I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Pentius]

I quoted to you the section in the 4E PHB that said when you hit with a combat attack, you do damage. Someone else pointed out the Injury Poison section in 3.5, that connects HP loss to a wound. I don't think the book is consistent here.

I think you're on to something here. Why, the 4e PHB isn't consistent with the 3.5 SRD at all! That should come as a surprise to no one.

If it helps to repeat it:


If the dynamics of the game have changed such that people who didn't find it productive to heal in-combat in 3.5 found it productive to heal in 4e (and I get the impression there's less concern about getting the one character that can heal into touch range to heal in 4e) then that's a change that 4e made that it has to live up to.

Not buying it. I'll buy that it was a workable strategy in 3.5 to ignore in combat healing in favor of winning faster. In 4e, that is still a workable strategy. And in both, I would assume the average group does use in combat healing.

In any case, it's beside the point. If one group is saying this is what happened to them when they played, and another group is saying that doesn't happen to them, the fairest explanation, the one you should start at, is that it is indeed happening to the first group and not the second.

I'm not saying, "Surges can't make combat longer." I am saying that if PCs regaining HP in the middle of a battle makes that battle longer, it does not matter, to the length of the battle, whether those HP are from a surge or a cure spell, or a potion, or any other means of regaining HP in combat.

I'm saying healing in combat is nothing new.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think you're on to something here. Why, the 4e PHB isn't consistent with the 3.5 SRD at all! That should come as a surprise to no one.

You're not reading what I'm writing. The 4e PHB says "If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. ... When you hit you usually do damage and sometimes produce some other effect." (page 276, left column, top two paragraphs.) Not "cause a lose of HP", "do damage".

 

[Pentius]

You're not reading what I'm writing. The 4e PHB says "If your roll is higher than or equal to the defense score, you hit. ... When you hit you usually do damage and sometimes produce some other effect." (page 276, left column, top two paragraphs.) Not "cause a lose of HP", "do damage".

No, I'm reading what you're saying, I'm just disagreeing. I am disagreeing that the use of the word damage, here in layman's terms, overrides the spelled out definitions of hit points and healing. You are claiming this creates tension and inconsistency within the rules. I am contesting this as nitpicking. I am also discounting your reference to the 3.5 SRD, which has no bearing on 4e rules.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Not buying it. I'll buy that it was a workable strategy in 3.5 to ignore in combat healing in favor of winning faster. In 4e, that is still a workable strategy. And in both, I would assume the average group does use in combat healing.


I'm not saying, "Surges can't make combat longer." I am saying that if PCs regaining HP in the middle of a battle makes that battle longer, it does not matter, to the length of the battle, whether those HP are from a surge or a cure spell, or a potion, or any other means of regaining HP in combat.

I'm saying healing in combat is nothing new.

I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and I've never seen it where it's been workable to avoid healing in combat, across any edition. As I said several pages back now, if my PCs weren't casting/manifesting "Revivify" at least once or twice or more times per combat in my 3.5E game, I felt I wasn't doing my job as DM. (Revivify was an in combat Raise Dead that left a PC stable at -1 hit points if cast within one round of death - or longer if it's a Psionic Revivify.) And, once a PC is Revivified, they can get additional healing and be back in the combat without missing their turn in the initiative.

And, if you think a Healing Surge is too much healing, what about Heal, Mass Cure spells or Mass Heal?

 

[Dausuul]

I've been playing D&D since the late 70s and I've never seen it where it's been workable to avoid healing in combat, across any edition. As I said several pages back now, if my PCs weren't casting/manifesting "Revivify" at least once or twice or more times per combat in my 3.5E game, I felt I wasn't doing my job as DM. (Revivify was an in combat Raise Dead that left a PC stable at -1 hit points if cast within one round of death - or longer if it's a Psionic Revivify.) And, once a PC is Revivified, they can get additional healing and be back in the combat without missing their turn in the initiative.

Most of us didn't play at a level where casting Revivify, Heal, or Mass Cure every combat was feasible. At lower levels (5-10, the "sweet spot"), healing spells in combat are generally a waste of the cleric's time. That's a round better used to cast a buff spell or attack the enemy.

In 4E, healing is usually a minor action, so the cleric isn't giving up an attack to use it. That makes it far more tactically sound.

 

[prosfilaes]

I am disagreeing that the use of the word damage, here in layman's terms, overrides the spelled out definitions of hit points and healing.

I'm not interested in the rules lawyer interpretation of whether it overrides the spelled out definition. I'm interested in whether D&D coherently and consistently expresses the view you claim it does. You said:

If your way of narrating the events doesn't match the boundaries the rules set, that is ON YOU. So maybe 4e doesn't quite jive with the way you've butchered the system for 20 years. That isn't 4e's fault. The system has always been intended for HP to be abstract.

