I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Gaerek]

First, let me compliment you on your tone. Though you disagree with what others think, you haven't blown things up at all. I think people should try to discuss things with a certain amount of tact in this thread (or on these boards in general), so I'm looking forward to being able to do so with you.

In the end, it's just a game. There's no sense getting worked up about it. I have a feeling, in the end, this is just a case of, "Let's agree to disagree." It's also why I'll refuse to respond to anyone who decides to take this out of the realm of civil discussion, and into the realm of the childish, the insulting, or anything beyond what this is...a discussion about a game.

Second, I really don't think your conclusion about D&D and realism is correct. As another poster has pointed out, if you were fighting a human enemy in D&D, and the GM described your blow as lopping his head off, but also described him as continuing to attack you, you wouldn't assume that the enemy was a normal human. You'd think, "well, something's up" and probably be momentarily surprised, and maybe intrigued. This is because, realistically, a human dies when his head is lopped off.

I actually agree with you here. I even mentioned in my post that I'm willing to accept the oddities of the system, for the sake of fun. Does it throw off the narrative? Yep, sure does. But for me, it's better than the option. And I think this is where we may disagree.

I feel as if you're saying, "if you take any concept, and progress it to the natural extreme, it doesn't make for a good play experience." The problem with that, to me, is that you're taking it to the extreme for some reason. The game is heavily abstracted, yes, but with nods to realism all over the place. In fact, the abstractions are usually glossing over complicated real life actions (attack roll, etc.). No, having a perfectly realistic game isn't desirable, but neither is it the goal. No one should be worrying about a completely realistic D&D with no abstractions cropping up.

Again, I do agree with you here. Simulationist games are rarely fun for most people. Extremely "gamist" games usually start off pretty fun, but it tapers off quickly. The best would be somewhere in the middle. I would also argue that the point of having some realism, or roots in realism, or whatever you want to call it, is done, simply because those aspects make it fun, exciting, and interesting. A players character I was DMing for died a couple months ago. He told me, "Man, it's no fun dying." I asked him how much fun he'd have if there was no threat of death. He thought for a moment and said, "The game would be f'ing boring." That's a perfect example of what I'm saying here, and I think you would agree as well. But again, for me, Healing surges fix a serious (in my eyes) flaw with previous editions.

Hell, back in the mid-90's we were so sick of the whole healer bot/healer stick problem with 2e, we made a bunch of house rules to help us not have to worry so much about having a cleric in a group or at least the requirement for a cleric to memorize tons of heals. The first thing we did was use the 3e cleric spells system (before it was even published). Clerics didn't have to mem heals. The next thing we did (and I forget what we called it) was allow each character to heal half their HP every couple hours with some restrictions (I don't remember exactly how we did this, there were some limits). We ran clericless 2e games without any issues. There were times heals would have been nice, but they were far from needed. Especially the second rule, these were very gamist, but they allowed us to have more fun with the game, so we were willing to suspend disbelief to make it happen.

The reason people like nods to realism (or verisimilitude, if you'd prefer that word), really, is because it lets them connect to the world. The internal logic of a fantasy world based on what we -as real life humans- rely on makes for a game that is much easier to immerse in. You're not constantly having to figure out how the world works differently from ours. Abstractions of these real life translations help speed up game play, increase fun (by adding an element of randomness), and generally giving us a way to mimic something we could theoretically experience in real life (most of the time, at least; things like spells are an exception, but probably don't take up the bulk of any session).

In other words, it's fun to imagine we're in these situations, and the closer to real life the system is, the more opportunity there is for fun. I do agree.

Taking all of this into account, realism is an extremely useful tool for RPGs. It's a way to immerse. And while immersion is not a goal that everyone will share, it's definitely a common goal among a significant section of those who play RPGs. Therefore, I find it rather intelligent to pander to this crowd if you plan to sell RPGs. You obviously have a balance you want to strike between crowds, but breaking the "suspension of disbelief" is something you don't want to do for the majority of your player base if you can help it. And, since we're all using a shared imaginative space, the "suspension of disbelief" is going to vary wildly. That's why something like healing surges cause objections; people already dislike certain aspects of hit points, and now you've compounded that issue by adding a mechanic that makes for even more baffling situations to come up. You now have retroactive descriptions of wounds, for instance. It's now, "the orc 'hit' you for 11 damage, and I'll let you know how bad it is at the end of combat" instead of "the orc slams his sword into the left side of your armor, and you feel blood, and it feels pretty bad. Take 11 damage."

