The Healing Paradox

Wexter said:

"Push on or rest up?" - That's the question every party and player will be facing and what I believe is the crux of the problem. The main issue is that there's no compelling gameplay reason to push on. There's often *story* reasons, but I believe there should be gameplay reasons as well.

Click to expand...

I agree with your whole post. I see a lot of posts talking about tweaking healing rules this way and that - I see almost no discussion of what it is that motivates players to 'push on'.

I don't think there's any debate that a tension between risk and reward is a desirable thing. You can change the healing rules all you like to alter the risks. But where's the reward? What is a player balancing that risk against?

All these healing tweaks do is attempt to force players to accept higher levels of risk, while providing no compensating reward. Wounds, injury and healing mechanics do not provide motivation - they act as a limiter on it.
[MENTION=6695556]Wexter[/MENTION] proposed giving characters class-based benefits based on achieving criticals or sneak attacks, etc. I thought that looked a good suggestion. It addresses, at some level, the motivation to keep going.

Another alternative is to tie character growth and progression (in D&Ds case, that's XP) into player-defined goals and beliefs. This is the mechanism used in the Burning Wheel.

I agree with those saying that an incentive to press on is a better approach to the issue. Certainly you can encourage the PCs using in-game carrots and/or sticks, but story approaches aren't always appropriate (the often mentioned delve into a long abandoned tomb filled with undead guardians).

Giving PCs a +1 "well rested" bonus to all rolls after spending a night (or week, if you prefer) in comfortable surroundings is one such approach. Obviously, that bonus is lost when the PCs rest elsewhere, encouraging them to press on for as long as possible on the first adventure day. It has the drawback of only working the first day (once the PCs rest in uncomfortable surroundings, any incentive to press on is lost).

A method that would work across multiple days is a diminishing xp bonus (which could also be explained as a bonus for being well rested). Perhaps on the first day of adventuring, the PCs gain a +25% xp bonus, which is lost at a rate of -5% for each day they rest. For exceptionally long adventures (Undermountain) you might add waypoints that restore 5% of that bonus when first reached (which might be explained as the restorative properties of a holy shrine, or simply the excitement of reaching the stairs leading down into the next level of the dungeon). Such waypoints would also work for the +1 bonus above.

(5% increments might be a bit finicky for some, but you could pretty easily change the above to working in 10% increments.)

Personally, I'd much rather use a carrot (well rested bonus), than a stick (deadly wandering monster encounters in the night). The former gives players a reason to push on (because who doesn't want an extra 25% xp!?) while the latter may actually do the reverse (so that they'll have the resources to handle those extra encounters).

As to the fully rested issue, I'd recommend looking at it as a matter of percentages. After all, one of the things that really irked me in earlier editions was how a low level, sickly wizard would bounce back from death's door much faster than a high level, tough fighter (when left to heal naturally). If you have them heal based on a percentage of total hp, that problem is solved. Then it's simply a matter of how long you want someone to need to heal naturally from death's door. 2 days = 50% hp. 10 days = 10% hp. If you don't like a fixed healing time, randomize it using dice. (Regdar has 110 hp total and you want him to heal to full after 10 days, on average. Simply allow him to heal 2d10 hp per night.) I think percentage based healing is the way to go.

rounser said:

The idea was to point out that it appears that there are simple, much more palatable alternatives. That they could ditch suspension-of-disbelief challenged mechanics like that for powered up magical healing. Full regain of hit points on a rest is, for me, a "creates far more problems than it solves" fix, when supe-ing up magical healing may be all that's required.

Click to expand...

I would bet my bottom dollar that the designers are looking at it from a very different direction.

The main point is to allow the players to play the characters they want to play, without being tied by the apron strings to the cleric class. Choosing a cleric should be an interesting choice with fun pros and cons, not a concession to a entirely phoney sense of realism that the DM is supposed beat into the players with a big stick.

For all that many complained about the easy availability of healing in 3e (it was a notable style change, to be sure), the designers seem absolutely certain this is the right way to go. Look at 3e. Look at 4e. Look at proto-5e. There is a lot of tweaking, but we are only going further in this direction.

The reason is not difficult to logic out: a lot gaming groups out there only have 3-4 regular players plus the DM. Under those conditions forcing one of the players to play the cleric is a drag. Or forcing somebody to play the NPC cleric -- it is the same basic lameness.

So while increasing the efficacy of healing spells is a reasonable house rule for those who strongly prefer a common earlier style of play, it would actually increase the problem from the designers point of view. They do not want a vast difference between parties with and without a cleric because it is a tremendous balance headache for both designers and DMs.

