I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Pentius]

RE: Spending surges while dying.

This may be technically possible(I'm not going to look up the fiddly bits of whether it is or not), but even if it is, it isn't practically feasible. You're Dying. The game term, Dying, where you have to roll a d20 every round and if you get under a 10 three times you're dead. You can't spend surges freely until after a short rest, which means 5 minutes, which means 50 times rolling that d20. Good luck.

RE: [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s changed narrative flow for 4e.

That's all well and good, and it sounds like it'd work fine, though I've never personally done it. But you don't have to drop linear narrative to have narrative in 4e make sense. I've been doing linear narration, with the occasional split-second retcon for interrupt moves, since I started playing, and it works out. What you have to do is simply not describe any non-fatal wound as a fatal wound. You don't describe a PC has having a broken leg when they take 10HP of damage and are mechanically capable of walking around just fine. You don't describe a Fighter with 54hp of damage and 1hp left as being a pincushion of arrows. You don't do this because in any edition, that Fighter can still stand up and run a marathon in full plate with no ill effects. And he can do it the next day, and the next, and every day after that, unless another hit comes along and drops him for real.

Or, you can do like I've seen countless groups do, and describe it exactly that way, and just take in stride situations like the 1hp pincushion Fighter dragging his dead cleric friend's body for a day's walk back to the temple for healing, and never mind the idea of bleeding out. And if you're among that number who are fine with these sort of wahoo damage descriptions, then you're probably fine with it in 4e, because 4e isn't really any more wahoo about it.

 

[Darwinism]

It's pretty obvious that HP are part abstract, part concrete. Always have been, always will be, because that's just how D&D's system works. Unless, in my favorite example, you like to imagine that the 3d10 ballista bolt, doing say 18 damage, a level 1 character is instantly killed by will only mildly inconvenience a level 10 character with the exact same 18 points of damage.

For that reason healing surges make a lot more sense because they scale with the player; you don't have the really inexcusably silly position of a level 1 character being brought back from -9, the brink of death, to full hitpoints by a spell that says, right there, that it only cures moderate wounds. Nor the equally silly position of higher level characters getting not even a fifth of their HP back from a spell that says it cures critical wounds. And those spell names and such are presented as actual in-character labels.

And bleeds make perfect sense, assuming you view HP as a mixture of abstract and concrete; bleeding takes them away, the same as just barely parrying that Balor's gigantic sword does. Unless, of course, you'd rather imagine D&D as being two people squaring off and just slapping the crap out of each other with weapons that do real damage that somehow doesn't incapacitate them until they lose an abstract number of hitpoints.

 

[Imaro]

My experience --obviously not universal, but still, in many groups over 26 years of play-- is that HP damage got described as real, tangible wounds, like JamesCourage's example of the claw going through a PC's back. The more (numerical) damage rolled, the gorier the description.

Dude, not sure what the whole "26 years" thing has to do with your point since regardless it's still just your experiences and probably, though not certainly, you were drawn to gamers who shared your predilections. This is where we differ and why no one should assume their personal experience relates to everyone. The people I played with and ran for described what happened based on the amount of hit points one loss in regards to his/her total amount, with only a small percentage of those being real physical damage... thus that is why to this day I look at hit points in that way. Just because your groups decided to disregard what the rulebooks stated hit points were... doesn't mean everyone did. In other words great anecdotal evidence but it's hardly enough to prove everyone was doing it how you did.

However, despite the graphic descriptions, these wounds never behaved much like actually wounds. They didn't impair, they didn't bleed, except in rare cases, like when struck by certain, powerful magical weapons. Leaving D&D combats resembling the classic Black Knight segment of Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- grievous maulings shrugged off as "just a flesh wound".

Maybe this was because as the rulebooks stated hit points weren't composed of only the physical... yet you chose to play and describe them as if they were... so you get silly results and then turn around and blame the rules and guidance you chose to ignore. This doesn't seem like a problem with D&D.

