interpretations of damage, but that doesn't seem to bother many people. You just kind of split the difference, and have the time spent resting be a few days up to a few weeks, adjust to taste. Not so long that you can't imagine benefiting from that rest even if your damage is mostly physical/mental fatigue. Not so short that you can't imagine benefiting if your damage is mostly physical harm.

It's pretty simple -- we need healing mechanics that work for all the interpretations of hitpoint loss.

Healing with a morale-boosting peptalk is inflexible. It's just too pushy and specific with its interpretation of HP. I don't think it should be in the game, but I also don't think healing with an antibacterial poultice should be in D&D either, for the same reason. It's too specific about what sort of hitpoint loss has occurred.

It seems quite clear to me that the warlord peptalk should give his allies temporary hitpoints, like the barbarian rage.


----------



## Derren (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> But, to answer your question




You have not answered the question.
Is it a serious physical wound? You do not know how the wound will be healed or if the PC even dies from it.

At that point, what is the wound? And before you come with "it doesn't matter, simply don't tell the player what happened to his character", this answer won't cut it. To claim that 4E is more consistent than previous edition the DM has to know at this point what is going on.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 12, 2012)

Hussar said:


> So, in other words BRG, you're not interested in what makes a better game.  You're only interested in what makes a better game for you.




I want a better game. Improving the system for a new edition is fine, but I want it to feel like D&D to me. This, like any other measure for the "quality" of the game is going to be subjective. What is D&D to you may not be the same to me. But they should strive to create something that both appeals to a large section of the gaming community and is still distinctly D&D. For me and many others, 4E feels like a different game. I is certainly bold and innovative, but it isn't what I think of when I say "that D&D feel".

I would just add there is no universal measure for what would make D&D better. For some people building on 4e and refining it would create a better game, for others trying to recapture some of the classic old school elements would be a better game. The only thing I can do is offer my opinions about what will make the game more enjoyable and hope wotc listens.



> Ahh, ok.  I have to wonder then, why bother discussing the game?  I mean, you're not interested in any sort of mechanics other than what came before.   I have to give you full credit for honesty though.  It's not like you're even trying to be conciliatory or even bothering sugar coating it.




These discussions are important because they give us a sense of where different segments of the community are and what they want. We aren't building the game. It isn't our job to create ghe great compromise between us. We are just talking about what our desires are for D&D Next. Hopefully wizards is listening to online chatter like this to help get a sense of where they should take the new edition. They may listen to you, they may listen to me, they may take parts of what we both say and apply those to the design....in the end i expect them to do what they believe will attract the biggest audience to the game. And that is what they should do. But if the end result of that is a game that doesn't interest me, I am not going to waste my free time or my money playing it. In the mean time I will continue to give my opinion on what I hope to see. 



> For you, it's "go back to older editions" full stop.




Well 4e is also soon to be an older edition. Older doesn't mean worse. However this is not what I am asking for. I understand things will be streamlined and changed (their ideas for baking skills into attributes interests me...but the execution is critical if they want consistent and believable results, so will wait and see what it looks like). What we are getting will not be AD&D or 3E. That isn't what I expect, but I do expect the core system to have a much more classic design than 4E. So in that sense I do want something older I suppose (and if my tastes are old school to others i don't think I need to appologize for that).

 I mean 4e never really appealed to me so naturally i am not going to be interested in 4e design components making it into core. There may be some things. While the way 4e did balance isn't my cup of tea, they are clearly taking a page from it with their three pillars approach (this still has a 4e underinnign to it but is a bit more flexible and broad from the sound of it). I expect we may see some 4e races and classes (though i do think the warlord will be a tough sell in core for pre 4e fans). 

But this edition is going to be something of a reaction to 4e. The danger of that is they will go to far. I do think 4e was a reaction to 3e and went too farl when fourth ediiton was planned, I was excited because some of the balance issues and the emphasis on system mastery/optimization was bothering mel so I was very open to a more contained system. But 4e was so different, so focused on parity, and had so many parts that messed with my style, tthat I couldn't get into it. So while they should take a lesson from the excesses of 4e, perhaps where I agree with you is that lesson shouldn't be used to excuse the excesses of prior editions (i.e. 4e is too focused on balance, so any balance is bad).


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 12, 2012)

wrightdjohn said:


> Hit points in prior editions have always been defined as a mixture of physical wounds, and other stuff (vitality, fatigue, morale, whatever). It was definitely a mixture though and not purely non-physical. The hero was assumed to be able to fight through his wounds because he was a hero. That was the 1e,2e,3e D&D definition. This definition precludes saying only the last hit point is physical too.
> 
> The problem with 4e martial healing is it can't explain the physical part. It works 100% of the time and we know that some percentage of damage greater than 0% is physical. That part cannot be explained by martial healing.




It can and has been explained by others, in that it doesn't _need_ to heal the physical part. Gritting your teeth and bearing the pain. Summoning the mental fortitude to outright ignore the physcial 'wound'. It's often the immediate pain and shock to the system from physical wounds that hit us, but our minds and bodies soon adapt to the pain. Think of hitting your thumb with a hammer, it hurts like hell. You're hopping around, possibly cursing up a storm, and certainly not up for more hammering. Then your SO comes over and gives you a comforting pat and some soothing words and it suddenly becomes more bearable. It's not like your bruised thumb is suddenly healed. But you can go right back to hammering.

It's fair if it breaks your believability scale, everyone has their own thoughts on how things work for them. Similarly, a vast pool of purely physical HPs that gets bigger and bigger as you level breaks things for me and others. Why should a sword that nearly gutted me at first level suddenly not do that as soon as I gain a few levels? If HP are all meat with no intangible qualities associated with it, then even mundane weapon damage should scale with character level.



wrightdjohn said:


> Second. I think morale is a crazy measure. So when the dragon hits you with a fear effect and you fail your save and are running for your life how many hit points of damage did you take. Unless the dragon breaths or attacks in some other way you took no damage. The game is rife with examples of physical attacks being the only way to reduce these supposedly morale based hit points. Also when you go down, you are unconscious. Not in shock, not dazed or stunned or anything else. You are out. A martial healer healing you from this state is completely unbelievable.




Except, at least in 4E, there are non-physical damage sources now. Heck, Bard's specifically attack by doing morale damage. Star pact warlocks attack sanity. Psionic classes attack emotions. It's not like a bandage can fix that. And it's not a dichotomy, physical and morale, but is also meant to encompass skill, luck, fate, endurance, and so on.

And countless heroes have been brought back from the brink of death by words and emotions and other non-magical means. Why is it suddenly impossible to believe in a game, and a fantasy game at that?



wrightdjohn said:


> The solution:
> We all want a game we can play. If I can't rid the game of healing surges and martial dailies with very minimal effort I won't bother. How that is accomplished can be debated. I believe though a lot more people want traditional hit points than 4e's version of them. I feel the 3e/Pathfinder group and the 1e/2e group in combination are bigger than the 4e group.
> 
> So let's just advocate for a system that can cleanly play both ways if surges/martial dailes really are necessary for the 4e crowd. (Personally I think even half those people would gladly toss them.)




Perhaps, but for me, I'm happy with surges and how they function. Recovery of surges, well, that's more an issue.

And it's a lot easier to take something out than to stick something in. But I can see surges being completely optional. Turn them off and bang, you have pre-4E HP. I don't see how it can get much easier than that. Can't abide martial healing, then don't use the Warlord. But why make it so that for those who like Warlords, can't play them because they're not part of the game any more?



Bedrockgames said:


> Hussar, i said already, the easiest way is to have surges as an optional ad on. It is like i said before, i am not interested in 4e elements like HS (i dont want mundane heals like that in my game and like i said before my big concern is believability but i also dislike the mechanic itself). My hope is for 5e to fee more like D&D again to me. Stuff like HS and 4e powers dont achieve that IMO. If they decide to cater more to 4e fans by packing the core system with those things, i am fine with that--i have others games i am playing---but i am not interested in paying D&D if they continue on the path of 4E style innovation. From the beginning i have said i dont think you can bring 4e players and pre 4e players to the same table. You can bring them to the same system, provided there are enough options for each side to create the experience it wants.




If the system is going to be modular as planned, I would think all of this could be achieved. Healing Surges could be entirely optional. Powers can also be an optional on or off module. The same for Feats and Skills and so on. In fact, they'd have to be if the design intent is to be able to emulate the various editions. 

But I believe it should be in the core, so that the players who do want to use whichever parts, can. And if it doesn't suit the playstyle for you and/or your group, turn off the stuff that doesn't work for you. Personally, having options and then limiting them is more preferrable than not having the option in the first place.



Umbran said:


> 1) In practice (not in theory, but in actual play) how often do you see martial healing powers healing someone up to full hit points? I have to admit that I, personally, don't find some problems worth worrying about if they *might* happen, but in practice isn't too common. I accept a design that has the occasional edge-case that I have to wave my hands over. Others, I know, are really bothered by theoretical issues.




All the time? My current playgroup has a Warlord for a leader and our only source of healing. So for prolonged short rests, we make multiple use of Inspiring Word.

Am I okay with that? Sure am. Especially as I'm playing a Swordmage who is a devoted soldier of Bahamut, trained in Endurance and is totally in tune with pushing herself beyond limits to get the job done.

Is martial healing in practice everywhere? No, given all the other leaders, the bulk of parties probably never even see a warlord, much less be healed by one.

But I agree with your thoughts on this. If a class doesn't work for a group, it's not going to be played, and so is really a moot point. 

I don't understand refusing a game outright based on one particular element of it, like a race or class. I can see how people could balk at more underlying structural component, like HP being more explicitly a combination of physical and non-physical elements, especially combined with the rapid return of healing surges. It can give the game a different feel.

Hopefully with the modularity of 5E, it will end up being possible to dial in the type of gamestyle you want to play.


----------



## Tallifer (Apr 13, 2012)

Definitive proof of healing surges at work.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adVOWBDM-_8]Inigo Montoya find the six fingered man - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 13, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Definitive proof of healing surges at work.



Awesome scene. Healing surges do model this. So does a "second wind" mechanic. So does a stunned condition that lasts a few rounds. However we go mechanically, I do want the possibility of this scene to unfold naturally in the game. As always, play what you like


----------



## BryonD (Apr 13, 2012)

Tallifer said:


> Definitive proof of healing surges at work.



IMO surges take that scene and mug it in a back alley for spare change.

That scene is an awesome climactic event.  It is literally the culmination this character's life quest.

A precious and highly limited resource, such as Action Points, works perfectly for this.

If he had surged and jumped back up four other times so far today (and 3 yesterday, just once the day before, and five the day before that) then the entire drama of it happening then would be gone.


----------



## Izumi (Apr 13, 2012)

BryonD said:


> IMO surges take that scene and mug it in a back alley for spare change.
> 
> That scene is an awesome climactic event.  It is literally the culmination this character's life quest.
> 
> ...




Hey Bry! That's just a normal hp loss with a good player. You don't need unnecessary mechanics for that scene.


----------



## Umbran (Apr 13, 2012)

BryonD said:


> If he had surged and jumped back up four other times so far today (and 3 yesterday, just once the day before, and five the day before that) then the entire drama of it happening then would be gone.




Once just the day before - the Man in Black KOed him, and he got up and walked away.  And said Man In Black did spend the day mostly dead...

More seriously, though, how much of this is the mechanic, and how much the adventure design?  If you only have a few, big, difficult, climatic fights, then you'll only see this happen in those few climatic fights.  If you have the PCs duking it out every third room, risking their life and limb four times a day, you will see them bounce back three of those times.  Or, you know, they just die....


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 13, 2012)

BryonD said:


> If he had surged and jumped back up four other times so far today (and 3 yesterday, just once the day before, and five the day before that) then the entire drama of it happening then would be gone.



You just explained why D&D sucks.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 13, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Once just the day before - the Man in Black KOed him, and he got up and walked away.



Not quite the same as being virtually dead (or mostly dead).  



> And said Man In Black did spend the day mostly dead...



Again, that would CLEARLY be an action point moment in a game as I run them.  If surges cover this then it could happen over and over over DAILY.



> More seriously, though, how much of this is the mechanic, and how much the adventure design?  If you only have a few, big, difficult, climatic fights, then you'll only see this happen in those few climatic fights.  If you have the PCs duking it out every third room, risking their life and limb four times a day, you will see them bounce back three of those times.  Or, you know, they just die....



There are a lot of fights in that movie.  He didn't link the movie.  He linked that one climatic moment.

In that scene a virtually killed "fighter" sprung back under his own power and through sheer mojo.  I completely accept that in a vacuum this scene fits the surge model.  

But in RPGs with fights in every third room the PCs can be expected to not be "virtually dead" over and over.  Plus there are plenty of "bounce back" options that don't require a total lack of cause for the recovery.  

I LOVE those moments when the character just springs back.  (Trinity talking Neo back in The Matrix [good movie, wonder why they never did a sequel] occurs to me off the cuff).  But those are once in a plot arc events, not 5 times a day events.

That is the difference to me.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 14, 2012)

D&D characters have always done things 5 times a day (if not 5 times a combat) that actual genre characters might do only a couple of times in an entire story arc.  Like cast spells, for instance.

All 4e did was get serious about class balance.  If casters' only use of magic was at a dramatic, climatic moment once in a while, then non-casters could get by rallying from near death only once in a while, too.  

But D&D is turned up to '11.'  D&D doesn't emulate a fantasy setting, it pulls the craziest bits from every fantasy genre anyone working on it has ever heard of, and no small amount of superheroes and science fiction to go with it.  At first, it pulled all that stuff and gave it to casters.  4e finally spread the fun around.  

Aside from that, it's what D&D has always been - and probably should remain.  Just with the martial types getting to have their fun, too.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 14, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> D&D characters have always done things 5 times a day (if not 5 times a combat) that actual genre characters might do only a couple of times in an entire story arc.  Like cast spells, for instance.
> 
> All 4e did was get serious about class balance.  If casters' only use of magic was at a dramatic, climatic moment once in a while, then non-casters could get by rallying from near death only once in a while, too.
> 
> ...




I am sure some people found it more fun. But as someone who likes fighters and other non-caster classes, that was my big dissapointment with 4E. I just didn't find the fighters fun or believable in 4E (mundane encounter and dailies particularly bothered me on the realism front). But the feel of the new mechanics in general just didn't appeal to me. It didn't play or feel like previous editions (and i dont think that was its intent anyways). At least, to me. It definitely wasn't D&D as I had played it over the years.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 14, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I am sure some people found it more fun. But as someone who likes fighters and other non-caster classes, that was my big dissapointment with 4E. I just didn't find the fighters fun or believable in 4E (mundane encounter and dailies particularly bothered me on the realism front). But the feel of the new mechanics in general just didn't appeal to me. It didn't play or feel like previous editions (and i dont think that was its intent anyways). At least, to me. It definitely wasn't D&D as I had played it over the years.




As someone who loves martial classes, I loved what 4e did with them.  Perhaps not the best solution, but the whole extra attacks thing in 3e was a joke.  It was generally impossible to hit with your 3rd and beyond attacks unless you specifically went the CharOp route to break your character.  With 3.x, I could not reliably bring a martial class to the table and do enough damage to keep up with the casters.  In 4e, I could.

I don't think 4e intnded to be anything like previous editions, because in previous editions after about level 8-10, martial classes were largely worthless save for the rogue's non-combat skill-monkey-ness.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 14, 2012)

shidaku said:


> As someone who loves martial classes, I loved what 4e did with them.  Perhaps not the best solution, but the whole extra attacks thing in 3e was a joke.  It was generally impossible to hit with your 3rd and beyond attacks unless you specifically went the CharOp route to break your character.  With 3.x, I could not reliably bring a martial class to the table and do enough damage to keep up with the casters.  In 4e, I could.
> ss.




Yeah, lots of people enjoyed the 4E approach. But it wasn't my cup of tea. I did dislike some of the balance issues, but would have prefered a return to 1E and 2E balancing techniques (in 2E i never really encountered that many issues).


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 14, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Yeah, lots of people enjoyed the 4E approach. But it wasn't my cup of tea. I did dislike some of the balance issues, but would have prefered a return to 1E and 2E balancing techniques (in 2E i never really encountered that many issues).




The same problems exist in early editions, not to mention effectively making whole classes useless outside of their specific "niche".  I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to _not_ be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 14, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> D&D characters have always done things 5 times a day (if not 5 times a combat) that actual genre characters might do only a couple of times in an entire story arc.  Like cast spells, for instance.



I'm certain you can cherry pick examples.  But I disagree that this is a universal truth.


But for sake of argument, presume you are absolutely correct.  There are still dramatic moments that get their energy from being "climactic".  In that scene he had finally tracked down the guy who had killed his father and then he lost the fight.  But then he did something that the audience understands he could not have done in any other situation.  A fight that morning against a random brigand would not have remotely the same narrative weight.  And if he had sprung back from death in a fight with a nameless brigand that morning, it would have completely destroyed the amazing value of that scene with the fight against the guy who killed his father.  That is a once in a lifetime peak moment.  And it has nothing to do with RPGs to observe that tying unique heroism to that unique moment has great value.  That is just good storytelling.

If I fireball some goblins in the morning, it doesn't take anything away from fireballing some orcs in the evening.  If I do the thing I can only do against the guy who killed my father when I fighting a nobody, then it has no dramatic value when I do it against the guy who really did kill my father.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 14, 2012)

shidaku said:


> The same problems exist in early editions, not to mention effectively making whole classes useless outside of their specific "niche".  I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to _not_ be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.



I strongly disagree with this statement.
And I think it comes down to what are you trying to design for.

If you are trying to design a story telling experience in which the rogue is the rogue, the fighter is the fighter, and the mage is the mage, then getting those things right is critical and putting persistent involvement of all characters regardless of their niche ahead of them being who they should be is defacto "bad design".  For the kind of experience I want, 4E is pretty solidly in the "bad design" area.

If you want continuous involvement from all parties, then prioritizing character roles and niches for the sake of storytelling would be bad design.

But these are distinct goals.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 14, 2012)

shidaku said:


> The same problems exist in early editions, not to mention effectively making whole classes useless outside of their specific "niche".  I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to _not_ be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.



So every character should be able to do some magic, some melee, some healing, and some stealing?

I disagree completely. As in 100%. I think if we were standing on a globe, we'd be standing on opposite poles.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 14, 2012)

shidaku said:


> The same problems exist in early editions, not to mention effectively making whole classes useless outside of their specific "niche".  I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to _not_ be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.




No it isn't bad design it is just one design philosophy amng many. In the same way that 4E design isn't bad (even though I findit very unfun), games designed to make characters good at some things and bad at others are simply done with certain preferences in mind. For alot of us games that give player characters abillities to match any part of the game are not enjoyable. I enjoy the thief as a weak combatant for example. 

As for the problem existing in previos editions. I think that is matter of perspective. Clearly 4E works for you, and that is great. But believe me when I say 1E, 2E or 3E worked just as well for some of us.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 14, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> So every character should be able to do some magic, some melee, some healing, and some stealing?
> 
> I disagree completely. As in 100%. I think if we were standing on a globe, we'd be standing on opposite poles.




I have to wonder if the problem is when i suggest classes should be well rounded is that I am speaking a foreign language or the idea is really that far fetched.  Since I have to assume the latter must not be true, I will strive to enunciate more clearly.

There are three primary segments to the game.  Combat.  Exploration.  Social.

This is represented through two aspects of the character; combat abilities(sword, magic, etc...). And through skills, which are roughly divided between exploration and social skills.  What I continue to suggest is that characters maintain some functionality in all of these areas.  For example fighters have high combat ability, moderate exploration ability, and light social ability.  Rogues have moderate combat ability, high exploration ability, and moderate social ability.  Bards have low combat ability, moderate exploration ability and high social ability.  Through this system, at least as a start @ lvl1 players can participate in the three primary aspects of the game.  Noone is expressly left out by lacking the skills to partake.  Through choices later, players may choose to become more or less capable in these three areas, usually by sacrificing some aspect of another area.  

I beloved this is a highly functional system for maintaining player engagement and preventing class bloated through delegating every permutation to its own new "slightly good at talking but really good at exploring and kinda good at fighting" fighter.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 14, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I have to wonder if the problem is when i suggest classes should be well rounded is that I am speaking a foreign language or the idea is really that far fetched.  Since I have to assume the latter must not be true, I will strive to enunciate more clearly.
> 
> There are three primary segments to the game.  Combat.  Exploration.  Social.
> 
> ...




