# Healing Surges innate Blessed band aids



## qstor (Apr 9, 2008)

People sometimes ask if you don't like 4e..._what _don't you like about it? ie for specific criticisms of 4e

From the front page today WOTC Chris Sims "A healing surge, then, is a resource tapped by other powers, such as second wind (use a healing surge to heal as a standard action)"

As I've said a number of times, I can't think of a single other RPG where a character can innately heal themselves without referencing the healing "action" to Spells, long term rest, charms or potions, innate special abilities like fast healing and class ability D&D monks ability or OD&D mystics ability regeneration not in GURPS Ars Magica, Rifts.

Now suddenly in 4e all by yourself BINGO you heal....

in 3.5 SRD: You cannot give long-term care to yourself.

SRD: In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.

Now as a standard action as another thread said in the title...I was unconscious before now I feel better...For me this is not part of D&D or another other RPG. It's clear purpose is to keep the PC alive. Fine that's what the hit point system is for a generic damage system where an arrow in the eye isn't part of the system...called shots aren't part of D&D...but this "self" healing goes beyond the previous edition rules and other RPG systems. Use a standard action and now I'm ok....every PC now has band aids galore. To me this doesn't have the feel of D&D or any other RPG system.

I _really_ have to see this in action in 4e Modern...wow I took 3 M16 rounds...but I'm ok now! Come on....

WOTC designers want to see house rules on 4e healing surges??? Get rid of them...and bring back druids, gnomes and bards....whoops the book is at the printer....


Mike


----------



## baberg (Apr 9, 2008)

Sometimes you have to sacrifice realism for gameplay.

Also, http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=221226&page=1


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 9, 2008)

4e is defining hit points as your current degree of script immunity, not physical wounds taken. The worst you suffer is action-hero injuries until you are dead. Healing surge triggers, whether from clerical healing words or warlord exhortations, simply represent you getting the gumption to keep going despite your battering.

All editions of D&D have at least nodded at the "physical wounds are only a small part of hit points" view, but 4e appears to be completely jettisoning serious physical injury until you are, in fact, completely dead. As such, I don't think your criticism really applies.


----------



## FadedC (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> I _really_ have to see this in action in 4e Modern...wow I took 3 M16 rounds...but I'm ok now! Come on....
> 
> 
> Mike




Different genres require different sets of rules. Complaining that rules from a heroic fantasy game don't work as well in a completely different game is rather silly.


----------



## PeelSeel2 (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> I _really_ have to see this in action in 4e Modern...wow I took 3 M16 rounds...but I'm ok now! Come on....




I didn't actually get hit by those rounds.  They missed me!!  I was fated not to be taken out by them.  It took some of my kism to avoid damage from them, but I did it.  Later, I got my mojo back after I talked with a priest.  I was pretty shaken until that point, and she set me straight, bolstered my internal fortitude.


----------



## dervish (Apr 9, 2008)

I think a healing surge system would also work in D20 modern, but you would have to be crystal clear on the fact that healing surges and hit points do not represent actual physical injury, but rather points you can use to not die. In many more realistic RPGs, you stand a decent chance of getting killed by a single lucky blow/shot. If you for each such character death instead subtract a point from the character, you have something very similar to the D&D hit point system. Characters simply spend points from their pool to avoid death.

So what I'm trying to say is that the hit point mechanic is the same as always, 4e just added new intresting ways to replenish them.


----------



## Henry (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> As I've said a number of times, I can't think of a single other RPG where a character can innately heal themselves without referencing the healing "action" to Spells, long term rest, charms or potions, innate special abilities like fast healing and class ability D&D monks ability or OD&D mystics ability regeneration not in GURPS Ars Magica, Rifts.




Star Wars d20: vitality points heal by the hour; most characters gain back full vitality within 24 hours' time.

Iron Heroes: PCs have a "reserve pool" that they can pull from; the beginnings of 4th editions healing surges.

Savage Worlds: Characters spending Bennies can shake off the worst effects of certain wounds.

Feng Shui: If I remember correctly, characters start each new scene healthy, whether they're bloodied up or not. 

There are others, but I'm just missing them. The key ingredient in all of them though is their cinematic natures; the more "realistic" a game is, the longer healing seems to take.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 9, 2008)

Its been said already.

HP =/ meatpoints. 

It honestly never has.

It can be argued that previously, MORE of the HP abstraction was allocated to meat-points than is currently the case, which is, IMO, true.

However, I have no particular issues with the way things are handled, once you accept that HP =/ Meaningful physical damage.

Also, you're a community supporter, and have access to Search. Why did you need to create a new thread when there is literally dozens already dealing with this topic?


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> I _really_ have to see this in action in 4e Modern...wow I took 3 M16 rounds...but I'm ok now! Come on....



"In the authors’ ongoing study of violence against law enforcement officers, they have examined several cases where officers used large-caliber hand guns with limited effect displayed by the offenders. In one case, the subject attacked the officer with a knife. *The officer shot the individual four times in the chest*; then, his weapon malfunctioned. The offender continued to walk toward the officer. After the officer cleared his weapon, he fired again and struck the subject in the chest. Only then did the offender drop the knife. This individual was hit five times with 230-grain, .45-caliber hollow-point ammunition and never fell to the ground. The offender later stated, *“The wounds felt like bee stings.” * 


In another case, officers fired six .40-caliber, hollow-point rounds at a subject who pointed a gun at them. *Each of the six rounds hit the individual with no visible effect*. The seventh round severed his spinal cord, and the offender fell to the ground, dropping his weapon. This entire firefight was captured by several officers’ in-car video cameras. 

In a final case, the subject shot the victim officer in the chest with a handgun and fled. The officer, wearing a bullet-resistant vest, returned gunfire. The officer’s partner observed the incident and also fired at the offender. *Subsequent investigation determined that the individual was hit 13 times and, yet, ran several blocks to a gang member’s house. He later said, “I was so scared by all those shots; it sounded like the Fourth of July.” * Again, according to the subject, his wounds “only started to hurt when I woke up in the hospital.” The officers had used 9-millimeter, department-issued ammunition. The surviving officers re ported that they felt vulnerable."

http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2004/oct2004/oct04leb.htm#page_15

I hope 4E modern will rules to "simulate" those situations. Oops, we already have Second Wind, weeee!!!


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> I _really_ have to see this in action in 4e Modern...wow I took 3 M16 rounds...but I'm ok now! Come on....



Since they can already take 3 M16 rounds and be unindered, the ability to be unhindered for longer if they take a round or five minutes to take a breather or bandage their wounds isn't a big deal. "Realisitically" most serious wounds take at least several months to heal, so characters which could heal fully in 2-3 days were never that wounded in the first place.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> I _really_ have to see this in action in 4e Modern...wow I took 3 M16 rounds...but I'm ok now! Come on....




"Sarge, you hit?"
"Don't worry, it's just a flesh wound. Now let's get those sons of bitches."

Here endeth the lesson.


----------



## Henry (Apr 9, 2008)

Plus, it doesn't count the DC 15 Mass Damage save, which for a d20 modern character is pretty easy to fail until you hit 10th level or so.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 9, 2008)

Heh. 
Do we have all NPC/PC's with such a strong adrenaline (or other chemical substance.. Barbarians are all on PCP!) hence immune to shock?

Unless a wound damages the heart or the brain, or the circulatory system between them, only shock causes the shutdown of systems.

Removal of shock, for whatever reason, can lead to situations like the above.

However, such cases are obviously rare, and I don't think that is what the HP system is intended to model.


----------



## Gloombunny (Apr 9, 2008)

HERO 5e: Every character regains their Recovery in both Stun and Endurance after every few actions, and can spend an action recovering to do it extra times as often as they want.

Granted, that only heals Stun damage and not Body damage... but D&D doesn't have separate resources like that.  It's all hit points in D&D.

It's best to think of all the hit points in D&D being analogous to HERO's Stun points.  You don't take significant "Body damage" until you're killed.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 9, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Unless a wound damages the heart or the brain, or the circulatory system between them, only shock causes the shutdown of systems.



"Although stab wounds to the heart are generally imagined to be instantly incapacitating, numerous modern medical case histories indicate that while victims of such wounds may immediately collapse upon being wounded, rapid disability from this type of wound is by no means certain. Many present-day victims of penetrating wounds involving the lungs and the great vessels of the thorax have also demonstrated a remarkable ability to remain physically active minutes to hours after their wounds were inflicted. These cases are consistent with reports of duelists who, subsequent to having been grievously or even mortally wounded through the chest, neck, or abdomen, nevertheless remained actively engaged upon the terrain and fully able to continue long enough to dispatch those who had wounded them. "

http://www.classicalfencing.com/articles/bloody.php


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 9, 2008)

Tell that to somebody who loses an aorta, instead of just some of the muscle.

While it's not *impossible* the lack of blood flow to the muscles will shutdown the injured party within a minute or two, tops. Probably less, if they have already been exerting themselves.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> "Sarge, you hit?"
> "Don't worry, it's just a flesh wound. Now let's get those sons of bitches."
> 
> Here endeth the lesson.




"Wow, that goblin harpooner impaled you and dragged you half across the battlefield, kicking and screaming with the weapon going through your gut and out your spine! How do you feel?"

"I'll be perfectly OK in five minutes."

Hit points as pure abstraction of fate/luck/bruising/etc works only so long as there's no game effects which explicitly do direct injury. It's like having a vorpal sword chop off a limb -- which can then heal back fully without any kind of magic. If you want abstract hit points (and they work fine in D&D), then, eliminate non-abstract mechanics. You can't break bones, sever limbs, gouge eyes, etc, and have the hit point system work.

I have no problem with 4e making it absolutely explicit that no injury but the last one does more than trivial damage. I do have a problem when, having established this rule, they then ignore it. It says the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing, and when a game is as interconnected as D&D, that's worrisome.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Apr 9, 2008)

Yet another complaint thread with little substance behind it.

Simply put, healing surges are the real hit points of the game.

And gstor gets on the ignore list.


----------



## Henry (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> "Wow, that goblin harpooner impaled you and dragged you half across the battlefield, kicking and screaming with the weapon going through your gut and out your spine! How do you feel?"
> 
> "I'll be perfectly OK in five minutes."




The harpoon one I can live with, though, because most PCs aren't naked --they at least have clothing to latch into as well as skin and meat.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 9, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Tell that to somebody who loses an aorta, instead of just some of the muscle.
> 
> While it's not *impossible* the lack of blood flow to the muscles will shutdown the injured party within a minute or two, tops. Probably less, if they have already been exerting themselves.



Just let me add a coment to those articles I posted: That happens to normal people, commoners. Imagine what fantasy heroes could take!


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 9, 2008)

I'm inclined to agree that the harpooning wording could have been done better.

/shrug. I find it horrendous that mass-marketted paperbacks still have editorial mistakes, too.


----------



## jackston2 (Apr 9, 2008)

The harpooner just catches clothing and equipment with his spear.


----------



## zoroaster100 (Apr 9, 2008)

So far I really like the healing surge mechanic.  One thing that had always really bugged me about previous editions of D&D is that you needed a divine spellcaster to have a decent party.  Many players don't like playing religion based characters.  Now if you happen to have a group of players and non want a cleric, it looks like it will be doable between a warlord and everyone's healing surges.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 9, 2008)

The harpoon also doesn't have to be a pronged one, it can be a hooked harpoon. 

A hooked harpoon would simply latch onto clothing or gear, or if it did snag flesh, it would be disabilitating from the pain even for someone extremely strong. But it wouldn't be that much more damaging then a cut.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> "Wow, that goblin harpooner impaled you and dragged you half across the battlefield, kicking and screaming with the weapon going through your gut and out your spine! How do you feel?"
> 
> "I'll be perfectly OK in five minutes."
> .



He will be perfectly OK in 5 minutes ruleswise.
As DM would you really tell the player that his wound just disappears after 5 minutes of resting? That makes no sense. Of course the wound is still there. In those five minutes the character caught some breath, tended to his wound, put some straps around it, burnt it with a hot coal to stop the bleeding, etc. 
In the next combat the wound is still there, it will be bleeding a little, the character will feel the pain, but the wound is not mechanically relevant to the game anymore, it's now just "roleplaying".
You could think "hey, but if the wound is still there, what if the character is hit again exactly on the same spot or with same gravity?" or "Shouldn't the wound somehow affect the charcater general health?" Well, somehow it still does. The character did spend some Healing Surges to heal that terrible wound. If he receives another one he maybe won't have enough HS now and it could be his last wound...

D&D characters can take more punishment than others, otherwise they wouldn't survive enough to become heroes and there would be no game right? If there was a game where common people like us could actually go into dungeons to kill monster and get out of there alive, richer and fighting even better, this game would seriously hurt my "simulationist" feelings.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 9, 2008)

I believe the OP is a bit confused.

"Healing surges" are just a game mechanic that designates approximately how much hit point damage (and other healing, probably) a character can obtain in approximately one day.  They don't just randomly heal you.  Something has to trigger them.  An example of something that triggers a healing surge is a heal check from someone trained in first aid.  Another is a magical spell of healing.

Healing surges do two things for the game.  First, they make healing (primarily) dependent on the recipient instead of the healer.  I am very much in favor of this, as it never made sense to me that a spell like "cure light wounds" would have so much more of an effect (in terms of hit point percentages) on a low level character than a high level one.  Second, they provide a maximum amount that healing can repair.  Magical healing is no longer an infinite wellspring of recovery.  This means that your characters will most likely seek to stop adventuring when they are "tired" and "wounded" rather than just out of magic, like in 3e.  This is aesthetically more pleasing to me.

The OP seems to be thinking of "second winds," which is one of the things that can trigger a healing surge.  Its not entirely clear how often you get these, but it seems to be about once per fight.  You may be able to use them between fights, although its not clear how this interacts with the rules for the Heal skill.  I highly doubt that the OP is correct in his belief that no other RPG permits characters to recover a bit by taking a momentary breather, but in any case, the OP is certainly incorrect in claiming that characters can now infinitely heal themselves with second winds.  Obviously they cannot- that is the whole purpose of having finite healing surges in the first place.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The OP seems to be thinking of "second winds," which is one of the things that can trigger a healing surge.  Its not entirely clear how often you get these, but it seems to be about once per fight.  You may be able to use them between fights, although its not clear how this interacts with the rules for the Heal skill.  I highly doubt that the OP is correct in his belief that no other RPG permits characters to recover a bit by taking a momentary breather, but in any case, the OP is certainly incorrect in claiming that characters can now infinitely heal themselves with second winds.  Obviously they cannot- that is the whole purpose of having finite healing surges in the first place.




You can 'burn' as many surges as you want out of combat, with no 'triggers' -- but yes, they are finite, and yes, it's an interesting mechanic. It basically takes the "We stop adventuring when the cleric is out of spells" meme and greatly generalizes it so that you don't actually need a cleric. I am assuming all magical item healing consumes healing surges or enhances their effectiveness, that there is no healing without a surge.


----------



## Khur (Apr 9, 2008)

Ah . . . the wicked secret begins to be revealed that players might actually have some narrative control in an interactive, cooperative game.

Nah, that couldn't be it. Who would be mad enough to do that?


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 9, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Yet another complaint thread with little substance behind it.
> 
> Simply put, healing surges are the real hit points of the game.
> 
> And gstor gets on the ignore list.





No one cares who is on your ignore list. 

Ken


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 9, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Yet another complaint thread with little substance behind it.
> 
> Simply put, healing surges are the real hit points of the game.
> 
> And gstor gets on the ignore list.



It's fine if you don't agree with him. But don't be a jerk about it.  When you do, you makes things less pleasant and improve nothing.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Apr 9, 2008)

My apologies.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 9, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> My apologies.



Thanks, KK. 

Moving right along!


----------



## M.L. Martin (Apr 9, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Ah . . . the wicked secret begins to be revealed that players might actually have some narrative control in an interactive, cooperative game.
> 
> Nah, that couldn't be it. Who would be mad enough to do that?




  Madness, blasphemy . . . or 4TH EDITION! ?


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 9, 2008)

I've planned since I first read the 4e rules to have players describe the wound they recieve when their character becomes "bloodied", taking into account the source, and again if they're dropped below zero. These wounds will be bound by bandages or sealed by magic when healing surges are spent, but will NOT go away until some time has passed.  

All this is role-playing and doesn't even count as a house-rule. The player is simply expected to continue to role-play the effects of the wound. Excusing poor rolls as (for example) "shooting pain from yesterday's dragon bite" that messed up the shot, or "the stitches burst from this morning's sword-wound" to add flavor to crits.

Lots of room for role-playing, infinite number of creative reasons to explain the situations.

When it comes to threads like this, I can't believe how many D&D PLAYERS (of all people!) are showing a distinct lack of imagination when it comes to a slight change in the way they view the HP system.  I thought we gamers were made of sterner stuff when it came to creativity.

Fitz


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Apr 9, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Ah . . . the wicked secret begins to be revealed that players might actually have some narrative control in an interactive, cooperative game.
> 
> Nah, that couldn't be it. Who would be mad enough to do that?




Narrative control; good.  Brain imploding mechanics; bad.

I'm already picturing the look of exasperation on a DM's face when he has to explain how the completely unarmored wizard (heck, shirtless too cause that's _badass_) is being pulled around by goblins with harpoons.  Especially given that in about 5 minutes after the fight he'll be fine and dandy.

It works for the same reason eating food gives you life back in some video games.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 9, 2008)

Again, with the harpoon, not all harpoons are pronged ones that would have to impale you, it be more likely a goblin would use a hooked harpoon, that would hook onto clothing, gear or flesh and while yes EXTREMELY painful (thus why a weak goblin could pull a strong fighter or barbarian) it isn't that physically damaging.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Again, with the harpoon, not all harpoons are pronged ones that would have to impale you, it be more likely a goblin would use a hooked harpoon, that would hook onto clothing, gear or flesh and while yes EXTREMELY painful (thus why a weak goblin could pull a strong fighter or barbarian) it isn't that physically damaging.



 Well, he did say shirtless.


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 9, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> NI'm already picturing the look of exasperation on a DM's face when he has to explain how the completely unarmored wizard (heck, shirtless too cause that's _badass_) is being pulled around by goblins with harpoons.  Especially given that in about 5 minutes after the fight he'll be fine and dandy.




Easy peasy.

"The goblin throws his harpoon. You duck and it flies over your right shoulder. Just as you think you got off scott-free the goblin gives a quick jerk on his rope. The harpoon smacks you in the head from behind. One end of the harpoon is over your left shoulder while the rope is over your right. He pulls and you stumble forward..."

Oh and if you have a problem with the difficulty of this maneuver I know several people proficient in real-life rope-slinging that could show you how it works.

Fitz


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 9, 2008)

> I'm already picturing the look of exasperation on a DM's face when he has to explain how the completely unarmored wizard (heck, shirtless too cause that's badass) is being pulled around by goblins with harpoons. Especially given that in about 5 minutes after the fight he'll be fine and dandy.




"They've got 'em hooked into your flesh and poking back out through a rib- it hurts, and when they pull you have no choice but to move with them or your whole ribcage will crack."

(healing surge)

"It hurts, and the wound leaves terrible scars- but it is mostly muscle, fat and chipped bone. It will heal...

Don't think having full hit points is the same as being healthy. Just remember: John McClane. Watch Die Hard until you understand the Tao of John McClane.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Don't think having full hit points is the same as being healthy. Just remember: John McClane. Watch Die Hard until you understand the Tao of John McClane.




At what level do I get "Destroy helicopter with car"?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Well, he did say shirtless.




Thus why a hooked one would work, it can hook onto flesh, but only the surface layer so it doesn't so serious bodily harm, but it will hurt a LOT having your flesh being tugged, thus allowing the goblin to be able to drag you.


----------



## xnrdcorex (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> I _really_ have to see this in action in 4e Modern...wow I took 3 M16 rounds...but I'm ok now! Come on....
> 
> 
> Mike




Ugh... D20 modern is marketed as an action-movie rpg styled d20 game. Have you ever seen an action movie? Go watch die-hard. Guy takes bullets, heals himself with like a piece of his torn off shirt, and still kills everyone...Ie. he uses his torn off shirt as a healing surge!


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

xnrdcorex said:
			
		

> Ugh... D20 modern is marketed as an action-movie rpg styled d20 game. Have you ever seen an action movie? Go watch die-hard. Guy takes bullets, heals himself with like a piece of his torn off shirt, and still kills everyone...Ie. he uses his torn off shirt as a healing surge!



 See, this would not have worked if he was shirtless.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 9, 2008)

If hit points don't represent physical well being, then why are they lost due to damage (swords, fireballs, falling, etc)? The idea of hit points representing things like morale, luck and other weird things fails completely when you really stop to think about it. If my hit points are morale, then why do I not lose them when I get rejected by a girl, get turned down for a job, lose a friend, or get cursed with bad luck? All the things I have seen that cause you to lose hit points are forms of injury. Why are "healing surges" not "morale surges" or "luck surges"? It is complete nonsense to say that hit points do not represent physical health when they are lost via injury and gained via healing, and nothing else. If they represent something else, why does that something else never come into play?

As far as heroic last stands and the like, I think this could be much better represented by temporary hit points. Yeah, I can see a hero shrugging off some of his wounds for a while, but only for a while. Those injuries don't just magically go away because you will them to. Even if you pull yourself together long enough to finish the battle, you're still going to have to deal with those injuries later. And yes, I'm aware that hit points have been an abstraction from the beginning. I'm just saying why I have never liked it that way. And rather than make hit points based on injury, as they could have done, they have instead made it even worse, IMO.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> At what level do I get "Destroy helicopter with car"?



Have you taken "exotic weapon: car"? Because it's both a melee and ranged weapon. Finding the helicopter is _your_ responsibility.


----------



## Khur (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> At what level do I get "Destroy helicopter with car"?



Epic destiny . . .


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 9, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> If hit points don't represent physical well being, then why are they lost due to damage (swords, fireballs, falling, etc)? .




That's because it ALSO represents loss due to damage, AS WELL AS luck, fatigue, skill, morale, etc. In fact, it is, and always has been GENERAL ATTRITION. (By which I mean ANYTHING that could be considered "gradually losing the battle" can count as a loss of HP.) The reason you don't lose HP for "Getting turned down for a date" is because no one bothers running that statistically in the game, and no one's bothered to make rules for it, because it's not important. You can role-play it.

But I'm not getting into this again, because it almost got me to quit the board altogether last time.

Fitz


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> At what level do I get "Destroy helicopter with car"?





			
				Khur said:
			
		

> Epic destiny . . .




...useable once per day, doing 1d8 + attribute damage and causing a minor movement effect?

[size=-2]Ok, I promise to spend the rest of my energy figuring out how to get this train back on its rails[/size]


----------



## Professor Phobos (Apr 9, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> At what level do I get "Destroy helicopter with car"?




11, I think.


----------



## Ranmyaku (Apr 9, 2008)

Judging from the way healing surges and second winds work, this is how I envision hit points:

So a dude runs up to you and buries an axe in your chest. That really hurts! There's blood spurting everywhere, your ribs are shattered, there's bits of bone wandering off to explore important places... You're having a rough time of things. Now, most people here would die. You, however, look down to a little silver bracelet engraved with the letters 'WWCD?' for 'What Would Conan Do?'

And rather than die, you _don't_ die.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> Madness, blasphemy . . . or 4TH EDITION! ?



Some might say it could be all three. So was it a logical OR, and not a logical XOR?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> See, this would not have worked if he was shirtless.



Well, we will always assume that McLane has at least one opponent lying around that has a shirt.

And off course, he can run out of Healing Surges, eventually. But usually, he first runs out of opponents.



> At what level do I get "Destroy helicopter with car"?



Well, the whole scenario was "kingdom-threatening", so I guess it must be a paragon ability. Though I am not sure I could make a case for"surfing on harrier jets" being anything but an epic ability. 

By the way, If it's true that there are Epic Levels allow abilities that start with "Once per day, when you die", Jack Bauer must be epic level. Now just consider if McLane or Bauer is higher level...


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 9, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> There are others, but I'm just missing them. The key ingredient in all of them though is their cinematic natures; the more "realistic" a game is, the longer healing seems to take.



Yeah, there are also systems with damage saves (i.e. no hp system) - M&M and True20. Where a weapon can hit you without effect, same for Savage Worlds, as the damage must roll over your Toughness to have any effect. And even then, if you're only shaken, you can undo that without any investment of resources.

It's just very odd for people who have seen the (somewhat unrealistic) hp system for a long time, also propagated through various video games, who use it very D&D-like.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Apr 9, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Though I am not sure I could make a case for"surfing on harrier jets" being anything but an epic ability.



Just being pedantic here but he was surfing on a JSF not a Harrier.  Even though they won't be past the test squadron phase for a few years.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Just being pedantic here but he was surfing on a JSF not a Harrier.  Even though they won't be past the test squadron phase for a few years.



I guess they are still testing the wing stability so that they can take the additional weight (and resulting instability) of a well-trained man (80 to 120 kg?)?


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> As I've said a number of times, I can't think of a single other RPG where a character can innately heal themselves without referencing the healing "action" to Spells, long term rest, charms or potions, innate special abilities like fast healing and class ability D&D monks ability or OD&D mystics ability regeneration not in GURPS Ars Magica, Rifts.




Rolemaster... concussion hits heal very fast. Fighters with high con easily heal 1/8 of their hp in one hour of sleep.

only wounds by crits take you out for a week, a month or forever... (a very nice simulationistic system. But i prefer games where you don´t have to worry about a severed leg on a regular basis)


----------



## Ydars (Apr 9, 2008)

As someone who has done a bit of test cutting with a sword, I can tell you that actually getting even a razor sharp sword to CUT is NOT easy. As a result, most blows by non-experts are not at the correct angle (which for a sword has an incredibly low tolerance for error) and results in a slap that hurts, leaves a mark but doesn't even break skin (if you are wearing armour). Most people can manage to cut a target only by moving the weapon very slowly. It takes years of practise to be able to cut everytime moving your sword at normal speed even attacking a stationary target. When you factor in parrys, shields, armour and the fact your opponent is moving, most hits are not going to be serious, although they can really hurt or break ribs.

