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

Neonchameleon · Apr 25, 2012

Bedrockgames said:
Hussar, i think many of us were perfectly happy with the old HP system.

And many of us do not want to go back.

Bedrockgames said:
how much of a difference healing surges present to thgame clearly varies from individual to individual. I am with byron, they were a huge mechanical change to the game. You can build all kinds of arguments to try to "prove" they weren't but I have to say I don't find these very convincing any more (mostly they are semantic-like your's here). Healing surges present a vast change because they shift rapid heals from being the sole domain clerics to coming from mundane sources and even themselves. In previous editions I had to wait for a cleric or magic item to heal me. This creates a change in the way the game plays (and if it doesn't then I have to ask you what is so great about 4e healing then becuase it was clearly designed to fix what some people saw as a major problem of play in earlier editions) and in the way people see the events unfold in the game. You may not consider it a vast change but for many it is.

Oh, no one doubts they were a mechanical change. They meant that the toughest meatshields were no longer clerics - a single casting of Cure Light Wounds being enough to make sure that the Cleric brought more hit points to the party than the Fighter. They mean that no one now needs to play the healbot. They allowed the reality of hit points to match the fluff that has always been presented in the books (other than the stupid decision to make an extended rest into one night). They allow martial characters to behave as characters in an action movie, pulling themselves together and inspiring people to greater feats when they think they are done.

All at the low, low price of forcing people to change a common house rule (hit point damage is entirely physical) to a slightly different one (if hit point damage is purely physical then your total hit points are measured by your healing surges - having lost healing surges means that you are still injured even if you are ready for the next fight).

"Wander around towing a healbot with you" is, as far as I know, something that comes from D&D and wandered into the realm of Final Fantasy. And healing surges may change gameplay, but other than the overnight rest issue in my opinion every single way they change gameplay is for the better.

Bedrockgames · Apr 25, 2012

Neonchameleon said:
And many of us do not want to go back.

And if surges are an optinional ad-on you wont have to go back, but I wont be forced to use 4e innovations I dislike.

Oh, no one doubts they were a mechanical change. They meant that the toughest meatshields were no longer clerics - a single casting of Cure Light Wounds being enough to make sure that the Cleric brought more hit points to the party than the Fighter. They mean that no one now needs to play the healbot. They allowed the reality of hit points to match the fluff that has always been presented in the books (other than the stupid decision to make an extended rest into one night). They allow martial characters to behave as characters in an action movie, pulling themselves together and inspiring people to greater feats when they think they are done.

All at the low, low price of forcing people to change a common house rule (hit point damage is entirely physical) to a slightly different one (if hit point damage is purely physical then your total hit points are measured by your healing surges - having lost healing surges means that you are still injured even if you are ready for the next fight).

"Wander around towing a healbot with you" is, as far as I know, something that comes from D&D and wandered into the realm of Final Fantasy. And healing surges may change gameplay, but other than the overnight rest issue in my opinion every single way they change gameplay is for the better.

I don't doubt this is true for you and that many 4e fans iked healing surges for the reasons you state. Clearly they work for you and including them as an option in 5e is a must. But needless to say, the above doesn't apply to my experience. surges made the game less fun for me and I was fine with the old system, so I don't want them to go back to 4e healing in the core rules of the next edition. As an option is a great idea, but not as a central mechanic of the game.

fenriswolf456 · Apr 25, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
My major problem with surges is they make dedicated healers moot, actually let me rephrase that: it makes imposible to create dedicated healers that focus on support. I know Healing surges are seen as a good thing by groups that don't want to rely on a healer. But they are very unpalatable to some of us and in my particular case they don't mesh with my playstyle.

You don't need to attack every round to enjoy a combat!, support roles can be fun to play and rewarding too!.

I am entirely unsure how surges make it so that healers can't act as support. Any leader/healer class is surpremely better at healing than having a character simply spending raw surges, especially since you can't just spend surges whenever you like during combat. All I see surges as having done is making it so that you didn't specifically need to bring a heal-bot healer along in every party, but you can certainly do so if that's what you want to play.

On the flip side, support roles don't need to heal every round to enjoy combat. The Warlord in my current group rarely attacks at all during a fight, most of the time directing strikes from our damage dealers (granting free attacks).

MoonSong · Apr 25, 2012

fenriswolf456 said:
I am entirely unsure how surges make it so that healers can't act as support. Any leader/healer class is surpremely better at healing than having a character simply spending raw surges, especially since you can't just spend surges whenever you like during combat. All I see surges as having done is making it so that you didn't specifically need to bring a heal-bot healer along in every party, but you can certainly do so if that's what you want to play.