Two things. 1) what constitutes "some functionality" is going to vary from person to person----for instance i think 2e allows for some functionali across the pillars to suit my taste (but i imagine you would disagree). 2) your argument doesn't account for different preferences. Yes many people may agree with you that giving characters stuff to do in all three areas is fun, but others won't. Some want their characters (and other peoples' characters) to be bad at one and good at another. My point is you are perfectly right to voice your preference on this issue, but then to take your preference and say games that don't follow it are products of bad design is where I take issue.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 14, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I will strive to enunciate more clearly.
> 
> There are three primary segments to the game.  Combat.  Exploration.  Social.



I'd counter that there is one over-riding focus of the game: 
Playing the role of a particular individual.

The three segments you offer are quite real and all fit within that focus.  But if a fixation on balancing those three segments overrides the original purpose then you start getting into the territory where people are unsatisfied because the experience becomes to close to be a board game with carefully balanced functional tokens.  You can still talk in funny voices as you move the tokens around, but if the tokens put functional balance over being the person it doesn't really matter.  

In the end, both in fiction and in the real world, not every character is going to contribute equally in every scenario.  If you want everyone to always contribute then you are proactively undermining the effort to create a great experience of feeling like you are inside the scenario.  It is perfectly understandable how equity of contribution (no call for perfect equity, I understand) would be appealing in its own right.  But don't tell us we should give up something much more important just to gain that and we should call it a good thing.

To much equity is expressly wrong for role playing as I see it.

You are welcome to completely reject my goals.  And for all I know you are having 100 times the fun I am.  But don't tell me you are doing the same thing as me and at the same time advocate undermining the core principles of what I'm doing.


----------



## JamesonCourage (Apr 14, 2012)

shidaku said:


> I'm not asking for every class to be good at everything, but a system that encourages players to _not_ be involved in parts of the game because their class has no features for it is just bad design.



It's bad design _when you're attempting to design a game that lets everyone meaningfully contribute mechanically in every scene or encounter_. That's not a goal I want forced on me, though. I'm do want it to be an option, however. Probably even the assumption.



shidaku said:


> There are three primary segments to the game.  Combat.  Exploration.  Social.
> 
> Through choices later, players may choose to become more or less capable in these three areas, usually by sacrificing some aspect of another area.



I agree, I think. This is essentially what I mean: that I want the choice, as a player making my character, to hyper-specialize, but at the cost of breadth. Maybe I want to be amazingly social, but lose a lot on the combat and exploration front. I want the system to end up supporting me in that goal. Playing a "face" character with little combat ability can be a lot of fun, even if it means you're more likely to get killed. I've seen it, and I've done it.

But, that doesn't mean I want that as the base assumption in 5e. Make each class just about balanced in their breadth, sure. Then, give options for hyper-specialization, increasing depth at the cost of breadth. Make sure its clear that this is exactly what's happening, too, and how that'll shift the party dynamic. Someone who loses out on the social and exploration front to be better at combat might somewhat outshine other PCs in combat (in his area), for example. Give the option for it to happen in the game, but be very clear what you're doing, and how it will affect things. As always, play what you like


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 14, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I'd counter that there is one over-riding focus of the game:
> Playing the role of a particular individual.



As I said, the base elements of race, class, themes, backgrounds would provide you with the ability to participate in all aspects of the game *to some degree*.  However, beyond that point or if you went really in-depth in your character creation, you could focus yourself on one aspect.

A _realistic_ humanoid character is going to have more skills than simply "swinging a sword" and even that ability will translate into some other skills that are useful outside of combat.  Playing a guy who can only swing a sword, which obviously should be an _option_, does not really do well for generating a believable character.  



> The three segments you offer are quite real and all fit within that focus.  But if a fixation on balancing those three segments overrides the original purpose then you start getting into the territory where people are unsatisfied because the experience becomes to close to be a board game with carefully balanced functional tokens.  You can still talk in funny voices as you move the tokens around, but if the tokens put functional balance over being the person it doesn't really matter.



I'm not interested in balance in these areas.  I'm fine with X class having more combat ability and Y class having more social ability.  Of course NO class should have 100% in all three areas, but at the end of the day if the group builds a diverse party, they should roughly be able to cover all the bases.  That _could_ come in the form of a party that is 100/0/0, 0/100/0, 0/0/100, or it could come in a form of 50/20/30, 20/35/45, 10/10/80.

IMO, as a default, no class should be 100/0/0 or 0/100/0 or 0/0/100.  There should be some base spread to give players some ability to partake of all parts of the game, and allow levels of customization to adjust those numbers.



> In the end, both in fiction and in the real world, not every character is going to contribute equally in every scenario.  If you want everyone to always contribute then you are proactively undermining the effort to create a great experience of feeling like you are inside the scenario.  It is perfectly understandable how equity of contribution (no call for perfect equity, I understand) would be appealing in its own right.  But don't tell us we should give up something much more important just to gain that and we should call it a good thing.
> 
> To much equity is expressly wrong for role playing as I see it.
> 
> You are welcome to completely reject my goals.  And for all I know you are having 100 times the fun I am.  But don't tell me you are doing the same thing as me and at the same time advocate undermining the core principles of what I'm doing.



As I said, I'm NOT suggesting every character gets to participate equally in all aspects, that's unrealistic.  I'm just saying that every character should have some default ability to participate.  No class should say to players "If you play this class, you can't play 1/3rd of the game."  In a typical dungeon for example, the mage is the go-to guy for dealing with magical impediments(knowledge: arcana/use magic device), the fighter is the guy who'll keep you from getting lost or tell you what stone to hit to bring the place down(dungeoneering), the rogue will help you avoid dying to hidden stuff(find/disable traps) and the cleric will help you know if the glowing gem you just found is actually a portal to hell or just a glowing rock(knowledge: religion).  Each character is skilled in a different area, but over the course of the dungeon, all of them were able to bring something useful to the table _besides_ combat ability.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 15, 2012)

shidaku said:


> As I said, I'm NOT suggesting every character gets to participate equally in all aspects, that's unrealistic.  I'm just saying that every character should have some default ability to participate.



If this goal undermines the character archetypes in any way, then I am against it.

I'm ok with the rogue having ALL of the spotlight some of the time.

I'm ok with the wizard having ALL of the spotlight some of the time.

If the game starts being built around the idea of "we need to change this so the rogue player doesn't get bored" then, IMO, the game is likely to fail.

Engagement in play is not driven by personal moment to moment active participation.  Engagement in play is driven by great stories and really caring about what is happening.  

If what you are asking for works out on its own (and I agree that quite frequently it does) then awesome.  But what I'm reading in your posts is an advocacy for using that as an important design consideration. 

I'm opposed to that.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 15, 2012)

BryonD said:


> If this goal undermines the character archetypes in any way, then I am against it.
> 
> I'm ok with the rogue having ALL of the spotlight some of the time.
> 
> I'm ok with the wizard having ALL of the spotlight some of the time.



I'm fine with that as long as they're getting the spotlight because of their actions in the campaign.  I don't feel the game should force a class into the spotlight at certain times.  It should be player skill and initiative that gets them in the spotlight.  Sure, there will be times when _only_ the rogue can unlock a door, _only_ the wizard can use a magical portal to save the party, that's totally understandable.  But in the bigger picture, the fighter had to use his dungeonering to guide the party, the cleric had to ward off the evil spirits, the rogue had to unlock the door and the wizard had to use the magical device.  Each one got their moment in the sun.  I think a design that would set up say, an entire dungeon crawl where _only_ the wizard is useful is just as bad as making something so generic anyone can do it.



> If the game starts being built around the idea of "we need to change this so the rogue player doesn't get bored" then, IMO, the game is likely to fail.
> 
> Engagement in play is not driven by personal moment to moment active participation.  Engagement in play is driven by great stories and really caring about what is happening.



Yes, but what drives people to "care"?  If you run all over the world seeking adventure and treasure, but the world is designed in such a way so that your class does little to nothing, why should you care?  Great stories are filled with each member getting their own moment.  Gimli may not have been the best at running across the plains, but he did keep the party from getting lost in Moria(to an extent).  Gimli cares because he feels involved and gets to take part in things.  Sam however, often feels like he's just tagging along, and expresses it, because his moments of participation are few.

Players who don't get to play, don't care.



> If what you are asking for works out on its own (and I agree that quite frequently it does) then awesome.  But what I'm reading in your posts is an advocacy for using that as an important design consideration.
> 
> I'm opposed to that.



I'm pretty sure that ensuring player participation at _most_ times is an important design consideration for every game.


----------



## Obryn (Apr 15, 2012)

Returning to hit points...

I'd much rather focus on, "Does modeling HPs this way create a fun game experience I'd like to play or run" than "Does modeling HPs this way break a sense of realism"...

Call it a functional view of HPs.

I like 1e's long-term recovery - it's a central characteristic of 1e games and drives the sorts of adventures you have in that system.  I also like 4e's much faster recovery - again, because of the game experience it provides.

To me, that's a lot more important than how many sword-swings a pixie can take before getting killed.

-O


----------



## BryonD (Apr 16, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Yes, but what drives people to "care"?  If you run all over the world seeking adventure and treasure, but the world is designed in such a way so that your class does little to nothing, why should you care?  Great stories are filled with each member getting their own moment.  Gimli may not have been the best at running across the plains, but he did keep the party from getting lost in Moria(to an extent).  Gimli cares because he feels involved and gets to take part in things.  Sam however, often feels like he's just tagging along, and expresses it, because his moments of participation are few.



Now you are turning to straw man arguments.
"Little to nothing" isn't even a meaningful effort of addressing the point.



> Players who don't get to play, don't care.



You just quoted elements of LotRs.  Did you enjoy it?  Did you care?
How much did *YOU* play.  I'm betting you didn't get to.

As I said before, the reality (without rigging the system) is that there *IS* a routine level of involvement from everyone.  But there are also down times.  But if the story and game are quality then the players, even those who are off screen, remain highly engaged because they have all the perks of a great movie PLUS their alter egos are directly invested.

I'd consider losing interest in an RPG a worse indictment of the session in question than I would call opening a laptop in a theater an indictment of the movie.



> I'm pretty sure that ensuring player participation at _most_ times is an important design consideration for every game.



If this goal undermines the character archetypes in any way, then I am against it.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2012)

shidaku said:


> Sam however, often feels like he's just tagging along, and expresses it, because his moments of participation are few.
> 
> Players who don't get to play, don't care.




Yeah, I don't think I'd agree with Sam feeling that way. Pippin and Merry, yes. They both express those feelings, yet both are eventually crucial at their points in the story. Any time Sam feels that way, it's because he lacks confidence and is modest. Anyone reading the story can see that he's a lot more significant than his own self-image tells him.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2012)

The question, for me, is, should the rules tell a player that his character WILL be Pippin or Merry, not because you want to be that character, but, because the choices you made at character generation means that anyone who chooses this particular class will always be Pippin or Merry?

Because that's what role specialization means.  If you specialize what a given class can do, then that class will always do that thing and nothing else.  So, anyone who chooses that class is forced by the mechanics to follow one specific, pre-defined path.

Or, do you go with what JamesonCourage brings up and have classes with broad bases and the option to specialize?  Me, I see this as a much better option.  You can play whatever you want to play and the mechanics are not telling you to ride the pines because you're just not tall enough for this ride.


----------



## Sunseeker (Apr 16, 2012)

BryonD said:


> If this goal undermines the character archetypes in any way, then I am against it.




You keep repeating this mantra, but no matter how you look at it, there's no universal agreement on what defines a character archetype.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Or, do you go with what JamesonCourage brings up and have classes with broad bases and the option to specialize?  Me, I see this as a much better option.  You can play whatever you want to play and the mechanics are not telling you to ride the pines because you're just not tall enough for this ride.




Is there any edition of D&D that hasn't been like this? I can't think of one.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 16, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Is there any edition of D&D that hasn't been like this? I can't think of one.




AD&D is largely like this.  After all, since your class is pretty much fixed from character generation, specialization is virtually absent.  Additionally, the classes are very much fixed in specific niches.  No one but the cleric (and to some extent the druid or paladin) can heal.  No one can remove traps or hide in shadows except for the thief.  No one can specialize in a weapon other than fighters.  

Heck, going to Basic/Expert D&D, what mechanical differences are there between two characters of the same class?

I'd say that it took 3e to break this mold where you have very specific characters with strongly fixed roles with very little variation.  3e broke this with multiclassing rules and feats that allow you to borrow from other classes.  4e took things a step further by relaxing still further the walls built around classes.  

4e classes are not really defined by what they can do that no one else can do.  My 1e thief is defined in a large way be the fact that I have thief abilities that no one else gets.  My 4e fighter is defined by the choices I make at every level which allow me to create two fighters of the same level, with the same stats that share virtually nothing else - one might be focused on heavy damage dealing while the other might be about battlefield control.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 16, 2012)

Hussar said:


> AD&D is largely like this.  After all, since your class is pretty much fixed from character generation, specialization is virtually absent.  Additionally, the classes are very much fixed in specific niches.  No one but the cleric (and to some extent the druid or paladin) can heal.  No one can remove traps or hide in shadows except for the thief.  No one can specialize in a weapon other than fighters.




And *none* of that says anything remotely like "You're not tall enough for this ride." There's never been an edition of D&D outside of hyperbolic arguments on the internet that have shown a class is not good enough to adventure with any other.

I don't object to there being tasks in typical adventures that require a specialist. What I object to is your characterization at the end of the passage I quoted.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 16, 2012)

Hussar said:


> AD&D is largely like this.  After all, since your class is pretty much fixed from character generation, specialization is virtually absent.  Additionally, the classes are very much fixed in specific niches.  No one but the cleric (and to some extent the druid or paladin) can heal.  No one can remove traps or hide in shadows except for the thief.  No one can specialize in a weapon other than fighters.
> 
> Heck, going to Basic/Expert D&D, what mechanical differences are there between two characters of the same class?
> 
> ...




I do think you are right thay there was less concern for having actual mechanics to support distinction between characters prior to 3E. But there were ways, especially with spellcasters whpse spell lists played a big role in the kind pf caster they were. By 2E you already had a lot of new ways to do this as well. The priests had greater specialization, non weapon proficiencies added a layer of customization and kits gave even more.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 17, 2012)

billd91 said:


> And *none* of that says anything remotely like "You're not tall enough for this ride." There's never been an edition of D&D outside of hyperbolic arguments on the internet that have shown a class is not good enough to adventure with any other.
> 
> I don't object to there being tasks in typical adventures that require a specialist. What I object to is your characterization at the end of the passage I quoted.




In AD&D, it was binary though.  Either you had the ability or you could not do it at all.  Only a thief could safely remove a trap.  Everyone else got to ride the pines.  Only a cleric could heal damage.  Everyone else gets to ride the pines.  Which meant that you pretty much had to fall on the cleric grenade to get a group that could complete typical adventures.  

Outside of whatever specialization you got at 1st level though, you were pretty much boned.  You got your one or two things that you could do and that was it.  

Unless you were a caster of course.  Which meant that you could do your job and everyone else's at the same time.  After all, that's what phenomenal cosmic power means doesn't it?



Bedrockgames said:


> I do think you are right thay there was less concern for having actual mechanics to support distinction between characters prior to 3E. But there were ways, especially with spellcasters whpse spell lists played a big role in the kind pf caster they were. By 2E you already had a lot of new ways to do this as well. The priests had greater specialization, non weapon proficiencies added a layer of customization and kits gave even more.




Yeah, spellcasters got some choices.  But, even then, everyone else got to do one thing.  NWP were also binary and, once you got them, you couldn't feasibly improve them.  Virtually all specialization is done at character generation.

I was talking about being able to specialize your character after 1st level.

--------

Look, here's an example.  I'm going to roll a random die - 1d10+1 using the En World die roller.  That's the level.  Go through each edition and, we'll use fighter, tell me what choices I can make to make my character more specialized at that level.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 17, 2012)

NWPs improved over time, as did weapon proficiencies.

Just a point about AD&D 2E. It is difficult to find, but the phb says non thieves do have scores for many thief abilities (such as climb). However their % scores are much lower and i dont think they improve (except through modifiers).


----------



## Mattachine (Apr 17, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> NWPs improved over time, as did weapon proficiencies.




In that system, characters get more proficiencies at a rate based on class. They didn't automatically get better.

It was possible, though, to raise a NWP by one point instead of gaining a new proficiency. Weapon proficiencies only improved if you had Weapon Specialization has an option, and spent a proficiency on it.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 17, 2012)

Mattachine said:


> In that system, characters get more proficiencies at a rate based on class. They didn't automatically get better.
> 
> It was possible, though, to raise a NWP by one point instead of gaining a new proficiency. Weapon proficiencies only improved if you had Weapon Specialization has an option, and spent a proficiency on it.




The rates were class based yes. But they still got more as time went on. And as you point out you could in fact raise up your NWP ranks. i actually kind of prefered the weapon proficiency and NWP system to the 3E skills and feats. 

Something else to consider about NWPs, your chances of success were not all that bad even if you didn't raise the rank, because you rolled under your relevant ability score to succeed. So it is a different overal experience than the 3e DC based skill system.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> The rates were class based yes. But they still got more as time went on. And as you point out you could in fact raise up your NWP ranks. i actually kind of prefered the weapon proficiency and NWP system to the 3E skills and feats.
> 
> Something else to consider about NWPs, your chances of success were not all that bad even if you didn't raise the rank, because you rolled under your relevant ability score to succeed. So it is a different overal experience than the 3e DC based skill system.




Oh, very much.  Problem was, it meant that as soon as you picked up a skill, you were automatically good at it.  Yes, you could improve it 5% every 3 or 4 levels, but, realistically, whatever you had was what you had.

So, my 1st level human cleric takes blacksmithing and because it's wisdom based, I'm a better blacksmith than the dwarven blacksmith standing beside me who's been smithing for a hundred years.  It never rubbed me the right way.


----------



## Dour-n-Taciturn (Apr 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Oh, very much.  Problem was, it meant that as soon as you picked up a skill, you were automatically good at it.  Yes, you could improve it 5% every 3 or 4 levels, but, realistically, whatever you had was what you had.
> 
> So, my 1st level human cleric takes blacksmithing and because it's wisdom based, I'm a better blacksmith than the dwarven blacksmith standing beside me who's been smithing for a hundred years.  It never rubbed me the right way.




Agreed.  You would have to incorporate a module or alternate rule set to address the equivalent of "non-weapon proficiencies" or "out-of-combat skills" in which case ability scores are either negated, if counted as difficult, or at least very limited.  These skills may count for background traits and may only be picked up by a sufficiently long apprenticeship; of course, there has to be an in-game reward, such as reducing magic item cost or improving items, as per 3rd ED.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Oh, very much.  Problem was, it meant that as soon as you picked up a skill, you were automatically good at it.  Yes, you could improve it 5% every 3 or 4 levels, but, realistically, whatever you had was what you had.
> 
> So, my 1st level human cleric takes blacksmithing and because it's wisdom based, I'm a better blacksmith than the dwarven blacksmith standing beside me who's been smithing for a hundred years.  It never rubbed me the right way.




I found it worked just fine. You could take more ranks in the NWP if you wanted your dwarf to improve. Yes your ability score mattered, but then shouldn't your raw talent matter?. Keep in mind this is all rolling a d20 under your final score so just a couple of points is pretty big (you aren't rolling d20s + 15 versus a DC 30). i encountered way more issues with the 3e skill system than the 2E NWPs.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> I found it worked just fine. You could take more ranks in the NWP if you wanted your dwarf to improve. Yes your ability score mattered, but then shouldn't your raw talent matter?. Keep in mind this is all rolling a d20 under your final score so just a couple of points is pretty big (you aren't rolling d20s + 15 versus a DC 30). i encountered way more issues with the 3e skill system than the 2E NWPs.




But, the only way for the dwarf to improve would be to whack one eight or ten character levels on him.  That's a bit much.

Sure, raw talent should matter.  But, should raw talent be the be all and end all of your skill?  Which, again realistically, is what the 2e NWP system said.  Yes, you could add a point on every three or four levels to a single NWP, but, it was far, far more likely that you were going to take another NWP.