Polearm fighting is the same; many blows end up coming from quarterstaff or halfstaff like moves that deal crush damage that is more easily strugged off than a serious cut. This is because grappling was actually an absolutely ESSENTIAL part of sword and polearm combat and so one tactic everyone would employ against a longsword (which is actually wielded two handed) or a polearm, was to get inside the point and attack the man (usually with a dagger).

So I would argue that HP represent your ability to make that minor tweak to your opponents attack that makes it fail to cut or connect. It sort of represents exhaustion and mental/physical effort as much as damage. Because let's face it; one sword chop and you are out of action so an accurate combat system would HAVE to mean that all wounds affect skills, combat ability etc.

Since HP loss doesn't do this in D&D, HP cannot represent pure physical damage.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 9, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Ah . . . the wicked secret begins to be revealed that players might actually have some narrative control in an interactive, cooperative game.
> 
> Nah, that couldn't be it. Who would be mad enough to do that?



Bring it on! My group and I are mad enough to play it 


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> "Wow, that goblin harpooner impaled you and dragged you half across the battlefield, kicking and screaming with the weapon going through your gut and out your spine! How do you feel?"
> 
> "I'll be perfectly OK in five minutes."



However I really don't like this ability, even after becoming a reformed simulationist! But I never like all of any rules, so I will always expect to house-rule some Catching on clothing etc is fine by me and (as this is a monster) unless my PCs are naked, not a common occurance, this won't be a big problem.
Edit: ah and the hook in the skin idea I also like....if you have ever caught a fish hook even slightly in your hand you can easily see a 4 year old pulling around arnie schwarzeneger. And once it is out, very little long term damage


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 9, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> He will be perfectly OK in 5 minutes ruleswise.
> As DM would you really tell the player that his wound just disappears after 5 minutes of resting?





WHAT wound?

There is no wound. That's the point we're trying to make.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 9, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> If hit points don't represent physical well being, then why are they lost due to damage (swords, fireballs, falling, etc)? The idea of hit points representing things like morale, luck and other weird things fails completely when you really stop to think about it.




But the concept of a 10th level character being able to survive 10 more sword thrusts than a 1st level character DOESN'T?

If you want a game that realistically models damage and healing, D&D has never been a good choice.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 9, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> However I really don't like this ability, even after becoming a reformed simulationist! But I never like all of any rules, so I will always expect to house-rule some



Naked or not, just say the hero got speared through the shoulder or leg (but c'mon...it's always the shoulder).

The healing surge simply involves gritting your teeth and maybe tearing up a shirt for a bandage. Limping is optional. By the time the next scene starts, the bleeding stops and the limp is forgotten.


----------



## Dunamin (Apr 9, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> ...useable once per day, doing 1d8 + attribute damage and causing a minor movement effect?



I think it might have been an encounter ability, actually, since McClane also used a car on the villian's girl. Man, that ninja woman had a _ton_ of hit points. Guess her Second Wind came in handy after getting rammed with the car and pinned against the wall with it.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> Naked or not, just say the hero got speared through the shoulder or leg (but c'mon...it's always the shoulder).




Maybe in 4e, but when I used the kuo-toa harpooner in my 3x game, it was the leg. (3x had about a half page of rules for that critter's special power...of course, as it turns out, spearing the half-dragon barbarian was about the stupidest thing you could do, as she didn't exactly WANT to get away...)


----------



## Cirex (Apr 9, 2008)

While we're on the topic, do we know anything about wands (healing wands especially) and healing potions?


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

Professor Phobos said:
			
		

> Don't think having full hit points is the same as being healthy. Just remember: John McClane. Watch Die Hard until you understand the Tao of John McClane.




Except that John McClane was, at the end of the day, a total wreck. PCs on the other hand aren't. They just need to sleep for 6 hours and are fully restored again.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Except that John McClane was, at the end of the day, a total wreck. PCs on the other hand aren't. They just need to sleep for 6 hours and are fully restored again.




John McClane was a total wreck at the end of the adventure, which is when everyone goes home. What he does in the privacy of his home is nobody's business.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Except that John McClane was, at the end of the day, a total wreck. PCs on the other hand aren't. They just need to sleep for 6 hours and are fully restored again.




He was out of healing surges. The next day, he was fine.  We just didn't see that part.


----------



## Knightlord (Apr 9, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> He will be perfectly OK in 5 minutes ruleswise.
> As DM would you really tell the player that his wound just disappears after 5 minutes of resting? That makes no sense. Of course the wound is still there. In those five minutes the character caught some breath, tended to his wound, put some straps around it, burnt it with a hot coal to stop the bleeding, etc.
> In the next combat the wound is still there, it will be bleeding a little, the character will feel the pain, but the wound is not mechanically relevant to the game anymore, it's now just "roleplaying".
> You could think "hey, but if the wound is still there, what if the character is hit again exactly on the same spot or with same gravity?" or "Shouldn't the wound somehow affect the charcater general health?" Well, somehow it still does. The character did spend some Healing Surges to heal that terrible wound. If he receives another one he maybe won't have enough HS now and it could be his last wound...
> ...





Seems like a fine explaination to me. Well done.


----------



## Dunamin (Apr 9, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> Seems like a fine explaination to me. Well done.



Seconded.


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> Seems like a fine explaination to me. Well done.




When the PCs have only one adventure a week or less then it works.
But when they adventure for days without rest (except the 6 hours "heal it all rest" this doesn't work anymore.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When the PCs have only one adventure a week or less then it works.
> But when they adventure for days without rest (except the 6 hours "heal it all rest" this doesn't work anymore.




Of course it works. You just have to stop thinking too hard about fantasy.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When the PCs have only one adventure a week or less then it works.
> But when they adventure for days without rest (except the 6 hours "heal it all rest" this doesn't work anymore.



But then - how often DO PCs adventure for more than a week without having at least one day of rest? Even if the rest is "just" waiting for arrival on a ship, wagon, whatever. Also factor in that during the 6 hours of rest and travelling downtime the party is tended by the party's healer in some sort of way, so they heal better than normal.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> But when they adventure for days without rest (except the 6 hours "heal it all rest" this doesn't work anymore.



If you occasionally take 6 hour rests, then you are not adventuring for days without rest.


----------



## Patlin (Apr 9, 2008)

"Quick! We need to get him back to where this is just a flesh wound!"

-- The Last Action Hero


----------



## Knightlord (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> When the PCs have only one adventure a week or less then it works.
> But when they adventure for days without rest (except the 6 hours "heal it all rest" this doesn't work anymore.




I don't wish to be rude or anything, but Derren, this is Fantasy, not Reality. If you want delve this deep into it, then consider: after one adventure, your character would probably never adventure again. Why? Because adventuring HURTS. Alot. Pretty much as you just pointed out. And for those who do want to continue down this dangerous path, they would have to wait months or even years to recover from some of their injuries. Simply put, yeah, that's realistic, but not really fun. D&D is about having fun and being a hero. Not about watching a character sit in bed for months at a time while they slowly heal, which is realistic in our world. But, then again, D&D is not our world. It's a world of wonder and the impossible.

I understand your want for realism, and honestly, I believe D&D delivers an acceptable amount of such. But translating everything in our world into the world of D&D would just make the game slow, painful to play, boring, and not very inspiring. Indeed, why play D&D at all then? Why not just go outside and do what we do everyday with our everyday limitations?


----------



## Knight Otu (Apr 9, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Epic destiny . . .



I don't suppose it's a "Phoenix" (Once per day, when you die, ...) ability?  Well, the guy lived, so probably not.


----------



## mhensley (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> I _really_ have to see this in action in 4e Modern...wow I took 3 M16 rounds...but I'm ok now! Come on....




Apparently they got the idea of healing surges from playing Call of Duty 4.  Got shot?  Just wait a few seconds and you're all better again.   :\


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 9, 2008)

How do healing surges interplay with the condition/damage track (that's still in 4D&D, right)?


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 9, 2008)

No mention of it so far.


----------



## hong (Apr 9, 2008)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> How do healing surges interplay with the condition/damage track (that's still in 4D&D, right)?



 No sign of a condition track in 4E, if you mean SAGA-style. Looks like it's 3E-style separate conditions.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 9, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> No sign of a condition track in 4E, if you mean SAGA-style. Looks like it's 3E-style separate conditions.



Ah, I haven't kept up to date on everything so far. I assumed something like the Saga condition track was going to be in 4D&D.

I was thinking healing surges to restore hit points would be perfectly reasonable if the character still has to suffer the effects of his wounded status on the condition track.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Apr 9, 2008)

I'd also like to note that _Die Hard _ is cited in the hit points explanation in the HACKMASTER Player's Handbook.


----------



## HP Dreadnought (Apr 9, 2008)

Hit Points have ALWAYS been more like "Fatigue Points" than actual wounds.  4E is just extending that concept to make it a little more concrete.  They probably would be called fatigue points or something in 4E if they designers didn't know that there would be a huge uproar about that one.

As far as 3 M16 rounds to the chest (as mentioned, the theory is that you manage to avoid them). . . but really. . . who COULDN'T shrug off those dinky little 556 rounds?  LOL!!


----------



## Khur (Apr 9, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> I don't wish to be rude or anything, but Derren, this is Fantasy, not Reality. If you want delve this deep into it, then consider: after one adventure, your character would probably never adventure again. Why? Because adventuring HURTS.



 Don't forget that after one adventure, you're probably filthy, stinking rich. It'd be dumb to keep going, really. But heroes keep going despite pain and despite riches.



			
				Ranmyaku said:
			
		

> You, however, look down to a little silver bracelet engraved with the letters 'WWCD?' for 'What Would Conan Do?'
> 
> And rather than die, you _don't_ die.



I want a shiny WWCD bracelet. Or maybe a t-shirt—"Conan is my homie!" Or maybe I prefer WWFD—What Would Faramir Do? Anyway, sigged. And thanks for all the lamentations.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 9, 2008)

HP Dreadnought said:
			
		

> Hit Points have ALWAYS been more like "Fatigue Points" than actual wounds.



This is even truthier when you think way back to D&D wargame roots, where Hit Points measured a unit's ability to keep fighting. A loss of HP could reflect a simple failure of morale rather than getting all blown up.


----------



## Wystan (Apr 9, 2008)

This brings back to mind Top Secret S/I and the Nuke Rule...

Characters had from 1 to ten damage boxes in each area so Joe Generic could have 5-6 damage boxes say...

Now Evil Terrorist Fred bombs the city with a nuke, which acording to the rules did something like 3d100 Damage. So 3 rolls of 1 1 and 2 would leave Joe Generic feeling a little worse for wear but still alive, along with almost everyone else in the area. 
Did this make me stop playing Top Secret S/I? No, it just made it so that I realized that this could have been represented by the explosive going off and not the actual fissionable material....

Healing Surges are an example of a person, say a cop, getting beat up by a thug, but still having enough stamina and reserves to take the thug down, hold him there and handcuff him, even when the cop has a broken nose, three cracked ribs and a dislocated shoulder.


----------



## Wystan (Apr 9, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> I don't wish to be rude or anything, but Derren, this is Fantasy, not Reality. If you want delve this deep into it, then consider: after one adventure, your character would probably never adventure again. Why? Because adventuring HURTS. Alot. Pretty much as you just pointed out. And for those who do want to continue down this dangerous path, they would have to wait months or even years to recover from some of their injuries. Simply put, yeah, that's realistic, but not really fun. D&D is about having fun and being a hero. Not about watching a character sit in bed for months at a time while they slowly heal, which is realistic in our world. But, then again, D&D is not our world. It's a world of wonder and the impossible.
> 
> I understand your want for realism, and honestly, I believe D&D delivers an acceptable amount of such. But translating everything in our world into the world of D&D would just make the game slow, painful to play, boring, and not very inspiring. Indeed, why play D&D at all then? Why not just go outside and do what we do everyday with our everyday limitations?




The truth of this is evident. My character right now has in the realm of 20k gold liquid assets, and he is not retiring? In the real world his loved ones would be having him committed and declaring themselves the caretakers of that. But he still adventures. Why, you say? He is a HERO not a commoner.


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> I don't wish to be rude or anything, but Derren, this is Fantasy, not Reality.




Which doesn't mean that everythin can or even must be completely unrealistic.







> I believe D&D delivers an acceptable amount of such.



Imo 3E did. 4E doesn't anymore.


----------



## DM_Blake (Apr 9, 2008)

Gloombunny said:
			
		

> HERO 5e: Every character regains their Recovery in both Stun and Endurance after every few actions, and can spend an action recovering to do it extra times as often as they want.
> 
> Granted, that only heals Stun damage and not Body damage... but D&D doesn't have separate resources like that.  It's all hit points in D&D.
> 
> It's best to think of all the hit points in D&D being analogous to HERO's Stun points.  You don't take significant "Body damage" until you're killed.




I could, grudgingly, accept this logic.

Except for all the Cure X Wounds spells, and Heal, and others, that seem to cure my stun.

One or the other have got to give.

Either damage is wounds, and cured by Cure X Wounds, or damage is stun, and cured by Cure X Stun.

But not one of each.

It's hard to suspend disbelief and get immersed in the cinematics, when clerics keep casting spells that defy that immersion.


----------



## Knightlord (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Which doesn't mean that everythin can or even must be completely unrealistic.




Which is why I said there is an acceptable amount of realism in D&D. I don't understand where you're getting the idea that everthing is unrealistic. And with a game that has wizards and elves running about, I fail to see how it is possible to retain a vast amount of what we would define as "realistic". People in our world do not fling fireballs out of their hands and their is only one species on the planet, ie humans. And people in D&D do indeed do things that we would consider normal and realistic: They eat, they sleep, they fight, they breathe air, they fall in love, they deal in politics, they attempt to survive, most do not break the laws of physics, and most certainly do not rise and claim the title of "hero". But again, being heavy in the fantasy department, D&D does not conform to many of our norms, as it shouldn't due to the previous examples. Realism is there, it's simply not highlighted because the fantasy part is more fun and relevant.

As for 3E realism vs 4E realism: They are pretty much the same. Everyone pretty much does the same thing, just in a different way. Fighters still pull off astounding manuevers (like Great Cleave and Whirlwind Attack in 3E) in 4E and Wizards still hurl fireballs at their foes just like they did in 3E.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 9, 2008)

What something is called has nothing to do with what that something does (though it may have some effect on how others see said something. . . or how they see the namer).

D&D has always struggled with this.  "damage" is expressed in hit points lost, Cure spells restore hit points, yet "Cure Light Wounds" was capable of restoring most mortally wounded people (ie 1st lvl NPCs) to full health!  How is that "light"?  Yet those same people could not be healed as fully from the much more powerful "Heal" spell.

You can't look at the name - you have to look at the mechanics.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Which doesn't mean that everythin can or even must be completely unrealistic.
> Imo 3E did. 4E doesn't anymore.




It's nice that you acknowledge that your opinion is, of course, absolutely subjective and not based on reasoning


----------



## mhensley (Apr 9, 2008)

Gentlegamer said:
			
		

> I'd also like to note that _Die Hard _ is cited in the hit points explanation in the HACKMASTER Player's Handbook.




I'd like to note that in HM you can get seriously hurt.  The first game I ran had a pc get critted in the head by a fleshpecker  .  He got a skull fracture and was put into a coma for the rest of the game.  good times, good times...


----------



## SSquirrel (Apr 9, 2008)

zoroaster100 said:
			
		

> So far I really like the healing surge mechanic.  One thing that had always really bugged me about previous editions of D&D is that you needed a divine spellcaster to have a decent party.  Many players don't like playing religion based characters.  Now if you happen to have a group of players and non want a cleric, it looks like it will be doable between a warlord and everyone's healing surges.




If they would have removed the arcane/divine split ala Arcana Evolved, they would have had any spellcaster capable of casting damage spells or heals.  It's one of the sacred cows for D&D for many people tho.  You still would have needed A caster to heal people, but it wouldn't have to always be a cleric.  If you have a group of 5 and have a fighter, rogue, warlock, wizard, cleric and no arcane/divine split, suddenly you have 3 people capable of casting heals if needed.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Imo 3E did. 4E doesn't anymore.



So you had no problem with surviving 1000 ft. falls, getting zapped by _lightning bolts_ over and over again, or surviving _disintegration_, which can vaporize normal matter instantaneously? And grok the massive damage saves? If no, what about the following reasoning:

If you take 4E's hit points, add in all hit points you would get by adding the healing surges together - that's the actual or total hp of your character. Sure it's more than 3E, but 3E was also more than 2E - it's just a number after all.

Now, the hit points you have (without the healing surges added) are less - so see them as "massive damage threshold". If you get that much damage in a very short time (5 minutes), it's just too much for your body - given time, you can however access more of your hit points, just as in 3E a character who survived a massive damage save could use his other hit points as well.

However, right now, I have no concept how to grok the daily full restoration! 

Though I'm sure you could, if you'd houserule a slower regain of healing surges. Though you'd need to give the players a way to regain them faster, just as divine healing "cheated" the 3E hp regain - by plainly saying "it's magic".

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Derren (Apr 9, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> So you had no problem with surviving 1000 ft. falls, getting zapped by _lightning bolts_ over and over again, or surviving _disintegration_, which can vaporize normal matter instantaneously? And grok the massive damage saves? If no, what about the following reasoning:
> 
> If you take 4E's hit points, add in all hit points you would get by adding the healing surges together - that's the actual or total hp of your character. Sure it's more than 3E, but 3E was also more than 2E - it's just a number after all.
> 
> Now, the hit points you have (without the healing surges added) are less - so see them as "massive damage threshold". If you get that much damage in a very short time (5 minutes), it's just too much for your body - given time, you can however access more of your hit points, just as in 3E a character who survived a massive damage save could use his other hit points as well.




Yes, I have much less problems with PCs surviving ridiculous things than with PCs surviving ridiculous things and then regenerating.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> IMO 3E did. 4E doesn't anymore.



3E and 4E's natural healing are both incredibly unrealistic and both wander in the realm of absurd.
3E is a little more realistic than 4E, but it's more like if both were trying to climb a mountain with a ladder, 4E is on the second step and 3E a couple steps higher. 
If someone really wants realism, choosing D&D would make no sense.
If someone wants playability, 4E just makes a better job.


----------



## Knightlord (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, I have much less problems with PCs surviving ridiculous things than with PCs surviving ridiculous things and then regenerating.




Doesn't have to be regeneration. Roleplay an explanation. Remember, HP does not directly relate to physical damage in 4E, nor did it really in 3E.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> ... and then regenerating.



It's your own interpretation of the rules. I don't remember reading in the previews that characters regenarate their wounds, they just regain their Hit Points. One thing has nothing to do with the other.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, I have much less problems with PCs surviving ridiculous things than with PCs surviving ridiculous things and then regenerating.



So it's mainly the name "*healing* surges"? Would you grok them better, if they're called something like "reserve points" or "Kraftreserven" (well, it's a nice German word - the translation is worse - "power reserves")?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mallus (Apr 9, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> If someone really wants realism, choosing D&D would make no sense.



QFT.

Also, if one wants realism in their superheroic fantasy, first they need a snowflake-special definition of realism.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, I have much less problems with PCs surviving ridiculous things than with PCs surviving ridiculous things and then regenerating.



But you aren't regenerating.  Hitpoints are a lot like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  You can't know what they are unless you look at them and looking at them changes them so the result is no longer correct.

So, you need to deal with them in theory without ever defining them.  This is the best way to use them and the ONLY way they make sense in all cases.  Knowing that someone with 1 hitpoint left is EITHER beaten to a pulp and is bleeding profusely and can barely stand OR their winded and couldn't possibly dodge another blow is all that's important.

However, the way that healing surges tend to work "in practicality" is that they are a way to trade off longer lasting injuries for temporary vitality.  I.e. you can survive the next attack against you that would have killed you, but in exchange you are actually hurt.

Hitpoints tend to represent your ability to take no damage at all.  You fall off a cliff and it doesn't reduce your hitpoints to 0 then you simply rolled, got a couple minor scrapes and got up.

Healing Surges let you say "I want to be tough enough to take a blow from an ogre after getting up.  I'll say that I'm a bit more tired and that I have a nasty cut in exchange for more hitpoints."

But even that analogy doesn't work perfectly.  What hitpoints are is a metagame concept designed for providing the optimal play experience in terms of how much pressure players feel they are under, how much danger they are in and how often people should die.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, I have much less problems with PCs surviving ridiculous things than with PCs surviving ridiculous things and then regenerating.




How about with PCs surviving ridiculous things, taking breather, and then going on to survive other ridiculous things? Full HP need not equated with having no injuries.

At one point, in at least one game, I or someone I know is going to play a character that regenerates. It'll be really nice to only have to modify my descriptions instead of having to come up with some way to balance giving anything like the 3E regeneration ability to a PC.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, I have much less problems with PCs surviving ridiculous things than with PCs surviving ridiculous things and then regenerating.



Nobody is regenerating. They just weren't that hurt in the first place.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 9, 2008)

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> Either damage is wounds, and cured by Cure X Wounds, or damage is stun, and cured by Cure X Stun.
> 
> But not one of each.



How convenient, then, that 4e clerics merely use "healing word."  Abstract hit points pair best with abstract healing magic.  

As your objection applies strictly to 3e and not to 4e, I look forwards to having you on my side of the debate.


----------



## baberg (Apr 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Yes, I have much less problems with PCs surviving ridiculous things than with PCs surviving ridiculous things and then regenerating.



When I was a kid I fell off a swingset and right onto my bottom.  It knocked the wind out of me.  For about 15 seconds I couldn't breathe, then slowly I was able to start gasping for air again.  5 minutes later I was fine, but with a bit of a sore bottom.

Did I regenerate?  Or was I just able to settle myself down and re-collect my wits so that I could get back to full health?

Stop thinking that HP represents actual physical wounds.  HP is much more abstract.


----------



## Xyl (Apr 9, 2008)

Hit points do not represent how much physical damage you can take before collapsing. Instead, they represent the ability to survive _abstract_ damage. That ability might take the form of physical toughness, skill, luck, quickness, magical defenses, or anything else that will let you survive a fight longer.

Healing surges, in this scheme, represent the ability to recover your ability to survive after a fight - no matter what the source of that ability. The particular rationalization you use for them depends on what you think your hp represent. The fighter bandages his wounds. The rogue catches her breath and regains her composure. The cleric gives thanks to his god and prays for luck in his next fight as well. The wizard renews the minor defensive spells that deflected enemy blows.

If you wanted to, you could break hp down into all the different things that make it up - wound points, fatigue points, luck points, magical defenses, and whatever else you can think of - and track them seperately, with different rules for recovering them. Or you could just take hitpoints for what they are, a simple to use abstraction of all those things, with a unified recovery mechanic called "healing surges".


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 9, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> But you aren't regenerating.  Hitpoints are a lot like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  You can't know what they are unless you look at them and looking at them changes them so the result is no longer correct.




Sigged


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Ah . . . the wicked secret begins to be revealed that players might actually have some narrative control in an interactive, cooperative game.
> 
> Nah, that couldn't be it. Who would be mad enough to do that?



Wait, are you saying that 4e will actually _allow_ me, as a player, to have some kind of say as to what happens at the table?  I won't be _forced_ to attack a dragon until my PC dies?  The Cleric won't be casting healing spells on me without my permission?  Could it be that I might, possibly, also be able to carry on conversations with NPCs or other players at the table?  

Joy!


----------



## Dragonblade (Apr 9, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> But you aren't regenerating.  Hitpoints are a lot like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.  You can't know what they are unless you look at them and looking at them changes them so the result is no longer correct.




I'm glad to see that my Quantum Hitpoint Theory is alive and well.


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 9, 2008)

Some players and GMs want to put a fairly broad concept such as hit points into a very small and tightly constrained box. This isn't very useful for the purposes of gaming, but it's very convenient if you want to spend time arguing about much a game sucks.

Hit points in D&D have never represented merely physical trauma. Some GMs will claim, _but in my game I've always described hit point loss as gaping chest wounds_. Nevertheless, this contitutes a house rules those GMs have been using. Just because the concept of healing surges doesn't work with your own particular house rules, doesn't mean that it doesn't work with D&D's definition of hit points.

I'm aware that the mechanics of earlier editions haven't been very good at reflecting the in game definition of hit points. I'm just relieved that 4e edition will finally have mechanics that reflect that definition.

Even so, there have been many very good explanations in this thread for how to explain healing surges in the context of actual physical wounds. It won't work if you're insistent that every hit that drops a character to negative hit points represents a wound that requires either magical healing or several days of bed rest, but it works just fine if you describe every hit as causing tissue damage. 

Healing surges only equal regeneration if that's the definition you choose to assign them. The rules so far haven't defined them in that way. Numerous other explanations have been provided by several clever posters in this thread. IMO continuing to argue that healing surges must be a form of regeneration reflects either a lack of imagination - or simple intransigence in pursuit of argumentation.


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Wait, are you saying that 4e will actually _allow_ me, as a player, to have some kind of say as to what happens at the table?  I won't be _forced_ to attack a dragon until my PC dies?  The Cleric won't be casting healing spells on me without my permission?  Could it be that I might, possibly, also be able to carry on conversations with NPCs or other players at the table?
> 
> Joy!




Apparently you don't understand the definition of _narrative control_. Chris never implied that previous editions didn't allow you to control your own character. This is a bugaboo you've constructed in your own imagination. Narrative control is about having input into what happens to your character, such as determining what sort of wound you've suffered or what skill your character can use to influence the outcome of a situation.

It's true that you could do these things in earlier editions of D&D, if your GM was willing to step outside the rules as presented and think outside the box. So, while not actually a change in the rules, 4e does seem to call out this style of play, provide mechanics for it and encourage it as the default style.