On the flip side, support roles don't need to heal every round to enjoy combat. The Warlord in my current group rarely attacks at all during a fight, most of the time directing strikes from our damage dealers (granting free attacks).

Yes but it made almost impossible to heal withoout doing anything else at the same time, you are no longer a healer, but rather a buffer-debuffer-damager that sometimes can allow other people to heal if they have a surge to burn and are willing to use it (being a pacifist healer that doesn't actively harm living things, except for undead, has never been easy, but the system has only made it harder to pull). Out of combat isn't any better, you are moot, unless it happens to be the time of the day everybody has ran out of surges and then, and only then, you can heal one of your allies and only one of them. And that is suppossing the group didn't decide to take a extended rest instead in which case you are also moot. Healers went form being a necesity in previous editions to be a convenience, at times.

technoextreme · Apr 25, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
Yes but it made almost impossible to heal withoout doing anything else at the same time, you are no longer a healer, but rather a buffer-debuffer-damager that sometimes can allow other people to heal if they have a surge to burn and are willing to use it (being a pacifist healer that doesn't actively harm living things, except for undead, has never been easy, but the system has only made it harder to pull). Out of combat isn't any better, you are moot, unless it happens to be the time of the day everybody has ran out of surges and then, and only then, you can heal one of your allies and only one of them. And that is suppossing the group didn't decide to take a extended rest instead in which case you are also moot. Healers went form being a necesity in previous editions to be a convenience, at times.

You do realize that using healing powers outside of combat is still the most efficient way to heal right?

fenriswolf456 · Apr 26, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
Yes but it made almost impossible to heal withoout doing anything else at the same time, you are no longer a healer, but rather a buffer-debuffer-damager that sometimes can allow other people to heal if they have a surge to burn and are willing to use it (being a pacifist healer that doesn't actively harm living things, except for undead, has never been easy, but the system has only made it harder to pull). Out of combat isn't any better, you are moot, unless it happens to be the time of the day everybody has ran out of surges and then, and only then, you can heal one of your allies and only one of them. And that is suppossing the group didn't decide to take a extended rest instead in which case you are also moot. Healers went form being a necesity in previous editions to be a convenience, at times.

But that's how support classes have always been. No healer just stands there and heals all combat (at least not in my experience). They often have other spells and abilities to buff/debuff (say a spell like Bless), and sometimes that cleric did just go in and whack something with their mace. If you really want to just heal, I'm sure you can focus on powers and feats that let you do just that, at the expense of being able to support the party in other ways.

A Pacifist healer isn't meant to be easy to play. I think I tried one out in 2E, but found it not to my liking. For me, it was just too hard to justify why this character would be out adventuring. I'm not familiar with the 4E version, so can't really comment, other than there seems to a good number of non-damaging powers to choose from other than at-wills.

You're quite right in that it's no long necessary for there to be a healer, but I don't see how this in any way is a bad thing. There's nothing that says you can't be, and it makes adventuring a lot easier to have a healer than to not have one. As technoextreme says, out-of-combat healing is still far superior to using one's on surges. On a good roll (or one feat), my current character gets double their surge value back in a heal, so our party can now do twice the number of encounters we could have without a healer in the group.

And how is this much different than when clerics had X number of healing spells? Once all those were cast, then what? I doubt that any cleric just stood there shrugging their shoulders. And then you'd take an extended rest because of one character being short on resources, rather than as a party. I do agree with you in that the extended rest giving back all healing surges is poorly designed, but not really any different from resting, getting the heals back, casting as needed and resting again.

BryonD · Apr 26, 2012

Tony Vargas said:
Positively cliche, really. Watch any action movie or tv show, you'll see characters get knocked down or out or beaten up to the point they seem finished, then they pull themselves together, come back and win through. Second wind models that sort of thing nicely.

A few replies here.

First, I have offered up that having surges give temporary HP (second wind) would be a HUGE progress. It is the fact that they now and forever heal wounds that is the big problem on a large scale. But that is separate from the princess bride thing.

On the Princess Bride thing, he wasn't just "beaten up" he was virtually killed. HUGE difference.

But even with that I will READILY concede that it happens frequently in the genre. It is a cliche part of the whole "hero's journey" archetype. However it happens ONCE per hero. (generally to only one hero per story). As I said at the start of this, a precious and highly limited resource, such as Action Points allows this to happen but to still be a major and awesome event. It is when EVERYONE can do this 5 times a day EVERY day that magic is destroyed.

