• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Flat Healing Without Using a Surge--Infinite Daily HP?

Rystil Arden

First Post
Obryn said:
...or it's to reward those characters who stuck with their Cleric until 27th level.

Seriously, it's 27th level. When you Sunburst to full, you don't get your Dailies or Healing Surges back. If you have enough time to Sunburst to max, you probably have all the time in the world.

If you really, really need errata, the DM can say that attack powers can only be used in encounters. That may save on other wackiness, too, but I really can't say one way or another.

-O
Once you choose to make a Cleric, there isn't any choice of which I'm aware that would make you ineligible to take Sunburst by 27th-level (even multiclass Paragoning). It isn't like 3.5 where someone who stayed in Cleric all the way through without any PrCs or such was making a significant and weighty decision.

It won't affect the number of big climactic encounters you can have in a day, of course, since those will use plenty of dailies and such. But the smaller encounters won't have an impact like they might if they expended surges, so the pacing effect of weaker lead-in encounters to wear the party down is lost. That's all I and others are saying. It's possible that this is exactly as intended, but it seems to run counter to the stated design goals, and they were pretty careful not to make other powers like it, so I doubt it. In the end, we can't be sure.

When I posted this thread, I mainly wanted to be sure that I hadn't missed something somewhere that already limited it and fixed this, actually. The 4e designers seemed to be mostly on top of such things, so I had expected that I just hadn't noticed the fix.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Makaze

First Post
The 4e designers seemed to be mostly on top of such things
Much as I love 4e I've got to disagree.

Look to -
Cascade of Blades
Battle Pyres
Careful Strike vs. Twin Strike
Rain of Blows

Just to name a few examples of things that either weren't thought all the way through or have reasonable interpretations as written that are ridiculously broken.

And I do agree with you that Sunburst should be fixed in someway. Preferably some offical way so that we don't have to Rule 0 it.
 

Rystil Arden

First Post
Makaze said:
Much as I love 4e I've got to disagree.

Look to -
Cascade of Blades
Battle Pyres
Careful Strike vs. Twin Strike
Rain of Blows

Just to name a few examples of things that either weren't thought all the way through or have reasonable interpretations as written that are ridiculously broken.

And I do agree with you that Sunburst should be fixed in someway. Preferably some offical way so that we don't have to Rule 0 it.
Well, I did say mostly ;) They got hundreds of powers right, so I'm willing to forgive them several blunders and mistakes. In fact, it's due to those other blunders and mistakes that I'm willing to bet that Sunburst is unintentional too.
 

KKDragonLord

First Post
Lol, waste of time

Rystil Arden said:
Well, I did say mostly ;) They got hundreds of powers right, so I'm willing to forgive them several blunders and mistakes. In fact, it's due to those other blunders and mistakes that I'm willing to bet that Sunburst is unintentional too.

pff
7 pages of pointless arguing with a crybaby who wants to find a problem to argue about knowing very well that the way we all play real tabletop rpgs is not the way some people play computer rpgs (which is trying to exploit every possible bug and poor AI)

so this dude is just happy to waste everybody's time, including mine.

just leave this thread alone and he will stop bothering us with this nonsense that would never happen in a real game table.
(if he tries he will soon be kicked out of his table im sure)
 


Sylrae

First Post
KKDragonLord said:
pff
7 pages of pointless arguing with a crybaby who wants to find a problem to argue about knowing very well that the way we all play real tabletop rpgs is not the way some people play computer rpgs (which is trying to exploit every possible bug and poor AI)

so this dude is just happy to waste everybody's time, including mine.

just leave this thread alone and he will stop bothering us with this nonsense that would never happen in a real game table.
(if he tries he will soon be kicked out of his table im sure)

Regardless of whether you agree or not, there is no reason for you to not be civil about it. It's a legitimate issue, and not because he's some sort of conniving manipulator. I believe he's arguing from a DM's standpoint. I know damn well that I dont like playing with rules that are this easily exploitable, especially not if there are a bunch of them. The only vague rule that I use is I never got rid of called shots. but, if a player does a called shot, they know its 100% up to dm discretion what the end effects and the circumstancial modifiers are.

I would have put my issue about this in house rules though, not here, cause I would have been looking for a solution to the problem. The fact that there is in fact a problem is damn obvious. There are players who will try to use things like this (alot of them) just like in 3.5 people love the monk duelist combo. I mean, whats not to like when half of your stats add to AC (which is retardedly cheap). Or people who dip into ranger in 3.0 for the 1st level abilities. or the 3.0 shadowdancer, they get Hide in Plain sight and then leave it.

People come up with weird metagaming things and exploit them if their dm lets them get away with it, or if the dm doesnt notice, or follows raw to the letter. I mean, theres even a pdf book online thats like 200 pages of how to exploit rules glitches in D&D 3.5 (I don't have it but one of my friends showed me it).

