# Hit Points & Healing Surges Finally Explained!



## Kzach (Jan 15, 2009)

I'm really hoping that the podcast goes some way towards changing people's mindset in regards to the hit point mechanic. I'm so tired of groups that think literally when it comes to hit points and can't seem to grasp the abstract nature of the mechanic.

The amount of times I've run games and described the combats using concepts like near misses, strained muscles, minor cuts or bruises, being winded, armour damage that hinders the character, etc. only to be mocked by players who can't seem to wrap their minds around an abstract concept is truly tiring.

How does it make more sense to survive multiple killing blows that would have your guts hanging out and your head lolling to one side as opposed to near misses and whatnot?

People just can't get past the terms 'hit point' and 'damage'. I really wish they'd rename them.

P.S. I love you, Mike *swoon*.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jan 15, 2009)

Kzach said:


> People just can't get past the terms 'hit point' and 'damage'. I really wish they'd rename them.



As abstract as the mechanic is meant to be, "damage" is a fairly concrete term that carries lots of connotative baggage. I also think that for a player new to the system, it is sometimes difficult to work out/understand their character's condition and current health. Hit points have been trumped by healing surges and even more importantly failed death saving throws.
I think this has been a stumbling block in players accepting 4E, although in play, it does actually work fairly smoothly. Personally I would prefer a more concrete sytem rather than the abstract, but heh... such is the way of things.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 15, 2009)

Paraphrased: "The poison dart RIPS RIGHT THROUGH YOUR EYE SOCKET!  TAKE TWO DAMAGE!"

Cracked me up.  I remember playing under DMs like that.


----------



## underthumb (Jan 15, 2009)

I understand that hit points are made to be abstract, and that they can be conceptualized as something other than raw damage in many contexts. The problem is when the abstraction is strained, such as being bathed in a vat of acid. I mean literally submerging a character completely in acid. In that case, the acid takes much, much longer to kill higher HP characters, and there isn't much of an in-game explanation for what's happening that's particularly satisfying. "You're bathed in acid, but you're really high level! So...the net effect is that you're being dissolved slower. God knows why."


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 15, 2009)

underthumb- Agreed, but those issues run up against problems even when you view "damage" as physical damage.  Its not really logical that a level 20 wizard submerged in a vat of acid will dissolve slower than a level 5 fighter.  Its acid, and they're made out of meat.  They should just dissolve.


----------



## joethelawyer (Jan 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> underthumb- Agreed, but those issues run up against problems even when you view "damage" as physical damage.  Its not really logical that a level 20 wizard submerged in a vat of acid will dissolve slower than a level 5 fighter.  Its acid, and they're made out of meat.  They should just dissolve.




its simple to get around stuff like that though. so simple its a non-issue.  the acid takes away 10% of your hp every round, and in 10 rnds you're dead.


----------



## kibbitz (Jan 15, 2009)

Well, if you are willing to do the math, you could always use % of max HP to determine damage, sorta like a reverse healing surge. This opens up a different can of worms though. A poke from a goblin dagger doing 10 damage hurts both the fighter and the wizard equally, but soaking them in acid does the fighter more damage than the wizard...


----------



## underthumb (Jan 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> underthumb- Agreed, but those issues run up against problems even when you view "damage" as physical damage.  Its not really logical that a level 20 wizard submerged in a vat of acid will dissolve slower than a level 5 fighter.  Its acid, and they're made out of meat.  They should just dissolve.




Absolutely. I'm more of a fan of the GURPS system, where hit points represent actual physical damage and people's hit points are determined principally via their mass (as measured by strength). Some big bulky guy actually will take longer to dissolve (or at least a bit longer) than a scrawny guy.

But yeah, there are always ways around these problems, as the post after yours attests. I just feel like hit points in D&D are straining under the weight of being too many things. If we want them to be "luck" and "skill" and so forth in taking blows, why not just have an active defense mechanic? Or explicit luck points or whatever?


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 15, 2009)

Because sometimes getting 80% of the way there quickly is more important than getting 90% of the way there slowly.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 15, 2009)

Some of us have understood that some portion of hit points represented abstract qualities like luck, destiny, and skill since reading the 1st edition DMG.

Fully understanding that doesn't necessarily make us happy with the direction of the game, so I think it unlikely that revealing to us things we already understand is likely to change our minds.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jan 15, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Fully understanding that doesn't necessarily make us happy with the direction of the game, so I think it unlikely that revealing to us things we already understand is likely to change our minds.




"Direction of the game?"  

I've been dropped in vats of acid since _Keep on the Borderlands_, and hps do now what they've always done.

The only difference is that now I'm not always begging the cleric to reattach my face.  Sometimes a simple, "Suck it up Princess!" is enough to get me back on my feet. Now, I'm that badass. It doesn't stretch my willing suspension of disbelief any further than it normally is.

*Aside:* The warlord *must* one day be given a power called _Suck it up Princess._  The game demands it.


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 15, 2009)

Kzach said:


> I'm really hoping that the podcast goes some way towards changing people's mindset in regards to the hit point mechanic. I'm so tired of groups that think literally when it comes to hit points and can't seem to grasp the abstract nature of the mechanic.
> 
> The amount of times I've run games and described the combats using concepts like near misses, strained muscles, minor cuts or bruises, being winded, armour damage that hinders the character, etc. only to be mocked by players who can't seem to wrap their minds around an abstract concept is truly tiring.
> 
> ...




I think everyone understands and understood there was a level of abstraction in HP.  They have problems with it being abstract strained muscles when its continuing poison or fire damage.  Or how you are just winded, and the next HP of damage makes you dieing.  You are dieing and then all of a sudden you have 25% HP.  There are tons of issues with the 4e HP/damage/healing mechanic that just cluing people into it being an abstract system does not solve.


----------



## pawsplay (Jan 15, 2009)

_Hit Points & Healing Surges_ would be a terrible name for a role-playing game.


----------



## kibbitz (Jan 15, 2009)

Ahglock said:


> I think everyone understands and understood there was a level of abstraction in HP.  They have problems with it being abstract strained muscles when its continuing poison or fire damage.  Or how you are just winded, and the next HP of damage makes you dieing.  You are dieing and then all of a sudden you have 25% HP.  There are tons of issues with the 4e HP/damage/healing mechanic that just cluing people into it being an abstract system does not solve.




It's really about the healing surges, isn't it? Healing surges seem to be viewed as unrealistic internalized personal healing by people who despise it. The abstract strained muscles bit seems to point to this. Damage inconsistencies of this sort though, haven't they been in D&D since... D&D?

Asphyxiation, I believe, did HP damage too. So your Wizard with 40 HP, down to 1 HP purely from asphyxiation (just assume he resisted all the fire damage and avoided being clipped by falling rubble/stuff) after escaping a burning building. He gets poked with dagger for 2 damage, now lies dying. Don't see how this is different from the 'winded->dying scenario'.

Though this gets me wondering... would people only who hate the 4e healing surge because of the "abstract strained muscles vs physical damage" bit be okay if the surges only restored temporary HP unless the surge is enhanced magically by a Cleric or other appropriate class?


----------



## Dire Bare (Jan 15, 2009)

Loincloth of Armour said:


> The warlord *must* one day be given a power called _Suck it up Princess._  The game demands it.




I completely agree with this!  Yes!


----------



## lutecius (Jan 15, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> As abstract as the mechanic is meant to be, "damage" is a fairly concrete term that carries lots of connotative baggage. I also think that for a player new to the system, it is sometimes difficult to work out/understand their character's condition and current health. Hit points have been trumped by healing surges and even more importantly failed death saving throws.
> I think this has been a stumbling block in players accepting 4E, although in play, it does actually work fairly smoothly. Personally I would prefer a more concrete sytem rather than the abstract, but heh... such is the way of things.



Same here. My problem with abstract hps is that no matter what you call them, there are already other mechanics (saves mostly) that represent skills, near misses, morale and such. So to me they're not only abstract to the point of not representing anything, they're also thematically redundant.



Celebrim said:


> Some of us have understood that some portion of hit points represented abstract qualities like luck, destiny, and skill since reading the 1st edition DMG.
> 
> Fully understanding that doesn't necessarily make us happy with the direction of the game, so I think it unlikely that revealing to us things we already understand is likely to change our minds.



Yes. I hoped 4e would alleviate the problem not make it worse. They could have implemented Armor as damage reduction too. Armour or magic, depending on the class, could have replaced the extra hit points.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 15, 2009)

Although there are a few people who don't "get" the abstract nature of hit points, it's a caricature -- and thus a straw man -- to attribute that to all, most, or many of the people who don't like 4E's system.

Personally speaking, I _like_ healing surges.  My beef with 4E is that there's no way to be actually injured ... at least beyond six hours.  There's simply no denying that changing "three days" -- the average time for natural healing in 3E -- to "six hours" -- the maximum time for healing in 4E is a significant change.

Any attempt to characterize dislike of that change as a failure to understand that "hit points are abstract" is disingenuous.  At best.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jan 15, 2009)

I look at hp and healing surges in reverse. Your healing surges are your "real" hp. It's how much strain you can take for the entire day, with some resting and breaks during the day. Your hp value is the amount of punishment you can take in a short period of time. 

The following is how I rationalize healing surges and hp. People tend to be able to take more punishment if it's spread out over a day. If you take a lot of damage over a short period of time, it overloads your body even if it's less than your theoretical daily limit. When you uses up a healing surge, you're recharging your punishment threshold. When your hp goes to 0 even with a bunch of unused healing surge, your body is being overloaded by damage that is coming in too quickly for the body to handle, and you're basically dying from shock.

No sudden regeneration, no instant closing of cut wounds. When you use a healing surge, it's just your body absorbing the damage and ignoring it for the moment so that you can continue to fight unimpaired because if you don't, you're gonna fall down and get chopped up.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jan 15, 2009)

Loincloth of Armour said:


> *Aside:* The warlord *must* one day be given a power called _Suck it up Princess._  The game demands it.




I'm no fan of 4Ed, but I'm behind _THAT_ 100%.


----------



## Toras (Jan 15, 2009)

The problem I have always had with hit points, beyond that fact that sprained ankles tend not to be even slight metal.  (And lo, did I not stub my toe mightly upon yon foe and didst feel the agony of it.  Yet I shall preserver through the pain and slay my foe anon)

Sometimes, you need to know if you hurt someone or got her in a specific fashion.  If I harpoon someone, the difference between them being speared and them hurting themselves avoiding the blow becomes quite important.  As does it if I'm using fire and they are carrying oil.  

Put another way, I and my enemy are dueling with poison blades.  Wence are we poisoned?

I have always thought it might be interesting to run it straight, essential making HP and healing surges exactly like what they sound and making the character's men and women part from others.  Fated or something similar.  The fighter rises Jason Voorhees style after his Boromir style exit.  They've already made PCs different, but you can take it a step further and make that a story point.  Let them be marked or something similar, and let them be loved or feared in equal number.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 15, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Yes. I hoped 4e would alleviate the problem not make it worse. They could have implemented Armor as damage reduction too. Armour or magic, depending on the class, could have replaced the extra hit points.



I am glad they didn't go there. I have played games that used armor as damage reduction. Unless we are assuming there is a hence unknown and revolutionary approach to that, this would make combat just bad. Warhammer 1E and 2E, The Dark Eye. I don't care about believability or simulation if it makes combat one-sided or boring. 


(Though feel free to convince me by presenting a damage model that avoids stuff like "armor is king" or scenarios that threaten one party member are a guaranteed death for another party member, or everyone running around in the same type of armor)


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 15, 2009)

I doubt that *another* discourse over abstract hit points is going to change anyone's opinion of healing surges.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 15, 2009)

CleverNickName said:


> I doubt that *another* discourse over abstract hit points is going to change anyone's opinion of healing surges.




On EN World certainly not. Helpful to "newbies" it might be. 

The first time I encountered hit points in D&D my thoughts were more along "that's videogamey" or "What an antiquated, unrealistic damage model. Shadowrun was so much better!" Well, playing it convinced me it's actually a pretty neat model, and reading the actual description describing it as an abstraction for skill, luck, divine favor etc. made me accept it even more. (Though I think the fact that it played well was more important overall  )


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jan 15, 2009)

This trope provides all the justification I need:

It's only a flesh wound!

Player characters in D&D can keep going even after grievous injuries because they are basically action heroes, so there's no point looking at it all through the lens of realism.


----------



## lutecius (Jan 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I am glad they didn't go there. I have played games that used armor as damage reduction. Unless we are assuming there is a hence unknown and revolutionary approach to that, this would make combat just bad. Warhammer 1E and 2E, The Dark Eye. I don't care about believability or simulation if it makes combat one-sided or boring.
> 
> (Though feel free to convince me by presenting a damage model that avoids stuff like "armor is king" or scenarios that threaten one party member are a guaranteed death for another party member, or everyone running around in the same type of armor)



I don’t think WFRP armor is that bad, or the 3.5 UA variant (of course, the math could use some work as the system wasn’t designed to support it from the start)

What I was suggesting is a bit different, though. "Armor points" would actually replace the extra hit points (from class and level) added to natural hit points (actual  injuries):
- classes and levels allow for heavier armors (more armor points instead of hp)
- armors deteriorate when  they absorb damage (lose armor points)
- magic armors break the previous rule instead of just adding a bonus.
- when armor is not appropriate flavour-wise, go with mystic armor points (robe wizards and priests) or enhanced natural hp (beefy thong wearing barbarians)

Of course this is a rough idea but basically, it works just like hit points, except for healing (mending?) and AC would just be touch AC or reflex.


----------



## lutecius (Jan 15, 2009)

Jürgen Hubert said:


> This trope provides all the justification I need:
> 
> It's only a flesh wound!



Except when it's morale (warlord "healing" powers)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 15, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I don’t think WFRP armor is that bad, or the 3.5 UA variant (of course, the math could use some work as the system wasn’t designed to support it from the start)
> 
> What I was suggesting is a bit different, though. "Armor points" would actually replace the extra hit points (from class and level) added to natural hit points (actual  injuries):
> - classes and levels allow for heavier armors (more armor points instead of hp)
> ...




Ah, I see, that would be a more combat simulation approach. Not the direction I would want my game to go.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Ah, I see, that would be a more combat simulation approach. Not the direction I would want my game to go.



So the "feel" of it would bother you?


----------



## kibbitz (Jan 15, 2009)

lutecius said:


> I don’t think WFRP armor is that bad, or the 3.5 UA variant (of course, the math could use some work as the system wasn’t designed to support it from the start)
> 
> What I was suggesting is a bit different, though. "Armor points" would actually replace the extra hit points (from class and level) added to natural hit points (actual  injuries):
> - classes and levels allow for heavier armors (more armor points instead of hp)
> ...




Closest thing I've seen matching this is Palladium's armour system. Armour has SDC, and depending on how well the hit roll is, you either hit the armour or bypass it and hit the target directly. Damage done to armour decreases its SDC, and at zero, it's broken.

I'm not familiar with the Palladium system in terms of performance, so I can't tell you if it works out, but you're still going to do a fair bit of rebalancing which includes figuring out how much punishment your armours are going to be able to take. And for the enhanced natural HP, how does it differ from normal 'real wounds' HP?


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Jan 15, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Except when it's morale (warlord "healing" powers)




Ah, you are right - the Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night speech. How could I forget?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 15, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Except when it's morale (warlord "healing" powers)




Why not? All it takes to overcome a grievous wound is the determination to go on in action-land. Morale certainly helps.

(OH, and be careful with that link. It is highly addictive and a few hours later you notice that you don't remember which article you originally wanted to read.  )


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 15, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> So the "feel" of it would bother you?




Maybe. Usually it's a playability issue - It's not papers & paycheck, but it is still accounting for too many things that I am not interested in,, distracting me from things like the story or kicking butt. Especially stuff like degrading armor sounds like a nightmare to me. Unless I can handwave it away with a skil or fixed money expenditure, and then I wonder why bother?

Remember complaints about managing abilty damage in the middle of combat? It's like that. I spend time calculating things instead of making decisions that affect the game. 


*) Decision-Making. I think I have to mentally note this down. I think that might be a key element of RPGs, aside from just enjoying the story that unfolds.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 15, 2009)

nightwyrm said:


> I look at hp and healing surges in reverse. Your healing surges are your "real" hp. It's how much strain you can take for the entire day, with some resting and breaks during the day. Your hp value is the amount of punishment you can take in a short period of time.




I like the cut of your jib, dear sir, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.

Or at the very least, have you as a player so I don't have to put up with whiny realists in a fantasy simulation game.



Toras said:


> Put another way, I and my enemy are dueling with poison blades.  Wence are we poisoned?




The problem you have is a binary thought process. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation. Possible grey areas are the threat of the poison, or the poison doesn't have to be deadly just because it's hit the bloodstream. It could just represent an amount by which it weakens the character for a short period before their kidneys process it.

Whatever. Point is, use a little imagination.



CleverNickName said:


> I doubt that *another* discourse over abstract hit points is going to change anyone's opinion of healing surges.




Not really the point of the thread.

I'm tired of players arguing or making fun of my efforts in game to be creative and interpret 'damage' in a variety of different and interesting ways to accommodate the abstraction.

So the fact that a D&D designer, nay, Mr. Mike Mearls himself, the man, the legend, the icon of D&D design, has officially stated in a podcast that hit points and damage and healing surges aren't meant to be taken literally and that one should use a bit of imagination to interpret them, goes a long way towards backing up my efforts in games I run.

This makes me happy.


----------



## lutecius (Jan 15, 2009)

kibbitz said:


> Closest thing I've seen matching this is Palladium's armour system. […] I'm not familiar with the Palladium system in terms of performance, so I can't tell you if it works out, but you're still going to do a fair bit of rebalancing which includes figuring out how much punishment your armours are going to be able to take.



Note this is not a house rule, just how I would have done 4e. I'm not familiar with palladium either. My idea looks similar thematically, only simpler. Mechanically it's really closer to dnd hit points.


> And for the enhanced natural HP, how does it differ from normal 'real wounds' HP?



Maybe it doesn't. This particular archetype is on par with armored warriors thanks to his incredible brawn and resilience. He would actually last longer in the vat of acid, which borders on superheroic and doesn’t fit every character concept. It may have disadvantages, like not being able to mend his armor.



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Why not? All it takes to overcome a grievous wound is the determination to go on in action-land. Morale certainly helps.



But then we’re back to abstract hit points 



Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Ah, I see, that would be a more combat simulation approach. Not the direction I would want my game to go.





Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Maybe. Usually it's a playability issue - It's not papers & paycheck, but it is still accounting for too many things that I am not interested in,, distracting me from things like the story or kicking butt. Especially stuff like degrading armor sounds like a nightmare to me. Unless I can handwave it away with a skil or fixed money expenditure, and then I wonder why bother?
> 
> Remember complaints about managing abilty damage in the middle of combat? It's like that. I spend time calculating things instead of making decisions that affect the game.



I think you didn’t get it. It’s more simulationist but in practice it’s almost identical to the existing system.
The armour degradation just means losing the additional hit points.
Starting to lose "real" hit points is akin to being bloodied.
Armour mending is similar to healing surges (you can do it in a dungeon, but only so many times before it needs more serious repair)


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 15, 2009)

So, what are you guys talking about? I assume there was a podcast of some sort talking about hit points and healing surges, but where? And since I'm at work today and can't listen to audio, what was the meat of their comments?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 15, 2009)

lutecius said:


> Note this is not a house rule, just how I would have done 4e. I'm not familiar with palladium either. My idea looks similar thematically, only simpler. Mechanically it's really closer to dnd hit points.
> Maybe it doesn't. This particular archetype is on par with armored warriors thanks to his incredible brawn and resilience. He would actually last longer in the vat of acid, which borders on superheroic and doesn’t fit every character concept. It may have disadvantages, like not being able to mend his armor.
> 
> But then we’re back to abstract hit points
> ...



Well, if you keep it on a "fluff" level or "trying to explain the abstraction" level, okay. But once I have to go into town after every session to get my stuff repaired, I don't like it.  (Wasn't it Diablo II that had items that would be damaged over time and needed repairs... Grrr. Hated that.  )


----------



## kibbitz (Jan 15, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Well, if you keep it on a "fluff" level or "trying to explain the abstraction" level, okay. But once I have to go into town after every session to get my stuff repaired, I don't like it.  (Wasn't it Diablo II that had items that would be damaged over time and needed repairs... Grrr. Hated that.  )




At least your items didn't break apart and disappear forever at zero durability like the first Diablo...


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 15, 2009)

Loincloth of Armour said:


> *Aside:* The warlord *must* one day be given a power called _Suck it up Princess._  The game demands it.




OT: I was going to let this slide, but since at least two other people praised it and continued the thread further off-topic, I have to say that I'd find that kind of label for a power just a bit sexist and off-putting. 

ON topic: The great and mighty Mearls solves nothing. When you use a harpoon with a rope attached, you need to know if the damage you caused was due to hitting the person because you can yank them towards you in your next action. For injury poison to do damage, it has to cause an injury. If you're making a save vs. poison, it can't be paired with sword damage that's described as caused by muscle fatigue. 

And if you've been bathed in acid, bull-rushed into lava, sliced with a poisoned knife, thrown off a cliff, and harpooned, you're not going to be better after a few hours of rest. You're not tired and bruised; you're burnt, poisoned, stabbed, exfoliated, and have broken bones. There needs to be a plausible narrative explanation for why you're better. Spells are that widget. A nap is not that widget.


----------



## Halivar (Jan 15, 2009)

It's a schema thing. At my table, the ones who have the most trouble "getting" the new hit-points philosophy are the veterans. It's still hard for me, even, as a player. With new players first learning D&D with 4E, I explain the "new" way (the meta nature of hp and the physicality of the "bloodied" threshold, cinematic non-magical healing and "John McClane-ing it", etc.), and they get it, and much easier than the veterans do. I suppose it's because they are not fighting preconceived (and ingrained over almost a decade) notions of what hit-points are.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 15, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> So, what are you guys talking about? I assume there was a podcast of some sort talking about hit points and healing surges, but where? And since I'm at work today and can't listen to audio, what was the meat of their comments?



WOTC podcast.  Someone asked what a healing surge "was."  The example the question gave was, "my wizard's at zero, he spends a healing surge, now he's up again, what happened?  Why isn't he bothered by having been speared by a hobgoblin or whatever?"

The answer was, "don't oversell damage."  They also added two things that I thought were neat- first, they contextualized the question by talking about how they, as DMs, had similar problems in earlier editions when they described damage as being incredibly severe, and yet the recipient kept on fighting.  Second, they talked about how you, as a DM, can and should adjust your damage descriptions based on how you expect the PC to be healed.  If you know a cleric's going to heal the character, you might have them impaled by the hobgoblin.  But if the healing is going to come from a warlord, you might want them to get their bell wrung, and be able to shake off the worst of it with some encouragement to get back into the fight.

They also kept joking about the issue for the rest of the podcast.  The best line was, when discussing a poison dart trap: "The poison dart RIPS RIGHT THROUGH YOUR EYE SOCKET!  TWO DAMAGE!  MUHAHA!"


----------



## Kzach (Jan 15, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> So, what are you guys talking about? I assume there was a podcast of some sort talking about hit points and healing surges, but where? And since I'm at work today and can't listen to audio, what was the meat of their comments?



The recent mailbag podcast from WotC.

One of the questions was how they handle healing surges.

Mike and the new guy described how they go about it and how the system was not meant to be taken literally but was rather a spring-board for the imagination and how context of injuries and situation should overrule the terms damage and hit points.

At least, that's what I got out of it.



Halivar said:


> It's a schema thing. At my table, the ones who have the most trouble "getting" the new hit-points philosophy are the veterans.



It's ironic that it's always been an abstract system and yet veterans are the most likely to cause the biggest stink over it.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 15, 2009)

Halivar said:


> I suppose it's because they are not fighting preconceived (and ingrained over almost a decade) notions of what hit-points are.



Heh... I decided a long time ago that hit points were, first and foremost, _expedient_. Looked at that way, hit points in 4e are just a different kind of expedient. Which is probably why I don't have a problem with Healing Surges et al.


----------



## Kzach (Jan 15, 2009)

Cadfan said:


> They also kept joking about the issue for the rest of the podcast.  The best line was, when discussing a poison dart trap: "The poison dart RIPS RIGHT THROUGH YOUR EYE SOCKET!  TWO DAMAGE!  MUHAHA!"




Aww, I didn't hear that 

Don't suppose you remember roughly what timestamp that was said at or who said it?


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 15, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> ON topic: The great and mighty Mearls solves nothing. When you use a harpoon with a rope attached, you need to know if the damage you caused was due to hitting the person because you can yank them towards you in your next action. For injury poison to do damage, it has to cause an injury. If you're making a save vs. poison, it can't be paired with sword damage that's described as caused by muscle fatigue.



A harpoon can snag on armor or clothing. A sword delivering poison need only inflict a scratch, and fictional heroes "shake off" the effects of things like poison all the time. These are easy explanations to handle with an abstract HP system.



> And if you've been bathed in acid, bull-rushed into lava, sliced with a poisoned knife, thrown off a cliff, and harpooned, you're not going to be better after a few hours of rest. You're not tired and bruised; you're burnt, poisoned, stabbed, exfoliated, and have broken bones.



Total immersion in lava or acid? Well, if the character doesn't take enough damage to go unconscious or even warrant a healing surge (spent surges being a better indicator of the character's actual state of health, as others mentioned), obviously his clothing/armor protected him from the worst of it, or he was able to minimize contact with the substance through reflexes, luck and/or ingenuity. 

If the damage is more serious, then sure, the character has burns and serious injuries. And, just like most Hollywood action heroes, after resting a bit, he'll be ready to keep going. 



> There needs to be a plausible narrative explanation for why you're better. Spells are that widget. A nap is not that widget.



The thing is, most parties _did_ have a healbot, and didn't spend days healing up. 4E recognizes that pattern from previous editions, and abstracted it away, so that parties aren't _required_ to have a cleric to avoid spending days healing up before they can continue the adventure. This is a good thing, IMO.

The real issue is where do you draw the line for your own personal suspension of disbelief, because no D&D edition _ever_ modeled the types of injuries you describe. Your line seems to be recovery time (even if it rarely comes into play due to magical healing.) But was that even realistic? Why did fighters take longer to heal than wizards or rogues, for example? Why did a character reduced to 1 hp always take exactly the same amount of time to heal regardless of the nature of his injury? And if all that damage did represent being burnt, poisoned, stabbed, exfoliated and having broken bones, why were characters perfectly fine all the way to 1 hp, despite having been swimming in lava, then suddenly go to unconscious and dieing from a minor knife wound? Where was the character hobbling on his broken leg, or handicapped by the intense pain of severe skin burns? Not there. 

HP's have always had limitations representing what "really" happened to a character.


----------



## LostSoul (Jan 15, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> ON topic: The great and mighty Mearls solves nothing. When you use a harpoon with a rope attached, you need to know if the damage you caused was due to hitting the person because you can yank them towards you in your next action. For injury poison to do damage, it has to cause an injury. If you're making a save vs. poison, it can't be paired with sword damage that's described as caused by muscle fatigue.
> 
> And if you've been bathed in acid, bull-rushed into lava, sliced with a poisoned knife, thrown off a cliff, and harpooned, you're not going to be better after a few hours of rest. You're not tired and bruised; you're burnt, poisoned, stabbed, exfoliated, and have broken bones. There needs to be a plausible narrative explanation for why you're better. Spells are that widget. A nap is not that widget.




So what you're saying is that there is no possible way to narrate these things happening without including massive damage, the kind of massive damage that needs magic to heal?


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 15, 2009)

When I started playing DnD, it took my a while to get used to hitpoints.  For one, I was used to fantasy/folklore stories where the "king was felled by a single arrow".  This couldn't happen in DnD.

But then I figured that in that situation, the king had been "hit" several times, just not "hit".  Ok, and I won't worry about the fact (as others have pointed out) that if he had been "hit" by a poison arrow, he'd have to make a save against dying, even if he wasn't "hit".

You couldn't hold someone at bay by pointing an arrow at them.  At best, the hand-to-hand fight would start with them being 6 hitpoints down.

And as far as evidence that anyone was actually physically wounded in 1E DnD?  IME no one ever broke bones, got blood infection, lost an eye or ear, or had any sort of permanent disability.  So seeminly *none* of the realistic things that happen to people when they're hit by weapons happen to DnD characters (either PCs or NPCs) in any edition.  Your blood doesn't get in your eyes, your perception doesn't decrease, etc. etc. etc.  

So a 10th level character resting in bed gets back 1 hp day?  I think he used to.  Hopefully I don't have to explain why that doesn't make any sense.  But getting back your level (or some approx.) per day of rest can be just as weird.  After 1 day of rest, your character has more hitpoints than a peasant, and can run the 100m dash in 5 seconds.  So why is he lazying around in bed?  At that point you'd be justified in calling him a princess or whatever but then he'd get up and whack you at +20 to hit for a huge amount of damage.  Which ironically would further the case that there is absolutely nothing wrong with this guy.

I guess he's not feeling as "lucky" as he was earlier - but that's something that a cleric can heal?  Can you imagine him laying in a hospital bed somewhere taking away cures from really injured people because he's feeling "unlucky"?

IMO DnD hitpoints = damage is just weird.  It has been in every edition.  4E IMO does nothing to change this - it's just that some people have gotten used to not being challenged on a certain set of standard, but illogical, descriptions that they use for it that 4E no longer supports.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 15, 2009)

Sir Brennen said:


> The thing is, most parties _did_ have a healbot, and didn't spend days healing up. 4E recognizes that pattern from previous editions, and abstracted it away, so that parties aren't _required_ to have a cleric to avoid spending days healing up before they can continue the adventure. This is a good thing, IMO.




One major problem for me is that they have taken a resource that was primarily external and transferable and made it internal and non-transferable. That, I believe, is _not_ a good thing.


----------



## Loincloth of Armour (Jan 15, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> And if you've been bathed in acid, bull-rushed into lava, sliced with a poisoned knife, thrown off a cliff, and harpooned, you're not going to be better after a few hours of rest. You're not tired and bruised; you're burnt, poisoned, stabbed, exfoliated, and have broken bones. There needs to be a plausible narrative explanation for why you're better. Spells are that widget. A nap is not that widget.




A 20th level character has, through bad rolls and low CON, 21 hps. He falls into acid and with lucky rolls on the 20d6, takes 20 points of damage. He is at 1 hp. A total immersion bath in acid has almost killed him.

A single night's rest returns him to full. 

And this is using 3.X's rules.

So a nap _can_ be that widget in any edition.