It's funny how much I actually do agree with you. The difference here being, I personally believe (with the exception of the obvious) that Healing Surges make things more realistic. In medieval style combat (like D&D) in reality, you either survived, or you were dead. If you took more than minor wounds, you were likely dead. The healing surge represents the idea of "licking your wounds" or "walking it off" or "rubbin' some dirt on it" or the burst of adrenaline (which are all very real "ideas") you get sometimes. When I played football in high school, I played both offense and defence. I got tired, I got bruised, scraped, cut, etc because I was on the field for 40 out of 60 minutes. Every 10 minutes or so, I'd get rotated out for about 5 minutes. That 5 minutes was enough to rest myself up and be almost at 100% again by the time I hit the field. That's the kind of thing the healing surge is meant to represent. The name they chose for it was bad because it immediately got people thinking, "Oh, characters can heal themselves now??" when that's not exactly what's going on. And I was the same way when I heard that term, and it immediately through me off. Only through playing the system, and understanding exactly what it was trying to do did I change my mind about it. To me, it was an improvement.

All told, the healing surge mechanic is just compounding already existing problems. Before, hit points gave us falling damage, injury poison, and the like, and now we have all this and retroactive descriptions. It's not that there for no problem with hit points before, it's that it's become worse.

I can understand why you feel this way. For me, the benefits of HS outweigh the drawbacks. For you, they do not. And that's perfectly fine! If you invited me to come to a Pathfinder, or 2e or 3e or whatever game, I'd be like, "Date and time? I'll be there!" I just want to play. I prefer 4e, but really, in the grand scheme of things, these are minor issues.

As I've mentioned previously in this thread, separating the hit point abstractions into two separate pools of abstraction is a solution with a lot of merit:
(1) You have one pool that's "turning bad wounds into less bad wounds, taking physical punishment, etc." that takes a long time to recover, and...
(2) You have a second pool that's "fatigue, ability to completely avoid damage, etc." that takes a very short amount of time to recover.

With this method, you can have certain effects reflect the description as necessary. Falling completely bypasses the "fatigue" pool, and deals damage directly to your "physical" pool. Being set on fire does the same. As does being immersed in lava. As does retroactive descriptions. And so on. So many issues with hit points over the past 35 years disappear.

I think this is a very viable idea. I always thought Gary Gygax's description of what HP represent was kinda half-assed. However, I couldn't think of anything better without getting into the ridiculous, so I accepted it. If 5e is around the corner, I would be totally ok with this type of a system. For now, I'm find with healing surges.

Because, really, the problem with healing surges are somewhat unique, but they're an extension of the problem with hit points as they stand now. Your conclusion of "If you're not ok with HS because they aren't realistic, then you're not ok with D&D in general" just does not ring true to me.

Just my thoughts on it, though. Make of them what you will. As always, play what you like

That comment about not being ok with HS means not being ok with D&D was tongue-in-cheek. I tend to throw a little hyperbole around to help make a point. My point was simply there's a lot of abstracting in these types of games. D&D is, and has always been, one of the more gamist games out there. Pathfinder, being essentially an extension of 3.5e D&D falls in that category too. For me, it's not much to extend a little more suspension of disbelief to healing surges, for the sake of fun.

And please don't get me wrong. I don't think healing surges are the end all, be all cure. I personally believe they work well at what they do. If a new system comes out that replaces them, as long as it's not a regression back to what we had before, I'll welcome it with open arms.

 

[Oryan77]

He's binding his wounds. Or determining that the damage was stun damage, walking it off, or whatever narratively you want it to be. Consider it "wind" damage, like in Deadlands.

Wanting to use a rule to explain something narritavely (HP loss = physical damage) is much easier for me than wanting to use a rule (healing surges) and needing to figure out a way to explain its existence narritavely (Fighters can heal, so HP loss is more than just physical damage). Not only that, but then I need to implement another rule (can only use it once per encounter) and once again, figure out a way to explain "why" narratively.

Mechanically & narratively, the only time I could use a Healing Surge to represent the fact that I'm healing physical damage (by bandaging) would be after a battle.

Mechanically, a Second Wind (1 action) is faster than pulling out a bandage & wrapping it (2 move actions). So it's breaking the rules if I'm supposedly tending to physical damage.