Nor does allowing the players some narrative control undermine the GM. It's all about sharing the control when it comes to a character's actions or to the consequences he suffers. The GM still has final say, but the default assumption in 4e seems to be that the players should have some input in these instances. This isn't a bad thing, and a lot of excellent GMs have been running things this way for a long time. D&D is afterall a shared interactive experience, not one player (the GM) dictating everything to the other players. Anything that moves the game further in this direction is good thing IMO.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> Apparently you don't understand the definition of _narrative control_. Chris never implied that previous editions didn't allow you to control your own character. This is a bugaboo you've constructed in your own imagination. Narrative control is about having input into what happens to your character, such as determining what sort of wound you've suffered or what skill your character can use to influence the outcome of a situation.



What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all?  Or that my Rope Use skill should impress a guard at the king's treasure vault?



> It's true that you could do these things in earlier editions of D&D, if your GM was willing to step outside the rules as presented and think outside the box. So, while not actually a change in the rules, 4e does seem to call out this style of play, provide mechanics for it and encourage it as the default style.



So, these rules will help prevent bad DMing?



> Nor does allowing the players some narrative control undermine the GM. It's all about sharing the control when it comes to a character's actions or to the consequences he suffers. *The GM still has final say*, but the default assumption in 4e seems to be that the players should have some input in these instances.



Or, maybe they won't.

I am sure you have a follow up showing how previous rules actively prevented players from having input via 'narrative control'.



> This isn't a bad thing, and a lot of excellent GMs have been running things this way for a long time. D&D is afterall a shared interactive experience, not one player (the GM) dictating everything to the other players. Anything that moves the game further in this direction is good thing IMO.



So, this will weed out non-excellent DMs?  Or do you have an argument that shows a qualitative difference between the DM describing a sword hit and a player describing a sword hit?


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all?




You're inching towards insight.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all?



Then he didn't. Still lost some hit points, off course. 



> Or that my Rope Use skill should impress a guard at the king's treasure vault?



Well, pretending for a moment that this useless abonimation of a skill is still in 4E, if you can make a good explaination for it yes. More likely, no, you can't. 



> So, these rules will help prevent bad DMing?
> 
> 
> Or, maybe they won't.
> ...



The rules won't prevent bad DMing per se. But if the DMG actually contains guidelines and reminders that you can do this stuff - and how you can do this stuff - can turn mediocre (like me) or inexperienced DMs into better ones. DM skills can be learned (or so I hope), a good book can help you with there. Off course, a DM on a power-trip that wants to tell "his" story (instead of writing a novel) might not be persuaded by this. But once he got the boot, a DMG with such rules/guidelines/advice might help one of the players in the remaining group becoming a DM, and possibly even  passable, and over time even a great one.


----------



## Primal (Apr 9, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Ah . . . the wicked secret begins to be revealed that players might actually have some narrative control in an interactive, cooperative game.
> 
> Nah, that couldn't be it. Who would be mad enough to do that?




Narrative control? What have 'Healing Surges' to do with it? Nothing, in my opinion. However, if we were talking about the 'Skill Challenge System', it would, in my opinion, qualify as an example of how players may have limited 'narrative control/rights' over the story.


----------



## Warbringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> You're inching towards insight.




One of the best decisions I've ever made in playing this wonderful game for 20 years was the concept of _active story_. Simply, every action that impeeds on a character is determined by a plyers roll of the dice....

A monster strikes to hit (10+attack) vs the players d20+AC bonus... the player describes the consequence of the action...

Regarding the specific post, the issue in DnD has always been the _healing rate_ of hit point damage. It's always meant to have been stamina, luck, dtermintaion, and eventually blood and guts, but the _healing rate_ has always treated that damage as if it was all physical... healing 1 die per day, or god forbid 1 hit point per day (earlier eds) or requiring clerics that 'cure, heal, regenerate, restore..."

Congrats to 4ed where hit point damage is mirrored with hit point healing, where at least some of that damage is recovered by a short rest.


----------



## Fifth Element (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all?  Or that my Rope Use skill should impress a guard at the king's treasure vault?



Please note that kennew142 discussed players having some narrative control as *input* into what happens to your character, not absolute control over what happens to your character. Your argument is absurd.


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> What if I decide my character has suffered no wound at all?  Or that my Rope Use skill should impress a guard at the king's treasure vault?




As long as you lose hit points, it's not necessary that you suffered a wound. That's the point. Each player has some narrative control over his character.




> So, these rules will help prevent bad DMing?




You think so? I don't. If you'd actually read the post you are responding to, you will note that I said that the rules will provide mechanics for allowing the players some narrative control, encourage that type of GMing and assume it as the default. Bad GMs will always be bad GMs, but providing the tools for good GMing and calling attention to a (IMO) superior style of GMing for those good GMs who hadn't even thought of it are all good things.

Even good GMs have to start somewhere. It would've been nice if this sort of useful GMing advice had been in earlier DMGs.




> Or, maybe they won't.
> 
> I am sure you have a follow up showing how previous rules actively prevented players from having input via 'narrative control'.




Wow, talk about a failure of logic. What are you arguing against here? I specifically pointed out that it was possible in earlier editions. I even called out that good GMs had been doing it all along.

Purposefully miscontruing what I said in order to try and make a cheap point is misleading at best, but lying would be a better definition. I would suggest that you take the time to read a post before responding. It might save you some humiliation.




> So, this will weed out non-excellent DMs?  Or do you have an argument that shows a qualitative difference between the DM describing a sword hit and a player describing a sword hit?




No one said that this would weed out non-excellent GMs. It may improve the skills of weaker GMs.

I would argue that there is a qualitiative difference between a GM dictating all game effects to the players and the players having some control over the narrative. IMO the latter provides a better and more satisfying gaming experience. YMMV. It's hard to argue that the latter example isn't a more shared interactive experience.


----------



## kennew142 (Apr 9, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Please note that kennew142 discussed players having some narrative control as *input* into what happens to your character, not absolute control over what happens to your character. Your argument is absurd.




Absurdity is the last refuge of those without a valid point to make.


----------



## Ktulu (Apr 9, 2008)

> From qstor
> As I've said a number of times, I can't think of a single other RPG where a character can innately heal themselves without referencing the healing "action" to Spells, long term rest, charms or potions, innate special abilities like fast healing and class ability D&D monks ability or OD&D mystics ability regeneration not in GURPS Ars Magica, Rifts.




I thought I would chime in here.  

Iron Heroes has reserve hitpoints that you can spend to heal yourself.  They're equal to your total HP and you can do this at a rate of 1 per minute of non combat.

Star Wars d20 had a Wound Point, Vitality points system where Vitality was basic HP.  They regained at your level/min when not in combat (which is pretty much regeneration.)

Star Wars Saga Edition has a second wind ability (much like what 4e will have) where once per day you can spend an action to regain 1/4 of your hitpoints if you have taken 1/2 your HP in damage.  There is a feat & a power that allow you to do it one more time per day, each.



Those are just a few (based all on 3.x, except Saga, which was a precursor to 4e), but there are examples of existing, published games that do promote some form of mechanical self-healing.

Ktulu


----------



## DM_Blake (Apr 9, 2008)

Ranmyaku said:
			
		

> Judging from the way healing surges and second winds work, this is how I envision hit points:
> 
> So a dude runs up to you and buries an axe in your chest. That really hurts! There's blood spurting everywhere, your ribs are shattered, there's bits of bone wandering off to explore important places... You're having a rough time of things. Now, most people here would die. You, however, look down to a little silver bracelet engraved with the letters 'WWCD?' for 'What Would Conan Do?'
> 
> And rather than die, you _don't_ die.




I gotta say, this is the least realistic/acceptible version of HP/recovery that I have heard yet.

My gaming group would laugh me out of the room if I pulled this one on them.

I hope you were trolling, or if not, I hope you have a very different gaming group than mine so you won't suffer that kind of humiliation.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

kennew142 said:
			
		

> As long as you lose hit points, it's not necessary that you suffered a wound. That's the point. Each player has some narrative control over his character.



If all I am doing is marking ticks off a character sheet, why is it important for anyone to control the narrative?  Hit points are not physical damage, so why describe it at all?  The wound, or lack thereof, have no mechanical effect, so how does describing advance my character or the plot?




> You think so? I don't. If you'd actually read the post you are responding to, you will note that I said that the rules will provide mechanics for allowing the players some narrative control, encourage that type of GMing and assume it as the default. Bad GMs will always be bad GMs, but providing the tools for good GMing and calling attention to a (IMO) superior style of GMing for those good GMs who hadn't even thought of it are all good things.



So, all the previous incarnations and playstyles are inferior, in your opinion?  And simply providing the tools and a note of this superior style will improve DM skill?



> Even good GMs have to start somewhere. It would've been nice if this sort of useful GMing advice had been in earlier DMGs.



It also would have been very odd, considering this playstyle wasn't in vogue back then.



> Wow, talk about a failure of logic. What are you arguing against here? I specifically pointed out that it was possible in earlier editions. I even called out that good GMs had been doing it all along.



Ah, yes, it was possible in earlier versions.  So, simply mentioning it makes things better?  Good DMs didn't eat all the Cheetos in previous versions, either.  Should that be noted?  How much of your One True Way will show up in the books, to insure that even proximity to the DMG will improve their skills?



> Purposefully miscontruing what I said in order to try and make a cheap point is misleading at best, but lying would be a better definition. I would suggest that you take the time to read a post before responding. It might save you some humiliation.



Ok, let's go over it.



> It's all about sharing the control when it comes to a character's actions or to the consequences he suffers. The GM still has final say, but the default assumption in 4e seems to be that the players should have some input in these instances



So, we have sharing control, as long as the DM allows it.  In other words, not really sharing control.  Because the DM is still deciding whether or not the players get to have that narrative control.

Secondly, I don't see how the control players currently have over their characters is less than "some input in these instances".  What instances?  How is describing my character's actions not "some input"?



> No one said that this would weed out non-excellent GMs. It may improve the skills of weaker GMs.



Oh, it _may_ improve skills.  Or, it may not.  Not exactly a ringing endorsement for change.



> I would argue that there is a qualitiative difference between a GM dictating all game effects to the players and the players having some control over the narrative. IMO the latter provides a better and more satisfying gaming experience. YMMV. It's hard to argue that the latter example isn't a more shared interactive experience.



_All_ game effects?  All of them?  The rules don't have anything to do with that?  I mean, if you get hit with a fireball for minimal damage, you are saying that the DM describing singing and slight burns is _ruining your game_?  Or that players necessarily have a better time describing the exact same thing, simply by dint of the DM not doing it?

What you are describing isn't a failing of rules, it's a failing of a particular DM.  There are no rules anywhere that will insure a DM and a group will be on the same page about everything.  What you are talking about with 'narrative control' isn't a rules issue, it's a group dynamics issue.  4e can't address that.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Please note that kennew142 discussed players having some narrative control as *input* into what happens to your character, not absolute control over what happens to your character. Your argument is absurd.



So, "I attack the orc" isn't *input*?


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> If all I am doing is marking ticks off a character sheet, why is it important for anyone to control the narrative?  Hit points are not physical damage, so why describe it at all?  The wound, or lack thereof, have no mechanical effect, so how does describing advance my character or the plot?




No mechanical effect?


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, "I attack the orc" isn't *input*?




The difference is input over results as opposed to input over intentions.

PC: I attack the orc.  *roll* I miss.
DM: ..........

Ah screw it I'm, tired.


----------



## Jürgen Hubert (Apr 9, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> As I've said a number of times, I can't think of a single other RPG where a character can innately heal themselves without referencing the healing "action" to Spells, long term rest, charms or potions, innate special abilities like fast healing and class ability D&D monks ability or OD&D mystics ability regeneration not in GURPS Ars Magica, Rifts.




Didn't work it that way in Earthdawn, though?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> You're inching towards insight.



So, I don't have to take damage anymore either?


----------



## Xyl (Apr 9, 2008)

"I attack the orc" is input.

"I cut the orc's head off, my sword cleaving straight through and leaving an arc of blood behind it." is also input.

"The orc lunges at me, but I sidestep. Its axe crashes into the ground an inch from my foot. It snarls, and I smell its fetid breath." is input, too.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> No mechanical effect?



As in, my character fell down the stairs, was 'hit' by three arrows, poisoned, in the middle of a fireball, and mauled by a bear over the course of the day.  I could describe that character as bleeding out his eyes, holding his guts in with one hand, and barely able to stand.  But, since I used my healing surges to get back up to full, none of those wounds have any effect on my character.

But, that kind of 'narrative control' is better?


----------



## Xyl (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, I don't have to take damage anymore either?



Whether you take damage, and how much, is determined by the DM. What that damage looks like in the game world can be determined by either the DM or the player, depending on your playstyle. Damage is a player-world concept, not a game-world concept.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> "I attack the orc" is input.
> 
> "I cut the orc's head off, my sword cleaving straight through and leaving an arc of blood behind it." is also input.
> 
> "The orc lunges at me, but I sidestep. Its axe crashes into the ground an inch from my foot. It snarls, and I smell its fetid breath." is input, too.



But only one of those is an action.

Secondly, what if the DM said the exact same thing as your last example instead of 'Orc missed'?  How is that qualitatively better?


----------



## Xyl (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> As in, my character fell down the stairs, was 'hit' by three arrows, poisoned, in the middle of a fireball, and mauled by a bear over the course of the day.  I could describe that character as bleeding out his eyes, holding his guts in with one hand, and barely able to stand.  *But, since I used my healing surges to get back up to full, none of those wounds have any effect on my character.*



If you were playing in my campaign and described your wounds like that, I would expect you to roleplay the effects on your character, not handwave them away.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> As in, my character fell down the stairs, was 'hit' by three arrows, poisoned, in the middle of a fireball, and mauled by a bear over the course of the day.  I could describe that character as bleeding out his eyes, holding his guts in with one hand, and barely able to stand.  But, since I used my healing surges to get back up to full, none of those wounds have any effect on my character.




Except that you're down X healing surges, making each successive 'hit' bring you closer to death.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> But, that kind of 'narrative control' is better?




Better than "my character fell down the stairs, was 'hit' by three arrows, poisoned, in the middle of a fireball, and mauled by a bear over the course of the day.  I could describe that character as bleeding out his eyes, holding his guts in with one hand, and barely able to stand. But he can still kill a dozen kobolds without breaking a sweat."

Better than "my character fell down the stairs, was 'hit' by three arrows, poisoned, in the middle of a fireball, and mauled by a bear over the course of the day.  I could describe that character as bleeding out his eyes, holding his guts in with one hand, and barely able to stand. But he rested for a couple days and none of those wounds have any effect on my character."

Not better than "my character fell down a stairway while wrestling a terrorist, suffered massive blunt trauma to the head and torso, was shot at repeatedly, walked 30 feet over broken glass, and lost a pint or more of blood. But since he got to the bathroom, pulled the glass out of his feet, bandaged them up, smoked a cigarette and got a solid pep talk from the friendly neighborhood police officer, he's ready to kill another dozen or so terrorists."


----------



## Xyl (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> But only one of those is an action.
> 
> Secondly, what if the DM said the exact same thing as your last example instead of 'Orc missed'?  How is that qualitatively better?



The orc _hit_! Do you have any idea how bad orc breath smells?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Then he didn't. Still lost some hit points, off course.



Hold on, isn't that limiting my narrative control?



> Well, pretending for a moment that this useless abonimation of a skill is still in 4E, if you can make a good explaination for it yes. More likely, no, you can't.



Any good explanation?  And the DM is required to accept it?




> The rules won't prevent bad DMing per se. But if the DMG actually contains guidelines and reminders that you can do this stuff - and how you can do this stuff - can turn mediocre (like me) or inexperienced DMs into better ones. DM skills can be learned (or so I hope), a good book can help you with there. Off course, a DM on a power-trip that wants to tell "his" story (instead of writing a novel) might not be persuaded by this. But once he got the boot, a DMG with such rules/guidelines/advice might help one of the players in the remaining group becoming a DM, and possibly even  passable, and over time even a great one.



Hmmm...  I am seeing a trend.  The problem seems to be less with the rules than with bad DMing...


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Hold on, isn't that limiting my narrative control?




No.


----------



## Xyl (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Hold on, isn't that limiting my narrative control?



Yes. So?


----------



## Rel (Apr 9, 2008)

The snark and sarcasm level in here is creeping toward the unacceptable.  Let's tone it down, please.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> The orc _hit_! Do you have any idea how bad orc breath smells?



Good one.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 9, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> As in, my character fell down the stairs, was 'hit' by three arrows, poisoned, in the middle of a fireball, and mauled by a bear over the course of the day.  I could describe that character as bleeding out his eyes, holding his guts in with one hand, and barely able to stand.  But, since I used my healing surges to get back up to full, none of those wounds have any effect on my character.
> 
> But, that kind of 'narrative control' is better?



Yep, you could describe it any way you want to, such is the great part of hitpoints.  Mechanically, they are needed in order to give the combat a sense of urgency(Only 27 more points of damage and I'm down!).  However, role playing wise that exact situation can be described a number of ways.

Those 3 arrows managed to graze you, putting small cuts in your arm and torso.  No big deal, it'll clot up in a couple of minutes.  The falling down the stairs didn't do more than give you a small bruise as you rolled down in such a way that didn't twist your arm or hit your head.  You dived to the ground as the fireball hit, rolling and coming up into the position you started in, scorch marks on your face and arms but no permanent damage.  The bear hit you mostly with the side of his arm as he mauled you and mostly took a blunt heavy hit to your armor.  It knocked the wind out of you for a second, but you are ok.  One of the arrows was poisoned and you felt a little bit dizzy for a while but you managed to ignore it and keep going.  At the end of the combat you shake off all pain you are feeling, clear your head an move on to the next danger.  You are battered and bruised but nothing that won't be all but forgotten tomorrow morning.  Each of those wounds COULD have been life threatening, but because of your luck as a hero none of them were.

The game mechanical description of everything that happened to you is that you lost 75% of your hitpoints, you spend a second wind, got hit a couple of more times until you were down to 2 hitpoints, then spent 4 healing surges at the end of the combat to get up to full.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Rel said:
			
		

> The snark and sarcasm level in here is creeping toward the unacceptable.  Let's tone it down, please.



I apologize, for my part.  I think further inquiry in this topic would be fruitless for me.


----------



## Ingolf (Apr 9, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> If you were playing in my campaign and described your wounds like that, I would expect you to roleplay the effects on your character, not handwave them away.




As in, toss the character sheet in the trash and ask for a new blank one, I'd imagine.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 9, 2008)

Majoru Oakheart said:
			
		

> The game mechanical description of everything that happened to you is that you lost 75% of your hitpoints, you spend a second wind, got hit a couple of more times until you were down to 2 hitpoints, then spent 4 healing surges at the end of the combat to get up to full.



I see what you are saying, it's just a bit too... forced?  artificial?  I guess what I am seeing with this and the skill challenges is the rules poking through the description, or the description not being solid enough to maintain the veil over the rules.

No biggie, it looks like something you (and others) have been waiting for, so happy gaming!


----------



## Ktulu (Apr 9, 2008)

Famous Heroic Surges in Movies:

Lord of the Rings:

Boromir - After taking an arrow directly to the chest, he somehow manages to still get up and continue to fight, hoping to save the halflings.  In the end, too many wounds would still best him.

Aragorn Vs Lurtz - After being beaten around and headbutted to the ground, Aragorn comes to quick enough to avoid the dagger being thrown at him and defeats Lurtz.  Moments later, after a pep talk w/ Gimli & Legolas, he is off running at full speed to rescue Merry & Pippin.

Serenity:

Zoe - A reaper sliced her back open dropping her to the floor, requiring assistance from Jayne to get behind cover.  A quick stitch from Simon and she was back up in the fight.

Malcom vs The Operative: The operative beat the snot out of malcom, then stabbed him and attempted to use his nerve stun against him.  However, he paused just long enough for malcom to take a breather and get the drop on the operative.

The Princess Bride:

Inigo Montoya: Has a dagger thrown at his stomach, and is stabbed twice before regaining enough strength to see his vengence through and kill count Rougen.  After the fight Wesley comments on his wounds and Inigo shrugged and said he was fine.

Star Wars TPM:

Obi-Wan vs Darth Maul:  After being beaten and knocked into the pit, obi-wan uses a healing surge and leaps out of the pit to finish off darth maul (yeah, this one sucks...but so did the movie, so, nya)

Crank:

Pretty much the entirety of crank is one, long healing surge.

Ktulu


----------



## Dr. Confoundo (Apr 10, 2008)

Or take a look at 'Die Hard'. John McClane (Bruce Willis) is the walking embodiment of the Healing Surge in action.


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 10, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> I really have to see this in action in 4e Modern...wow I took 3 M16 rounds...but I'm ok now! Come on....




I think maybe you missed the part where adventures in 4E aren't ordinary people, they're "points of light" in a darkening world.  Levels 1-10 are Heroic levels.  An ordinary soldier falling off a roof could die or be in bed for weeks.    A Hero falling off the roof could hurt themselves but recover quickly.  Why don't the townsfolk grab up their weapons and go rescue their friends from the orc encampment themselves?  They'd be cut down!  They're no match for ferocious monsters.  They need heroes!

A hedge wizard who practices all his life might be able to make a light appear, or sounds come from nowhere, but he'll never be able to toss out spells like a hero can.  Why isn't old John down the road a 20th level Farmer by now?  Because he's not a hero, he's an average person. There are no level 20 Farmers!

So your d20 Modern example isn't totally 4e compatible.  In 3.0 and 3.5 everyone and everything had a class.  That's just not so in 4e.  Wizards are special.  Fighters are special.  They're heroes.  And heroes have powers above and beyond normal humans.  For example: Magic missile.  

And accelerated healing.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Apr 10, 2008)

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> I could, grudgingly, accept this logic.
> 
> Except for all the Cure X Wounds spells, and Heal, and others, that seem to cure my stun.
> 
> ...




It's why I hate monks in 3E.  Every time someone uses the Deflect _Arrows_ feat to deflect a thrown _dagger_, it kicks me completely out of the immersion.

-Hyp.


----------



## qstor (Apr 10, 2008)

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> Rolemaster... concussion hits heal very fast. Fighters with high con easily heal 1/8 of their hp in one hour of sleep.




I have to admit in all fairness I've never played Savage Worlds, Rolemaster, M&M or Hero 5e. Its as a friend mentioned D&D 4e is more cinematic now than 2e or 3e with hero points and healing surges.

_A portion of post deleted_ You probably saw that I've already addressed that comment. don't throw gas on a fire.  ~ PCat


----------



## Henry (Apr 10, 2008)

Y'know, eventually, if used enough, the words "John Maclane" in 4e forums the world over will start causing  epileptic seizures in people who don't like the 4e healing surges. 

I started looking at it, and remembered all my balking at how horribly unrealistic 3E healing was. *Without so much as a stitch of magic*, not even a single cantrip, mind you, a character taking a full day's bed rest under a competent healing receives FOUR TIMES HIS CHARACTER LEVEL IN HIT POINTS EACH DAY.

Let me repeat this: Four times his character level in hit points each day.

The 10th level Barbarian with an 18 CON and 130 hit points (well above average, I note), will regain 40 hit points per day of good care. In three days, he's almost completely healed. He could have fallen off a cliff, been chewed on by a demon, and had an Owlbear of Legend hug him to pieces, and he's almost brand-new in three days.

Heck, a 1st level barbarian with 16 hit points will be brand-new in four days. Wizards and rogues? they'll be healthy in one-third that time. That 10th level wizard with a 14 CON and 46 hit points is back to snuff in a single day of being mangled.

healing surges aren't realistic, but they're not that much different from the insanity of everything after Original D&D.


----------



## Henry (Apr 10, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> As someone said on the 4e april fools thread get over a thousand posts then talk to me f&#*&$g blind 4e fanboy.




qstor, let's not go there, please. KK has already backed up a bit, so let's not start anything more.


----------



## Ranmyaku (Apr 10, 2008)

Actually, with mild hyperbole, that _is_ how hit points are described locally. You get hurt, and you shrug it off.

But here's what I'd like to know. See, in Legend of the Five Rings, getting hit in a fight is more than likely the end of you - if you aren't rendered helpless by crippling wound penalties, you're just dead. This is even more the case as characters proceed into higher ranks, where techniques to increase damage are abundant while those that decrease or mitigate it are held by no more than half a dozen schools.

In Warhammer Fantasy, the above still applies - but now, with the wonderfully gory critical hit tables, even if you do survive you're going to do so without a hand, or a leg, or an eye, or something else you liked. Experience means access to armour and a few defensive skills - but none of that will help you when a peasant with a woodsman's axe has taken off your arm.

As a heroic mortal in Exalted, you stand head and shoulders above characters from L5R and Warhammer, but it's even more imperative you don't get hit. Experience here means that you can perform five impossible tasks before breakfast, and might even have access to esoteric, supernatural martial arts, but once again, it doesn't matter who you are - if you don't die from the lovingly-detailed blood loss rules, you're laid up in bed while you die in agony over the course of several weeks from infected wounds.

Now, all three of these systems are excellent. I use them myself! But there is no way, _no_ way they can do the sort of exuberant, action-movie type adventures D&D does. Similarly, D&D can't do chanbara, gritty low fantasy, or epics nearly as well as L5R, Warhammer, or Exalted.

So, it sounds to me like the people advocating for fewer hit points with no chance to regain them outside of days of bedrest are taking that aspect from other games, but they want to retain the sword-and-sorcery feel of the rest of D&D. Is that the case?


----------



## Haffrung Helleyes (Apr 10, 2008)

*Hit points and Healing surges*

Hit points and healing in D&D have never been realistic.  I like the concept of healing surges, and I do think it's appropriate for some percentage of hit points to represent bruises, getting the wind knocked out of you, whatever.