Hit points: we use 'em because they work, and work well. Not 'cuase they make a lick of sense.

Off topic:



> I have to say that I'd find that kind of label for a power just a bit sexist and off-putting.




It might be. It's also a well known phrase, fits the idea of the class, and funny as hell. Humour tends to offend someone, somewhere.


----------



## nightwyrm (Jan 15, 2009)

Hp in D&D has never modelled long term injury well.  If you're hurt enough that you can't just ignore it the next day, you're probably not gonna be able to fight at full effectiveness, which is not something that has ever been accounted for by the hp model.  As long as you have 1 hp left, you're fighting at full effectiveness.  The "I need to rest for a week to recover, but I can still fight like I was completely uninjured" thing has never quite sit well with me.

If you really want to, one way to incorporate long term injury or poison in 4e is to use the disease track model.  If you get dropped to 0 hp, you get moved up the injury track and get some penalties or something.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 15, 2009)

Toras said:


> I have always thought it might be interesting to run it straight, essential making HP and healing surges exactly like what they sound and making the character's men and women part from others.  Fated or something similar.  The fighter rises Jason Voorhees style after his Boromir style exit.  They've already made PCs different, but you can take it a step further and make that a story point.  Let them be marked or something similar, and let them be loved or feared in equal number.



D&D as Highlander? Intersting idea!


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 15, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> OT: I was going to let this slide, but since at least two other people praised it and continued the thread further off-topic, I have to say that I'd find that kind of label for a power just a bit sexist and off-putting.
> 
> ON topic: The great and mighty Mearls solves nothing.



From chastising someone's use of the word "princess" to calling Mr. Mearls "great and mighty" in a clearly derisive manner, all in two sentences. Well done.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Jan 15, 2009)

kibbitz said:


> Closest thing I've seen matching this is Palladium's armour system. Armour has SDC, and depending on how well the hit roll is, you either hit the armour or bypass it and hit the target directly. Damage done to armour decreases its SDC, and at zero, it's broken.
> 
> I'm not familiar with the Palladium system in terms of performance, so I can't tell you if it works out, but you're still going to do a fair bit of rebalancing which includes figuring out how much punishment your armours are going to be able to take. And for the enhanced natural HP, how does it differ from normal 'real wounds' HP?



I played Palladium for quite a while and the armour system did not really work. At low levels it worked ok but repairing the armour was a bookeeping pain. Also it has its own issues wrt realism. However, at high levels it broke down completely because almost all hits that got through your parry defense would be over the armour rating and so the armour was almost invaribly bypassed and you might as well not bother with it.

Now a half level bonus to attacks and defenses a la D&D 4 could change that but that is a whole 'nother ballgame.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 15, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> And if you've been bathed in acid, bull-rushed into lava, sliced with a poisoned knife, thrown off a cliff, and harpooned, you're not going to be better after a few hours of rest. You're not tired and bruised; you're burnt, poisoned, stabbed, exfoliated, and have broken bones. There needs to be a plausible narrative explanation for why you're better.




Really?  Because no prior edition of DnD has had that explanation.  When does a PC have broken bones?  He never suffers a movement penalty, he never takes a penalty to attack rolls.  In fact someone with a broken arm swinging a sword would probably take further damage.  There's a risk of internal bleeding that would kill someone rounds later IRL.  None of this happens in any edition of DnD.  

Let's say you fall into lava and somehow survive.  I guess at that point you're a skeleton.  But it's not like other undead cut you some slack.  Your charisma doesn't drop.  In fact, all of your muscles burning away would probably impose a strength penalty, but it doesn't.  Your eyeballs would probably boil and explode.  That's got to be a penalty to Spot checks.

I'm only half-joking.  There's absolutely no simulation of any injury in the hitpoint mechanic.  Requiring that a cleric be around and use his spells to get your luck back might be a preferred way of playing the game for some people, but I don't find it a better simulation of anything.


----------



## Oni (Jan 15, 2009)

Toras said:


> I have always thought it might be interesting to run it straight, essential making HP and healing surges exactly like what they sound and making the character's men and women part from others.  Fated or something similar.  The fighter rises Jason Voorhees style after his Boromir style exit.  They've already made PCs different, but you can take it a step further and make that a story point.  Let them be marked or something similar, and let them be loved or feared in equal number.





I've kind of been leaning toward this in my own mind lately as I've been reading a lot of manga.  Some people just have more vitality than others, and it can be increased via training.  The sword blow that would have killed Joe Commoner just pisses a PC off.  Witnesses exclaim, "OMG, he's not human!" and we move on.  They might look bruised, battered, and bloody but if they've had a few minutes to catch their breath, they're back on top of their game, it won't catch up to them until after the adventure is over and even then it's nothing a little sleep, bandages, and meat won't cure.

[edit: because it's funny.  http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=228 ]


----------



## Kzach (Jan 15, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> OT: I was going to let this slide, but since at least two other people praised it and continued the thread further off-topic, I have to say that I'd find that kind of label for a power just a bit sexist and off-putting.



Then you're being hyper-sensitive.

Suck it up, Princess.



roguerouge said:


> ON topic: The great and mighty Mearls solves nothing. When you use a harpoon with a rope attached, you need to know if the damage you caused was due to hitting the person because you can yank them towards you in your next action. For injury poison to do damage, it has to cause an injury. If you're making a save vs. poison, it can't be paired with sword damage that's described as caused by muscle fatigue.



Again, this is a very binary thought process.

Use a little imagination provided by the context of the situation. The idea of abstraction is flexibility and simplicity. Use that flexibility to describe the attack appropriately.

Really, sometimes I wonder why people play this game when they're so adamant to stick to rules or interpret rules literally and as set in stone when really they're meant as spring-boards for the imagination. It's a game of imagination, use it.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 15, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> And if you've been bathed in acid, bull-rushed into lava, sliced with a poisoned knife, thrown off a cliff, and harpooned, you're not going to be better after a few hours of rest. You're not tired and bruised; you're burnt, poisoned, stabbed, exfoliated, and have broken bones. There needs to be a plausible narrative explanation for why you're better. Spells are that widget. A nap is not that widget.



I'd argue that if _one _nap isn't that widget, _several _naps have pretty much always been that widget.

A character in 3e who survives a fall off a cliff might be better in a few days rather than in 1 day, but I'd say that's still pretty remarkable.  I guess by some definitions it's _less_ remarkable, but there you have it.  There are still no broken bones, long-term maiming, or anything of the sort.  If you fall and survive you're still perfectly okay.

-O


----------



## Kzach (Jan 15, 2009)

Hehe


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 15, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Although there are a few people who don't "get" the abstract nature of hit points, it's a caricature -- and thus a straw man -- to attribute that to all, most, or many of the people who don't like 4E's system.
> 
> Personally speaking, I _like_ healing surges.  My beef with 4E is that there's no way to be actually injured ... at least beyond six hours.  There's simply no denying that changing "three days" -- the average time for natural healing in 3E -- to "six hours" -- the maximum time for healing in 4E is a significant change.
> 
> Any attempt to characterize dislike of that change as a failure to understand that "hit points are abstract" is disingenuous.  At best.




Not so sure it's disingenuous, given your post. You claim that you understand that hp can represent all kind of things other than physical health, but at the same time you seem to imply that characters cannot be physically injured when they are at full hitpoints. If loosing hp does not have to represent physical wounds, why does recovering hp have to represent healing physical wounds?

All the 4th edition rules say is "After a night of resting you got somewhat used to the pain, recovered your moxie and can fight without being impeded by the wound". The wound is still there and will take a while to heal.


----------



## underthumb (Jan 15, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Really, sometimes I wonder why people play this game when they're so adamant to stick to rules or interpret rules literally and as set in stone when really they're meant as spring-boards for the imagination. It's a game of imagination, use it.




Perhaps the best answer is that some spring-boards are better than others. Not all mechanics are equal in terms of their ability to generate believable, in-game results. Even in the context of fantasy, certain situations do so much violence to our intuitive understanding of physiology and physics that they break the simulation. 

Being able to generate less ambiguous descriptions of recurrent events (such as hp damage) helps to create an immediate, collective understanding of what has occurred, which speeds up play and helps adjudicate certain critical situations (such as the application of poison).

I'm not saying, btw, that older versions of D&D didn't have problems with hit points. In my case, I think this problem has persisted and the specific clarifications provided don't really help much.


----------



## Cadfan (Jan 15, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Aww, I didn't hear that
> 
> Don't suppose you remember roughly what timestamp that was said at or who said it?



It was later on, when they were talking about whether you could pick up a prone ally.  Their answer was that they'd probably let you do it if they were DMing, but it would cost you your move action in the process.  Then one of them mentioned that your buddy wouldn't thank you when the head level poison darts fired out of the walls hitting you both, and they started cracking jokes from there.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 15, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Not really the point of the thread.
> 
> I'm tired of players arguing or making fun of my efforts in game to be creative and interpret 'damage' in a variety of different and interesting ways to accommodate the abstraction.
> 
> ...



It's not the point?  I must have misread the first paragraph of the thread...

EDIT: Ah, the fault is mine...I wasn't specific.  I was trying to say that Mearls's podcast isn't really going to change anyone's minds about healing surges.  I wasn't referring to this thread.


----------



## Spatula (Jan 15, 2009)

It's customary to provide a link to the discussion topic... and not hard to do so.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2009)

It isn't the concept of healing surges that I find distasteful; it is the execution of that concept in 4e.  RCFG uses a mechanic called "shaking it off" which is similar to healing surges in some respects, but avoids the problems I see with WotC's execution of the same basic concept.

"Hit points" cannot be taken literally, unless you imagine that D&D beings have some body part (etc.) that we do not.  But there is a big difference, IMHO, between "some part of every hit represents actual damage taken by the character" and "every time the character takes damage, you don't know what it represents until it is healed, which, due to the method of healing, defines the nature of the damage."

There are some wonderful work-arounds for the 4e hp/hs mechanic that have been shared due to earlier discussion of the same.  That these work-arounds exist, however, doesn't mean that WotC's execution didn't suck.

IMHO, it did.  YMMV.  In the end, so long as we are each happy playing games we like, I don't think it really matters.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> When I started playing DnD, it took my a while to get used to hitpoints.  For one, I was used to fantasy/folklore stories where the "king was felled by a single arrow".  This couldn't happen in DnD.






> You couldn't hold someone at bay by pointing an arrow at them.  At best, the hand-to-hand fight would start with them being 6 hitpoints down.




Take a look at the "Getting the Drop" mechanic in my RCFG thread (link in sig.).  It should work in any version of D&D equally well, and makes these things possible.

RC


----------



## Halivar (Jan 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> "every time the character takes damage, you don't know what it represents until it is healed, which, due to the method of healing, defines the nature of the damage."



I can only speak for my table, but we don't narrate it that way. The means by which characters regain hp, whether magical or non-magical, do not ret-con the grievousness of their wounds. Rather, the two means of healing have different narrative results: one makes your wounds go away, and the other helps you cope with your wounds (which do not go away). If it isn't magical, you look like hamburger meat after the fight, and feel like it, too. There's no way to model that simulation-wise, really, without adding more layers of subsystems. The narrative approach is easier for us.


----------



## The Ghost (Jan 15, 2009)

Kzach said:


> The amount of times I've run games and described the combats using concepts like near misses, strained muscles, minor cuts or bruises, being winded, armour damage that hinders the character, etc. only to be mocked by players who can't seem to wrap their minds around an abstract concept is truly tiring.




I am curious about how people describe combat occurring. In my home games combat generally goes:

Fighter: I attack the orc. Does a sixteen hit?
DM: Yes.
Fighter: Ok, eight damage.
DM: The orc attacks you. Natural twenty, chance for critical. Does an eighteen confirm?
Fighter: Yes.
DM: Alright, take fifteen damage.
Fighter: I go down.

Now, I have observed people at my local game store play out the same situation as follows:

Fighter: Sixteen to hit for eight damage.
DM: Ok, Sir Henry you swing your trusty sword at the foul-mouthed beast. The blow strikes him deep on the shoulder. Blood sprays from the wound while the beast howls in obvious pain. He turns toward you and with a smile swings his axe. <rolls dice: twenty. rolls again: eighteen> The axe smashes deep into your chest, a sharp pain enters your mind and then quickly vanishes as you fall to your knees. The orc lets out a hearty laugh and then gazes toward Merlin.
Fighter. As Sir Henry falls to his knees he cries out "Lady Anna. My love."

In the first situation, like my games, all hits points are is a way to track how long any given character can last in whatever the siuation is.

In the second, I can certainly understand how that description matters and therefor why certain ways of healing don't seem right. Do the people who have problems with what hit points are or what healing surges are play like the second example? I may be way off base here in my analysis - but I am curious to find out.


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 15, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> From chastising someone's use of the word "princess" to calling Mr. Mearls "great and mighty" in a clearly derisive manner, all in two sentences. Well done.




The derision is towards the concept that a podcast from an authority figure can magically solve every problem, as was the general trend of this thread. The reference was towards how people were imagining Mearls as the solver of all problems, not towards the man himself. I'm sorry that was unclear in my writing. Better done, sir?

I have a lot more respect for posters who make their arguments without appeals to authority figures, as has been done on this thread. Change my mind for me. Don't say that I should change my mind because of what a VIP says. Consider it the CN side of me coming out. 

As far as the many posts on this topic in response to mine, all I can say is that yes: hit points are abstract; they don't model real world damage well; they're not intended to model real world damage well in service towards a good time. I agree with you on all of that. They're part of suspending disbelief. Healing spells allow me to suspend that disbelief because they provide a narrative hook that explains much and what they don't explain gets covered up, precisely because it is very rare for PCs to rely on natural healing to do much of the work at all. What spells don't explain, they cover up in real game experience. 

I get the point of healing surges, which is to make the cleric requirement go away (a necessity which IMHO has always been over-stated). That is, indeed, a good thing. So, healing surges are foundational in the same way that healing spells are. But the conceptual difficulties of hit points are no longer swept under the rug by the "it's magic" explanation and the rarity of natural healing. Now, the idea that mere words can "heal" me from dying or a wound rubs my nose in all of the weaknesses of the system, rather than elegantly explained away by two complementary mechanics from the founders of the game. 

The GSL snafus, the money investment (DMs spend 2K on gaming materials on average), and my profound distrust in WotC's ability to write a module or an adventure path are the reasons why I won't play 4E. While I find the nap or inspiring words mechanic unconvincing and a primary target for house-ruling, don't get the impression that convincing me that healing surges are super is going to convince me to play 4e.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 15, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> But there is a big difference, IMHO, between "some part of every hit represents actual damage taken by the character" and "every time the character takes damage, you don't know what it represents until it is healed, which, due to the method of healing, defines the nature of the damage."



Who had post #63 in the pool?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2009)

Halivar said:


> I can only speak for my table, but we don't narrate it that way. The means by which characters regain hp, whether magical or non-magical, do not ret-con the grievousness of their wounds. Rather, the two means of healing have different narrative results: one makes your wounds go away, and the other helps you cope with your wounds (which do not go away). If it isn't magical, you look like hamburger meat after the fight, and feel like it, too. There's no way to model that simulation-wise, really, without adding more layers of subsystems. The narrative approach is easier for us.




Yes, in the other thread all of the potential ways of dealing with the WotC system were parsed out.  IMHO, all are found wanting.  Obviously, YMMV.  Others devised systems that dealt with my objections, without undue (again, IMHO) "layers" of subsystems.  Some solutions were quite elegant, and simple to utilize, as I recall.  It is a pity (IMHO) that WotC couldn't have done so well with the core rules as a half-dozen EN Worlders did over a couple of days.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 15, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Who had post #63 in the pool?




You will note, I hope, that I am objecting to an erroneous view of the other side (i.e., believing that all damage represents some amount of physical injury =/= believing that hit points are not an abstract concept), not jumping into an argument about what hit points or healing surges represent.

We have been there and done that.

As I have said, I don't find the concept problematic -- RCFG uses the concept, after all, as I stated in the other thread as well -- only the execution of that concept.

And half a dozen EN Worlders in the other thread offered simple, elegant means to make that concept work without having to rewrite all of 4e.

EN Worlders are _*awesome*_.

And post #63 was awesome, too, regardless of whatever you might have chosen to read into it.  


RC


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 15, 2009)

Not sure what 5th Element's on about, but Raven, you'll be getting XP from me in the morning... once my ability to do so on this site has had its "healing surge." Perhaps my computer is telling the administrators to "suck it up princess." I'm sure that they will be inspired by that.


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 15, 2009)

The Ghost said:


> In the second, I can certainly understand how that description matters and therefor why certain ways of healing don't seem right. Do the people who have problems with what hit points are or what healing surges are play like the second example? I may be way off base here in my analysis - but I am curious to find out.



Most games I've been in are _mostly_ like the first example, though the DM may add a bit of style two whenever a combatant (PC or NPC) finally drops. Many people do something like this, I think. The problem with 4E is that, particularly for the PCs, is that when a combatant goes down, he doesn't necessarily stay down, and that detailed description by the DM of the orc's brutal hammer blow to the side of your head that dropped you is negated by a Warlord shouting "Suck it up, Princess!", rousing the character from an unconscious state where he was rolling _death saves_ to up and ready to keep fighting.

Not that I personally have any problem with that.

It's funny. I think if the Warlord class (and upcoming Bard) didn't exist, and the only healing was from divine powers, this wouldn't be a big deal. But because 4E decided to create more options for what type of characters can perform the "healer" function in the party, its caused this cognitive dissonance in some people regarding this aspect of the game.

Plus, this is the Internet. Even people who play exactly as you describe in scenario 1 will sometimes engage in esoteric arguments about things which don't even come up in their own games, or most games, but just the fact that they can imagine some weird, corner-case scenario that might possibly occur sets their teeth on edge.


----------



## Umbran (Jan 15, 2009)

Kzach said:


> Then you're being hyper-sensitive.
> 
> Suck it up, Princess.





And, ladies and gentlemen, we have a threadban for rudeness.

I hope nobody else wants one.


----------



## CleverNickName (Jan 16, 2009)

It's not that I can't bring myself to imagine how wounds aren't entirely physical, and that there is a psychological aspect to them that can be shaken off.  I do not suffer from a lack of imagination...if I did, I would seriously need to rethink my hobby.  

The thing is, *I don't want* hit points to work like that.  I don't want them to have anything to do with emotion or psychology.  I like 'em to be all about cuts and bruises and injury, not feelings and attitude.  Now, sure, I could force myself to view them differently, but why should I?  I want the game to fit my imagination...not the other way around.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> My beef with 4E is that there's no way to be actually injured ... at least beyond six hours.




Exactly.  



> Any attempt to characterize dislike of that change as a failure to understand that "hit points are abstract" is disingenuous.  At best.




Exactly.


----------



## med stud (Jan 16, 2009)

The thing is that even 1st edition DMG had luck, moral and divine intervention as explanations for HP.

It also had variable explanations for successful saving throws depending on your class. The thief would dodge, the fighter would just endure, the cleric would be protected by the divine and the mage would have some off-the-record arcane defense.

The 4e way is not new by any means. It's been with D&D at least since 1st edition.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

Halivar said:


> I suppose it's because they are not fighting preconceived (and ingrained over almost a decade) notions of what hit-points are.




No.  That's precisely the point I wanted to make - that veterens aren't fighting against preconcieved and ingrained notions of what hit points are.  They are fighting against preconcieved and ingrained notions of what PnP role-playing is like.  

Fourth edition is in many ways nothing like what they are used to from a PnP combat system.  Keep in mind that for most of us D&D was at the very far end of the spectrum of realism vs. playability, and not on the realism end.  D&D was already about as far along the 'damage is represented abstractly' spectrum as we'd ever played in a PnP game, and when we talked about the deficiencies in D&D compared to other systems it was never 'D&D uses to concrete of a mechanism for representing wounds'.  In fact, D&D's use of an almost purely abstract system for representing wounds was the subject of much humorous ancedotes and jokes - sometimes given goodnaturedly and sometimes very much not.

As a result, veterens grope around trying to explain to people what's wrong with getting even more abstract in terms that they hope are understood.  So they say things like 'too video gamey' or 'too manga', even those these aren't really good analogies.  What they mean is really something like, "D&D was already the game system I turned to when I wanted abstract damage systems and really it was at the far end of what I could tolerate.  Fourth edition went more uber with the abstractness, and that's more than I at least can tolerate."  

So when someone comes along and says, "Some people are so exasperating for not understanding that hit points are abstract." and seem to imply that the reason people don't like the new hit point model is pure ignorance, frankly, they come across to me as.... well... telling you what I really think of comments like that would violate the policy at EnWorld against personal comments.  Suffice to say that I think that they are far wrong on the matter, that such comments are laughable in the light of the 1st edition DMG, and would be advised to ask more questions about and make fewer statements of other peoples opinions.

And frankly, that goes for mischaracterization and exagerration by the WotC developers as well.

We went through all of this prior to 4e coming out at great length.  I don't imagine anyone's opinion is going to change now.  I tried to like 4e.  I set down to think about creating a dungeon for 4e.  I couldn't manage to get excited enough about it to put in the work.  I haven't picked up a 4e book since then, and have a hard time imagining me playing it even casually.  It has nothing to do with failing to understand that hit points are abstract.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

CleverNickName said:


> The thing is, *I don't want* hit points to work like that.  I don't want them to have anything to do with emotion or psychology.  I like 'em to be all about cuts and bruises and injury, not feelings and attitude.




I'm the opposite, I think having them be about cuts and bruises and injury leads to silly situations, and lack of options. 

I get to be selfish and have it the way I've always pictured it in my head finally. I also now get an option to heal in some way other then magic.

yay.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 16, 2009)

I need to spread some XP around, Celebrim.  Good post.

RC


----------



## Halivar (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, or not, but I am failing to see where we disagree. My statement that you quoted is, certainly, only  subset of the greater combat schema change you mention; but I don't see how it's contradicts anything you're saying.

What I claim, though, and stick to, is that among 4E-adopters, the change has some hurdles because we have spent 8 years "grooving" ourselves into the philosophical underpinnings of another game with the same name. I merely posited that these hurdles are not obstructions to first-time players. I do not address the issue of aesthetics at all.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 16, 2009)

Good post Celebrim, it's exactly what I've been thinking about alot of decisions as far as 4e's design... I think the reason people have a hard time expressing it is... there's no nice way to say... imo, D&D has gotten even more abstract, silly and nonsensical without everyone who enjoys it getting up in arms about the statement.  And no matter how hard you try to show some that there actually are gradations of abstractness (Runequest vs. Big Eyes Small Mouth) they will claim if it never modeled realism in the first place then it doesn't mater how abstract it gets, which is just not true for many.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Celebrim, I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding you, or not, but I am failing to see where we disagree.




We disagree over something very specific.  A group of people have been broadly painted as failing to understand that hit points are (or have been) abstract, and that this failure of understanding whether through stupidity or ignorance on their part is one of the principle hurdles to accepting 4e.

Analogies are frought with danger, but allow me to test one here.  Suppose it was known that I disliked Roquefort.  Suppose then someone stated:

"I'm tired of these Roquefort haters.  You just don't know how sick and tired I am of people not giving Roquefort a chance just because it is an French cheese.  This French hatred is so tiring.  I keep trying to explain to them that Roquefort is the king of cheeses, but they can't get over their bias against all things French enough to even give it a fair try.  I've tried explaining to them that it's a moldy, crumbly, slightly moist cheese with a strong tangy flavor, but they keep insisting that it's not."

That would be a fair rant <i>if in fact I didn't like Roquefort because it was French</i>, or if in general there was a widespread dislike of Roquefort solely because it was French, .  But if in fact I didn't like Roquefort but did like Brie, or if in fact I was French, then the argument that I don't like Roquefort sole because it's French falls apart.

So why would someone insist that the reason I don't like Roquefort is because it's French, rather than the more obvious hypothesis that I don't like moldy, crumbly, slightly moist cheese with a strong tangy flavor?  Well, one reason might be that having the former reason is unfair and paints me in a very bad light, as it's an opinion that would be rather difficult to sustain.  By making a strawman out of objections to the system, such as suggesting that people who played 'the old way' would say things like, "The poison dart flies through your eye socket, take 2 damage.", they try to make people who disagree with them look ridiculous and stupid.

Not that it matters, but in point of fact, I like Roquefort.  However, I would sympathize with anyone that didn't like Roquefort, because I readily admit that stringent acidic cheese riddled with pencilluim mold is not the sort of dining that is easy on everyone's pallette.  It's a rather extreme cheese, maybe not the most extreme imaginable, but hardly something I'd think everyone would like.



> My statement that you quoted is, certainly, only  subset of the greater combat schema change you mention; but I don't see how it's contradicts anything you're saying.




I contradicted your statement in a very narrow and very specific fashion.  If I really didn't like Roquefort, in a conversation about why Roquefort didn't have wider acceptance, it would matter very much why I didn't like it.


----------



## Halivar (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> "I'm tired of these Roquefort haters.  You just don't know how sick and tired I am of people not giving Roquefort a chance just because it is an French cheese.  This French hatred is so tiring.  I keep trying to explain to them that Roquefort is the king of cheeses, but they can't get over their bias against all things French enough to even give it a fair try.  I've tried explaining to them that it's a moldy, crumbly, slightly moist cheese with a strong tangy flavor, but they keep insisting that it's not."



Ah, but should it cheese you off (I pun!) as much if this individual instead says, "I understand you don't like Roquefort. In fact, it was hard for me to get used to. Here's how I did it: I took this can of sardines, see? And this turnip? I got out my food processer..."

The first person's calling you an idiot (because they're boorish), and the second person is trying to make good conversation. I see a whole lot of the second person, and not a whole lot of the first person (at least, not that mods tolerate around here).

My posts here are not meant to be argumentative at all. I don't want to "win" or prove you wrong, or what-not. What I _would_ like to do (with a 99% chance of failure, but what do you get if you never try?) is present Roquefort to you in such a manner that you may come (nay, be _compelled_!), in the fulness of time, to enjoy its crumbly, moldy goodness. Because as an excited Roquefort-lover, I want everyone to experience Roquefort to its fullest. I hated both beer and blues until a beer-drinking blues-player took it upon himself to present them both to me in a way that I could appreciate.

Now, with that said, I would like to disavow everything I said about Roquefort in the previous post. Roquefort sucks. Parmeseana Reggiano is the _real_ "King of Cheeses!"


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 16, 2009)

My personal issue with healing surges is that it kind of screws up the narrative arc -- the whole "almost die, then recover, then repeat" is a wonky kind of swing. I'd honestly just prefer a "short rest heals all hp" kind of system, so that hp fully represents short-burst endurance. Tracking longer term endurance with a different system than HP (such as with rations, or something) would be preferable to me.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Ah, but should it cheese you off (I pun!) as much if this individual instead says, "I understand you don't like Roquefort. In fact, it was hard for me to get used to. Here's how I did it: I took this can of sardines, see? And this turnip? I got out my food processer..."




The above would generate much the same feeling in me as when my mother would say to me, "Here, you should try some of this cole slaw.", and I would reply, "Thank you, but I don't like cole slaw.", and she would reply, "Yes, but this is good cole slaw."  

There is a certain amount of condescension inherent in the attitude, however well meaning.  What if I don't like sardine or turnips?  While it's true that some preferences are based on ignorance, it is by no means certain that all preferences are based on ignorance and in particular you should avoid immediately assuming that any dissagreement in a opinion with your own is based on ignorance.  

My mother simply found it impossible to imagine that I wouldn't like anything that she did like.   In point of fact, I eventually discovered I did like cole slaw - just not the cole slaw prepared in the style that she liked.  I still don't like the cole slaws my mother likes.  My dislike of them was based on familiarity - not ignorance.

In the same way, I find it hard to imagine that there are many people who are actually veterens D&D players that don't accept that hit points are abstract.  They might not accept that hit points are fully abstract.  They might not accept that hit points should be as abstract as they are in 4e.  But actual ignorance of the fact that in PC's the majority of their hitpoints represent something other than physical hardiness seems very hard for me to fathom given how much that fact is a part of D&D lore since the days of 1st edition.  People tell jokes about it.  They make cartoons about it.  They laugh about it.  They rant against it.  They write essays on it.  They mock it.  They praise it, and some people have outright dropped the game system over it.  Gygax devoted a significant portion of page 82 of the 1st edition DMG to the topic, beginning with the statement: "It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place."

But if you read what Gygax wrote on page 82 in its entirety, it becomes quite clear that Gygax's abstraction and that of 4e flow from largely incompatible philosophies.  For one thing, he ends that section by stating, "However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises.  It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical _and metaphysical_ peak of 95 hit points."  The emphasis is mine, and its intended to show that even though Gygax thought of hit points in partially abstract terms, the basic assumption is that the metaphysical injury to ones luck, destiny, or skill could be expected to heal naturally no faster than we'd expect his physical injuries to heal.  The modern philosophy suggests that if you've managed to survive the recent past, then the game should quickly reset so that the experience can be repeated.  

Gygax was thinking more along the lines of a dungeon as a whole, where the wearing away of hit points over the course of the entire foray would eventually force a retreat of some sort (usually to a haven outside of the dungeon) in order to reset.  Success is therefore defined as the ability to horde hit points until you obtain your goal, and the more experienced party will shine compared to the less experienced in its ability to horde every single hit point.   In the 4e module, the emphasis is less on the environment as a whole, as on the single encounter and the challenge it provides in and of itself.  The only granularity is at the level of healing surges, as any loss of hit points smaller than a single healing surge is more or less identical, and even this requires little real consumption of resources given the emphasis on resetting and refortifying the party.  Hording every hit point isn't as important.  Preserving resources across a long series of encounters is often unnecessary, and even undesirable.

The result is much more markedly different from 1st edition than 3rd edition was, and moves away from the feel of 'doing 1st edition better than 1st edition did' that brought me back to D&D.  With 1st edition (and 2nd) I was happy with the feel and the style, but not the rules.  With 4e, I'm sure the rules are mostly fine, but I've no interest in the feel or the style.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> Not so sure it's disingenuous, given your post. You claim that you understand that hp can represent all kind of things other than physical health, but at the same time you seem to imply that characters cannot be physically injured when they are at full hitpoints.



Yes, I do "claim" that.

And you're not disputing my claim that I understand that hit points are abstract (as does nearly everyone I've ever played D&D with).  You're simply saying that since my abstraction of hit points doesn't match yours, I must be doing it wrong.

The "I'm still horribly wounded, but ready to go" thing is, I have to admit, one of my favorite 4E apologisms.