This DOES illustrate issues in 4e that are less than ideal. I dont think it would have taken 7 pages except for people essentially saying that it doesnt matter and to ignore the rules and replace them with judgement calls that you have to make every time. The players will want to know where they stand, what counts as a threat and what doesnt. if they dont know where they stand, and the rules are so damn vague that you dont know where you stand, either people will try to exploit the rule and succeed, they will try and the dm will shut them down - pissing off the player, cause the rules say he can do it and the dm had nothing saying he couldnt in advance, or people will just avoid the class/abilities to avoid all the hassle and miscommunication that results from badly written mechanics.

I wouldnt use this ability personally, but if i was in any situation where the DM changed the way the mechanics work without warning, then id be pissed. hell. It's happened, and I WAS pissed. And I left the DM's game because it kept happening. - which means he was a :):):):):):) DM (also because he killed off roughly 2 characters per session).

There's nothing wrong or whiny about wanting clearly defined mechanics. I'd even go as far as to say that there IS something wrong with VAGUELY DEFINED MECHANICS.

It doesn't matter if theyre house rules or published rules. If they are not well defined, and the player cant judge what the outcome of trying an action/strategy is in their mind because you have to make a bunch of judgement calls, people will get peeved over it eventually.
 

joela

First Post
spirit

Ydars said:
I have a better idea; why don't we encourage everyone to play to the spririt of the rules instead of just obeying the letter but trying to "break" them!

too much thinking. i've read folks bicker over what did Jesus Christ consider "poor" in the Bible (i.e., how much money, does it include barter, does that include the wife's dowry, etc.)
 

WalterKovacs

First Post
Sunburst:

Given enough time a ... a Cleric can heal the party "for free". Depending on the situation, the party should NOT have "all the time in the world" between encounters". If they can rest, over and over again, to renew the encounter healing of the Cleric ... then they can just as easily "take the rest of the day off" ... wait until the 24 hour resets and have their extended rest. Now, 1 hour vs. a whole day is different ... but it's ultimately up to to either ALLOW or NOT allow their players to rest indefinitely between encounters.

As for capturing enemies and using their for blood sport. Again ... these are NPCs. Who is to say that the enemy they've captured for bloodsport is going to want to fight back? If they realize their a slave, won't have any chance of winning on their own, and if they are anywhere close to "winning" they'll probably just be slain by the rest of the party ... they may not even bother to defend themselves ... definitely NOT a credible threat.

A DM should not allow his players to decide, on their own, to create their own "renewable" encounter. An encounter, or skill challenge has an element of risk because to succeed gives a reward ... to fail gives failure. If there is NO reward in defeating a captured foe ... it's not really an encounter. Unless you would give the same party XP every time they redefeated the same foe ... in which case they have an unlimited ammount of XP as well.

In short:

If the player has the monster in their "care" ... they've already beaten them and got the XP and rewards for "defeating them". If the person becomes a threat because they intentionally allow the character to be a threat again ... well, they deserved to be punished for just being stupid "in the world of D&D".

They wanted a power that could grant healing in ADDITION to healing surges on a per encounter basis. The choice was to include that and hope that GMs can deal with the situation of a player or players DELIBERATELY attempting to subvert the rules by "inventing" threats out of thin air [or carrying them around "in a bag"] or just disallow any power that can be broken [but only by devious players metagaming AND taking advantage of a DM]. Ultimately the "5-minute adventure day".

No Rule Zero required. They say no "bag of rats". A player bringing a "ready made adventure" along with them is a bag of rats. If they can drag around a level 30 solo monster either:

(a) It's not a threat
or
(b) They have not control over it

It it was a legitimate threat, it wouldn't be a slave to the PCs, and would attack them when the GM wanted to, not just when the PCs decide they need to heal up.
 

WalterKovacs

First Post
Sylrae said:
It doesn't matter if theyre house rules or published rules. If they are not well defined, and the player cant judge what the outcome of trying an action/strategy is in their mind because you have to make a bunch of judgement calls, people will get peeved over it eventually.

There are judgement calls involving creatures knocked out, sleeping or that have surrendered [as per Intimidate], or other situations where they are effectively "out of the fight" but the encounter is still going.

At the same time, there are obvious uses that shouldn't be hard for a player and DM to agree on. You can't carry around a captured for and force them to fight your for blood sport AND consider them to be a credible threat. If a player is deliberately trying to "create" a bag of rats to use with the power ... tell them it doesn't work. Talk to players about the progression they plan to take, and if they want to take that power, go over what you aren't going to allow to be done.