(because D&D's combat system can produce nothing but "flesh wounds", up until the point you're unconscious and dying/dead)

Uhm, not true... however D&D heroes have through numerous battles and training and being slightly beyond normal men (along with adrenaline, willpower, etc.) able to keep going at an almost undiminshed capacity even when wounded. We talked about this in numerous posts upthread.

Sure, in theory I agree with this, it's bad, or a least silly, form to describe a PC that's literally flattened, or limb-deprived, or burned to cinders and yet still alive, but it was also commonplace to do nearly that; describing fireballed PC's with 3rd degree burns who still, miraculously and thoroughly cartoon-like, still able to fight the good fight. And so on.

You totally missed my point, so I'll try it again. In older editions you ignored the description of hit points in the book while creating your narrative and thus got a silly result, not because the game made you or advised you too but because you went against what was printed in the books... in 4e the healing surge rules create the silly result, "I was unconsciouss and dying but 5 min later I'm up to full and ready to fight...for the third time today" and expect you to find some way to narrate around or with it while providing no real description or narrative that makes sense.

The system gave you roughly two choices when dealing with with PC's past a certain HP value: either describe the severity of wounds taken based on when they occur in the fight, and not by the numerical total of the damage dice (ie, the more severe wounds occur when the PC is near 0HP, regardless of amount), or describe PC's taking epic beatings of video-game proportions, which, conveniently don't break their stride (though they'll require powerful supernatural medical attention afterwards...).

Or you could narrate slight misses, a scratch, ankle twists, bruises, punches, etc. for under a certain amount of damage and more severe wounds such as a shallow gash, a deep cut, a broken finger or nose, etc. for higher damage rolls (most of which again aren't life threatening or even enough to slow most trained warriors down until enough of them whittle away his reserves). You chose to describe things a certain way that went against what was printed in the book.

Besides, Imaro, weren't you describing precisely the right way to narrate a 4e combat; the wounds aren't that bad until the PC is out of HP (and surges).

Huh? When did I describe this? This is so absurd it makes my head hurt. PC's can be dying but until they have no surges and no hp's they haven't taken any bad wounds??? If I did describe it that way it makes no sense whatsoever upon reading you restate it, so please show me where I stated this?

 

[Dausuul]

RE: Spending surges while dying.

This may be technically possible(I'm not going to look up the fiddly bits of whether it is or not), but even if it is, it isn't practically feasible. You're Dying. The game term, Dying, where you have to roll a d20 every round and if you get under a 10 three times you're dead. You can't spend surges freely until after a short rest, which means 5 minutes, which means 50 times rolling that d20. Good luck.

Usually you will have been stabilized (but not necessarily brought back out of negatives) by a fellow PC.

Even if you aren't, you've got a pretty fair chance to get a 20 before your third strike. It's a 27% chance normally. If you have something giving you a +1 bonus on your saving throws, it shoots up to 49%, since the rule does not require a natural 20.

 

[TheUltramark]

I just wanna say that I am a little shocked that the "hit-point-getter-backer" discussion still rages.

Like I said, I am of the opinon that if you are going to buy into the idea of spells, orcs, psionics, dragons, divine callings, demons and devils and angels and elementals, and knocking a snake prone, but somehow some line gets drawn at healing surges????

To each their own, happy gaming, try the decaf.

 

[Imaro]

I just wanna say that I am a little shocked that the "hit-point-getter-backer" discussion still rages.

Like I said, I am of the opinon that if you are going to buy into the idea of spells, orcs, psionics, dragons, divine callings, demons and devils and angels and elementals, and knocking a snake prone, but somehow some line gets drawn at healing surges????

To each their own, happy gaming, try the decaf.

I too am shocked everyone just doesn't accept and think what I think???... I also believe they should all try the decaf...

 

[DEFCON 1]

So the overwhelming opinion of most of you who keep posting is that hit points are not in fact completely just a tally of the amount of physical wounds you have taken. They are a combination of physical wounds AND bruising/fatigue/luck/dodging etc. etc.