DM: Your new friend and companion, Sir Perris, arrives at breakfast the next morning.  The gash in his shoulder is seeping blood through the dressing, his eye is swollen half closed, and he slightly favors the right leg the wight tried to make its necrotic meal.

Sir Perris: Good morrow, friends!  The dungeon awaits!  Let us ride!

Other PCs: "Let the priest heal you, good knight."  "Maybe we should rest here for a few more days."  "Has your wound been debrided?"

Sir Perris: I assure you, I am right as rain and prepared to defeat evil!

Other PCs: "Uh ... "

DM: He really is.  He's at full health.  I promise, I'll let you know if he's really hurt.  Even if he's not, you know, wounded.

And it's even better when you use the trick with villains!

DM: Yes, Lord Gurtag, thrall of Graz'zt, is badly injured, with multiple gashes in his hide, hideous bruises and contusions, and a smile missing a couple of recently knocked-out teeth.

PCs: Somebody beat us to the knave!  Wounded as he is, at least he'll be easier prey.

DM: No, no, no.  He's fully healed and ready to fight.  Sorry if I gave you the wrong impression.

PCs: Ah ... he's undead, then.

DM: Nope.  He's just gritting his teeth through the pain.

PCs: Okay ... if he _were_ actually wounded, how would you describe him to let us know?

DM: Pretty much exactly the same way.

PCs: Okay ... 

Like I said, one of my favorites.


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> Spells are that widget. A nap is not that widget.



Spells are not that widget as they stop making sense if you think too hard about them.  

Consider this example:

A 100hp fighter is driven near to death, he is in negative HP.  He is healed back to 9hp.  He is concious but on a fraction of his total HP.

A 10hp fighter is driven near to death, he is in negative hp.  He is healed for the same amount as Fighter 1 and is back to 9hp.  He is concious and near to peak performance. 

This does not compute.  HP as damage make very little sense.  Healing, whether magical or not under such a system makes little sense.  

HP representing your ability to continue to act, to push yourself past normal endurance or to continue on despite having been blasted, burned, dipped in acid, stabbed gouged or generally blown up makes some sense and is as easily explained using magical restoration of HP as not.


----------



## Truename (Jan 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> My personal issue with healing surges is that it kind of screws up the narrative arc -- the whole "almost die, then recover, then repeat" is a wonky kind of swing. I'd honestly just prefer a "short rest heals all hp" kind of system, so that hp fully represents short-burst endurance. Tracking longer term endurance with a different system than HP (such as with rations, or something) would be preferable to me.




Umm, not to poke the tiger, but isn't that what we have in 4e? My players use healing surges to heal back up to full (or nearly so) in every short rest. I think you could choose to flavor HP as short-term endurance and surges as long-term endurance quite easily.

PS: I really enjoyed your posts about giving combats a narrative arc. I've been using those ideas in my combats and it's helped immensely. They're a lot more interesting.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

jensun said:


> A 100hp fighter is driven near to death, he is in negative HP.  He is healed back to 9hp.  He is concious but on a fraction of his total HP.
> 
> A 10hp fighter is driven near to death, he is in negative hp.  He is healed for the same amount as Fighter 1 and is back to 9hp.  He is concious and near to peak performance.



If hit points are abstract (and we're all agreed they are, right?), then why do people assume they stop being abstract when it's "healing hit points" as opposed to "damage in hit points"?


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> If hit points are abstract (and we're all agreed they are, right?), then why do people assume they stop being abstract when it's "healing hit points" as opposed to "damage in hit points"?



If HP are abstract why are we even having the discussion.  If they are abstract then both magical and non magical healing can make perfect sense. 

Personally I see HP as representing ability to keep going.  Damage can represent physical injuries, exhaustion, terror, whatever you want it to include.  Healing, whether magical or not, represents the ability to push yourself beyond the norm. 

Its like the monty python sketch, you may have chopped off my arms but I will still headbut you to death.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

jensun said:


> If HP are abstract why are we even having the discussion.  If they are abstract then both magical and non magical healing can make perfect sense.



This would only necessarily be correct if "abstract" were solely a binary condition.

"More abstract" (or "less abstract") is not a fallacious construction.  Other posts in this thread have explained this quite clearly.

It is true that hit points represent an abstract system in every edition of D&D.  Yet it is also true that hit points are _too abstract_ for my enjoyment in 4E.  These two sentences do not represent a logical contradiction, and it's important to understand that.



> Its like the monty python sketch, you may have chopped off my arms but I will still headbut you to death.



Okay.  That's not what _I_ want out of D&D.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> The above would generate much the same feeling in me as when my mother would say to me, "Here, you should try some of this cole slaw.", and I would reply, "Thank you, but I don't like cole slaw.", and she would reply, "Yes, but this is good cole slaw."




Another comparison might be: 
"I can't get this new game to work. I try to launch it, but it always reports some unhandled exception".
"Hmm. Have you tried to reinstall it?"
"Of course I tried that! Didn't work, obviously."
"Ah, now I remember - I had this problem too. You need to update your DirectX!"

Variants: 
1) 
"Wisecrack, I don't want to update my DirectX"
"But then it doesn't work! How can I help you then?"
2)
"Tried that, but it didn't work! Another game failed then."
"Okay, that's strange. I am afraid I can't help you."

---



Okay, that's strange. I am afraid I can't help you. Hit points with Healing Surges don't work for you. Sorry I couldn't help you.


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Like I said, one of my favorites.



Yes, intentionally stilted examples certainly do help you to prove your point.


----------



## Ydars (Jan 16, 2009)

The problem with 4E HP is not that they are more abstract than HP in other editions, it is that we now have another abstract system built on top of HP; healing surges.

So we now have TWO layers of abstraction between the game and the world it is trying to model.

A further abstraction of something already abstract! This MULTIPLES the level of vagueness in the system by an order of magnitude.

For some people this is just too much to take. I am getting used to it but it will never sit as comfortably with me as I would like.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

jensun said:


> Yes, intentionally stilted examples certainly do help you to prove your point.



"Intentionally stilted"?  Explain, please.  What about my examples doesn't fit with how some folks are saying 4E hit points work?  I was directly responding to someone who said that under 4E, the wounds are still there after the hit points and healing surges are fully recovered.  If that's true (note the conditional), how are my examples inaccurate?

(Or are you literally claiming they're "stilted," simply as an insult to my writing?)


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

Ydars said:


> The problem with 4E HP is not that they are more abstract than HP in other editions, it is that we now have another abstract system built on top of HP; healing surges.
> 
> So we now have TWO layers of abstraction between the game and the world it is trying to model.
> 
> ...



While it may be more abstract for my group they are better at emulating the sort of genres we want to play in.  The application of healing surges and self healing has let me run a Conan'esque sword and sorcery more easily than I have ever been able to in the past.


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> "Intentionally stilted"?  Explain, please.  What about my examples doesn't fit with how some folks are saying 4E hit points work?  I was directly responding to someone who said that under 4E, the wounds are still there after the hit points and healing surges are fully recovered.  If that's true (note the conditional), how are my examples inaccurate?



You are taking the situation to an extreme and assuming the GM will act like a dick. 

This doesnt really help your argument.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

jensun said:


> You are taking the situation to an extreme and assuming the GM will act like a dick.



No.  I am assuming the DM will offer _descriptions_ that fit how abstract hit points work.  The fact that those descriptions lead to absurdities isn't the DM being "a dick" -- in my example, I even had the DM apologize to the players if they were mislead! -- it's simply a result of how some people are claiming 4E hit points work.

Again, rather than tell _me_ what _I'm_ assuming, how about telling me where my examples diverge from the claim that in 4E one can still be wounded without being down any hit points or healing surges.  That might be helpful.



jensun said:


> Personally I see HP as representing ability to keep going.  [...] Healing, whether magical or not, represents the ability to push yourself beyond the norm. [...] *Its like the monty python sketch, you may have chopped off my arms but I will still headbut you to death.*






jensun said:


> The application of healing surges and self healing has let me run *a Conan'esque sword and sorcery* more easily than I have ever been able to in the past.




Okay, now you're just screwin' with me.


----------



## Beginning of the End (Jan 16, 2009)

Kzach said:


> People just can't get past the terms 'hit point' and 'damage'. I really wish they'd rename them.




Yes, I agree. Taking the coherent and logical mechanics from previous editions of the game (in which all damage meant you had suffered some form of physical injury, while sliding the severity of any individual injury based on a character's total hit points) and revamping them to a new system (in which damage doesn't mean damage) was probably a bad idea.

If you're going to so fundamentally change the nature of the mechanic, it would have improved clarity to choose a more appropriate term for the new mechanic.

I recommend replacing the term "hit points" with the term "luck points" in 4th Edition. This leads to a coherent model in which a finite amount of daily luck is burnt off whenever a blow would have otherwise have caused incapacitation. Certain magical rites, physical rest, and even the goodwill of others will make someone "feel lucky". Others believe that in that moment in which the sword of death passes a hair's breath from your neck that you can feel the touch of Ashante, Goddess of Luck and Dice.

Why do minions only have one hit point? They're just not lucky.

Let's all remember the 4th Edition mantra folks: The verisimilitude of the characters and the game world doesn't matter. You should just be happy manipulating the numbers for the sake of manipulating the numbers.


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> Let's all remember the 4th Edition mantra folks: The verisimilitude of the characters and the game world doesn't matter. You should just be happy manipulating the numbers for the sake of manipulating the numbers.



Intentionally misrepresenting stuff is just so 2008.  Please find a new record to break.


----------



## Kraydak (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> ...
> In the same way, I find it hard to imagine that there are many people who are actually veterens D&D players that don't accept that hit points are abstract.
> ...




Good and valuable stuff snipped so I could say that there are cases where hit points can represent shear brute toughness.  If you run a game in the style of, say, Naruto, then a high level fighter *is* quite literally more resilient than a stone wall (and his bones might well make good construction material...).


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> Good and valuable stuff snipped so I could say that there are cases where hit points can represent shear brute toughness.  If you run a game in the style of, say, Naruto, then a high level fighter *is* quite literally more resilient than a stone wall (and his bones might well make good construction material...).



Absolutely.

I have previously run high level D&D one shots where HP's did represent actual capacity to take damage.  A giant would smash you through a stone wall and you could get up and shake it off.  

It doesnt work for all games by a very large margin but it can be useful.

I suppose it mostly goes to show that HP can be many things to many people.  On the face of it they make little to no sense but as a mechanic for actually running games they can and do work well across all editions of the game.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 16, 2009)

If I was to rename one thing from 4e damage & healing etc, it might be to rename "Healing Surge" as "Adrenaline Surge".

For me, that would mesh well with either a person themselves (or perhaps a nearby warlord) getting that 'surge of adrenaline' which gets them up and back into the action.

It would also open up the possibility of allowing people to expend their adrenaline surges to bend bars and open gates, for particular feats of strength and endurance and such like.

Conceptually I find some of the problems with hit points come in the distinction between 'real' damage and 'not real' damage - stuff like the harpooned issue that has already been mentioned. I've always quite liked the 'wounds and vitality' approach which was used in SWd20 (and in fact used something almost exactly the same in my variant D&D games from the 1980's) although I understand the objection that some people have to the additional vulnerability it gives to PCs.

As I've mentioned before, my favourite RPG is RuneQuest2 which has fixed hit points (per location), active parries, armour reducing damage - stuff which many people decry but which in RQ2 made the most absorbing RPG combat I've ever experienced. In the simulation <-> abstract axis, I definitely strongly prefer the simulation end.

Cheers


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> As I've mentioned before, my favourite RPG is RuneQuest2 which has fixed hit points (per location), active parries, armour reducing damage - stuff which many people decry but which in RQ2 made the most absorbing RPG combat I've ever experienced. In the simulation <-> abstract axis, I definitely strongly prefer the simulation end.
> 
> Cheers



I am a big fan of RQ, we played RQ3 for years and I am an avid Glorantha collector.

I am still not sure I would call RQ's system all that realistic.  While it did try to simulate lots of real time speed activity the tendency for you to get your limbs chopped off fairly easily always struck an odd note.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> If I was to rename one thing from 4e damage & healing etc, it might be to rename "Healing Surge" as "Adrenaline Surge".




RCFG has adrenaline surges.  They give you an extra reaction at the cost of slower init next round.

It also has "shaking it off", which is a (IMHO) better version of the "healing surge" concept.


RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 16, 2009)

Truename said:
			
		

> Umm, not to poke the tiger,




Hahaha, I'm a tiger! Rawr!








> but isn't that what we have in 4e? My players use healing surges to heal back up to full (or nearly so) in every short rest. I think you could choose to flavor HP as short-term endurance and surges as long-term endurance quite easily.




Yes, it is very close to what we have in 4e. The problem for me is that HPs are pulling double duty, representing both kinds of endurance, when they should only represent the one. Healing surges force HP to do more elaborate tricks to make sense of itself, and it's really demanding, IMO, too much of the little guys. They're having an existential crisis in 4e. 

I'm okay with the shift from HPs representing long-term endurance to representing only short-term endurance. HPs in 4e are really more luck, energy, adrenaline, spike health, heroic inspired valliance...but then they're ALSO wounds and broken bones and death's harbinger. Doing both makes them sloppy. They can't hold up under the weight.

If HP's are going to be "spike health," get something else to be "death's harbringer." If HP's are an encounter resource, get something totally different to be the daily (or even per-adventure!) resource. A place for everything, everything in its place. 

Or, flip-flop it and make HP's the long-term resource, and give us something else to be the "spike health." Maybe something that can be consumed and spent on _activation_ of abilities, rather than just continued combat operation.

It kind of boils down to: "Nix healing surges. Replace them with the rule that (a) you heal all HP to full after a short rest, and (b) every time you take a short rest you consume 1 "fart" ("fart" being a placeholder for whatever you want to call your long-term resources). If you're out of "farts" you won't heal HP anymore."

Maybe "farts" can be bought in town (Shopkeep, give me an order of 30 "farts" We're going into that dungeon!). Maybe "farts" come as part of your character class (I'm a fighter! I've got 10 "farts!"). I kind of think the former would be better as it would allow PC's to kind of set their own pace and be co-equal members of this dungeon endurance mission, but that doesn't matter. What matters is that HP only do one thing. The other side of this is handled by something else.

This is kind of related to my  "noncombat roles" post in that these "farts" would be another kind of HP's representing how much time you have until you fail, but they're more about the pressures of time and staying power, rather than the pressures of defense and healing. 



> PS: I really enjoyed your posts about giving combats a narrative arc. I've been using those ideas in my combats and it's helped immensely. They're a lot more interesting.




 Denke! It's always amazing to hear about my little ideas helping someone out. Now all you need to do is train the next generation of DM's to do the same.  Go little idea, GO!


----------



## Umbran (Jan 16, 2009)

jensun said:


> Intentionally misrepresenting stuff is just so 2008.  Please find a new record to break.





You know, if you could prove you could read minds, you could take it to the Amazing Randi, and make a million dollars.

Since you haven't, I'm going to assume that you've no proof that you can read minds over the internet.  So please stop acting like you can.  Intentionally telling folks what or why they think or say a thing is just rude.


----------



## D'karr (Jan 16, 2009)

Beginning of the End said:


> Taking the *coherent and logical* mechanics from previous editions of the game (in which all damage meant you had suffered some form of physical injury




Bwa, hah, hah...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> Hahaha, I'm a tiger! Rawr!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I think the primary mechanic that's creating the "problems" is the fact that you risk dying if you are below 0 hit points and still have hit points. 

In Warhammer 2e, you never go below 0 hit points. But every hit you take when at 0 hit points risks killing you, since it is considered a critical hit (which is not your D&D critical hit, it's the "your head is crushed by the opponents attack" or "your weapon hand is cut off...". 

If we'd let hit points merely represent "ability to shrug off serious injury" (and I mean serious injury - scratches are still allowed, to avoid poisoning people only when they are basically dead  ), then 0 hit points means you are entirely at the mercy of your enemy. You are too exhausted to roll with it (and maybe even exhausted to act - in Warhammer, you can still do that, but to ensure "compatibility" with the current system, you might not want that). If you are hit, the damage taken means you took a serious injury.

The question then becomes how to treat these serious injuries (literally and figuratively.  )

Healing Surges could still restore hit points - at least as long as you didn't take serious injuries (at that point, you might want to avoid free healing, I don't know.)


----------



## Dausuul (Jan 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> If I was to rename one thing from 4e damage & healing etc, it might be to rename "Healing Surge" as "Adrenaline Surge".




I favor "heroic surge," myself, mostly because it's shorter and fits the fantasy theme better.  But yes, "healing surge" is a terrible name, since it frequently involves no actual healing.



Plane Sailing said:


> Conceptually I find some of the problems with hit points come in the distinction between 'real' damage and 'not real' damage - stuff like the harpooned issue that has already been mentioned. I've always quite liked the 'wounds and vitality' approach which was used in SWd20 (and in fact used something almost exactly the same in my variant D&D games from the 1980's) although I understand the objection that some people have to the additional vulnerability it gives to PCs.




The one model of hit points I've never been able to stomach is the one where you can lose hit points due to somebody missing you.  It's ridiculous to have a system in which you make an "attack roll" that "hits" and the target "takes damage" that results in losing "hit points," but you didn't actually... y'know... hit anything.

Unless WotC is willing to carry out a radical renaming of pretty much every combat mechanic, I think it should be a given that damage (loss of hit points) represents an attack that actually connected and inflicted injury.  That said, I can get on board with the idea that the injury is not always _significant_, and that recovery of hit points is not necessarily healing.

The way I see it, in 4E, it's all bruises and buffets until you become Bloodied.  After that, you're taking more serious punishment, but still nothing really major until you go negative.  At that point you've taken a dangerous, potentially mortal wound; without magical healing or a surge of heroic willpower, you're liable to bleed out and die.

If you get healed by the cleric, then your wound closes up thanks to the power of the gods.  If you get inspired by the warlord, then you struggle back to your feet and keep on fighting through sheer grit and determination: "Hello.  My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die."


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2009)

How about this definition? 
Hit Points - How many hits you can avoid or take before going down.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

When I said in an up-thread post that "I like healing surges," I meant it.  If I'd designed them, I'd have done something like this:

(1) All classes have the same number of healing surges.  Probably something like five or six.  I'd call them something else, but that's not really important here.

(2) Defenders' surges would be largest (in terms of hit points regained), strikers' and leaders' would be next, and controllers' would be smallest.

(3) Hit points would represent almost entirely intangibles ... luck, morale, divine grace, whatever.

(4) Healing surges -- or, more precisely, the lack of them -- would represent some form of lasting injury.

(5) Damage that is very difficult to explain by loss of hit points would, instead, result in loss of healing surges.  For example, a fall of forty feet onto hard stone might subtract two healing surges.  Standing in a burning building for half a minute might subtract a healing surge, and so on.  Poison might deal healing surge damage.

(6) Recovering healing surges would take much longer than six hours.  I'm thinking one day per healing surge.  Maybe two with care, or three with magical care.

To make it work under current 4E rules, obviously, it would require other changes.  For example, monsters would need fewer hit points.  My goal would be to shoot for completing an average dungeon -- say, 10 encounters -- before needing to take any serious down time.  (Doing so would involve risk, as injuries piled up, but that's what adventurers do, right, is take risks?)


----------



## Halivar (Jan 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> If I was to rename one thing from 4e damage & healing etc, it might be to rename "Healing Surge" as "Adrenaline Surge".



Or maybe just "surge," in order to account for the fact that some hp recovery is of actual, divine healing nature ("Shamwow the cleric buffs out your cuts and bruises. Your skin is good as new!"). Whether it's a healing surge or adrenaline surge depends on the power source that activated the surge.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> When I said in an up-thread post that "I like healing surges," I meant it. If I'd designed them, I'd have done something like this:




Maybe there was some hit mixed in there with all that miss after all?



Jeff Wilder said:


> (1) All classes have the same number of healing surges. Probably something like five or six. I'd call them something else, but that's not really important here.




Given #6, that'd probably be for the best.



Jeff Wilder said:


> (2) Defenders' surges would be largest (in terms of hit points regained), strikers' and leaders' would be next, and controllers' would be smallest.




This is true already, though you might want to tweak the degree. If you drop the defender's surge count to achieve #1, giving him proportionally more hp/level would probably be a good idea. Likewise, if you boost controller surges, dropping his hp would probably be good.



Jeff Wilder said:


> (3) Hit points would represent almost entirely intangibles ... luck, morale, divine grace, whatever.
> 
> (4) Healing surges -- or, more precisely, the lack of them -- would represent some form of lasting injury.




Seems fine, although you still probably want there to be a scratches and flesh wounds so that it's possible to use a poisoned blade before chewing through all of a guy's hp.



Jeff Wilder said:


> (5) Damage that is very difficult to explain by loss of hit points would, instead, result in loss of healing surges. For example, a fall of forty feet onto hard stone might subtract two healing surges. Standing in a burning building for half a minute might subtract a healing surge, and so on. Poison might deal healing surge damage.




This is used to a degree in the 4E starvation/thirst/exposure rules, so expanding along these lines is natural.



Jeff Wilder said:


> (6) Recovering healing surges would take much longer than six hours. I'm thinking one day per healing surge. Maybe two with care, or three with magical care.




This is the one that's a big system change from 4E IMO. Healing surges, besides just being a mechanism for non-magical healing, became a way to pull healing magic out of the Vancian model while leaving in the resource-management aspect.

That's not to say you couldn't do it - suppose that Cure Light Wounds (and similar) in 4E, instead of being "target regains hit points _as if_ they spent a healing surge" became "target regains a healing surge and may spend it immediately."

You'd still probably need to increase the number of surges overall, though. 



Jeff Wilder said:


> To make it work under current 4E rules, obviously, it would require other changes. For example, monsters would need fewer hit points. My goal would be to shoot for completing an average dungeon -- say, 10 encounters -- before needing to take any serious down time. (Doing so would involve risk, as injuries piled up, but that's what adventurers do, right, is take risks?)




I'm not sure why monsters would need less HP (unless you were going to apply these rules to the monsters as well, which wasn't clear above).

And I suspect that, in play, the incentive would be to press on during a single day (or very few days) until surges were low, then pull back and rest for a week, which would seems like it would break the flow of the game. But maybe not for your style of play.

Anyway, you've given me some food for thought. Thanks!


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

jensun said:


> You are taking the situation to an extreme and assuming the GM will act like a dick.




As opposed to saying that the DM will say, "The poison dart goes right through your eye socket, take 2 points of damage."  Is this less of an extreme or less of an implication that people with the contrary position are jerks?  

To be honest, I'm ok with that sort of humor if its offered in good humor.  It's ridiculous, it would probably never occur in a real campaign, but it does capture a certain amount of truth.  I'm not happy with its apparant use to bash people who disagree, but it is funny.  

If you take the idea of 'hit points are abstract representations of luck, skill, and destiny' to similar extremes, it gets similarly ridiculous.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 16, 2009)

I haven't seen the podcast yet, just saw the comments. I totally get the
abstract nature of hit points. The big issue with this is that the
large pool of abstract something represents everything from hurt feelings
to a punctured lung and the same band aids are expected to fix all these
different issues when there is no fluff, or narration that will help
that concept make any kind of sense. 

Trying to flavor the picture of events that have happened with 
speculation of what might happen just doesn't work. If a fighter drops below 0 hp from a sword shot and I think that the cleric will use 
healing word on his next turn, then I describe the shot as a nasty slash 
to the femoral artery that leaves the fighter bleeding on the floor.
 What if the cleric doesn't get to use that power?
What if the cleric gets dropped before he gets a turn and the warlord instead says " walk it off son" and the fighter springs back into action?
 The rules are followed and the game moves on but the game world had to get clubbed by the silly bat for this to happen.

The system I'm working on now uses hit points and body points.
Hit points are based completely on class/level or HD and have nothing to do with CON or body mass. Hit points are luck, skill, and general
moxie. 
HP damage is from things like near misses, glancing blows, and energy
consumed by fending off the attack. No gut spilling wounds happen from pure hp attacks. Hit points are like fatigue and heal quickly.

Body points are based completely on CON and body mass. Class and level
do not matter. Only living things have body points.Non-living things are destroyed at 0 hp. Body points =CON for creatures up to med. size, CON+5 for large, CON+10 for huge, CON+20 for gargantuan, and CON+40 for colossal.

In general, body damage happens when hp run out. Some things such as ingested poison,attacks on a helpless target,ect. do direct body damage.
 Body damage represents actual injury and heals rather slowly.
 Healing magic works on body damage at a much lower rate than it
does for hit points. A cure light wounds spell might cure 1d8+ of hp damage OR 1 point of body damage at the casters option.

 The effect is that real wounds take real time or powerful magic to
heal while hit point damage can be cured easily with rest or magic. 
I am currently developing a simple ratio of how many hp can be regained (percentage of maximum)depending on current body point totals and the effects of body damage on combat/skill related performance. 

 Its still a work in progress.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> "For one thing, he ends that section by stating, "However, having sustained 40 or 50 hit points of damage, our lordly fighter will be covered with a number of nicks, scratches, cuts and bruises. It will require a long period of rest and recuperation to regain the physical and metaphysical peak of 95 hit points." The emphasis is mine, and its intended to show that even though Gygax thought of hit points in partially abstract terms, the basic assumption is that the metaphysical injury to ones luck, destiny, or skill could be expected to heal naturally no faster than we'd expect his physical injuries to heal. The modern philosophy suggests that if you've managed to survive the recent past, then the game should quickly reset so that the experience can be repeated.




Modern?!  We're talking the 1970s at the earliest.   And does this really make any sense at all?  So a fighter with 95 hitpoints lays in bed for 40 or 50 days because he's feeling unlucky?  And apparently hitpoints 46-95 actually do represent some part of physical damage, which then strangely takes FAR longer for him to heal than an equivalent injury on a 1st level person.  And the game isn't resetting (that's an unwarranted "video game" jab AFAICT - the exaggeration verges on baffling actually).  

So what DnD before 4E looks like, without healing magic? (which is really the only reason any of this was ever tolerable IMO) are heroes laying around in bed for months on end in order to heal superficial and/or completely invisible injuries?  It's only a "modern philosophy" that finds this comical?



Celebrim said:


> "The only granularity is at the level of healing surges, as any loss of hit points smaller than a single healing surge is more or less identical, and even this requires little real consumption of resources given the emphasis on resetting and refortifying the party. Hording every hit point isn't as important. Preserving resources across a long series of encounters is often unnecessary, and even undesirable.




I find this a combination of objectively false and downright puzzling.  And we're way beyond "I don't like coleslaw" here.  Let's say my PC has 40 hp.  I take 5 damage.  I now have 35 hitpoints.  If I take 35 damage the next round, I'm dying.  Thus it *matters* that I took the 5 damage.  Or say that I take 5 damage the following round as well.  Now I'm at 30.  Now I'm down the amount of a full healing surge.  I really find it much like having hitpoints equal to = 4e hitpoints x healing surges.  You never recover hp for free, so every point matters.

"Preserving resources" matters in 4E.  Short of some houserules or interesting interpretation of Endurance, I can swing a sword with impunity in earlier editions and never drop from exhaustion, so what it really seems to come down to is some feeling on your part that 3E has daily resource management and 4E does not.  And that is objectively false.  In fact, I would think it would be obvious to both of us that healing surges themselves are a daily resource that need to be managed across multiple encounters.  Thus "use of a healing surge" is not a trivial expenditure.



Celebrim said:


> "With 4e, I'm sure the rules are mostly fine, but I've no interest in the feel or the style.




If it were just a matter of the coleslaw analogy, I'd have nothing to say.  AFAICT though it's not "feel or style" that you're strictly limiting yourself to when you are talking about things like granularity, which is far more objective of an issue than how you feel.  

"I don't like the 4E PHB because it weighs 8000 lbs and I don't like heavy things".  The fact that the speaker doesn't like heavy things is a matter of opinion that I don't dispute - but the "facts" they use to support this I find capable of a more objective analysis.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

Kraydak said:


> Good and valuable stuff snipped so I could say that there are cases where hit points can represent shear brute toughness.  If you run a game in the style of, say, Naruto, then a high level fighter *is* quite literally more resilient than a stone wall (and his bones might well make good construction material...).




Sure, you could play that way and be perfectly justified in doing so.  It wouldn't necessarily be my preference, but it would work and it would be consistant and fairly straight forward to narrate.

As much as 'hit points are abstract' is claimed about 4e, it isn't really consistantly applied.  Goblins throw harpoons and pull the target with ropes.  They don't just abstractly skewer the target.  We assign lots of hit points to big monsters not because they are dodgy, lucky, or fated but because we assume that there large bodies will be able to absorb lots of physical punishment.  Characters with large amounts of hit points are imagined as big, hardy, robust individuals.  Races with a tendency to have alot of hit points are protrayed as stout, stocky, and blockish, rather than thin, nimble, willowy and waifish.  Things that make you tough tend to be related to physical qualities.  

So I don't think its true to say that hit points are purely abstract in 4e.  And yet, whether the wound is abstract or tangible, all healing regardless of the source effects the wound the same.

The basic problem with trying to claim that hit points are abstract in 4e or not abstract in 4e is that 4e doesn't care.  The question of 'What do hit points represent' isn't really even part of the design of 4e in my opinion.  They don't represent or model anything.  Representing and modeling things is not a very 4e approach.  Hit points in 4e are just hit points.  They don't represent or model anything else.   Characters have hit points, not wounds or luck or destiny or anything else.  Thinking to hard about what hit points represent is being far too simulationist for 4e IMO.  That's why I've always said that I think 4e would be harder for me to run than earlier editions no matter how much simplified or streamlined the rules might be.


----------



## chaotix42 (Jan 16, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> IThe way I see it, in 4E, it's all bruises and buffets until you become Bloodied. After that, you're taking more serious punishment, but still nothing really major until you go negative. At that point you've taken a dangerous, potentially mortal wound; without magical healing or a surge of heroic willpower, you're liable to bleed out and die.




This is pretty much how I run it. Before bloodied you get mostly knocked around, take nicks & cuts & other flesh wounds. When you're bloodied by a hit, then we get a laceration or some other nasty wound.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

Anything I'm not quoting is a demurrer.



Lacyon said:


> Maybe there was some hit mixed in there with all that miss after all?



If you throw the dart hard enough, it doesn't matter if you're throwing it 180 degrees off-target!



> Given #6, that'd probably be for the best.



Yes, number 6 is why.



> Seems fine, although you still probably want there to be a scratches and flesh wounds so that it's possible to use a poisoned blade before chewing through all of a guy's hp.



That's why "almost" entirely, though as I think about it, is it really necessary?  If poison does "surge damage," it could just have its own attack roll, right?  Anyway, just thinking out loud.