LostSoul said:

The last point is key. Let's say that you only get XP for rescuing the prisoners. You've delved deep into the dungeon but haven't yet found them; your map suggests where they may be. You're low on HP and spells. If you head back to rest you'll have your HP and spells back, but you'll have to face encounters that are all risk, no reward - you might even end up in a worse situation. If you push on you might not have the resources left to succeed.

I'd like to see the system make Time a valuable resource, but I doubt that will happen.

Click to expand...

It can be very unclimatic to have a lose-by-plot-device due to running out of time.

If the DM presents a Sophie's Choice of "push on, at lower power" versus "rest now, but risk losing the race to win", then many players I know will choose to rest and trust that the DM would not go for the lame ending of "well you rested an extra night, which made all the encounters easy, but you lost the adventure."

At best, a DM may ad-lib and adjust the encounters to sometimes force the players hand (no choice to rest), or re-balance difficulty after a rest (bad guys partially complete their objective, and the last 2 encounters are boosted). You got to mix and match these approaches (and more) to avoid a 1-giant-encounter-per-day game - well, unless that is both DM And players get to like those.

slobo777 said:

If the DM presents a Sophie's Choice of "push on, at lower power" versus "rest now, but risk losing the race to win", then many players I know will choose to rest and trust that the DM would not go for the lame ending of "well you rested an extra night, which made all the encounters easy, but you lost the adventure."

Click to expand...

As you said yourself, the problem is the DM, not the rules. So the DM has to fix it.

An idea for healing in 5th edition D&D:

I wanted to come up with a way for a character to recover from damage without needing to use a daily resource, such as the Healing Surges of 4th edition D&D.

The following method allows a character to recover from injuries quickly, but not completely. Damage that occurs during combat is no more or less deadly when using these rules. However, injuries can still carry over from one combat to the next until a character has sufficient time (or magic) to fully recover. The only resources expended are those which accelerate healing (such as healing spells and potions), and a character never has to worry about running out of healing surges. With every new injury, he has the ability to recovery partially, but not completely.

The rules:
Injury is tracked in two simple ways. A character has Hit Points, which start at his maximum (uninjured value), and Damage Points, which start at zero and are accumulated.
Whenever a character takes damage, it is added to his Damage Points.
If the character's Damage Points ever exceed his current hit points, then the character gains the dying condition and may expire if not helped.
When the character takes a short rest, he recovers some of his vigour -- half the Damage Points are subtracted from his Hit Points, and his Damage Points drop to zero.
If the character is healed a number of points, say with a spell or potion, then the healing is applied to both the Damage Points and the Hit Points -- Damage Points get reduced (minimum zero), and the same number is added to his current Hit Points (up to his normal maximum).
An alternative version of healing may be equivalent to a short rest, as described above.
Natural healing occurs after a short rest has occurred (when the character has zero Damage Points and less than maximum Hit Points). A character naturally heals 1 hit point per day for each character level.

For example, suppose a Fighter is uninjured and starts combat with his full 63 Hit Points and 0 Damage Points. After sustaining a couple hits, he has accumulated 16 Damage Points. He still has 63 Hit Points, however. After winning the fight, he takes a short rest. His Hit Points drop to 63-(16/2)=55, and his Damage Points drop to 0. As you can see, he has partially recovered from his injuries, but has been weakened to an extent. During a second combat encounter, if he is badly injured, and his Damage Points exceed his current 55 Hit Points, he may die. If he imbibes a healing potion that heals 5 points, then his Damage Points are reduced by 5 points and his Hit Points are increased by 5 points. Thus, a character who needs healing badly gets more benefit than one who is at maximum Hit Points or has accumulated no Damage Points.
To maximize magical healing benefits, a character may choose to use magical healing after combat but before he begins his short rest.

Thus healing still has its limits, yet effectively becomes an Encounter ability.

--

Ridley's Cohort said:

I would bet my bottom dollar that the designers are looking at it from a very different direction.

The main point is to allow the players to play the characters they want to play, without being tied by the apron strings to the cleric class. Choosing a cleric should be an interesting choice with fun pros and cons, not a concession to a entirely phoney sense of realism that the DM is supposed beat into the players with a big stick.

Click to expand...

Yes, I understand this. The desire to make the cleric optional has been responsible for a lot of arguably bad mechanics and non-archetypes, including healing surges, shout-healing "warlords" etc. When do we get to say the cure is worse than the disease?

The result of trying to make the cleric optional via wonky classes and supered up natural healing is IMO a big old pile of not-D&D. Maybe, instead of trying to take an angle grinder to this part of D&D again, and leaving mess everywhere, they should just say "well shucks guys, balanced parties need a cleric just like they need a fighter-type", then make healing potions and other healing magic items cheap, readily available and much more effective and call it a day. Most parties need a thief/rogue too. Heck, you could give paladins a 1 hp per round at will lay on hands, and have clerics retain an in-combat healing niche. There are options that don't require wonky non-magical mechanics and classes, which is where WOTC seems currently happy to say "done" at.