If you're trying to teach a subtle point in a subject, you make sure you're clear about that point, especially if you know you've got students who misunderstand it, you don't use language sloppily. That is 4e's fault. Furthermore, the 3.5 SRD goes to show that if the intent is for HP to be abstract, it wasn't expressed in at least the edition preceding 4e. In fact, the 3.5 SRD says

Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. ... The most common way that your character gets hurt is to take lethal damage and lose hit points.

and the glossary of the 3.5 PHB says

hit points (hp): A measure of a character's health or an object's integrity. Damage decreases current hit points, and lost hit points return with healing or natural recovery.

and twice under Combat Basics (pg 135)

Hit points represent how much damage a character can take before falling unconscious or dying.

So the contention that all earlier editions had HP represent something besides simple damage seems incorrect, making this a change from the immediately preceding edition. Not only that, it's a change that's not clearly and consistently stated; it lapses back into a simple HP loss=damage. If we find it odd, it's not because we've been completely ignoring the system for 20 years.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Most of us didn't play at a level where casting Revivify, Heal, or Mass Cure every combat was feasible. At lower levels (5-10, the "sweet spot"), healing spells in combat are generally a waste of the cleric's time. That's a round better used to cast a buff spell or attack the enemy.

In 4E, healing is usually a minor action, so the cleric isn't giving up an attack to use it. That makes it far more tactically sound.

Interesting - so, you never got up to a level where Close Wounds was an option in 3.5E? (Immediate Action - cures d4 + 1hp/level - level 2 spell)

And, review the description - If you cast this spell immediately after the subject takes damage, it effectively prevents the damage. It would keep alive someone who had just dropped to -10 hit points.

Isn't that what everybody was complaining about with healing surges - it's like the damage never happened? Yet, we had the same thing going on in previous editions. (also, please note, I have not played that healing surges are like damage never happened - I play it like being hit with a Cure Light Wounds from previous editions)

And, Revivify is a level 5 spell, so it was available in that "sweet spot" you mentioned. I guess my groups have felt that getting a comrade back into fighting shape to be more important than casting Prayer or Bless, especially if half the party is not within the range of the spell.

 

[Pentius]

I'm not interested in the rules lawyer interpretation of whether it overrides the spelled out definition. I'm interested in whether D&D coherently and consistently expresses the view you claim it does.

For someone not interested in rules lawyer interpretations, you are clinging really hard to one word that didn't get spelled out explicitly.

If you're trying to teach a subtle point in a subject, you make sure you're clear about that point, especially if you know you've got students who misunderstand it, you don't use language sloppily. That is 4e's fault. Furthermore, the 3.5 SRD goes to show that if the intent is for HP to be abstract, it wasn't expressed in at least the edition preceding 4e. In fact, the 3.5 SRD says

And it also says:
"What Hit Points Represent
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" -Link

And on page 145 of the 3.5 PHB, the full version:
"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the
game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going,
and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For
some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner
power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to
convince bystanders that she doesn’t have the favor of some higher
power."

So the contention that all earlier editions had HP represent something besides simple damage seems incorrect, making this a change from the immediately preceding edition. Not only that, it's a change that's not clearly and consistently stated; it lapses back into a simple HP loss=damage. If we find it odd, it's not because we've been completely ignoring the system for 20 years.

The claim that earlier editions intended HP to represent something besides physical bodily harm is not incorrect. They may have done it inconsistently across various mechanics, but the intent is obvious in the paragraph I quoted, as well as numerous others I'll forego quoting since they have already been brought up in this thread.

 

[prosfilaes]

And it also says:
"What Hit Points Represent
Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one" -Link

Which is fundamentally what I've argued for; that high HP is about turning serious blows into less serious ones, not avoiding them altogether.

 

[Hussar]

Well, let's look at what 4e ACTUALLY says about hit points:

Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character’s skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation.

When you create your character, you determine your maximum hit points. From this number, you derive your bloodied and healing surge values. When you take damage, subtract that number from your current hit points. As long as your current hit point total is higher than 0, you can keep on fighting.

When your current total drops to 0 or lower, however, you are dying.

Powers, abilities, and actions that restore hit points are known as healing. You might regain hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic. When you heal, add the number to your current hit points. You can heal up to your maximum hit point total, but you can’t exceed it.
/snipped for unnecessary verbiage.

Always useful to actually go to the source. The SRD is so abbreviated, that it becomes quite misleading in conversations like these.