The problem is that in 4E, this is all that can happen to you.  You _still_ can't get an arm broken or a spear in your gut.  You can only lose hit points.  And they explicitly come back now without even the aid of magic, quickly.

I think I would like 4E better if damage taken past a threshhold was harder to heal.  Basically, if there were both vitality points and wound points.

I never liked the VP/WP systems I saw for 3E, because they didn't mesh well with the rest of the rules.  But I regard the fact that we still don't have a VP/WP distinction in 4E, even though the system was redesigned from scratch, as a missed opportunity.

As a bandaid, I am thinking about implementing a 'bad things happen' chart that people have to roll on when their hit points go negative.  I might even extend the death threshhold a bit, making it even harder to die, but not harder to have a leg broken, or get an eye put out.  It would of course require long term care (for broken bones) or powerful ritual magic (for regenerating missing eyes) to fix this kind of stuff.

Ken


----------



## ruleslawyer (Apr 10, 2008)

This has been discussed extensively on other topics, but I think the right way to go would just to give someone the choice of an injury and a healing surge, or dropping and having to roll stabilization checks. That way, you get either a long-term impairment or debilitation with some hp to compensate, or you're out of the fight altogether. Another option might be to force a check for injury with each "strike" that a PC accumulates on the "three strikes and you're dead" scale.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 10, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Hold on, isn't that limiting my narrative control?



No. This has little to do with narrative control. 

Narrative Control is (among many other things)  something like this: 
Firing two arrows at once and hitting two targets his very hard to do. The odds of getting this situation are very slim. Narrative Control given to you playing a Ranger with the "Split the Tree" power allows you (as the player, not the character) to decide that _now_ is the situation where the odds come true.


----------



## med stud (Apr 10, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> As in, my character fell down the stairs, was 'hit' by three arrows, poisoned, in the middle of a fireball, and mauled by a bear over the course of the day.  I could describe that character as bleeding out his eyes, holding his guts in with one hand, and barely able to stand.  But, since I used my healing surges to get back up to full, none of those wounds have any effect on my character.
> 
> But, that kind of 'narrative control' is better?



Yes, IMO. If you want to use that kind of descriptions, even if you know that your character is mechanically able to function, then it's your narrative choice. It reminds me of John McLane from Die Hard, Marve from Sin City or William Wallace in Braveheart (the scene where he runs around with two arrows in his chest).

You can describe your injuries anyway you chose. The alternative is that your DM describes all that and you play along. "How the *bleep* I still be standing with all that going on? Well, I suppose I had some inner strength I wasn't aware of before" (if you like to play in first person). After the action is over, you come up with some explanation how he pushed the intestines back inside and sewed himself up.

The arrows are represented in game by, maybe, 3d8+12 damage in total +20 poison damage. The fireball, maybe 3d6+6. The bear, let's say 3d6+15. Mechanically, your character lost a total of 6d6+3d8+53 damage, he was down, but got again with a healing surge. That's it. How you chose to describe it is up to you.


----------



## Knightlord (Apr 10, 2008)

Henry said:
			
		

> Y'know, eventually, if used enough, the words "John Maclane" in 4e forums the world over will start causing  epileptic seizures in people who don't like the 4e healing surges.
> 
> I started looking at it, and remembered all my balking at how horribly unrealistic 3E healing was. *Without so much as a stitch of magic*, not even a single cantrip, mind you, a character taking a full day's bed rest under a competent healing receives FOUR TIMES HIS CHARACTER LEVEL IN HIT POINTS EACH DAY.
> 
> ...




Here here! D&D is fantasy. No man could recover from many of the above instances within a few days. How do they do it? They are heroes, beyond the norm and built from the stuff of legends, even if some of them perhaps don't know it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 10, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> I have to admit in all fairness I've never played Savage Worlds, Rolemaster, M&M or Hero 5e. Its as a friend mentioned D&D 4e is more cinematic now than 2e or 3e with hero points and healing surges.




If you do play those - and a number of others - you'll see that D&D is playing catch-up to a concept that's been around for some time. D&D has spent most of it's life as a cinematic game shackled by a weird amalgamation of wargame rules.


----------



## med stud (Apr 10, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> Here here! D&D is fantasy. No man could recover from many of the above instances within a few days. How do they do it? They are heroes, beyond the norm and built from the stuff of legends, even if some of them perhaps don't know it.



It's also about how fun it is to play. During my education I have been at surgical, orthopedic and neurological clinics, I have also studied the physiology behind injuries and their healing. A game based on that would _suck_. So, you barbarian got hit in the head by a hill giant? Well, now he has to spend three months learning how to chew again. The arm that got broken? With a cast and physiotherapy, he will be able to use that arm again in two months! Stabbed in the gut? Well, no luck for you, mr barbarian. Without modern healthcare or magical healing, you will die, and soon. 

I much rather have PCs heal in one day than even trying to have realistic healing times. Instead of hospitals, all PCs will be far too reliant on magical healing if they ever get hurt. If they don't have magical healing, roll up new PCs after one knife to the gut. Not "heroic" in my sense of the word.


----------



## Knightlord (Apr 10, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> It's also about how fun it is to play. During my education I have been at surgical, orthopedic and neurological clinics, I have also studied the physiology behind injuries and their healing. A game based on that would _suck_. So, you barbarian got hit in the head by a hill giant? Well, now he has to spend three months learning how to chew again. The arm that got broken? With a cast and physiotherapy, he will be able to use that arm again in two months! Stabbed in the gut? Well, no luck for you, mr barbarian. Without modern healthcare or magical healing, you will die, and soon.
> 
> I much rather have PCs heal in one day than even trying to have realistic healing times. Instead of hospitals, all PCs will be far too reliant on magical healing if they ever get hurt. If they don't have magical healing, roll up new PCs after one knife to the gut. Not "heroic" in my sense of the word.




Seconded.


----------



## Khur (Apr 10, 2008)

What's also missed by "I take a sword (or M16 round) through the gut and get back up" points of view is that the people who have them are _choosing_ that interpretation of the action, rather than choosing to imagine something more compatible with the letter, spirit, and results of the mechanics. They're choosing that interpretation without regard to what the rules say HP are. This has been said a bunch of times, but apparently it doesn’t get through: Nothing in the rules says that every hit is a wounding blow. In fact, the description of what HP are actively says otherwise.

Now, that choice of interpretation might be somewhat valid, since the D&D game is an individualized one. I say “somewhat,” because as I said, the rules don’t support the "sword through the gut and get back up" interpretation. But it seems really strange for someone who doesn’t actually like "sword through the gut and get back up" action to stick to that interpretation despite the fact that this interpretation ruins his or her sense of immersion.

Really, anyone who’s doing that is creating his or her own problem. Since plenty of other interpretations exist and are actually supported by the D&D rules, it’s hardly fair to say the problem is with the D&D rules (or any other rules that are similar). It’s not.

And I’m not saying that the "sword through the gut and get back up" interpretation is bad if it’s fun for you and your group. Then it’s fine. I have played with a guy who loved that interpretation, and that interpretation can be valid for certain settings with weird world conceits. But hating it and actively choosing it anyway, especially for a campaign setting that doesn't support it, seems really weird, like an addiction or something.

My players and I endeavor to actually create immersion rather than actively hindering it. No ruleset we’ve used, and we’ve used a lot, has fully supported direct interpretation from mechanical interaction to world action. Sure, the results of the D&D game’s mechanical interactions aren’t always easy to interpret within the scope of what’s happening in the world.  Some games make that easier, but those same games are often bad at the epic fantasy fun the D&D game portrays—at least without some tinkering. That has always been true about D&D play.

Sometimes we ignore the difficulty of in-world explanations and get on with the game. Other times we come up with cool interpretations on the fly. And sometimes we even analyze the situation after the game session is over and come up with what must have happened, extending the fun of the game into nongame time.

The thing is, gamist elements have never truly hindered our simulation. We always choose the good story. That is, we always choose the fun.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Apr 10, 2008)

The thing is some people like a game where weapons do real damage and people are injured. I for one am not interested in a game that is all about combat where all the action is described as almost hitting things and people and monsters just getting tired. I want a game where blood and guts are spilled, not were people get winded.


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Apr 10, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> What's also missed by "I take a sword (or M16 round) through the gut and get back up" points of view is that the people who have them are _choosing_ that interpretation of the action, rather than choosing to imagine something more compatible with the letter, spirit, and results of the mechanics. They're choosing that interpretation without regard to what the rules say HP are. This has been said a bunch of times, but apparently it doesn’t get through: Nothing in the rules says that every hit is a wounding blow. In fact, the description of what HP are actively says otherwise.




Right, the problem occurs precisely when _there is no desicription that fits the mechanics_.  This is the case with the Picador harpooning ability.  4E hitpoints seem to represent no physical injury whatsoever, which if kept consistent works.  You need to use strained and tenuous logic however to explain how a creature half your size is pulling you around with a sharpened stick using the no-injury model.  It forces cognitive dissonance upon the player.  



> Sometimes we ignore the difficulty of in-world explanations and get on with the game. Other times we come up with cool interpretations on the fly. And sometimes we even analyze the situation after the game session is over and come up with what must have happened, extending the fun of the game into nongame time.
> 
> The thing is, gamist elements have never truly hindered our simulation. We always choose the good story. That is, we always choose the fun.




One curious thing I've seen posted on these forums and the Wizards one is that gamism is synonymous with fun, and simulationism synonymous with not fun.  The common mantra being that it is always preferential to give up simulation for fun elements.

Is it really such a stretch that simulation, granted at the level of traditional D&D, is what some gamers find fun?


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Apr 10, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> What's also missed by "I take a sword (or M16 round) through the gut and get back up" points of view is that the people who have them are _choosing_ that interpretation of the action, *rather than choosing to imagine something more compatible* with the letter, spirit, and results of the mechanics. *They're choosing that interpretation without regard to what the rules say HP are*. This has been said a bunch of times, but apparently it doesn’t get through: Nothing in the rules says that every hit is a wounding blow. *In fact, the description of what HP are actively says otherwise*.



This is in regards to prior editions not 4e.  In previous editions the description of HP has said they were abstract, but the mechanics themselves have never supported it.  In fact the mechanics have generally supported the opposite interpretation.  The problem has always been with a group of people who could not admit that there was a dissonance between fluff and rules in previous editions.  The game is for those who play it either interpretation works fine in play.  The conflict is because one side argues that the rules don't match the fluff and the disconnect should be fixed while the other says the fluff is good so just ignore the implications of the mechanics without realizing nobody is raining on their parade.

Now one of the few things I don't mind about 4e is the abstraction of hit points.  Because previously the abstraction was in fluff only and instigated the drama.  The new version is abstract enough that it can represent both extremes without raising issues of the mechanical disconnect.  The fluff text of the book is meaningless as the mechanics have reached a point where they can support both sides of the issue equally well.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 10, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Is it really such a stretch that simulation, granted at the level of traditional D&D, is what some gamers find fun?



Simulationism doesn't exactly have the best salespeople around here.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 10, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Right, the problem occurs precisely when _there is no desicription that fits the mechanics_.  This is the case with the Picador harpooning ability.  4E hitpoints seem to represent no physical injury whatsoever, which if kept consistent works.  You need to use strained and tenuous logic however to explain how a creature half your size is pulling you around with a sharpened stick using the no-injury model.  It forces cognitive dissonance upon the player.




Nothing strained nor tenuous about "That harpoon caught in your leg and you're going where you're pulled because you'd lose a chunk of your leg otherwise." Likewise "The harpoon's only caused a flesh wound, but it caught in your clothing/armor and now you're being dragged around." Likewise "That harpoon caught in your chest and you're being dragged around, but five minutes after this fight you're going to be fine because you're just that tough/regenerating/the cleric's tending your wounds."

The game mechanics model a wide variety of possibly interpretations. The exact same mechanics (or very nearly the same) could be used for a psionic character getting a "mental grip" on your body and dragging you around.

The flexibility of the HP system from a wide variety of simulationist and narrative frameworks while conforming to the gamist desires of balance and fun are precisely the strength of that system, because all three of the situations above can happen in the same game, without having to have separate, balanced mechanics to model each.



			
				Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> One curious thing I've seen posted on these forums and the Wizards one is that gamism is synonymous with fun, and simulationism synonymous with not fun.  The common mantra being that it is always preferential to give up simulation for fun elements.
> 
> Is it really such a stretch that simulation, granted at the level of traditional D&D, is what some gamers find fun?




The whole point of the paragraph you're responding to is that they choose the fun simulationist descriptions that meshes with the gamist mechanics that are _also_ fun. That is more difficult for some people than others, but when people are responding that your lack of fun is self-inflicted, this is what they mean.


----------



## Thyrwyn (Apr 10, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Right, the problem occurs precisely when _there is no desicription that fits the mechanics_.  This is the case with the Picador harpooning ability.  4E hitpoints seem to represent no physical injury whatsoever, which if kept consistent works.  You need to use strained and tenuous logic however to explain how a creature half your size is pulling you around with a sharpened stick using the no-injury model.  It forces cognitive dissonance upon the player.



There is no "no-injury" model.  There is a model where HP damage "does not necessarilly represent injuries which have a measureable affect" upon other aspects of the game mechanics.  Except when it does (this being exception based design).  The Picador ability is one such case - it is an exception.


----------



## Xyl (Apr 10, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> There is no "no-injury" model.  There is a model where HP damage "does not necessarilly represent injuries which have a measureable affect" upon other aspects of the game mechanics.  Except when it does (this being exception based design).  The Picador ability is one such case - it is an exception.



Actually, the picador ability makes _more_ sense in a simulationist interpretation if you assume it's getting caught in your clothes, rather than actually stuck in your flesh. One of the effects of the harpoon is that you can remove it as a standard action. If the harpoon was caught in your flesh, pulling it out quickly would definitely cause more injury - after all, harpoons are barbed. Since it doesn't cause extra damage when you remove it, a simulationist should conclude that it's not embedded in your flesh.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 10, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> One curious thing I've seen posted on these forums and the Wizards one is that gamism is synonymous with fun, and simulationism synonymous with not fun.  The common mantra being that it is always preferential to give up simulation for fun elements.



Well, it is a Roleplaying _Game_. The game part is important. A game should give me fun. 

So, that's the ultimate arbiter of a game's quality - Do I have fun with it.

Why can "gamismn" be more fun then "simulation"?
Gamismn is all about the game parts. And as we said, a good game means fun.

Simulation isn't about the game parts. It's about simulating/modelling a (fictional) world. A fictional world probably contains a lot of elements that aren't really fun, since even fictional worlds usually have a lot of unfun stuff, just like the real world.

Off course, Roleplaying games are a special kind of game. You need to have game elements that... well.. "simulate" the role you play. That's stuff like having characters with different abilities, game rules adjudicating how you interact with the world you play in. That is simulation. But the goal of this simulation is not to simulate the fictional world. It just models the characters interaction with this world. And, being a game, it should do so in an entertaining, "fun" matter. But you risk no longer doing this if you simulate too much, or to precise, or if your simulation cares more about the reality then the fun aspect of the game world. 
D&D is a lot about combat. So, the game rules should enable you to run combats. If you want to have fun in combat, getting brutally killed in your first combat round with no hope of recovery is little fun in the long run. If you end up crippled and are out of the "interesting" action with the world for a few game-world months, you're not really playing the game, or having real fun. If the game provides a lot of options for you to do while you are roleplaying yourself adjusting to the hook replacing your left hand, everything is fine. But if the game expects you to go back into combat very soon (like, 5 minutes after the last orc fell), the rules better should provide you with the ability to recover fast enough. Even if this has nothing to do with what we see as a "realistically" simulated outcome.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 10, 2008)

Xyl said:
			
		

> Actually, the picador ability makes _more_ sense in a simulationist interpretation if you assume it's getting caught in your clothes, rather than actually stuck in your flesh. One of the effects of the harpoon is that you can remove it as a standard action. If the harpoon was caught in your flesh, pulling it out quickly would definitely cause more injury - after all, harpoons are barbed. Since it doesn't cause extra damage when you remove it, a simulationist should conclude that it's not embedded in your flesh.




Well, in 3e, the Kuo-Toa harpoon DOES cause 1d10 point of damage when you remove it, unless you have someone make a DC 15 Heal check.

The comparison of the harpooner (MMV) and the Picador mechanics is, I think, instructive. In my opinion, it shows how 4e has 'shed' rules which added to the flavor and feel of the game, simplifying things to the point where the flavor text has no mechanical impact -- the Picador could just as easily be using a 'telekinetic snare' for his ability *feels* like a harpoon. In other people's opinions, it shows how 4e just "gets on with it". Me, I like the fact there's stats for the harpoon, that there's a full write up so that someone can take EWP:Kuo Toa Harpoon and pull the same stunts, that there's two special feats for Kuo Toa monks which a PC Kuo Toa monk could learn, and so on. To others, this is needless bloat and if wasn't there, there'd have been room for two more monsters. So it goes.


----------



## The_Gneech (Apr 10, 2008)

Y'know, I remember reading in my old _Advanced Dungeons & Dragons Dungeon Master's Guide_ (or was it my blue _D&D_ booklet?) that the game assumed that all hp losses were superficial "until the last one". That's the way _D&D_ has always been. The book then went on to explain, among other things, that this was why _D&D_ didn't track hit locations, because there wasn't a direct "attack roll = individual wound" relationship.

It ain't new, folks! Whatever beefs I may have with 4E, this isn't one of them.

-The Gneech


----------



## FitzTheRuke (Apr 10, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Right, the problem occurs precisely when there is no desicription that fits the mechanics.




Hmm. I've never had that problem. I've had situations where it's more difficult than others to create descriptions, but never EVER where there's NO description to fit the mechanics.

I mentioned earlier that I was surprised at the lack of creativity in gamers, but I've realized that the creativity is being used to create problems rather than avoid them. Very creative indeed.

Fitz


----------



## Rakor (Apr 10, 2008)

Preface all of this with "I think." and "It seems to me." and "In my opinion."

One of the reasons that people argue that gamism is more fun then simulationism is that simulationism is about suspension of disbelief while gamism is about how the game actually plays. 

I played a cyberpunk (I think) game where the group had a limited amount of time to stop somebody from doing something. One of the players got shot up badly and lost a leg. Very simulationist, it's what happens when you don't take cover well enough and catch 30 M16 rounds to the leg. Unfortuneately it meant that the character was out for weeks while he healed and legless until the party could put together the 8 grand or whatever to buy a replacement leg. This is gamistly terrible, it's going to suck to be that guy for the rest of the adventure. 

Most groups I've played with want to avoid that situation, the "gamist is more fun" mantra comes from people being willing to just suck it up and go "yeah, that doesn't make total sense but it means that Jim is going to be able to play his character instead of not showing up for the next 6 weeks of gaming."

I totally don't get how people could enjoy gaming like that. When an unlucky die roll makes that headshot blind your character, reduces mental attributes to 1d3 each and will require months of in game time to heal. What do you do?


----------



## D'karr (Apr 10, 2008)

Rakor said:
			
		

> When an unlucky die roll makes that headshot blind your character, reduces mental attributes to 1d3 each and will require months of in game time to heal. What do you do?




Roll 4d6, drop lowest.  Roll six times, get character sheet...  Etc.


----------



## DandD (Apr 10, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Roll 4d6, drop lowest.  Roll six times, get character sheet...  Etc.



And then change to 4th edition, where Point-Buy-System is standart.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 10, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Roll 4d6, drop lowest.  Roll six times, get character sheet...  Etc.





- But I liked my old character! I want to continue playing him! He still is searching for the murderer of his father!
- Look, just play this new character until the other is healed.
- But the party will be several levels further by then. If he plays again the, he'll probably killed in the first round of combat!
- Ah, you off course get the neccessary XP to catch up!
- Huh? But I thought this was a realistic campaign? How am I getting XP for staying in bed for 6 months?
- Damn you, gamist! I get it. Here are the 4E rulebooks. Knock yourself out and run a game. I'll be happy to play for a while, and see how _you_ fare with whiney players.!
...
- But I just wanted to play my character ...


----------



## med stud (Apr 10, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> The thing is some people like a game where weapons do real damage and people are injured. I for one am not interested in a game that is all about combat where all the action is described as almost hitting things and people and monsters just getting tired. I want a game where blood and guts are spilled, not were people get winded.



In that case, how have you managed to play D&D all these years?? HP in D&D have never even tried to be a simulation of real injuries all the way. As gneech says above, even the old AD&D DMG says that HP doesn't simulate your physical health. A level 9 fighter has always been immune to death from a 20 ft fall (barring absolutely lousy luck when rolling HP).


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Apr 10, 2008)

Thyrwyn said:
			
		

> There is no "no-injury" model.  There is a model where HP damage "does not necessarilly represent injuries which have a measureable affect" upon other aspects of the game mechanics.  Except when it does (this being exception based design).  The Picador ability is one such case - it is an exception.




It's one of the more sensible interpretations of the 4E healing system.  The fact that you can be "hit" with a weapon (an arrow, for instance) and then promptly use a healing surge to restore your state to your status prior to being hit, all without the use of any magic implies that you weren't actually hit at all -- no injury occured (you might have expended a lot of effort in barely dodging it, used up your luck, etc).  This model adequately describes most scenarios (barring falling damage and the like).  It's the only interpretation I've heard which doesn't amount to "You have your arm chopped off (take 3 damage).  You're injured, but because you're so oozing with machismo you can keep on fighting like nothing happened"  This of course falls apart horribly when trying to figure out how the Picador's mechanic works.



			
				Mustrum Ridcully said:
			
		

> Well, it is a Roleplaying Game. The game part is important. A game should give me fun.
> 
> So, that's the ultimate arbiter of a game's quality - Do I have fun with it.
> 
> ...




Forgive me if I'm misunderstanding you, but to me this seems like the same argument -- gamism is fun, simulationism isn't.  My group enjoys both, with a good amount of emphasis on the latter.  Previous editions of DnD were less gamist than the current one, and people had tons of fun back then too.  Simulationism, at the level DnD has traditionally allowed is fun for lots of people.  Scrapping it to make the game more fun is a contradiction to me, and I know I'm not alone in this.


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Apr 10, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> In that case, how have you managed to play D&D all these years?? HP in D&D have never even tried to be a simulation of real injuries all the way. As gneech says above, even the old AD&D DMG says that HP doesn't simulate your physical health. A level 9 fighter has always been immune to death from a 20 ft fall (barring absolutely lousy luck when rolling HP).




The old rules state that hit points were skill, luck, and actual wounds. 4E drops the actual wounds part. Even in 3.x with its reduced healing rates, hit points took days to come back without magic healing, in 4E it takes 5 minutes. With 3.5 I can believe that part of the hit point damage was the sword to the stomach that drew blood, in 4E that is not the case. Hence in 3.5 or earlier I can have descriptions where someone is cut open by my sword strike, where in 4E even if I hit I am only missing and winding him.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 10, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> The fact that you can be "hit" with a weapon (an arrow, for instance) and then promptly use a healing surge to restore your state to your status prior to being hit, all without the use of any magic *implies that you weren't actually hit at all -- no injury occured* (you might have expended a lot of effort in barely dodging it, used up your luck, etc). This model adequately describes most scenarios (barring falling damage and the like). It's the only interpretation I've heard which doesn't amount to "You have your arm chopped off (take 3 damage). You're injured, but because you're so oozing with machismo you can keep on fighting like nothing happened" *This of course falls apart horribly when trying to figure out how the Picador's mechanic works.*




Emphasis mine.

Well, I disagree (partially) with this interpretation. IMO, it isn't that you weren't actually hit at all, it's that you weren't injured in a major way. A character who loses a few hit points might have become winded or fatigued (because he had trouble dodging); gotten bruised; taken a small cut, scrape, or scratch; twisted his ankle; pulled a muscle; had the wind knocked out of him; or all kinds of other non-major injuries.

In the parlance, he has what I'd call "action hero injuries." He's dirty, breathing hard, and maybe bruised or suffering from some minor (but potentially showy) flesh wounds.

And like any good action hero, if he gets "harpooned" by that goblin picador, lots of interpretations are possible.

1) The harpoon snagged in his clothing or armor, but the point was nicking his flesh (or close to doing so), causing him to go along to avoid injury.

2) The harpoon was "hooked" and the hook caught on his back or arm, forcing him to go along to keep it from gouging him deeply.

3) The harpoon went through his shoulder/leg/arm, but missed doing major damage. It's like the bullet that passes "clean through" in a movie. The harpoon might still be lodged in the character, but if so, it likely passes "clean through" his leg. He goes along to prevent it from causing major injury. After he kills the goblin picador, he can snap the head off the harpoon, and then yank the smooth shaft out. Then after the battle, he tears off a bit of his shirt (or pulls out some bandages), binds the wound shut, and he's good to go.

Yes, it requires that the game operate under the cinematic reality of an action movie, rather than how "the real world" works. To me, that falls under the category of "willing suspension of disbelief."

Personally, to me, the textbook example of this is the "bloodied" condition. In Fourth Edition, there's a decent mechanic in place to represent the notion of a fight to "first blood." If two duelists are fighting to first blood, the first to be "bloodied" loses. Everything until then is just fatigue and blunt trama.

The emphasis here is that it isn't "no injuries" - it's "no serious injuries" or "no injuries that really impair the character." Scrapes, scratches, and bruises are fine, as are any "flesh wounds" characters can take in movies that don't actually hurt your brain.

For those who don't like John McClane (or are getting tired of the reference), Indiana Jones and James Bond are perfectly valid secondary examples. The latter usually recovers from his injuries with nothing more than a martini and a night with a hot girl.


----------



## med stud (Apr 10, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> The old rules state that hit points were skill, luck, and actual wounds. 4E drops the actual wounds part. Even in 3.x with its reduced healing rates, hit points took days to come back without magic healing, in 4E it takes 5 minutes. With 3.5 I can believe that part of the hit point damage was the sword to the stomach that drew blood, in 4E that is not the case. Hence in 3.5 or earlier I can have descriptions where someone is cut open by my sword strike, where in 4E even if I hit I am only missing and winding him.



