D&D 4E Healing and combat tension between 4e and Next

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Well, your original post said "not much risk and much more advantage," which I strongly disagree with except in very specific situations.

Fair enough. That final line of my original post perhaps did overstate my point (although I did try to temper that at the beginning by saying 'many people' rather than 'everyone'). But at the end of the day... it really comes down to how your game runs to determine which method does or doesn't work best.

I know personally... having a Leader delay at the beginning of a fight to go right before the Defender (thereby perhaps allowing a monster originally between them to now go first) did not add any noticeable "extra action" at the end of the fight (since by that point, while the Leader could have attacked in the final round to take the monster out... usually things have devolved enough where there was a good chance he would have done something besides attacking anyway.) And as far as the auras and things that disappear upon unconsciousness... those are game-time decisions the party makes at the time of the event. And many times we have not noticed any problems with the Defender losing a Defender Aura in exchange for gaining 15 more more points of additional "free" healing. That's been a more than adequate exchange.

So yes, one strategy isn't the end-all-and-be-all choice... but both have their place depending on situation and what type of game you are playing in. And at that point one might be strategically better than the other in 75% of combats.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
I know personally... having a Leader delay at the beginning of a fight to go right before the Defender (thereby perhaps allowing a monster originally between them to now go first) did not add any noticeable "extra action" at the end of the fight (since by that point, while the Leader could have attacked in the final round to take the monster out... usually things have devolved enough where there was a good chance he would have done something besides attacking anyway.) And as far as the auras and things that disappear upon unconsciousness... those are game-time decisions the party makes at the time of the event. And many times we have not noticed any problems with the Defender losing a Defender Aura in exchange for gaining 15 more more points of additional "free" healing. That's been a more than adequate exchange.
This discussion makes me imagine a party loudly having this exact argument in the field while ignoring everything else; meanwhile the monsters just walk around them and attack the village instead... :)

Lan-"guys? guys? the, er, monsters? guys?"-efan
 

pemerton

Legend
My group would almost always prefer to have their PCs retain consciousness, rather than get the "free" hit points from healing from unconciousness, exactly for the action economy reasons that [MENTION=6672353]Magil[/MENTION] has mentioned.

In my group, the healing is spread 3 main ways: a hybrid ranger-cleric, a dwarf fighter who's paragon path is warpriest and who wears dwarven armour and a cloak of the walking wounded, and a paladin. For the ranger-cleric, the tactic suggested by [MENTION=7006]DEFCON 1[/MENTION] would probably be dubious, as it would mean delaying the deployment of striker damage in order to get the healing coming just before the defender. Also, with quite a bit of healing being the dwarf's self-healing, that discourages falling unconscious first!
 

pemerton

Legend
I don't believe the OP's description of a long, drawn out battle against a significant opponent should be ignored

<snip>

What isn't needed is a baked in combat length or multiple heals. That simply makes one's decisions in combat more scripted and contrived than leaving combat space as wide open as possible.
I agree with the first quoted paragraph, but not the second.

There is no avoiding "baked in combat length", or, rather, there is no avoiding a "default system pacing" - where one possible default is "no meaningful pacing".

I would say that classic D&D is in the "no meaningful pacing" school. 3E, with its apparent emphasis, at least above low levels, on SoD seems to emphasise an approach to play where planning trumps resolution. I would say that Rolemaster is similar in this respect.

4e adopts an approach that emphasises resolution over planning - that is, the actual play at the table is the dominant consideration in determing how things resolve - and as part of that defaults to the pacing described in the OP.

If you don't design for that sort of pacing - which depends on the basic maths, plus the healing rules, plus the action economy, plus the PC resource rules (encounter powers, etc) - then you're unlikely to be able to reliably achieve it just by banging away with a differently designed ruleset.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top