Not that it was a terrible system mind you.  Far from it and vastly superior to what had come before (which was pretty much nothing) in D&D.  Just that it was a very limited system.  You got so few NWP - 3 or 4 depending on class - at 1st level that it meant that you could do a couple of things, and then pretty much everything else was beyond you.

Never mind that the list was just wonky as well.  Far too specific.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I'm certain you can cherry pick examples.  But I disagree that this is a universal truth.



You're the one cherry picking.  The scene above is a cool one, but it's one of many.  Cinematic heroes pick themselves up and get back into fights they look like they've all but lost constantly.  It's almost a cliche.  And D&D's hp-and-healing system has always required characters get beat down and healed up to 'feel like they've been in a fight.'  All 4e did was remove the need for the Cleric to be the cut-man in the corner, every, single, time.  It let individual heroes take care of themselves, to a small extent.  It's much truer to genre than the Cleric standing behind you, touching you periodically to close your wounds in every single little fight.  Which, really, is a little weird and un-heroic.



> If I fireball some goblins in the morning, it doesn't take anything away from fireballing some orcs in the evening.  If I do the thing I can only do against the guy who killed my father when I fighting a nobody, then it has no dramatic value when I do it against the guy who really did kill my father.



Then obviously healing surges aren't one of those once-in-a-story-arc things.  OTOH, a magical spell that blows up a 40' sphere and leaves a room if not a building a burned-out husk, just might be a rarely-used thing, not a goblin-sweeper.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2012)

billd91 said:


> And *none* of that says anything remotely like "You're not tall enough for this ride." There's never been an edition of D&D outside of hyperbolic arguments on the internet that have shown a class is not good enough to adventure with any other.



There have certainly been some vast gulfs between classes in various editions and at certain level ranges.  A 1st level magic-user, unless he happened to start with a strong-at-1st-level spell, like Sleep, was not pulling his own weight.  By 3rd he was already potentially obviating some contributions of the poor Thief via the occasional Knock or Invisibility.  At high level, he was out of control.  Not as far out of control as the 'tier 1' classes of 3.x, though.  The Cleric, Druid and Wizard could quite easily obviate other classes using spells, class abilities, class-specific feats, and/or magic items they made.  A talented powergamer could come up with one or two fairly specific builds that would let another class be viable in some area - a charge build or broken multiclassing combo or the like - but that was really just part of the same problem:  fragile game balance.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> shouldn't your raw talent matter?



I guess so, although the notion of "raw talent" in relation to (say) sprinting, blacksmithing, crocheting, or arguing a legal case in front of the Supreme Court, is probably pretty different in each case.

But even if we go with a standard, ability-score approach to "raw talent", there are lots of different options.

One is straight-down-the-line NWP: raw talent is the overwhelmingly dominant consideration. A variation on this is the Skills & Powers approach, which uses stat bonuses rather than stat scores, and so flattens the difference between ability scores in the 8 to 13 range.

Another is the Rolemaster or 3E approach - stat bonuses are added to a rank bonus, and the character development mechanic means that the rank bonus quickly outstrips the stat bonus. Stat is still very important in both systems, though, because in RM ranks give diminishing returns (+5/+2/+1/+0.5 per rank for ranks 1-10/11-20/21-30/31+), and in 3E DCS tend to scale in such a way that the extra edge provided by a stat is always a strong benefit. (4e resembles 3E in this respect.)

Another is the Burning Wheel approach - stat determines starting ranks when a skill is opened, but otherwise has no effect. In combination with a diminishing returns approach to skill rank increase - increases are based on use, and require more (and more dangerous) use the higher your existing rank - this means that a high stat is a benefit when opening new skills, but becomes less significant as a skill increases.

Runequest combines aspects of the RM/3E approach and the BW approach - stats provide a (modest) bonus to the starting score of a skill, but increase is then based on the famous "roll over on % dice after using a skill" method. So like BW "raw talent" (good stats) boosts starting scores, but the gap is going to close over the course of play, as those who start with lower bonuses get more skill increases (due to it being easier to roll over a low skill) until they start to catch up.

I think I'm becoming a bigger fan of stats mattering less, and so think I prefer the RQ or BW approaches to the RM, 3E or NWP approaches. I imagine that D&Dnext will not use the RQ or BW approach to skill increase (very hard to port into a non-level-less game, apart from anything else). But there must be other ways of making raw talent (ie stat) give a hand up early on, but reduce in importance as the game progresses, and ranks earned in play come to dominate.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Then obviously healing surges aren't one of those once-in-a-story-arc things.  OTOH, a magical spell that blows up a 40' sphere and leaves a room if not a building a burned-out husk, just might be a rarely-used thing, not a goblin-sweeper.



As well as this way of looking at it, there is the flipside also: why not try and make every combat as dramatic as the one in which you fight the man who killed your father?

D&D is never going to get as close to this way of doing things as Burning Wheel or The Riddle of Steel, but on ther other hand there is no reason why "filler combats" have to be part of everyone's D&D game.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I'm going to roll a random die - 1d10+1 using the En World die roller.  That's the level.  Go through each edition and, we'll use fighter, tell me what choices I can make to make my character more specialized at that level.



7, huh?  Not a bad level in any ed.

AD&D 1e, pre-UA:  You can choose to be of just about any race, but if you choose halfling, for instance, you never made it to 7th level.  So the mere fact of being a 7th level fighter means you're probably human.  Weapon and armor 'choice' (though really, if you go for anything other than Platemail & Sheild and Longsword, you're a chump, because most magic weapons are swords, and most magic swords are longswords, and Plate & shield gives you the best AC).  

AD&D 1e, post-UA:  Add Weapon Specialization.  Now your weapon choice matters, because it's magic longswords, or quizinart of doom dual-wielding double-specialized hand axes or double-bow-specialization.

AD&D 1e, 'survival guides':  Add non-weapon proficiencies to your list of trivial customization choices.

AD&D 2e:  Add choice of kits.  Level limits have been raised, so more races are possible for a 7th level fighter - maybe even all of them, I don't recall the whole chart.

3e:  You can now be of any race, though human and half-orc are particularly good, and gnome and halfling rather poor.  As a 7th level fighter you have (coincidentaly) 7 feats (2 at 1st, one at 2nd, one at 3rd, one at 4th, and 2 at 6th).  You have 20+10x(INT mod) skill ranks (ie, probably 20) to distribute to a rather puny skill list, with 10 ranks being competent for level 7.  Weapon choice matters a little bit more because there's no random chart weighting things in favor of the longsword, though that Spiked Chain looks pretty goofy, but mechanically quite good.  Depending on your feat and weapon choices you might be a high-damage melee type, pretty good archer, or area-denial specialist making multiple AoOs every round against anything w/in 10' of you (20' with an Enlarge spells from a friendly caster or potion).

4e:  You can be of any race, Human, Dragonborn, Dwarf, and half-orc are particularly good choices, halfling has a slight disadvantage.  Weapon choices is still meaningful, but armor choice is a no-brainer.  To shield or not to shield is a rather significant choice.  As a 7th level fighter, you get to choose 2 at-will attack exploits, 3 encounter attack exploits, 2 daily attack exploits, and 2 utility exploits, you also get 4 feats.  You can choose 3 skills from a smaller list of consolidated skills (though still a paltry class skill list), and you're competent with all 3 throughout your career.  A feat will buy you similar competency in an additional skill that needn't be on your class list.  You can also choose one or more backgrounds, and a Theme.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> As well as this way of looking at it, there is the flipside also: why not try and make every combat as dramatic as the one in which you fight the man who killed your father?



Very good point.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> As well as this way of looking at it, there is the flipside also: why not try and make every combat as dramatic as the one in which you fight the man who killed your father?




Player fatigue. If every fight is that dramatic, then they become kind of blasé. I think RPGs need a variety of paces and intensities to remain fresh.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 18, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Player fatigue. If every fight is that dramatic, then they become kind of blasé. I think RPGs need a variety of paces and intensities to remain fresh.




Actually, for once, I would agree with you Bill91.  Any Fiction Writing 101 guide will tell you that you have to vary things up to make it more interesting.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a quicky side fight once in a while just to make things interesting.


----------



## nightwalker450 (Apr 18, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Actually, for once, I would agree with you Bill91.  Any Fiction Writing 101 guide will tell you that you have to vary things up to make it more interesting.
> 
> There's absolutely nothing wrong with a quicky side fight once in a while just to make things interesting.




Except you're not doing a quicky side fight to make it interesting... You're doing a quicky side fight to make it mundane and fill time, until the next important fight.

It's more that those dungeon infiltration fights should be story and not combat, and then when you encounter the dragon then its an actual fight. The combats themselves should probably not even follow the same rules, or the same layout.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> As well as this way of looking at it, there is the flipside also: why not try and make every combat as dramatic as the one in which you fight the man who killed your father?
> 
> .




But the thing that makes fighting the man who killed your father dramatic is the specific condiions/emotional weight (someone killed your father and you are fighting him) and the rarity of it. If every fight is on par With inigo montoya vs. The six fingered man or luke vs. darth vader, it kind if loses its punch.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2012)

billd91 said:


> Player fatigue. If every fight is that dramatic, then they become kind of blasé. I think RPGs need a variety of paces and intensities to remain fresh.





Bedrockgames said:


> But the thing that makes fighting the man who killed your father dramatic is the specific condiions/emotional weight (someone killed your father and you are fighting him) and the rarity of it. If every fight is on par With inigo montoya vs. The six fingered man or luke vs. darth vader, it kind if loses its punch.



Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?

Say I watch a movie a week. That means I'm seeing about as much movie per fortnight as my RPGing per fortnight. The movies don't have boring filler stuff. (At least not if I've chosen well!) They have well-constructed story arcs with emotional and thematic significance at every point.

I want my game to be like that too.


----------



## FickleGM (Apr 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?
> 
> Say I watch a movie a week. That means I'm seeing about as much movie per fortnight as my RPGing per fortnight. The movies don't have boring filler stuff. (At least not if I've chosen well!) They have well-constructed story arcs with emotional and thematic significance at every point.
> 
> I want my game to be like that too.



They weren't my claims, but they apply to my experiences.  Also, when comparing the subject to the movies, I differentiate between a fun, plot-moving scene (encounter/combat) and a dramatically tense scene.  I want that in my games, not constant, dramatically intense scenes. I hope I've made sense.


----------



## billd91 (Apr 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?
> 
> Say I watch a movie a week. That means I'm seeing about as much movie per fortnight as my RPGing per fortnight. The movies don't have boring filler stuff. (At least not if I've chosen well!) They have well-constructed story arcs with emotional and thematic significance at every point.
> 
> I want my game to be like that too.




Experience.

Movies may not have boring filler stuff, but they aren't all the same pace or have the same emotional significance with every scene either. In fact, they usually get criticized if they don't vary the pace and tone. Case in point: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom took a fair amount of criticism for being relentless with its action. Even positive reviews like Roger Ebert's point out the relentless pace. Most movies have some rise and fall of mood, pace, and action.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?
> 
> Say I watch a movie a week. That means I'm seeing about as much movie per fortnight as my RPGing per fortnight. The movies don't have boring filler stuff. (At least not if I've chosen well!) They have well-constructed story arcs with emotional and thematic significance at every point.
> 
> I want my game to be like that too.




That is different though than having every plot point equal the emotional weight of a climax (which is what fighting the guy who killed your dad is). There are many neccessary scenes in movies that don't have the sizzle of luke learning vader is is father.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 18, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Are these claims based on actual play experience? Or hypothesis?
> 
> .




Experience. Both as a player and as a Gm.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 18, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> I differentiate between a fun, plot-moving scene (encounter/combat) and a dramatically tense scene.  I want that in my games, not constant, dramatically intense scenes. I hope I've made sense.



Perfect sense, and I agree with your distinction.

But combat # 127 with 4 orcs in a room is neither dramatically tense nor a fun, plot-moving scene. Many D&D modules are full of encounters that (as written) don't move the plot at all. They are just filler.

I can see the purpose of these encounters in a Gygaxian, dungeoneering-style game - they offer an opportunity to show player skill by earning XP, or cleverly avoiding, or whatever. But in that sort of game, whether second wind is dramatically intense or not doesn't matter (and it was the dramatic intensity of second wind that triggered this discussion).

But in a game where story and pace are the focus, filler - as opposed to genuine plot-moving encounters - is unnecessary, in my view.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

There is a spectrum here.  While high action is something I want in my D&D game, I don't want it to be a Michael Bay Transformers 2 movie.  A smidgeon more plot and significance is important.

And, even some of those filler fights do serve a purpose.  You're doing an exploration type adventure - lots of empty corridors and whatnot, and you want something to break up the pace so you chuck in a wandering encounter with half a dozen beasties.  It's not meant to really challenge the party, nor is it a major plot point.  It's there for a bit of fun and dice shaking.  

Which is fine if it lasts 20 minutes or so.  Not so much fun when it lasts 40 minutes to an hour.  

Sure, tower of orcs adventure design is bad.  I think we all agree there.  But, climax fight to climax fight isn't the way to go either.  There is room for a bit of variation.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2012)

Hussar said:


> While high action is something I want in my D&D game, I don't want it to be a Michael Bay Transformers 2 movie.  A smidgeon more plot and significance is important.



I agree with this. That's why I don't like filler.



Hussar said:


> doing an exploration type adventure - lots of empty corridors and whatnot, and you want something to break up the pace so you chuck in a wandering encounter with half a dozen beasties. It's not meant to really challenge the party, nor is it a major plot point. It's there for a bit of fun and dice shaking.



I'm not a big fan of exploration type adventures, mostly for this sort of reason. When I run exploration-ish scenarios, I still try to use the encounters to introduce or reinforce deeper plot points. (Ie they're not _just_ exploration.)


----------



## Hussar (Apr 19, 2012)

Eh, I don't mind the odd bit of mindless hack and slash from time to time.  Not a steady diet mind you, but, once in a while, kicking the crap (or getting the crap kicked out by) a bunch of imaginary critters is fun.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 19, 2012)

[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION], that's fair enough.

But I haven't run a system that supports mindless hack & slash for a long long time. In both RM and 4e, combat is too time and mechanically intensive  (and therefore too emotionally intesive, assuming people are invested in the game) to be used so lightly!


----------



## BryonD (Apr 20, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> You're the one cherry picking.



I gather you don't know what this term means and simply decided "I know you are..." was a good reply.



> The scene above is a cool one, but it's one of many.  Cinematic heroes pick themselves up and get back into fights they look like they've all but lost constantly.  It's almost a cliche.  And D&D's hp-and-healing system has always required characters get beat down and healed up to 'feel like they've been in a fight.'



So you don't see any difference in that scene and scenes that happen over and over?  Because that one very specific scene gets called out all the time as a true classic. 

I AGREE that heroes fight through wounds all the time and that is a cliche.  And HP in EVERY edition of D&D cover that just great.

But that scene was hailed as a justification not for HP and fighting on, but specifically for surges.


[qyote]All 4e did was remove the need for the Cleric to be the cut-man in the corner, every, single, time.[/quote]
This isn't even REMOTELY correct.

I mean, I'll certainly acknowledge that it may very well be true for your personal gaming experience.  

But that vast and fundamental changes that surges impose upon the play experience have been thoroughly discussed in numerous threads.  Deciding those issues don't exist by fiat of your own blanket declaration is less than compelling as an argument.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 21, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I gather you don't know what this term means and simply decided "I know you are..." was a good reply.




Leave out the insults please. You can debate without it.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 21, 2012)

BryonD said:


> rence in that scene and scenes that happen over and over?  Because that one very specific scene gets called out all the time as a true classic.



It's a particularly dramatic example.  It is far from the only example.

OTOH, D&D-style in-combat clerical healing isn't exactly a staple of any genre.  While heroes coming back from the brink or appearance of death is a positive cliche of action movies and pulp adventure.



> I AGREE that heroes fight through wounds all the time and that is a cliche.  And HP in EVERY edition of D&D cover that just great.



Not really, because the hp system is utterly dependent on healing to get everyone through each fight, often even minor fights.  In older versions of the game, that healing was exclusively magical and external.  Your hero couldn't fight through his wounds without the Cleric's Cure...Wounds every other round.  Not very heroic.  Now, he can.

There are numerous examples of second wind or shouty martial healing, not just being used at a once-in-a-lifetime moment, but in many fights.  Where are the examples of glowy clerical healing being used in ever battle?  Or any battle? 



> > All 4e did was remove the need for the Cleric to be the cut-man in the corner, every, single, time.
> 
> 
> 
> This isn't even REMOTELY correct.



Are you saying healing wasn't vital in prior eds?  Or that 4e didn't give each character some self-healing ability?



> But that vast and fundamental changes that surges impose upon the play experience have been thoroughly discussed in numerous threads.  Deciding those issues don't exist by fiat of your own blanket declaration is less than compelling as an argument.



I don't know what you're talking about.  Surges were a fundamental change, but hardly a 'vast' one.  PCs still get through combats with healing.  There are just more sources of it, and the ultimate limit on healing is in each character, not in the Cleric's spells/day.  Not a vast change, but a vast improvement if judged by any measure other than nostalgia.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 22, 2012)

[MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION]: I don't know if you followed the recent discussion of these issues over on this thread. If you look around the few posts before and after the one I've linked to, you'll see where that surge discussion got to.

It came to an end when a number of posters pointed out that surge expenditure and surge recovery may sometimes correspond to literal healing, other times to pushing on heroically (depending on table style, details of narration, etc). BryonD - who _doesn't_ play a game with surges - seems to be the only one insisting that surge recovery _must_ correspond to literal healing, as opposed to recovering one's mojo and pushing on even though still injured.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 22, 2012)

pemerton said:


> [MENTION=996]
> 
> It came to an end when a number of posters pointed out that surge expenditure and surge recovery may sometimes correspond to literal healing, other times to pushing on heroically (depending on table style, details of narration, etc). BryonD - who _doesn't_ play a game with surges - seems to be the only one insisting that surge recovery _must_ correspond to literal healing, as opposed to recovering one's mojo and pushing on even though still injured.




i think that is a bit misleading. It came to an end beause it just kept going and going with people covering the same ground. Not because one side "won" the debate.


----------



## Sadras (Apr 23, 2012)

pemerton said:


> When I run exploration-ish scenarios, I still try to use the encounters to introduce or reinforce deeper plot points. (Ie they're not _just_ exploration.)




I recently ran something along the lines you are describing here as a short adventure (2-3 sessions) - it was highly narrative, fast paced, roleplaying intensive with a very loose combat system and it was highly rewarding, even with the 2 character deaths. 
In fact there were only 4 combat encounters throughout.
But all in all very enjoyable - very different to the usual DM style where you have those "filler" areas in a dungeon.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 23, 2012)

Janaxstrus said:


> And to be fair, I have fewer problems with mundane healing when it involves a skill, alchemical potions, healing kits etc and only heals SOME damage.
> 
> If the warlord had a heal skill  that allowed to heal some amount of HPs via poultices, combat medicine, alchemical stuff, etc, I'd be ok with that.
> 
> ...




I think saying Warlord "healing peptalk" can only heal you up to your bloodied value it would have been much less jarring for me personally. OTOH I have never refused Warlord healing in the 4E games i've played


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 23, 2012)

Minigiant said:


> Why can we just have warlords provide temporary hit points and have that function as morale based defense.
> 
> Hobgoblins show up.
> 
> ...




This makes a lot of sense.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 23, 2012)

Hussar said:


> There is another way to view it, kinda along the way that Firelance talks about.  Every HP is vitality/luck/mojo except for your last one.
> 
> Would fit how HP's are described rather well.




Does this mean we are only bloodied when we reach 1 HP lol.


----------



## wrightdjohn (Apr 24, 2012)

One thing is for sure.  We all agree we are two camps and we hate the others playstyle.  For 30 years, we had D&D and it suited one playstyle.  Then 4e came along and it suited the other playstyle.  I believe for tradition if nothing else that D&D should stay D&D.  I'm all for a 4e style game getting created to suit the other side.  

I've never failed to buy an edition of D&D but if it looks like 4e this will be the start for me.

I just wish WOTC would keep publishing 4e and make 5e a game that is an improvement synergy between 2e and 3e.


