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

GreyICE · Oct 11, 2012

Lanefan said:
Absolutely. And that's when the PCs really have to manage their resources properly because they won't get the rest breaks they otherwise might, won't have as many chances to study/pray for spells, won't get their overnight heal rate as often, etc. And some adventures should totally be like this; where the choice as to whether to plow ahead or to stop and rest has potentially very serious consequences either way*.

Some adventures, but not all. Each adventure really should have its own pacing - sometimes the party might think they're on a clock when they're actually not; other times they might not know of a deadline until it's too late; another adventure might have a well-known and hard deadline, while a fourth doesn't have any time limit at all.

* - note this still doesn't completely work in a 4e-style situation where resources (other than dailies) are not really diminished that much as you go along - you've always got your at-wills, you've got your encounter powers to pull out once per fight no matter how many fights you get into, and so on.

Lanefan

See, I don't really agree with deceiving my players deliberately, so if there's a clock, they'll know of its existence, and if there's not, they won't. The DM creates and controls the world, he should at least have the general decency to make his creation not deliberately deceive the players.

But then again, I've clashed over DMing styles before with most of the truly old-school DMs on this board. It just seems like most of their DMing techniques work best when the party has a pile of extra character sheets they can use once their current character dies, and "roleplaying" consists of "I'm a dwarf! I like ale!"

For some odd reason most of the player demands (super consistent worlds, tons of rules for building monsters, known and highly predictable values for all events) seem to be based on the concept that the DM is a backstabbing jerk who will deceive them at every opportunity and builds things simply to screw with their heads.

But that's probably a different topic.

JamesonCourage · Oct 11, 2012

GreyICE said:
See, I don't really agree with deceiving my players deliberately, so if there's a clock, they'll know of its existence, and if there's not, they won't. The DM creates and controls the world, he should at least have the general decency to make his creation not deliberately deceive the players.

I'm a very sandbox-oriented GM, so if the players have no reason to know about the clock, they don't. I don't try to deceive the players, I just let them know (through their characters) as they explore the setting.

GreyICE said:
For some odd reason most of the player demands (super consistent worlds, tons of rules for building monsters, known and highly predictable values for all events) seem to be based on the concept that the DM is a backstabbing jerk who will deceive them at every opportunity and builds things simply to screw with their heads.

I mostly support the things you listed, and since I'm a GM who doesn't backstab my players and isn't a jerk that will deceive them at every opportunity and build things simply to screw with their heads, I guess my anecdote runs counter to yours. My players also generally support those same goals; again, they don't think I'm a backstabbing deceptive jerk out to ruin their fun, or they wouldn't play with me (much less remain friends for half our lifetime).

But hey, that's me. Both of us can only guess what's closest to a "universal truth" on the matter. As always, play what you like

Mustrum_Ridcully · Oct 12, 2012

FireLance said:
Basically, the healing is supposed to kick in after the PCs get bloodied, but before they drop to 0 hit points, and ideally, should be what prevents them from dropping to 0 hit points.

Indeed. Allowing some to drop to 0 or less is usually "bad healing management" and it happens rarely for tha treason. When it happens, I think it is tense, because it causes more problems. A characters that starts his turn in the negatives can't take any actions, which shifts the action economy temporarily to the enemy side's favor.

That said, maybe hit point shifting isn't the only thing one could do.
Conditions like bloodied that do have no inherent penalties but can give enemies an advantage could be more common, or we could have more abilities keying of such conditions.

S'mon · Oct 13, 2012

Shadeydm said:
OtoH having played a couple different 4E defenders for me the frequency with which a defender gets clobbered and reduced to little or no HP and then gets right back up again drains much of the tension or feeling of danger out of your average combat. After a few levels it doesn't surprise you anymore you become somewhat numb to it.

Enemies that Coup de Gras deal with that issue very effectively. :devil:

DEFCON 1 · Oct 13, 2012

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Indeed. Allowing some to drop to 0 or less is usually "bad healing management" and it happens rarely for that reason.

