I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[NewJeffCT]

I think it is a magic versus mundane concern. If the source of healing is at all supernatural it makes sense in a way. If it is mundane but really seems more like magic that is where tge disconnect arises. Healing surges are described as mundane but don't seem mundane to me. And i think if you extend that kind of self heal power to all classes the flavor turns (at least for me) to something more like anime. This is just how it comes off to me; i can see how others would feel the same.

The definition of a healing surge (PHB, pg 293) does not say it is mundane - it says it restores lost hit points to your hit point total.

 

[Darwinism]

You do realize that for some the combat of 4e resembles fantasy grindfest as opposed to fantasy vietnam or a high fantasy battle out of literaure and movies... there's a ton of threads about it on here as well as various other gaming forums. Just saying.

Oh, well, if there's threads on it!

Please, tell me how 4E combat is more grindy than, "I attack five times," or, "I move and attack once unless I have a combination of feats." I'd appreciate it if you could, because to me 4E combat makes my characters feel far more effective than just stating full round attack or move and attack or charge!

Just because people got used to that being the norm doesn't make it good; legacy mechanics have no value by themselves.

Also, what does the imbalance of casters have to do with this discussion?

Everything? Casters were the only source of healing quickly in a setting where healing is required unless you want to FTB and say, "Six weeks later..."

Healing surges counter that handily. PCs are heroes, heroes recover quickly unless plot dictates otherwise. Are they perfect? Nope. A fair amount of the categories for things in 4E are too literal so people who are used to taking their elfgames literally take those term literally. But, hey, we've dealt with imperfection in every RPG we've ever played, haven't we?

 

[Gaerek]

Turning a blow into a less serious one implies a certain amount of activity to me, not passive forces like luck or fate (unless you can consciously affect those). However, I see how you can draw that interpretation, even if I wouldn't assume that to be the case. I still don't think that's what it means, but I wouldn't argue against it if you were GMing for me

I guess I can see it that was as well. It's funny, because I used that exact quote from the 3e PHB in, oh, around 2001 to show someone that HP were abstract, and not just a bucket of meat. If you are ok seeing HP in that way, then that's fine, if it works for you. But, I think that you start running into some very interesting (and immersion rending) problems. For example: How come a level-0 commoner can only take 1 sword hit, but the level 15 fighter can take several? If you put me (level 0 commoner) side by side with a Navy SEAL (say, level 15 fighter?) and shot us both, we would likely have the same fate. But according to "bucket of meat" HP, that Navy SEAL should be able to take a dozen or more shots before falling. That's just one of the problems.

You know what's funny? Years ago, when I used to play WoW, I used to advocate for a "hardcore" server, where if you died, you had until the mandatory release time to be res'd or that's it, you start over from scratch. I thought it'd be cool. Even in WoW, I wanted permanent death as an option (as in mandatory, but only on one or two servers, which you get to pick). Even in Diablo II (which I didn't play much of), I only ever played on hardcore in the campaign mode. I think I made it through two acts before I got kind of tired of my barbarian and played other games.

But, yeah, different play styles. No right or wrong answer to that

Interesting idea. I'm sure there's a few people that would like that, but I know it wouldn't be for me, lol. I'm one of the masochists that used to raid Plane of Fear in Everquest, before all the corpse summoners and resurrection bots...

If you're not sure what I'm talking about, let's just say there was a very real possibility of losing your corpse (and all of your gear) and having it disappear with all your gear if you wiped and couldn't get another raid up there to rescue. Almost happened once. I had to skip classes that day or risk missing a chance at getting back to my corpse. Was a bad day I never wanted to repeat, lol.

And the group I ran never went through dungeons or played modules, so they weren't as necessary (though they'd certainly have been useful at times). I've played through a dungeon-like environment or two, but it was low levels (1-3), so they didn't come up (750 gp is a lot to a first level character... way out of his price range).

Understandable. I think the way we used to balance encounters was that lower level combat tended to not be as draining. But at higher levels, all bets were off. That was my experience through about a dozen different groups I've played with in my 20 years.

Well, the amount of combat is basically set by the players. They've tried to avoid fights where possible. The two fights have been instigated by me, when bandits have attacked the PCs when traveling along the road (traveling by yourself means that a group of 4-6 bandits might like their odds when they have ranged weapons and are on the mountainside, waiting for people to pass by). The players could definitely start more fights than they have (they've almost been in, I don't know, probably six fights so far), but they keep letting the negotiator talk people down (that's their preferred plan, but combat was always, "and in case he fails, we jump him...").