Narratively, I don't imagine I could bandage a life threatening wound in 6 seconds (1 action). And if it isn't a life threatening wound, then why would I bandage it during combat (use a healing surge)? If my death is from many smaller wounds, then how would I have treated those wounds with a single Heal Surge (1 action) before I die?

Therefore, the damage can't be physical damage. In that regard, my Fighter should never die when reaching -10 HP. All of that damage would be related to the "skill, luck, and resolve" explanations for what HPs represent, or "stun damage or walking it off damage" to explain it narratively.

My point is, an unidentified percentage of physical damage has to be assumed if you die by a loss of HPs. We identify the point of death (-10 HP), so what's the difference identifying the percentage of physical damage taken?

It's just a rule put in place to cater to a certain playstyle cause it's convenient. I like convenience, but not if it doesn't come with a believable explanation.

 

[Gaerek]

Wow, I'd hate playing a cleric too, if that were my options. Her's my current spells prepared in our 1e game. I'm 8th level and have been blessed with an 18 wisdom:

1st level: Cure light wounds x3, command x2

2nd level: Hold person x2, resist fire, silence 15' radius, augury

3rd level: Speak with dead, Locate Object, Dispel Magic, Prayer

4th level: Cure seriuous wounds, divination, sticks to snakes


I have a few cures for emergencies, but mostly combat or utility spells. My options are to heal the injured, attack with my mace or sling, cast offensive magic, of which I have some of the best in the game, gather information about the upcoming dungeon, so that less people NEED to be healed. I have the best ac in the game, and I'm the second best fighter. In a pinch, I can serve as the trap finder, as well. And should we get our asses handed to us, I can spend a day and have the party ready to go tomorrow. Healbot, indeed.

I suppose that makes my argument moot!

In reality, I haven't played 1e in, oh, 15 years. A lot rides on the DM. I've been stuck with a lot of a-hole DMs that know how much healing a cleric is capable of, and build encounters accordingly. I have seen many cleric spell builds like that in the past, but it was very dependent on the game and the DM. Large, 1e style mega dungeons that were more about overcoming puzzles/traps/etc than combat meant less emphasis on healing. 2e Players Option: Combat and Tactics (which my group played, and loved) and 3e meant more emphasis on combat, and accrdingly, more emphasis on healing.

With 4e style, large, tactical battles (which I, and my group absolutely love), a lot of healing is essential. Play that kind of combat with a 3e and before system, and you've got your healbot.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, this discussion seems to be going how it always goes.

One group looks at hps and the like as a way to play a game, and the other group wants it to reflect reality.

I am in the first group.

Overall, healing surges and the like work well to keep the party's resources under control. In 3.5 the evil CLW wands allowed any party that could survive a fight to keep going mroe or less indefinitely. Especially if the party had a cleric who could make the things for half cost.

I prefer the 4E system, actually, htough I owuld like to see mroe ways for characters to use them in combat, making healing powers less of a requirement and all the goofienss I see in 4E due to that.

Personally, I wouild like 5E to go one mroe step and let characters spend Hs pretty freely, though not toally freely and get rid of hte need to have leader classes heal. Maybe htey can still make Hs heal better, but they should not be the ones who have to sue pwoers to tgrigger them.

 

[gamerprinter]

In the end, I don't play 4e, so how 4e characters heal is of little concern to me. I've tried 4e, didn't like it, though thought it was a fine game for those who do like it.

For the last 30+ years when you're low on hit points - have the cleric heal you, chuck a healing potion, or get a dose of a cure wand - it all works fine and my character can keep going. I don't need a lot of fiddly rules to make it 'better'. Nor do I need to explain how this works - it works.

 

[Oryan77]

For those that keep using the "Cure Wands" excuse, I'm telling ya, get rid of magic item shops and control what magic items PCs can get their hands on and it solves all kinds of problems. From a DM perspective, there's actually no negatives to doing so.

Sure, PCs could still craft them, but that's much less commonplace.

 

[FireLance]

Bear in mind that my experience with 4e is limited, and was not what I would consider fun....

Healing Surges are part of what creates 'the grind' - where combat becomes predictable, you know who has won or lost, but the combat is going to go on for another half an hour anyway.... It bored me out of my skull. Between Healing Surges and a whole lot of pushing and pulling miniatures this way and that a combat that should have taken an half hour took almost three hours. (Admittedly, with a snack break in the middle.) Healing Surges are the only offensive feature that I can name off hand - there were multiple pushes and pulls with names varied by class, but everyone had Healing Surges.