Actually, on the contrary... you'll find many people who will say that ONLY healing until PCs fall below 0 HP is in fact the BEST healing management. The reason being that all heals recover additional HP over and above their normal allotment. All the additional HP that a PC gains by going from the negative number to zero BEFORE calculating the healing on top of that.

For example... in the process of a round, say a PC has 3 HP, will be gaining a Healing Word for 8 HP of healing, and getting hit for 9 HP of damage.

If the PC gets the heal first while still on his feet, he goes from 3 HP to 11 HP (with the 8 HP heal), then loses 9HP from the hit down to 2 HP.

If that PC waited until after taking the hit before getting the heal, he would drop from 3 HP to -6 HP... then get an additional 14 HP worth of healing (going from -6 to 0 and then the 8 HP Healing Word). He then ends the round at 8HP.

So really... the way the game is set up there's not much risk and much more advantage to waiting until you drop below 0 before healing them back up. The only risks are the off-chance a critical comes in and knocks the PC all the way to Negative Bloodied (and insta-death), or that expected healing might not come in right away (and thus the PC starts making Death Saves). But beyond those two scenarios... healing PCs that are below 0 is actually the best management of resources.

Magil · Oct 13, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
Actually, on the contrary... you'll find many people who will say that ONLY healing until PCs fall below 0 HP is in fact the BEST healing management. The reason being that all heals recover additional HP over and above their normal allotment. All the additional HP that a PC gains by going from the negative number to zero BEFORE calculating the healing on top of that.

For example... in the process of a round, say a PC has 3 HP, will be gaining a Healing Word for 8 HP of healing, and getting hit for 9 HP of damage.

If the PC gets the heal first while still on his feet, he goes from 3 HP to 11 HP (with the 8 HP heal), then loses 9HP from the hit down to 2 HP.

If that PC waited until after taking the hit before getting the heal, he would drop from 3 HP to -6 HP... then get an additional 14 HP worth of healing (going from -6 to 0 and then the 8 HP Healing Word). He then ends the round at 8HP.

So really... the way the game is set up there's not much risk and much more advantage to waiting until you drop below 0 before healing them back up. The only risks are the off-chance a critical comes in and knocks the PC all the way to Negative Bloodied (and insta-death), or that expected healing might not come in right away (and thus the PC starts making Death Saves). But beyond those two scenarios... healing PCs that are below 0 is actually the best management of resources.

This is actually not very true, because by necessity a PC that drops below 0 will at the very least fall prone, and thus need to use a move action to stand back up. It also ends stances and certain other effects like defender aura and marks when a PC is knocked unconscious. Plus, if the healer can't get them up before their turn comes around, then the PC loses their turn. Situationally, it may also allow enemies to move past that PC's position without provoking opportunity attacks or other triggered effects that they would have been able to take if they were conscious. Finally, your DM may rule that you drop anything you are holding when you fall unconscious and force you to spend actions to retrieve your weapons/implements.

It may look efficient in terms of HP numbers, but it's going to rarely actually work out to be better. Throwing away actions like that never seems to work out good.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 13, 2012

Magil said:
This is actually not very true, because by necessity a PC that drops below 0 will at the very least fall prone, and thus need to use a move action to stand back up. It also ends stances and certain other effects like defender aura and marks when a PC is knocked unconscious. Plus, if the healer can't get them up before their turn comes around, then the PC loses their turn. Situationally, it may also allow enemies to move past that PC's position without provoking opportunity attacks or other triggered effects that they would have been able to take if they were conscious. Finally, your DM may rule that you drop anything you are holding when you fall unconscious and force you to spend actions to retrieve your weapons/implements.

It may look efficient in terms of HP numbers, but it's going to rarely actually work out to be better. Throwing away actions like that never seems to work out good.

Perhaps not for some groups, that is true. But for many groups, they plan around those deficiencies via tactics.