Have they really explicitly taken that part out? I don't remember reading it. Besides, read my post above on realistic healing times. A couple of days is as unrealistic, when it comes to real wounds, as six hours. Especially since you always heal in the same time from 0 HP to full, every time you go to 0.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 10, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Previous editions of DnD were less gamist than the current one, and people had tons of fun back then too.  Simulationism, at the level DnD has traditionally allowed is fun for lots of people.  Scrapping it to make the game more fun is a contradiction to me, and I know I'm not alone in this.




The HP rules are finally matching the text that has ALWAYS described them.  They are an abstraction for simulating HEROIC FANTASY combat.  For that purpose they are very well suited and simulate it very well.  

If on the other hand,  you want them to simulate any of a myriad of injuries including contussions, abrasions, lacerations, trauma and shock they have POORLY done that for 30+ years.  Only the creativity of DMs and players everywhere could make the HP system do so.  Because the rules never supported that.  If you are saying that 4th Edition is the only edition of D&D that has done those things in a poor way, then you are lying to yourself.

I'm counting on the same creative DMs and players to use that same creativity to still play awesome games.  No matter what Hit Points do or do not represent.

Just like there were tons of people playing D&D before and having fun, I'm sure that will continue to be the case.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 10, 2008)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> The old rules state that hit points were skill, luck, and actual wounds. 4E drops the actual wounds part.




No, hong drops the actual wounds part (except when he doesn't). A lot of 4E crusaders drop the actual wounds part. I've never seen an actual developer state that they've dropped the actual wounds part.



			
				Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Even in 3.x with its reduced healing rates, hit points took days to come back without magic healing, in 4E it takes 5 minutes. With 3.5 I can believe that part of the hit point damage was the sword to the stomach that drew blood, in 4E that is not the case. Hence in 3.5 or earlier I can have descriptions where someone is cut open by my sword strike, where in 4E even if I hit I am only missing and winding him.




In all editions of D&D, hit points have represented what I call 'The Greatsword Tax'. Specific powers, feats, and special abilties aside, no greatsword hit described as being an arm wound ever decreased your chance to hit. No greatsword hit described as a hit to the face ever resulted in a chance of blindness. No greatsword hit described as a hit to the leg ever reduced a character's movement speed. In terms of actual rules, the only thing that mattered when you were hit with a greatsword was whether or not it dropped you.

None of this ever stopped us from pretending that a character had been hit in the arm, leg, or face if we wanted.

The Greatsword Tax means, essentially, that even though a weapon got through your ordinary defenses (by which I mean, everything that goes into your character's AC - armor, dexterity, certain kinds of magical protection), and was prevented from killing you by some kind of extraordinary defense. These are the blows that make your character go 'oh crap, I nearly died just there'. Maybe your great skill allowed you take the blow on your arm. Maybe you caught the blow badly on your shield - it didn't pierce your skin, but it hurt like hell. Maybe you had to twist suddenly and badly to get out of the way. Maybe you took the greatsword to the chest and you're just so badass that this isn't a killing blow to you like it would be to anyone else.

Fundamentally though, no matter how you describe it, the only in-game effect it has is whether or not the _next_ greatsword hit is going to kill you. That's what HP represent. And once you realize that, a whole lot of 'problems' disappear. 3E's 'healing' rates don't bother you - you just rationalize that a character who's survived a whole lot of danger shouldn't push his luck with too much more.

Likewise, 4E's healing rates cease to be a problem - the only thing you're recovering when you spend a healing surge is the ability to not die to the next n things that get past your normal defensive measures - the ability to take deflect that next killing blow to a less important organ, or twist out of the way one or two more times, or continue catching them on the shield even when you're off-balance. If you were badass enough to take one swordblow directly to the chest, the only reason we can't suspend disbelief when you survive the second one is if it happens too many times in rapid succession.

Once you get to this point, a whole new realm of possibilities open up. One of your players wants to play an regenerating God-blooded PC? Okay. Describe him (or allow the PC to describe himself) as happily running up his opponent's sword and lopping their heads off, and his wounds close themselves after the fight. Another PC wants to play a hauled-himself-up-by-the-bootstraps warrior, who wins fights through sheer skill? Fine, he's deflecting blows at the last second, dodging out of the way on an adrenaline kick, and taking 'hero wounds'. Another player wants to play the tough guy who just takes the hits and keeps on coming, no problem. After a hard fight, he stuffs his guts back in his stomach, ties the bandage tight, and presses on.

You don't have to change any of the rules to do this. You can let all these characters play together without worrying about balance. All you have to do is let go.


----------



## Zil (Apr 10, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> In all editions of D&D, hit points have represented what I call 'The Greatsword Tax'. Specific powers, feats, and special abilties aside, no greatsword hit described as being an arm wound ever decreased your chance to hit. No greatsword hit described as a hit to the face ever resulted in a chance of blindness. No greatsword hit described as a hit to the leg ever reduced a character's movement speed. In terms of actual rules, the only thing that mattered when you were hit with a greatsword was whether or not it dropped you.




You clearly never played using the 2E Combat & Tactics (C&T) rules.   The critical hit rules in there were more than just a little bit brutal with players crawling back to down with broken limbs, missing hands, etc.   Of all versions of D&D, this is the version where the regenerate spell/power proved to be most valuable.   

The biggest drawback to C&T was speed of play.   Combat could really drag if you had a lot of opponents with different types of weapons.  So if we were to put 4E and C&T on the simulation vs abstraction scale, they would be at opposite ends of the scale (so far as D&D is concerned).  

I personally liked the switch to 3E from C&T because it sped up the games quite a bit and still preserved enough of the simulation that you could easily immerse yourself despite the mechanical abstractions.  With 4E, I worry that it has gone too far and it will be much harder to really immerse myself just because the mechanics are so much farther away from what I perceive as reality.  Perhaps younger generations who have grown up on Anime, WoW, and Magic : The Gathering won't have this problem.    

I think that is the gamble that WoTC has taken - that the game will appeal more to younger generations of gamer who are more interested in a fast MMORPG like game.  They might not have a problem with such blatant (and unintuitive) mechanical things as "healing surges".  If they lose us old timers, it is sad, but we are a dying breed.  The young gamers are the future.   We shall see if their gamble pays off.


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Apr 11, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> The HP rules are finally matching the text that has ALWAYS described them.  They are an abstraction for simulating HEROIC FANTASY combat.  For that purpose they are very well suited and simulate it very well.




I don't understand what you mean by 4E's HP mechanic following it's text better than previous editions.  HP were always an abstraction of damage.  It's just that now the damage part isn't even necessarily involved anymore.  You can "heal" yourself non-magically mid-battle, and to complete full fighting capacity within 6 hours.



			
				D'karr said:
			
		

> If on the other hand,  you want them to simulate any of a myriad of injuries including contussions, abrasions, lacerations, trauma and shock they have POORLY done that for 30+ years.  Only the creativity of DMs and players everywhere could make the HP system do so.  Because the rules never supported that.  If you are saying that 4th Edition is the only edition of D&D that has done those things in a poor way, then you are lying to yourself.




I put in specific verbiage to avoid exactly this type of accusation.  I don't want to play D20 Reality.  All I ask is for some semblance of simulationism fixed within the rules (i.e. PC's need to take some time out of adventuring to heal if magic isn't present, even if it isn't completely realistic.  All pre-4E editions did this to some extent).  As is, you can receive a spear to the face, be peppered with arrows, be crushed by stampeding elephants, etc. etc. and be in top fighting condition within a few hours _that same day_.  



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Well, I disagree (partially) with this interpretation. IMO, it isn't that you weren't actually hit at all, it's that you weren't injured in a major way. A character who loses a few hit points might have become winded or fatigued (because he had trouble dodging); gotten bruised; taken a small cut, scrape, or scratch; twisted his ankle; pulled a muscle; had the wind knocked out of him; or all kinds of other non-major injuries.




I mostly accept this bit.  A small cut, aching arm, twisted ankle, etc. I would classify as no (real) injury.  The type of thing you can just "walk off" in real life.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> In the parlance, he has what I'd call "action hero injuries." He's dirty, breathing hard, and maybe bruised or suffering from some minor (but potentially showy) flesh wounds.
> 
> And like any good action hero, if he gets "harpooned" by that goblin picador, lots of interpretations are possible.
> 
> ...




This is where I draw the line.  If I envision someone getting a harpoon impaled into their body, I see that as a severe injury.  A giant spear-shaped wound in your thigh or shoulder *will* severely hinder mobility or combat prowess.  Saying that my character suffers a major injury like this but is actually fine and dandy imposes cognitive dissonance.  

I can accept the no-injury model, because there is no cognitive dissonance, nothing causing my brain to crash and require rebooting.  The Picador's ability is explicitly predicated on some sort of injury, however.  I don't buy the explanation of the spear getting hooked on clothing/gear -- if I run a character with minimal clothing, shirtless or what have you, the explanation fails.  I'm also curious as to how many other monsters have an ability that makes these kinds of assumptions.



			
				JohnSnow said:
			
		

> The latter usually recovers from his injuries with nothing more than a martini and a night with a hot girl.




Put this explicitly in the rules and I'll shut up about realism.


----------



## JohnSnow (Apr 11, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> I don't buy the explanation of the spear getting hooked on clothing/gear -- if I run a character with minimal clothing, shirtless or what have you, the explanation fails.




Only if you want it to fail. Maybe the character's skin is leathery enough from exposure to weather that it resists easy penetration. Basically, the PC spends so much time shirtless, that, like the 3e Barbarian, he has a certain degree of resistance to penetrating cuts. So the harpoon can snag on his skin without actually puncturing his flesh severely.

Such a thing is decidedly _unrealistic_ (albeit plausible) except that for a character who constantly goes around with no shirt, a certain amount of "skin-toughening" from exposure to the elements is _realistic_ - especially in that "Conan the Barbarian" sense. Before people start claiming that human skin doesn't work like that, I'll mention that I saw a shao-lin monk put a spear point to his throat and bend the haft to almost a 90 degree angle by leaning against it, without taking any injury. Then he did it with 6 spears, so be a little careful when you make pronouncements about what kind of punishment the human body can withstand...

Think "the harpoon hooked over his shoulder and the barb is digging into his scapula" - unpleasant to be sure, but far from a lethal injury.

Injuries, for the most part, don't leave holes in the human body. Major organs deflect (to the extent that they can), minor tissue is damaged and the wound seals shut. If an arrow can go through your leg without leaving a gaping hole in it (a common fantasy trope), so can a harpoon.

It's possible that this is a case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing. Medical professionals accept that D&D's system is patently unrealistic, and they're okay with that, 'cuz realism sucks. Somewhere near the med students, you have people like me, who know something about injury, realize the system is unrealistic, and are okay with it because we prefer the cinematic reality to the real reality. At the other end of the spectrum are the people who don't realize the system is unrealistic, and wonder what people's problem is. Then there are people who aren't medical experts but believe you can come up with a more "realistic" system for tracking injuries - thinking that such a thing will be more believable, without really wanting true "reality."

"Long-term injury with no performance penalties in the interim" is one example of the latter attempt to inject an absurd kind of "realism" that isn't the slightest bit realistic. Thinking of a wound that heals fully in three days as a "long-term injury" is another.


----------



## Majoru Oakheart (Apr 11, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> I think that is the gamble that WoTC has taken - that the game will appeal more to younger generations of gamer who are more interested in a fast MMORPG like game.  They might not have a problem with such blatant (and unintuitive) mechanical things as "healing surges".  If they lose us old timers, it is sad, but we are a dying breed.  The young gamers are the future.   We shall see if their gamble pays off.



I don't think it is a younger person vs older person problem.  I do not think that healing surges are unintuitive at all.

I ran 4e all weekend long at DDXP, and I can tell you that not a single person made a comment at any of my tables about them not making any sense or had a problem understanding them at all.  In fact, they were rather easy to understand:  "You hitpoints go down when you get hit, you can spend a standard action to take a second wind which triggers a healing surge.  Whenever something triggers a healing surge, get back a quarter of your hitpoints."

Everyone pretty much said "Ok, cool...let's play."

I had a lot of older people play at my tables and no a single one of them complained about it at all.  In fact, until I got home from the con and got online I didn't even consider that some people would have a problems with spending an action to get back some hitpoints.


----------



## Ktulu (Apr 11, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> This is where I draw the line.  If I envision someone getting a harpoon impaled into their body, I see that as a severe injury.  A giant spear-shaped wound in your thigh or shoulder *will* severely hinder mobility or combat prowess.  Saying that my character suffers a major injury like this but is actually fine and dandy imposes cognitive dissonance.
> .





In the movie serenity, for example, Jayne Cobb is harpooned by the Reavers in a chase scene and yanked off of the hovercraft they're flying on.

Though he is shown to limp slightly the following scene with some exposition, he does not appear to suffer from the wound through the rest of the movie, or the major combat at the end.

Sure, this is movie logic, but that's the same logic D&D is using.  After the battle the ranger looks you over and says, "wow, I don't know how you survived that, but the wound appears to be superficial.  Let me sew up the opening, I think you'll live."

Seems to work for me.


----------



## baberg (Apr 11, 2008)

Ktulu said:
			
		

> In the movie serenity, for example, Jayne Cobb is harpooned by the Reavers in a chase scene and yanked off of the hovercraft they're flying on.
> 
> Though he is shown to limp slightly the following scene with some exposition, he does not appear to suffer from the wound through the rest of the movie, or the major combat at the end.



During that exposition it was also implied that the doctor would "patch up the crew" so I'm assuming he got a bandage.  But you're right - the injury wasn't life-threatening, or even life-altering.  Jayne was up and fighting in a bar within a few scenes.

At this point, there's really no use in arguing about the harpooning anymore.  Several explanations have been floated which are perfectly reasonable as to why a harpoon could keep the PC within 5 squares of the Picadoor without causing wounds.  If all of these "fail" for any given person, then I believe they won't ever be convinced.

I'm all about informed debate, but when the debaters just end up arguing the same points over and over and neither side gives an inch, it gets boring - and I'm accusing both sides of that.  If you want HP to represent real life wounds, houserule it or find another game.  D&D 4th does not consider HP to be wounds, with the possible exception of the killing blow.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> No, hong drops the actual wounds part (except when he doesn't).




I do?

Oh, yeah, wait, I do.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 11, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> I personally liked the switch to 3E from C&T because it sped up the games quite a bit and still preserved enough of the simulation that you could easily immerse yourself despite the mechanical abstractions.  With 4E, I worry that it has gone too far and it will be much harder to really immerse myself just because the mechanics are so much farther away from what I perceive as reality.  Perhaps younger generations who have grown up on Anime, WoW, and Magic : The Gathering won't have this problem.
> 
> I think that is the gamble that WoTC has taken - that the game will appeal more to younger generations of gamer who are more interested in a fast MMORPG like game.  They might not have a problem with such blatant (and unintuitive) mechanical things as "healing surges".  If they lose us old timers, it is sad, but we are a dying breed.  The young gamers are the future.   We shall see if their gamble pays off.





What a load of tosh. I've been gaming for 20 years. I don't think its an unintuitive mechanic at all. I think its the only feasible method to explain the abstraction of hit points in every core version of DND. I think Lycon hit the nail on the head. DND is a game were any actually serious wound puts you out for the count. That is what all the fluff has obviously been indicated to mean. HP represent the ability to not be seriously hurt. Once you are seriously hurt, you're down.

I do have some issues with the fact that negative hitpoints are healed so easily.. but thats utterly seperate to the Healing Surge mechanic. As some of the suggestions on the board have said, the best way to look at the overall health of your character is to include all the healing surges in his total HP. That's his actual health pool. Once that is depleted, you are in serious danger of dying.

Lastly, there is nothing MMPORG like that is inherent in 4e. I know this. I've been playing mmporg's since UO launched, and been through UO,EQ,AO,SWG, Vanguard and WoW.

4e does not feel like an mmo. In any way shape or form. All the similiarities that you can point to can be demonstrated in virtually all of the DnD versions.


----------



## drjones (Apr 11, 2008)

If it was realistic 90% of adventurers would die of septic shock within a week of adventuring from having all those dirty kobold daggers stabbed in em.

The only problem I see here is a lack of imagination.  Say one of my pcs jump off a low ledge to escape a rolling boulder and fail a throw to land well.  They get some damage and break an ankle (because I am a jerk dm of course).  After the fight the pc uses some surges to heal to full hp and the cleric uses healing on him to get the ankle in good shape.  He still is at reduced movement from the leg trauma.  Happened last playtest.

How flipping hard was that?  I could have just said 'uh.. well .. you used a surge so I guess everything is magically healed for no apparent reason' but I guess the rules don't have me by the cajones.


----------



## drjones (Apr 11, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Lastly, there is nothing MMPORG like that is inherent in 4e. I know this. I've been playing mmporg's since UO launched, and been through UO,EQ,AO,SWG, Vanguard and WoW.




Vanguard man.. my heart goes out to you and your family.

But back on topic, 
healing surges: A wizard did it.


----------



## Rakor (Apr 11, 2008)

drjones said:
			
		

> . . .
> 
> healing surges: A wizard did it.





If that were true there wouldn't be a problem. It's because a wizard (or in this case cleric) _didn't_ do it that there is such a fuss.


----------



## Stogoe (Apr 11, 2008)

Rakor said:
			
		

> If that were true there wouldn't be a problem. It's because a wizard (or in this case cleric) _didn't_ do it that there is such a fuss.




There are a few people making a fuss.  They have been given a dozen alternate explanations each for how it might work, and they have refused to recognize any of them.  Sometimes I think pessimism is the official sport of ENWorld.


----------



## Oldtimer (Apr 11, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> I think that is the gamble that WoTC has taken - that the game will appeal more to younger generations of gamer who are more interested in a fast MMORPG like game.  They might not have a problem with such blatant (and unintuitive) mechanical things as "healing surges".  If they lose us old timers, it is sad, but we are a dying breed.  The young gamers are the future.   We shall see if their gamble pays off.



I think you're wrong in assuming that only the younger generation can appreciate 4e. I'm in my fifties and have been playing D&D since 1974, but I still look forward to playing this new edition. Its rules about healing make so much sense to me - in a D&D world.


----------



## Khur (Apr 11, 2008)

Hey, I like simulation. I like having a in-world explanation for things that happen in the game. I encourage my players to create such explanations, and I push myself to do the same. It's when simulation trumps fun that I start to have a problem with it.

I'd rather the in-game descriptions allowed for rapid recovery, to be honest. I don't want one guy's "realistic" injuries grinding the game down. I also don't want it so realistic that after the raid on the Caves of Chaos, everyone has to retire due to health issues.

That said, I agree wholeheartedly that dissonance occurs when a particular rules element doesn't match the overarching principle. I had that problem with more than one 3e mechanic, or mechanics in other games. I rarely let the dissonance ruin my fun, though. That's my point. I do regret that the dissonance makes it more difficult for some to enjoy the game.

I think this sort of dissonance is hard to purge from any really complex system. In this case, the complex system is the game rules and the large number of people that have input into them.


----------



## Kishin (Apr 11, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> "Wow, that goblin harpooner impaled you and dragged you half across the battlefield, kicking and screaming with the weapon going through your gut and out your spine! How do you feel?"




"Like a heroic badass."


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

"Like I'm all out of bubblegum."


----------



## Khur (Apr 11, 2008)

Like I'm made out of bubblegum?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 11, 2008)

baberg said:
			
		

> During that exposition it was also implied that the doctor would "patch up the crew" so I'm assuming he got a bandage.  But you're right - the injury wasn't life-threatening, or even life-altering.  Jayne was up and fighting in a bar within a few scenes.



It was most definitely life-altering - Jayne was taken down by a girl a few scenes later! He must have been hurt worse then it seemed!


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 11, 2008)

Heh.

I want a gumby-based character.

All said and done, it is the picador who has given me the most trouble, so far, and is that kind of design inconcistancy that has caused the giant rifts between differing ideas of what HP is supposed to represent, alongside things like 'Cure' spells, etc.

I'll live with it, but I'll probably house rule something to go with with it.

Most of the problems can probably be resolved by discussing the way the save takes place.

I'll probably allow a free save at the cost of the damage repeat, and describe it as worsening the flesh wound, but that the harpoon is too shallow to cause truly serious injury.


----------



## Campbell (Apr 11, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Like I'm made out of bubblegum?




"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum."

It's originally from They Live (1988), a John Carter flick. Great movie.

YouTube Link


----------



## Oldtimer (Apr 11, 2008)

Campbell said:
			
		

> "I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass ... and I'm all out of bubblegum."
> 
> It's originally from They Live (1988), a John Carter flick. Great movie.
> 
> YouTube Link



I'm sure you meant to write "John Carpenter"...


----------



## Campbell (Apr 11, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> I'm sure you meant to write "John Carpenter"...




Yep. Mixed up two kinds of awesome.


----------



## Nightchilde-2 (Apr 11, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> As I've said a number of times, I can't think of a single other RPG where a character can innately heal themselves without referencing the healing "action" to Spells, long term rest, charms or potions, innate special abilities like fast healing and class ability D&D monks ability or OD&D mystics ability regeneration not in GURPS Ars Magica, Rifts.




Earthdawn.


----------



## Knightlord (Apr 11, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> I don't buy the explanation of the spear getting hooked on clothing/gear -- if I run a character with minimal clothing, shirtless or what have you, the explanation fails.




All explanations fail if you analyze them enough. Eventually, you're going to come up with a situation or concept where the explanation does not work. Why? Because rules and explanations are static and do not change. Our imaginations, do. Therefore, the explanations cannot encompass everyone's idea of what's truely happening or fit with everyone's character concept. Thankfully, there is a way to rectify this failure: Come up and roleplay a new explanation, one that satisfies your own sense of whats going on in the game.

Heck, that's half fun.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 11, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It was most definitely life-altering - Jayne was taken down by a girl a few scenes later! He must have been hurt worse then it seemed!




The crew of the Serenity was playing LBB Traveller.
River was playing Exalted.  (Or was the GM's girlfriend)


----------



## WayneLigon (Apr 11, 2008)

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Before people start claiming that human skin doesn't work like that, I'll mention that I saw a shao-lin monk put a spear point to his throat and bend the haft to almost a 90 degree angle by leaning against it, without taking any injury. Then he did it with 6 spears, so be a little careful when you make pronouncements about what kind of punishment the human body can withstand...




Magicians do that sort of thing all the time. It's called 'a trick'.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 11, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I do?
> 
> Oh, yeah, wait, I do.




 Well, I do apologize if I put words in your mouth. I thought I saw you post something like that somewhere, but I could have gotten it mixed up with someone else.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Well, I do apologize if I put words in your mouth. I thought I saw you post something like that somewhere, but I could have gotten it mixed up with someone else.



 No, no, don't apologise. You gave me another opportunity to pimp myself! These don't appear everyday, you know.


----------



## Dragonblade (Apr 11, 2008)

Khur said:
			
		

> Hey, I like simulation. I like having a in-world explanation for things that happen in the game. I encourage my players to create such explanations, and I push myself to do the same. It's when simulation trumps fun that I start to have a problem with it.
> 
> I'd rather the in-game descriptions allowed for rapid recovery, to be honest. I don't want one guy's "realistic" injuries grinding the game down. I also don't want it so realistic that after the raid on the Caves of Chaos, everyone has to retire due to health issues.
> 
> ...




Thanks for your thoughts, Chris.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 11, 2008)

The problem is self inflicted.  Nothing in the description of the Goblin Picador says that he impales the target through the head, spine, leg or clothing.  As a matter of fact, in all editions of D&D, critical hit tables and target locations where added usually as addendums or player options, if you wanted to play that way.

In the case of the goblin picador some DMs and players are assigning the actual target (spine, leg, clothing).  For those that assigned a target that should not heal easily (spine) then the healing surge becomes a conundrum.  But the conundrum is still self-inflicted.  The problem is not what HP are or are not.  The problem lies in the explanation that some want to paint themselves into a corner with.

20+ years ago I remember watching the movie "Rambo: First Blood".  In it there is a scene where Rambo finds himself at the end of a cliff with his chasers closing in.  He takes the Peter Pan route and jumps.  He splatters his body in all kinds of wonderful ways as he smashes into tree branches that break his fall.  He lands on the ground, bruised, cut and limping.  The next scene you see him open up the hilt of his Trusty Knife (tm).  He pulls out some suture material and goes to town fixing his wounds.

I remember watching that and saying to a friend of mine, Rambo is a high level fighter.  That was when we were playing 1st edition.

Now I can easily see him taking his short rest and expending several healing surges to continue on.  I've chosen not to paint myself into a corner, because the rules obviously do not.


----------



## Wormwood (Apr 11, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> I remember watching that and saying to a friend of mine, Rambo is a high level fighter.  That was when we were playing 1st edition.



And in 4e, Rambo could be a first-level fighter if you wanted him to be.

edit: which seems like an advantage to me.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 11, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> And in 4e, Rambo could be a first-level fighter if you wanted him to be.
> 
> edit: which seems like an advantage to me.




Yes, he could and I agree that it is an advantage.  It models the way my group plays much better.  However, that was a nasty fall.  He'd still have to be conscious to use any of his healing surges, so the survivability factor is important and a fall like that is nothing to scoff at.

BTW, did anyone else notice that falling damage was d10's now?  At least that is how they were doing it at DDXP.


----------



## DM_Blake (Apr 11, 2008)

Rakor said:
			
		

> I played a cyberpunk (I think) game where the group had a limited amount of time to stop somebody from doing something. One of the players got shot up badly and lost a leg. Very simulationist, it's what happens when you don't take cover well enough and catch 30 M16 rounds to the leg. Unfortuneately it meant that the character was out for weeks while he healed and legless until the party could put together the 8 grand or whatever to buy a replacement leg. This is gamistly terrible, it's going to suck to be that guy for the rest of the adventure.