----------



## wrightdjohn (Apr 24, 2012)

Also D&D has always from the beginning defined hit points as a mixture of real physical damage and other intangibles.  It was NEVER absolutely NEVER the case that real physical damage only occurred on the last hit point.  

Also with magical healing everyone can choose to interpret what is happening however they want, it's magic.   With martial healing it destroys all viewpoints except 4e's.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 24, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> Does this mean we are only bloodied when we reach 1 HP lol.



I see "bloodied" as the kind of wound you get when you are duelling "to first blood": a solid hit that leaves a visible injury, but which is still non-hindering and in a non-critical area. Yes, it's a visible, physical wound that still hasn't caused 1 hp of physical damage. Chew on that.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 24, 2012)

wrightdjohn said:


> Also D&D has always from the beginning defined hit points as a mixture of real physical damage and other intangibles.  It was NEVER absolutely NEVER the case that real physical damage only occurred on the last hit point.



Oh certainly, characters are taking physical damage, but in the form of minor cuts and bruises and other non-hindering, non-critical wounds. My point is not that the characters are not taking physical damage. My point is that the rules imply that it is never serious and life-threatening until the last hit point of damage. 



> Also with magical healing everyone can choose to interpret what is happening however they want, it's magic.   With martial healing it destroys all viewpoints except 4e's.



As I posted in another thread:

I think what you are grappling with is the idea that a character could mechanically be at full hit points but be narratively wounded. This has not been an issue previously because the only way to restore hit points quickly was to use magic. However, the fact that the previous narratives for rapid restoration of hit points can no longer be applied to rapid non-magical hit point recovery does not make it illogical. It simply means that a new narrative is needed. 

So, if a 100 hp fighter who has been reduced to 1 hp has sustained no serious, life-threatening, incapacitating injuries (since he is otherwise treated as if he is uninjured), and is only covered with cuts, scratches and bruises, then hit points can be defined as any intangible factor that can keep him from being killed, such as vigor or luck, and can be quickly and easily restored, even through non-magical means.

If a 100 hp fighter who has been reduced to 1 hp has sustained serious injury but is somehow able to ignore it (since he is otherwise treated as if he is uninjured), then hit points can be defined as any intangible factor that allows him to function at (mostly) full effectiveness despite serious injury, such as willpower or determination, and quick, non-magical recovery of hit points simply represents a renewal of those factors, leaving the underlying injuries unchanged.

In short, depending on which view of hit points you prefer, you can narrate the non-magical recovery of hit points as either the restoration of the ability to avoid future wounds or the ability to keep going despite having sustained serious wounds.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

wrightdjohn said:


> Also D&D has always from the beginning defined hit points as a mixture of real physical damage and other intangibles.  It was NEVER absolutely NEVER the case that real physical damage only occurred on the last hit point.
> 
> Also with magical healing everyone can choose to interpret what is happening however they want, it's magic.   With martial healing it destroys all viewpoints except 4e's.




Why not?

What in the rules, in the actual text of the game, actually defines what the mixture is?  All that the rules say is that HP are a mixture.

Granted, you and many others might have interpreted that in one way, but, your interpretation doesn't actually match what's in the game.  And, in fact, runs contrary to how HP are presented.  After all, the example of the chained fighter surviving the fireball is a perfect example of only the last HP counts.  

The chained fighter gets hit with a fireball, does not die, yet has no plausible means of avoiding the fireball.  How do you reconcile that with the idea that significant portions of your hit points are "meat"?  After all, it's far less believable that you can stand at ground zero of a fireball that can instantly kill a giant (1ed Hill Giants in the G1 module had 42 HP) that will not in any measurable way, impair you.

See, the problem is, it's not that 4e made some new interpretation to hit  points.  It really didn't.  What it did was make the interpretation that best fits how HP are described actually matter.  Previous editions, this discussion never occured because virtually all healing was done by magic.

Which is great if you want every D&D game to be a high magic game.  Not so great if you don't.


----------



## Shadeydm (Apr 24, 2012)

FireLance said:


> I see "bloodied" as the kind of wound you get when you are duelling "to first blood": a solid hit that leaves a visible injury, but which is still non-hindering and in a non-critical area. Yes, it's a visible, physical wound that still hasn't caused 1 hp of physical damage. Chew on that.





I took it as a signal from 4E's designers that at half hitpoints the physical component of hitpoint damage had started to kick in. I am not claiming that i'm right it might very well be another example of 4e terminology getting in the way of intent.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Why not?
> 
> What in the rules, in the actual text of the game, actually defines what the mixture is?  All that the rules say is that HP are a mixture.
> 
> ...




But hussar, you just said the best design is the one that is most flexible to different styles. Hp as damage is a popular style of play and not easy to achieve with surges and second winds. Hp as mojo and hp as damage are both easily achieved through traditional HP. Therefore Traditional HP is the most flexible and (according to you) objectively superior to 4e hp and surges


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Why not?
> 
> What in the rules, in the actual text of the game, actually defines what the mixture is?  All that the rules say is that HP are a mixture.
> 
> ...




To answer your question seriously this time, if the last hp was where the damage happened that would have been stated in the book. The fact is if you examine combat examples in core books and supps over the years, it is pretty clear that physical damage is a substantial part of hp loss at all levels.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 24, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> But hussar, you just said the best design is the one that is most flexible to different styles. Hp as damage is a popular style of play and not easy to achieve with surges and second winds. Hp as mojo and hp as damage are both easily achieved through traditional HP. Therefore Traditional HP is the most flexible and (according to you) objectively superior to 4e hp and surges




Umm, haven't you been paying attention?

There's multiple examples in this thread of using surges to get exactly what you want.

But, Traditional HP don't give me what I want.  They don't achieve HP as mojo because the healing rates don't make any sense if HP are mojo.  Why on earth does it take me a week to get my mojo back?  Or, rather, any period of time is equally understandable - be it short or long.



			
				BRG said:
			
		

> To answer your question seriously this time, if the last hp was where the damage happened that would have been stated in the book. The fact is if you examine combat examples in core books and supps over the years, it is pretty clear that physical damage is a substantial part of hp loss at all levels.




When I look at the combat examples in the books, I see lots and lots of numbers with virtually no attention paid to the idea of how serious a wound actually is.  I'll have to dig up my Mentzer Basic book again, but, IIRC, the "actual play" example doesn't really dwell too terribly much on the details of hit point loss.

And, let's be honest here, considering the amount of verbiage we're talking about, I'm very, very sure that we could play dueling quotations for a LONG time without resolving anything.    I mean, heck, people have been pretty content entirely ignoring the AD&D DMG definition of HP throughout this thread, why would people start paying attention to what's actually in the books now?


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Umm, haven't you been paying attention?
> 
> There's multiple examples in this thread of using surges to get exactly what you want.
> 
> But, Traditional HP don't give me what I want.  They don't achieve HP as mojo because the healing rates don't make any sense if HP are mojo.  Why on earth does it take me a week to get my mojo back?  Or, rather, any period of time is equally understandable - be it short or long.




Fair enough. I wasn't being entirely serious in this post just trying to show how annoying this kind of argumentation can be. 

But i will say this. You are right, traditional HP probably dont give you the kind of mojo sim you are looking for. But just because examples were offered to make surges simulate hp as damage, that doesn't mean anyone here found those examples persuasive at all. Surges still dont do what I want. And people asserting that my needs are now satisfied because they've supplies a convoluted explaination, example or fix doesn't cut it for me.



> When I look at the combat examples in the books, I see lots and lots of numbers with virtually no attention paid to the idea of how serious a wound actually is.  I'll have to dig up my Mentzer Basic book again, but, IIRC, the "actual play" example doesn't really dwell too terribly much on the details of hit point loss.
> 
> And, let's be honest here, considering the amount of verbiage we're talking about, I'm very, very sure that we could play dueling quotations for a LONG time without resolving anything.    I mean, heck, people have been pretty content entirely ignoring the AD&D DMG definition of HP throughout this thread, why would people start paying attention to what's actually in the books now?




this is a fair point, dueling quotes isn't going to get us anywhere. And frank it would probably be a giant waste of everyone's time to spend an hour quote seeking for something that we both probaboy agree doesn't change the debate that much.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Apr 24, 2012)

Hussar said:


> I mean, heck, people have been pretty content entirely ignoring the AD&D DMG definition of HP throughout this thread, why would people start paying attention to what's actually in the books now?




I think that's the problem.  I think the real problem is that people just skim though the book for the basics and just make up/improved the rest. Another is that even if you did fully read it, it was inconstant in many ways. While the definition of HP is said to be abstract, the spells and such implied that HP was physical damage.      

4E was like, "hey, when you think about the HP system, it's really an abstract system designed to produce fun gameplay.  Okay, let's make 4E like that!"  

I also suspect the Coconut Effect.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 24, 2012)

Shadeydm said:


> I think saying Warlord "healing peptalk" can only heal you up to your bloodied value it would have been much less jarring for me personally. OTOH I have never refused Warlord healing in the 4E games i've played



I was really intrigued by the Warlord when 4e came out, and created one as my first characters.  Initially, like a lot of the current naysayers, I was reluctant to embrace the idea that Inspiring Word was as much healing as traditional clerical magic.  At first, I would try to use it on allies who were down a good chunk of hps (enough that the extra healing wouldn't be 'wasted), but not 'bloodied.'  It was feasible enough since we also had a cleric to stand up past-bloodied or dropped enemies, but it was merely a self-imposed limit.  

As we talked about what 'bloodied' and 'dying' represented in the course of describing combat scenes, and considered the simple fact that a second wind could heal you from bloodied or a natural 20 on a death save get you up from dropped, it seemed more reasonable to me.  Finally, there was a skirmish with goblins in which our rogue was a little too daring and got himself dropped in a fight that really shouldn't have been that tough.  I RP'd the Inspiring Word amusingly, something like "You're not fooling anyone, that goblin hardly touched you, get up and fight!"  And it was a cool moment.  

After that we were fine with it.  It's just so classic, the downed hero getting some encouragement and getting back into the fight.  Very cinematic, and often quite fun or dramatic at the table.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 24, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's a particularly dramatic example.  It is far from the only example.



It is pretty well unique. 



> OTOH, D&D-style in-combat clerical healing isn't exactly a staple of any genre.  While heroes coming back from the brink or appearance of death is a positive cliche of action movies and pulp adventure.



The idea that healing comes form a source rather than "poof" is the point.



> Not really, because the hp system is utterly dependent on healing to get everyone through each fight, often even minor fights.  In older versions of the game, that healing was exclusively magical and external.  Your hero couldn't fight through his wounds without the Cleric's Cure...Wounds every other round.  Not very heroic.  Now, he can.



I completely dispute your claim about anything even CLOSE to "every other round".  And I'd add that making wounds vanish is (again) the opposite of "heroic"




> Are you saying healing wasn't vital in prior eds?  Or that 4e didn't give each character some self-healing ability?
> 
> I don't know what you're talking about.  Surges were a fundamental change, but hardly a 'vast' one.  PCs still get through combats with healing.  There are just more sources of it, and the ultimate limit on healing is in each character, not in the Cleric's spells/day.  Not a vast change, but a vast improvement if judged by any measure other than nostalgia.



Again, that may be YOUR personal experience.  But it was quite "vast" to MANY people.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2012)

BRG said:
			
		

> But i will say this. You are right, traditional HP probably dont give you the kind of mojo sim you are looking for. But just because examples were offered to make surges simulate hp as damage, that doesn't mean anyone here found those examples persuasive at all. Surges still dont do what I want. And people asserting that my needs are now satisfied because they've supplies a convoluted explaination, example or fix doesn't cut it for me.




Fair enough.

Then show me how I can get what I want out of your system.  Because, otherwise, you're basically saying that your needs are more important than anyone elses.

It's been shown numerous times that healing surges can be changed to fit traditional healing mechanics.  It's not difficult, nor does it require any real work on the part of the DM.  It's a couple of minor tweaks and Bjorn Strongingthearm is your uncle.  

Now, show me how I can, with a few minor changes, make traditional healing work for me.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 25, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Now, show me how I can, with a few minor changes, make traditional healing work for me.



You simply add healing surges back into your game? That's the simplest one. Additive design elements make more sense than subtractive ones and take a lot less work to create and use. Given two options, it is almost always easier to add than to take away. Core assumption of no surges with surges as an add-on module is way easier to balance than to assume surges, base entire healing systems on that, and then try to take them out.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> You simply add healing surges back into your game? That's the simplest one. Additive design elements make more sense than subtractive ones and take a lot less work to create and use. Given two options, it is almost always easier to add than to take away. Core assumption of no surges with surges as an add-on module is way easier to balance than to assume surges, base entire healing systems on that, and then try to take them out.




Walk me through this.

How do I add 4e style healing and healing surges to 3e HP mechanics?  Remember, I want in combat healing with surges as part of resource management.  I also want martial healing and 4e pacing.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 25, 2012)

You take the existing healing surge rules and port them in, pretty much unchanged. Maybe lower the surge values because of the HP bloat of 4E. Otherwise, there really isn't much to change going up. And yes, I really think it's that easy.

Now, give me the reverse. Give me 2E style HP without healing surges and non-martial healing. As in, I don't want it at all. Not even a hint of it. I want an honest assessment for how I can actively remove the surges completely from the game. I don't want some nonsense about reflavoring the surges to compensate for my dislike of how they work. I just don't want them at all in my game.

It's not as simple as just lopping off the surges.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2012)

Before I answer that Mercutio01, can I ask why you want to completely remove surges?  What is your goal here?  What do you want HP to be in your game?  I'm not dodging your question, I'm just curious what the core issue is.  What are you trying to do?

As far as porting surges back in directly, that's a bit tricky.  Monster design doesn't work that way.  Traditional HP monsters need to be able to do considerable damage per round relative to the PC.  Traditional HP's are higher than Surge HP at mid to high level, since Surge HP's aren't affected by Con, nor are there any real ways of increasing your HP per level.  A 10th level fighter with 18 Con in 4e has (33+9*6=) 88 HP.  A 3e 10th level fighter likely has considerably more than that simply because his Con will be magically augmented.  It's not unreasonable for a 10th level 3e fighter to have over 100 HP.  

Thus, 3e creatures need to deal more damage in order to be a credible threat.  So, your traditional HP monsters actually don't really work because they kill my Surge PC's too quickly.  You'd have to adjust the damage of every single monster.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 25, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Before I answer that Mercutio01, can I ask why you want to completely remove surges?  What is your goal here?  What do you want HP to be in your game?  I'm not dodging your question, I'm just curious what the core issue is.  What are you trying to do?



No, see, that's specifically what I asked you not to do. You're trying to appease 2E and 4E gamers by telling 2E gamers to get with the program and just like surge mechanics already. That's not the right answer.

Still, I'll answer it anyway. I don't like the surge mechanic. I don't like the idea that my magical healing is limited by my own personal ability to be magically healed. If a cleric heals me, why should one of my resources be used up? I don't like it mechanically.

I don't like it from a fluff standpoint. I don't think there should be some sort of inherent limitation in the number of times I can be magically healed in one day that is tied to me personally. 

I happen to like the 2E healing mechanics pretty much as written. I even like the 3E one rules (minus the bag of holding full of healsticks, which is an abuse of the system, imho) as written.

In summary, I don't like the fluff, but I could get over that if I cared for the mechanics, which I don't. I also don't like the inflated HP counts of 4E (and to a large extent 3E/PF) that necessitate larger attack/damage values and continue in a cycle.

Now, as to the point of the HP, I did address that specifically. You lower the base HP to pre-4E levels (probably closer to 2E levels would be nice), and those the surge values would also drop. The corresponding decreases would also dovetail nicely with the stated and implied goals of the lowered attack and damage value curves that the designers have discussed.


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 25, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> No, see, that's specifically what I asked you not to do. You're trying to appease 2E and 4E gamers by telling 2E gamers to get with the program and just like surge mechanics already. That's not the right answer.
> 
> Still, I'll answer it anyway. I don't like the surge mechanic. I don't like the idea that my magical healing is limited by my own personal ability to be magically healed. If a cleric heals me, why should one of my resources be used up? I don't like it mechanically.
> 
> ...




My major problem with surges is they make dedicated healers moot, actually let me rephrase that: it makes imposible to create dedicated healers that focus on support. I know Healing surges are seen as a good thing by groups that don't want to rely on a healer. But they are very unpalatable to some of us and in my particular case they don't mesh with my playstyle.

You don't need to attack every round to enjoy a combat!, support roles can be fun to play and rewarding too!.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2012)

So, Merc, your issue is with the total number of surges, not specifically with the surges themselves?  After all, why should magical healing use your resources.  Ok, is that the only issue here?

I'd point out that 4e clerics do get non-surge healing and there are a number of temporary HP mechanics as well.  If we got rid of surge healing, would that not satisfy your issues?

The problem with your fix though, is that 4e HP are not actually inflated.  They are only inflated at low levels.  A 10th level 2e fighter can easily have 100 HP, although not as easily as the 3e fighter, that's true.  A 10th level 2e fighter with an 18 Con is averaging 9.5 HP/level, which gives him 95 HP on average.  Which is still higher than the 4e character.  The 4e character catches up again at about 14th or 15th level, since the 2e fighter is only gaining 3 hp/level instead of 6, whereas the 4e character will never catch the 3e character at all.

So, while your scaling works at low levels, sure, it doesn't work as soon as we get into double digit territory.  You want to give the surge character even less hp in your solution, which means that it takes him even longer to catch up with the 2e character.

Even if we strip out the Con bonus, the math works better.  The 4e fighter and the 2e fighter are actually pretty close.  But, let's be honest here, it's pretty unlikely that either character will have a 10 Con.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2012)

Gonna call this bit out specifically



			
				merc said:
			
		

> No, see, that's specifically what I asked you not to do. You're trying to appease 2E and 4E gamers by telling 2E gamers to get with the program and just like surge mechanics already. That's not the right answer.




No, I'm trying to pick the best mechanic that can most easily encompass all playstyles.  You're doing the exact same thing you're accusing me of - telling me to just get with the program already.

I honestly don't think that you can simply just add surges back into traditional HP.  It breaks down at higher levels.  Particularly since if we also want to have 3e style play included, we cannot have 2e style limitations as the core.  That screws over the 3e guy AND the 4e guy.  It's not like we're going to go back to the idea that you only get X HP/level after name level.  That's not going to happen and we both know that.

There's more to it than only fixating on one playstyle.  There has to be some flexibility here.  "I only want my playstyle supported to the exclusion of all others" is most certainly not the stated goal of 5e.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 25, 2012)

Like I said, I don't like the mechanics. Take that how you will. It's not the number of surges. It's the surge mechanic itself. I drink a potion to heal myself, why does that also burn a surge? I'm already depleting a resource. Or, a warlord uses inspiring word to heal me, why am I burning a surge. He's already depleted his own resource to do it.

And then we get into surges as mechanics for use in things other than healing. I didn't like the idea in 3E of turning Turn Undead attempts into other more powerful uses. I still don't like the idea of using a healing surge to power something that isn't healing.

The cleric's non-surge healing in 4E is fine to me. Temp HP is something I wish got used more in all editions of D&D.

As to playing catch-up/scaling versus other editions, I'm not really all that concerned about that since I'm not going to be literally putting a 2E fighter up against a 5E fighter to see who wins. I'd honestly like to see a flatter HP curve than 2E. The "curve" of 4E is okay, but I'd rather see it start lower and end lower, with a shallower slope. And since Ability scores have been stated as having a slower advancement and attack values doing the same, having HP do that makes sense, too.

You still haven't answered how you would take the 4E HP mechanics and completely strip out the Healing Surges. Again, I think that's largely because being additive is easier to control than trying for subtractive modules. Think of it in terms of cooking. If you put too much salt into whatever you're cooking, you can't really strip it out. But if you start with less salt to begin with, you can add more to suit individual tastes. It's not a perfect analogy, and D&D isn't basic cooking 101, but I think the fundamental argument still holds water.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 25, 2012)

Hussar said:


> There's more to it than only fixating on one playstyle.  There has to be some flexibility here.  "I only want my playstyle supported to the exclusion of all others" is most certainly not the stated goal of 5e.