A 'once per day' Healing Surge might be more palatable to me, but as they are currently written....

Actually, it seems to me like you are talking about the Second Wind action rather than healing surges. Spatula's post here provides a pretty good breakdown of the issues.

 

[gamerprinter]

For those that keep using the "Cure Wands" excuse, I'm telling ya, get rid of magic item shops and control what magic items PCs can get their hands on and it solves all kinds of problems. From a DM perspective, there's actually no negatives to doing so.

Sure, PCs could still craft them, but that's much less commonplace.

There's no such thing as a Magic Shop in any of my worlds. In fact, I haven't included the concept in my published setting either. Of course, that won't stop GMs from sticking one in, and they're welcome to it.

For me, magic items are treasure found on adventures, not purchased in stores.

 

[Alzrius]

I haven't read this thread from the beginning, so apologies if someone already expressed this sentiment (better).

For me, the problem with healing surges is wrapped up in the following:

Hit point loss represents taking physical damage. Conversely, regaining hit points represents physical healing.

The above point is fundamental to understanding why I don't like healing surges - they necessitate that the above understanding be discarded and replaced with an alternative understanding for what hit points represent (e.g. that hit points are a character's "ability to keep fighting" or something similar).

If hit point loss is damage, and hit points gained is healing, then having characters spontaneously, non-magically regaining hit points means they've essentially just had a burst of regeneration; suspension of disbelief breaks at that point.

Now, using hit points to measure physical damage taken/healed has some baggage to describing exactly how it works in-character. A big one is the relativity of the damage, that is, why 8 points of damage is lethal to a 1st-level commoner but negligible to a 20th-level fighter.

In my game, the loss is looked at as a percentage of a character's total hit points, and then described in-character accordingly. For a character with only 6 hit points, 8 hit points of damage is a punctured vital organ; for a character with 200 hit points, it's a scratch.

There are some problem areas with this approach, to be sure. The converse of the above method of "damage as a percentage" is that magical healing actually becomes less effective at higher levels (e.g. a cure light wounds will restore that 1st-level commoner from dying to pristine condition...but for that 20th-level fighter it'll only heal scratches). Housecats can kill commoners with a swipe of the claws or two. High-level characters can fall off cliffs and reliably survive.

The thing is, most of these problems are either corner cases, or are easily ignored - they're the rough spots that come with that basic assumption about hit points, and I've long since accepted those problems as part-and-parcel of that way of looking at them.

But spontaneous healing surges are too regular to shrug off, too conspicuous to overlook, and too radical a departure from how I view hit point loss/healing in my games. Hence, I don't like them.

 

[FireLance]

Well, it seems to me that most of the problems that people have with healing surges are not actually problems with healing surges per se. Rather, the problems seem related to non-magical recovery of hit points, and the speed of hit point recovery.

The fact that hit points can be recovered by non-magical means (taking a short rest, the second wind action, a warlord's inspiring word) imposes certain restrictions on the narration. It means that hit points are almost entirely non-physical. When a character loses hit points, you can narrate a small cut, a minor bruise, or some fatigue from dodging a blow that would otherwise have killed him, but nothing that would hamper the character significantly. If the only way to recover hit points is through magical means, you can get a bit more creative with the narration, because the idea that magic can fix anything doesn't jar with most peoples' sense of realism (magic is, after all, inherently unrealistic). Most people can accept that a character can be dying one minute, and be back on his feet, fighting as if nothing has happened after he receives magical healing. Not everyone can accept the various narrative justifications why he can do so after non-magical hit point recovery ("He's ignoring the pain"/"He's just that tough"/"He's been bandaged to the point that the wound doesn't bother him").

A related point is rapid hit point recovery, whether it's the ability to take the Second Wind action in the middle of a fight, recovering hit points after a short rest, or recovering all healing surges after an extended rest. It is still plausible if you accept the narrative convention that hit points are mostly non-physical, but it does have an impact on gameplay, as a number of posters have noted.

Of course, since these issues have nothing to do with the concept of healing surges, you can address them while retaining healing surges as written: ban the warlord class and other non-magical sources of healing (or re-write them so that they provide temporary hit points instead of hit point recovery), ban the spending of healing surges during a short rest, remove the Second Wind action or restrict it to once per day instead of once per encounter, slow down the rate of healing surge recovery, etc.