It seems to me that there is a middle ground.

A game system where damage is painful, dibilitating, and, well, damaging.

But also where access to healing is readily available, and the guy who loses a leg will be up walking around in real-life minutes thanks to the availability of healing magic (or in cyberpunk, regenerative and/or cybernetic technology).

HP don't have to be abstracted to "Well, it might be damage, unless you get it back by resting, or it might be exhaustion unless a cleric heals you, or it might just be your luck running out unless you get it back by any means, or it might be something else entirely - we just don't know what it is, so I guess it's a little red bar floating in the air overy your characters head that gets shorter when you get hurt/tired/unlucky and longer when you get healed/rested/more lucky."

To me, that seems like going too far.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 11, 2008)

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> It seems to me that there is a middle ground.
> 
> A game system where damage is painful, dibilitating, and, well, damaging.




Propose one.



> we just don't know what it is, so I guess it's a little red bar floating in the air overy your characters head that gets shorter when you get hurt/tired/unlucky and longer when you get healed/rested/more lucky."
> 
> To me, that seems like going too far.




See you had a good point until there.  Close but no cigar.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 11, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> Yes, IMO. If you want to use that kind of descriptions, even if you know that your character is mechanically able to function, then it's your narrative choice. It reminds me of John McLane from Die Hard, Marve from Sin City or William Wallace in Braveheart (the scene where he runs around with two arrows in his chest).



So, you would consider these characters 1st level or so?


----------



## D'karr (Apr 11, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, you would consider these characters 1st level or so?




Is it important what level they are?


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 11, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, you would consider these characters 1st level or so?




They're probably not past heroic tier.


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 11, 2008)

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> It seems to me that there is a middle ground.
> 
> A game system where damage is painful, dibilitating, and, well, damaging.
> 
> ...




If you can imagine a character who's suffered painful, debilitating damage and surviving X additional hits, why is it a problem for you to imagine that, if he can catch a breather, recieve medical attention, replenish fluids, refocus his mind to get past the pain, or bandage his wounds before moving on, that character can survive X+1, X+2, or X+3 hits instead?

Put another way, consider two injuries - the loss of several fingers on one hand, and a severed tendon in the leg. Set aside the fact that HP loss doesn't model any after-effects of these injuries, just the fact that you've suffered some. Is it that much of a stretch to think that the guy who suffers both of these injuries in the same fight is more likely to go into shock and possibly die if nobody treats him (he falls below 0 hp), but the guy who has a chance to bandage his wounds and recieve first aid after the first injury might have a better chance of withstanding the shock (has recovered some hp, so might not fall below 0)?

There's still an upper limit on how much any character can withstand, as nobody gets unlimited healing surges. There's a much stricter limit on how much you can withstand in a short time.

If you want magical or techno-based healing to be required for recovery, it's pretty simple to do that too - remove or restrict each character's innate ability to use healing surges and give the Cleric more healing words per encounter (or make magical healing potions common). You'll lose out on the ability to play effectively _without_ a Cleric (or massive stockpiles of healing potions), which was a purported design goal of 4E, but if that's what's fun for you, nobody's stopping it.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, you would consider these characters 1st level or so?



 Is there a reason? You seem to be speaking? In rising inflections?


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 11, 2008)

I'm just not a fan of creating extensive injury rules and then negating them with magic healing rules.  I played 3e for a long time, and I was the rules guy of the group.  And you know what? I never memorized the rules for nonmagical healing.  Why would I?  The cleric always handled things.  You get your level in hit points per night, assuming the DM lets you handwave the fact that you didn't technically sleep eight hours because you were on watch part of that time, and... stuff.  In my mind, that's poor design.

The only way I will possibly have a problem with 4e healing rules is if there's no incentive to use the Heal skill instead of Second Wind when healing between fights, or at the end of the day.  As long as that happens, then healing, taken as a whole across the course of the day, will be a mixture of magical effect, mundane bandaging, and recovering one's stamina.  And even without the magical effects, the mixture of mundane bandaging and recovering one's stamina will be perfectly fine with me.

If there's no reason to preference the Heal skill over Second Wind, I'll be a little annoyed.  But only a little.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 11, 2008)

Actually, healing surges are one of the things I can't find a match for in games (video or table top). I've seen something similar in sci-fi and fantasy novels though.

Healing surges are dependant on the character itsel being healed. Presumably, if you are out of healing surges for the day, your body simply won't accept anymore healing magic. This doesn't occur in any game that I know of which I'm somewhat surprised more people haven't picked up on.

In novels though, I've read settings where character's have an inherent limit to how much magical/technological healing they can take in a day 

So, is 4E becoming too much like a novel now though?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 11, 2008)

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> It seems to me that there is a middle ground.
> 
> A game system where damage is painful, dibilitating, and, well, damaging.
> 
> But also where access to healing is readily available, and the guy who loses a leg will be up walking around in real-life minutes thanks to the availability of healing magic (or in cyberpunk, regenerative and/or cybernetic technology).



Oh yes, off course you can do that. But you become dependent on technological or magical gimmicks. This means, depending on your setting, the game system has an acceptable level of lethality, or it doesn't. Not a flexible game system, but a workable. (It's after all, what D&D until the 3rd edition did, right? As long as you have a spellcaster with magical healing, lethality is fine. If you don't, all bets are off.)

If you heavily depend on hit points representing a noteable amount of physical healing, here is my explaination: In 4E worlds, everyone has access to some kind of healing "gimmick". 
Spellcasters can cast healing spells, off course. Non-spellcasters have technical devices that heal them, or there are some special kind of spells (rirtuals?) or magical items that even non-spellcasters can cast/use. (3E equivalent where healing potions and Wand of Cure Light Wounds combined with Use Magic Device).


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Apr 11, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> If you heavily depend on hit points representing a noteable amount of physical healing, here is my explaination: In 4E worlds, everyone has access to some kind of healing "gimmick".
> Spellcasters can cast healing spells, off course. Non-spellcasters have technical devices that heal them, or there are some special kind of spells (rirtuals?) or magical items that even non-spellcasters can cast/use. (3E equivalent where healing potions and Wand of Cure Light Wounds combined with Use Magic Device).




The problem with this model is that you need to explain why the spellcasters don't have access to this technical device.  It's hard to equate the power of reality to the power of magic, which is why there is such a logical disconnect between magical and martial healing.

I can accept Sims' proposal though.  Seems like we have slightly differing playstyles, and for him (and the rest of the development team) sacrificing elements that adhere to reality for ones that play better as a game was more fun.  

I guess for me all that remains is to see whether good qualities of 4E supercede those with which I take issue.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 11, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> Is it important what level they are?



Yes.

Whenever the example of John McClane comes up, the underlying assumption seems to be that he is fresh out of the police academy.

What is important to remember about a class and level system is the 'level' part.  The simulation is of a raw beginner progressing to great power.  D&D has never been a game where characters start out as even merely competent, let alone 'cinematic'.  Now, you can always start characters out at a higher level, but that is kind of a workaround.  Skill based systems are where you start out with competent or better characters.

Certainly, a more cinematic character generation system could be added as an option, or an alternate in the core books.  But there is still a sizable audience that likes starting out with a hardscrabble life and building that into greatness.  They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

So, what it really boils down to is this change to superheroes D&D.  Which is a perfectly acceptable style of play, if that is what a given group likes.  The problem is that by implication, the rest of the people who like starting out as minor actors are not playing the One True Way.  The further development goals of designing that style of play out of the rules is also going against the grain.  In previous incarnations, D&D has always allowed for a more 'heroic' level of play, although it may not have always been particularly simple to start out there.

If, in your estimation, John McClane is a first level character, and that is how you like to play, _great_.  I am all for D&D supporting that style.  What is off-putting is that they are supporting that style of play by sacrificing any other.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 11, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Is there a reason? You seem to be speaking? In rising inflections?



Isn't this where you usually reference one of your ridiculous 'laws' that have no standing outside of your gaming table?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 11, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> The problem with this model is that you need to explain why the spellcasters don't have access to this technical device.  It's hard to equate the power of reality to the power of magic, which is why there is such a logical disconnect between magical and martial healing.



Why do you have to explain this? In 4E, everybody gets healing. Apparently, some spellcasters have a healing tool that allows them to heal other people. For your self-healing, you use rituals, or magical items, or technology.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 11, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Whenever the example of John McClane comes up, the underlying assumption seems to be that he is fresh out of the police academy.




I haven't seen that.  The example of John McClane is used to show that most wounds incurred by the protagonist in movies "are merely flesh wounds."



> What is important to remember about a class and level system is the 'level' part.  The simulation is of a raw beginner progressing to great power.  D&D has never been a game where characters start out as even merely competent, let alone 'cinematic'.  Now, you can always start characters out at a higher level, but that is kind of a workaround.  Skill based systems are where you start out with competent or better characters.




And what is being remedied by making first level characters more survivable is the "start at X level" situation.  There have been plenty of games that simply started at 3rd level, as an example, because that was the beginning of the "sweet spot."  The spot where survivability and playability met.



> Certainly, a more cinematic character generation system could be added as an option, or an alternate in the core books.  But there is still a sizable audience that likes starting out with a hardscrabble life and building that into greatness.  They don't have to be mutually exclusive.




Just so that you know, the boost in survivability also applies to the opposition.  Take a look at a Human Guard 1st level skirmisher and you will see that it applies to their end too.  Making the challenge fit the opposition makes the "sweet spot" better.  If your group only encounters one solitary guard you can easily and quite correctly assume that the power level of PCs is overwhelming and not what you really want.  But when you start looking at the actual rules for building encounters you will see that taking on 4-6 guards is not going to be the cake-walk you are estimating and riling up against. 



> So, what it really boils down to is this change to superheroes D&D.  Which is a perfectly acceptable style of play, if that is what a given group likes.  The problem is that by implication, the rest of the people who like starting out as minor actors are not playing the One True Way.  The further development goals of designing that style of play out of the rules is also going against the grain.  In previous incarnations, D&D has always allowed for a more 'heroic' level of play, although it may not have always been particularly simple to start out there.




I'm sorry superheros are in aisle five.  You mean like mid-high level D&D?  

The point is that D&D in incarnations before 3e was not necessarily super heroes but at mid to high level the characters were head and shoulders over the competition.  But at high level playability was horrid.

In 3e, the characters were slightly more survivable at lower levels (more hit points) but the one hit wonders were really bad.  Oh, that orc just critted you with his falchion, bye bye rogue.  At mid to high level the PCs didn't have that problem so much but the one hit wonders still existed. And to top it off high level playability was still horrid.  And if there is one edition that can be considered the Justice League my vote is for 3e.

4e attempts to level the curve so that playability is maintained at all levels.  So the curve has to be flattened.  High level play will still be super heroes but low to mid level are now balanced for survival.  They've shifted the sweet spot so that levels 1-4 still provide fun without swingy deaths from random chance.

Color me red, but I prefer to have a game that plays great at all levels than one that only does so from level 4 to level 12.



> If, in your estimation, John McClane is a first level character, and that is how you like to play, _great_.  I am all for D&D supporting that style.  What is off-putting is that they are supporting that style of play by sacrificing any other.




I don't think that John McClane is a first level character but I don't think that the first level characters we've seen are nearly as bad ass as John McClane.

See if you want your characters to be bums from the git go, then all you have to do is increase the opposition.  In previous editions the players that wanted more capable characters started at a higher level.  So now all you have to do is start the opposition at a higher level to give the same feel in the opposite direction.

You're right I'm all for supporting a style of game that makes it fun to actually play.  If that is off-putting I'm sorry.  I guess we'll always have 3e.


----------



## med stud (Apr 11, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> So, you would consider these characters 1st level or so?



If you try to put words in my mouth, please provide a description as to _why_ I would think something.

So, why would I think they were level 1?


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 11, 2008)

med stud said:
			
		

> If you try to put words in my mouth, please provide a description as to _why_ I would think something.
> 
> So, why would I think they were level 1?



It was a question.  I am asking if you think those are first level characters.


----------



## med stud (Apr 11, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> It was a question.  I am asking if you think those are first level characters.



No, they are probably pretty high level.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 11, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> I haven't seen that.  The example of John McClane is used to show that most wounds incurred by the protagonist in movies "are merely flesh wounds."



Which is a bad comparison.  John McClane will never get anything but 'flesh wounds'.  He is the protagonist.  He simply can't die.  That is the purpose of a _movie_.  You don't interact with it.  It isn't a game.



> And what is being remedied by making first level characters more survivable is the "start at X level" situation.  There have been plenty of games that simply started at 3rd level, as an example, because that was the beginning of the "sweet spot."  The spot where survivability and playability met.



There is nothing inherent to first level that makes survivability more difficult.



> Just so that you know, the boost in survivability also applies to the opposition.  Take a look at a Human Guard 1st level skirmisher and you will see that it applies to their end too.  Making the challenge fit the opposition makes the "sweet spot" better.  If your group only encounters one solitary guard you can easily and quite correctly assume that the power level of PCs is overwhelming and not what you really want.  But when you start looking at the actual rules for building encounters you will see that taking on 4-6 guards is not going to be the cake-walk you are estimating and riling up against.



If hit points and attack damage inflate in exactly the same way for everyone, what has changed?  For example, if everything in the US started costing ten times as much, but your income was also increased tenfold, what is the difference?



> I'm sorry superheros are in aisle five.  You mean like mid-high level D&D?
> 
> The point is that D&D in incarnations before 3e was not necessarily super heroes but at mid to high level the characters were head and shoulders over the competition.  But at high level playability was horrid.
> 
> In 3e, the characters were slightly more survivable at lower levels (more hit points) but the one hit wonders were really bad.  Oh, that orc just critted you with his falchion, bye bye rogue.  At mid to high level the PCs didn't have that problem so much but the one hit wonders still existed. And to top it off high level playability was still horrid.  And if there is one edition that can be considered the Justice League my vote is for 3e.



That is simply playing the odds and losing.  That happens in a game.  If player gambles that they can take out an orc before they are taken out themselves, there are odds they will and odds they won't.  Sometimes the roll is seven, sometimes the roll is craps.



> 4e attempts to level the curve so that playability is maintained at all levels.  So the curve has to be flattened.  High level play will still be super heroes but low to mid level are now balanced for survival.  They've shifted the sweet spot so that levels 1-4 still provide fun without swingy deaths from random chance.
> 
> Color me red, but I prefer to have a game that plays great at all levels than one that only does so from level 4 to level 12.



While this may be a viable strategy, it is hardly the only design that would allow that.  There is no requirement for the curve to be flattened to achieve the goals stated.



> I don't think that John McClane is a first level character but I don't think that the first level characters we've seen are nearly as bad ass as John McClane.
> 
> See if you want your characters to be bums from the git go, then all you have to do is increase the opposition.  In previous editions the players that wanted more capable characters started at a higher level.  So now all you have to do is start the opposition at a higher level to give the same feel in the opposite direction.



Or, if you want your characters to be heroes from the get go, you can decrease the opposition.  It works both ways.



> You're right I'm all for supporting a style of game that makes it fun to actually play.  If that is off-putting I'm sorry.  I guess we'll always have 3e.



No, that style of play isn't off-putting.  The One True Wayism is what is off-putting.  It shows a contempt for other gamers and their enjoyment.

However, more and more the examples I am reading seem not to point to a failing of rules, but to sub-par DMing.  Possibly a communication problem.  If a DM is throwing ogres and giants at a first level party, that is clearly not because the rules require it, or that the rules don't prevent it.  Perhaps the expectations weren't clearly explained; the DM may be expecting the party to try running away, but the players assume the DM isn't going to kill them off.  While the rules can contribute to problems like these, I don't believe that they are the root cause.  Since they aren't the root cause, changes to the rules won't properly address the issues of low level play.  A DM that throws giants at a first level party in previous editions will throw dragons at a first level party in the new edition.  Challenge Ratings were a rough estimate of what is appropriate, just like 'Solo' and 'Elite' are rough estimates.  Nothing about these prevents bad DMing.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 11, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Which is a bad comparison.  John McClane will never get anything but 'flesh wounds'.  He is the protagonist.  He simply can't die.  That is the purpose of a _movie_.  You don't interact with it.  It isn't a game.



That's true for John McClane, yes. But if I wanted to ... "emulate" the feel of Die Hard? (without preserving the guarantee for a Happy End, but at least rigging it so that it's a reasonable outcome?) 
Would I use a system that allows for instant death and a slow healing rate or possibly a death spiral? Would I use a system that makes any kind of injury very unlikely? Or do I use a system that uses a quick recovery from damage?



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> There is nothing inherent to first level that makes survivability more difficult.



7 hit points vs. 2d4+2 (18-20 x2) seems like a good example for low survivability at 1st level. (Level 1 Rogue attacked by a CR 1/2 Orc). But see below or previous posts.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> If hit points and attack damage inflate in exactly the same way for everyone, what has changed?  For example, if everything in the US started costing ten times as much, but your income was also increased tenfold, what is the difference?



Nothing would have changed. But we're discussing 4E, right? Hit points have increased. Damage has not. A 1st level Fighter deals still something around 1d8+5 points of damage, against 25 hp Kobold Skirmishers. Or 1d8+5 hit points vs "close-to-zero" hp Kobold Minions.



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> That is simply playing the odds and losing.  That happens in a game.  If player gambles that they can take out an orc before they are taken out themselves, there are odds they will and odds they won't.  Sometimes the roll is seven, sometimes the roll is craps.
> 
> 
> While this may be a viable strategy, it is hardly the only design that would allow that.  There is no requirement for the curve to be flattened to achieve the goals stated.
> ...



To bring up the Orc example again? How much can you decrease the opposition? I could exchange the Orc with a single Kobolds. That's probably as low as it get. 
But do you realy want to run fights that only consists of lonely Kobolds? Or doesn't a fight against 8 Kobolds a lot more exciting? 
This isn't an MMORPG, where you send out a scout to attract a single monster (thanks to simple aggro or line of sight rules) and then the whole party focuses its fire on it. 



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> No, that style of play isn't off-putting.  The One True Wayism is what is off-putting.  It shows a contempt for other gamers and their enjoyment.
> 
> However, more and more the examples I am reading seem not to point to a failing of rules, but to sub-par DMing.  Possibly a communication problem.  If a DM is throwing ogres and giants at a first level party, that is clearly not because the rules require it, or that the rules don't prevent it.  Perhaps the expectations weren't clearly explained; the DM may be expecting the party to try running away, but the players assume the DM isn't going to kill them off.  While the rules can contribute to problems like these, I don't believe that they are the root cause.  Since they aren't the root cause, changes to the rules won't properly address the issues of low level play.  A DM that throws giants at a first level party in previous editions will throw dragons at a first level party in the new edition.  Challenge Ratings were a rough estimate of what is appropriate, just like 'Solo' and 'Elite' are rough estimates.  Nothing about these prevents bad DMing.



Who is talking about throwing Giants or Dragons at 1st level party? The example I've just read before your post discussed an Orc armed with a Falchion! That's totally within the expectations for 1st level play - and possibly totally deadly for a Rogue or Wizard.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 12, 2008)

Thanks MR, you saved me the effort of doing all that typing.

I'll just reiterate a point.  In 4e the 1st level characters are more survivable.  That does not mean that they are invincible or indestructible.  It just means that they can take more than one heavy hit, which was usually not the case in previous editions.

The hyperbole of giants against first level characters is what usually gets used around here when the point you are trying to make is weak or not valid.  An orc with a falchion was my example and I've seen it more than once be a killer against first level rogues, wizards, sorcerers and even a cleric once.

That kind of damage pendulum makes the game very deadly at lower levels and that is one thing that 4e remedies.  It doesn't necessarily make the game less deadly.  It just flattens that damage curve so that you can take more than one hit and still survive.  You can't take that abuse indefinitely, and against the new combat paradigm which is multiple opponents you still have to be very careful.  But being able to take more than one hit is a good thing.

Yes, John McClane is the protagonist of a *movie* and will only take flesh wounds.  In D&D the PCs are the protagonist of the *adventure* the difference is that they don't get plot immunity.  And if your PCs are not the protagonists of your adventures then I can see why some are complaining.

If you had gone to see Die Hard and John McClane had died from the first shot fired at him the movie would have lasted 17:10 minutes and people going to see the movie would have felt ripped off.  If an evening session kills Kenny the wizard from the first crossbow bolt shot at him by a kobold I'm pretty sure that Kenny' player would feel pretty ripped off too.  "You bastards you killed Kenny!!!"  

So what does 4e do?  It allows Kenny to survive that first shot, take a step back regroup (use second wind) and then blast the heck out of that pesky kobold.  He also goes and gets behind some cover.  If 6-7 kobolds are targetting Kenny, he'll probably still die.  But hey at least he goes out like Boromir, instead of like chump #1.

So the new mechanics serve the game better because they make the fun parts of the game more fun, by leveling the playing field.  And because now you face more creatures per encounter it also makes the game more fluid and tactical.  Do you show your head around that cover and get it shot to hell by those 7 kobold archers or do you cast mage hand and lift that mirror to peek without getting shot.  Or do you step right out and cast a burst that ends up killing 4 of the 7 kobolds.

I prefer my high fantasy heroic adventure to feel like one.  4e seems to do that pretty well.


----------



## Storm-Bringer (Apr 12, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> That's true for John McClane, yes. But if I wanted to ... "emulate" the feel of Die Hard? (without preserving the guarantee for a Happy End, but at least rigging it so that it's a reasonable outcome?)
> Would I use a system that allows for instant death and a slow healing rate or possibly a death spiral? Would I use a system that makes any kind of injury very unlikely? Or do I use a system that uses a quick recovery from damage?



Then you probably want a more skill based system where you can set the number of points to generate a character.  Not just D&D, but any class and level system is geared to fragile low level characters.  There are ways around that, but there are certain conventions inherent to the genre.


7 hit points vs. 2d4+2 (18-20 x2) seems like a good example for low survivability at 1st level. (Level 1 Rogue attacked by a CR 1/2 Orc). But see below or previous posts.




> Nothing would have changed. But we're discussing 4E, right? Hit points have increased. Damage has not. A 1st level Fighter deals still something around 1d8+5 points of damage, against 25 hp Kobold Skirmishers. Or 1d8+5 hit points vs "close-to-zero" hp Kobold Minions.



So, with my pay analogy, your taxes have somewhat decreased.  That Kobold Skirmisher is down in about three hits, on average.  Roughly comparable with previous editions.  Presumably there will be fewer Kobold Skirmishers than standard kobolds to fight.



> To bring up the Orc example again? How much can you decrease the opposition? I could exchange the Orc with a single Kobolds. That's probably as low as it get.
> But do you realy want to run fights that only consists of lonely Kobolds? Or doesn't a fight against 8 Kobolds a lot more exciting?



A fight is exciting when there is a chance you will lose, but survive through cleverness and teamwork.  Sometimes, the DM has to fudge that a bit.  They may have a penalty to damage for poor quality weapons.  Maybe they have a penalty to attack rolls from bright light.  There are dozens of ways to legitimately decrease the 'lethality' of an encounter before the DM has to resort to fudging dice.



> This isn't an MMORPG, where you send out a scout to attract a single monster (thanks to simple aggro or line of sight rules) and then the whole party focuses its fire on it.



Why not?  It's a tried and true tactic.  Sun Tzu extolled its virtues. 



> Who is talking about throwing Giants or Dragons at 1st level party? The example I've just read before your post discussed an Orc armed with a Falchion! That's totally within the expectations for 1st level play - and possibly totally deadly for a Rogue or Wizard.



Yes, and I was saying that if the DM is throwing inappropriate challenges at the players, it doesn't matter what edition you use.  If the players assume they have total script immunity, but the DM wants them to retreat, there is a conflict that isn't covered by any ruleset.  They could be fighting orcs, giants, dragons or gods.  If the expectations of the DM and players don't match, you can't adjudicate the solution.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 12, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Then you probably want a more skill based system where you can set the number of points to generate a character.  Not just D&D, but any class and level system is geared to fragile low level characters.  There are ways around that, but there are certain conventions inherent to the genre.




No, I think that 4e fits the bill just right.



> A fight is exciting when there is a chance you will lose, but survive through cleverness and teamwork.  Sometimes, the DM has to fudge that a bit.  They may have a penalty to damage for poor quality weapons.  Maybe they have a penalty to attack rolls from bright light.  There are dozens of ways to legitimately decrease the 'lethality' of an encounter before the DM has to resort to fudging dice.




And since nobody has said that those things are not doable in 4e I fail to see your point.  Nobody has mentioned anything about fudging dice.



> Why not?  It's a tried and true tactic.  Sun Tzu extolled its virtues.




Sure, I don't see why you can't send someone to bring the opposition to the battleground of your choosing.



> Yes, and I was saying that if the DM is throwing inappropriate challenges at the players, it doesn't matter what edition you use.  If the players assume they have total script immunity, but the DM wants them to retreat, there is a conflict that isn't covered by any ruleset.  They could be fighting orcs, giants, dragons or gods.  If the expectations of the DM and players don't match, you can't adjudicate the solution.




Since I was not talking about inappropriate challenges I once again fail to see your point.  Two orcs with  falchions are an appropriate challenge for a 1st level party.  There is nothing to adjudicate.  This has nothing to do with DM fiat.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 12, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Isn't this where you usually reference one of your ridiculous 'laws' that have no standing outside of your gaming table?




Trying to mock hong is like trying to drown water,


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Apr 12, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Trying to mock hong is like trying to drown water,



Yes Hong just doesn't stop, just ignore him it's not like he's said much worth hearing since the announcement anyway.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 12, 2008)

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> Trying to mock hong is like trying to drown water,




It's more like attacking the darkness.


----------



## Piratecat (Apr 12, 2008)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> Yes Hong just doesn't stop, just ignore him it's not like he's said much worth hearing since the announcement anyway.



Heh. I've found his 4e posts to be consistently interesting and informed.