Just how much of the cleric's unpopularity can be traced back to having most of their spells continually vampired away by the party's need for cures? Supe up the cures, a lot. Maybe even make an at-will heal of 1 hp per round. The cleric may be passé, but the solutions to the cleric that we've seen so far IMO stink a lot more.

Actually, scratch the at-will 1hp/round healing idea, everyone would be walking around at full hp after every encounter, which would suck. But it does show that there are other options available to them.

Ah, who cares - warlords are back to make a mess of healing conceptually again in 5E, so this is all irrelevant.

To get rid of the cleric being forced into taking nothing but healing, we house ruled a few changes for clerics.

First, a cleric can take no more then 1/2 his given level slots (rounded down) as healing. So if he can have six 1st level spells, only three can be healing.

Second, we doubled the amount of healing each spell did, so, a Cure Light wounds heals for 2d8 instead of 1d8.

These two rules made a big difference for us, and allowed the cleric to take other spells he found more useful and interesting.

rounser said:

Yes, I understand this. The desire to make the cleric optional has been responsible for a lot of arguably bad mechanics and non-archetypes, including healing surges, shout-healing "warlords" etc.

Click to expand...

What's arguably bad about the healing surge mechanic, itself? Other than that you simply don't like them or they're different from what D&D had in the past, that is?

As for the warlord archetype, "shout healing" is probably more prevalent in heroic fantasy and cinema than the D&D cleric. I mean, seriously, a guy in full armor with a mace who stands behind you and heals you as you get beat up? Name one character that behaves like a D&D cleric from any pre-D&D source.

D&D hit points and healing have always been very unrealistic and counter-genre, but they do make the game a lot more playable than more 'realistic' or 'genre-faithful' games that include impairing wounds, limited healing, and the like.

Healing surges at least take the Cleric out of the absurd 'band aid' role, eliminate player-manufacturable wands and potions of unlimitted hp recovery, and instead put healing as a resource in the hands of each character. That greatly enhances balance and playability. It only strains credulity if you have a problem with hit points, themselves (which a lot of folks always have, I'll readily admit). The idea that individuals have personal limits to their recuperative abilities, even with outside aid is actually quite realistic.

The result of trying to make the cleric optional via wonky classes and supered up natural healing is IMO a big old pile of not-D&D.

Click to expand...

If you want to define D&D by it's flaws, then, yes, any improvement is not D&D. Giving everyone BAB and multiple attacks is a big steaming pile of not-AD&D, for instance. Clerics able to cast spells at 1st level? That is such a load of not-0D&D.

Maybe, instead of trying to take an angle grinder to this part of D&D again, and leaving mess everywhere, they should just say "well shucks guys, balanced parties need a cleric just like they need a fighter-type"

Click to expand...

Putting aside that a party could often get by fine without a fighter (say, at higher level, when your Iron Golem makes a great blocker and is healed with the same fireballs that kill your enemies; or in 3e with an Animal Companion or summoned critter or self-buffing cleric taking his place), why is that remotely desireable? Because that's how it's always been?

Just how much of the cleric's unpopularity can be traced back to having most of their spells continually vampired away by the party's need for cures?

Click to expand...

A fair chunk of it. The only other candidate is people being put off by the religious angle.

Supe up the cures, a lot.

Click to expand...

3e tried that. It made cure spells more powerful and let Clerics cast them spontaneously. It made CLW Wands cheap and even cheaper to make. The result, without his spell power 'vampired' away with healing, the Cleric was utterly broken. CoDzilla was born.

Don't have the patience to enter into a "what's wrong with healing surges" debate with you, especially when it's a well beaten dead horse. Google disassociated mechanics, then rethink your idea that the backlash against 4E was based on being sticklers for tradition, rather than people seeing blatantly gamist mechanics and saying "yuck".

As far as 3E clerics go, cure spells were still underpowered. The importance of CLW wands is a reflection of that, not a cause - cleric wasn't enough, party started making or buying wands as well. Codzilla is irrelevant - a result of the game bribing people with combat ability to play the cleric, which was a flawed approach.

Again - 3E offered a flat healing amount per spell. Affected one person, didn't scale with level (with the exception of Heal). What is needed to fix clerics is the healing equivalent of a fireball - multiple recipients, healing x per caster level (or equivalent). Then you'd be getting somewhere.

4E's gamist healing was not the answer, and a continuation of 4E's attitude towards healing into 5E is asking for trouble.