I really hope that's not what you took out of my posts. It's not my intent, and it's not my desire. I do think that starting with the simplest base that caters to the widest audience is the best starting point, which then allows for more complexity to be added on. And I honestly think adding a surge mechanic as a module would be easier to do than trying to find a way to strip it out after an assumption in the core mechanic. If it's as simple as you noted (and I doubt it is that simple) in that you also have to beef up monster damage when you add surges, then it's just that simple. "If you choose to use the optional surge value rules, increase monster damage by X." EDIT: And the reverse couldn't be true as you'd more than likely be looking at reducing damage values into negative numbers or something similar. Plus the fact that adding really is simpler than subtracting. At least it's true based on my observations as a parent.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 25, 2012)

> You still haven't answered how you would take the 4E HP mechanics and completely strip out the Healing Surges. Again, I think that's largely because being additive is easier to control than trying for subtractive modules. Think of it in terms of cooking. If you put too much salt into whatever you're cooking, you can't really strip it out. But if you start with less salt to begin with, you can add more to suit individual tastes. It's not a perfect analogy, and D&D isn't basic cooking 101, but I think the fundamental argument still holds water.




Hold you horses.    Gotta head out to work.  But, I wanted to drill down to find out what you actually wanted before giving an answer.  You do not want surges at all, that's fine, and I wanted to know why, because any mechanic is going to have to actually address what you want, rather than what you don't want.

Like I said, gotta head out to work, but, I'm not dodging this.  Just want to give it the proper attention it deserves.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 25, 2012)

BryonD said:


> It is pretty well unique.



Positively cliche, really.  Watch any action movie or tv show, you'll see characters get knocked down or out or beaten up to the point they seem finished, then they pull themselves together, come back and win through.  Second wind models that sort of thing nicely.  Prior versions of D&D don't.



> The idea that healing comes form a source rather than "poof" is the point.



The point we were arguing was the prevalence of second wind or martial healing vs clerical healing in genre.  



> I completely dispute your claim about anything even CLOSE to "every other round".  And I'd add that making wounds vanish is (again) the opposite of "heroic"



Depends on the edition.  In 3e, monsters dished so much damage that if you actually did depend on a melee type duking it out, you'd have to heal him /every/ round.  Of course, that's wasteful and silly compared to just acing the monster with an optimized save-or-die spell.  In AD&D healing was a scarcer resource, especially at low level, and 1e monsters did a lot less damage - but healing was still a significant drain on clerics' in-combat actions, as well as a near-total drain on the spellcasting potential.



> Again, that may be YOUR personal experience.  But it was quite "vast" to MANY people.



How much something changes isn't a personal experience.  D&D has always used hit points.  It still does.  It's always depended on in-combat healing to get characters through fights.  It still does.  It has not 'vastly' changed.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 25, 2012)

Hussar, i think many of us were perfectly happy with the old HP system. We really don't want a new mechanic that is somewhere between HS and traditional healing. The only positive I saw in 4e was connecting HP total to healing. Other than that I can only see 4e healing being worked on as an optional ad on. Healing surges were just too much of a point of contention to unite the base if they are core. But if they are there as options, then you should be able to play the style of D&D you prefer without having a core system that repels people who don't like 4e.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 25, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> How much something changes isn't a personal experience.  D&D has always used hit points.  It still does.  It's always depended on in-combat healing to get characters through fights.  It still does.  It has not 'vastly' changed.




how much of a difference healing surges present to thgame clearly varies from individual to individual. I am with byron, they were a huge mechanical change to the game. You can build all kinds of arguments to try to "prove" they weren't but I have to say I don't find these very convincing any more (mostly they are semantic-like your's here). Healing surges present a vast change because they shift rapid heals from being the sole domain clerics to coming from mundane sources and even themselves. In previous editions I had to wait for a cleric or magic item to heal me. This creates a change in the way the game plays (and if it doesn't then I have to ask you what is so great about 4e healing then becuase it was clearly designed to fix what some people saw as a major problem of play in earlier editions) and in the way people see the events unfold in the game. You may not consider it a vast change but for many it is.


----------



## wrightdjohn (Apr 25, 2012)

Here is an idea (I actually think it is the 5e idea to be honest but not sure)

1.  We return to just hit points.  Define a surge value equal to 1/4 your total full hps.
2.  Who and how those can be restored is determined by module.

4e module.
Once per day second wind restores a surges worth of hit points.
A healing word or a inspiring word restores a surge.
A potion of healing restores a surge of hps.
You are limited to X surges worth of healing per day.
You recover all hit points between combats. (Mark off surges for recovery)

1e,2e,3e module
No second wind
Only magical healing words restore a surge value.  They have a daily limit.
A potion of healing restores a surge of hps.
No limit on surges per day.
You do not heal between battle but require magical aid.
Warlord is banned as a class or redesigned to not heal.
Option #1 - you recover your last surge in a week, your first surge in 1 hour.  All in between in a day.
Option #2 - you recover 1hp per day

The key differences is how we recover hit points.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 25, 2012)

Bedrockgames said:


> Hussar, i think many of us were perfectly happy with the old HP system.




And many of us do not want to go back.



Bedrockgames said:


> how much of a difference healing surges present to thgame clearly varies from individual to individual. I am with byron, they were a huge mechanical change to the game. You can build all kinds of arguments to try to "prove" they weren't but I have to say I don't find these very convincing any more (mostly they are semantic-like your's here). Healing surges present a vast change because they shift rapid heals from being the sole domain clerics to coming from mundane sources and even themselves. In previous editions I had to wait for a cleric or magic item to heal me. This creates a change in the way the game plays (and if it doesn't then I have to ask you what is so great about 4e healing then becuase it was clearly designed to fix what some people saw as a major problem of play in earlier editions) and in the way people see the events unfold in the game. You may not consider it a vast change but for many it is.




Oh, no one doubts they were a mechanical change.  They meant that the toughest meatshields were no longer clerics - a single casting of Cure Light Wounds being enough to make sure that the Cleric brought more hit points to the party than the Fighter.  They mean that no one now needs to play the healbot.  They allowed the reality of hit points to match the fluff that has always been presented in the books (other than the stupid decision to make an extended rest into one night).  They allow martial characters to behave as characters in an action movie, pulling themselves together and inspiring people to greater feats when they think they are done.

All at the low, low price of forcing people to change a common house rule (hit point damage is entirely physical) to a slightly different one (if hit point damage is purely physical then your total hit points are measured by your healing surges - having lost healing surges means that you are still injured even if you are ready for the next fight).

"Wander around towing a healbot with you" is, as far as I know, something that comes from D&D and wandered into the realm of Final Fantasy.  And healing surges may change gameplay, but other than the overnight rest issue in my opinion _every single way they change gameplay is for the better_.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 25, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And many of us do not want to go back.




And if surges are an optinional ad-on you wont have to go back, but I wont be forced to use 4e innovations I dislike.



> Oh, no one doubts they were a mechanical change.  They meant that the toughest meatshields were no longer clerics - a single casting of Cure Light Wounds being enough to make sure that the Cleric brought more hit points to the party than the Fighter.  They mean that no one now needs to play the healbot.  They allowed the reality of hit points to match the fluff that has always been presented in the books (other than the stupid decision to make an extended rest into one night).  They allow martial characters to behave as characters in an action movie, pulling themselves together and inspiring people to greater feats when they think they are done.
> 
> All at the low, low price of forcing people to change a common house rule (hit point damage is entirely physical) to a slightly different one (if hit point damage is purely physical then your total hit points are measured by your healing surges - having lost healing surges means that you are still injured even if you are ready for the next fight).
> 
> "Wander around towing a healbot with you" is, as far as I know, something that comes from D&D and wandered into the realm of Final Fantasy.  And healing surges may change gameplay, but other than the overnight rest issue in my opinion _every single way they change gameplay is for the better_.




I don't doubt this is true for you and that many 4e fans iked healing surges for the reasons you state. Clearly they work for you and including them as an option in 5e is a must. But needless to say, the above doesn't apply to my experience. surges made the game less fun for me and I was fine with the old system, so I don't want them to go back to 4e healing in the core rules of the next edition. As an option is a great idea, but not as a central mechanic of the game.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 25, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> My major problem with surges is they make dedicated healers moot, actually let me rephrase that: it makes imposible to create dedicated healers that focus on support. I know Healing surges are seen as a good thing by groups that don't want to rely on a healer. But they are very unpalatable to some of us and in my particular case they don't mesh with my playstyle.
> 
> You don't need to attack every round to enjoy a combat!, support roles can be fun to play and rewarding too!.




I am entirely unsure how surges make it so that healers can't act as support. Any leader/healer class is surpremely better at healing than having a character simply spending raw surges, especially since you can't just spend surges whenever you like during combat. All I see surges as having done is making it so that you didn't specifically need to bring a heal-bot healer along in every party, but you can certainly do so if that's what you want to play.

On the flip side, support roles don't need to heal every round to enjoy combat. The Warlord in my current group rarely attacks at all during a fight, most of the time directing strikes from our damage dealers (granting free attacks).


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 25, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> I am entirely unsure how surges make it so that healers can't act as support. Any leader/healer class is surpremely better at healing than having a character simply spending raw surges, especially since you can't just spend surges whenever you like during combat. All I see surges as having done is making it so that you didn't specifically need to bring a heal-bot healer along in every party, but you can certainly do so if that's what you want to play.
> 
> On the flip side, support roles don't need to heal every round to enjoy combat. The Warlord in my current group rarely attacks at all during a fight, most of the time directing strikes from our damage dealers (granting free attacks).



Yes but it made almost impossible to heal withoout doing anything else at the same time, you are no longer a healer, but rather a buffer-debuffer-damager that sometimes can allow other people to heal if they have a surge to burn and are willing to use it (being a pacifist healer that doesn't actively harm living things, except for undead, has never been easy, but the system has only made it harder to pull). Out of combat isn't any better, you are moot, unless it happens to be the time of the day everybody has ran out of surges and then, and only then, you can heal one of your allies and only one of them. And that is suppossing the group didn't decide to take a extended rest instead in which case you are also moot. Healers went form being a necesity in previous editions to be a convenience, at times.


----------



## technoextreme (Apr 25, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> Yes but it made almost impossible to heal withoout doing anything else at the same time, you are no longer a healer, but rather a buffer-debuffer-damager that sometimes can allow other people to heal if they have a surge to burn and are willing to use it (being a pacifist healer that doesn't actively harm living things, except for undead, has never been easy, but the system has only made it harder to pull). Out of combat isn't any better, you are moot, unless it happens to be the time of the day everybody has ran out of surges and then, and only then, you can heal one of your allies and only one of them. And that is suppossing the group didn't decide to take a extended rest instead in which case you are also moot. Healers went form being a necesity in previous editions to be a convenience, at times.



You do realize that using healing powers outside of combat is still the most efficient way to heal right?


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 26, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> Yes but it made almost impossible to heal withoout doing anything else at the same time, you are no longer a healer, but rather a buffer-debuffer-damager that sometimes can allow other people to heal if they have a surge to burn and are willing to use it (being a pacifist healer that doesn't actively harm living things, except for undead, has never been easy, but the system has only made it harder to pull). Out of combat isn't any better, you are moot, unless it happens to be the time of the day everybody has ran out of surges and then, and only then, you can heal one of your allies and only one of them. And that is suppossing the group didn't decide to take a extended rest instead in which case you are also moot. Healers went form being a necesity in previous editions to be a convenience, at times.




But that's how support classes have always been. No healer just stands there and heals all combat (at least not in my experience). They often have other spells and abilities to buff/debuff (say a spell like Bless), and sometimes that cleric did just go in and whack something with their mace. If you really want to just heal, I'm sure you can focus on powers and feats that let you do just that, at the expense of being able to support the party in other ways. 

A Pacifist healer isn't meant to be easy to play. I think I tried one out in 2E, but found it not to my liking. For me, it was just too hard to justify why this character would be out adventuring. I'm not familiar with the 4E version, so can't really comment, other than there seems to a good number of non-damaging powers to choose from other than at-wills.

You're quite right in that it's no long necessary for there to be a healer, but I don't see how this in any way is a bad thing. There's nothing that says you can't be, and it makes adventuring a lot easier to have a healer than to not have one. As technoextreme says, out-of-combat healing is still far superior to using one's on surges. On a good roll (or one feat), my current character gets double their surge value back in a heal, so our party can now do twice the number of encounters we could have without a healer in the group.

And how is this much different than when clerics had X number of healing spells? Once all those were cast, then what? I doubt that any cleric just stood there shrugging their shoulders. And then you'd take an extended rest because of one character being short on resources, rather than as a party. I do agree with you in that the extended rest giving back all healing surges is poorly designed, but not really any different from resting, getting the heals back, casting as needed and resting again.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 26, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Positively cliche, really.  Watch any action movie or tv show, you'll see characters get knocked down or out or beaten up to the point they seem finished, then they pull themselves together, come back and win through.  Second wind models that sort of thing nicely.



A few replies here.

First, I have offered up that having surges give temporary HP (second wind) would be a HUGE progress.  It is the fact that they now and forever heal wounds that is the big problem on a large scale.  But that is separate from the princess bride thing.

On the Princess Bride thing, he wasn't just "beaten up" he was virtually killed.  HUGE difference.

But even with that I will READILY concede that it happens frequently in the genre.  It is a cliche part of the whole "hero's journey" archetype.  However it happens ONCE per hero.  (generally to only one hero per story).  As I said at the start of this, a precious and highly limited resource, such as Action Points allows this to happen but to still be a major and awesome event.  It is when EVERYONE can do this 5 times a day EVERY day that magic is destroyed.

That EVENT in Bride was CLEARLY and moment of a lifetime event.  It was not surge number 3 for the day.



> Prior versions of D&D don't.



So you agree that 4E is NOT liek prior versions.



> The point we were arguing was the prevalence of second wind or martial healing vs clerical healing in genre.



Um, no, you stepped into a conversation.  You don't get to change what that conversation was about.  It certainly might help your case to change the subject.  But the subject remains.




> Depends on the edition.  In 3e, monsters dished so much damage that if you actually did depend on a melee type duking it out, you'd have to heal him /every/ round.  Of course, that's wasteful and silly compared to just acing the monster with an optimized save-or-die spell.  In AD&D healing was a scarcer resource, especially at low level, and 1e monsters did a lot less damage - but healing was still a significant drain on clerics' in-combat actions, as well as a near-total drain on the spellcasting potential.



I play 3E.  You are wrong.
This may accurately describe your experience.  If so, I'm sorry.

But when you portray this as a truth of the system: you are wrong.



> How much something changes isn't a personal experience.  D&D has always used hit points.  It still does.  It's always depended on in-combat healing to get characters through fights.  It still does.  It has not 'vastly' changed.



HP have not changed at all.

Surges change the nature of the game vastly.  (to a great number of people)


----------



## MoonSong (Apr 26, 2012)

fenriswolf456 said:


> But that's how support classes have always been. No healer just stands there and heals all combat (at least not in my experience). They often have other spells and abilities to buff/debuff (say a spell like Bless), and sometimes that cleric did just go in and whack something with their mace. If you really want to just heal, I'm sure you can focus on powers and feats that let you do just that, at the expense of being able to support the party in other ways.
> 
> A Pacifist healer isn't meant to be easy to play. I think I tried one out in 2E, but found it not to my liking. For me, it was just too hard to justify why this character would be out adventuring. I'm not familiar with the 4E version, so can't really comment, other than there seems to a good number of non-damaging powers to choose from other than at-wills.
> 
> ...



Perhaps you are right, [off-topic can you tell me what phb 1 cleric powers were "just heal" not "attack-debuff-do something and maybe heal"?. And what other cleric powers didn't involve an attack roll or actively damage?] 

Still it doesn't negate the fact that you no longer can just heal, it is do something and also heal, and having an ally severely hurt isn't a primary concern and a drama on itself anymore, If you don't reach your hurt ally on time it is only a minor inconvenience, he just second winds and is back on his feet without your help, if he ever waits that long and doesn't do it the instant he drops to negatives, taking away what used to be the cool moments for my character. Perhaps on the grand scheeme of the things it is the same, the results are "equal" or even "better", but the way those results are achieved doesn't feel the same.


----------



## FireLance (Apr 26, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> off-topic can you tell me what phb 1 cleric powers were "just heal" not "attack-debuff-do something and maybe heal"?. And what other cleric powers didn't involve an attack roll or actively damage?



_Cure light wounds_, _cure serious wounds_, _mass cure light wounds_ are all daily utility powers that require a standard action and restore hit points without requiring the target(s) to spend a healing surge.

Divine Power added _cure critical wounds_, _mass cure serious wounds_ and _heal_.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2012)

BryonD said:
			
		

> I play 3E. You are wrong.
> This may accurately describe your experience. If so, I'm sorry.
> 
> But when you portray this as a truth of the system: you are wrong.




Umm, if this accurately describes his experience, then how would he be wrong?

Let me ask this then.  If you take a 3e creature of CR=to PC level, that creature, by and large, can kill a PC in one round.  Not likely, but possible.  Certainly in 2 rounds, that creature can.  

So, if you do not spend any healing in combat, how do you avoid frequent PC death?  What have you done to mitigate the lethality of the 3e system?


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 26, 2012)

Hussar said:


> What have you done to mitigate the lethality of the 3e system?



What you see as a bug here, I think of as a feature. Each successive edition has stepped further away from lethality, and that's boring to me.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 26, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Umm, if this accurately describes his experience, then how would he be wrong?
> 
> Let me ask this then.  If you take a 3e creature of CR=to PC level, that creature, by and large, can kill a PC in one round.  Not likely, but possible.  Certainly in 2 rounds, that creature can.
> 
> So, if you do not spend any healing in combat, how do you avoid frequent PC death?  What have you done to mitigate the lethality of the 3e system?



Who says you have to run "balanced by the book" encounters.   I don't in 4e - and the balance there is far better than in 3e.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 26, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> My major problem with surges is they make dedicated healers moot, actually let me rephrase that: it makes imposible to create dedicated healers that focus on support. I know Healing surges are seen as a good thing by groups that don't want to rely on a healer. But they are very unpalatable to some of us and in my particular case they don't mesh with my playstyle.
> 
> You don't need to attack every round to enjoy a combat!, support roles can be fun to play and rewarding too!.




You've never seen a Lazy Warlord (who is designed to never personally make an attack roll) in play.  Or even a defence-buffing cleric.  Support roles are definitely alive in 4e.



KaiiLurker said:


> Yes but it made almost impossible to heal withoout doing anything else at the same time, you are no longer a healer, but rather a buffer-debuffer-damager that sometimes can allow other people to heal if they have a surge to burn and are willing to use it (being a pacifist healer that doesn't actively harm living things, except for undead, has never been easy, but the system has only made it harder to pull).




It's in Divine Power.



> Out of combat isn't any better, you are moot, unless it happens to be the time of the day everybody has ran out of surges and then, and only then, you can heal one of your allies and only one of them.




Or you just want to preserve surges and use your words as they are more efficient.  Or you use rituals and other magic to help.  Or you have something you can do that _isn't_ healing.



> And that is suppossing the group didn't decide to take a extended rest instead in which case you are also moot.




Extended rests at will are an issue.



> Healers went form being a necesity in previous editions to be a convenience, at times.




Ding, dong, the witch is dead!  No class should be a necessity.  That doesn't mean that healers aren't _very useful_ in 4e.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 26, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Ding, dong, the witch is dead!  No class should be a necessity.  That doesn't mean that healers aren't _very useful_ in 4e.




I think many agree with you, but many are also fine with the idea that if you want to heal you need a cleric, if you want to detect traps you need a rogue. For my tastes I like needing the magical healer to recover large amounts of HP. And I like how differently the game plays when the cleric falls or you run a party without one.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> What you see as a bug here, I think of as a feature. Each successive edition has stepped further away from lethality, and that's boring to me.




Well, that's fair.

If you don't have a problem with smoking a PC every four to six encounters, then no worries.  

Now, if I don't want to have that high of a lethality rate, what can I do to mitigate to lethality of the system if clerics are not healing in combat?


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 26, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Well, that's fair.
> 
> If you don't have a problem with smoking a PC every four to six encounters, then no worries.
> 
> Now, if I don't want to have that high of a lethality rate, what can I do to mitigate to lethality of the system if clerics are not healing in combat?




Well, I didn't say "no healing in combat," so that is still a viable option. And there are multiple other solutions. I've already discussed a potential optional rule system for surges. There is also the extended use of things like temporary HP.