In any event, please don't insult other folks on the boards.


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Apr 12, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Why do you have to explain this? In 4E, everybody gets healing. Apparently, some spellcasters have a healing tool that allows them to heal other people. For your self-healing, you use rituals, or magical items, or technology.




Because I don't accept videogame-like handwaving at my table?  That kind of explanation is just as good as no explanation at all.  You could very well have a game where eating food heals your HP and physically closes your wounds.   In my games I demand at least a small adherence to reality (not a horrible amount mind, we play 3.5 mostly).  If everyone can heal themselves in 4E I expect a system that makes some modicum of sense.  Giving fighters "Healing Stimpacks" and clerics Cure Light Wounds doesn't explain why the cleric doesn't have both Healing Stimpacks _and_ Cure Light Wounds.  Saying that each is arbitralily limited to one doesn't sit well with me.

This goes back to my no-injury model; it's the only one I can think of that sensically allows martial-types to heal as effectively as magic-users.


----------



## DandD (Apr 12, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Giving fighters "Healing Stimpacks" and clerics Cure Light Wounds doesn't explain why the cleric doesn't have both Healing Stimpacks _and_ Cure Light Wounds.  Saying that each is arbitralily limited to one doesn't sit well with me.



Does Cure Light Wounds even exist anymore? Now that they've changed the way healing works to begin with, you're rather going to improve the second-winds or whatever the mundane classes have as healing mechanic to patch themselves up, aren't you? And Khur, who apperantly is one of the very 4th edition game designers said that there is a way to heal outside of combat game mechanics...


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 12, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Because I don't accept videogame-like handwaving at my table?  That kind of explanation is just as good as no explanation at all.  You could very well have a game where eating food heals your HP and physically closes your wounds.   In my games I demand at least a small adherence to reality (not a horrible amount mind, we play 3.5 mostly).  If everyone can heal themselves in 4E I expect a system that makes some modicum of sense.  Giving fighters "Healing Stimpacks" and clerics Cure Light Wounds doesn't explain why the cleric doesn't have both Healing Stimpacks _and_ Cure Light Wounds.  Saying that each is arbitralily limited to one doesn't sit well with me.
> 
> This goes back to my no-injury model; it's the only one I can think of that sensically allows martial-types to heal as effectively as magic-users.



By the rules in 3E, everything is measured in 5ft steps. There are no smaller denotions you can move in. Does this mean that 5 ft is the world's "Planck Length", and you can't define a position more precisely then this in the game world? 
Off course not. The rules just abstract this details away.

 Is a 5 ft by 5 ft square entirely empty? Or does it contain some rocks, or dust, or the ribcage of a skeleton? The rules don't tell you.

The healing rules abstract the details of how you heal away. Maybe you're taking a shot of healing nanites, or you say a rhyme that attracts little feys that heal you. Or you take another dip from your healing potion. You apply an elven healing salve. The spellcaster creates a magical healing circle around the group. *)
It's a detail not covered by the rule, just like any distance lower then 5 ft, or the number or position of stones in the square you occupy.

*) Or you do something else, and rule that characters are only seriously hurt if they are out of healing surges and hit points.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 12, 2008)

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> Then you probably want a more skill based system where you can set the number of points to generate a character.  Not just D&D, but any class and level system is geared to fragile low level characters.  There are ways around that, but there are certain conventions inherent to the genre.
> 
> 
> 7 hit points vs. 2d4+2 (18-20 x2) seems like a good example for low survivability at 1st level. (Level 1 Rogue attacked by a CR 1/2 Orc). But see below or previous posts.
> ...



Doesn't make the game non-swingy. It reduces the likelyhood, but a natural 20 later, and the wizard is still dead. It's just like with those pesky save or die spells. "I can only fail on a naural 1 or 2! *roll* "2! There goes another Fighter...."



> Why not?  It's a tried and true tactic.  Sun Tzu extolled its virtues.



Doesn't changed that it's very boring. Effective or sensible doesn't exclude the option of bore. 
What was the Chinese Curse? "May you live in interesting times". 
I hereby invent a new German Curse: "Mögest du langweilige Spiele spielen" - "May you play in boring games". (Both curses are nasty ones, though the Chinese curse probably still "wins" in magnitude).




> Yes, and I was saying that if the DM is throwing inappropriate challenges at the players, it doesn't matter what edition you use.  If the players assume they have total script immunity, but the DM wants them to retreat, there is a conflict that isn't covered by any ruleset.  They could be fighting orcs, giants, dragons or gods.  If the expectations of the DM and players don't match, you can't adjudicate the solution.



The Orc is not an innappropriate challenge! It has a CR of 1/2. I am expected to send 4 pairs of them at my PC over the course of a day, by the encounter guidelines. 
I could alternatively send 3 Kobolds (Cr 1/3), and the results would stand.


----------



## Goreg Skullcrusher (Apr 12, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> By the rules in 3E, everything is measured in 5ft steps. There are no smaller denotions you can move in. Does this mean that 5 ft is the world's "Planck Length", and you can't define a position more precisely then this in the game world?
> Off course not. The rules just abstract this details away.
> 
> Is a 5 ft by 5 ft square entirely empty? Or does it contain some rocks, or dust, or the ribcage of a skeleton? The rules don't tell you.
> ...




I'm afraid I don't understand this.  I can understand hit points being an abstract concept, but I don't see how you can abstract the _mechanism_ of healing.  To me it sounds like a contrived hand-waving manoeuver.  "It just happens, ok?" kind of thing.  There are definite, non-abstract modes of healing, the most obvious one being divine power channeled by a cleric.  If this is the case, why suddenly abstract the other modes of healing?  The only reason I can think of is because there is no explanation that would make sense and not impose dissonance.  It's definately a less satisfying solution to what the 4E designers are proposing.



			
				DandD said:
			
		

> Does Cure Light Wounds even exist anymore? Now that they've changed the way healing works to begin with, you're rather going to improve the second-winds or whatever the mundane classes have as healing mechanic to patch themselves up, aren't you? And Khur, who apperantly is one of the very 4th edition game designers said that there is a way to heal outside of combat game mechanics...




Well, it's a discussion on the hypothetical alternatives to the no-injury model that I'm working with.  I've said earlier that I have no issue with that model, except when things like the Picador's ability spring up.  Mudstrum is suggesting that the no-injury model isn't necessary, but the martial types simply adopt an arbitrary healing solution.  We know the cleric has a healing power that will be the counterpart to cure spells in 3.x (Healing Word I think it's called).  If this defined, non-abstract mode of healing exists for the cleric, why can't the martial types have one that is similarly clear and non-abstract?  If it's somelike like a physical healing item, the question is then _why doesn't the cleric have access to both?_.


----------



## DandD (Apr 12, 2008)

How do you really know that Healing Word is a defined, non-abstract mode of healing?


----------



## tsadkiel (Apr 12, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> If it's somelike like a physical healing item, the question is then _why doesn't the cleric have access to both?_.




Who says they don't?  If you assume that the fighter's healing surges have a concrete representation in the game world (I'm actually fine with the abstraction, but bear with me) then the cleric has access to the same surge enabling items, which he can use on himself, and has magical healing abilities which he can use on himself and others.  Or the cleric's magical healing abilities work by enhancing the surge enabling items.  Either way, mere mortal bodies can only take so much accelerated healing per day, so the game effects are exactly the same.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 12, 2008)

The mechanism of healing is not abstract.  A second wind is recovery of stamina and determination.  A healing spell is magic.  A heal check is bandaging.

What's abstract is the mix of healing.  Over the course of the day, you can expect to recover some hit points with second wind, some with bandages, and some with healing magic.  And then, with sufficient rest, you get back the balance.

If you INSIST upon mentally pairing the various types of injuries with the wrong types of healing, well, you won't find things realistic.  But that's a self inflicted wound for which I have little sympathy.

PS- If the damnable picador is causing this much angst, don't use it.  Look at the ENORMOUS number of monsters we've seen so far.  Can you find even two that have abilities that bug you as much as the picador?  The Picador is becoming the golden wyvern adept of the monster list- the thing that haters reference, over and over and OVER AGAIN INCESSANTLY, as they hint ominously that its the shape of all things to come, even when its the only thing of its type we can see out of a pretty wide selection.


----------



## Zil (Apr 12, 2008)

Oldtimer said:
			
		

> I think you're wrong in assuming that only the younger generation can appreciate 4e. I'm in my fifties and have been playing D&D since 1974, but I still look forward to playing this new edition. Its rules about healing make so much sense to me - in a D&D world.



I didn't say that _only_ the younger generation will appreciate 4E, just that they are more likely to appreciate it because popular culture has changed since we were young and those changes are bound to work their way into game eventually.   When I do a straw poll of fellow gamers in our extended D&D group I find that the younger gamers like more of the features in 4E than the older (i.e. those in their late 30s, 40s) gamers.  That doesn't mean that all younger gamers like the new features, nor does it mean that all older gamers dislike what they've heard about 4E.  What it means is that more of the old-timers (in my circle) are on the fence or leaning towards avoiding 4E and it means that more of the younger crowd (again in my circle) have decided they are definitely going with 4E.


----------



## Zil (Apr 12, 2008)

VannATLC said:
			
		

> Lastly, there is nothing MMPORG like that is inherent in 4e. I know this. I've been playing mmporg's since UO launched, and been through UO,EQ,AO,SWG, Vanguard and WoW.



If it comes down to stating creds, I've been administering and designing/programming on-line Fantasy RPGs since back in 1991, so I know something about what I'm talking about when I see design elements that look like something designed to fit well in a computer simulation.  But that was never my point.  I don't personally have any problems with D&D 4E feeling more like a computer game.

What I have problems with are mechanics that are too "in your face" mechanical and which break my ability to immerse myself in the game.  I also dislike gutting the Vancian spell system.   While I do like to occasionally play the D&D minis game, I don't like my D&D games feeling too much like the minis game, which some of the abilities and terms chosen make it feel.  I don't like that the characters are now heroes at first level and that there is an inherent assumption that players are far better/more important than everyone else in the world.   I'm disappointed that they moved away from a standard build system for players and monsters/NPCs, but I can see why they did so because it was always more difficult/time consuming to build NPCs/monsters in 3.x than in earlier versions of D&D.  I also find that the attempt to balance all the classes with a consistent set of mechanics has made them a bit too similar and suspect that they might get bland after a while of regular play.

The healing surge mechanic is one of those things that doesn't quite work for me.  While it seems fairly elegant as a game mechanic, it doesn't really mesh well with how I like to run or play in D&D.   I find the healing surge is more "gamey" and feels like a less realistic approach to hit points - or at least it has not been explained in a way that I can wrap my head around so that I can still immerse myself in the world.


----------



## hong (Apr 12, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> I don't like that the characters are now heroes at first level and that there is an inherent assumption that players are far better/more important than everyone else in the world.




That's the zeitgeist talking. Ignore it.


----------



## Zil (Apr 12, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That's the zeitgeist talking. Ignore it.



If I ever do run a 4E campaign, you can be sure I will.


----------



## Henry (Apr 12, 2008)

Assuming my group plays some 4e when it comes out (which is like assuming we'll breathe in June, too), I may experiment with varying the number of healing surges per person, at default values and then maybe lower values to see whether it affects the game's other elements besides just the number of fights per day they can have. Honestly, I may even play with the Star Wars condition track to simulate ability damage, wounds, etc. It doesn't seem that hard to make 4e back into a grittier game if that's my wish; this may change in June, but the info I see now doesn't suggest that it would be very hard.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 12, 2008)

I was running a demo last night and deadliness is alive and well in 4e.  The party encountered some undead and things were not going well.  At one time I had a dead cleric, an unconscious warlock, an unconscious on fire ranger, and an unconscious fighter.  With a paladin on fire and a wizard on fire. 

They only survived that combat because the paladin used up all his Lay of Hands power on the ranger.

So after several demo games, I don't see a need to make the game deadlier.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 13, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> The healing surge mechanic is one of those things that doesn't quite work for me.  While it seems fairly elegant as a game mechanic, it doesn't really mesh well with how I like to run or play in D&D.   I find the healing surge is more "gamey" and feels like a less realistic approach to hit points - or at least it has not been explained in a way that I can wrap my head around so that I can still immerse myself in the world.




That's an interesting point.

I'm actually blanking as to what game "Healing Surges" most resembles from. I'm coming up with a blank since I've honestly never heard of healing being limited on the recipient side other than in novels. Pretty much in every game, healing is unlimited as long as you have access to "healing", be it magic, stim-paks or just simple time. Healing Surges though, force an innate limit to how much healing can be done in a certain time frame.

Seriously, I am curious as to what game this most resembles.

So, to me, the healing Surge mechanic seems more like a feature you find in a novel so which is why I wonder why people seem to equate it with a GAMIST sensibility.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 13, 2008)

Goreg Skullcrusher said:
			
		

> Because I don't accept videogame-like handwaving at my table?




So, did you end up writing up rules for eating, drinking, and sleeping, since by RAW, you don't have to do any of them to survive?



> I can understand hit points being an abstract concept, but I don't see how you can abstract the mechanism of healing.




So, you can understand hit points being an abstract concept, but the mechanism restoring that abstract concept can't be abstract?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 13, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> So, did you end up writing up rules for eating, drinking, and sleeping, since by RAW, you don't have to do any of them to survive?




I'm pretty sure there's starvation and thirst rules in the DMG, and I know there's rules for lack of sleep, as we used them a few games ago when the PCs decided to press on to beat rivals to the adventure site.


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 13, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> ... rules for lack of sleep, as we used them a few games ago when the PCs decided to press on to beat rivals to the adventure site.



Where?

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 13, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Where?
> 
> Cheers, LT.




Here's from the SRD:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Starvation and Thirst
> adventuring
> Characters might find themselves without food or water and with no means to obtain them. In normal climates, Medium characters need at least a gallon of fluids and about a pound of decent food per day to avoid starvation. (Small characters need half as much.) In very hot climates, characters need two or three times as much water to avoid dehydration.
> 
> ...




Sleep is mentioned in the armor rules, and probably other places:


			
				SRD said:
			
		

> Sleeping in Armor: A character who sleeps in medium or heavy armor is automatically fatigued the next day. He or she takes a -2 penalty on Strength and Dexterity and can't charge or run. Sleeping in light armor does not cause fatigue.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 13, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure there's starvation and thirst rules in the DMG, and I know there's rules for lack of sleep, as we used them a few games ago when the PCs decided to press on to beat rivals to the adventure site.



How do you explain the existence of living creatures in your simulacrum setting? Since there are no rules for procriation, they must come from somewhere. There must be a rational explanation for it too right?


----------



## DandD (Apr 13, 2008)

So, can you actually die from "nonlethal" damage?


----------



## Lizard (Apr 13, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> How do you explain the existence of living creatures in your simulacrum setting? Since there are no rules for procriation, they must come from somewhere. There must be a rational explanation for it too right?




I was not under the impression that the lack of rules for something meant it was impossible. Besides, I have BOEF. 

It's an interesting straw man.

I say, "People who live in the world understand the way the world works, and act accordingly."

You decide to interpret this as "If there's no rules for urinating, no one goes to the bathroom."

Rather, it's more akin to "If there are rules which say the higher your Con, the less frequently you go to the bathroom, we can assume that dwarf cities have fewer toilets than human cities, and elf cities more."


----------



## Lizard (Apr 13, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> So, can you actually die from "nonlethal" damage?




I believe that when you hit 0 hp from 'non lethal', further non lethal is lethal -- otherwise, you couldn't beat a man to death with your fists.


----------



## Caliber (Apr 13, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> I believe that when you hit 0 hp from 'non lethal', further non lethal is lethal -- otherwise, you couldn't beat a man to death with your fists.






			
				d20srd.org said:
			
		

> Nonlethal Damage
> Dealing Nonlethal Damage
> 
> Certain attacks deal nonlethal damage. Other effects, such as heat or being exhausted, also deal nonlethal damage. When you take nonlethal damage, keep a running total of how much you’ve accumulated. Do not deduct the nonlethal damage number from your current hit points. It is not "real" damage. Instead, when your nonlethal damage equals your current hit points, you’re staggered, and when it exceeds your current hit points, you fall unconscious. It doesn’t matter whether the nonlethal damage equals or exceeds your current hit points because the nonlethal damage has gone up or because your current hit points have gone down.
> ...




Checking the d20 srd, it appears that non-lethal can never kill you. If you're beating someone with your fists, though, you can always take a -4 to hit to deal lethal damage (I think!). Environmental affects that only cause nonlethal damage can't kill you, though, ever! So, it looks like in 3E you can't ever starve or (dehydrate?) to death.  

Edit: Although once you fall unconscious from lack of food/water, you're pretty much helpless and will get chomped if no one comes and heals/feeds you. So it still sucks.


----------



## DandD (Apr 13, 2008)

Caliber said:
			
		

> Checking the d20 srd, it appears that non-lethal can never kill you. If you're beating someone with your fists, though, you can always take a -4 to hit to deal lethal damage (I think!). Environmental affects that only cause nonlethal damage can't kill you, though, ever! So, it looks like in 3E you can't ever starve or (dehydrate?) to death.
> 
> Edit: Although once you fall unconscious from lack of food/water, you're pretty much helpless and will get chomped if no one comes and heals/feeds you. So it still sucks.



 But that actually only means that "by the rules", we'd never need to feed prisoners with food or water anymore... 

Oh...

My...

Gosh...

In your face, simulationists!


----------



## Holy Bovine (Apr 13, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> Now suddenly in 4e all by yourself BINGO you heal....
> 
> in 3.5 SRD: You cannot give long-term care to yourself.
> 
> SRD: In a normal round, you can perform a standard action and a move action, or you can perform a full-round action.




Pssst - Unearthed Arcana had reserve points - free healing you only had to wait a minute for.  Just so you know....


----------



## FabioMilitoPagliara (Apr 13, 2008)

I still think this is not much different from previous edition

hp damage were never true wouds (you never got penalty for being reduced to low hp), the point is if you die than it was a true wound, if not it was just a scratch

if you want to introduce real wounds I think it will be easier than in previous editions

but is this really needed?

for what kind of stories?


----------



## Vladamere (Apr 13, 2008)

If this healing surge thing works like we think, It is truly a black mark aganst the new edition, ( in my book anyway, for the reasons sighted above)

what mysterious power lets ALL PCs recover fully from 1 hp without magic?

I've got it! Everybodys a CLERIC!


----------



## D'karr (Apr 13, 2008)

Vladamere said:
			
		

> If this healing surge thing works like we think, It is truly a black mark aganst the new edition, ( in my book anyway, for the reasons sighted above)
> 
> what mysterious power lets ALL PCs recover fully from 1 hp without magic?
> 
> I've got it! Everybodys a CLERIC!




Yes, that's it.  Everybody IS a cleric.  You can put your black marker down now.


----------



## Zil (Apr 13, 2008)

Vladamere said:
			
		

> If this healing surge thing works like we think, It is truly a black mark aganst the new edition, ( in my book anyway, for the reasons sighted above)
> 
> what mysterious power lets ALL PCs recover fully from 1 hp without magic?
> 
> I've got it! Everybodys a CLERIC!



I've been trying to think of some kind of in-game justification for this particular healing mechanic and the only thing I've been able to come up with is that it is somehow tied to the inner strength of the individual.  When a  cleric is involved, all they are really doing is serving as a catalyst to somehow convince the wounded to "heal thyself".   No longer are clerics just channeling the power of their faith into healing.  Paladins are a bit different, but even they are not channeling their faith into healing, rather they seem to be transferring some of their own vitality (reducing their surges).    

I still don't like it...


----------



## D'karr (Apr 13, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> I've been trying to think of some kind of in-game justification for this particular healing mechanic and the only thing I've been able to come up with is that it is somehow tied to the inner strength of the individual.  When a  cleric is involved, all they are really doing is serving as a catalyst to somehow convince the wounded to "heal thyself".   No longer are clerics just channeling the power of their faith into healing.  Paladins are a bit different, but even they are not channeling their faith into healing, rather they seem to be transferring some of their own vitality (reducing their surges).
> 
> I still don't like it...




On the other hand, I've had no problem coming up with in game justifications for what the effect represents.

When the ranger was on the ground unconscious and the paladin stepped up to him and used his Lay of Hands power, the ranger felt the divine power of faith that the paladin projected and was able to see that the situation was not lost and he was inspired (he recovered hit points).  He got back up and kept fighting.  The next time when he was unconscious on the ground and rolled a 20 on his recovery roll, he opened his eyes from unconsciousness and saw that his friends were in dire need of him, as they were getting their asses handed to them.  The anger at the situation triggered his Second Wind, which he had not used yet, and he got back up and continued to fight on, saving the day.

So I still like it...


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 13, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> 4e is defining hit points as your current degree of script immunity, not physical wounds taken.




That seems rather at odds with the name Healing Surge.


----------



## Zil (Apr 13, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I've had no problem coming up with in game justifications for what the effect represents.
> 
> When the ranger was on the ground unconscious and the paladin stepped up to him and used his Lay of Hands power, the ranger felt the divine power of faith that the paladin projected and was able to see that the situation was not lost and he was inspired (he recovered hit points).  He got back up and kept fighting.  The next time when he was unconscious on the ground and rolled a 20 on his recovery roll, he opened his eyes from unconsciousness and saw that his friends were in dire need of him, as they were getting their asses handed to them.  The anger at the situation triggered his Second Wind, which he had not used yet, and he got back up and continued to fight on, saving the day.
> 
> So I still like it...



It's still essentially the same thing as my earlier example.   The power to heal a person is coming from within the person being healed.  The divine influence of a cleric's healing spell or touch is now just a catalyst (or inspiration).   And as such, it represents a radical departure from past versions of the game; it diminishes the role of a cleric to heal based on channeling the power of his or her god.   Whether or not you like this I suppose depends on how attached you are to the idea that a cleric's healing touch/spell really is divine energy passed from a god/pantheon/faith.  

If this is really how healing works in 4E, the big healers in a group should be the 4E bard because they are all about inspiring others.


----------



## Zil (Apr 13, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> If this is really how healing works in 4E, the big healers in a group should be the 4E bard because they are all about inspiring others.




Yes, I am quoting myself  , but I couldn't help but think of Elan from the Order of the Stick singing one of his inspirational songs "Heal, heal, heal today, time to get up again to play" or some such to inspire Roy and company to "heal".


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 13, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> If this is really how healing works in 4E, the big healers in a group should be the 4E bard because they are all about inspiring others.



Well, as far as we know, Bards will be "Arcane Leaders", and all Leaders are supposed to have healing abilities.


----------



## Imban (Apr 13, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> Actually, healing surges are one of the things I can't find a match for in games (video or table top). I've seen something similar in sci-fi and fantasy novels though.
> 
> Healing surges are dependant on the character itsel being healed. Presumably, if you are out of healing surges for the day, your body simply won't accept anymore healing magic. This doesn't occur in any game that I know of which I'm somewhat surprised more people haven't picked up on.
> 
> In novels though, I've read settings where character's have an inherent limit to how much magical/technological healing they can take in a day




I've seen it in a few games, but only in plot scenes where suddenly nothing works like the actual game mechanics any more. This is probably why it's so jarring to some of us (and I'll tell you - usually I seem to be the one hating on 4e mechanics in my group, but I was surprised by the fury with which healing surges were hated by my group), because it doesn't actually work like any game mechanic we've ever seen.


----------



## DandD (Apr 13, 2008)

Then your group clearly played too few video-games, like the Final Fantasy Tactic series, or the Tactic Ogre-spinoff to Ogre Battle, or plain old RPGs like Wild Arms 3, and so on.


----------



## Imban (Apr 13, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Then your group clearly played too few video-games, like the Final Fantasy Tactic series, or the Tactic Ogre-spinoff to Ogre Battle, or plain old RPGs like Wild Arms 3, and so on.




Er... what?

In Tactics Ogre, I can smash someone into the ground and heal them and I pay out of my MP pool. I can do this... forever really since TO starts you with 0 MP and has you recover it during combat.
In FFT, I can smash someone into the ground and heal them and I pay out of my MP pool. I can do this until I run out of MP.

What are you talking about?


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 13, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> On the other hand, I've had no problem coming up with in game justifications for what the effect represents.
> 
> When the ranger was on the ground unconscious and the paladin stepped up to him and used his Lay of Hands power, the ranger felt the divine power of faith that the paladin projected and was able to see that the situation was not lost and he was inspired (he recovered hit points).  He got back up and kept fighting.  The next time when he was unconscious on the ground and rolled a 20 on his recovery roll, he opened his eyes from unconsciousness and saw that his friends were in dire need of him, as they were getting their asses handed to them.  The anger at the situation triggered his Second Wind, which he had not used yet, and he got back up and continued to fight on, saving the day.
> 
> So I still like it...




So, the ranger is letting his friends die because he's depressed?  Yeah, I wanna play that character.


----------



## DandD (Apr 13, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Er... what?
> 
> In Tactics Ogre, I can smash someone into the ground and heal them and I pay out of my MP pool. I can do this... forever really since TO starts you with 0 MP and has you recover it during combat.
> In FFT, I can smash someone into the ground and heal them and I pay out of my MP pool. I can do this until I run out of MP.
> ...



You clearly forgot non-mp-consuming powers that still heal hitpoints and even status effects. In Final Fantasy Tactics, even in Final Fantasy V, perhaps starting even back further, characters with the monk/soldier/knight and other mundane classes had self-healing abilities that didn't cost any Magic Points at all. Thanks be Chakra for healing big gobles of hitpoints and getting rid of that nasty poison and blindness effect, or First Aid. In Tactics Ogre, you healed inbetween battles, without the aid of a priest or a bishop.  