Good. Glad we got that out of the way.

Now... to recover those 'hit points'... some of that 'healing' should therefore be from either long-term rest (letting the wounds re-knit themselves on their own) and magical spells/potions (which speed up the process). No problem. I'm right there with you.

However... SOME of that recovery should also come from just regaining breath, mopping the brow, resetting the armor, do a quick self-stitch of a superficial cut, maybe reset your own nose etc. Is this not correct? To cover all the bruising/fatigue/luck/dodging? All the things that the 'healing surge' mechanic is meant to represent?

So to be 'realistic' about it... a person should have to do both. Have some hit points just naturally return after a short break from combart AND get magical healing to close the wounds.

Now... *IF* D&D used the two track Vitality/Wound or Stun/Body system... then there we go! Problem solved. Vitality or Stun returns after some short period of time... Wound or Body returns either by magic or long-term rest. I'm right there with you, and agree that this would be a better way to mimic reality.

However... since D&D doesn't (and never had) these two tracks... the question is whether either method BY ITSELF is better than the other. Or even more to my point, are D&D combat mechanics with a single track so absurd and reality breaking that IT DOESN'T MATTER if either method is better than the other?

And that's all I've been saying. Is the whole enterprise of D&D combat just so stupid, absurd, and unrealistic that getting hung up on one particular aspect of it really worth the time? For some of you... apparently it is. But for me... I play the D&D combat 'game' as it is, and not worry about the narrative if it doesn't make a whole heap of sense. Because I find the 4E combat rules to work well and be fun. And if that means handwaving away the fact that I narrated a player taking a gouge to the face from an orc's axe, but after the fact the Warlord Inspiring Worded his wound close? Then so be it. Better that than to force that player to instead play a Cleric when he didn't want to just so the same exact game mechanic would be 'magical' in nature.

 

[JamesonCourage]

My experience --obviously not universal, but still, in many groups over 26 years of play-- is that HP damage got described as real, tangible wounds, like JamesCourage's example of the claw going through a PC's back. The more (numerical) damage rolled, the gorier the description.

However, despite the graphic descriptions, these wounds never behaved much like actually wounds. They didn't impair, they didn't bleed, except in rare cases, like when struck by certain, powerful magical weapons. Leaving D&D combats resembling the classic Black Knight segment of Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- grievous maulings shrugged off as "just a flesh wound".

(because D&D's combat system can produce nothing but "flesh wounds", up until the point you're unconscious and dying/dead)

Well, just to be clear, the context I used my example in was for dropping someone into the negatives; that is, their wounds are now bad enough that they cannot act, are unconscious, and are bleeding out. I'm sure you were just using my example as a jumping off point, but I thought I'd clarify so my example doesn't get taken the wrong way.

On a different note, you spelled my user name incorrectly (James, instead of Jameson), though you got my real name correct. I'm okay with that. As always, play what you like

And that's all I've been saying. Is the whole enterprise of D&D combat just so stupid, absurd, and unrealistic that getting hung up on one particular aspect of it really worth the time? For some of you... apparently it is. But for me... I play the D&D combat 'game' as it is, and not worry about the narrative if it doesn't make a whole heap of sense. Because I find the 4E combat rules to work well and be fun. And if that means handwaving away the fact that I narrated a player taking a gouge to the face from an orc's axe, but after the fact the Warlord Inspiring Worded his wound close? Then so be it. Better that than to force that player to instead play a Cleric when he didn't want to just so the same exact game mechanic would be 'magical' in nature.

If a game mechanic ignores internal consistency to such a point that it is bucking against the coherent story of the game, it's a problem for me (yes, hit points as presented in 3.X, my edition of choice, were also a problem for me, which is why I changed them in my game). Hand waving stuff is fine for some groups. However, I've seen PCs undergo personality shifts after being dropped into the negatives, both when running a game and when playing in a game. It was a life altering event (though to different degrees), because the life of the PCs nearly ended. This can be achieved within the 4e rule set, though if the game bucks the system to the point that it makes it harder to judge, it really hurts the story. It hurts immersion. And internal logic, immersion, and story trump game mechanics for me (this is not limited to just combat, or just 4e, this applies to rules in other areas and other editions).