In fact, what I'd really like to see are options for varying levels of lethality presented in the base book.

I don't want to alienate 4E players anymore than I want older system aficionados alienated. I think the best way to do that is present a simplified core system with optional add-ons to cater to different playstyles and preferences.


----------



## Bedrockgames (Apr 26, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Now, if I don't want to have that high of a lethality rate, what can I do to mitigate to lethality of the system if clerics are not healing in combat?




i think this very much comes down to campaign style and expectations. If fleeing combat is a real option, then it can be easy to navigate your way around deadly encounters in a lethal game. The number lf combats is also important. In a high intrigue campaign, these things are not much of an issue for example. Also what the kinds of encounters you have are pretty critical here. If the GM is building encounters to the party (and this isn't an assumption in every campaign style) it should be pretty easy to keep things from getting out of hand. 

I run a lot of modern games using lethal systems, and needless to say there is no in game healing. Typically what ends up happening is lots of characters get dropped but not as many as you think die (this of course is very system dependant). There is also a tendancy in such games for the PCs to be much more cautious about resorting to combat in every case.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 26, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Well, I didn't say "no healing in combat," so that is still a viable option. And there are multiple other solutions. I've already discussed a potential optional rule system for surges. There is also the extended use of things like temporary HP.
> 
> In fact, what I'd really like to see are options for varying levels of lethality presented in the base book.
> 
> /snip




Now that I totally agree with.  That is definitely a slider dial I'd love to see a few pages spent on.


----------



## fenriswolf456 (Apr 26, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> Perhaps you are right, [off-topic can you tell me what phb 1 cleric powers were "just heal" not "attack-debuff-do something and maybe heal"?. And what other cleric powers didn't involve an attack roll or actively damage?]




I'm not sure how strict the Pacifist Cleric is ... though I think RAW they can attack unbloodied creatures. But it sounds more like you want a true pacifist and not attack and do damage at all.

Lvl 1 -Cause Fear, while it does make an attack, it does no damage, and I would consider usuable by a true pacifist.
Beacon of Hope, another 'attack' that just weakens foes and heals allies
Guardian of Faith
Lvl 2 - Bless, Cure Light Wounds, Divine Aid, Sanctuary, Shield of Faith
Lvl 3 - Command
Lvl 5 - Consecrated Ground, Weapon of the Gods if cast on someone elses weapon
Lvl 6 - Bastion of Health, Cure Serious Wounds, Divine Vigour, Holy Lantern
Lvl 9 - Astral Defenders, Blade Barrier if used as just a wall between you and enemies
Lvl 10 - Astral Refuge, Knights of Unyielding Valour, Mass Cure Light Wounds, Shielding Ward

Admittedly it does get tougher to find non-damaging powers once in the paragon tier. I don't have access to Divine Power, so can't see if there are more options available. But certainly for Heroic Tier, it can be done fairly well just from the basic core PH.



KaiiLurker said:


> Still it doesn't negate the fact that you no longer can just heal, it is do something and also heal, and having an ally severely hurt isn't a primary concern and a drama on itself anymore, If you don't reach your hurt ally on time it is only a minor inconvenience, he just second winds and is back on his feet without your help, if he ever waits that long and doesn't do it the instant he drops to negatives, taking away what used to be the cool moments for my character. Perhaps on the grand scheeme of the things it is the same, the results are "equal" or even "better", but the way those results are achieved doesn't feel the same.




No, true, it would be hard to have a character who just sits there and heals every turn. Again, I don't know the Pacifist Cleric option offhand, so not sure if this sort of character is truly covered or not. I've never really been a fan of the concept, though I can see it working for certain campaign settings.

But I would also venture that this is a very narrow character concept with limited appeal. I'm all for support classes, but believe they should do more than just heal every turn. They should be buffing their allies, making it difficult for enemies to attack effectively by direct debuffs, protection magicks or even putting up obstacles to impede enemies.

And as we've said, using raw surges (just getting back your surge value), while certainly useful and potentially life-saving, is a very ineffecient use of surges, especially if you've got a healer who specialized in healing. And you can't spend surges on your own (i.e., use Second Wind, which is a once per encounter ability and the only way to use surges without a specific power/ability) if you drop to negatives, so they're going to desperately need that cleric to heal them, either by spell or using the heal skill. I suppose it depends on the group, but ours very rarely uses Second Wind unless times are desperate, with either the healer out of healing, or in getting that +2 to defenses so that you can maybe avoid the next hit, or in my case where my character's SW gives out temp HPs to everyone (so far only used a couple of times when things were looking pretty grim). 

Second Wind on it's own isn't going to take much away from a devoted healer. If a character only needs a Second Wind to get through an encounter, it's not an encounter that would have had that "big heal that saves the party" moment in it in the first place. Healing someone who's in single digits, or on the floor dying, are your big moments, and those heals are going to be amazingly good and likely game-changers.


----------



## BryonD (Apr 26, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Umm, if this accurately describes his experience, then how would he be wrong?



As I clearly explained, it being true to him personalyl does not remotely make it a truism that defacto happens whenever the game is played.

He portrayed it as such.

That is wrong.



> Let me ask this then.  If you take a 3e creature of CR=to PC level, that creature, by and large, can kill a PC in one round.  Not likely, but possible.  Certainly in 2 rounds, that creature can.
> 
> So, if you do not spend any healing in combat, how do you avoid frequent PC death?  What have you done to mitigate the lethality of the 3e system?



You are moving the goal posts around here.
He claimed nearly constant healing (every other round, etc...)

I won't claim that there is NO healing during combat.  But I would say that No healing during combat is a lot closer to the reality of my play experience than every other round.  

Honestly the answer to your question is: It varies wildly.
Sometimes the character dies.
Sometimes your claim of expected death in two rounds just isn't true.
Sometimes the party simply makes it a priority to move the damage away from the hurt guy or to move the hurt guy away from the damage.
Sometimes there is some select emergency healing.
I can't even claim that this is close to a complete answer.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 27, 2012)

BryonD said:


> I have offered up that having surges give temporary HP (second wind) would be a HUGE progress.  It is the fact that they now and forever heal wounds that is the big problem on a large scale.



Why do you keep saying that spending healing surges heals wounds?

Spending healing surges can remove the burden of whatever wound may have been suffered. But who says it removes the wound? Maybe the PC just pushes on despite the wound.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 27, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Why do you keep saying that spending healing surges heals wounds?
> 
> Spending healing surges can remove the burden of whatever wound may have been suffered. But who says it removes the wound? Maybe the PC just pushes on despite the wound.



This is how I've always played and envisioned it.  Spending healing surges in a short rest is the mechanical representation of actions including literally bandaging the PCs, ice to reduce swelling if you've got it (most likely with a mage), and numerous other minor cures.  Bandaging a wound does not make it go away - but a bandaged wound is a lot less likely to drop a PC than an open one.  Mysteriously, with a simple hit point mechanism there is no difference between a bandaged and an unbandaged wound - in 4e the bandaged wound still hurts.  You're still less resilient than you were without the wound - but you can press on better than you could without it being bandaged.

You are wounded and battered if you've lost any _healing surges_.  Healing surges lost are every bit as much a mark of being hurt as hit points.  Hit points in 4e are simply what you can manage to take _now_.

And this makes only surgeless healing magic.  Spending healing surges is simply shuffling resources around.  Actual recovery of wounds involves either recovering healing surges or recovering hit points _without spending surges_.


----------



## Hussar (Apr 27, 2012)

BryonD said:


> /snip
> 
> I won't claim that there is NO healing during combat.  But I would say that No healing during combat is a lot closer to the reality of my play experience than every other round.
> 
> ...




How is your experience any more of a truism than his though?  Ok, you had very little healing during combat.  And you start to give some answers.  But, your answers are extremely situational and, quite honestly, not very helpful to anyone not at your table.  Vague points about "moving the guy away from the damage" are great and all, but, how do you actually do that?

Most 3e monsters are considerably faster than PC's, so, running away doesn't work.  A standard party only has 4 PC's, so, if there are more than one bad guy, putting the wounded guy in the back is problematic.  Do you use numerous NPC's to fill out the group?  How large are your PC groups?

And that's just focusing on one answer.

I'm not interested in vague assurances that it can be done.  That's great and all.  But, if I want to make things work better at my table, I have to be able to reproduce what you are doing.  

It's no different than a 4e fan telling you that your problems simply don't exist.  It's not very helpful.  For NeonC, this problem exists.  Instead of telling him that you feel bad for his incompetence, why not actually offer something helpful?


----------



## pemerton (Apr 28, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> And this makes only surgeless healing magic.  Spending healing surges is simply shuffling resources around.  Actual recovery of wounds involves either recovering healing surges or recovering hit points _without spending surges_.



I tend to the view that even surge recovery after an extended rest is just another mechanic for "pushing on" - for the reason that otherwise it's unrealistically quick healing.

If I was starting my game from scratch, though, I could see the attraction of the way I think you do it - surge recovery _is_ recovering from wounds, and it can't just happen overnight.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 28, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I tend to the view that even surge recovery after an extended rest is just another mechanic for "pushing on" - for the reason that otherwise it's unrealistically quick healing.
> 
> If I was starting my game from scratch, though, I could see the attraction of the way I think you do it - surge recovery _is_ recovering from wounds, and it can't just happen overnight.



That's one reason I play with extended rests being genuinely extended   The other is that with a high cost to taking an extended rest, dailies become a lot more impressive and carefully thought about by the PCs (which also keeps post level 9 balance in check a lot better).  Personally I think there's no version of D&D which isn't improved by this rule (although classic dungeoncrawling did have a don't rest in the dungeon mechanic).


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2012)

KaiiLurker said:


> My major problem with surges is they make dedicated healers moot, actually let me rephrase that: it makes imposible to create dedicated healers that focus on support.



The pacifist cleric can be a /very/ dedicated healer.  There are also builds where you can heal actively, and pass your standard actions on to your allies in the form of granted attacks.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2012)

BryonD said:


> As I clearly explained, it being true to him personalyl does not remotely make it a truism that defacto happens whenever the game is played.
> 
> He portrayed it as such.
> 
> That is wrong.



Actually, what I said was /if/ you depended on the melee character to beat down monsters, you'd have to heal him a lot, even every-other round, if not every round.  But, it's a huge 'if,' because 3.x tended to slide quickly toward caster dominance.  So, out of the lowest levels, you can depend on the casters to bring the monsters down, and the melee guy is just a blocker - he takes damage for a round or so, depending on initiative and the powergaming mojo of the players with casters, and gets healed up between combats with Wands of CLW.  In that case, in-combat healing can be fairly rare, mainly because combats tend to be very short.  Freed of in-combat healing, "CoDzilla" becomes free to focus on offense, such as pre-combat buffs or SoDs.  

Some groups, I'm sure, left Clerics in the traditional band-aid role and never saw them get out of hand.  3.x spontaneous healing let them step in as needed to heal, and when that wasn't immediately necessary, actually do something else now and then.  It was a step in the right direction, but 4e, with healing surges and minor-action heals went a lot further towards making the Cleric both consistently balanced, and a good deal more interesting to play, not to mention opening the door to a broader range of healing-capable classes, and at the same time, making the healing aspect of the leader role less central, and even to some degree dispensable.  Doing without a healer in 4e is possible - not easy, and the DM should exercise some restraint here and there, but entirely possible.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> I tend to the view that even surge recovery after an extended rest is just another mechanic for "pushing on" - for the reason that otherwise it's unrealistically quick healing.



Nod.  I can see how that might be pushing it a bit, since there is no mechanic for dealing with 'real wounds' and 'real healing.'  Well, non-surge healing might remove 'real wounds,' maybe, but even the warlord has some non-surge healing.

Rather than throwing out healing surges, which are an excellent mechanic, I think what's really needed is an optional mechanic to track wounds, their negative effects, and the time, difficulties and risks of recovery from wounds.

A good mechanic already exists to model wound recovery and the danger of re-opening wounds, infections, bleeding, etc:  the "Disease Track."

All that's needed is a good system for determining when wounds happen, and a selection of nasty wound tracks.

As an optional mechanic, it would allow for a lot of 'grit' in those campaigns that call for it, without having to take away the more cinematic/heroic feel of those that don't.  What's more, it could be /both/ gritty and heroic, as opposed to merely dismal.


----------



## eamon (Apr 29, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Rather than throwing out healing surges, which are an excellent mechanic, I think what's really needed is an optional mechanic to track wounds, their negative effects, and the time, difficulties and risks of recovery from wounds.




This is pretty much also the direction the discussion at a wotc blog post on resilient heroes is going in: Healing surges (or some other form of fast self-healing) are good, but they should accommodate a separate pool of "real wounds" in some fashion.

I like the idea of the disease track in that it's nicely optional.  On the other hand, it sounds like something that would easily become way too complicated.  The star wars Vitality/Wounds system for example has some of this problem.  The idea is nice and clean, but the integration with critical hits & death&dying is quite complicated and probably too easy to abuse.  I do like the SW d20 names, however: "hit points" isn't exactly an evocative term.

Still, something reminiscent of SW Vitality/Wounds but without the unnecessary bits (crits/the crazy dying system) sounds like a good base.  Then you could add stuff like an optional wound-module using the disease track.

Extra bonus feature: vitality points can replace temporary hit points too; they essentially solve the same problem.  Simply reconsider what would be THP granting powers as vitality healing and allow the current total to exceed the normal maximum (excess vitality is lost either at the end of an encounter or whenever additional healing is performed).


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 29, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Rather than throwing out healing surges, which are an excellent mechanic, I think what's really needed is an optional mechanic to track wounds, their negative effects, and the time, difficulties and risks of recovery from wounds.



What if I don't want either (and I don't. I've already explained why I don't agree with your first point)? I don't want to track added complexity in order to balance out the mechanical and fluff problems I have with surges. Fixing one system by adding another system on top is the opposite of what I want.

It's like saying, "You don't like taking calculus? Why not take differential equations, too? That should solve all your problems with calculus!" I just don't want to take either class. I'm perfectly happy with my basic algebra.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 29, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> A good mechanic already exists to model wound recovery and the danger of re-opening wounds, infections, bleeding, etc:  the "Disease Track."
> 
> All that's needed is a good system for determining when wounds happen, and a selection of nasty wound tracks.
> 
> As an optional mechanic, it would allow for a lot of 'grit' in those campaigns that call for it, without having to take away the more cinematic/heroic feel of those that don't.  What's more, it could be /both/ gritty and heroic, as opposed to merely dismal.



I agree with all this, and would XP you if I could.


----------



## enigma5915 (Apr 29, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> A good mechanic already exists to model wound recovery and the danger of re-opening wounds, infections, bleeding, etc: the "Disease Track."
> 
> All that's needed is a good system for determining when wounds happen, and a selection of nasty wound tracks.
> 
> As an optional mechanic, it would allow for a lot of 'grit' in those campaigns that call for it, without having to take away the more cinematic/heroic feel of those that don't. What's more, it could be /both/ gritty and heroic, as opposed to merely dismal.




Good idea!  the condition track is a great tool for this


----------



## Gorgoroth (Apr 29, 2012)

*Didn't they*

already state that healing surges would NOT be in 5e anyway? So why are we re-hashing this? I played a warlord (a killswitch and another bard|warlord) in 4e and loved it. It was fun, and exciting, and tactical. It makes me feel silly for ever having played 4e in a group without a leader. 

BUT...the problem with warlord healing is not that it's mundane (you can easily re-fluff it, one of the strokes of genius of 4e), it's that even without a warlord or someone doing a healcheck, any plain old fighter can recover to full HP after every battle. The ONLY time you are seriously close to death is when (usually the striker) is out of surges, while the rest of the party can still march on. So...yeah, healing to full mundanely kills my suspension of disbelief, much more so than a warlord casting Inspiring Word. We just pretend like it's magic and move on. Also, why can't warlord's mundane healing powers just have a range of touch or personal, rather than range? Then you can pretend like he really is bandaging you or pulling that arrow out of your knee. 

OTOH : It's harder for me to pretend like a fighter healing himself to full after every battle without the aid of a cleric or a healing potion is possible, given our history of playing this game. Why do we need a cleric then? Oh wait, you don't. Try having no magical healing in earlier editions...you won't get far. This new "innovation" completely guts an entire class. Thanks, guys. I liked playing clerics in other editions. In 4e they seemed extremely lame to me, especially compared to warlords. 

In our PF game we bought a wand of cure light wounds...as cheesy as that may seem, I'd much rather that as a solution to the 15 minute work day for melee types, than melee types not even needing magic at all to be able to run from room to room with only 5 minutes and it's like you are completely fresh. In playing 4e for three years, I've had Cure Light Wounds cast on my various characters a total of...hmm, scratches head : maybe three times? We even played without a warlord for the first year and a half. Sure it was slower and our war machine group was much less optimal in defeating battles, but we didn't die. Once. 

Does that feel right, for D&D to any of you? A lot of my friends complained that 4e is too easy to stay alive, every class essentially has a multiclass in cleric for personal "cure spells". No, no, no, no. Please, no.

That's not right. Not to get all temper-tantrummy, but if surges exist in 5e or fighters can heal themselves to full without any assistance, I will probably think long and hard about passing on it. Also, take your surge count * your surge value = this is your REAL hp for the day. That number is WAAAAY too high for me. 

You may forget that 25 HP at level 1 is a big boost from earlier editions, when you realize, wait, you actually have more like 100 HP total. At level 1. 'Nuff said.

Thankfully they've said surges are probably out. 

== RIP, with a stake through their heart.

EDIT : Also, healing potions are completely worthless in 4e. Sad, sad, sad. I liked healing potions. Bring them back.


----------



## eamon (Apr 29, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> What if I don't want either (and I don't. I've already explained why I don't agree with your first point)? I don't want to track added complexity in order to balance out the mechanical and fluff problems I have with surges. Fixing one system by adding another system on top is the opposite of what I want.
> 
> It's like saying, "You don't like taking calculus? Why not take differential equations, too? That should solve all your problems with calculus!" I just don't want to take either class. I'm perfectly happy with my basic algebra.



What do you think of Vitality and Wound Points?


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 29, 2012)

I think they're fiddly and more complex than I want for the average D&D game I want to run or play. They aren't bad, as such, but just not my cup of tea. And they are obviously part of the inspiration behind surge mechanics. They're different but not better. That said, I do like the mechanics better than surge mechanics because I still think that my ability to be healed being limited by my ability to be healed is a weird mechanic. And they're okay as optional rules for a specific game type, but I don't think they're better than straight HP as they were presented in all the previous editions of D&D.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I still think that my ability to be healed being limited by my ability to be healed is a weird mechanic.



Oddly enough, though, just that one aspect of it is kinda "realistic."  Mind you, nothing else about it is particularly realistic, genre-faithful, but not realistic.  The ability of others to heal you really is limited by your body's ability to recuperate, medicine just helps it along.  While magic can just arbitrarily make wounds go by-by (non-surge magical healing in 4e, all magical healing in past eds), healing that simply accelerates or enhances your recuperative powers is pretty reasonable.



> I don't think they're better than straight HP as they were presented in all the previous editions of D&D.



Obviously 'better' can be subjective.  To look at it dispassionately, they're better at modeling different things.  Hit Points & Healing Surges (and second wind and martial healing) are great for the action-movie style of heroic fantasy.  Wound-tracking systems are great for adding a gritty feel.   Hit Points & Clerical healing don't model any particular genre or feel too well - except of course for "that classic D&D feel."


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> I played a warlord  in 4e and loved it. It was fun, and exciting, and tactical. It makes me feel silly for ever having played 4e in a group without a leader.



Enthusiastic agreement, here.  The warlord was one of the best things 4e added to the game - best of a big lot, too.



> BUT...the problem with warlord healing is not that it's mundane (you can easily re-fluff it, one of the strokes of genius of 4e), it's that even without a warlord or someone doing a healcheck, any plain old fighter can recover to full HP after every battle.



Clearly not a problem with the warlord, specifically.  

Also not really a new problem.  In 3.x, a Wand of Cure Light Wounds - or several, or baskets full of 'em or Bag's of Holding filled with potions as they became outrageously cheap - could handle between-combat healing.  PC healing spells were only needed in combat.  It's actually almost exactly the same dynamic, except that the limiting resource is a lot harder to cheese up.