> This is used to a degree in the 4E starvation/thirst/exposure rules, so expanding along these lines is natural.



Cool.  I've suggested something similar in the House Rules forum for 3E, because I feel the designers really missed an opportunity to use Constitution damage to represent stuff like falls and drowning.



> I'm not sure why monsters would need less HP (unless you were going to apply these rules to the monsters as well, which wasn't clear above).



Monsters would need fewer HP in 4E (as it exists now) because combat goes on for rounds after it's effectively settled, and those rounds mean damage.  If hit points and surges for PCs don't significantly increase, those resources will be spent more quickly than they should be to reach the "10 encounter" goal I was talking about.

Increasing hit points and surges is another way to balance things, but if 4E combats _do_ grind (and in my limited experience, they do), I figure might at well fix that at the same time.

But again, bear in mind that this is the hypothetical situation of trying to retrofit currently existing 4E.  Building from the ground up, it wouldn't need to be so much "eyeballing."



> And I suspect that, in play, the incentive would be to press on during a single day (or very few days) until surges were low, then pull back and rest for a week, which would seems like it would break the flow of the game. But maybe not for your style of play.



I guess not.  More than 10 encounters without significant healing -- and I mean "healing of injuries" (represented by surges), not "recovery of hit points" -- strains my sense of verisimilitude.

How many encounters is a level in 4E?  Should a PC need any significant recovery time during those encounters?  My feeling is "yes."  Yours may well be "no," in which case we're probably back to why extant 4E healing works for you (I presume), but not for me.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> As much as 'hit points are abstract' is claimed about 4e, it isn't really consistantly applied.



Not even at WotC.  During the video of the game session against the mind flayer, the DM (I've forgotten who it was) _consistently_ described damage in terms of physical injury.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> Modern?!  We're talking the 1970s at the earliest.




Fourth edition was around in 1970?



> And does this really make any sense at all?  So a fighter with 95 hitpoints lays in bed for 40 or 50 days because he's feeling unlucky?




No character in 1st edition ever takes 40 or 50 days to naturally heal.  Whether that's a problem is a whole different discussion, but it would lie on the side of 'D&D treats wounds too abstractly'.  As for lying in bed because you feel unlucky, that's not as ridiculous as it is sounds at first, but I don't even have to defend it because its such an obviously false claim.  If you've read page 82, then you'd realize that Gygax never assumes all of a high level characters hit points are intangible - some he admits represents the ability to absorb damage.  So a high level character is slowly healing up all those aforementioned nicks, gashes, bruises, cuts and bumps.  While he's doing that he's also restoring his confidence, his flexibility, his stamina, the favor of the gods or whatever else you think his hit points represent.



> And apparently hitpoints 46-95 actually do represent some part of physical damage...




Well duh.



> ...which then strangely takes FAR longer for him to heal than an equivalent injury on a 1st level person.




Please stop pontificating over rules you don't know or understand.  Besides which, I'm not sure what points you hope to score by proving that 1st edition D&D is unrealistic. 



> And the game isn't resetting (that's an unwarranted "video game" jab AFAICT - the exaggeration verges on baffling actually).




Which english verb would you prefer I use to capture the same meaning as 'reset'?  As for it being a jab, I would be perfectly happy describing leaving the dungeon, returning to town and resting for a week as being a 'reset' in 1st edition.  Yet you aren't claiming that I'm saying that 1st edition is too 'video gamey' - an analogy I already dismissed earlier in the thread anyway.



> So what DnD before 4E looks like, without healing magic? (which is really the only reason any of this was ever tolerable IMO) are heroes laying around in bed for months on end in order to heal superficial and/or completely invisible injuries?  It's only a "modern philosophy" that finds this comical?




First of all, you are again completely clueless about the 1st edition rules.  No one that has actually read page 82 of the first edition DMG would write the above.  Secondly, I think it can be fairly assumed that a character spending a couple weeks resting would have signfiicant physical injuries.  

As for the rest, why should I bother explaining how I'd narrate and justify the above to someone that so clearly has a chip on his shoulder that he's willing to pontificate on the effects of rules even without knowing what those rules are?  Or to condemn explanations without even knowing the full explanations?



> I find this a combination of objectively false and downright puzzling.  And we're way beyond "I don't like coleslaw" here.  Let's say my PC has 40 hp.  I take 5 damage.  I now have 35 hitpoints.  If I take 35 damage the next round, I'm dying.  Thus it *matters* that I took the 5 damage.  Or say that I take 5 damage the following round as well.  Now I'm at 30.  Now I'm down the amount of a full healing surge.  I really find it much like having hitpoints equal to = 4e hitpoints x healing surges.  You never recover hp for free, so every point matters.




Oh good grief.  You are willfully misunderstanding me now.



> so what it really seems to come down to is some feeling on your part that 3E has daily resource management and 4E does not.  And that is objectively false.




Sure.  But did I ever say anything about daily resource management?  I believe you are the one that introduced that idea.  I was speaking about resource management between 'resets', which was the idea of the point at which players could assume they'd be able to replenish the vast majority of their resources.  I wasn't really speaking about 'daily resource management at all' nor making any claims about 1st editions 'daily resource management'.  For one thing, in 1st edition you usually can't reset - even at high levels - in as small of a time period as a day.  You can probably recover all your hit points in a day if you have enough healiing spells, but then you'll need to wait another day to recover your spells.   But I never claimed 4e doesn't have reset management, I merely said that the feel of the resource management was very different than earlier editions and 1st edition in particular.



> In fact, I would think it would be obvious to both of us that healing surges themselves are a daily resource that need to be managed across multiple encounters.




Well, if you honestly think that its obvious to both of us that this is true, why are you assuming that my opinion doesn't take it into account?



> If it were just a matter of the coleslaw analogy, I'd have nothing to say.  AFAICT though it's not "feel or style" that you're strictly limiting yourself to when you are talking about things like granularity, which is far more objective of an issue than how you feel.




So are you seriously advancing the argument that nothing has really changed with regards to tempo or granularity in 4e compared to 1e?  How can you possibly claim this and at the same time mock 1st edition for a guy resting for months (not even true, but nevermind) to recover his hit points?  Does that ever happen in 4e?  

Sheesh.


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 16, 2009)

Dausuul said:


> If you get healed by the cleric, then your wound closes up thanks to the power of the gods.  If you get inspired by the warlord, then you struggle back to your feet and keep on fighting through sheer grit and determination: "Hello.  My name is Inigo Montoya.  You killed my father.  Prepare to die."




Do you describe below 0 HP is unconscious and dying or conscious and dying? The latter has two advantages: you get to do last words if you die and you avoid the weirdness of inspiring words helping someone who's unconscious.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> When I said in an up-thread post that "I like healing surges," I meant it.  If I'd designed them, I'd have done something like this:
> 
> (1) All classes have the same number of healing surges.  Probably something like five or six.  I'd call them something else, but that's not really important here.
> 
> ...





Something like that might work.

I think I'd add:

(7) Characters with few (1?, 2?, 3?) or no healing surges are subject to increasingly harsh 'wounded' conditions.

Or maybe...

(8) Each round spent below zero hit points causes the loss of a healing surge.

And I'd personally edge toward making healing surges difficult to recover.  Most magical healing would represent things of the 'close wounds' variaty - stablizing the character rather than truly healing them.  Maybe 'Heal' or similarly powerful (ritual?) magic might actually grant a healing surge, or perhaps a very difficult heal check (surgery, also a ritual?)


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> That's why "almost" entirely, though as I think about it, is it really necessary? If poison does "surge damage," it could just have its own attack roll, right? Anyway, just thinking out loud.




 Poison in 4E does have it's own attack roll (vs. Fort) - it's generally a followup attack after a normal hit with the poisoned blade, but can be rolled by itself for poison gasses.



Jeff Wilder said:


> Cool. I've suggested something similar in the House Rules forum for 3E, because I feel the designers really missed an opportunity to use Constitution damage to represent stuff like falls and drowning.




Heh. It is used for drowning (after 3 minutes without air, increasing-DC endurance checks for each additional minute, failure = lose a surge that you can't recover until you're able to breathe again).

As for falling, if you're in an encounter, you lose HP and become more likely to fall to attacks. Outside of an encounter, you spend the surges to restore your HP before you get to your next battle. So you're down surges (unless someone used magic that didn't require a surge, but hey, that's magic).

EDIT: Whoops. That was a misread on my part.



Jeff Wilder said:


> Monsters would need fewer HP in 4E (as it exists now) because combat goes on for rounds after it's effectively settled, and those rounds mean damage. If hit points and surges for PCs don't significantly increase, those resources will be spent more quickly than they should be to reach the "10 encounter" goal I was talking about.
> 
> Increasing hit points and surges is another way to balance things, but if 4E combats _do_ grind (and in my limited experience, they do), I figure might at well fix that at the same time.




Fair enough.



Jeff Wilder said:


> But again, bear in mind that this is the hypothetical situation of trying to retrofit currently existing 4E. Building from the ground up, it wouldn't need to be so much "eyeballing."




You could do the calculations if you don't like the eyeballing . The math on how much damage at-level critters do per round, while not _perfectly_ consistent, is at least _on average_ consistent.



Jeff Wilder said:


> I guess not. More than 10 encounters without significant healing -- and I mean "healing of injuries" (represented by surges), not "recovery of hit points" -- strains my sense of verisimilitude.
> 
> How many encounters is a level in 4E? Should a PC need any significant recovery time during those encounters? My feeling is "yes." Yours may well be "no," in which case we're probably back to why extant 4E healing works for you (I presume), but not for me.




(A level in 4E is ~10 encounters) 

It's more that I'm willing to get the recovery time by means other than enforced long-duration healing times. (Just like, with your system, you could get multi-day adventuring by spreading the encounters out).

In one of the old threads, Mustrum_Ridcully (I think) suggested a system whereby everything works pretty similarly to what 4E does now, except that an extended rest costs a "recovery point" or something in addition to the normal requirements. The PCs have a set number of these "recovery points" that they can use in an adventure, and in order to recover them, they have to take a longer-term rest (say, a week).


----------



## chaotix42 (Jan 16, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> avoid the weirdness of inspiring words helping someone who's unconscious.




I like the idea of the warlord's words being so jarring they wake his unconscious allies. Ever been awoken by a loud noise? 

Wait, does an ally even have to hear an Inspiring Word to benefit from it? *checks PHB* Nope, you can be deafened and still benefit. So you'd have to lip-read? Wait, you could blinded too. Inspiring Tap On The Shoulder then?


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 16, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> I like the idea of the warlord's words being so jarring they wake his unconscious allies. Ever been awoken by a loud noise?
> 
> Wait, does an ally even have to hear an Inspiring Word to benefit from it? *checks PHB* Nope, you can be deafened and still benefit. So you'd have to lip-read? Wait, you could blinded too. Inspiring Tap On The Shoulder then?




Now I'm thinking of doctors leaning over coma patients and yelling at them to "Get up!" or a long line of nurses shaking and slapping patients until they feel better, like in Airplane with that hysterical woman. 

As for the Inspiring Tap on the Shoulder, I think the warlord would do what's done in sports, where it's generally a hearty slap on the top of the head or on the ass. A terrorist fist bump would also work...

More seriously, asleep does not equal unconscious due to physical trauma, not in game or RL terms. So, I'm still in the "that's silly" response line.


----------



## chaotix42 (Jan 16, 2009)

Yeah it could be _silly_, but I would also argue _cinematic_ for the warlord's words to be so rousing as to wake his allies from violence-induced comas. Makes me think of the grizzled vet who is pulling his knocked-out friend across a shellshocked battlefield, yelling at him to snap out of it. 

It can very well get to silly levels though, which I think I've illustrated. I'm in the "that's cool!" response line, until a certain point. ('~' ) ( '~')


----------



## Mallus (Jan 16, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> Now I'm thinking of doctors leaning over coma patients and yelling at them to "Get up!" or a long line of nurses shaking and slapping patients until they feel better, like in Airplane with that hysterical woman.
> 
> As for the Inspiring Tap on the Shoulder, I think the warlord would do what's done in sports, where it's generally a hearty slap on the top of the head or on the ass. A terrorist fist bump would also work...



I think both of those are great and match the general level of _gravitas_ I've experienced in D&D campaigns.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Goddammit you bitch! You never backed away from anything in your life! Now Fight! Fight! Fight! Right now! Fight goddammit! Fight! Fight! Fiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!


----------



## chaotix42 (Jan 16, 2009)

LOL

And don't drown in that pool of your own blood! *rolls friend over on back*


----------



## Mallus (Jan 16, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> Yeah it could be _silly_, but I would also argue _cinematic_ for the warlord's words to be so rousing as to wake his allies from violence-induced comas.



This would be particularly funny in our campaign, since the party warlord looks exactly like Dr. Phil (in chain mail).


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

chaotix42 said:


> LOL
> 
> And don't drown in that pool of your own blood! *rolls friend over on back*




It's a quote from The Abyss. 

Neo, I'm not afraid anymore. The Oracle told me that I would fall in love and that that man... the man that I loved would be The One. So you see, you can't be dead. You can't be... because I love you. You hear me? I love you. 

Now get up!

The Matrix is slightly more on the philosophical side though.


----------



## Halivar (Jan 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> AHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
> 
> Goddammit you bitch! You never backed away from anything in your life! Now Fight! Fight! Fight! Right now! Fight goddammit! Fight! Fight! Fiiiiiiight!!!!!!!!!



LOL _I was thinking of exactly that scene!_


----------



## chaotix42 (Jan 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> It's a quote from The Abyss.
> 
> Neo, I'm not afraid anymore. The Oracle told me that I would fall in love and that that man... the man that I loved would be The One. So you see, you can't be dead. You can't be... because I love you. You hear me? I love you.
> 
> ...




Great quote then! I thought that all came from the heart! 

Another good example, too.

That's how my games go though - a very heavy dose of what I think is "cool" and very little of what anyone would consider "real."


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> No character in 1st edition ever takes 40 or 50 days to naturally heal.




It's 1 hp/day, right?  Maybe 2 or 3 or something with complete bedrest.  Remember the example of the 95 hp character?  Your not sharing your math here.  Take a 100th level character with 300 hitpoints and how long does he take to heal?  



Celebrim said:


> As for lying in bed because you feel unlucky, that's not as ridiculous as it is sounds at first, but I don't even have to defend it because its such an obviously false claim.




Well, I've heard it again and it still sounds ridiculous, or at least strange.  In fact, you don't try to explain it as much as make vague allusions to some idea that I don't understand 1E "rules".  You can keep saying that but it would be helpful (and more relevant, actually) if it were substantiated.



Celebrim said:


> If you've read page 82, then you'd realize that Gygax never assumes all of a high level characters hit points are intangible - some he admits represents the ability to absorb damage. So a high level character is slowly healing up all those aforementioned nicks, gashes, bruises, cuts and bumps. While he's doing that he's also restoring his confidence, his flexibility, his stamina, the favor of the gods or whatever else you think his hit points represent.




Well whatever they represent never really is an issue.  "Flexibility" means his dexterity is lower?  No, you only "say" flexibility.  But heck, in 4E I can say that your character is feeling sore and tired when he's at max hitpoints.  A 4E character goes through an adventure, takes X damage, heals it back with healing surges, then goes home.  I can describe him as being injured and it's as demonstrable as claiming that a 95 hp character that takes 20 hp of damage is injured.



Celebrim said:


> Please stop pontificating over rules you don't know or understand. Besides which, I'm not sure what points you hope to score by proving that 1st edition D&D is unrealistic.




These aren't rules, first of all.  And secondly "pontificating" is in the eye of the beholder.  I've been pretty specific about my objection.  The points I'm "hoping to score" have to do with the issue at hand.  Plus, you haven't contradicted anything I've said about the 1E "rules" that you're talking about.



Celebrim said:


> First of all, you are again completely clueless about the 1st edition rules.




"Completely" would mean I hadn't heard of hit points before.  You don't use language very precisely.  You should be more specific about what it is in the "rules" that I don't get.  Keep in mind that some general musings by Gygax about the concept of hitpoints are not "rules".  Allowing hp damage to essentially mean "anything you want them to" is not a rule, really, is it?   



Celebrim said:


> No one that has actually read page 82 of the first edition DMG would write the above.




I have read it.  "No one who has eaten coleslaw likes it", according to your strange reasoning.  I'm not sure why you find it necessary to base your arguments on stuff that you don't really know.  



Celebrim said:


> Secondly, I think it can be fairly assumed that a character spending a couple weeks resting would have signfiicant physical injuries.




In what way is that "fairly assumed" other than you say so?  Those so-called "significant physical injuries" manifest themselves in NO OTHER WAY in the rules.  He still has 18/00 strength.  He still has 18 Dex.  He still has a 12" movement rate.  He's not more likely to be surprised because he's dizzy or tired.  I've gone over this though - I'm really trying to get you to recognize that the abstractions between 3E and 4E are very similar.



Celebrim said:


> As for the rest, why should I bother explaining how I'd narrate and justify the above to someone that so clearly has a chip on his shoulder that he's willing to pontificate on the effects of rules even without knowing what those rules are?




All sorts of things are clear to you that I don't agree with - I'll add this to the list. 



Celebrim said:


> Or to condemn explanations without even knowing the full explanations?




Is finding your explanations, as they stand, contradictory, unconvincing, and not entirely informed by either the 4E rules or the logical consequences of 1E philosophy considered "condeming"?  I've tried to explain the basis for each one of these opinions.  Step 1 of me "knowing the full explanation" would be for you to give one.



Celebrim said:


> Oh good grief. You are willfully misunderstanding me now.




There's already been a post on mind-reading.  What I"m "willfully" trying to do is explain why what you say doesn't seem right to me.



Celebrim said:


> I wasn't really speaking about 'daily resource management at all' nor making any claims about 1st editions 'daily resource management'.




Then AFAICT you're talking about something that has nothing to do with 4E hitpoints, since healing surges are a daily resource.



Celebrim said:


> For one thing, in 1st edition you usually can't reset - even at high levels - in as small of a time period as a day. You can probably recover all your hit points in a day if you have enough healiing spells, but then you'll need to wait another day to recover your spells.




You can recover all of your hitpoints in several rounds.  Then you can recover those spells in a day.  I don't think I need to spell this out, do I?  You can "reset" in a day in 1E, and IME it was not uncommon - mainly because PCs wouldn't wait to lose all but 1 of their hitpoints before they retreated.



Celebrim said:


> But I never claimed 4e doesn't have reset management, I merely said that the feel of the resource management was very different than earlier editions and 1st edition in particular.




I think it's pretty much indisputable that 4E has a different "management" philosophy - that was the whole point of the change.  The 4E designers felt that this management philosophy would address game issues like the "15 minute adventuring day".  The the point that I was mainly trying to address is that there don't appear to be any real conceptual differences between what 1E and 4E hitpoints system represent.



Celebrim said:


> Well, if you honestly think that its obvious to both of us that this is true, why are you assuming that my opinion doesn't take it into account?




I thought the answer to this was obvious.  I'm assuming this because it appears to be the case from what I'm reading.  IMO two people can know the same set of facts but come to different conclusions for reasons of logic and preference.  



Celebrim said:


> So are you seriously advancing the argument that nothing has really changed with regards to tempo or granularity in 4e compared to 1e?




No.  How close is your question here to what the objection really is?  I'm not objecting to the statement that 4E has different granularity.  I'm objecting that 1E is somehow less abstract than 4E.



Celebrim said:


> How can you possibly claim this and at the same time mock 1st edition for a guy resting for months (not even true, but nevermind)




You keep asking me to nevermind something that you say over and over.  And you have a backspace key, which would make it easier for me to ignore this.  Maybe just explain how long you think someone who takes 95 points of damage would take to recover?

And I'm not mocking 1E.  I'm objecting to the certainty that certain persons apply to their interpretation of 1E rules.  I'm critical of the seeming fact that anyone who tries to suggest that 1E injury is somehow better defined than 4E can't really provide any specifics.  The mechanics and resource mangement issues are different but you're claiming that 1E gives you information that I really don't think it does.  I can *say* that a guy in 4E is walking around with cuts and bruises on him with an equally convincing (ie. not much of one) basis as in 1E.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> you're claiming that 1E gives you information that I really don't think it does.



But it demonstrably does.  In 1E (and 2E and 3E) if you, as DM, describe someone to your players as "having a shoulder wound that's still bleeding through the bandage," your players will have concrete information.  Namely: "This guy is easier to beat in a fight _now_ than if we wait for that wound to heal."  That's real information.



> I can *say* that a guy in 4E is walking around with cuts and bruises on him with an equally convincing (ie. not much of one) basis as in 1E.



Sure, you can do that.  In which case, if you're the DM, you're actually misleading the players.  Obviously it's not misleading if you tell them, as my hypothetical DM did back on page 5, that "the wounds don't really mean anything."  But in that case, at a very minimum you're losing some ability to accurately transmit information about your world to the _characters_.  The characters will honestly not know when someone is "beat up and easier to beat in a fight" or "beat up but no easier to beat in a fight."

And I think losing that kind of information is kind of a shame.

That's the problem with 4E healing, from my perspective.  Neither the narrativist nor simulationist approach works.  The narrativist approach breaks down because described injuries don't actually mean anything, and the simulationist approach breaks down because it's impossible for any PC to be injured for longer than six hours.

That leaves the gamist approach, in which (as someone earlier argued) hit points don't really model anything ... they're just a number.  You could as easily track character "health" with Monopoly money.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> No character in 1st edition ever takes 40 or 50 days to naturally heal.  Whether that's a problem is a whole different discussion, but it would lie on the side of 'D&D treats wounds too abstractly'.  As for lying in bed because you feel unlucky, that's not as ridiculous as it is sounds at first, but I don't even have to defend it because its such an obviously false claim.  If you've read page 82, then you'd realize that Gygax never assumes all of a high level characters hit points are intangible - some he admits represents the ability to absorb damage.  So a high level character is slowly healing up all those aforementioned nicks, gashes, bruises, cuts and bumps.  While he's doing that he's also restoring his confidence, his flexibility, his stamina, the favor of the gods or whatever else you think his hit points represent.



Under the OSRIC-ized rules, which are the only ones I have convenient at the moment, you...
(1) Heal 1 hp per day, but if you have a Constitution penalty, need to rest a few days before healing at all
(2) Get bonus HPs equal to your constitution HP bonus after resting 1 week
(3) Always heal completely in 4 weeks.

Whether or not this is the same as the healing rates found in the 1e DMG, I can't tell you right now. 



> So are you seriously advancing the argument that nothing has really changed with regards to tempo or granularity in 4e compared to 1e?  How can you possibly claim this and at the same time mock 1st edition for a guy resting for months (not even true, but nevermind) to recover his hit points?  Does that ever happen in 4e?
> 
> Sheesh.




I think that hit points have only changed a very slight bit from 1e to 4e, but it's a slight bit that I can understand people having an issue with.  All along, from 1e to 4e, the following have been true...

(1) HPs are abstract and represent both physical damage and non-damaging things such as luck, stamina, parries, and so on.
(2) At higher levels, characters have more of them.  Characters with high Constitution scores also have more of them, but not characters with high Strength or Dexterity.
(3) Even though it's not all physical damage, vanishingly few things that aren't potentially physically damaging ever take them away.
(4) In some cases, HPs allow characters to routinely fall 100' or more, get dipped into vats of acid, and eaten by purple worms without dying or even suffering noticeable ill effects like burns or broken bones - especially at higher levels.
(5) Include "rider effects" such as energy drain, paralysis, poison, and the like that occur on a _hit_ without considering if the hit was actual physical damage, luck, stamina, or anything else.
(6) Generally disregard any physical symptoms such as sprains, broken bones, concussions, amputations, and the like; instead subsuming everything into "hit points."  (There are exceptions, but usually these are specific creature abilities or items like a sword of sharpness.)

About the only new thing, in my mind, is...

(7) In 1e-3e, natural and unaided healing is slow, though it is significantly faster in 3e.  In 1e/2e, it could take weeks.  In 3e, it could take days.  In 4e, natural and unaided healing is much faster, and except for disease considerations, generally completes overnight.  Although HPs can be refreshed after each battle, the amount is limited by daily healing surges.

-O


----------



## billd91 (Jan 16, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> It's 1 hp/day, right?  Maybe 2 or 3 or something with complete bedrest.  Remember the example of the 95 hp character?  Your not sharing your math here.  Take a 100th level character with 300 hitpoints and how long does he take to heal?




I'm going to assume you don't have the 1e sources on hand to look it up even if you say you've read it. But it's p82 of the DMG. Twenty-eight days of continual rest will restore any character to full health.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> But it demonstrably does.  In 1E (and 2E and 3E) if you, as DM, describe someone to your players as "having a shoulder wound that's still bleeding through the bandage," your players will have concrete information.  Namely: "This guy is easier to beat in a fight _now_ than if we wait for that wound to heal."  That's real information.
> 
> Sure, you can do that.  In which case, if you're the DM, you're actually misleading the players.  Obviously it's not misleading if you tell them, as my hypothetical DM did back on page 5, that "the wounds don't really mean anything."  But in that case, at a very minimum you're losing some ability to accurately transmit information about your world to the _characters_.  The characters will honestly not know when someone is "beat up and easier to beat in a fight" or "beat up but no easier to beat in a fight."




Why is it different? Because of the healing surges? You have a limited supply of healing surges, so there's stilla  loss of something. 

He's beat up, bloody, and you can see his eyes showing less of a willingness to keep going then before.



> That's the problem with 4E healing, from my perspective.  Neither the narrativist nor simulationist approach works.  The narrativist approach breaks down because described injuries don't actually mean anything, and the simulationist approach breaks down because it's impossible for any PC to be injured for longer than six hours.




Meh... I've always felt that D&D healing was way to quick and easy even in earlier editions to really be "realistic." I've always just had to say D&D people are just better... So the extra speed doesn't really bother me. 

Extra long/ more complicated heal times is handled by me in the same way I handled it before- by over riding the system.



> That leaves the gamist approach, in which (as someone earlier argued) hit points don't really model anything ... they're just a number.  You could as easily track character "health" with Monopoly money.




Which is kind of the way it's always been. Which is also why I kind of don't agree witht hat whole GNS design idea too much... Because it usually amounts to just different people describing the same idea in different ways.

HP = ability of the player to over ride the games percentage chance to make you dead and say no at this point I am 100% likely to not die. That ability decreases the more you tap into it.

BTW Jeff... we're neighbors. I live just north of you right by stonestown mall!


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Why is it different? Because of the healing surges? You have a limited supply of healing surges, so there's stilla  loss of something.
> 
> He's beat up, bloody, and you can see his eyes showing less of a willingness to keep going then before.



I believe he's referring to the fact that with 6 hours rest, you regain _all _of your hit points and _all _of your surges, while some posters have advised that you can still narrate this situation as the character having physical wounds.


----------



## D'karr (Jan 16, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I believe he's referring to the fact that with 6 hours rest, you regain _all _of your hit points and _all _of your surges, while some posters have advised that you can still narrate this situation as the character having physical wounds.




Whereas before any character that could cast cure light wounds would use "a trusty wand" and bring you back to full HP.

The only difference between systems is that the resource management has shifted to the individual.

Is it realistic?  No more than the CLW wand.

Is it playable?  Yes

Can it be modified by the DM to take into account the requyirement for long term healing?  Absolutely.

Everytime somebody goes to 0 or below and fails a death save, remove one healing surge from their daily total.  This effect remains until they have "medical / magical" treatment.

Any such ruling is more than acceptable if the DM wants to create a "grittier" game.

Me, I'm happy with the way it works and I make sure that I describe the effects of combat so that it does not contradict the "mechanics" (poison dart through the eye, etc.)


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 16, 2009)

D'karr said:


> Whereas before any character that could cast cure light wounds would use "a trusty wand" and bring you back to full HP.
> 
> The only difference between systems is that the resource management has shifted to the individual.
> 
> ...



Bear in mind I have no problem with the 4E system as written, I was just trying to point out a misunderstanding.

I think it's a perfectly valid complaint, in that I can see how it would bother someone. Yes, it's just resource management from a metagame point of view, but at least a CLW wand was magic. From an in-world point of view, we've gone from needing magic to heal completely overnight, to anyone being able to do it just by getting some shut-eye.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 16, 2009)

Blargh.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

D'karr said:


> Whereas before any character that could cast cure light wounds would use "a trusty wand" and bring you back to full HP.




Aside from the fact that a wand of cure light wounds assumes an ability override the natural laws of the game universe, a wand of cure light wounds is relatively easily removed.  It's presence is in no way integral to the game.

You can build your game around the assumption of its presence, or you can build the game without it and never miss it.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 16, 2009)

I dunno, when I bother narrating extended rests, I talk about PCs getting bandaged up, using some poultices, and the cleric casting some healing spells.  I could throw in a wand, too, for color - but I don't know that it's necessary for my players' or my enjoyment.

I've learned to appreciate the 4e way of doing things because it's (largely) functionally identical to how things _actually worked _in my 3e games, but without all the accounting.  They'd find a secured location (or rope trick or secured shelter etc.), get out their d8's, the cleric would cast his or her remaining spells as healing, and then the CLW wands would come out.  About the only functional difference I've seen is that there are fewer 750gp expenditures for CLW wands.  The temptation to just handwave it was strong, and in fact, I often did when the results were clear.

-O


----------



## D'karr (Jan 16, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> Blargh.




I was going to respond to your unedited one but you beat me to it.

The point still remains that it's a matter of preference.  The argument is circular.  If you don't like the "new" healing mechanics you can find anything wrong with them.  The same way as finding things wrong with the previous mechanics.

Me, I'll continue to play what I'm enjoying.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> But it demonstrably does.




By "demonstrable" I meant that you can demonstrate how the rules do this.  AFAICT this demonstrates how the DM can make any claim that he wants to about a character's injuries.  

And the "bloodied" mechanic indicates when a character is closer to death, so the information is there, isn't it?  You can match your descriptions to characters physical states the same way as you could in 4E.

What do you tell a 1st level character about the physical state of an 80 hp character whose take 50 points of damage?  And why couldn't you use virtually the same description for a 4E character who has 10 of 40 hp left and 10 healing surges?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I think it's a perfectly valid complaint, in that I can see how it would bother someone. Yes, it's just resource management from a metagame point of view, but at least a CLW wand was magic. From an in-world point of view, we've gone from needing magic to heal completely overnight, to anyone being able to do it just by getting some shut-eye.



Exactly.  And I honestly think that this difference explains about 95 percent of the "I like 4E" vs. "I don't like 4E" schism.