This doesn't mean I want things to be super realistic, nor does it mean I want a free form storytelling system. No, I want defined, clear rules that facilitate internal logic, immersion, and story. Healing surges, while a nice mechanic, hurt that for me with the current HP pool. Criticizing it for that failure is not an invalid or unjustified shot, especially when asked on a public forum for my thoughts on it. Giving constructive feedback on what I don't like about it, and how it could be better implemented, is not only directly answering the original post, it's potentially good for the game in the long run.

So, yes, it matters to me. I don't play any edition of D&D right now. I doubt 5e, even if it is being worked on, will bring me back. However, it might. Healing surges are not bad. They could be better. Voicing my objections to how they are now is not me thinking the "whole enterprise of D&D combat just so stupid, absurd, and unrealistic", nor is it because I'm "getting hung up on one particular aspect of it" and wasting time thinking about it. The question was proposed to the public, and some answered it, and fairly civilly, in my opinion. You may think it's fine, or a waste of time to talk about (or even think about). I'm perfectly okay with you thinking that. I just don't like hearing that by civilly disagreeing with a mechanic's current implementation -and then providing constructive feedback that was asked of me- that I now think D&D's combat system is stupid or absurd. I don't. Please don't imply that I do. Thank you.

As always, play what you like

 

[Imaro]

And that's all I've been saying. Is the whole enterprise of D&D combat just so stupid, absurd, and unrealistic that getting hung up on one particular aspect of it really worth the time? For some of you... apparently it is. But for me... I play the D&D combat 'game' as it is, and not worry about the narrative if it doesn't make a whole heap of sense. Because I find the 4E combat rules to work well and be fun. And if that means handwaving away the fact that I narrated a player taking a gouge to the face from an orc's axe, but after the fact the Warlord Inspiring Worded his wound close? Then so be it. Better that than to force that player to instead play a Cleric when he didn't want to just so the same exact game mechanic would be 'magical' in nature.

Ok, isn't the whole premise of this thread for people who do have a problem with healing surges, if you didn't then I'm not sure what your point is. Are you trying to show people the "error" of their preferences? Trying to prove something... or what? I'm genuinely curious about this.

OAN: Couldn't your players have just gotten potions, a wand, hired a cleric, etc. to get the magical effect... did they really have to play a cleric or is that just hyperbole??

 

[BryonD]

My experience --obviously not universal, but still, in many groups over 26 years of play-- is that HP damage got described as real, tangible wounds, like JamesCourage's example of the claw going through a PC's back. The more (numerical) damage rolled, the gorier the description.

However, despite the graphic descriptions, these wounds never behaved much like actually wounds. They didn't impair, they didn't bleed, except in rare cases, like when struck by certain, powerful magical weapons. Leaving D&D combats resembling the classic Black Knight segment of Monty Python and the Holy Grail -- grievous maulings shrugged off as "just a flesh wound".

And in all those 26 years no one every questioned that there might be a better way to make the description match what was actually happening?

I agree with you that what you describe is a problem. And I have no idea how many people play that way now. But it just seems obvious to me that descriptions that work with the system and don't force "just a flesh wound" references are better.

I recall playing the way you describe when I was very young. But I also recall being made fun of in high school by a teacher when a friend and I got a bit too loud describing ideas for how non-wound hit point loss could and should be described. And I'm 42 now. So I've got your 26 years covered right there.

If you prefer everything be "flesh wounds", then awesome, play on, whatever is the most fun is the key. I can certainly see how Surges would, at least do zero harm to your experience under that approach.

But, I think it is a fair question to ask, can you see how surges would be a very unwelcome addition to the game played the way I play it?