> Why do we need a cleric then? Oh wait, you don't. Try having no magical healing in earlier editions...you won't get far. This new "innovation" completely guts an entire class. Thanks, guys. I liked playing clerics in other editions. In 4e they seemed extremely lame to me, especially compared to warlords.



The 4e cleric was pretty awesome, too, though it's been mucked with so much at this point it's hard to tell.  The WIS build had strong, flashy, secondary control powers, and the STR build had some pretty impressive tricks, too.  They've since been powered-up, nerfed, and powered-up again, not to mention supplanted by Warpriests (not War Priests which are completely different).



> I've had Cure Light Wounds cast on my various characters a total of...hmm, scratches head : maybe three times? We even played without a warlord for the first year and a half. Sure it was slower and our war machine group was much less optimal in defeating battles, but we didn't die. Once.
> 
> Does that feel right, for D&D to any of you?



It feels right for the heroic fantasy genre.  Of course, if the only yardstick you rate a new edition by is the old editions, the new one will come up short.



> Healing Potions are completely worthless in 4e. Sad, sad, sad. I liked healing potions. Bring them back.



Check out the "Mordenkainen's Magnificent Emporium."  It has these "Potions of Cure Light Wounds" that work even if you're out of surges, and heal back 1d8+1 hps.  

Wonder which of the many fantasy-genre sources inspired that one?


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 29, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> Oddly enough, though, just that one aspect of it is kinda "realistic."  Mind you, nothing else about it is particularly realistic, genre-faithful, but not realistic.  The ability of others to heal you really is limited by your body's ability to recuperate, medicine just helps it along.  While magic can just arbitrarily make wounds go by-by (non-surge magical healing in 4e, all magical healing in past eds), healing that simply accelerates or enhances your recuperative powers is pretty reasonable.



No dispute, but in a world of magical healing with gods granting the ability to raise dead, it strikes me as completely out of character for such a world to have that healing limited by my body. I think it's mechanically weird and I don't really like the fluff of it either.



> Obviously 'better' can be subjective.



That's why I made sure to phrase it the way I did. "I don't think they're better..."



> To look at it dispassionately, they're better at modeling different things.  Hit Points & Healing Surges (and second wind and martial healing) are great for the action-movie style of heroic fantasy.  Wound-tracking systems are great for adding a gritty feel.   Hit Points & Clerical healing don't model any particular genre or feel too well - except of course for "that classic D&D feel."



This is true. I don't want Jason Statham as Chev Chelios D&D characters, so I don't want surges. I think it's beyond "heroic fantasy" and treading dangerously close to superheroic fantasy, which is a distinct shift from other editions of D&D. And it is, if nothing else, absolutely a different mechanic and different fluff and different feel from previous editions. Some people like it. Some people don't. I'm of the latter, although I was absolutely one of the former for the first two years of 4E.

Wound-tracking is a nice feeling of danger, but it simply adds complexity that slows down play too much. I would absolutely love to see all three of those options (and maybe others!) presented as options within D&DNext. Hell, they could do away with "core" or "default" completely with all three as co-equal options, so long as the method I like (regular old HP as has been done for 36+ years) is presented in the basic PHB (or whatever they call it).

-- As an aside: I keep seeing all the references to the infinite wands or hundreds of potions in a bag of healing, and in 20+ years of gaming that has not been my experience. Not even once. Obviously experiences vary, but equally obviously my play experience has been with far more limited healing availability than 4E, and nowhere near the "bag of wands" that everyone else keeps referencing. I have to believe that I'm not alone in that.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 29, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> No dispute, but in a world of magical healing with gods granting the ability to raise dead, it strikes me as completely out of character for such a world to have that healing limited by my body.



It's not a hard limit, as there are powers, particularly divine prayers, that break that limit (provide non-surge healing).



> Wound-tracking is a nice feeling of danger, but it simply adds complexity that slows down play too much. I would absolutely love to see all three of those options (and maybe others!) presented as options within D&DNext.



Indeed.  Really, a modular framework could allow quite a range of things, from an ultra-deadly low-fantasy approach where, say, a "hit" kills unless you make a 'death save,' in which case it only wounds you, to a growing number of 'hit points' that absorb hits before start making death saves, to heroic surges, and back to gritty again (but still heroic) with long-term wound tracking.  



> As an aside: I keep seeing all the references to the infinite wands or hundreds of potions in a bag of healing, and in 20+ years of gaming that has not been my experience. Not even once. Obviously experiences vary



Even one WoCLW is 50 charges, an average of 275 hps of very cheap, quite efficient between-combat healing.  In 3.0, the WoCLW was possible, but I didn't see anyone take the idea too seriously - it's a tad ridiculous to go tapping someone with a wand over and over while you 'rest.'  By the time 3.5 had been broadly accepted, it seemed like standard issue.  

The last time I went to KublaCon, the Pathfinder Society had 'advice for new characters' just posted around their area.  Among the obvious tips was:  "You are responsible for your own healing, have a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or at least a few potions!"

I don't doubt that experiences vary, but the 3.x rules made it possible to create low-level wands quite cheaply, and there was no limit but wandering monsters (and other such exigencies) on the time you could spend using them on eachother between combats.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 29, 2012)

Tony Vargas said:


> It's not a hard limit, as there are powers, particularly divine prayers, that break that limit (provide non-surge healing).



Yes, in addition to the surges, which makes death (again, my play experience for 4E) so rare as to be nonexistent (as in, no character in any game I played in 4E has ever died) and thus the game felt stale and boring as there was never a real threat except for those that were ridiculously over-budget.



> there was no limit but wandering monsters (and other such exigencies) on the time you could spend using them on each other between combats.



That's what a DM is for. A lot of the complaining I see about healing wands goes hand-in-hand with the complaints about magic Walmarts, neither of which were present in my games (neither as player, nor DM, nor in 3.0, nor 3.5). It seems that the two go together. Magic Walmarts lead to everyone with a wand lead to characters that die as often or even less than 4E superheroes.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Apr 29, 2012)

*still.*

a wand with a million billion cure charges in it wrecks my believability less than some guy off on his own springing back to full after FIVE MINUTES REST with no magic at all.

It's so ridiculous that it's not even worth debating. As far as making curative potions, I think that's a way better mechanic. Everyone should try to pick up some brewing skill, if they want to boil some herbs and drop some pixie dust in it at just the right moment and temperature (pixie dust or X magical ingredient would be rare enough or need a survival check or knowledge to find or extract and harvest from mythical beasts). Orcs might make their healing potions from the tears of halflings mixed with elf blood, humans might use extract of beholder eyes or whatever. Suddenly, without super easy / cheap wands, you have a reason to barricade the door from orcs barging in while you spend 1/2 hour and try to brew up a fresh batch of cure potions. Maybe they don't last more than a few hours before the potency is lost, who knows. 

There are a million bajillion ways I can think of to make curative magic work given the need to avoid the 15 minute work day and cheese at the same time, and still mix in some skill checks required and foraging or cutting out the glands from that dragon over there. Why not? Make the PCs work for it, or fast forward that part when you rest, but the amount of healing could be held back by limited access to magical reagents, so it's still in the hands of the DM, and the PCs would have to go kill that nasty beast back there to make potions out of its goo before heading further down the dungeon. 

One thing I did love in 4e was minor action healing. Though it's really sad they seem to be removing the standard>move>minor hierarchy. I'd love to play a cleric with worthwhile healing but still the ability to attack. Just like how an offhand attack could be a minor action (1/round max) for rangers, a cleric would have his standard to fight and his minor to touch his ally and "halleluliah" him a bit. There are really a lot of good things about 4e, but let's learn from that edition's mistakes and make something that works mechanically while keeping suspension of disbelief in check.

"_The best part is...it's learning_"--Archer, Re: Fisto Roboto


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 29, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Yes, in addition to the surges, which makes death (again, my play experience for 4E) so rare as to be nonexistent (as in, no character in any game I played in 4E has ever died) and thus the game felt stale and boring as there was never a real threat except for those that were ridiculously over-budget.



  Post MM3 YMMV.  A lot.  We've had more kills with me running 4e for a year than 5 years of 3e did.



> That's what a DM is for. A lot of the complaining I see about healing wands goes hand-in-hand with the complaints about magic Walmarts, neither of which were present in my games (neither as player, nor DM, nor in 3.0, nor 3.5). It seems that the two go together. Magic Walmarts lead to everyone with a wand lead to characters that die as often or even less than 4E superheroes.




It's not necessary.  You just need someone to take the _craft wand_ feat or to spend their WBL on wands rather than magic swords.



Gorgoroth said:


> a wand with a million billion cure charges in it wrecks my believability less than some guy off on his own springing back to full after FIVE MINUTES REST with no magic at all.




But they aren't.  They aren't back at full until their _healing surges_ are restored.  They are just able to function effectively, having been bandaged and having had their wounds stop bleeding.  (Now the one night of rest issue is a genuine one).  A bandaged wound isn't the same as a healed wound but it's a lot less of an inconvenience than an unbandaged one, especially to an action hero.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 29, 2012)

Neonchameleon said:


> Post MM3 YMMV.  A lot.  We've had more kills with me running 4e for a year than 5 years of 3e did.



Okay. I'm not really interested in buying more than the core 3 books for any edition unless I find enough in those books to recommend purchasing more. I don't feel like I should have to buy in that far (MM3) just to get threats that are threatening. That should be pretty basic.



> It's not necessary.  You just need someone to take the _craft wand_ feat or to spend their WBL on wands rather than magic swords.



Again, DM concerns. WBL is not a guaranteed. It's not even OGL content. It's distinctly part of the DMG and the DM's options. And craft wand is generally okay, as it uses a ton of time and resources that a character wouldn't necessarily want to spend in a game.



> But they aren't.  They aren't back at full until their _healing surges_ are restored.  They are just able to function effectively, having been bandaged and having had their wounds stop bleeding.  (Now the one night of rest issue is a genuine one).  A bandaged wound isn't the same as a healed wound but it's a lot less of an inconvenience than an unbandaged one, especially to an action hero.



But that is fluff that you are adding to the game. That isn't the mechanics of how it works, and it's not even the fluff of the actual game itself. All this "surges used = bandaged wounds" is ex post facto explanation. I mean, I can see how Saga's Wounds/Vitality turned into Healing Surges (with a few changes to try to cover up its DNA), but that's not at all how it's described, and then you are still left with the fact that healing surges /= wounds "healed" (otherwise you then deal with Warlord's shouting wounds closed) and that's a whole other issue.

And you still can't honestly say that the change isn't a large and important difference from the previous 30+ years of D&D: It is contentious because of that alone. For many people, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. I, for one, didn't have any problems with magical healing being solely the domain of a cleric or with someone "biting the bullet" and playing the cleric. That was never really an issue.


----------



## B.T. (Apr 29, 2012)

If I may interject briefly:

If you want D&D to feel like D&D, you need to have healing spells, not healing surges. You can argue about what makes more sense or which is more believable or which is better, but the most important question is, "Does this feel like D&D?"

The transition from 2e to 3e "felt" like D&D to a lot of people, even with ascending AC and changes to saving throws. The transition from 3e to 4e did not. I don't care if 4e was a commercial success or not--we could argue all day about that and it's one of those stupid debates where people pull things out of their ass to justify their beliefs--but to a lot of people (myself included), 4e did not feel like D&D. Ultimately, that's what matters.

I won't deny that 4e is a fairly solid game. The math is certainly better than 3e. The classes are more balanced. The skill system is simpler and streamlined. The monster design and encounter creation rules are much better than 3e's. And, in the end, none of that matters. If the game has the D&D brand, it had damn well better look and feel like D&D. (Nerds get emotionally attached to their RPGs in the way that sports fans get emotionally attached to their favorite teams. Change things at your own peril.)

What does D&D feel like? Clerics healing hit points with _cure light wounds_, not clerics using _healing word_ to allow a character to spend a healing surge.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 29, 2012)

B.T. said:


> If you want D&D to feel like D&D, you need to have healing spells, not healing surges.
> 
> <sip>
> 
> ...



I think "feeling like D&D" is fairly subjective.

For me, 4e does not feel like D&D in one way: it doesn't have boring combats of little more than hit point attrition. The healing rules are one important part of this.

It does feel like D&D in another way: it has fantasy adventure with gonzo PCs and gonzo monsters. The healing rules are pretty orthogonal to this.

Personally, what I value in D&D clerics is their "holy warriors with maces" vibe, not their "cure light wounds take a round to case and restor 1d8 or 1d6+1 hp, depending on edition" vibe.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 29, 2012)

pemerton said:


> Personally, what I value in D&D clerics is their "holy warriors with maces" vibe, not their "cure light wounds take a round to case and restor 1d8 or 1d6+1 hp, depending on edition" vibe.



And the trick to 5E is reconciling those two points of view. For me the paladin fulfills the former while the latter is exactly what I think a cleric should be. And neither of us is wrong or right objectively, but one of those has the weight of 30+ years of gaming and one has the weight of only 4.


EDIT: I'll point out that your simplification is reductive to the point of absurdity as I don't know of any person whose cleric was a one-trick pony that only cast healing spells every round. In fact, most of them did lots of other things during combat, like buffs/debuffs/flame strikes/etc.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Apr 29, 2012)

I have a pretty low threshold for 'feeling like D&D'. Rifts, World of Warcraft and Dragon Age all feel like D&D to me, for example.

The name of the militant semi-Christian/semi-pagan clergyman's magic healing power? I find it utterly trivial. Which is not to say ENWorld hasn't generated fifty page threads on even more trivial subjects. Like dragonboobs.


----------



## pemerton (Apr 29, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> And the trick to 5E is reconciling those two points of view. For me the paladin fulfills the former while the latter is exactly what I think a cleric should be. And neither of us is wrong or right objectively, but one of those has the weight of 30+ years of gaming and one has the weight of only 4.



I first encountered clerics as holy warriors with maces in Moldvay Basic in 1982. That's more than 4 years ago.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 29, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Okay. I'm not really interested in buying more than the core 3 books for any edition unless I find enough in those books to recommend purchasing more. I don't feel like I should have to buy in that far (MM3) just to get threats that are threatening. That should be pretty basic.




They rebaselined the math and at high levels it undoubtedly needed it.  And have a new set of base books in 4e - Essentials.  Which are IMO a lot better.  Monster Vault (the "new" MM) creatures are vicious.



> Again, DM concerns. WBL is not a guaranteed. It's not even OGL content. It's distinctly part of the DMG and the DM's options. And craft wand is generally okay, as it uses a ton of time and resources that a character wouldn't necessarily want to spend in a game.




The Wand of Cure Light Wounds does not take "a lot of time" to craft.  It takes _one day_.  If that's a lot of time in your games, I wonder that the PCs even have time to sleep.  As for the cost?  Under 400GP to craft?  When a +1 sword is over 2000GP to buy?



> But that is fluff that you are adding to the game. That isn't the mechanics of how it works, and it's not even the fluff of the actual game itself.




It is undeniably true that after recovering after a short rest the PC is still down endurance and resilience because they are down healing surges and therefore can not take as many further hits in the day as they otherwise would be able to.  And that there are spells and only spells that regain hit points without spending a surge.  The bandages in specific are my fluff - in the rules _both_ hit points and healing surges are presented as abstract.



> And you still can't honestly say that the change isn't a large and important difference from the previous 30+ years of D&D: It is contentious because of that alone. For many people, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.




And for many people hit points were always broke.  Healing surges are less broke.



> I, for one, didn't have any problems with magical healing being solely the domain of a cleric or with someone "biting the bullet" and playing the cleric. That was never really an issue.




I've never had problems with warlords either.  I do however prefer a game that gives me the option to have a non-crippled genuinely low magic party.  I'm playing a LoTR game using D&D rules - no casters in the party.  No wizard, cleric, or druid wouldn't really work in older editions.  If I read _Appendix N_, I see almost nothing that looks like a D&D wizard or cleric (Vancian wizards looking much more like 4e characters).  If I want to play D&D other than as a self-referential game, most of the inspirations _do not have D&D style clerics. _Warlords, who can inspire people to keep going when they are weary and wounded are much more common.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 29, 2012)

> Originally Posted by *pemerton*
> 
> 
> _Personally,  what I value in D&D clerics is their "holy warriors with maces"  vibe, not their "cure light wounds take a round to case and restor 1d8  or 1d6+1 hp, depending on edition" vibe._







Mercutio01 said:


> And the trick to 5E is reconciling those two points of view. For me the paladin fulfills the former while the latter is exactly what I think a cleric should be. And neither of us is wrong or right objectively, but one of those has the weight of 30+ years of gaming and one has the weight of only 4.




A cleric as a holy warrior with a mace?  Off the top of my head, that's almost a thousand years old at a minimum.  You might have the weight of 40 years of gaming.  But against that we can set 30 years of gaming and _almost a thousand years of history and stories_.

And I care more that my game resembles good fiction than that it's self-referential.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 29, 2012)

[MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] - We're down to opinions and personal feelings about the game now, which means a fundamental difference in how we play D&D, what we want out of D&D, and how we view various incarnations of D&D over the years. I've never felt that HP were broken. We are at an impasse. And 5E is supposed to bridge the gap between us. They have a ridiculously hard task to complete and I don't envy their position. I hope they can do it.

(Incidentally in 3.5, crafting wands requires the cleric to be level 5 and expend a valuable feat slot [of which they'd only have 3 if they were humans, 2 if any other race]. Then they need to spen one day, which means one full uninterrupted 8 hour day during which they cannot do anything else, requires the expenditure XP and raw materials, plus a wand "blank" on which to work, plus the expenditure of the spell in question. It can't be rushed and it sets back the crafter's experience delaying his next chance to level up. And that all means time not spent exploring dungeons, saving kingdoms, searching for lost treasures, etc. It's not as simple as "Hey, let's take a break in this dungeon to make a wand." or "Delay the assault on the castle as long as you can. I'm busy making this wand here.")




> A cleric as a holy warrior with a mace? Off the top of my head, that's almost a thousand years old at a minimum. You might have the weight of 40 years of gaming. But against that we can set 30 years of gaming and almost a thousand years of history and stories.



And now comes out the "reality" argument, which holds absolutely zero weight because REAL clerics didn't cast spells at all. Drop the silliness.



> And I care more that my game resembles good fiction than that it's self-referential.



So your "good fiction" involves nigh unkillable heroes who heal themselves simply by taking a five minute rest or sleeping one night and feeling magically completely normal? Not my definition of "good fiction" but to each their own.



EDIT: And I'm done arguing with you because it's completely apparent that neither side really groks the problems the other side has. Different experiences, different expectations, different desires, and different viewpoints, all of which are irreconcilable without differing rules to cater to each side. You're unwilling to take a step back, as you probably see it, and I think the step forward was no such thing, so I don't want to move away from what has worked since RPGs were created for a system that I just don't like, even after playing it for 2 years.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Apr 30, 2012)

Also - interestingly, Odo of Kent appears to have been a noncombatant who never actually engaged in combat and merely sat in the rear cheering the troops on. Which makes him sounds much less like a "holy warrior with a mace" than a "holy man providing hope [HP?] for disheartened troops without actually hitting anyone at all." Makes him sound more like a 4E warlord without combat skills.

Furthermore, the article you linked indicates that he was a corrupt extortionist who was fabulously wealthy by robbing the people he ruled, and that he even defrauded the king and was later imprisoned. Not who I'd hold up as a paragon of the cleric. Maybe a charlatan or an evil cloistered cleric or evangelist.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Apr 30, 2012)

*.*

"The Wand of Cure Light Wounds does not take "a lot of time" to craft. It takes one day. If that's a lot of time in your games, I wonder that the PCs even have time to sleep. As for the cost? Under 400GP to craft? When a +1 sword is over 2000GP to buy?"

To me, this is merely a question of "Do we want cure light wounds to be craftable in a wand at such a wholesale price"...to which the answer must be a resounding No. If anything, it kills off clerics just as much as healing surges do. Let's make clerics reflavorable and fun to play, including combat, with whatever weapons their deities favor, and we can move on from there.

Rebalancing magic item creation costs must be done in any edition...hopefully they'll learn from that too. I didn't really agree with, say, Iron Armbands benefitting rangers twice as much as any other class for the same price (they should be 1 arm armbands. Want the damage benefit on both attacks? Buy two. This also kills the bird of "no other arm item slot for magic shields in S+B fighters, who'd also love to have armbands buff their sword arm). 