I want non-gamist explanations for stuff.  A _wand of cure light wounds_ (or, in our games, healing from clerics or other spellcasters) is a narrativist/simulationist explanation for extremely rapid healing.

4E proponents, on the other hand, don't seem to need "in-game" explanations for things, thus all of the posts to the effect that 4E's "six-hour healing" and earlier editions' "magical healing" are more or less identical.  If the effect in-game ends up the same, to these folks the means to the effect is all but irrelevant.

(BTW, I think the whole _wand of cure light wounds_ things is rarer than many folks on the Internet seem to think.  My groups have never used it, nor have I ever seen a group equipped with high-charge _wands of cure light wounds_ in any convention games I've played in, since 3E was released.)


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 16, 2009)

I've not played 4e, I'm getting a demo this weekend.  I like a lot of what I've heard, and threads like this are very informative.

It did make me think of a house rule I'd used in previous editions, and I think it would work fine in the new one.  Hit points have always at least in part been described as the ability to turn severe blows into minor ones.  That 15th level fighter might have over a hundred hit points, but that doesn't mean you can run him through six times and he just laughs it off.  You never get to run him through.  That strike just scratches the skin, it bruises him, it beats him back and wears him down.  Even if its described as a hit - ie your mace crushing into his shoulder and blood flying - it isn't a serious hit, and looks much worse than it is.

Once you run through his hit points, you've gotten past all that.  He has no more immunity to your sword than a level 1 peasant.  You can do what you like on a hit.  Therefore we had the kill/capture/maim rule.  Normally you were striking to kill, and when the enemy was out of hp you'd slay them in an appropriately gruesome manner.  If you can do that though, you can do other things.  You can maim by putting out an eye, cutting off a hand, shattering a kneecap, whatever you like.  This is only done to humiliate an opponent, and to be honest I don't think anyone ever did it.  Then there's capture.  Rather than running them through, you put your sword to their throat.  In 3e terms you have a readied action to attack if they move.  This attack automatically hits for a critical.  Any creature maimed or captured in this way is considered to be at 0 hp.

This is how I've always looked at hp, so 4e's model doesn't bother me at all.  From playing Buffy, my players will already be used to healing surges, as that game has a similar mechanic (I Think I'm Okay).


----------



## Obryn (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Aside from the fact that a wand of cure light wounds assumes an ability override the natural laws of the game universe, a wand of cure light wounds is relatively easily removed.  It's presence is in no way integral to the game.
> 
> You can build your game around the assumption of its presence, or you can build the game without it and never miss it.



This is where I always get hung up when people are comparing 3e vs. 4e healing.

Basically, the argument seems to be: Healing is slow in 3e if you disregard wands of cure light wounds.

I just don't know why the heck we should disregard them.

-O


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I want non-gamist explanations for stuff.  A _wand of cure light wounds_ (or, in our games, healing from clerics or other spellcasters) is a narrativist/simulationist explanation for extremely rapid healing.
> 
> 4E proponents, on the other hand, don't seem to need "in-game" explanations for things, thus all of the posts to the effect that 4E's "six-hour healing" and earlier editions' "magical healing" are more or less identical.  If the effect in-game ends up the same, to these folks the means to the effect is all but irrelevant.





One thing I like about 4e is how easy it is to modify.

Sometimes I feel like in conversations like this that people are telling me, they don't like the idea of non magic quick healing, and even though I do, and it's simple to remove, it's a stupid thing that shouldn't be in the game. Period.

I find that strange. I think we've never had a version of D&D this easy to customize, and modify without a big overhaul of the rules.

Maybe I'm just a weirdo.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 16, 2009)

billd91 said:


> I'm going to assume you don't have the 1e sources on hand to look it up even if you say you've read it. But it's p82 of the DMG. Twenty-eight days of continual rest will restore any character to full health.




I've read many things and I actually don't have the books for *any* them with me at the moment.  I guess this is surprising to you?

Ok, so it's not "months".  Maybe we say "weeks" and go back to the same point.  I guess I heal 1 hp a day for 7 days, maybe 5/day for 20 days, and then I heal 193 hitpoints on the 28th day?  I can't tell from what you wrote, I guess I am going to have to dig this up and read it again but I don't think the "suddenly super-nova heal on 28th day" rule is going to make all of this understandable.  I'm not sure how these details on the periphery of the 1E rules somehow make a substantial difference in how you narrate the game?  

Two adventurers are down to 1 hp.  One has 8 hp max, the other has 300 hp max.  How do the details on page 82 give you a clear way of narrating this?


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This is where I always get hung up when people are comparing 3e vs. 4e healing.
> 
> Basically, the argument seems to be: Healing is slow in 3e if you disregard wands of cure light wounds.
> 
> ...




I certainly find the idea of healing surges to have better verisimilitude than 'we wave a magic stick over our bodies and make our wounds vanish every fifteen minutes.'


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 16, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Or maybe just "surge," in order to account for the fact that some hp recovery is of actual, divine healing nature ("Shamwow the cleric buffs out your cuts and bruises. Your skin is good as new!"). Whether it's a healing surge or adrenaline surge depends on the power source that activated the surge.




You don't really need to do that though - standard cleric healing which is based on healing surge (healing word, etc) can just be magically activating an adrenaline surge like the warlord psychologically activates it.

Divine healing magically mending wounds was a (necessary?) artefact of earlier edition hp healing. Doesn't have to be that way in 4e though. The divine healer could be largely like a medic with an adrenaline hypo 

Then the clerical prayers which heal without the expenditure of a healing surge become the genuinely magical re-knitting of bones etc. I'm guessing that the cleric probably gets more of those than the warlord?

Cheers


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This is where I always get hung up when people are comparing 3e vs. 4e healing.
> 
> Basically, the argument seems to be: Healing is slow in 3e if you disregard wands of cure light wounds.
> 
> ...




How often do you think wands of CLW (especially used abusively) were disregarded compared to disregarding healing surges and long rests?  How dispensible do you think wands of CLW are compared to dispensing with healing surges and long rests?

I never had a problem with wands of CLW for several simple reasons:

1) I never DMed a cleric that could craft wands.
2) I didn't allow wands to be purchased.
3) Wands and there charges were thus rare, valuable, and conserved by my players.

And, after hearing about all the horror stories of CLW abuse, if I were running a 3rd edition campaign in the future, I'd simply elimenate all divine wands from the campaign.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> I want non-gamist explanations for stuff. A wand of cure light wounds (or, in our games, healing from clerics or other spellcasters) is a narrativist/simulationist explanation for extremely rapid healing.
> 
> 4E proponents, on the other hand, don't seem to need "in-game" explanations for things, thus all of the posts to the effect that 4E's "six-hour healing" and earlier editions' "magical healing" are more or less identical. If the effect in-game ends up the same, to these folks the means to the effect is all but irrelevant.



I think it's more that I handwave it than that I don't worry about it, but I see your point.  I sometimes narrate it, but I don't consider the specifics of the narration to be important.

Like I said, I think it's a small difference that some folks find very important.  I am not one of those folks, but I think this is something about which reasonable people can disagree.  I think I'm right, you think you're right, and yet neither one of us is crazy.

The thing that gets me is that this is an issue which seems (to me) to be almost insanely easy to patch _if _you otherwise like the game.  Slowing down healing surge recovery seems pretty simple.

Alternately, you could just say that the party needs to perform an 8-hour magical ritual to recover completely, and that they recover more slowly if they don't.  Heck; add a component cost, if you'd like, or else add other complications.  Yes, I know this is not the default assumption - but in my mind, if you can get rid of CLW wands in 3e, you can add a ritual in 4e.



> (BTW, I think the whole _wand of cure light wounds_ things is rarer than many folks on the Internet seem to think.  My groups have never used it, nor have I ever seen a group equipped with high-charge _wands of cure light wounds_ in any convention games I've played in, since 3E was released.)



OTOH, they were common in my games.

Who wins?

-O


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> 4E proponents, on the other hand, don't seem to need "in-game" explanations for things, thus all of the posts to the effect that 4E's "six-hour healing" and earlier editions' "magical healing" are more or less identical.  If the effect in-game ends up the same, to these folks the means to the effect is all but irrelevant.



Reading this I have to wonder if you have actually read the thread.

HP ARE ABSTRACT

THIS DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO IN GAME EXPLANATION BUT THAT THE EXPLANATION IS TAILORED TO FIT THE SITUATION


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This is where I always get hung up when people are comparing 3e vs. 4e healing.
> 
> Basically, the argument seems to be: Healing is slow in 3e if you disregard wands of cure light wounds.
> 
> ...




Eh I think the issue is:

Healing was slow(er) in earlier editions, unless you overroad it with magic of some type.

In 4e healign is fast. period. That bugs some people, it doesn't bug others.

I guess some feel that the game system itself should defend that viewpoint that healing shoul;d be slow(er) without magic of some type.

But with this concept  the only real "smart" option is to keep a magic healer on hand. So a party must always have the magic healer. Or access to the magic healer. 

Even if they have healing surges, if they come back at a slow rate, the only sane option would be to have a magic healer on hand or close by to avoid being waylaid for a lengthy time.

This in my opinion cuts down on the type of stories my group and I can play out.


----------



## jensun (Jan 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> Healing was slow(er) in earlier editions, unless you overroad it with magic of some type.



Of course this very much varied by edition.

3e IIRC had you heal HP equal to your level every day if you were reasonably rested.  You could go from nearly dead to perfectly fine in a matter of a few days while sitting in a field receiving no assistance whatsoever. 

I struggle so see how this is more realistic or simulationist or assisting in versimilitude than, well, anything really.  If modelling long term injury or realistic damage is your thing then no version of D&D is really a great choice for doing it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2009)

I suppose there can never be a real "settlement" of the issue.

I do not like reliance on healing magic and magical items in a combat system (at least not in an action-heavy system like D&D). So I will always prefer a very abstract way of handling injury over a more realistic one. I also don't like to be bogged down in minutiae. (Oh dear, I just remember some optional Shadowrun rules for implanting cyberware and healing damage from 3E. Extra rolls and accounting for - what exactly? Making implanatation harder? As if magic wasn't already powerful...)

The 4E combat system still allows me to treat hit points as a resource - just in form of healing surges instead of hit points. It also allows me to treat your "max hit points" as a kind of encounter resource, making combat outcomes more predictable for the DM and the players if everyone starts at (nearly) full hit points. 
I like that. I am not sure on the current GNS terms (I never will be, I suppose), but I think that is "Gamist" in that i want a mechanic that introduces a way to challenge me or measure my progress in a challenge. (Spend little healing surges, I did well, spend a lot, I didn't)

Overall, healing surges have a very similar effect to 3E hit points and reliance on magical items or casters to heal. 3E creates a world where every smart party  buys Wands of Cure Light Wounds to heal itself up. 4E creates a world where this doesn't happen. Unfortunately, it doesn't tell us what happens at all. But I prefer this kind of "uncertainty" about the certainty that it are Curesticks the party uses to heal itself and that the party will have a Cleric to do the quick healing in combat.
I also do not play in a Sandbox where it might matter how long it takes to cure yourself out completely, or how I ensure that I feel faster. 

And the point where I can just "give up" is that others just see this different, they have different priorities, they have their sandboxes where they need to know how long the party will rest after their last excursion. 
They want the game to tell them what happens, it doesn't feel believable otherwise for them, or it might even ignore a potential aventue for a "challenge" (ensure that you get healed fast enough to go after the next plot hook before its too late or something.). 
I could live with that if the result don't constrain my fluff too much. But the more precise such a game system is in saying what it does, the more precise is it in shaping the game world. And I do not expect this to happen with D&D. I like the flexibility to say that there are no Clerics or Curesticks in a campaign and still run through a lot of combat encounters. 

What I think is that the 4E system can be modified a lot without breaking the entire system. You can introduce healing surges that regenerate slowly (Recharge Rolls, Rest Points, whatever.) You can change the "below 0" hp rules and introduce powers and rituals to deal with "seriously injured characters".


----------



## Obryn (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> I never had a problem with wands of CLW for several simple reasons:
> 
> 1) I never DMed a cleric that could craft wands.
> 2) I didn't allow wands to be purchased.
> 3) Wands and there charges were thus rare, valuable, and conserved by my players.



This seems to be a pretty basic assumption of a lot of folks who've been playing since the 1e days.  Magic is rare, you can't buy it, and you should treasure every bit you can acquire.  I know it's my mindset for my 1e game.

As I read 3e, though, that's not the _default_ assumption.  In fact, given wealth-by-level guidelines, I'd argue that it will cause problems with the game as written.  ("Problems" simply meaning "The DM will need to make adjustments" not "The game will self-destruct")

I don't think either of us have evidence one way or another, though, so I'll agree to disagree with you.  (I also won't exactly trust an ENWorld poll, given the very recent post that shows a plurality of posters here have been playing for over 20 years. )



> And, after hearing about all the horror stories of CLW abuse, if I were running a 3rd edition campaign in the future, I'd simply elimenate all divine wands from the campaign.



And boom!  Here's where I hit a brick wall again.  I don't see any difference between house-ruling the wand rules under 3e; and either slowing down healing, or adding a magic extended rest widget in 4e.

As far as I'm concerned, if you are willing to house-rule one, why should you be _un_willing to house-rule the other?  Or, more to the point, why is it okay to solve perceived problems in 3e via a houserule, but not okay to solve perceived problems in 4e via a houserule?

-O


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 16, 2009)

Scribble said:


> But with this concept  the only real "smart" option is to keep a magic healer on hand. So a party must always have the magic healer. Or access to the magic healer.
> 
> Even if they have healing surges, if they come back at a slow rate, the only sane option would be to have a magic healer on hand or close by to avoid being waylaid for a lengthy time.
> 
> This in my opinion cuts down on the type of stories my group and I can play out.




Agree 100%.  One thing I've always strongly disliked about D&D is the *requirement* for a dedicated healer.  If no one wanted to make a fighter, or a mage, or a rogue, well you'd be in a disadvantage in places but could certainly muddle through.  No cleric - you might as well not leave the village, unless you favor the idea of having a couple of fights then coming back for a week or so.  That just isn't an option for the games that I (and I believe most people) want to run.

Also default 3e assumed commoditized magic.  Wands of cure light wounds should be available in every decent sized temple.  The game assumes characters will have X resources and can spend them as they please, including on disposable magic items like wands and potions.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 16, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> I certainly find the idea of healing surges to have better verisimilitude than 'we wave a magic stick over our bodies and make our wounds vanish every fifteen minutes.'



Well, I hope you have a good time this weekend.   Like I said, I doubt it will be your favorite game ever, but I hope you find it a nice diversion.  I think you'll find it a lot closer to BtVS than 3e is. 

-O


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> How often do you think wands of CLW (especially used abusively) were disregarded compared to disregarding healing surges and long rests?  How dispensible do you think wands of CLW are compared to dispensing with healing surges and long rests?
> 
> I never had a problem with wands of CLW for several simple reasons:
> 
> ...



But it's not abuse if it leads to entertaining play. And that it did. You just had to carry a Cleric with you most of the time. That was the non-entertaining part. But waiting 2-4 days to heal up again wasn't fun either for those guys. If 4E had 3E hit points but no Wands of Cure Light Wounds, I would dislike it a lot. And had it kept both in it, I'd be very disappointed.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 16, 2009)

jensun said:


> Reading this I have to wonder if you have actually read the thread.
> 
> HP ARE ABSTRACT
> 
> THIS DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO IN GAME EXPLANATION BUT THAT THE EXPLANATION IS TAILORED TO FIT THE SITUATION



Reading this I have to wonder if you have actually read Jeff Wilder's posts.

I disagree with him, but I can see where he's coming from. This post was just rude and dismissive.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 16, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> I certainly find the idea of healing surges to have better verisimilitude than 'we wave a *magic *stick over our bodies and make our wounds vanish every fifteen minutes.'




I've highlighted what I consider to be the significant word in your sentence - are you saying that you find it more realistic that in a fantasy game someone would heal naturally completely overnight than it would be to have someone healed by a magic item?


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

jensun said:


> Of course this very much varied by edition.
> 
> 3e IIRC had you heal HP equal to your level every day if you were reasonably rested.  You could go from nearly dead to perfectly fine in a matter of a few days while sitting in a field receiving no assistance whatsoever.
> 
> I struggle so see how this is more realistic or simulationist or assisting in versimilitude than, well, anything really.  If modelling long term injury or realistic damage is your thing then no version of D&D is really a great choice for doing it.




I'm not so sure myself. I'm thinking that even though 4e's speed is to me just as unrealistic as 3e's (and earlier) speed if you consider it physical damage, to some the fact that there was at least a nod towards "it takes time to heal wounds" in prior editions was enough.

For them I guess 4e just doesn't even have the nod... so they don't like it?

Maybe since I've never played any edition 100% as written stuff like this doesn't bother me as much? (And especially since I fidn 4e so easy to mod...)


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 16, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> I've highlighted what I consider to be the significant word in your sentence - are you saying that you find it more *realistic* that in a fantasy game someone would heal naturally completely overnight than it would be to have someone healed by a magic item?



I think you'll note the word "realistic" was avoided. Verisimilitude was mentioned, not realism.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 16, 2009)

jensun said:


> Reading this I have to wonder if you have actually read the thread.
> 
> HP ARE ABSTRACT
> 
> THIS DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS NO IN GAME EXPLANATION BUT THAT THE EXPLANATION IS TAILORED TO FIT THE SITUATION





And you are out of the thread. You've been warned by a moderator already, and if you think that it is time to start "shouting" as well as being pretty rude (passive-aggressively) then it is time for you to be excused from this discussion.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I think it's a perfectly valid complaint, in that I can see how it would bother someone. Yes, it's just resource management from a metagame point of view, but at least a CLW wand was magic. From an in-world point of view, we've gone from needing magic to heal completely overnight, to anyone being able to do it just by getting some shut-eye.




Yes, I think that's the "delineation" mark indeed. 

If I don't want magic, the game will play very differently. Believable, you say, limiting my play style options, I say. We're both right. (I and you figuratively and not referring to Fifth Element)

---

I suppose the only way to make both groups happy is to throw hit points away entirely. 

Maybe have something like Torg. (Yes, Torg again!  ). People have wounds and shock points and succesful attacks would deal damage against them, but if you have your possibilities (we could also call them moxies) you can play them to reduce the damage. 

---

[sblock=Attempting to create a short-term consistent narration for hit points and dying in 4e]
How many people here are aware that the "failed death saves" when you go below 0 hit points do only go away after a short or an extended rest? Here is your "cue" to what "really" happens when you go to 0 hit points. Your combat skill failed you, and you were hit - hard enough to drop you. You might be able to stand up again, but probably (1:20 chance) not on your own. If you don't recover quickly enough, you might just die from the wound. But if someone gets you up again, you soldier up to the pain and since you mind is working again you also do something to stitch that wound - it won't last long, but if you later spend a few minutes with bandages, the worst is taken care of. Of course, you are still a little exhausted from it (all the healing surges spent.)

I suppose one might want to add more house rules at this point to "fix" things.
[/sblock]


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This is where I always get hung up when people are comparing 3e vs. 4e healing.
> 
> Basically, the argument seems to be: Healing is slow in 3e if you disregard wands of cure light wounds.
> 
> ...





Because, apparently, some of us have been doing it wrong?  

Indeed, we _*prefer*_ to do it wrong, and think that doing it wrong results in a better game?

(Just speculating here.)



RC


----------



## billd91 (Jan 16, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> Two adventurers are down to 1 hp.  One has 8 hp max, the other has 300 hp max.  How do the details on page 82 give you a clear way of narrating this?




It's not that hard to imagine. The character who has lost 7 hit points has taken fewer blows to get there and has fewer aches and pains to get over to be up to snuff than the one who has lost 299.


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 16, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I think you'll note the word "realistic" was avoided. Verisimilitude was mentioned, not realism.




This is the trick.  Conan never waved a magic wand or kept a healer in tow.  He would suck it up and go stab things to death.


----------



## billd91 (Jan 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> This is where I always get hung up when people are comparing 3e vs. 4e healing.
> 
> Basically, the argument seems to be: Healing is slow in 3e if you disregard wands of cure light wounds.
> 
> ...




Because they _aren't_ always available, and even when you have one it probably cost you some money. Not a heck of a lot, perhaps, but it'll add up over time.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 16, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> This is the trick.  Conan never waved a magic wand or kept a healer in tow.  He would suck it up and go stab things to death.




Not in tow, no, but I am pretty sure that I can find examples of Conan either (1) using magic healing, or (2) having to rest more than six hours.  I know that longer rests are part & parcel of several REH stories, if not Conan stories in particular.

ERB has John Carter use green martian salves which promote fast healing, because he wanted John Carter to heal quickly but didn't want it to seem as though he could just take a nap and be okay after multiple cuts & abrasions.  I can find cases where ERB has Tarzan rest up to recover from injuries, too.

Certainly, both resting and "magical" help aids in healing in LotR, whether the salves & drink of the orcs, the drinks of the elves, and/or resting in Rivendell and Lothlorien.  When Faramir is injured, or Eowyn, or Merry, they don't spring up six hours later fully recovered -- instead they end up in the Houses of Healing in Gondor.

I could, quite easily, go on.   Gary Gygax didn't invent magical/extraordinary healing, he took it from various sources that were far, far older.  Needing to rest up and heal from injuries is at least as old as The Odyssey.  



RC


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Like I said, I think it's a small difference that some folks find very important.  I am not one of those folks, but I think this is something about which reasonable people can disagree.  I think I'm right, you think you're right, and yet neither one of us is crazy.




True enough. An excellent point.



Obryn said:


> The thing that gets me is that this is an issue which seems (to me) to be almost insanely easy to patch _if _you otherwise like the game.  Slowing down healing surge recovery seems pretty simple.
> 
> Alternately, you could just say that the party needs to perform an 8-hour magical ritual to recover completely, and that they recover more slowly if they don't.  Heck; add a component cost, if you'd like, or else add other complications.  -O




Actually, this 4E concept that the rules work differently for heroes than for commoners would work well with a "mutant gene" narrative explanation. The instant healing would be perfectly well explained and I wouldn't have too much problem with it. I'd still find the warlord to be a bit too silly for my taste, but limiting his ability to affecting healthy and bloodied characters only would not be too hard. 

If I could count on WotC to consistently write good modules, I'd have less of a problem with 4E. Since I can't and since their shenanigans made for a difficult 3P time of it, it's going to be years if ever before I can commit to an edition change.


----------



## Halivar (Jan 16, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> This is the trick.  Conan never waved a magic wand or kept a healer in tow.  He would suck it up and go stab things to death.



Ah! *Now* I know what Conan has been missing this whole time! He needs a cleric in chainmail, following him around and shouting "Suck it up, princess!" at him intermittently.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 16, 2009)

Obryn said:


> Like I said, I think it's a small difference that some folks find very important.



But is it really that small?

Lemme ask: if 4E, instead of using healing surges at all, simply said, "At the end of an encounter, your PC is fully healed," would that bother you at all?  If not, okay, but I suspect you'd be in the minority.  If so, why?

The above is how 4E healing feels to me.  Just ... "poof," you're healed.  And not "poof" as in "the cleric gave you a _cure critical wounds_."  In the grand scheme of things, of course it's an unimportant thing.  But in the realm of game design and participation, it just doesn't seem like a "small difference" to me.



> I think I'm right, you think you're right, and yet neither one of us is crazy.



Well, it's a matter of preference, so it's not that I think I'm "right," honestly.  My roommate plays video games constantly.  Me, with the sole exception of Rock Band, not so much.  They just don't appeal to me.  But that doesn't make me "right" in how I feel about video games, does it?

And I wouldn't rule out "crazy," on my part.  I just suffered through the DirecTV installation from Hell.  I think I have new ulcers.



> The thing that gets me is that this is an issue which seems (to me) to be almost insanely easy to patch _if _you otherwise like the game.



Probably true.  But I don't.  Honestly, 4E lost me with non-Euclidean movement and area-of-effect.  Compared to how _that_ makes me twitch and throw up a little in my mouth, 4E's healing is _absolutely groovy_.



> OTOH, [_wands of cure light wounds_] were common in my games.
> 
> Who wins?



All I said was "rarer than folks seem to think."  Not "nonexistent."


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Lemme ask: if 4E, instead of using healing surges at all, simply said, "At the end of an encounter, your PC is fully healed," would that bother you at all?  If not, okay, but I suspect you'd be in the minority.  If so, why?




I think the answer again lies in what you're intending HPs to model.

Yeah if you want them to model all physical injury and the size of your missing HP chunk directly corresponds to the size of your missing body chunk, then yeah poof you're healed would be weird. 

But if you divorce it from that and say this is an amount of your ability to say "screw off universe" then no it wouldn't bother me at all.

The thing again I like about 4e is hw easy it is to modify based on one's needs/tastes.

If you want longer lasting wounds, it's pretty easy to make HS come back slower.

The thing that always gets me in the more "simmulationist" style games, is that the designer is basically creating much more of a headache for me if I want to modify "his" view of how things in the world work.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> But is it really that small?
> 
> Lemme ask: if 4E, instead of using healing surges at all, simply said, "At the end of an encounter, your PC is fully healed," would that bother you at all?  If not, okay, but I suspect you'd be in the minority.  If so, why?



I am not sure if it would have worried me much. I remember a lot of talk about "encounter based design" and stuff like that, and for "true" encounter based design, this would have been necessary.

But 4E uses a mix of daily and encounter based resources. 

I dislike it because I can see now the benefits of having basically two frames to gauge success - the individual encounter and the adventuring "day". It eliminates an aspect of resource management that can be very important for enjoying the game as it provides you a yardstick for your success. 6 encounters per day are an achievement over 3 encounters per day.

But as you see, I totally don't discuss the implications on the game world or believability. I don't expect much from the game world. as long as I can still see that I am fighting a monster and not baking a cake or talking with someone, I think I am good to go.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 16, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> I've read many things and I actually don't have the books for *any* them with me at the moment.  I guess this is surprising to you?
> 
> Ok, so it's not "months".  Maybe we say "weeks" and go back to the same point.  I guess I heal 1 hp a day for 7 days, maybe 5/day for 20 days, and then I heal 193 hitpoints on the 28th day?  I can't tell from what you wrote, I guess I am going to have to dig this up and read it again but I don't think the "suddenly super-nova heal on 28th day" rule is going to make all of this understandable.  I'm not sure how these details on the periphery of the 1E rules somehow make a substantial difference in how you narrate the game?
> 
> Two adventurers are down to 1 hp.  One has 8 hp max, the other has 300 hp max.  How do the details on page 82 give you a clear way of narrating this?




Here's how I always interpreted that disparity in 3e ... You see one of the adventurers is just starting out and thus he doesn't have the life experience to have alot of moxie, skill, divine favor, luck, etc..  His hit points are almost literally purely physical (with those who have a higher hit die like Fighters and Barbarians having a slightly increased physical capacity.)  This is why he can be killed in one blow or by a critical, etc..  

The other adventurer has been around, knows what to look for as far as danger, is favored by certain deities, is extremely lucky, etc.  So while he might have the same or slightly more actual physical hit points than the first... he has way more of the metaphysical hit points.  

Now the length of healing I explain like this...

Adventurer 1 is wet behind the ears, and those 8 hp's are his actual physical healing.... He knows he's a scrub, and knows he was lucky to survive that battle... the fact that he was beaten within an inch of his life and survived is what allows him to even start to amass the extreme metaphysical reserves of someone with 300 hp's so it is not a blow to his ego... and didn't shake the little bit of confidence he had as badly as it would have a seasoned and powerful sword master. 

Adventurer 2 on the other hand may have 8 actual "physical" hit points (probably a little more) but he also needs to mentally and spiritually heal.  Until now his confidence in his bad-assitude was unshaken, he believed his sword form flawless, his faith in his deities protection unshakeable, etc.  Yet he failed, or was mortally wounded, driven to near death.  For someone who has amassed 300 hp's that's a major blow to their very being and it's like going through a depression.  But when he finally gets right after that month of refocusing, healing his injuries and reaffirming his beliefs... well he's back to bad-assitude land and doing things adventurer 1 could only dream about attempting.

The problem with 4e is that there is no longer a differentiation between the damage types.  I can be in numerous life or death fights where I am knocked unconscious and, per the rules, dying in 4e... and 5 minutes later I am totally healed of not just the metaphysical but the physical aspects of that damage as well.  In fact as long as I don't run out of healing surges I can go a whole day of fighting and make any longterm damage disappear by tomorrow (everyone really is a spellcaster now.).  Finally we have the Warlord whose hollering and postering also heals my wounds both physical and metaphysical.  I...feel...any type of verisimilitude...cracking...as my mind tries to connect any of this in a rational way.   For me this heads into the realm of cartoons, and I mean Looney Tunes, not Avatar.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 16, 2009)

"Conan 4E" with 40 hp and 8 healing surges takes 10 points of damage.  The DM says he takes a scratch.   The DM says he's feeling tired.  At the end of the battle he uses a healing surge.  Conan 4E still has a scratch on his shoulder.  It doesn't affect his strength, climbing ability, agility, saves, etc.  He's going to fight orcs and still kill them.  Whatever effect the scratch has is not noticable to the observer.  When he fights Thoth Amon he may win or lose, no one really cares about the scratch.  If he loses, it turns out that scratch was a lot more serious than anyone thought - perhaps it nagged him the whole battle after all (so he claims).

"Conan 1E" with 40 hp takes 5 points of damage.  The DM says he takes a scratch and is feeling tired.  It doesn't affect his strength, climbing ability, agility, saves etc.  He's going to fight orcs and still kill them.  Whatever effect the scratch has is not noticable to the observer (just ask the dead orcs).  When he fights Thoth Amon he wins or loses, 5 hp might not make a difference.  If it does, he can blame the scratch just like Conan 4E did.  Conan 1E might leave the dungeon to get his 5 hp back if he knows (metagaming) that Thoth Amon is a tough customer.  The other Cimmerians would laugh that Conan 1E left the dungeon because of a scratch on his shoulder and some whining about the intangible effect on his luck.  Still, they would avoid calling him a princess since they all know about the 15 minute adventuring day.  Later that night, the other Cimmerians send in 3 orc warriors to assassinate Conan.  Conan stops moaning, jumps out of bed, kills all three orcs, and gets back into bed moaning about his sore intangible and how he can't wait for it to heal so he can go kill Thoth.