Again, interesting. But it's similar to what I do. The players, whether they know it or not call the shots. Though, I have the opposite problem. If I give them more RP style encounters, or non-combat encounters...they will turn them into combat encounters, heh.

I think so, too. I think they'd have to shift healing surges away from the main healing mechanic (heals don't "activate" healing surges in other PCs anymore, but heal raw damage, even if it's 25% instead of a number). Leaving healing surges as the main mechanic for healing puts arbitrary hard caps on the amount of external healing one could receive in a day, which will still rub people the wrong way.

I also might have a fundamental misunderstanding of how healing works in 4e. And if so, ignore this

I think there's a general misunderstanding of healing surges. The name tends to evoke the idea that a player can heal themselves. And, to an extent, that's true. In combat, every player gets a second wind. This can be used as a standard action (meaning, you can basically only move this turn), once per encounter, that allows you to use a healing surge. A healing surge heals 25% of your HP (rounded down). In general, this is the only way a player can use a healing surge in combat. Abilities and healing potions do not heal directly, they allow the use of healing surges (in most cases, there are exceptions). A potion of healing allows a character to burn a healing surge in exchange for 10hp. A cleric can use healing word (twice per encounter) to allow a character to use a healing surge. A cleric can also choose Cure XXXX Wounds that heals back HP without a healing surge, but it's a daily spell, and the cleric would have had to take it in place of another daily. So in essense, a healing surge is a limitation on the amount of healing a player can receive in a day (after an extended rest, or 8 hours, they get all healing surges back). I think of it more like endurance. When you're out of surges, you're exhausted, and you need to rest. You simply cannot continue.

Most people are mostly ok (with some exceptions, not going into them here, as they've been discussed on this thread already) with that mechanic. What gets a lot of people is that between combats, during a short rest (5 minute break) a character can use as many surges as they want to heal themself up. So now, they're ready for the next fight, with no downtime. Anyway, that's how the mechanic works, basically, so if that's what you thought, then you understand. If not, well, now you do.

Well, in my game, when you level up, you don't automatically increase in anything (save free skill points, or a feat or stat hop). And, since it's a point buy system, you can dump all of your points into being an amazing butcher if you want to. You can have a 20th hit die scholar with 3 hit points, or a 5th hit die warrior with 50 hit points. So, I put the baseline at 4th hit die to set a certain level of proficiency within professions, not combat (though soldiers might average 4th or 5th level in combat proficiency).

Ahh, ok. Makes more sense now.

These are also settled adults, which means they aren't new or green. If you pick a fight with them at hit die 1, you will probably lose. As you should, in my mind. If you want to be heroic, start at a higher hit die. I wanted a system that could support a "farmboy to hero" story just as well as a "we're naturally the biggest, baddest guys around with little training" in my game. You can have a grizzled, trained warrior captain with decades of training in tactics and real life wars under his belt, and you can have a farm kid who gets dragged into the adventuring life, and becomes a hero.

In my ideal version of D&D, it should support different narrative ranges. I know that starting at 8th hit die means you miss out on a chunk of the game, but it's preferable to me than not being able to play a "zero to hero" type game, even if I wanted to. Give me the option for either, and let the group decide what to play.

I understand where you're coming from now. In context of D&D in general, it doesn't make much sense. But in the game you've created, well, that's the game you and your group want to play, and more power to you.

But, like you said, it's preference. I see the real downsides to doing it my way (you lose out on the early hit die, thus you might have a shorter long term game). But the upsides more than make up for it to me.

That's the grittyness you enjoy. For me, balance is a pretty important factor in the game.

But, it's just preference in what we want in a system. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd guess that you'd rather have a specialized game this resonates with most of your wants, then a general game that adapts to different styles. Many people prefer the "I'd rather all games be specialized, so I can pick a game that is tailored to my wants, and that specializes in the things I desire, rather than doing it halfheartedly." I understand that mindset, but since D&D has such a broad base, I'd rather have it appeal to as many different styles as possible (which is a goal that might, ironically, lose it some gamers).