In general ... a PC should not be the one saying "we are going into an encounter, roll for initiative." Now, a player can try to start a fight ... set up an ambush, or get into an argument at a bar, etc. However a DM has to decide that the other party actually wants to fight back. If the party attacks people that don't fight back [or who try to escape etc] ... it would be quite hard for the players to argue that they are fighting against a credible threat if the credible threat isn't fighting back.

If the players want to be an "evil" paladin ... they may need to change the power for flavor purposes ... a good or unalligned paladin COULD make a 'pre-emptive' attack against a threat ...

In general ... a DM that has players attempting to get "free infinite healing" out of the power, has to sit down with his players about the fact that they are attempting to pull a fast one on him and "break" the game.

Outside of the obvious abuse ... giving the opponent the ability to heal without a surge with that ability once in every encounter isn't that bad ... that is what the power is for. So, it becomes an issue of the DM deciding whether the encounter is a credible threat. Unless they deliberately created encounters that are worthless XP wise [or that are intended for the players to realize that the monsters aren't fighting back or trying to hurt them and that sets up some story "moment"] ... odds are the encounters the DM "initiates" will be credible threats. If the PCs decide to go looking for a fight, it becomes a bit harrier ... but the DM can strongly hint through storytelling about the NPCs to indicate whether the PCs are getting into a fight, or just bullying some people that are of little or no consequence.

EDIT:

Quick summary on the Sunburst issue:

There is no rule saying that a player cannot use it every 5 minutes. Without Rule Zero'ing that rule, it can still be justified:

There is NO rule saying that a DM cannot simply have another encounter start during the period where the Cleric is spamming Sunburst and short resting over and over again.

At level 27 ... there are some high level opponent's going after the PCs ... those NPCs will have access to scrying rituals and similar tricks that would let them spy on the PCs ... at that tier, it is perfectly justified in your villains being at least partially aware of the PCs tactics.

Similarly ... you can up the danger WITHIN enounters ... forcing the healing surges to be used then. In general, because of the limited ammount of uses for healing surges WITHIN an encounter ... most encounters assume the players start with full HP, but can only be healed so much. While the number of healing surges is an attrition mechanic that will eventually force the players to take an extended rest [in addition to getting back your daily powers] ... it isn't like 3.5 where the idea was that an encounter is balanced against attritition that X encounters would use up the party's resources, so the last fight would be potentially deadly if they didn't do well over time. In a 4e fight, you can run out of healing IN an encounter, and still have healing surges left over ... but without ways to trigger them, you can't use them [ditto with encounter powers]. It doesn't matter that they can start each fight at full health without spending surges outside of combat ... they still have to survive the combat, and that will be when they spend most of their surges.

The "DM's aren't monkeys" thing doesn't mean "this has to be house ruled" ... it works per RAW ... but so does going back to town after every encounter and waiting 24 hours to go back out fresh the next day. At 27th level, while battling in the Astral Sea against demon lords going after gods and reality hanging in the balance ... if the players expect their enemies to just leave them alone while they have their half hour to hour long rest to allow them to be fully healed for their fight ... well, there is nothing in the RAW that says "A DM shall not interupt a player rest". Heck ... the whole concept of having watches is based on that principle. The "random encounter breaking up a sleep" is a D&D staple. Having an hour long rest is the perfect time for players to get attacked ... or for the enemies to get in position are be "ready" for the players ... they can be preparing their forces during that time.

Players will act as if they have an unlimited time between encounters if you let them. The "infinite healing between fights" is very similar to the old 5-minute adventure day. If a DM is going to make it easy on his players he can not just allow it but end up making the rules MORE lineient [you don't actually waste 24 hours, you do JUST do the 8 hour rest and get all your stuff back, even if you woke up not that long ago ... or in this case, they don't actually count out the time, they just have an arbitrary time for the rest, and treat all the characters as having full HP going into the next fight].

If a DM wants to run it that way they can. If a DM doesn't want to run it that way, they do not need to house rule anything ... they can simply make it clear to the players that they can't just sit around for an hour after every encounter.
 
Last edited:

Pangias

Explorer
significant threats

I was reading this, i found it very interesting, and i was wondering if we could rule that a signicant threat for additionnal effect such as sunburst healing could be only if the danger of the encounter equal or exceed the party level.(Means standard or higher level of encounter)

But effectively, it's a house rule.


But RAW wise, it means that we have a loophole here...too bad.

I would like to add a comment to the previous post. You argue that the DM can harrass the player, and can find plenty of way to avoid the player to use this loophole, i agree but it's still a problem exactly as the 1 encounter a day in 3d edition was a problem. They tried to avoid all those problems in 4 edition and clearly, sunburst is a mistake design wise.

But the good thing of 4 edition is i can modify one power without destroying all the balance of the powers....pure genius.

So here is my rule for sunburst:

If at the beginning of the encounter the threat level is equal or higher than the party level, Sunburst have an additional effect of healing the charaters for X + Cha.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top