I say the significant difference here is in the metagaming, not that the DM can more plausibly describe injury in one system than in the other.  In fact, I think the main problem here might be that the DMs want to apply 1E injury description strategies to 4E mechanics where there are a few more variables that they would need to take into account.  No one is ever going to be physically injured in 4E DnD in a way where there will be any noticable effects that last more than a day.  The explanations for this are the same set used in 1E, just applied in different ways.  

Then again, I cannot begin to fathom how 1E (page 82 of the DMG or not) ever provided a satisfactory simulation of injury.  "Injured" Conan 1E is sprinting out of the dungeon and riding back to the castle unhindered.  Met by a few low-level brigands on the road, he'd still kill them all.  There are a myriad of physical effects of injury, and none of them are modeled by the system.  

If you want to say that Conan with 1 hp left is on death's door that's fine, but nothing about the game really indicates this other than he probably won't win a fight against the 3 orcs.  And in keeping the ability to say this, which you'll never use anyway because of healing magic, you're going to have to deal with metagaming Conan fleeing the Castle of Thoth Amon because he only has 90% of his hitpoints left.  And a 90% well Conan fleeing the castle is satisfying from a simulationist/narrativist perspective?


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 16, 2009)

Halivar said:


> Ah! *Now* I know what Conan has been missing this whole time! He needs a cleric in chainmail, following him around and shouting "Suck it up, princess!" at him intermittently.






Thanks to this thread, I'm going to make my character for Sunday's game a Warlord based on Dr. Cox from Scrubs.  "Suck it up, princess" will be about the best they can hope for.

Can't wait.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> Then again, I cannot begin to fathom how 1E (page 82 of the DMG or not) ever provided a satisfactory simulation of injury.  "Injured" Conan 1E is sprinting out of the dungeon and riding back to the castle unhindered.  Met by a few low-level brigands on the road, he'd still kill them all.  There are a myriad of physical effects of injury, and none of them are modeled by the system.




This here is probably the biggest reason I have issues with HP being used to model physical injury at all.

By the rules even a direct hit with full damage will not kill the average fighter.

Which just seems strange to me.

HPs are a way to say with 100% certainty that even if the opponent rolls enough to "hit" me, and does max "damage" with his weapon I will not die.

This to me more appropriately suggests a way to model luck or moxie, and not damage. You character is so awesome that at certain time he just cannot be killed.


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 16, 2009)

Imaro said:


> Adventurer 2 on the other hand may have 8 actual "physical" hit points (probably a little more) but he also needs to mentally and spiritually heal. Until now his confidence in his bad-assitude was unshaken, he believed his sword form flawless, his faith in his deities protection unshakeable, etc. Yet he failed, or was mortally wounded, driven to near death.




High level 1E adventurers were very emotional insecure I guess.  After all, I would think it would be the *guy with 8 hitpoints* that would be hiding under his bed, afraid to back into the dungeon.  Not the guy with 300.  In fact, that's how it would be in 1E, a low level adventurer with natural healing was at full hp and willing to return to adventuring much sooner than a higher level guy.



Imaro said:


> I am totally healed of not just the metaphysical but the physical aspects of that damage as well.




There are virtually no physical symptoms of injury in any version of DnD.  The only reason that people say there are injuries is because they describe them, it's not actually modeled by anything in the rules.  I can say that 1E lets my PC have green hair, while 4E doesn't.  



Imaro said:


> In fact as long as I don't run out of healing surges I can go a whole day of fighting and make any longterm damage disappear by tomorrow




There is no long term damage.  One of my points is that you're describing 4E damage in 1E terms.  While both systems use the same vagueness, IMO you're describing 4E damage as a lasting effect with no good reason.  Now I'll claim that a character in 4E with maximum hitpoints has an arrow sticking through is leg.  Now he gets into a footrace with another one and wins.  Now explain how 1E differs.



Imaro said:


> Finally we have the Warlord whose hollering and postering also heals my wounds both physical and metaphysical. I...feel...any type of verisimilitude...cracking...as my mind tries to connect any of this in a rational way. For me this heads into the realm of cartoons, and I mean Looney Tunes, not Avatar.




Because you've made the assumption that you know the nature of the physical wounds afflicting your character.  You really don't, I suggest, in any edition of the game.  Relax some of your need to spell out things that were always contradictory, and the loony tunes song might fade.  In fact, if you've played 1E DnD and had a PC fall off of a 100 ft cliff and live, I would think that the Loony Tunes thing would be something you'd be used to.  Two characters caught in the middle of a 40 ft fireball - one is completely incinerated, the other is down about 10% of his maximum hitpoints.  How in the world did the "simulationists" out there last so long with DnD?


----------



## Gothmog (Jan 16, 2009)

Hit points and healing are the only thing in 4e that bugged me and my group.  While I understand the reasoning behind healing surges and hit points, someone resting for 6-8 hours and getting up fine bothered us.  4e had no way of implementing long-term injuries or severe bodily damage.  Plus, the abstraction of the cleric/paladin vs. warlord healing bugged us.  

So we implemented a SIMPLE fix that allowed for a distinction between magical vs nonmagical healing, and didn't require us to monkey with established hit point values, the bloodied condition, and which satisfied our simulationist AND narrativist gaming styles.  Here it is:

As an example, per 4e rules, a 1st level fighter has 15 + Con score hit points, and gains 6 hit points per level after that.  Our system says a 1st level fighter with a 16 Con has 15 hit points, and 16 wound points.  A 10th level fighter with a 20 Con would have 69 hit points, and 20 wound points.  

1.  When damaged, hit points are shaved off first, and when they are depleted, wound points are deducted.  
2.  When a character hits 0 wound points, he is unconscious. 
3.  Characters die at their negative Con score, or on three failed death saves. 
4.  As a character gains levels, he gains hit points, but only gains wound points if is Con score increases.  
5.  Hit points can be cured by a warlord or cleric, but only magical healing can quickly restore wound points (equal to the healing surge value).  Hit points can be regained by healing surges with a short rest, but natural healing only allows one wound point healed per day of bedrest with a successful DC 10 + 1/2 level Endurance check.  (If a trained healer is looking after a recovering character (DC 10 + wound point damage Heal check to treat), he can regain two wound points per day with a DC 10 Endurance check).  
6.  Finally, while suffering from wound point damage, a character can be at their bloodied value at best.  

Hit points in our system represent luck, adrenaline, divine fortune, willpower, minor bruises, scrapes, pain tolerance, etc.  Wound points represent actual physical injury, which takes time to recover from.  A character still has the same total number of "hit points" as the core rules, and the bloodied value is the same, but some of those points represent real physical damage that take time to recover from.

So far, this system has worked really well for us, with almost no rules tweaking.  It satisfies our simulationist tastes, and makes getting severely wounded have consequences that take time to recover from.


----------



## SHARK (Jan 16, 2009)

Greetings!

Damn, gang. 10 pages+ of this stuff. My head hurts. I mean, really now--healing and Hit Points have *always* been abstract, and wonky in *every* edition of D&D. Wound simulation has *never* been D&D's strong suit, you know? If some "realistic"/more believable simulation of wounds/healing is what you want, well, there are better game systems that do this. Just off the top of my head, WFRP makes characters much more realistically fragile and suffering effects from wounds, poison, lost limbs, etc, much better than D&D.

It doesn't seem to me that D&D has ever represented wounds/effects in a *non-cartoonish* manner. Asking for that or expecting such from D&D just seems like quite a stretch to me.

Healing and wounds is abstract in D&D. Accept it, play the game, and move on. 

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 16, 2009)

billd91 said:


> It's not that hard to imagine. The character who has lost 7 hit points has taken fewer blows to get there and has fewer aches and pains to get over to be up to snuff than the one who has lost 299.




That's part of it, but if we want an explanation I think we can find there is more to it than that.  The explanation is based on the same sort of logic that applies to sports.  If an expert billards player, fuseball player, or badminton player inspects the equipment, he'll find more to complain about than a rank novice.  That's because, with perfect equipment he's better able to perfectly cause the ball or shuttlecock obey his will.  Because of this, even the most minor imperfections in the equipment will be noticed and rued.  But the novice, used to the ball or shuttlecock behaving to a large extent randomly anyway, will not notice or care about these problems.

I would say that 'traditionally' the portion of hitpoints attributable to wounds (as opposed to the larger portion that represents the ability to avoid or mitigate wounds) represents in Conan not just the ability to soak up greater damage, but the finer degree to which Conan feels the limitations of his injured body compared to when it is perfectly healthy in comparison to the less keenly honed warrior.  Sure, Conan can tough it out through more wounds, but toughing it out is not the same as being in prime condition.  Not only that, but he's more fit than a less well honed warrior.  Your average person might not find much difference in lifestyle between a couple weeks of rest and what they normally do, but Conan must recover even from the rest to make himself fit again for the rigors of his wild life.

Of course, you could always say, "Well that's not perfectly realistic." or "That's a pretty thin explanation.", and I agree fully.  That brings us back to where we started at, the recognition that D&D has always been pretty far removed from 'realism', that 4e more fully embrassed that than any edition thus far, and that if anything that was fully the opposite of the problems I had with the system.

I understand that most people haven't ever played D&D in a more sandbox, simulationist, fully emmersive style and probably wouldn't enjoy it if they did, but 4e basically came out and said, "If you were playing that way, and no one was, then you were playing it wrong.  We decided that D&D was only fun played in our way, and well 3e wasn't very fun played in our way, so we made a game that was fun when played our way."   Which is fine, and you have to respect the tight focus of the design and how everything integrates with everything else from a purely designer perspective, but I have no interest in running or playing the game.


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 16, 2009)

SHARK said:


> Greetings!
> 
> Damn, gang. 10 pages+ of this stuff. My head hurts. I mean, really now--healing and Hit Points have *always* been abstract, and wonky in *every* edition of D&D. Wound simulation has *never* been D&D's strong suit, you know? If some "realistic"/more believable simulation of wounds/healing is what you want, well, there are better game systems that do this. Just off the top of my head, WFRP makes characters much more realistically fragile and suffering effects from wounds, poison, lost limbs, etc, much better than D&D.
> 
> ...




Of course an abstraction that you had 20 years to get used to may feel more "sensible" then any new abstraction. After all 20 years is a long time to develop rationalizations for all the weird effects that the system may cause. And most of us probably were in discussions where we had to defend the D&D hp system against gamers that preferred other systems.

However, the difference between 3rd and 4th is your familiarity with the rules not the verisimilitude of the game.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 16, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> High level 1E adventurers were very emotional insecure I guess.  After all, I would think it would be the *guy with 8 hitpoints* that would be hiding under his bed, afraid to back into the dungeon.  Not the guy with 300.  In fact, that's how it would be in 1E, a low level adventurer with natural healing was at full hp and willing to return to adventuring much sooner than a higher level guy.




I'm talking 3e here, and you're looking at it wrong... The higher level adventurer can heal just as much as the lower and go squash the kind of opponents the lower adventurer is facing (one of the reasons I like sandbox games...because you might just be doing this), but to go back out and fight a demon lord, especially after it crushed any notions that your sword form was perfect is going to take alot more than to go fight an unskilled scrub of a goblin who got a lucky shot in, whether you're 1st level or 10th level.




gizmo33 said:


> There are virtually no physical symptoms of injury in any version of DnD.  The only reason that people say there are injuries is because they describe them, it's not actually modeled by anything in the rules.  I can say that 1E lets my PC have green hair, while 4E doesn't.




Eh, I like that 3.5 has the disabled/dying/dead distinction better than 4e's full/dying (but maybe you're not dying) distinction...though I would have liked to have seen maybe a wounded/disabled/dying/dead distinction with a simple condition track.




gizmo33 said:


> There is no long term damage.  One of my points is that you're describing 4E damage in 1E terms.  While both systems use the same vagueness, IMO you're describing 4E damage as a lasting effect with no good reason.  Now I'll claim that a character in 4E with maximum hitpoints has an arrow sticking through is leg.  Now he gets into a footrace with another one and wins.  Now explain how 1E differs.




And yet the game since day one has been based on description.  The DM, using the rules (whether gamist, simulationist, or narrativist) translates these rules and describes the world with their effect to the players.  The players in turn rely on this information to make decisions and interact with the world.  When the game's rules become convulted or even illogical to translate and describe... IMO, the game becomes much worse for it.  

I'm describing 4e damage as in some part physical, because one can be knocked unconscious and or dying multiple times in one combat...seems like a good reason to me.  I mean what is happening in these battles then, is the PC's confidence being shaken so badly it's knocking him unconscious? Or is it a bunch of scratches that are causing a hardened warrior to pass out and struggle against the grim reaper?  Maybe the adventurer is just loosing his hope that he'll win and it causes him to faint and nearly die.




gizmo33 said:


> Because you've made the assumption that you know the nature of the physical wounds afflicting your character.  You really don't, I suggest, in any edition of the game.  Relax some of your need to spell out things that were always contradictory, and the loony tunes song might fade.  In fact, if you've played 1E DnD and had a PC fall off of a 100 ft cliff and live, I would think that the Loony Tunes thing would be something you'd be used to.  Two characters caught in the middle of a 40 ft fireball - one is completely incinerated, the other is down about 10% of his maximum hitpoints.  How in the world did the "simulationists" out there last so long with DnD?




Uhm... 3.5 and I used the massive damage rules... so yeah for me the looney tunes music had receded a little bit, at least with 3.5.  He dodged the fireball, seems simple enough.  I don't have to retcon... and who said I was simulationist, I mean the hit points and healing surges aren't narativist either.


----------



## Scribble (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> I understand that most people haven't ever played D&D in a more sandbox, simulationist, fully emmersive style and probably wouldn't enjoy it if they did, but 4e basically came out and said, "If you were playing that way, and no one was, then you were playing it wrong.  We decided that D&D was only fun played in our way, and well 3e wasn't very fun played in our way, so we made a game that was fun when played our way."   Which is fine, and you have to respect the tight focus of the design and how everything integrates with everything else from a purely designer perspective, but I have no interest in running or playing the game.




I think you're painting an overly harsh statement about the design of the system...

I don't think they intended to call anyone's style of play wrong. I think they tried to create a system the majority of players would find easier to use.


I think they realized that people also wanted a game that was easy to tailor to personal prefference, so they did so. But instead of the burden of customization being put on the majority, they tried to put the burden of customization on the minority of players.

I guess it's up to debate whether or not they did so.


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 16, 2009)

New problem: in 3E, massive damage rules that you can die from a hit that causes 50 HP of damage or more... no matter how many HP you have left. How does that alter the arguments about the "abstractness" of damage? Does it?


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 16, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Thanks to this thread, I'm going to make my character for Sunday's game a Warlord based on Dr. Cox from Scrubs.  "Suck it up, princess" will be about the best they can hope for.
> 
> Can't wait.



That is an outstanding idea. Wish I could be there.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> I understand that most people haven't ever played D&D in a more sandbox, simulationist, fully emmersive style and probably wouldn't enjoy it if they did, but 4e basically came out and said, "If you were playing that way, and no one was, then you were playing it wrong.  We decided that D&D was only fun played in our way, and well 3e wasn't very fun played in our way, so we made a game that was fun when played our way."



I think this is an extremely harsh and pessimistic interpretation of the intent and statements of the 4E designers. Designing a game that is intended to be played in a certain way is *not *the same thing as calling other styles of game bad.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 16, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> But is it really that small?
> 
> Lemme ask: if 4E, instead of using healing surges at all, simply said, "At the end of an encounter, your PC is fully healed," would that bother you at all?  If not, okay, but I suspect you'd be in the minority.  If so, why?
> 
> The above is how 4E healing feels to me.  Just ... "poof," you're healed.  And not "poof" as in "the cleric gave you a _cure critical wounds_."  In the grand scheme of things, of course it's an unimportant thing.  But in the realm of game design and participation, it just doesn't seem like a "small difference" to me.



I think if I moved straight from 1e to 4e - or straight from using 3e rules for a 1e-style game, like many posters on ENW prefer - 4e would look like too drastic a change.

As it stands, 4e's healing models how my 3e games _actually_ played out.  By the end of the night, everyone was healed to full - the only question was, "How many spells/charges did it take?"  It's a shortcut to me.  I take the in-between stuff like healing spells, bandages, and the like to be a given.

So this isn't a change in anything but convenience for my game.  I'd say I'm far from alone in this, too.



> Probably true.  But I don't.  Honestly, 4E lost me with non-Euclidean movement and area-of-effect.  Compared to how _that_ makes me twitch and throw up a little in my mouth, 4E's healing is _absolutely groovy_.



Well, like I said, I don't think any game can be all things for all people.  Past a certain point, it's too much effort to patch.  I think it's interesting that, out of everything in 4e, healing and 1-2-1-2 counting are about the simplest things to change that I can imagine.  If it's the power system itself, that's another matter entirely. 



> All I said was "rarer than folks seem to think."  Not "nonexistent."



I agree with Maddman that 3e assumes that magic items are commodities.  In a sense, 3e has 2 separate XP systems - one for your character abilities, and one for your character's gear.  _As written_, mind you - this isn't to say that people couldn't or don't play otherwise.  But, the most popular published 3e settings - Eberron, FR, 3e-ized Planescape, Ptolus, etc. - assume that there is some buying & selling of magical gear, and that PCs will have the means to do so.  Given this assumption, a fantastically useful and inexpensive item like a CLW wand should be rather plentiful.  And making it not-plentiful requires that the DM modify the game's default assumptions, IMO.

-O


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> Of course, you could always say, "Well that's not perfectly realistic." or "That's a pretty thin explanation.", and I agree fully.  That brings us back to where we started at, the recognition that D&D has always been pretty far removed from 'realism', that 4e more fully embrassed that than any edition thus far, and that if anything that was fully the opposite of the problems I had with the system.
> 
> I understand that most people haven't ever played D&D in a more sandbox, simulationist, fully emmersive style and probably wouldn't enjoy it if they did, but 4e basically came out and said, "If you were playing that way, and no one was, then you were playing it wrong.  We decided that D&D was only fun played in our way, and well 3e wasn't very fun played in our way, so we made a game that was fun when played our way."   Which is fine, and you have to respect the tight focus of the design and how everything integrates with everything else from a purely designer perspective, but I have no interest in running or playing the game.




But D&D was never a good system for simulationist gaming. For such games GURPS, or even better Harnmaster are much more appropriate. D&D was always among the most gamist of the major RPG systems. So even if the new system has less realism than the old rule (which I don't think it does) all the designers told you was "You can't use this hammer for screwing in screws any more." 

As a side note, a game does not have to be simulationist to be immersive. Those two qualities have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 16, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> I understand that most people haven't ever played D&D in a more sandbox, simulationist, fully emmersive style and probably wouldn't enjoy it if they did, but 4e basically came out and said, "If you were playing that way, and no one was, then you were playing it wrong.  We decided that D&D was only fun played in our way, and well 3e wasn't very fun played in our way, so we made a game that was fun when played our way."   Which is fine, and you have to respect the tight focus of the design and how everything integrates with everything else from a purely designer perspective, but I have no interest in running or playing the game.



Wow, I think that's ... not really it, I guess.

I think that they saw that a large portion of 3e players were playing in a certain way, and made 4e to model this.  Not that everyone was, or that everyone even _should_ - just looking at a common way to play 3e, and focus the game more narrowly.



maddman75 said:


> Thanks to this thread, I'm going to make my character for Sunday's game a Warlord based on Dr. Cox from Scrubs.  "Suck it up, princess" will be about the best they can hope for.
> 
> Can't wait.



  Now I'm looking forward to this even _more._

-O


----------



## D'karr (Jan 16, 2009)

I think most of the problem is terminology.  Most of the argument comes because they are called Hit Points, Damage and Healing Surges.

In D&D combat there are only two states Combat Effective and Not-So.  If you have "Hit Points" left you are combat effective.  That swing from your sword can do damage to your opponent when you have 40 hit points or 1.  However, when you drop to 0 you are no longer combat effective.  You can't even swing the sword.

Damage is also "esoteric" in the sense that not every "hit" is really a hit.  Some times you are losing "Hit Points" because you are winded, you got lucky and the"hit" was not solid, etc.

Long Term injuries (broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.) have never been a part of D&D.  D&D has never had a "death spiral" mechanic either, where your combat effectiveness gets worse as you lose hit points.  If you fell of a high cliff and only took half your hit points in "damage" you were still as combat effective as if you had not fallen down.

So the only sticking point about this is about "long term" recovery.  4e does not provide a mechanic for "long term injury" recovery without house ruling it.  When I see some of the complaints, they seem to boil down to that point.  However, the previous edition did not provide for that either.  The default assumption of the game provided for magic to "heal" to be prevalent at almost any level.  So if you wanted to model "long term injury" recovery you had to house rule it too.

Me, I'm having a great time playing and DMing and worrying about this particular aspect is handled the same way I did before.  If I want long term injuries I house rule them.


----------



## Celebrim (Jan 17, 2009)

Harlekin said:


> But D&D was never a good system for simulationist gaming.




Which is why ultimately I left it, for GURPS.  But GURPS also has problems, which brought me back to D&D when so many of the specific difficulties I'd had with D&D were addressed.



> D&D was always among the most gamist of the major RPG systems. So even if the new system has less realism than the old rule (which I don't think it does) all the designers told you was "You can't use this hammer for screwing in screws any more."




Yes. 



> As a side note, a game does not have to be simulationist to be immersive. Those two qualities have nothing to do with each other.




I didn't say that they did.  If one implied the other, I could have saved a word.


----------



## SHARK (Jan 17, 2009)

D'karr said:


> I think most of the problem is terminology.  Most of the argument comes because they are called Hit Points, Damage and Healing Surges.
> 
> In D&D combat there are only two states Combat Effective and Not-So.  If you have "Hit Points" left you are combat effective.  That swing from your sword can do damage to your opponent when you have 40 hit points or 1.  However, when you drop to 0 you are no longer combat effective.  You can't even swing the sword.
> 
> ...




Greetings!

*Exactly* In my own campaigns, I have on occasion--when the situation seemed particularly damaging/difficult, used some long-term injuries for characters--both players and NPC's. However, most of the time, it was a non-issue. How many Cure X Wounds spells/Cure Disease/Restoration blah, blah, blah is needed to get X character back up and ready? It was abstracted. Even if some character did have longer-term injuries, the group would say, 

"Fine. We're done here in this castle/dungeon/lair/wilderness for now. We go back to town or city, get as much necessary healing as we can, and hang out recuperating at the Tavern/Temple/Barracks/Castle. When everyone is healed up and ready for action, we'll go back to wherever we need to go."

They either did that, or any wounds were taken care of within an hour or a few at most of *in-game* time between magic/herbs/skills and rest. If they could move on after an hour or so, they did. If not, they would camp and fortify, and sleep/regen for the next day, then proceed with the mission.

I guess I'm not seeing it. It all takes but a few minutes of *real time* and whatever is needed is figured out. Bottom line is, the players want to be up and going after the mission. How much of *game time* that may or may not take isn't especially important, is it? 

(1) Either you're fully healed and ready to go in moments;

(2) Either you're fully healed and ready to go in 1-3 hours;

(3) Either you're fully healed and ready to go over an 8-hour rest/sleep period;

(4) Either you're fully healed and ready to go after healing/resting for a few days;

(5) Either you're fully healed and ready to go after recuperating for days/weeks/months

With any of these, isn't it all just abstracted in a few minutes of discussion and notes, one way or the other, so that in 10 minutes of *real time* you guys are back in the saddle pursuing the adventure?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK


----------



## Spatula (Jan 17, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> How often do you think wands of CLW (especially used abusively) were disregarded compared to disregarding healing surges and long rests?  How dispensible do you think wands of CLW are compared to dispensing with healing surges and long rests?



Just as dispensible.  After all, they're the same thing - a resource you expend to recover hit points after encounters.

As an aside, I'd like to note that all the complaints about "healing surges" are actually about about the short & extended rest rules (and also second winds and the warlord's healing) and not about surges at all.

So anyway, if you were to throw out non-magical healing and alter the rest rules (say, you heal 1 surge's worth with a night of rest instead of healing 100%), you have a party that has to be more cautious and proceed at a slower pace.  Just like a 3e party without _cure_ wands.  I don't see the big deal.  If you can house-rule easy access to magic out of 3e, which is built into the system, then you can house-rule easy healing out of 4e.



Celebrim said:


> And, after hearing about all the horror stories of CLW abuse



Horror stories?  Abuse?  Bwah?


----------



## billd91 (Jan 17, 2009)

D'karr said:


> I think most of the problem is terminology.  Most of the argument comes because they are called Hit Points, Damage and Healing Surges.




For some people, maybe. But it's not the problem at all for some of us. For some of us, it's the change in healing methods from essentially unlimited, transferable, and external to limited, non-transferable, and internal. Regardless of terminology, healing surges are _different_ from magical healing in 1e-3e.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 17, 2009)

Man, this thread makes me feel like an anomaly. 

I'm not a fan of healing surges, but I'm basically okay with full HP at the start of every encounter.

It's not so much a verisimilitude issue for me as it is a game play issue for me. It jars me out of the game when the wound I described as a heavy blow with an axe is shrugged off with some words of prodding praise. Nicks and cuts, sure.

And I have no problem with HPs mostly representing nicks and cuts and bruises and luck and "rolling with it."

At issue isn't HP -- or even how fast it is regained. At issue is the idea that HP (via Healing Surges) represent both a short-term and a long-term resource.

It would be kind of like if you could only regain your Encounter Powers a certain number of times per day. It's wonky.

It doesn't need to be. It should have been high time in 4e that HP got clarified, instead of being muddied further. It would have been as easy as disconnecting healing surges from HP, and instead making them a totally separate mechanic (with a correspondingly different name) and just biting the bullet and having HP recover automatically after a short rest.

These two great tastes do not taste great together. Like pizza milkshakes or something...


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 17, 2009)

D'karr said:


> I think most of the problem is terminology.  Most of the argument comes because they are called Hit Points, Damage and Healing Surges.



I think "most" is an overstatement, but yes the terminology doesn't help. When designing 4E, they decided to emphasize that hit points are abstract, and their recovery does not necessarily represent actual healing; and then they go and call the new hit point recovery system *healing *surges. Not a good choice.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 17, 2009)

Scribble said:


> HPs are a way to say with 100% certainty that even if the opponent rolls enough to "hit" me, and does max "damage" with his weapon I will not die.
> 
> This to me more appropriately suggests a way to model luck or moxie, and not damage. You character is so awesome that at certain time he just cannot be killed.




Aha! Obviously hit points should be renamed as PIPs!

Plot Immunity Points!

Nobody can die until their plot immunity points have run out, and then they become vulnerable! You need warlords and clerics and other leaders to boost your importance to the story and give you plot immunity points back!

Plot Immunity Points FTW!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> "Conan 4E" with 40 hp and 8 healing surges takes 10 points of damage.  The DM says he takes a scratch.   The DM says he's feeling tired.  At the end of the battle he uses a healing surge.  Conan 4E still has a scratch on his shoulder.  It doesn't affect his strength, climbing ability, agility, saves, etc.  He's going to fight orcs and still kill them.




Strike One:  No orcs in Conan!



> Conan 1E might leave the dungeon to get his 5 hp back if he knows (metagaming) that Thoth Amon is a tough customer.  The other Cimmerians would laugh that Conan 1E left the dungeon because of a scratch on his shoulder and some whining about the intangible effect on his luck.




Strike Two:  Conan is smart enough in the REH stories not to undertake a fight where he has no reasonable chance of success, unless he has a very strong reason to chance his life.  There is more than one REH story where Conan opts for the better part of valour.

Crom is an uncaring god, and Conan knows he needs to save himself.

1e (and 2e) were scaled so that an adventurer could take on opponents even when wounded.  AFAICT, the 1e Cimmerians wouldn't know about "the 15 minute adventuring day" because it didn't yet exist.

Nor would they send in "3 orc warriors to assassinate Conan" because (1) orcs don't exist in Conan, (2) Cimmerians don't assassinate people -- they take them on manfully, and (3) they know that Conan will slay them manfully anon if they did so.



> Then again, I cannot begin to fathom how 1E (page 82 of the DMG or not) ever provided a satisfactory simulation of injury.  "Injured" Conan 1E is sprinting out of the dungeon and riding back to the castle unhindered.  Met by a few low-level brigands on the road, he'd still kill them all.  There are a myriad of physical effects of injury, and none of them are modeled by the system.




That is a pretty good description of what happens in the REH stories, however.   



RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> One of my points is that you're describing 4E damage in 1E terms.  While both systems use the same vagueness, IMO you're describing 4E damage as a lasting effect with no good reason.





Sorry, but which is it?

Is there a difference, so that saying "you're describing 4E damage in 1E terms" has meaning?

Or is there no difference, so that saying "both systems use the same vagueness" has meaning?


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2009)

Imaro said:


> And yet the game since day one has been based on description.  The DM, using the rules (whether gamist, simulationist, or narrativist) translates these rules and describes the world with their effect to the players.  The players in turn rely on this information to make decisions and interact with the world.  When the game's rules become convulted or even illogical to translate and describe... IMO, the game becomes much worse for it.





This.

Very well put.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> I think this is an extremely harsh and pessimistic interpretation of the intent and statements of the 4E designers. Designing a game that is intended to be played in a certain way is *not *the same thing as calling other styles of game bad.




One could read the advice in the 4e DMG and come to a different conclusion.  Or, for that matter, all the talk of what was "unfun" during the design phase.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2009)

D'karr said:


> Long Term injuries (broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.) have never been a part of D&D.




You should take another look at 1e and 2e.  Early D&D lacked mechanics that determined absolutely when things happened, or even what their effects were, yet they happened regularly enough.  I suspect that there was a long term injury in D&D by the end of Gary's third session.  

In 1e, there are magic items that cause specific long term injuries, monsters that cause specific long term injuries, and a lot of free-wheeling.  Grimtooth appeared in the 1e era, and certainly included many long-term injuries.  Ravens in 1e have, what, a 10% chance on plucking out an eye on a successful hit?  How is that not a long-term injury?  A sword of sharpness could sever your leg.  Again, pretty long-term.  The effects of the same are left to the participants' imaginations and the DM's judgement.

To some extent, 2e codified some long-term injuries, as well as how to cause them, in The Complete Fighters' Handbook and the Players' Option series.



SHARK said:


> I have on occasion--when the situation seemed particularly damaging/difficult, used some long-term injuries for characters--both players and NPC's.




See?  Long-term injuries in D&D.



Kamikaze Midget said:


> Man, this thread makes me feel like an anomaly.




Don't worry too much, KM.  You are an anomaly, and that's a good thing!  In fact, you are an _*awesome*_ anomaly!  