That EVENT in Bride was CLEARLY and moment of a lifetime event. It was not surge number 3 for the day.

Prior versions of D&D don't.

So you agree that 4E is NOT liek prior versions.

The point we were arguing was the prevalence of second wind or martial healing vs clerical healing in genre.

Um, no, you stepped into a conversation. You don't get to change what that conversation was about. It certainly might help your case to change the subject. But the subject remains.

Depends on the edition. In 3e, monsters dished so much damage that if you actually did depend on a melee type duking it out, you'd have to heal him /every/ round. Of course, that's wasteful and silly compared to just acing the monster with an optimized save-or-die spell. In AD&D healing was a scarcer resource, especially at low level, and 1e monsters did a lot less damage - but healing was still a significant drain on clerics' in-combat actions, as well as a near-total drain on the spellcasting potential.

I play 3E. You are wrong.
This may accurately describe your experience. If so, I'm sorry.

But when you portray this as a truth of the system: you are wrong.

How much something changes isn't a personal experience. D&D has always used hit points. It still does. It's always depended on in-combat healing to get characters through fights. It still does. It has not 'vastly' changed.

HP have not changed at all.

Surges change the nature of the game vastly. (to a great number of people)

MoonSong · Apr 26, 2012

fenriswolf456 said:
But that's how support classes have always been. No healer just stands there and heals all combat (at least not in my experience). They often have other spells and abilities to buff/debuff (say a spell like Bless), and sometimes that cleric did just go in and whack something with their mace. If you really want to just heal, I'm sure you can focus on powers and feats that let you do just that, at the expense of being able to support the party in other ways.

A Pacifist healer isn't meant to be easy to play. I think I tried one out in 2E, but found it not to my liking. For me, it was just too hard to justify why this character would be out adventuring. I'm not familiar with the 4E version, so can't really comment, other than there seems to a good number of non-damaging powers to choose from other than at-wills.

You're quite right in that it's no long necessary for there to be a healer, but I don't see how this in any way is a bad thing. There's nothing that says you can't be, and it makes adventuring a lot easier to have a healer than to not have one. As technoextreme says, out-of-combat healing is still far superior to using one's on surges. On a good roll (or one feat), my current character gets double their surge value back in a heal, so our party can now do twice the number of encounters we could have without a healer in the group.

And how is this much different than when clerics had X number of healing spells? Once all those were cast, then what? I doubt that any cleric just stood there shrugging their shoulders. And then you'd take an extended rest because of one character being short on resources, rather than as a party. I do agree with you in that the extended rest giving back all healing surges is poorly designed, but not really any different from resting, getting the heals back, casting as needed and resting again.

Perhaps you are right, [off-topic can you tell me what phb 1 cleric powers were "just heal" not "attack-debuff-do something and maybe heal"?. And what other cleric powers didn't involve an attack roll or actively damage?]

Still it doesn't negate the fact that you no longer can just heal, it is do something and also heal, and having an ally severely hurt isn't a primary concern and a drama on itself anymore, If you don't reach your hurt ally on time it is only a minor inconvenience, he just second winds and is back on his feet without your help, if he ever waits that long and doesn't do it the instant he drops to negatives, taking away what used to be the cool moments for my character. Perhaps on the grand scheeme of the things it is the same, the results are "equal" or even "better", but the way those results are achieved doesn't feel the same.

FireLance · Apr 26, 2012

KaiiLurker said:
off-topic can you tell me what phb 1 cleric powers were "just heal" not "attack-debuff-do something and maybe heal"?. And what other cleric powers didn't involve an attack roll or actively damage?

Cure light wounds, cure serious wounds, mass cure light wounds are all daily utility powers that require a standard action and restore hit points without requiring the target(s) to spend a healing surge.

Divine Power added cure critical wounds, mass cure serious wounds and heal.

Hussar · Apr 26, 2012

BryonD said:
I play 3E. You are wrong.
This may accurately describe your experience. If so, I'm sorry.

But when you portray this as a truth of the system: you are wrong.

Umm, if this accurately describes his experience, then how would he be wrong?

Let me ask this then. If you take a 3e creature of CR=to PC level, that creature, by and large, can kill a PC in one round. Not likely, but possible. Certainly in 2 rounds, that creature can.

So, if you do not spend any healing in combat, how do you avoid frequent PC death? What have you done to mitigate the lethality of the 3e system?