So for instance... I know oftentimes our Leaders will hold their actions until they go directly before the Defender... specifically so that they are in a position to get the Defender back on his feet without missing his turn in the order. So Defender keeps attacking until he gets really low on HP... the monsters attack together to drop him below 0... any other monsters perhaps are able to use this moment to get around the Defender (the risk and gamble the party makes to use these tactics)... the Leader heals the Defender (giving him lots of "free" HP from the rule that says you start your count from 0 and not the negative number)... and the Defender then uses his Move action to stand up and attack/charge. No Death Save, and no lost turn.

Doesn't always work out of course... but it usually ends being being the more advantageous tactic than having the Leader heal the Defender when the Defender is at less than 10 HP.

the Jester · Oct 13, 2012

Lanefan said:
There is nothing - repeat, nothing - wrong with a party taking several days or even a few weeks (or even a few months if there's lots of travel involved) in game time to get through an adventure; most of which time is spent resting.

QFMFT!

Caveat: For some playstyles, this is not cool.

DEFCON 1 said:
So for instance... I know oftentimes our Leaders will hold their actions until they go directly before the Defender... specifically so that they are in a position to get the Defender back on his feet without missing his turn in the order. So Defender keeps attacking until he gets really low on HP... the monsters attack together to drop him below 0... any other monsters perhaps are able to use this moment to get around the Defender (the risk and gamble the party makes to use these tactics)... the Leader heals the Defender (giving him lots of "free" HP from the rule that says you start your count from 0 and not the negative number)... and the Defender then uses his Move action to stand up and attack/charge. No Death Save, and no lost turn.

That's fine until a monster takes advantage of the opportunity to perform a coup de grace.

And before anyone cries, "Not fair!", the players are choosing to provide the bad guys with the opportunity. If they don't want to do so, it's almost always within their power to avoid it.

DEFCON 1 · Oct 14, 2012

the Jester said:
That's fine until a monster takes advantage of the opportunity to perform a coup de grace.

And before anyone cries, "Not fair!", the players are choosing to provide the bad guys with the opportunity. If they don't want to do so, it's almost always within their power to avoid it.

True enough. But that's oftentimes a gamble that some players will take. Either because their DM doesn't do Coup de Graces in the midst of combat, or no monsters are in the area to come rushing over to try it, or there are other PCs in the area that make better targets, or the monsters are ones that are not tactically savvy enough to do it, etc. etc.

Is it a risk? Sure. But it is calculated risk. And the gains you get from it (a whole heap of "free" XP on the heal) make that calculated risk one worth taking for many players and groups.

All I'm saying is that neither way is the "best" way to do it-- either healing while still up, or healing when dropped below 0. They both have their place.

Magil · Oct 14, 2012

DEFCON 1 said:
True enough. But that's oftentimes a gamble that some players will take. Either because their DM doesn't do Coup de Graces in the midst of combat, or no monsters are in the area to come rushing over to try it, or there are other PCs in the area that make better targets, or the monsters are ones that are not tactically savvy enough to do it, etc. etc.

Is it a risk? Sure. But it is calculated risk. And the gains you get from it (a whole heap of "free" XP on the heal) make that calculated risk one worth taking for many players and groups.

All I'm saying is that neither way is the "best" way to do it-- either healing while still up, or healing when dropped below 0. They both have their place.

Well, your original post said "not much risk and much more advantage," which I strongly disagree with except in very specific situations. My games have shown me that actions are a far more valuable resource than HP, and potentially losing actions is a very big deal. And a very quick way to see the party lose more total HP for the whole party is if the monsters get to rush past the defender to tear into the back lines. Another way is giving up actions by doing things like delaying, which can end up giving the monsters turns they would not have otherwise gotten, which leads to the party taking more damage overall. Certain defenders like swordmages and knights are just flat-out not good with this because of their effects that end when they go unconscious, like stances and defender aura. I think the risk is a lot bigger than you present it.