RC


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 17, 2009)

maddman75 said:


> Thanks to this thread, I'm going to make my character for Sunday's game a Warlord based on Dr. Cox from Scrubs.  "Suck it up, princess" will be about the best they can hope for.
> 
> Can't wait.




I urge you to consider whether this character concept will have the same short half life of the character archetypes of the anti-social anti-hero and the jackass half-orc barbarian, which, in my experience, are amusing at real tables for 1-3 sessions. At the very least, you should run this past your DM and fellow players. I know that I'd have little patience for such a character type. Being told regularly that my hero is a wuss is not something I want in my DnD experience. YMMV.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jan 17, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> I urge you to consider whether this character concept will have the same short half life of the character archetypes of the anti-social anti-hero and the jackass half-orc barbarian, which, in my experience, are amusing at real tables for 1-3 sessions. At the very least, you should run this past your DM and fellow players. I know that I'd have little patience for such a character type. Being told regularly that my hero is a wuss is not something I want in my DnD experience. YMMV.



If you check out my warlord thread, I detail playing a Tiefling warlord exactly like this. He died but all five of the other characters in game and players out of game wanted me to bring him back - paying to have it done even out of love/respect for the character. I thought the "suck it up, Princess", "don't make me come over there just to kick your sorry ass off the ground for you", "c'mon boys harden the **** up" style would get a little tiring but it obviously hasn't. If done with a sense of irony as well as a genuine care and affection for your "team or crew", then everyone is more than happy to cop a dressing-down from their warlord leader - and even becomes something they look forward to. A nice +5 bonus to hit or a slab of bonus hit points or free attacks every encounter most probably sweetens the words too. 

As for the whole hit point edition debate thing (this is the 4th major thread on this) and nothing has been said in here on either side that hasn't already been said on the previous three threads.

On the podcast, Mike pretty much said as a baseline, "As a DM, don't oversell your damage". Jeremy backs up something I said in the second thread that if you know divine healing is available, you can go to town a little more with descriptions without breaking verisimilitude but then Mike said as a baseline standard operating procedure, don't describe damage that cannot be fixed by a warlord. Only if the character is on 0 healing surges and they get knocked deep into the negatives can you go for some A-grade descriptive damage.

Personally, I don't like the system but since the previous threads, I've kind of moved on. I'll respect anyone's opinion though who says that it is either ridiculous or absurd. To be honest guys I learned along with others from the previous threads that on this issue, it is easier just to agree to disagree. Somebody's nightsoil is another's bacon, mileage varying and all that.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Shadeydm (Jan 17, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> Hit points and healing are the only thing in 4e that bugged me and my group.  While I understand the reasoning behind healing surges and hit points, someone resting for 6-8 hours and getting up fine bothered us.  4e had no way of implementing long-term injuries or severe bodily damage.  Plus, the abstraction of the cleric/paladin vs. warlord healing bugged us.
> 
> So we implemented a SIMPLE fix that allowed for a distinction between magical vs nonmagical healing, and didn't require us to monkey with established hit point values, the bloodied condition, and which satisfied our simulationist AND narrativist gaming styles.  Here it is:
> 
> ...




This actually sounds like a pretty good bandage for the system. If I ever do decide to run 4E (instead of just playing) I will have to give this some strong consideration. Thanks!


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 17, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> Only if the character is on 0 healing surges and they get knocked deep into the negatives can you go for some A-grade descriptive damage.




How have DMs found this practice at their gaming tables? As a 3E DM, I never have to keep track of what spells my players have when describing damage in combat, so this whole concept seems like an extra burden to me. Perhaps I'm wrong: do you find it fun? does it add something to keep track of this stuff while you run combats?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> On the podcast, Mike pretty much said as a baseline, "As a DM, don't oversell your damage". Jeremy backs up something I said in the second thread that if you know divine healing is available, you can go to town a little more with descriptions without breaking verisimilitude but then Mike said as a baseline standard operating procedure, don't describe damage that cannot be fixed by a warlord. Only if the character is on 0 healing surges and they get knocked deep into the negatives can you go for some A-grade descriptive damage.





For what it's worth, this is Schoedinger's Wounding that they are trying to sell -- you don't know what the hit point loss was caused by until you know how it was restored.

Of all of the various options outlined in the previous thread on this topic, SW is perhaps the one that I find least satsifying.

I also recall, on the other thread, being told that SW wasn't how the system was intended to be used.  At least this podcast clears _*that*_ up.  SW is _*not*_ a misreading of the system.


RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> One could read the advice in the 4e DMG and come to a different conclusion.  Or, for that matter, all the talk of what was "unfun" during the design phase.



One could read it that way, if one were inclined to be harsh and pessimistic. Thus my previous post.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 17, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> Raven Crowking said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




One could read it that way, if one were inclined to attempt to discover how it was intended, unless one had a particular agenda to promote.  I am not sure how to come to the conclusion that "X is unfun" but also that "X is fun".  If you begin with a belief that "X is unfun" and "Y is fun", it is hardly harsh or pessimistic for me to say that your game promotes Y rather than X.

Saying the opposite, IMHO, would be harsh and pessimistic.  It would be saying that you failed in your design goals.

A lot of things got cut from the game because they were "unfun", even though some of them were (arguably) much of the fun for some people.  4e, like every version of D&D before it, promotes some Y over X.  And we have the benefit of the designers _*telling us*_ what they thought was fun and unfun.  To a better degree than any other edition, we _*know*_ what X and Y are.

It isn't "harsh and pessimistic" at all.



RC


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jan 17, 2009)

I like Gothmog's fix. It's a bit of a hassle, but it's better than trying to be crazily uncertain about the damage.


----------



## Obryn (Jan 17, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> I urge you to consider whether this character concept will have the same short half life of the character archetypes of the anti-social anti-hero and the jackass half-orc barbarian, which, in my experience, are amusing at real tables for 1-3 sessions. At the very least, you should run this past your DM and fellow players. I know that I'd have little patience for such a character type. Being told regularly that my hero is a wuss is not something I want in my DnD experience. YMMV.



It's a one-shot.

I'm the DM.

He's a great player.

I think it rocks, and he knows his players better than I do.

So, um...  I think we're good.

-O


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 17, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> Hit points and healing are the only thing in 4e that bugged me and my group.  While I understand the reasoning behind healing surges and hit points, someone resting for 6-8 hours and getting up fine bothered us.  4e had no way of implementing long-term injuries or severe bodily damage.  Plus, the abstraction of the cleric/paladin vs. warlord healing bugged us.
> 
> So we implemented a SIMPLE fix that allowed for a distinction between magical vs nonmagical healing, and didn't require us to monkey with established hit point values, the bloodied condition, and which satisfied our simulationist AND narrativist gaming styles.  Here it is:
> 
> ...




Has it affected how much people want to play warlords? Or have you given them something else to compensate? Or maybe you do not use them at all?

Cheers


----------



## Oni (Jan 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> For what it's worth, this is Schoedinger's Wounding that they are trying to sell -- you don't know what the hit point loss was caused by until you know how it was restored.
> 
> Of all of the various options outlined in the previous thread on this topic, SW is perhaps the one that I find least satsifying.
> 
> ...




This schoedinger's wounding is basically you don't know the damage done until you find out how it's healed, no?  

Aren't they saying that if you have a good idea that they won't be able to receive magical healing not to describe anything over the top, not that it shouldn't be described at all until you know the source of healing?  

Aren't those two different things, since in the second you know what happened to your character before you receive the healing?


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 17, 2009)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> I like Gothmog's fix. It's a bit of a hassle, but it's better than trying to be crazily uncertain about the damage.



I actually kinda like it, though it brings back _requiring_ a cleric, unless groups are OK with frequently going into combat with some members at 1/2 hit points. In that case, the difficulty of encounters becomes altered quite a bit, and not in a consistent manner.

Though if there *is* a cleric, then it becomes exactly like the existing rules, as all wounds and hit points can easily be healed between encounters through the cleric powers.

I'd also be curious if there's any intended difference between different level healing powers under his system. (Cure Light vs. Cure Serious, for example)

I also think Dead at Neg Con is a bit too gritty, as going from alive to No Save Dead becomes much more likely at higher levels, with monsters dishing out increased damage. The Con value isn't scaling to keep up.  It also makes the emphasis on Con as an uber stat increase, as each point adds *two* to your margin of not-being-dead - one for wounds, and one for max neg value.

Personally, if I used that system, I'd stick with neg Bloodied as No Save Dead.

Perversely, I'd also nerf Wound Points regained from healing magic, because within a few levels, a character's Healing Surge value is going to quickly exceed their CON score, making any single use of low level curing magic automatically remove all wounds. If you want gritty, reduce the amount of wounds that can be healed at once. I'd probably use the HP gained per level value of the target's character class, perhaps adding in the number of healing surges the power allows the target to spend (so Cure Light is +1, Cure Serious is +2.)


----------



## Sir Brennen (Jan 17, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> For what it's worth, this is Schoedinger's Wounding that they are trying to sell -- you don't know what the hit point loss was caused by until you know how it was restored.



Do you need to know, though? An orc's axe takes down a PC. Describe it as bloodily as you like. Just don't assume that it's 100% physical. Or do. If a warlord brings the PC back up on his feet, he could be restoring non-physical damage suffered _prior_ to the axe hit. Nothing says he's restoring the points done by that specific blow.

All damage is a mix of physical/non-physical. Not getting hung up on how much is which is the key. Schrodinger's Wounding only becomes an issue if the assumption is a specific attack was 100% of a specific type, and the healing method is restoring damage caused by that specific attack. These are all questionable assumptions.


----------



## Gothmog (Jan 17, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Has it affected how much people want to play warlords? Or have you given them something else to compensate? Or maybe you do not use them at all?
> 
> Cheers




Yep, both groups I DM have warlords, and both groups love them.  While the warlord can't heal wound points, the bonuses he gives for tactical combat are still huge, and even if you've taken wound point damage, the warlord can still restore HP up to your bloodied value, which would again get shaved off first.  Neither of the warlord players had complained, and in fact one of the warlord players is the one who suggested we do something like this!


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 17, 2009)

Jack99 said:


> Has it affected how much people want to play warlords? Or have you given them something else to compensate? Or maybe you do not use them at all?
> 
> Cheers




You could always earthdawn it and say there is some magic in all of the powers.


----------



## Gothmog (Jan 17, 2009)

Sir Brennen said:


> I actually kinda like it, though it brings back _requiring_ a cleric, unless groups are OK with frequently going into combat with some members at 1/2 hit points. In that case, the difficulty of encounters becomes altered quite a bit, and not in a consistent manner.
> 
> Though if there *is* a cleric, then it becomes exactly like the existing rules, as all wounds and hit points can easily be healed between encounters through the cleric powers.
> 
> ...




Dang, I knew I forgot to put something in.  Yes, CLW and CSW are different.  Basically if any magical power would allow the use of one healing surge, the character gets back 1d6 wound points.  If two healing surges are used, its 2d6 wound points, and so on.  If a power (like Healing Word) gives back 1d6 extra hit points, then it can heal wounds (in this case 1 HS=1d6 WP) AND restore 1d6 HP.  I hadn't considered your idea of HP per level + HS used- thats not bad either.  I'll put it to the group and see what they think.

Oddly enough, only one group I DM has a cleric.  The other group has a paladin, who isn't as good at healing as a cleric would be.  While the magical healing is nice to have, we haven't found it to be absolutely necessary yet.  This is mostly due to our playstyle (see below).

You're right that the -Con is more gritty, but thats the sort of game we like.  I don't see there would be any problem with going -bloodied if thats what you wanted.  So far, we've only had one death from -Con, and the PCs are 8th level now.

Finally, as for some PCs going into combat bloodied, we've found it requires the players to use slightly different tactics.  PCs in my games tend to "buddy up" during combats, and work in groups of 2 or 3 PCs, with the PC on the most offensive duty the one who is least badly injured.  The more injured ones guard the flanks and support him, as well as try some crazy stunts.  What I've noticed in practice is that if one or two PCs are into their wound points, the party as a whole operates at about 1 level lower than average.  3-4 PCs = 2 levels lower, and 5-6 PC = 3 levels lower (as the group only has 6 PCs, I don't know what happens past this point).  While it can make a difference when multiple PCs are wounded, what I've noticed in practice is that after 3-5 combats, most of the PCs are pretty beat up, and they tend to retreat to a safe haven and heal.  Thats fine with us, because I don't tend to run long strings of combats back-to-back (I think the most in 4e has been 5, and some of those were 1 or 2 levels below the party level), which is where our playstyle differs from the core rules.  If your group is all about combat and having multiple combats in short order, then this might not be a good fix for you, but for us, it works perfectly.


----------



## maddman75 (Jan 17, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> I urge you to consider whether this character concept will have the same short half life of the character archetypes of the anti-social anti-hero and the jackass half-orc barbarian, which, in my experience, are amusing at real tables for 1-3 sessions. At the very least, you should run this past your DM and fellow players. I know that I'd have little patience for such a character type. Being told regularly that my hero is a wuss is not something I want in my DnD experience. YMMV.




I'm funny enough to make this work.

As for the Schrodinger's Damage, I'd think that you don't *know* how bad a wound is until you're going to heal it anyway.  Minor wounds might bleed quite a bit, but really be not more than a scratch.  What seems like a bump might have damaged some muscles or bones deeper in the body.  I can't see having a problem with describing a solid hit that sends blood flying being healed with a healing surge, because obviously it wasn't as bad as it looked and you just need to stop your whining and get up.  Princess.


----------



## Jack99 (Jan 17, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> Yep, both groups I DM have warlords, and both groups love them.  While the warlord can't heal wound points, the bonuses he gives for tactical combat are still huge, and even if you've taken wound point damage, the warlord can still restore HP up to your bloodied value, which would again get shaved off first.  Neither of the warlord players had complained, and in fact one of the warlord players is the one who suggested we do something like this!




Interesting. I am going to yoink your idea, and if we ever feel like more verisimilitude with regards to our healing, it will surely be considered. Looks solid.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jan 17, 2009)

Gothmog said:


> Dang, I knew I forgot to put something in.  Yes, CLW and CSW are different.  Basically if any magical power would allow the use of one healing surge, the character gets back 1d6 wound points.  If two healing surges are used, its 2d6 wound points, and so on.  If a power (like Healing Word) gives back 1d6 extra hit points, then it can heal wounds (in this case 1 HS=1d6 WP) AND restore 1d6 HP.  I hadn't considered your idea of HP per level + HS used- thats not bad either.  I'll put it to the group and see what they think.




What about the powers that don't actually use a healing surge up, but heal you "as if" you had used a healing surge?

Cheers


----------



## Gothmog (Jan 18, 2009)

Plane Sailing said:


> What about the powers that don't actually use a healing surge up, but heal you "as if" you had used a healing surge?
> 
> Cheers




If they are arcane or divine in nature, then they can also heal 1d6 WP per healing surge that would have been spent.  So CLW would either heal HP equal to a healing surge value, OR 1d6 WP.  CSW would either heal HP equal to two healing surges, OR 2d6 WP (although its never come up yet, I guess CSW could also heal 1d6 WP, and if that healed all the PC's WP, it might also restore one healing surge worth of HP).


----------



## Hussar (Jan 18, 2009)

Celebrim said:


> As opposed to saying that the DM will say, "The poison dart goes right through your eye socket, take 2 points of damage."  Is this less of an extreme or less of an implication that people with the contrary position are jerks?
> 
> To be honest, I'm ok with that sort of humor if its offered in good humor.  It's ridiculous, it would probably never occur in a real campaign, but it does capture a certain amount of truth.  I'm not happy with its apparant use to bash people who disagree, but it is funny.
> 
> If you take the idea of 'hit points are abstract representations of luck, skill, and destiny' to similar extremes, it gets similarly ridiculous.






Raven Crowking said:


> One could read the advice in the 4e DMG and come to a different conclusion.  Or, for that matter, all the talk of what was "unfun" during the design phase.
> 
> 
> RC




And here we see where the meme that WOTC is all about bad mouthing playstyles comes from.  People being pretty sensitive about what is obviously an off the cuff joke that would be easily reproducible at any game table and people reading what's written with a totally negative point of view and willing to find offense in whatever is said.



Celebrim said:


> How often do you think wands of CLW (especially used abusively) were disregarded compared to disregarding healing surges and long rests?  How dispensible do you think wands of CLW are compared to dispensing with healing surges and long rests?
> 
> I never had a problem with wands of CLW for several simple reasons:
> 
> ...




So, you weren't really playing 3e.  You deliberately changed the rules to conform to your playstyle and then complain that the new set of official rules don't conform to your playstyle.  Then go further and claim that they are actually claiming that your playstyle is badwrongfun.

Wow.  Why is 3e not claiming that you your playstyle is badwrongfun Celebrim?  After all, 3e flat out states that wands can be purchased.  You probably changed the rules to make constructing these wands difficult as well, although that may not be true.  Is it?  

You talk about the "abuse" of healing magic.  Yet, when I look at Dungeon modules, there's TONS of healing magic scattered around.  My group, after finishing There Is No Honor, had 18 cure light wounds potions.  There is a CASE of Cure Moderate Wounds potions hidden in the next module.  

Yes, YOUR homebrew variant campaign that flat out contradicts the 3.5 DMG is different from what is officially assumed.  The question in my mind is, why would you think any different?

3.5 D&D assumes that you can buy and sell all magic items.  That is directly in the rules.  All official modules also assume the same.  Why would you think that when designing 4e, they would suddenly assume anything different?


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 18, 2009)

Sir Brennen said:


> Do you need to know, though? An orc's axe takes down a PC. Describe it as bloodily as you like. Just don't assume that it's 100% physical. Or do.




AFAICT, we went through all of the permutations on the other thread, and I don't think that we need to rehash them here.    4e is simply not the game for me, although it is certainly the game for some others.  

There are several ways to look at the hp/healing surge mechanism.  It is just nice to know that my reading was validated (although, of course, YMMV as to how validated it was, what is suggested definitely falls into the SW reading of the hp/healing surge mechanism.  IMHO at least!  ).


RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 18, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Sorry, but which is it?
> 
> Is there a difference, so that saying "you're describing 4E damage in 1E terms" has meaning?
> 
> Or is there no difference, so that saying "both systems use the same vagueness" has meaning?




Seriously - any two things can be both similar and different depending on the context.  I'm barely able to see how to proceed here since most of your response to my other post was a series if irrelevant, although amusing, nitpicks about Conan.

A 1E character with 10 hitpoints who takes 5 points of damage subjects himself to a different set of descriptions than a 100 hitpoint character who takes 5 points of damage.  So I could complain "hey, you said I was bleeding in the first case, but not in the second, so which is it?" 

So you can't just transfer over the description you would use to a 3E character taking 5 damage to a 4E character taking 5 damage.  That's what I meant - though I'm starting to think I'm wasting my time in assuming that understanding is what you are really trying to gain from this.  It's the "good faith" thing I'm always talking about.  So are we wasting our time?


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 18, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Strike One: No orcs in Conan!




When you play baseball, do you throw pitches in the people at the stands that aren't playing and then call strike?    



Raven Crowking said:


> 1e (and 2e) were scaled so that an adventurer could take on opponents even when wounded.




Is there a game system where this is not the case?  There is *some* foe that a PC can fight (technically, all of them, he just might not live) no matter what his hp total is.  In fact there is some foe that he can beat no matter what his hp total is.  I don't see how this is limited to just 1E/2E.



Raven Crowking said:


> AFAICT, the 1e Cimmerians wouldn't know about "the 15 minute adventuring day" because it didn't yet exist.




I ran a 1E adventure where a player got grouchy with me because his fighter took damage from an encounter outside of a castle/dungeon before he even entered.  He knew the upcoming fight with the BBEGs would be tough and was unhappy that he (and the party) would be fighting the BBEGs without their full hps and spells.  Leaving though, would have meant losing the element of surprise.  If the "15 minute adventure day" problem didn't exist in 1E then AFAICT it didn't exist in any edition - which may be your point but IMO you should be more direct in that case.

It reminds me of the advice in the 1E PHB - "if the party becomes lost, the objctive must immediately be changed ot discovery of a way out".  Why? - because AFAICT this is wilderness survival 101 - if your complete capabilities have been hampered by some incident, then you are taking an unecessary risk by continuing on at anything less than full capabilities.  *Knowing where you are* is a capability.  Actually the paragraph here gives more conventional definitions of low capability: wounds, dead members, etc.  What is left to interpret is what is meant by "seriously weakened".  It was the opinion of the people who proposed the "15 minute adventure problem" theory that any significant encounter would, almost by definition, cause "significant weakening" of the party and therefore PCs (Cimmerian or not) could be reasonably expected to follow Gygax's advice.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 18, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> So you can't just transfer over the description you would use to a 3E character taking 5 damage to a 4E character taking 5 damage.




I very much doubt that there is anyone who doesn't understand that, so if that is what you are trying to demonstrate, then you probably are wasting your time.  

However, the reason that you cannot just transfer the description is _*because they are not using the same vagueness*_.  They are using different vaguenesses, and 4e is far more vague than 1e.

If understanding is what you are really trying to gain from this, then "good faith" requires recognizing existing differences.


RC


----------



## gizmo33 (Jan 18, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> I very much doubt that there is anyone who doesn't understand that, so if that is what you are trying to demonstrate, then you probably are wasting your time.




Maybe.  But there have been numerous statements on this thread where people have tried to point to some sort of "contradiction" that arises when a 4E DM tries to describe physical injury to a character.  Now if that DM takes into account that the 4E PC has 40 hitpoints, and 8 healing surges, and that he gets those healing surges back in a day, then he can use that information to develop a reasonable description of injury.  In the same way that a 1E DM, knowing that a PC has 4 hitpoints, and heals 1 hitpoint per day, would develop a reasonable description of injury in that case.  

Certain kinds of injury (like a severed arm) would be beyond plausibility in either system.  (Same...yet different...)  Other kinds of injury (eg. a wound taking 4 days to heal) might be more plausible in one system than the other if you ignore *any other* approximation of injury (ie. no strength loss, movement rate loss, etc.).  But what's the point of describing a 8 hp character with 4 hp left as having a leg injury since his movement rate is the same?  

Now obviously there's something about this situation that is *not* understood in the same way by all persons on this thread.  AFAICT there were a lot of people applying some sort of implicit description of injury to their 4E examples, and then coming up with some contradiction.  I thought it was pretty obvious, from the examples, that the person wasn't changing their injury description strategy (as the 5 hp vs. 100 hp character example indicates) to account for the 4E rules/hp recovery rates.

And ultimately, saying 4E is more vague than 1E would be to suggest somehow that 1E is anything but vague.  There are very few guidelines, at all, for when to assign physical injury.  The sting of a scorpion can be fatal regardless of the hp total of the character.  Lycanthropy is contracted at 50% hp, IIRC.  A vampire "hits" me on every hit - I would presume from the level loss.  The only time I seem to "bleed" in any substantial way is when I'm hit with a sword of wounding.  When I do a summary of all of this in 1E, it really makes no more sense to me than 4E does - it's just that the numbers and strategies have swapped around.  My feeling is that largely what has happened here is that long-time earlier edition DMs *think* they have a more concrete injury system than 4E because it's largely untested as a result of 1E healing magic.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2009)

gizmo33 said:


> Maybe.  But there have been numerous statements on this thread where people have tried to point to some sort of "contradiction" that arises when a 4E DM tries to describe physical injury to a character.




Sure, and this was all parsed out in the previous thread on SW.  There are some ways in which the contradiction can be avoided, but those methods have their own drawbacks.  IMHO, those drawbacks are just as severe.

Again, this has been all parsed out pretty thoroughly.



> Now if that DM takes into account that the 4E PC has 40 hitpoints, and 8 healing surges, and that he gets those healing surges back in a day, then he can use that information to develop a reasonable description of injury.  In the same way that a 1E DM, knowing that a PC has 4 hitpoints, and heals 1 hitpoint per day, would develop a reasonable description of injury in that case.




This is true only in those cases where the means of healing is considered unimportant.  For example, one parsed option is that PCs really are like Wolverine and simply regenerate the damage taken.  So, it doesn't matter that the damage is from an axe wound, healed by a guy yelling "C'mon ya pansy!  Get up and fight!"

It is also true, for example, in the parsed option that hp damage doesn't actually track to injury at all.  Thus, your shoulder is still seperated, but a guy yelling "C'mon ya pansy!  Get up and fight!" heals your hit points.  The wound -- no matter what it is, no matter how severe -- simply has no game effect.

Another example where it was true is in the case that _*no*_ hit point loss actually tracks to any kind of injury because the PCs simply never get injured unless they are killed.

Each of these has its own problems, but in none of these cases can damage be narrated the same way that it can in 3e or earlier editions, with anything approaching the same consistancy.  When the designer's advice is, in effect, "know how it will be healed to know how to describe it", I would say that the case is fairly well closed here.



> Certain kinds of injury (like a severed arm) would be beyond plausibility in either system.  (Same...yet different...)




1e specifically allowed for a severed arm (_Sword of Sharpness_).  It didn't tell the DM what the effects of that would be, specifically, however.  



> Other kinds of injury (eg. a wound taking 4 days to heal) might be more plausible in one system than the other if you ignore *any other* approximation of injury (ie. no strength loss, movement rate loss, etc.).  But what's the point of describing a 8 hp character with 4 hp left as having a leg injury since his movement rate is the same?




I don't know about you, but when I was playing 1e, description was king.  If the DM said your injury reduced your movement rate, your injury reduced your movement rate.  He was allowed -- nay, encouraged -- to determine the effects situationally.

But even were this not the case, losing 4 hit points that remain lost for days is far more of a game effect than popping up after a short nap to have everything recovered.



> Now obviously there's something about this situation that is *not* understood in the same way by all persons on this thread.  AFAICT there were a lot of people applying some sort of implicit description of injury to their 4E examples, and then coming up with some contradiction.  I thought it was pretty obvious, from the examples, that the person wasn't changing their injury description strategy (as the 5 hp vs. 100 hp character example indicates) to account for the 4E rules/hp recovery rates.




No, as parsed out to death in the previous thread, you can adjust all you want without eliminating the problem.  If you attempt to use the "All Previous Editions" method in 4e, contradictions will occur.



> And ultimately, saying 4E is more vague than 1E would be to suggest somehow that 1E is anything but vague.




No.  On a scale of 1 to 10, where 10 is more of a given colour, one shade of colour might be "5" on the red scale, and another "10".  Saying that the sample which is 10 on the scale is more red does not in any way, shape, or form imply that the other is "anything but red".



> There are very few guidelines, at all, for when to assign physical injury.  The sting of a scorpion can be fatal regardless of the hp total of the character.  Lycanthropy is contracted at 50% hp, IIRC.  A vampire "hits" me on every hit - I would presume from the level loss.  The only time I seem to "bleed" in any substantial way is when I'm hit with a sword of wounding.




The sting of a scorpion can be fatal regardless of the hp total of the character?  Who woulda thunk it?  I'd have imagined that an instrument delivering poison had to leave at least a 12-inch diameter hole to be effective......

Lycanthropy is contracted at 50% hp, IIRC?  Yes, I can see how that would prevent you from describing injuries.

A vampire "hits" you on every hit?  Well, imagine that!  It almost seems as though the word "hit" means "hit".  Huh.  I can see why you think this makes no sense.

The only time you seem to "bleed" in any substantial way is when I'm hit with a sword of wounding?  I think you should go back and read the 1e rules.  Every combat in 1e assumes that 10 minutes are spent at a minimum, due to the need to bandage wounds.  Not only that, but if you drop to 0, you continue to decline until attended to.



> When I do a summary of all of this in 1E, it really makes no more sense to me than 4E does




My sympathies.  

Well, my sympathies if that is really the case.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2009)

I love irony.  I just happen to be reading ERB's A Princess of Mars for the first time right now.  Got an Ipod Touch for Christmas and downloaded a free version.  Been reading it in my spare time.  Came across a section that I thought was very fitting for this discussion.  Just to set the scene a bit, John Carter is battling a green Martian.



			
				A Princess of Mars said:
			
		

> We rushed each other furiously time after time, 'til suddenly, feeling the sharp point of his sword at my breast in a thrust I could neither parry nor escape, I threw myself upon him with outstretched sword and with all the weight of my body, determined that I would not die alone if I could prevent it.  I felt the steel tear into my chest, all went black before me, my head whirled in dizziness, and I felt my knees giving beneath me.




That ends chapter 14 A Duel to the Death.  Sounds like a DM describing a death blow to me.  Then we have the start of chapter 15:



			
				A Princess of Mars said:
			
		

> When conciousness returned, and as I soon learned, I was down, but a moment.  I sprang quickly to my feat searching for my sword, and ther I found it, buried to the hilt in the green breast of Zad, who lay stone dead upon the ochre moss of the ancient sea bottom.  As I regained my full senses I found his weapon piercing my left breast, but only throug hthe flesh and muscles which cover my ribs, entering near the center of my chest and coming out below the shoulder.  As I had lunged, I had turned so that his sword merely passed beneath the muscles, inflicting a painful, but not dangerous wound.  Removing the blade from my body I also regained my own, and turning my back upon his ugly carcass, I moved, sick, sore and disgusted toward the chariots which bore my retinue and my belongings.




Well, there you have it folks.  Schroedinger's wounding in action.  The DM describes the baddie running our hero through the chest, the sword exploding out his back, and it then gets turned into a flesh wound.  Such a minor wound that our hero can pull the sword out HIMSELF and then walk away unaided.  Sure, he's sore, but, that's about it.

But wait, it gets better.  That was the Second Wind mechanic described rather well IMO.  Now how about burning some Healing Surges?



			
				A Princess of Mars said:
			
		

> Bleeding and weak I reached my women, who, accustomed to such happenings, dressed my wounds, applying the wonderful healing and remedial agents which make only the most instantaneous of death blows fatal.  ... They soon had me patched up so that except for weakness from loss of blood and a little soreness around the wound, I suffered no great distress...




So, he walks over to the healer, they patch him up and he's good to go.  No magic.  No incantations.  Although, perhaps a bit of alchemy.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman (Jan 19, 2009)

Jeff Wilder said:


> Personally speaking, I _like_ healing surges.  My beef with 4E is that there's no way to be actually injured ... at least beyond six hours.  There's simply no denying that changing "three days" -- the average time for natural healing in 3E -- to "six hours" -- the maximum time for healing in 4E is a significant change.




HP loss does not always equal physical damage.

Therefore, hp recover does not equal physical recovery.

For example - in a fight, you are frightened half to death by a dragon & it claws you, causing you to lose hp. In 4e, after 6 hours rest you are back at full hp. You can, however, still narrate the scars on your side & the damage to your armour if you so wish. It just won't have a mechanical effect.