In my eyes, a generic, one size fits all system would be fairly boring. Even if your game supports the way my group wants to play, I'd rather play 4e since it will excell at what we want. Whereas in your system, it might be possible, but it's more of a jack of all trades, master of none. BUT, the benefit is, of course, being able to do whatever you want, and have the system support that. 4e supports a lot of options, but many things are pretty non-negotiable.

Nope, not what I had in mind at all. In my game, it's basically all mundane travel unless you have a powerful magician (Passage specialist... basically teleportation magic), and even then, it costs him permanent resources (consumes a bit if his soul, by permanently reducing his Charisma, which you need an 18 or higher to cast spells at all). This makes it very, very rare. I'm not proposing this for D&D, since it's way too radical. I was just stating my preference of overland or boat travel most of the time, since it lets the world evolve. At high levels, with teleportation magic common, it's hard to have an army even begin to form without high level PCs (or even NPCs!) show up and nip it in the bud early. And that kills narratives, in my mind. Making teleportation rare but possible leaves narratives open, so it's my preference.

I can see that. Again, my thoughts follow the more heroic, cinematic feel. Whereas in your system, the journey is what's important, in 4e, the destination seems to be where it's at.

Yep. I really liked his take on magic items (it's basically what I did for my RPG). I hope he keeps up quality thoughts on the articles. And, just like Mr. Mearls said, "this is something Monte showed me that I liked," I hope we see Mr. Cook say, "this is something I was talking to Mike about. What do you guys think?"

I still have my reservations with Monte on the team, but what I've seen so far, he has some pretty good ideas, and I know i'll be following his L&L column. I have a feeling that column will give a good prediction of what to expect with 5e.

Yeah. It's nice to be able to converse and say, "play style difference, but that's cool" and not have the conversation dry up right away. I do find it interesting and informative. I hope others caught in our conversation do as well! As always, play what you like

I never understood the hate between the so-called grognards and the 4e fanboys. We're all gamers, but we all have our own preferences and opinions. I can't tell you that the way you play is wrong, because that's how you like to play. I may not like it, but that doesn't matter, at all. Have fun at your game today. Looking forward to my next!

 

[Hussar]

If you are a high level character I have no problem imagining him/her sustain an impressive amount of damage.

I can cite tons of fantasy characters from manga/comics/movies etc. that can sustain an absurd amount of damage. But none of them presents the Schrödinger issue.


If that's the case:

1) what happens if someone looks at the (eventually) wounded character? -what would someone see?
Maybe an ally looks at his comrade to see if he can sustain more damage, and go and help him, even if they can't communicate for some reason.

Or maybe there's someone else watching the combat without being involved, and wants to act if and when the character is effectively wounded.

Heck, his enemies too are interested into see if their attacks are effective.

In the middle of a fight, with all the stuff flying around that's flying around in a fantasy combat, "I look at Bob to see how he's doing" isn't really going to reveal that much. Bob is lying on the ground, there's blood around him and on him (might be his, might be someone else's) and he's on fire. How's he doing? Well, he might be dying, or his eye's might pop open, he rolls around to put out the fire and jumps back into the fight. Take your pick. If you used healing powers on him, then the latter is true.

2) what if the character for any reason can't use any HS for a long time after combat. Would he remain in this "cinematic" indetermination for hours?

This is really a corner case, but, I have seen it come up - my character had a disease which prevented him from using healing surges and was knocked below 0 hp. No, he doesn't remain "cinematic" for hours because that wouldn't make much sense. The event has been resolved - he's on the ground and he's dying and, without intervention, he will die.

3) if there's no "gaping wound", what happens? If, for example, a character is on fire, what happens? Is he/she damaged by the fire? Can I see if he/she is damaged only after something else happens, like his/her death or he/she quenches the fire?

Someone is burning. Can you tell how much it's actually hurting them while they are on fire? How on fire is the person when he's taking Ongoing 5 fire damage? In any edition?

4) What if the character falls unconscious after the combat. What would another character see looking at his/her body? A gaping wound or ...what else?

Why would a character fall unconscious after a combat? This one I can't answer without a more specific example.

 

[Hussar]

The reason I brought up that rule was that it's debatable whether you can "rest" while unconscious. The rule makes it clear that you can. Nothing in the "dying" rules would indicate that the dying form of unconsciousness works differently.



Spending a healing surge is not an action. If the cleric uses Healing Word on you, you can spend a healing surge, whether you're stunned, unconscious, or what have you. Same with anything else that says "You can spend a healing surge." (The use of "spend" here is another example of bad choice of rules terms--it implies an action is required when it isn't, and it implies you can do it at will when you can't.)