Really, D&D is just applying what works for millions of players world-wide since years. Heck, even computer games have applied that technique, like Guild Wars, where Fighters just need to apply a sigil, and get healed a ton. Of course, dedicated healer classes heal far more efficiently... Mmmm... D&D 4th edition is becoming Guild Wars, ohz noez.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 13, 2008)

Healing surges bothered me much more than my group. They just didn't care. They like not having to go back to town nearly as often. So, I think it will depend heavily on the group as well as how the DM feels like describing things.


----------



## Hairfoot (Apr 13, 2008)

I haven't gone through the thread, so this has probably been said, but I don't see the difference between healing surges and simply giving PCs quadruple hit points (or whatever the accumulated surges add up to).  I suspect, however, that having a stack of HP would upset the sense of verisimilitude more than the surge mechanic.


----------



## Hairfoot (Apr 13, 2008)

I haven't read all the posts, so this has probably been said, but I don't see the difference between healing surges and simply giving PCs quadruple hit points (or whatever the accumulated surges add up to).


----------



## Imban (Apr 14, 2008)

(fsck)


----------



## Imban (Apr 14, 2008)

DandD said:
			
		

> Really, D&D is just applying what works for millions of players world-wide since years. Heck, even computer games have applied that technique, like Guild Wars, where Fighters just need to apply a sigil, and get healed a ton. Of course, dedicated healer classes heal far more efficiently... Mmmm... D&D 4th edition is becoming Guild Wars, ohz noez.




Oh, okay, you just totally misread my first post. While my group isn't entirely a fan of non-magical instant healing (and Healing Signet in Guild Wars is magic, even if Warriors can use it - you'd have been better off just stating the amount they regen while standing back from combat for a few seconds), my post was about how D&D 4e's Healing Surge system was extremely jarring to my group because it makes it so the limit to how much someone can be healed is based on the person in question, rather than on the healer.

For example, in all of those games I cited, and in fact all of the ones you responded with, I can get my face punched in and then use Chakra or First Aid or Healing Signet over and over again until the cows come home.

(And as far as between-battle healing in Tactics Ogre, that's because a long time passed between any two given battles. In fact, the game *didn't* heal you between battles if you didn't go to the map screen in between them.)


----------



## DandD (Apr 14, 2008)

Whazu? Healing works absolutely abstract in D&D too. Dedicated healers like the cleric can make people heal more with those second winds than the people can regain without special healer thingies. Also, game balance applies. 

Just stop thinking in prehistoric cavemen D&D-terms.


----------



## Imban (Apr 14, 2008)

(edited out, this probably wasn't a response to me :<)


----------



## D'karr (Apr 14, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> So, the ranger is letting his friends die because he's depressed?  Yeah, I wanna play that character.




I'm sure you would.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 14, 2008)

Primal said:
			
		

> I think his main point was that when a PC falls to negative HPs, nobody, DM included, can predict whether he's just momentarily unconscious or dying. The fact is, in 4E you just become "unable to fight" and fall prone, but the DM cannot describe the effects of the last blow or the PC's condition in any way until those "recovery rolls" are done with.



Yes you can. The character is hit by a spear and his goes negative. You describe "the spear is buried into your belly and you faint in pain with blood splitting out". He rolls 20, come back and use a second wind to recover some HPS. The player describes "The wound stops bleeding, I catch my breath and forgo the pain, get up and keep fighting". The wound is still there. Taking a second wind does not instantly and magically heal the wound, it just allows the character to stop being affected by it.


> For example, the effect would be laughable if you described how a blow leaves a character with "his guts spilling out", but he rolls a natural 20 on his next rounds recovery roll ("Guys, I'm just fine! A bit bloodied, but no lasting wounds!").



"Guts spilling out" is very drastic and would be almost a killing blow. Anyway, using a second wind does not mean the guts came back in and the wound is gone. It means the effects of the wound are not affecting the character so much anymore. If you need a description for that: The character puts his guts back in, ties a strap around the waist to hold'em and keep fighting". That's very heroic IMO, maybe too much "unbeliaveble" in real world, but it's "believable" enough for D&D.


> Especially as he only needs to rest for 6 hours to get to "full health" -- quite a feat if he's innards were hanging out.



Hit Points have nothing to do with how healthy your character is. After an extended rest, the character recovered all his Hit Points, but he is still wounded, bruised, with bandages and other sorts of curatives all around the body. It would be silly if the wounds simply disappeared after 6 hours of sleep, it makes no sense. The wounds are still there, some of the pain is still there, they just aren't mechanically relevant to the game anymore, they don't need to be represented in the rules anymore. The wounds are not affecting the capacity of the character to keep doing his stuff. 
A character with full HP is not woundless. HPs are the capacity of the character to keep fighting, not his capacity of being wounded.


----------



## hong (Apr 14, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> It's still essentially the same thing as my earlier example.   The power to heal a person is coming from within the person being healed.  The divine influence of a cleric's healing spell or touch is now just a catalyst (or inspiration).   And as such, it represents a radical departure from past versions of the game; it diminishes the role of a cleric to heal based on channeling the power of his or her god.   Whether or not you like this I suppose depends on how attached you are to the idea that a cleric's healing touch/spell really is divine energy passed from a god/pantheon/faith.




Actually, it depends on how attached you are to the idea that clerics are party medics.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 14, 2008)

D'karr said:
			
		

> I'm sure you would.




What is that supposed to mean?  Oh right it's a shot at me because I dared to criticize 4e.  Got it.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 14, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> it diminishes the role of a cleric to heal based on channeling the power of his or her god.




Actually it just diminishes the need for a cleric to be mostly a healer.  I've played clerics and that is a good thing.  No more picking spells and having to convert the majority of them to healing spells.


----------



## D'karr (Apr 14, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> What is that supposed to mean?  Oh right it's a shot at me because I dared to criticize 4e.  Got it.




Nope, no criticism.  You made an assertion and I validated it.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 14, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> So, the ranger is letting his friends die because he's depressed? Yeah, I wanna play that character.




In what dialect of English does "unconscious" come to mean "depressed?"



			
				What You Quoted said:
			
		

> When the ranger was on the ground *unconscious*... next time when he was *unconscious* on the ground...




Unless you think emo people just suddenly pass out because of the weight of life's burden on their shoulders, I'm pretty sure there were other factors involved with that ranger's lack of consciousness.


----------



## AllisterH (Apr 14, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Oh, okay, you just totally misread my first post. While my group isn't entirely a fan of non-magical instant healing (and Healing Signet in Guild Wars is magic, even if Warriors can use it - you'd have been better off just stating the amount they regen while standing back from combat for a few seconds), my post was about how D&D 4e's Healing Surge system was extremely jarring to my group because it makes it so the limit to how much someone can be healed is based on the person in question, rather than on the healer.
> 
> For example, in all of those games I cited, and in fact all of the ones you responded with, I can get my face punched in and then use Chakra or First Aid or Healing Signet over and over again until the cows come home.
> 
> (And as far as between-battle healing in Tactics Ogre, that's because a long time passed between any two given battles. In fact, the game *didn't* heal you between battles if you didn't go to the map screen in between them.)




That's why I'm kind of wondering why somebody consider healing surges a videogame mechanic. As you pointed out, healing being dependant on the HEALED person is something that just doesn't occur in games.

That said, I HAVE read sci-fi/fantasy novels where "magical/sci-fi" healing _IS_ limited to how much the body itself can take at one time. Now, I would figure this would be a GREAT THING in the eyes of people since taking stuff from novels is considered a-ok whereas taking inspiration from videogames is BAD.

(That said, I doubt Mearls et al were influenced by novels since the Healing Surges paradigm is itself pretty damn rare in novels. I suspect the reason why Healing Surges were set by the HEALED character itself was to a) prevent players from simply shooting up in levels every day since you do need to rest and b) most importantly, to still allow for "we're almost out of resources, do we press on?" scenarios.


----------



## M.L. Martin (Apr 14, 2008)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I haven't read all the posts, so this has probably been said, but I don't see the difference between healing surges and simply giving PCs quadruple hit points (or whatever the accumulated surges add up to).




  Difference between the tactical and strategic scale. You may have HP+(HP*Healing Surges/4) in a given day of adventuring, but you can only go through a given number of those hit points in any given encounter before you can no longer keep going. 

   It's a median point between 1) complete attrition (barring magic) over the course of a time period and 2) complete restoration between encounters.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 14, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> So, the ranger is letting his friends die because he's depressed?



Where did get that from??????


----------



## hong (Apr 14, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Oh, okay, you just totally misread my first post. While my group isn't entirely a fan of non-magical instant healing (and Healing Signet in Guild Wars is magic, even if Warriors can use it - you'd have been better off just stating the amount they regen while standing back from combat for a few seconds), my post was about how D&D 4e's Healing Surge system was extremely jarring to my group because it makes it so the limit to how much someone can be healed is based on the person in question, rather than on the healer.




D&D healing being based on the healer rather than the healee has been a wart in the system for 30 years. That goes doubly so if you believe damage is physical rather than unspecified mojo points. A 1st level guy might take 5 points damage and have huge wounds and be 1 point away from going down. A 20th level guy might take 50 points and have a cut on his cheek. Despite this, a single CLW spell can bring the 1st level guy back to perfect health, whereas it might take 10 such spells for the 20th level guy.


----------



## Imban (Apr 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> D&D healing being based on the healer rather than the healee has been a wart in the system for 30 years. That goes doubly so if you believe damage is physical rather than unspecified mojo points. A 1st level guy might take 5 points damage and have huge wounds and be 1 point away from going down. A 20th level guy might take 50 points and have a cut on his cheek. Despite this, a single CLW spell can bring the 1st level guy back to perfect health, whereas it might take 10 such spells for the 20th level guy.




I've always believed damage is physical, but in a hilariously videogame-inspired way where the level-1 dude who's taken 5 points of damage has been run through by a shortsword and in need of medical attention, whereas the level-20 dude who's taken 5 points of damage has also been run through by a shortsword, but not really in need of medical attention in any meaningful way.

So how much a CLW heals hasn't been an issue for me, though I can definitely see how it might be an issue for some people. In any case, the problem my group had wasn't so much the amount - "Healing Surge heals 25% of your max HP" - so much as the amount of times it could be done - "You have 8 Healing Surges today, and after those are used up a Cleric can't heal you any more" as opposed to "The Cleric has 8 Cure (X) Wounds spells today, and after those are used up the Cleric can't heal people any more".


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 14, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> So how much a CLW heals hasn't been an issue for me, though I can definitely see how it might be an issue for some people. In any case, the problem my group had wasn't so much the amount - "Healing Surge heals 25% of your max HP" - so much as the amount of times it could be done - "You have 8 Healing Surges today, and after those are used up a Cleric can't heal you any more" as opposed to "The Cleric has 8 Cure (X) Wounds spells today, and after those are used up the Cleric can't heal people any more".




Well I am viewing that particular aspect as the number of Healing Surges is the full amount a body can recover/keep fighting without needing time to recover (extended rest). 

Healing spells and potions while they enable the body to recover and push past the limits one would normally have still put stress on the body, as such it would be actually detrimental to use spells/potions beyond the stress limit of the body.

So thus you can only use Healing spells/potions to that limit. However if that spell instead places the stresses of this divine-alteration on the caster (such as Lay on Hands) you can do it beyond that limit, since it isn't putting stress on the body of the person being healed.


----------



## Lizard (Apr 14, 2008)

Healing surges make total sense if you describe all non-lethal wounds as minor damage, fatigue, pulled muscles, surface burns, and so on. The problem is that this limits the DMs vocabulary and constrains some of the color of the game. Requiring that all combat flavor text be limited to 'that which can be believably healed, without magic, overnight' put extra strain on the DM, as there's simply fewer adjectives and options. It's hardly impossible, but it also doesn't fit well with the goal of 'making the DMs life easier'.

I suppose if you either are, or play with, the type of DM whose entire combat reportoire is "You take 8 points...the orc takes 7 points...next round..." then this is a non-problem for you and you don't understand what all the fuss is about. Perhaps that's the majority of gamers. I don't know.

Again, I find the idea of moving the resource management aspect of healing from "How many cleric spell slots" to "how many individual healing surges" to be VERY interesting, and it opens up some great possibilities. There are aspects of the implementation of this idea which are, at best, problematic.


----------



## Imban (Apr 14, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> (snip)




I think this is a preference issue as opposed to a rationalization issue, since I'd hope the explanation you just stated is one that would immediately spring into everyone's minds once they read the mechanics. I, for one, don't have any difficulty seeing how to explain character-based limits on healing surges in a narrative, but it's a new way of doing things that goes away from how Every RPG Ever (tm) tends to handle healing, and the feeling seems to be that they shouldn't break what doesn't need to be fixed.

I'm personally hoping that, once I get the books, that I can figure out - or someone out there on the internets figures out for me - how best to excise the concept of healing surges from the game while altering the overall game balance as little as possible. We still might play with them, but it seems like it's going to be grouchily at this point. (Actually, that's an overall goal of a lot of the changes I plan on making - obviously the balance of individual tidbits might change, but I'd like the starting goal my houseruled system to be as compatible with Real Official 4e D&D as I can stand until I've at least played it enough to decide whether it's fun and balanced or a pile of trash.)


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 14, 2008)

While I agree, Lizard it can put a strain on somethings I think though it really is something that just needs sometime to get used to... Or you can stretch it a little.

Say for example, in the movie Dog Soldiers, near the end one of the soldiers who's guts are hanging out manages to fight even though only thing keeping him together is duck-tape. This may stretch beyond normal realism, but makes for a very cinematic sequence.

I would say then for him, he would have say... Half his Healing Surges or more spent by then, but since he is able to fight he is at full HP.

I think we DMs should be looking less at HP to determine the health of characters and their physical appearance and more the amount of Healing Surges left. This is the determining factor of how beat up they are/how much more they can take.

So a person with little or no Healing Surges left you could describe as being severely beaten up.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Apr 14, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Where did get that from??????




Originally Posted by D'karr


> On the other hand, I've had no problem coming up with in game justifications for what the effect represents.
> 
> When the ranger was on the ground unconscious and the paladin stepped up to him and used his Lay of Hands power, the ranger felt the divine power of faith that the paladin projected and was able to see that the situation was not lost and he was inspired (he recovered hit points). He got back up and kept fighting. The next time when he was unconscious on the ground and rolled a 20 on his recovery roll, he opened his eyes from unconsciousness and saw that his friends were in dire need of him, as they were getting their asses handed to them. The anger at the situation triggered his Second Wind, which he had not used yet, and he got back up and continued to fight on, saving the day.




Well, if all he needed was inspiring, then he wasn't hurt, so he had no reason NOT to be up and fighting, he was just depressed so he just lay down and accepted defeat.  Not the kind of character I'd like to play.  A hero would have kept on fighting til he was dead in the first place.


----------



## pawsplay (Apr 14, 2008)

Hairfoot said:
			
		

> I haven't gone through the thread, so this has probably been said, but I don't see the difference between healing surges and simply giving PCs quadruple hit points (or whatever the accumulated surges add up to).  I suspect, however, that having a stack of HP would upset the sense of verisimilitude more than the surge mechanic.




Well, heck, in 4e, they seem to have gone with the philosophy, "Let's do both."


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 14, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> I've always believed damage is physical, but in a hilariously videogame-inspired way where the level-1 dude who's taken 5 points of damage has been run through by a shortsword and in need of medical attention, whereas the level-20 dude who's taken 5 points of damage has also been run through by a shortsword, but not really in need of medical attention in any meaningful way.
> 
> So how much a CLW heals hasn't been an issue for me, though I can definitely see how it might be an issue for some people. In any case, the problem my group had wasn't so much the amount - "Healing Surge heals 25% of your max HP" - so much as the amount of times it could be done - "You have 8 Healing Surges today, and after those are used up a Cleric can't heal you any more" as opposed to "The Cleric has 8 Cure (X) Wounds spells today, and after those are used up the Cleric can't heal people any more".



Which implies to me that it's that Fighter can do magic, but that Clerics can do much less magic. I really like this idea, but I can see why some people would see it as "not D&D".


----------



## Lacyon (Apr 14, 2008)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Again, I find the idea of moving the resource management aspect of healing from "How many cleric spell slots" to "how many individual healing surges" to be VERY interesting, and it opens up some great possibilities. There are aspects of the implementation of this idea which are, at best, problematic.




I'm not sure that most gamers will ultimately find any of these aspects all that problematic. Second Wind seems like a sub-par option in most combats (in a general sense, taking down the enemy faster is better than healing, unless you're getting close to a full-heal), so removing it as an option shouldn't be a huge problem for those who dislike it.

Likewise, there's nothing wrong with requiring a cleric for out-of-combat healing just like you have been for the last X years if your group is going to be playing with a cleric anyway. It's worked for the past 30 years of D&D.

However, I strongly suspect that one of the reasons clerics ended up getting really beefed up in 3E (both core and supplements) is because there are a lot of groups where nobody wants to play the heal-bot (particularly small groups, I think). Regardless of whether this is true or not, WotC definitely seems to have made it a design goal to explicity support cleric-less adventuring.

Once you make that a priority, I can't think of any better way to implement it than the healing surge/Second Wind mechanic.


----------



## TwinBahamut (Apr 14, 2008)

I find it amusing that I both read this thread and watched the third episode of samurai Jack yesterday... The combination was fairly enlightening regarding the way 4E captures the spirit of cinematic fights. Seriously, if you want to watch the a fighter go through several phases of losing hitpoints (due to fatigue and gradual build-up of individually minor wounds), be put on the verge of taking a lethal blow, and then get up, shrug off his injuries, scream out his determination, and then fight with restored vigor again, then the third episode of Samurai Jack is a great example. I am pretty sure you could even describe one moment in the episode as a "five minute rest" between two encounters where his per-encounter resources are restored and he possibly gains a level.

Anyways, regarding healing surges... I think it might help some people to think about healing surges as an abstraction of the physical matter and "lifeforce" of a characters body. It is the combination of things like adrenaline, endorphins, blood platelets, blood cells, and other available resources available to the body that help close wounds, gives boosts of energy, shrug off pain, and keep going. Whether these get used up because of some shouts of encouragement, or direct manipulation by healing magic (a shift in the nature of healing magic away from magically conjuring up new flesh, but one I like), these resources are finite and really are being used up. When a character has exhausted their healing surges, these resources are simply used up until the body gets enough time, food, and sleep to replenish its stores. In some ways, this might be more simulationist than "magic makes it better magically, somehow".

Also, I don't really agree that limiting descriptions of combat injury to minor wounds is any kind of severe restriction. Certainly, if I was playing the game and the DM described a wound inflicted on my PC as someone spilling the PC's guts, I would probably more take it as a hint that the DM hates my PC than a cool description...  I think things like describing the various ways a PC mitigates wounds and turns a certain deathblow into a minor scratch are a lot more fitting for heroes. Besides, minions will still die in a single blow, if you want to use a lot of gory descriptions.


----------



## Imban (Apr 14, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> However, I strongly suspect that one of the reasons clerics ended up getting really beefed up in 3E (both core and supplements) is because there are a lot of groups where nobody wants to play the heal-bot (particularly small groups, I think). Regardless of whether this is true or not, WotC definitely seems to have made it a design goal to explicity support cleric-less adventuring.
> 
> Once you make that a priority, I can't think of any better way to implement it than the healing surge/Second Wind mechanic.




The weird thing is, I'm honestly not sure from the released previews that they've made having a healbot less necessary so much as that they've made having a Cleric less necessary. It can just be a Warlord now, too. It's one of the things I'd like to see how it pans out in actual play.

(And in my experience, for a great majority of 3e levels, Wands of CLW and Belts of Healing can provide all the HP healing a party could want. Clerics mostly help later on when they get Heal, Mass Heal, and can fix permanent badstat like blindness, ability score drain, level drain, and death.)


----------



## hong (Apr 14, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> I've always believed damage is physical, but in a hilariously videogame-inspired way where the level-1 dude who's taken 5 points of damage has been run through by a shortsword and in need of medical attention, whereas the level-20 dude who's taken 5 points of damage has also been run through by a shortsword, but not really in need of medical attention in any meaningful way.




Good heavens. Are you suggesting that 4E isn't videogamey enough?


----------



## hong (Apr 14, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Well, if all he needed was inspiring, then he wasn't hurt,




He was hurt, but the healing surge means he managed to ignore it. This could be because he was lucky enough to have a lucid moment (nat 20 to stabilise) or the warlord yelled at him so loud that it got through the fog of pain, or the cleric channeled the power of gawd and made it better.

It isn't that complicated, really.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 14, 2008)

qstor said:
			
		

> Now as a standard action as another thread said in the title...I was unconscious before now I feel better...




Has it been confirmed than an unconcious character is able to use Second Wind? I would consider that if you aren't concious you can't take any actions. Now, you could 'shrug off' your bloodied condition, or stave off unconciousness, getting back 1/4 hit points before you are unconcious/dying.


----------



## AZRogue (Apr 14, 2008)

WalterKovacs said:
			
		

> Has it been confirmed than an unconcious character is able to use Second Wind? I would consider that if you aren't concious you can't take any actions. Now, you could 'shrug off' your bloodied condition, or stave off unconciousness, getting back 1/4 hit points before you are unconcious/dying.




I don't think an unconscious character can use Second Wind, but he could tap into a Healing Surge by rolling a natural 20 on his check each round.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 14, 2008)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Well, if all he needed was inspiring, then he wasn't hurt



But the "morale healing" is not used only against "morale damage". 

I think the whole issue here is to try to rationalize instantly non-magical HP healing. But it becomes easier when you just think that the "morale healing" is not gonna heal the wounds, it only gives the lost HP's back. When the character uses Second Wind, he doesn't make his wounds disappear, he is just supressing the effects that the wounds have on his ability to keep standing and fighting.

Really. Why couldn't the ranger lose HP's because he was physically wounded and then  regain HP's because the warlord inspired him? Or because he caught his breath with the Second Wind, etc? The wound is still there, its still aching, the ranger is still hurt, but he regained his capacity to stand and fight, and this is represented by the regained HP's. 

HP's do not represent physical wounds, lack of morale or weariness. HP's represent the effect of all this conditions on the character's capacity to stand, to fight, and to not be killed.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 14, 2008)

*Nods* I agree with ainatan. Thus why I think the amount of Healing Surges you have left is the true indication of one's health. Since this shows just how much is left in them, and how much they can fight through their injuries.

So as such, the more you have used the less your able to contend with your wounds, the more serious the wounds become, etc.


----------



## VannATLC (Apr 14, 2008)

TwinBahamut said:
			
		

> I find it amusing that I both read this thread and watched the third episode of samurai Jack yesterday... The combination was fairly enlightening regarding the way 4E captures the spirit of cinematic fights. Seriously, if you want to watch the a fighter go through several phases of losing hitpoints (due to fatigue and gradual build-up of individually minor wounds), be put on the verge of taking a lethal blow, and then get up, shrug off his injuries, scream out his determination, and then fight with restored vigor again, then the third episode of Samurai Jack is a great example. I am pretty sure you could even describe one moment in the episode as a "five minute rest" between two encounters where his per-encounter resources are restored and he possibly gains a level.




I love that episode. Its sooo surreal. And yes.. its quite a good example.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Apr 14, 2008)

Zil said:
			
		

> It's still essentially the same thing as my earlier example.   The power to heal a person is coming from within the person being healed.  The divine influence of a cleric's healing spell or touch is now just a catalyst (or inspiration).   And as such, it represents a radical departure from past versions of the game; it diminishes the role of a cleric to heal based on channeling the power of his or her god.   Whether or not you like this I suppose depends on how attached you are to the idea that a cleric's healing touch/spell really is divine energy passed from a god/pantheon/faith.
> 
> If this is really how healing works in 4E, the big healers in a group should be the 4E bard because they are all about inspiring others.




In general, we've seen for healing surges:

Second Wind - A character 'summons' their ability to put themselves 'farther' from getting to the dying/bloodied condition by taking some time to catch their breath, like a boxer going back to the corner so they can 'shake it off'.

Warlord - The "corner man" shouts some encouragement, causing the person to snap out of it, 'shake it off' and basically, take a second wind without having to take the time [i.e. action] to do so.

Cleric - Similarly, they say a prayer and some comforting words, which similarly inspires the second wind type effect ... however, there is added benefit of their god helps to bolster the ally with additional healing through divine power.

In all those cases, a person can only be 'patched up' so much before they ultimately colapse under accumulated scrapes, scratches and bruises. The "limit" actually causes a different kind of simulation. Where as before, given enough wands/potions ... you could heal the party indefinitely, all the healing we've seen so far [note: seen so far] have been tied to the surges, and thus, a person can only be patched up so often before they need a good 6 hours of rest to "really" heal up.

With the Palidan, it's a bit different ... their gods [who they seem to be tied closer to. They HAVE to pick a god and HAVE to be his allignment ... the clerics don't seem to be as bound to their dieties as much as pali's] allow them to pass their own vitality onto others. Giving up their own ability to withstand damage and stave off death over time to allow their ally to do so instead.


----------



## Imban (Apr 14, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Good heavens. Are you suggesting that 4E isn't videogamey enough?




Maybe I am.  

Seriously, I only get on 4e for being videogamey when they do stuff like reveal Normal/Elite/Exceptional Items will be in the new edition, or that you'll have to hit 10th level to get a license to wear rings. You know, when they're ripping off stuff that I thought was kind of blah or outright stupid the first time through.


----------



## hong (Apr 14, 2008)

Imban said:
			
		

> Maybe I am.
> 
> Seriously, I only get on 4e for being videogamey when they do stuff like reveal Normal/Elite/Exceptional Items will be in the new edition, or that you'll have to hit 10th level to get a license to wear rings. You know, when they're ripping off stuff that I thought was kind of blah or outright stupid the first time through.



 Pah. If you managed to handwave the CLW thing before, you can handwave this.


----------



## Khur (Apr 14, 2008)

Don't forget:

Warlord—the person with good enough plans that you don't get hurt that bad to begin with. You don't have to imagine the healing after the fact.

It is easier to do that, though, I admit.


----------