So I'm not sure what you mean when you say there is no way to be actually injured.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 19, 2009)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> HP loss does not always equal physical damage.
> 
> Therefore, hp recover does not equal physical recovery.
> 
> ...




I can't speak for Jeff, but what I interpret the "no injury" comment
to mean is that no matter how much pounding, slicing, crushing, or exhausting
punishment a PC takes, its nothing that a 6 hour nap won't fix. 
For me, this is one element that turns 4E from a swords & sorcery
fantasy game into a supers fantasy game. PC's effectively only have
"stun points". Too much stun damage at once can still kill but anything 
less than obliteration is shrugged off like a mild headache. 

It really doesn't matter how you choose to describe the effects. The effects of damage don't have to be descibed like wounds at all.
You can say that a PC who is down to 1 hp after a fight is very winded and bruised, but after 5 minutes of catching his breath, he is ok to fight again.
While this mechanic is functional you end up with fluff that more closely resembles a combat with the X men than a group of fantasy adventurers.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 19, 2009)

Mathew_Freeman said:


> HP loss does not always equal physical damage.
> 
> Therefore, hp recover does not equal physical recovery.
> 
> ...




I think he means that there is no reduction, mechanically, in a characters effectiveness in any way.  I mean I can say a character is the "best swordsmen alive" but that don't make it so.

Also  hp's not *always* meaning physically injury is a big difference from hp's never being physical injury.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> 1e specifically allowed for a severed arm (_Sword of Sharpness_). It didn't tell the DM what the effects of that would be, specifically, however.




Precisely. 1E has to end-run around the HP system to get specific wounds, too. If 4E added a _sword of sharpness_, it would also end-run around HP. HP are generally bad at representing specific injuries.



Raven Crowking said:


> I don't know about you, but when I was playing 1e, description was king. If the DM said your injury reduced your movement rate, your injury reduced your movement rate. He was allowed -- nay, encouraged -- to determine the effects situationally.




Don't ignore the fact that the DM can still do this. Such effects are (still) contingent on DM discretion rather than built-in to the HP system.



Raven Crowking said:


> But even were this not the case, losing 4 hit points that remain lost for days is far more of a game effect than popping up after a short nap to have everything recovered.




Losing 4 HP is supposed to be a lesser wound for the higher-level character. But it still takes the same 4 days to recover, leading to inconsistency in the other direction.

In 3E, a character heals 1 hp per day per level, which means that a wizard recovers from 'badly hurt' to 'fit as a fiddle' faster than a fighter of similar level whose wounds are supposedly less severe (i.e., a smaller proportion of his total hit points). Again, the inconsistency remains.

In 4E, everyone recovers from injuries at the same rate, with a system in place that fairly easily scales to whatever recovery rate you actually want. The default rate is really fast, though.



Raven Crowking said:


> No, as parsed out to death in the previous thread, you can adjust all you want without eliminating the problem. If you attempt to use the "All Previous Editions" method in 4e, contradictions will occur.




The "all previous editions method" is "use healing magic to cover for the inconsistencies in the system, or else ignore them". Both options still work fine in 4E.


----------



## Imaro (Jan 19, 2009)

Hussar said:


> I love irony.  I just happen to be reading ERB's A Princess of Mars for the first time right now.  Got an Ipod Touch for Christmas and downloaded a free version.  Been reading it in my spare time.  Came across a section that I thought was very fitting for this discussion.  Just to set the scene a bit, John Carter is battling a green Martian.
> 
> 
> 
> That ends chapter 14 A Duel to the Death.  Sounds like a DM describing a death blow to me.  Then we have the start of chapter 15:




Ok, I can see that...




Hussar said:


> Well, there you have it folks.  Schroedinger's wounding in action.  The DM describes the baddie running our hero through the chest, the sword exploding out his back, and it then gets turned into a flesh wound.  Such a minor wound that our hero can pull the sword out HIMSELF and then walk away unaided.  Sure, he's sore, but, that's about it.




And you're telling me you wouldn't have any problems where this happens fight, after fight, after fight?  Where the protagonist never suffers any type of wound beyond something he can't shake off.  Maybe it's cool the first time, but if this is how all fights have to be narrated it gets real absurd real quick.

And ultimately I guess that's my problem, the game rules can be abstract enough to get out of my way (basically not creating anything to contradict my story) and let me tell the story I want too... but these rules are abstract and right smack dab in the middle of the road, directing the type of narration I will present, and for me that's just way to far on the gamist spectrum.  IMO, my simulation/narration should never be jumping through hoops to accommodate rules...



Hussar said:


> But wait, it gets better.  That was the Second Wind mechanic described rather well IMO.  Now how about burning some Healing Surges?
> 
> 
> 
> So, he walks over to the healer, they patch him up and he's good to go.  No magic.  No incantations.  Although, perhaps a bit of alchemy.




Eh, this is really stretching it... exotic, alien poultice might as well be magic.  It sure ain't him going and sitting in a corner and miraculously knitting all his wounds on his own.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> Don't ignore the fact that the DM can still do this. Such effects are (still) contingent on DM discretion rather than built-in to the HP system.




Absolutely.  But TSR-D&D is far more "DM over rules" than "rules over DM".  It is a point that is driven home in TSR-D&D repeatedly.  Some might say, to the point of great redundancy.

4e is far more (IMHO) "DM over rules" than 3e, and that is a step in the right direction.  Again, IMHO.



> Losing 4 HP is supposed to be a lesser wound for the higher-level character. But it still takes the same 4 days to recover, leading to inconsistency in the other direction.




Not really, because the higher-level character, even with that 4 hp damage, is still in much, much better shape than a lower-level character at full hp.  But, even so, please bear in mind that I am saying here that there is a _*difference*_ between the levels of vagueness in the approaches, and that said difference can be discussed meaningfully.  I am not saying that all subsystems of pre-4e D&D were perfect.  Falling damage, for example, is something that I agree can cause some real problems with verismilitude.

But, as described at length in the SW thread, the inconsistency about healing is a misreading of the system, that assumes "4 hp" means the same thing every time it is applied.



> In 4E, everyone recovers from injuries at the same rate, with a system in place that fairly easily scales to whatever recovery rate you actually want. The default rate is really fast, though.




If you have no problem with the Wolverine Approach ("That's just what humans are like on this world") then you are unlikely to have a problem with this paradigm!  



Imaro said:


> Eh, this is really stretching it... exotic, alien poultice might as well be magic.  It sure ain't him going and sitting in a corner and miraculously knitting all his wounds on his own.




Exactly.


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jan 19, 2009)

> For me, this is one element that turns 4E from a swords & sorcery
> fantasy game into a supers fantasy game.




What sword and sorcery genre novels have you been reading where the protagonist requires extended bed rest after being injured?  Can you give three examples?  Sword and sorcery heroes are almost never incapacitated, other than perhaps being knocked out and captured, and certainly NEVER receive any wounds of lasting effect.



> And you're telling me you wouldn't have any problems where this happens fight, after fight, after fight? Where the protagonist never suffers any type of wound beyond something he can't shake off. Maybe it's cool the first time, but if this is how all fights have to be narrated it gets real absurd real quick.




Read A Princess of Mars.  It happens pretty much fight after fight.  Any time John Carter gets wounded, he gets back up, shakes it off and when the actions over, gets a band-aid from a green martian.  Sure, you can call it magic if you want to.  That's up to you.  He does describe being expertly bandaged more than a few times.

But, that's my point.  People keep making claims that 4e hit point mechanics are incredibly bizarre, to the point of non-sensical.  Yet, you can point to example after example after example where these mechanics fit pretty darn well with genre fiction.  Whether it be action movies, novels, short stories, comic books, what have you.  There is a list as long as my arm for examples which these mechanics model pretty well.

Yet, that's apparently not good enough.  The fact that you can point to literally hundreds of examples dating back almost a century in the genre of second wind and healing surge style naratives isn't apparently a good enough pedegree for these mechanics.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Not really, because the higher-level character, even with that 4 hp damage, is still in much, much better shape than a lower-level character at full hp. But, even so, please bear in mind that I am saying here that there is a _*difference*_ between the levels of vagueness in the approaches, and that said difference can be discussed meaningfully. I am not saying that all subsystems of pre-4e D&D were perfect. Falling damage, for example, is something that I agree can cause some real problems with verismilitude.
> 
> But, as described at length in the SW thread, the inconsistency about healing is a misreading of the system, that assumes "4 hp" means the same thing every time it is applied.




The thing is that when you're non-magically recovering from that 4 HP loss, it _does_ mean the same thing - 4 days of rest. But when you're describing the damage as it occurs, it _doesn't_ mean the same thing.

In 4E, when the healing doesn't line up with the injury, you call it out for Shroedinger's Wounding. In 1E, you just shrug it off. I don't blame you for doing it - in 1E, you're very likely to get a cleric to wave the magic (it's okay that the magic is also inconsistent, because it's magic) stick over the issue. But it's really the same problem.



Raven Crowking said:


> If you have no problem with the Wolverine Approach ("That's just what humans are like on this world") then you are unlikely to have a problem with this paradigm!




Or if you're willing to mod the game.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 19, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What sword and sorcery genre novels have you been reading where the protagonist requires extended bed rest after being injured? Can you give three examples? Sword and sorcery heroes are almost never incapacitated, other than perhaps being knocked out and captured, and certainly NEVER receive any wounds of lasting effect.



Frodo Baggins perhaps? He needed quite a bit of recovery time
for his wound, which also never "fully" healed. 

His uncle Bilbo was laid out by a nasty cold in The Hobbit.

The problem isn't that there are situations where the hero can shrug
off the effects of injury and keep going, you are correct that this happens
quite a bit in the fantasy genre.
A situation where every little scrape incapacitated  a PC for days wouldn't
be very desirable either. A system that supports a bit of both is a happy
medium. In some older editions all healing was sometimes a bit too slow
for abstact hp. In 4E its the opposite, all healing is just a bit too fast. 

The mechanics for older edition healing treated hp loss like physical wounds.
4E mechanics treat all hp loss like stun damage. Something between the two would be great.


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Frodo Baggins perhaps? He needed quite a bit of recovery time
> for his wound, which also never "fully" healed.
> 
> His uncle Bilbo was laid out by a nasty cold in The Hobbit.



In D&D terms, these have the character of diseases rather than hp loss. In 4E, for instance, you'd probably use the disease track to resolve these. 6 hours rest wouldn't be enough to recover from them.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Frodo Baggins perhaps? He needed quite a bit of recovery time
> for his wound, which also never "fully" healed.
> 
> His uncle Bilbo was laid out by a nasty cold in The Hobbit.
> ...




HP loss pretty much _is _"stun" damage unless you tack on other game effects besides having fewer HP. This is true even when it takes a long time to recover from that loss, though it does become easier to pretend otherwise.

IMO, meaningful injuries need another system to track them entirely, if you're going to use them. Personally, I'm okay with the idea that any serious wound is pretty much going to kill the character, if not immediately, then soon enough that we can pretend it's immediate.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Frodo Baggins perhaps? He needed quite a bit of recovery time
> for his wound, which also never "fully" healed.
> 
> His uncle Bilbo was laid out by a nasty cold in The Hobbit.




Certainly fantasy, but I am not certain that they are "sword & sorcery".

OTOH, most of REH's work was in the "short story" genre.  I could, quite easily, pick up any of my REH collections and cull three stories with extended rest.

RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> The thing is that when you're non-magically recovering from that 4 HP loss, it _does_ mean the same thing - 4 days of rest. But when you're describing the damage as it occurs, it _doesn't_ mean the same thing.




Again, I disagree.  It takes the same amount of time, but it doesn't mean the same thing.  A 80 hp fighter with 4 hp missing might not even appear injured to the casual observer.  That 4 hp represents far less than a single hp of the 8 hp fighter.  When the 8 hp fighter is at full hp, he might still have the same injuries as the 80 hp fighter with 4 hp missing.  It is just that, in his case, the damage is below the "1 hp threshold".

This is not SW problem of 4e, although it is a mild form of the "disjoin hit points from injury" method of dealing with the 4e paradigm.  The problem with adopting this to 4e (for those to whom it presents a problem) is the extreme degree to which it must be done.  In 1e, one merely has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to an absolute scale.  In 4e, one has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to _*anything*_ within the framework of the gameworld.

That is, IMHO at least, a major difference.

Again, this was all parsed out on the SW thread. 



> Or if you're willing to mod the game.




On this we agree, and the SW thread included some excellent and elegant mods to the game that do away with this problem entirely.....or at least as entirely as in any other edition.  


RC


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Again, I disagree. It takes the same amount of time, but it doesn't mean the same thing. A 80 hp fighter with 4 hp missing might not even appear injured to the casual observer. That 4 hp represents far less than a single hp of the 8 hp fighter. When the 8 hp fighter is at full hp, he might still have the same injuries as the 80 hp fighter with 4 hp missing. It is just that, in his case, the damage is below the "1 hp threshold".
> 
> This is not SW problem of 4e, although it is a mild form of the "disjoin hit points from injury" method of dealing with the 4e paradigm. The problem with adopting this to 4e (for those to whom it presents a problem) is the extreme degree to which it must be done. In 1e, one merely has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to an absolute scale. In 4e, one has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to _*anything*_ within the framework of the gameworld.
> 
> That is, IMHO at least, a major difference.




These two things do not mesh. Either the 4 hp in your first paragraph that are unnoticed don't track to *anything* within the framework of your world, or the 1 HP in your second paragraph can track to the same thing those 4 hp do, and 4E simply lets him recover from that tiny wound more quickly (discounting for the moment the possibility that he is Ash ).


----------



## Roman (Jan 19, 2009)

Kzach said:


> I'm really hoping that the podcast goes some way towards changing people's mindset in regards to the hit point mechanic. I'm so tired of groups that think literally when it comes to hit points and can't seem to grasp the abstract nature of the mechanic.




It could not change my mind with respect to the hit point mechanics in 4E, because I understood them already. It is not that I don't understand them, it is that I dislike them. I would have liked to see the game making hit points a more concrete representation of damage in the move from 3.X edition to 4E, but instead they made them even more abstract, which is the exact opposite of what my desire would have been for the game.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> These two things do not mesh. Either the 4 hp in your first paragraph that are unnoticed don't track to *anything* within the framework of your world, or the 1 HP in your second paragraph can track to the same thing those 4 hp do





There is nothing illogical about using a scale of measurement that is non-absolute.  Indeed, there is a good argument that all absolue measures are derived from non-absolute measurement.  From a scientific viewpoint, non-absolute measurements are all we have to measure subjective criteria, such as emotions experienced due to stimulation of the brain or as drug side-effects.

An absolute model of hit points could, conceivable, be derived from the non-absolute model of hit points in pre-4e D&D, but the amount of benefit one would gain from doing so would be far, far less than desireable in light of the amount of work required.

A non-absolute scale of measurement doesn't mean that the thing being measured does not have absolute values.  As a result, your argument doesn't wash.  No violation of logic occurs in what you quoted.


RC


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> There is nothing illogical about using a scale of measurement that is non-absolute.




Um, precisely?



Raven Crowking said:


> Indeed, there is a good argument that all absolue measures are derived from non-absolute measurement. From a scientific viewpoint, non-absolute measurements are all we have to measure subjective criteria, such as emotions experienced due to stimulation of the brain or as drug side-effects.
> 
> An absolute model of hit points could, conceivable, be derived from the non-absolute model of hit points in pre-4e D&D, but the amount of benefit one would gain from doing so would be far, far less than desireable in light of the amount of work required.
> 
> A non-absolute scale of measurement doesn't mean that the thing being measured does not have absolute values. As a result, your argument doesn't wash. No violation of logic occurs in what you quoted.




So... where's the demonstration that 4E hit points can't track to anything again? I think I missed it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> So... where's the demonstration that 4E hit points can't track to anything again? I think I missed it.




Go to the SW thread, where (as previously mentioned) this has been parsed out fairly completely.  IMHO, of course.

And, again to be clear, my point is that one cannot discuss a difference intelligently without first acknowledging that there is one.  This sort of "There is no difference when it suits me, but you cannot talk about 4e like 1e because there is a difference when it suits me" stuff serves only to shut down intelligent conversation.  IMHO.  YMMV.



RC


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> And, again to be clear, my point is that one cannot discuss a difference intelligently without first acknowledging that there is one.  This sort of "There is no difference when it suits me, but you cannot talk about 4e like 1e because there is a difference when it suits me" stuff serves only to shut down intelligent conversation.  IMHO.  YMMV.



Isn't Lacyon's point that there is no real difference?

As for the other thread, as I recall you failed to convince a significant proportion of the posters in that thread.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> Go to the SW thread, where (as previously mentioned) this has been parsed out fairly completely. IMHO, of course.




I was in that thread for a while. I don't recall anyone ever hashing out "In 4e, one has to accept that 1 hp doesn't track to _*anything*_ within the framework of the gameworld," to any degree of completeness.

"I don't like the ways in which 4E hit points best track within the framework of the gameworld, from god-blooded-regenerators to only-minor-damage-occurs-until-death" has been hashed-out to death, sure.

Disliking something doesn't make it impossible.



Raven Crowking said:


> And, again to be clear, my point is that one cannot discuss a difference intelligently without first acknowledging that there is one. This sort of "There is no difference when it suits me, but you cannot talk about 4e like 1e because there is a difference when it suits me" stuff serves only to shut down intelligent conversation. IMHO. YMMV.




Identifying the difference, such as it is, is worthwhile. The insistence that one _cannot_ do what one clearly _can_ do obfuscates the issue.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Jan 19, 2009)

Its pretty funny considering the subject matter, but this has become a thread of attrition.


----------



## Mallus (Jan 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Its pretty funny considering the subject matter, but this has become a thread of attrition.



The characters in this thread have a lot of Talking Surges!


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Its pretty funny considering the subject matter, but this has become a thread of attrition.




Meh.  Consider me attritted.

If I (and others) failed to convince a significant proportion of the posters in the SW thread, well, there are still folks who believe that the world is flat, or that the moon landing didn't happen.  Someone refusing to accept an argument is no evidence that the argument is flawed.  Indeed, my parsing out the options in the SW thread was _*awesome*_.

It was so awesome that, from the podcast, I get the pretty strong impression that WotC agrees with my parsing, even if some folks here do not.

The best things about the SW thread were (1) that *firesnakeries* managed to add an option that I had missed in my initial parsing, and (2) that enough people understood well enough to offer some very helpful mods to the system.  And that was even more _*awesome*_ than the parsing of the RAW options.  IMHO, at least.

Anyway, if there are folks here who still want to argue what you (clearly) can and cannot do in the 4e system, I wish you the best of luck with your positions.  As I said upthread, I have no interest in Cut & Pasting the arguments from that thread to this.  It has been done to death.

From where I'm sitting, it seems like discussing the health merits of tobacco with smoking lobbyists.  


RC


----------



## Harlekin (Jan 19, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> The mechanics for older edition healing treated hp loss like physical wounds.
> 4E mechanics treat all hp loss like stun damage. Something between the two would be great.




This. Where older editions of D&D created a host of silly issues when healing all but the last 1-10 hp, 4th edition works fine in that range but creates a host of silly issues when healing the last 1-10 hp. The systems are equally abstract, but the abstraction is visible at different ends of the spectrum.


----------



## Lacyon (Jan 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> enough people understood well enough to offer some very helpful mods to the system. And that was even more _*awesome*_ than the parsing of the RAW options. IMHO, at least.




Well, we can agree to that at least


----------



## Fifth Element (Jan 19, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> If I (and others) failed to convince a significant proportion of the posters in the SW thread, well, there are still folks who believe that the world is flat, or that the moon landing didn't happen.



Surely you see what a ridiculous argument that is. It implies "anyone who disagrees with me is just denying objective reality." That comes off as pretty arrogant, though I invite you to rephrase if that wasn't the intent. There is no objective reality here, just interpretations of imaginary things. Your assertion is that a certain imaginary thing can only be interpreted in one way. Others disagree, and provide examples as to why your 'only way' argument is not correct.



Raven Crowking said:


> Someone refusing to accept an argument is no evidence that the argument is flawed.



No, but fortunately there were many specific points about how your argument is flawed in the other thread.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 19, 2009)

Lacyon said:


> Well, we can agree to that at least




That's true.  

RC


----------



## roguerouge (Jan 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> What sword and sorcery genre novels have you been reading where the protagonist requires extended bed rest after being injured?  Can you give three examples?  Sword and sorcery heroes are almost never incapacitated, other than perhaps being knocked out and captured, and certainly NEVER receive any wounds of lasting effect.




Actually, a few years ago I read a short story by Robert E Howard which featured a barbarian king. I can't remember the title, but it was a short story. He fought this enormous dragon-python with a very poisonous bite. After defeating it, he was nursed back to health over what read like several months, but could have been several weeks. It could have been Cormac, Kull, or Bran Mak Morn. 

And, of course, Frodo takes quite a while to recover from his Black Rider wound, doesn't he? Left increasingly incapacitated from a stabbing, and even when cured, there's lingering effects over a long period of time,

Not sure if these next two count as sword and sorcery, but John Constantine's long bout with lung cancer and various ass-kickings might also fit your criterion. As might Barbara Gordon's paralysis at the hands of the Joker.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2009)

ExploderWizard said:


> Frodo Baggins perhaps? He needed quite a bit of recovery time
> for his wound, which also never "fully" healed.
> 
> His uncle Bilbo was laid out by a nasty cold in The Hobbit.
> ...




Oh, you said Sword and Sorcery fiction.  Sorry, your genre use is wrong.  

OTOH, Frodo is attacked by a cave troll, slammed against a wall to the point where everyone thinks that he is dead.  Everyone is crying and wailing.  They roll Frodo over, he spends his healing surges and poof, his "mithril armor saved him".

Ret conned damage from the king of fantasy himself.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2009)

People have pointed to REH's work.  And, yes, occassionally there is an extended rest in there.  Usually Conan being tended by the love interest.  If there is no plot reason for the extended rest, it never happens.  Conan shakes off the wound and off he goes.

It's funny, you can name any number of genre examples of characters using Healing surges, yet, for some reason, they aren't considered at all.  Exploder quotes from The Lord of the Rings yet ignores Frodo's mithril armor.  Constantine is mentioned, yet, the fact that his lung cancer never actually stops him from doing anything, isn't.

Look, I think this is straying somewhat off topic, so, let's have it out shall we?  We'll start naming examples from genre or popular fiction where you have extended rests and healing surges/second winds and we'll see who runs out first.

Who's game?


----------



## Scribble (Jan 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> People have pointed to REH's work.  And, yes, occassionally there is an extended rest in there.  Usually Conan being tended by the love interest.  If there is no plot reason for the extended rest, it never happens.  Conan shakes off the wound and off he goes.
> 
> It's funny, you can name any number of genre examples of characters using Healing surges, yet, for some reason, they aren't considered at all.  Exploder quotes from The Lord of the Rings yet ignores Frodo's mithril armor.  Constantine is mentioned, yet, the fact that his lung cancer never actually stops him from doing anything, isn't.
> 
> ...




See for me, because I try not to associate HP "damage" with physical wounds, when I watch movies and associate it with a game, I see them taking HP damage left and right, even when they're not actually getting hit.

Frodo and the cave troll I see as a death save. Everyone is looking at Frodo hoping he rolls that DC 20. 

Frodo and the stab... now that I see as something special. Frodo's DM made a special attack that uses the disease track, and then has some sort of lasting curse effect. 

Man Frodo's DM was a jerk.


----------



## Ahglock (Jan 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> People have pointed to REH's work.  And, yes, occassionally there is an extended rest in there.  Usually Conan being tended by the love interest.  If there is no plot reason for the extended rest, it never happens.  Conan shakes off the wound and off he goes.
> 
> It's funny, you can name any number of genre examples of characters using Healing surges, yet, for some reason, they aren't considered at all.  Exploder quotes from The Lord of the Rings yet ignores Frodo's mithril armor.  Constantine is mentioned, yet, the fact that his lung cancer never actually stops him from doing anything, isn't.
> 
> ...




I can't think of many situations where the damage is described as bad and a short rest later they are fine and dandy.  Most attacks usually are near misses or scratches.  While books where people get run through and seem fine moments later exist they are not common in my experience.  Now I'm  a fan of Manga like Bleach, one piece, and Naruto, and it happens almost every combat panel there.  So for many looking to books as an example the 4e healing system does not jive with them.  

Also books and movies are not something everyone wants to emulate.  People frequently don't want the plot immunity that main characters in novels and movies usually have.  They don't want to die, but they don't want to be immune to it.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 20, 2009)

roguerouge said:


> Actually, a few years ago I read a short story by Robert E Howard which featured a barbarian king. I can't remember the title, but it was a short story. He fought this enormous dragon-python with a very poisonous bite. After defeating it, he was nursed back to health over what read like several months, but could have been several weeks. It could have been Cormac, Kull, or Bran Mak Morn.





Niall, I believe.  

Great story.


RC


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 20, 2009)

Fifth Element said:


> No, but fortunately there were many specific points about how your argument is flawed in the other thread.




Whatever helps you sleep at night, mang.  

Me, I'm starting to think that "Apples & Bananas:  The Same Thing!" might be a great thread here.  They both have the same level of fruitness, after all, so there can't be any major difference.  And, if you claim that there is, I can say that you are arrogant and claiming that my position denies objective reality.  


RC


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2009)

Ahglock said:


> I can't think of many situations where the damage is described as bad and a short rest later they are fine and dandy.  Most attacks usually are near misses or scratches.  While books where people get run through and seem fine moments later exist they are not common in my experience.  Now I'm  a fan of Manga like Bleach, one piece, and Naruto, and it happens almost every combat panel there.  So for many looking to books as an example the 4e healing system does not jive with them.
> 
> Also books and movies are not something everyone wants to emulate.  People frequently don't want the plot immunity that main characters in novels and movies usually have.  They don't want to die, but they don't want to be immune to it.




Well, don't tell me, show me.  I started the thread so, let's compare.

But, I'm specifically answering the points brought up by Exploder Wizard that somehow 4e's healing system doesn't fit with the genre.  That it turns the game into "Fantasy Supers".  I've pointed out several examples from genre where 4e's healing system would fit the text pretty darn well.  So, I'd say that it is pretty well in keeping with the genre that D&D is trying to be.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 20, 2009)

When looking at comparisons, it must be remembered that 3.x has subdual/non-lethal damage as well as normal damage. So movie/book scenes where the hero is beaten up, but recieves no open wounds can be modeled in 3.x using subdual damage.


----------



## Hussar (Jan 20, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> When looking at comparisons, it must be remembered that 3.x has subdual/non-lethal damage as well as normal damage. So movie/book scenes where the hero is beaten up, but recieves no open wounds can be modeled in 3.x using subdual damage.




Would you claim that the cave troll in Lord of the Rings was trying to subdue Frodo?


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jan 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Would you claim that the cave troll in Lord of the Rings was trying to subdue Frodo?




No, I would argue that he was wearing mithral armor that protected him. The armor acted as damage reduction and Frodo was left with a bruise. The way Tolken wrote it it comes off in my mind as much like a bulletproof vest stopping a bullet. D&D, whether 3rd or 4th, does not model this type of damage/protection at all.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 20, 2009)

Brown Jenkin said:


> When looking at comparisons, it must be remembered that 3.x has subdual/non-lethal damage as well as normal damage. So movie/book scenes where the hero is beaten up, but recieves no open wounds can be modeled in 3.x using subdual damage.




So do all previous editions, AFAICT.


RC


----------



## billd91 (Jan 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Would you claim that the cave troll in Lord of the Rings was trying to subdue Frodo?




Certainly not, but the spear did enough damage to Frodo to not only temporarily knock him into La-La Land him but also slow him down until someone with healing powers took care of him (external healing resource) after some miles of travel.


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jan 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Well, don't tell me, show me.  I started the thread so, let's compare.
> 
> But, I'm specifically answering the points brought up by Exploder Wizard that somehow 4e's healing system doesn't fit with the genre.  That it turns the game into "Fantasy Supers".  I've pointed out several examples from genre where 4e's healing system would fit the text pretty darn well.  So, I'd say that it is pretty well in keeping with the genre that D&D is trying to be.



I agree and disagree with both of you.

I have not looked back at your examples but for my own example, I would say that the 4E system suits the episodic play of something like the Conan tales. Even being crucified with circling birds is not enough to kill Conan. And in fact, natural healing or assisted non-magical healing is definitely the way in just about all the fantasy novels I have read. Compare this to Clerical healing that dominates previous editions of the game and I think the basis of what you are saying is true.

However, it is the pace of this natural/assisted healing that takes it into "supers" territory. While with the crutch of divine magic, such speed is understandable, I think a similar speed for non-magical healing is a little wacky, or "supers" if you prefer. However, if you slow this natural side down to a more "normal" rate, then you have the disparity in healing of previous editions which is not what they were trying to promote in 4E in gamist terms.

The fact that a character can heal from any injury to tippy top condition within a day puts a strange timespan on the healing process. The logical conclusion is that either:
- You never receive a severe injury in the game unless you die from it (which jives with Mearls's advice to never describe an injury that the warlord can't "heal"), or
- Healing in the default world is at an extremely rapid state compared to "normal". [Or if you will a mix of the two.]
I'm not the biggest fan of this situation being the baseline in terms of the rules. There have been several fixes for this suggested which seem to work though.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------



## Just Another User (Jan 20, 2009)

Hussar said:


> Would you claim that the cave troll in Lord of the Rings was trying to subdue Frodo?




I would claim that the mithril armor converted lethal damage in subdual damage.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Jan 20, 2009)

Herremann the Wise said:


> I have not looked back at your examples but for my own example, I would say that the 4E system suits the episodic play of something like the Conan tales. Even being crucified with circling birds is not enough to kill Conan.




No, but it is enough to require Conan to undergo extensive rest before reaching his peak form.

Indeed, you have the nub of it when you say 



> it is the pace of this natural/assisted healing that takes it into "supers" territory. While with the crutch of divine magic, such speed is understandable, I think a similar speed for non-magical healing is a little wacky, or "supers" if you prefer.






RC


----------



## Herremann the Wise (Jan 20, 2009)

Raven Crowking said:


> No, but it is enough to require Conan to undergo extensive rest before reaching his peak form.



This is why I was thinking more of episodic play rather than sandbox style, the same as what you were saying on that previous thread. If you assume the interludes between each tale to allow for a complete healing, then funnily enough the 4E healing paradigm is more appropriate than previous versions in terms of Conan. Other aspects of the 4E system I would consider not as appropriate though.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise


----------