Sorry, no.

The rules work on exceptions. You can ONLY spend a healing surge by either taking a short rest (an action) or by a second wind (an action) or an outside intervention. From the Compendium:

Duration: A short rest is about 5 minutes long.

No Limit per Day: You can take as many short rests per day as you want.

No Strenuous Activity: You have to rest during a short rest. You can stand guard, sit in place, ride on a wagon or other vehicle, or do other tasks that don’t require much exertion.

Right there, the bolded part is why you are mistaken. You have to TAKE a short rest. You cannot just have one automatically.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

21 pages? really?

if someone is looking at getting into this thread, I'm not sure what to say to you.


that being said, my two cents state that healing surges are unrealistic, as most of 4e is, however it is a game of magic, do we really need more explanation? Magic. plain and simple.

as for other games, 3e did much the same things, although not with healing, if a fireball goes off and you make your save, why don't you move?

AD&D had Thac0, some liked it, I could never get the hang of it, thats my fault, I'm sorry

OD&D used the charts, easy. Saves and such? it was make it or not, they didn't say what happened when you did or when you didn't, they left that up for the players and DM.

So how are any of these things related to healing surges?
I hate to be a grognard, and usually this leads into 3e vs 4e or pathfinder vs 4e but honestly, I'm not that fond of 3e anymore, true I was raised on it, finding my fathers old 1e and 2e books made me look into it.

Compare and contrast time!
3e vs 4e

What 3e did good:Armor class: ascending armor class made it simple
What 4e did good:Rolling against the enemy's save: made it less work for the target
What they both did good: playability, you always have fun

what 3e did wrong: Skills: I don't like them, makes me feel to stuck in my character
what 4e did wrong: healing surges: suddenly that guy who liked to play the cleric feels very used, and I did like to play the cleric
what they both did wrong: artwork: i dont like the art for either edition.

I also am not to fond of powers but that's a different time.

So on the topic of healing surges, it is like handing out potions all the time, i honestly liked relying on the cleric, it made it intense, and the healing surges are dreadfully unrealistic, however, I did say "it is a world of magic" and if that is the excuse you want to go with, sure, but the only health system that ever made sense to me was in chess, or tag...

 

[Bedrockgames]

The definition of a healing surge (PHB, pg 293) does not say it is mundane - it says it restores lost hit points to your hit point total.

I would read that as mundane. But if it isn't that is even worse imo. If hs are mundane they present a problem for me because seems toi abstract and not realistic for my tastes. If they are supernatural then that is a flavor of d&d i am not interested in. This is why hs were a strong turn off to me from the outset.

 

[nightwyrm]

I wonder if the HS/HP issue would be better resolved if they did it instead as an "encounter hp pool" that you fill up from a "daily hp pool".

 

[Imaro]

Oh, well, if there's threads on it!

Please, tell me how 4E combat is more grindy than, "I attack five times," or, "I move and attack once unless I have a combination of feats." I'd appreciate it if you could, because to me 4E combat makes my characters feel far more effective than just stating full round attack or move and attack or charge!

Just because people got used to that being the norm doesn't make it good; legacy mechanics have no value by themselves.

If you want to know go read the numerous threads on 4e grind, otherwise it's not important to me whether you believe that some people think 4e combats are grindy. Apparently you don't think they are so why do you care what others think?

Everything? Casters were the only source of healing quickly in a setting where healing is required unless you want to FTB and say, "Six weeks later..."

Healing surges counter that handily. PCs are heroes, heroes recover quickly unless plot dictates otherwise. Are they perfect? Nope. A fair amount of the categories for things in 4E are too literal so people who are used to taking their elfgames literally take those term literally. But, hey, we've dealt with imperfection in every RPG we've ever played, haven't we?

Wow, so healing potions never existed in D&D (or if they did they didn't provide quick healing), glad you cleared that up for me... not.

Look, I'm not in the mood to edition war (and by your tone I'm assuming that's what you're looking for, if not prove me wrong.) so I'm just going to walk away from this conversation. But you have fun.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

21 pages? really?

if someone is looking at getting into this thread, I'm not sure what to say to you.

I do:

Flee now! Save yourselves while there's still time! It's too late for us!

The Auld Grump