There are a lot of good innovations in 4e, but we know where work needs to be done. Another example, to reply to NeonChameleon:

"But they aren't. They aren't back at full until their healing surges are restored. They are just able to function effectively, having been bandaged and having had their wounds stop bleeding. (Now the one night of rest issue is a genuine one). A bandaged wound isn't the same as a healed wound but it's a lot less of an inconvenience than an unbandaged one, especially to an action hero."

This skirts my other main point, that a level 1 hero with ten surges has over 100hp to soak up each and every day. This is more HP than almost any other character I've played, except for a level 10 synthesist in PF that was waaaay OP and nearly unkillable. Our Warden in our 4e campaign started acting so reckless and challenging the DM to drop him. He used his "when you go under 0hp"-triggered revival daily utility power, only once in two years, and that was on purpose.

There's a difference between action hero and Superman. If a wizard feels like superman (our wizard too, never spent his entire allowed surges in two years of gameplay), Houston, we have a problem.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> Yes, in addition to the surges, which makes death (again, my play experience for 4E) so rare as to be nonexistent (as in, no character in any game I played in 4E has ever died) and thus the game felt stale and boring as there was never a real threat except for those that were ridiculously over-budget.



And we're off to another spurious complaint about 4e.  Death is a theoretical threat in any version of D&D.  In older versions, it was a very real, very arbitrary and random threat.  In 3e and 4e, it's really not.  Decent, obvious, strategies (rampant powergaming in 3e; a balanced party in 4e), greatly reduce the likelihood of death.  I played in two long-running campaign in 3e and the same group continued with 4e.  1st to double-digit levels, twice each.  One character death & resurrection in 3e.  One in 4e.  Both were considered failures by both the DM and the players. 

Some DMs do set out to kill PCs, and I'm sure they find 4e's consistent encounter balance guidelines unsuitable - they just have to exceed those guidelines is all.  Some PCs set out to kill eachother, and 4e's classes, balanced for contribution to the party rather than 1:1 duels is uniquely unsuited for that.  3e, OTOH, was better suited to PvP and PvDM styles.

5e will have to pull elements from both, and for older eds, if it's going to come up with modules to support both cooperative and competitive play styles.



> That's what a DM is for.



To fix the broken game.  Yeah, I know.  It's kinda like older American cars.  The great thing is you can work on them yourself.  The problem is you really /need/ to, frequently. 



> A lot of the complaining I see about healing wands goes hand-in-hand with the complaints about magic Walmarts, neither of which were present in my games (neither as player, nor DM, nor in 3.0, nor 3.5). It seems that the two go together. Magic Walmarts lead to everyone with a wand lead to characters that die as often or even less than 4E superheroes.



Craft Wand was a 5th level feat.  No 'magic Wal*Marts' are needed for the WoCLW to become a staple of between-combat healing.  In fact, crafting was cheaper and more efficient.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> To me, this is merely a question of "Do we want cure light wounds to be craftable in a wand at such a wholesale price"...to which the answer must be a resounding No. If anything, it kills off clerics just as much as healing surges do.



Setting aside that neither kills the Cleric at all, I'm glad you see the parallel. 



> This skirts my other main point, that a level 1 hero with ten surges has over 100hp to soak up each and every day. This is more HP than almost any other character I've played



Nod.  And a WoCLW was a pool of ~275 hps, distributable to anyone in 1d8+1 dollops.

So the same 'problem' existed in both editions, but, really, what was this problem that "kills off clerics?"

In 4e, a cleric is able to trigger and enhance healing surges, and to provide non-surge healing if he cares to pick the right utilities.  He can even take a 'pacifist' option which makes him an unparalleled healer, and discourages much attacking at all (mostly 'attacks' that just de-buff rather than doing damage).   If the cleric player wants to take a more 'hands on' approach there's a fairly tough melee build, and a ranged controllerish one, as well.  But, between combat, healing is just a matter of rest, so the cleric need only heal in-combat.  The Cleric is a very viable option in 4e, a fully-contributing, balanced class, but it is an /option/, not a necessity.  There are other sources of healing, and between-combat healing is almost a non-issue, though it does consume a daily resource of each character, so is not unlimited in any sense.

In 3e, a cleric is able to spontaneously burn prepared spells for healing, and has the best selection of healing spells, making him the best healer in the game.  But, with the WoCLW cheap and readily available (through commoditized magic, or Crafting), between-combat healing is a non-issue, whether you have a cleric in the party, or it's a Bard or Paladin or UMD Rogue triggering the wand.  In-combat there are other classes able to heal well enough to get by, but the cleric is the best.  Relieved of the burden of healing between combats, the Cleric can devote all of his spells to other areas, making him a clear 'tier 1' class, superior to all but the strongest of other full-casters.  The cleric is one of the superior options in 3e, but not technically a necessity, a Druid (also tier 1, also capable of healing) could take his place, for instance.  And, between-combat healing is a non-issue, consuming only a fairly trivial amount of the party's gold (and possibly exp) resources.


The point here isn't which of the two is better, but the way in which both are better than their predecessors: that is in as far as the Cleric is no longer "nothing but a band-aid," a class that had to be played for the party's mere survival, but which offered very little 'reward' for the player of the cleric.  In 3e and 4e, the Cleric is a worthy class, on that's engaging and rewarding to play, with contributions to make over and above merely patching up his buddies.


----------



## Gorgoroth (Apr 30, 2012)

*lots of good points Tony*

You obviously know your stuff, and I hope in no way to put forth the idea that I bash 4e while putting 3e or even PF as a paragon of perfect game design or combat simulation, far from it.

But what I'm saying is this : Whatever crafting feat should be balanced with the idea that it should be cheaper to have a cleric (much cheaper) in your party than buying CLW wands, and much cheaper than making them yourself. I'd much rather players need to make potions of CLW, than have easy access fo 275 hp batteries. That said in our PF games without a cleric, our wand has come in handy and allowed us to ram through lots of adventures while stuff having tons of danger and chance of death during combat, something I've never, ever experienced or felt in 4e, no matter the DM, module or custom setting. I appreciate DMs that try to keep the story flowing, but not when the story strings are visible. When PCs die once every few sessions, you tend to learn the value of life and avoiding that. 4e death was just way too uncommon, thus the claims that it was too close to the nerf/carebear side of the gritty/gamey spectrum. 

I like a good game where my characters are heros and tough, but I don't like feeling _invincible_. CLW wands never made my PF barbarian feel invincible, it just kept the adventure going. Nobody really had time to use them in the midst of battle. This is the crucial difference. 

Why in two+ years of playing 4e every week did we not respec a single player as a cleric? because none of us died and made us think "hey, maybe I should build my new char as a cleric and the party would do better." Not once did that happen. When your lightly armored striker in a party without healers don't die despite acting all reckless and so on, there is a serious balance problem that makes the problem of CLW wand pricing and feat availability pale in comparison. A level 10 fighter can still die in a dragon's single round full attack action, meaning my PF cleric had to spend his standard actions each round he was engaged in melee with it healed up with the best healing I had. 

This is quite different than, well, _maybe _you _might _be better off with a cleric in your party. 

In PF, in my experience, no cleric = dead.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2012)

Gorgoroth:  Before I reply, when you say 'Cleric' in the context of 4e, do you mean the cleric class, specifically, or the leader role?


----------



## Gorgoroth (Apr 30, 2012)

*probably the leader role*

We had an NPC cleric for a couple levels, and never thought he saved the party, so we got rid of him. We had a killswitch in who was played by a former canadian navy paratrooper and it made such an insanely huge difference, and was very much appreciated, but it only further reinforced the idea that the DM was massively outgunned by the PCs in terms of difficulty. Perhaps this was our DMs problem in not making ECL + 5 battles for us to challenge us, but I mean, a few lucky rolls here and there should have at least killed us once or twice. Never did. We didn't once have to bring a character's body back to town to pray or chant his mantra and ask the high level church gods to raise his body in exchange for fulfilling some quest to rid the world of undead or whatever.

This is what D&D has always meant : risk of death, but appreciating great rewards. The only time I saw a PC die was when he was bored with his character in a one-off session in a side-campaign and wanted to re-spec. Sure we had challenges, but the expected outcome shouldn't be success, it should be "whatever the gods/dice decide, given the odds and the resources/vs/challenge of the enemy". A lot of my critiques could be fixed by house rules, but the core ECL ratings of monster encounters was way too easy. I don't really remember any time except once when my paladin was out of surges where I ever worried about dying. I did a kiting/run and hide + marking strategy. 

The only thing having a warlord in our party meant that we'd end encounters faster and wasted less resources, not that it meant we were in any less of a threat. 

Unfortunately for any new rules in Mordenkainen's emporium relating to healing potions, I never tried anything from there, simply because every single 4e game that has been going on in various circles of gamers I know has died in favor of other game systems. I loved to play 4e as a player for the fun + tactics of it, but it felt like not D&D and I'm not the only one. Even then, PF is riddled with issues too, albeit it still works better overall. Balance be damned, we have two wizards and one alchemist and a bard in our current group, and have a great time doing really fun + creative things, both in and out of combat.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2012)

*deleted double post*


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2012)

OK, so the class, specifically.

If I follow what you're saying, 4e 'killed' the cleric by not delivering enough TPKs in the absence of that specific class?

OK, that's true.  4e's emphasis on roles did eliminate the need for any one specific class.  If no one feels like playing a prayer-mumbling servant of a deity, no one has to.  Your leader functionality can come from a badass-warrior warlord, or chant-mumbling shaman ally of the spirits, or spell-mumbling tinkerer artificer or spell-singing teen heart-throb bard.  One of those has gotta appeal to someone in just about any group.

By the same token, 4e also 'killed' the fighter, magic-user and thief.


It may be that your DM stuck to the standard encounter budget a little too closely, or that your party pushed the envelope on synergy or optimization a bit, or both.  But it really sounds like you just have a very particular expectation about the game.  I remember playing the game in that mode when I started, and while it was kinda fun in it's way, at the time, I fairly quickly moved on to more story-oriented approaches that tweaked rules, circumstance, and even fudged the occasional roll, to keep character deaths down to dramatically appropriate levels.  4e doesn't require that kind of tweaking, so, yes, it is absolutely less randomly lethal than it's predecessors.  It can be rendered quite lethal if the DM so desires, though.  It's really nothing more than encounter balance being more consistent.

Oh, and to tie it back, healing surges are part of that more consistent encounter balance.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> @Neonchameleon  - We're down to opinions and personal feelings about the game now, which means a fundamental difference in how we play D&D, what we want out of D&D, and how we view various incarnations of D&D over the years. I've never felt that HP were broken. We are at an impasse. And 5E is supposed to bridge the gap between us. They have a ridiculously hard task to complete and I don't envy their position. I hope they can do it.




Yup.



> (Incidentally in 3.5, crafting wands requires the cleric to be level 5 and expend a valuable feat slot [of which they'd only have 3 if they were humans, 2 if any other race].




The single best investment they can make.



> It can't be rushed and it sets back the crafter's experience delaying his next chance to level up.




XP is a river.



> And that all means time not spent exploring dungeons, saving kingdoms, searching for lost treasures, etc. It's not as simple as "Hey, let's take a break in this dungeon to make a wand." or "Delay the assault on the castle as long as you can. I'm busy making this wand here.")




It's _one day_.  If your PCs are needed every single day then I dread to think how much of the world they are busy depopulating.



> And now comes out the "reality" argument, which holds absolutely zero weight because REAL clerics didn't cast spells at all. Drop the silliness.




Myths and stories _are based on things people find in reality_.  



> So your "good fiction" involves nigh unkillable heroes




Not proven.



> who heal themselves simply by taking a five minute rest or sleeping one night




I agree that 4e extended rests are a mistake.  And have frequently said that I houserule extended rests to a long lazy weekend at a minimum.  This problem is ultimately no different to the classic D&D spellcaster recovery one where spellcasters get a full loadout of spells each day, every day.



> EDIT: And I'm done arguing with you because it's completely apparent that neither side really groks the problems the other side has. Different experiences, different expectations, different desires, and different viewpoints, all of which are irreconcilable without differing rules to cater to each side. You're unwilling to take a step back, as you probably see it, and I think the step forward was no such thing, so I don't want to move away from what has worked since RPGs were created for a system that I just don't like, even after playing it for 2 years.




Agreed.



Gorgoroth said:


> To me, this is merely a question of "Do we want cure light wounds to be craftable in a wand at such a wholesale price"...to which the answer must be a resounding No. If anything, it kills off clerics just as much as healing surges do. Let's make clerics reflavorable and fun to play, including combat, with whatever weapons their deities favor, and we can move on from there.




Reflavourable and fun to play is _exactly_ what 4e did.



> This skirts my other main point, that a level 1 hero with ten surges has over 100hp to soak up each and every day. This is more HP than almost any other character I've played,




And damage per attack is higher and monster hit points are higher.  A non-minion kobold has over 20hp as opposed to IIRC 2.



> There's a difference between action hero and Superman. If a wizard feels like superman (our wizard too, never spent his entire allowed surges in two years of gameplay), Houston, we have a problem.




You know what feels like Superman?  The ability to stop time.  The ability to travel across the continent in the blink of an eye.  The ability to showboat making yourself utterly immune to arrows.

Huston, we have a pre-4e wizard.  And I'll happily accept that pre MM3 monsters didn't do enough damage.



Gorgoroth said:


> That said in our PF games without a cleric, our wand has come in handy and allowed us to ram through lots of adventures while stuff having tons of danger and chance of death during combat, something I've never, ever experienced or felt in 4e, no matter the DM, module or custom setting.




YMMV.  I have no problem terrifying my PCs in 4e post MM3. 



> When PCs die once every few sessions, you tend to learn the value of life and avoiding that.




The campaign I was in with S'mon had an average PC death rate of more than 1/session.  (This included several near TPKs admittedly).



> Why in two+ years of playing 4e every week did we not respec a single player as a cleric? because none of us died and made us think "hey, maybe I should build my new char as a cleric and the party would do better."




Ding, dong, the witch is dead!  The idea that "Hey!  This one class needs to be in any party" is in 4e exactly where it belongs.  Six foot underground and well tamped down.  People should be able to play what they want, not be strongarmed into playing clerics.

That said, no deaths is excessive.  Seriously excessive.  And they did have to raise monster damage.



> This is quite different than, well, _maybe _you _might _be better off with a cleric in your party.
> 
> In PF, in my experience, no cleric = dead.




And this is a _good_ thing?  Forcing someone to play a cleric rather than giving them free reign to choose whichever of the twenty or so classes there are. The idea that the party _must_ recruit a cleric is not a good thing.


----------



## Tony Vargas (Apr 30, 2012)

Y'know, just today (yesterday since it's 2am), I was in a pick-up game, because we just had too many players for Gardmore Abbey.  I ended up playing a cleric someone else had built.  Not quite a pacifist, but pretty close - Beacon of Hope, Stream of Life, etc - not my preferred sort of character.  The rest of the 'party' were strikers.  We went through 3 combats.  The first one was a funny/frustrating dice-fueled wiff-fest, with hardly a double-digit coming up on the d20s for the longest time.  Once the DMs dice warmed up, one of the strikers dropped and I brought her back, with a side defense-buff rider, and gave her a re-roll on her next attack.  She finished one of the monsters with it.  Also brought back another PC in the second fight, which was a fun one with an over-leveled Elite and some re-usable minions (minion's it was actually /good/ to crit).  The 3rd fight was brutal, we missed a fairly obvious trap and got dropped into a room, surrounded, beat on, and another trap triggered on us.  Everyone bloodied in the surprise round.  Ongoing 10 damage getting tossed against us every round at 6th level.  Beacon of Hope, Healer's Mercy, followed by a utility to get me to the far side of the original trap and Stream of Life.  Cleric turned around a near-TPK just like that.  By the end, the strikers had beaten down the last enemy, and Stream of Life had them all un-bloodied (I was bloodied, though - I failed my first to Stream of Life saves - awesome prayer, but you can kill yourself with it).

Maybe if the DM had put more design time into the encounters they would've been easier, but the sense of jeopardy was certainly there.  

In casual play, I've seen more than a few TPKs with inexperienced players.  I've also seen them prevented.  Sometimes by a cleric (or Warpriest), once by a Mage.

No particular point beyond "yeah, experiences vary."


----------



## Neonchameleon (Apr 30, 2012)

Just thought I'd add that to me D&D has always been cinematic.  My first two fantasy roleplaying games were GURPS and WHFRP.  When GURPS is your baseline, any claim to combat in D&D being risible or it not being a cinematic game becomes ... dubious at best.  WFRP is set in a crapsack world with the concept of going into a dungeon being the height of stupidity. 

I have my game of gritty realism.  I have my game in a crapsack world.  And neither of them has the massively escalating HP of D&D.  To me D&D has always been about larger than life heroes, very combat-centric because the PCs were likely to not only win but win without being seriously impeded.  And when D&D tries to do grit and realism it fits thematically to me about as well as 90s "dark" comic books involving four colour supers.  For that matter, a 3.X D&D wizard can make _Dr Strange_ look like an amateur.  And Gandalf a mere beginner.

So rather than try to make D&D something it isn't (gritty), 4e embraces sword and sorcery and is the best match for Appendix N of any edition.  It also embraces the larger than life legends the hit point system calls for (although the active capabilities don't) and allows for a mythological game.  (No cutting the tops off mountains as in celtic myth tho).


----------



## wrightdjohn (May 3, 2012)

I disagree.  The gritty days of BECMI/1e are very fond memories for me.  I suppose it's all what you call gritty.  It doesn't have to be hyper realistic.  It can be cinematic.  But to be gritty it needs to be dangerous and it needs to require preparation and skill to defeat the enemies.


----------



## Gorgoroth (May 6, 2012)

*...*

time doth not heal all

"I have a wound Sam, a wound that will not heal"

It's too bad persistent, chronic wounds such as Frodo's cannot be modelled in D&D.

------------------------------
/ aside A beautiful passage from LOTR, blatantly ripped from this site:

'Do not be afraid,' said Aragorn. 'I came in time, and I have called him back. He is weary now, and grieved, and he has taken a hurt like the Lady Éowyn, daring to smite that deadly thing. But these evils can be amended, so strong and gay a spirit is in him. His grief he will not forget; but it will not darken his heart, it will teach him wisdom.'

Then Aragorn laid his hand on Merry's head, and passing his hand gently through the brown curls, he touched the eyelids, and called him by name. And when the fragrance of athelas stole through the room, like the scent of orchards, and of heather in the sunshine full of bees, suddenly Merry awoke, and he said:

'I am hungry. What is the time?'


----------



## billd91 (May 6, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> time doth not heal all
> 
> "I have a wound Sam, a wound that will not heal"
> 
> It's too bad persistent, chronic wounds such as Frodo's cannot be modelled in D&D.




I don't think it is modeled, but I think it exists. Players get weary of playing a particular character or think their story is played out. They move on and start another one.


----------



## pemerton (May 7, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> It's too bad persistent, chronic wounds such as Frodo's cannot be modelled in D&D.



I quite like [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION]'s approach.

Another is via the curse mechanics.


----------



## Hussar (May 7, 2012)

Gorgoroth said:


> time doth not heal all
> 
> "I have a wound Sam, a wound that will not heal"
> 
> ...




Actually, modeling that in 4e is easy peasy.  Just use the disease track.  Done.


----------



## Gorgoroth (May 8, 2012)

*fair enough*

although I'd love to play some more 4e, it would have to be in a heavily houseruled world with custom magic items and so on, and there are just no 4e games going on in my city, at least in the somewhat fair amount of gamers I know in my circles. 

Perhaps there are more out there...but why waste one's life chasing the receding tide out to sea.


----------



## pemerton (May 8, 2012)

Hussar said:


> Actually, modeling that in 4e is easy peasy.  Just use the disease track.  Done.



The Book of Vile Darkness adapts the disease track to curses.


----------



## Emirikol (May 14, 2012)

I think that D&D could do a "lingering" critical or mortal wound effect.  It could easily be modeled after the disease or other condition rules.

Simply 'not allow' healing to occur until the 'critical' is healed.

jh


----------

