I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[SpydersWebbing]

But within the confines of the abstractness to the game - its realistic enough to me. However, I'm not searching for a realistic nor simulationist game -they've always been out there, and I've basically not played most of them (I have played some).

I prefer D&D, so I accept whatever abstractness or realism is in the game, I've grown comfortable with it.

Thus anything that counters what I feel comfortable with, ergo I feel uncomfortable. And healing surges are part of that uncomfort engendered in 4e - its part, not the only reason, but part of why I don't play 4e. Nothing wrong with the game - its just not my game.

Finally if I wanted reality, I would just live it, and not play any RPGs at all, so obviously realism has very little influence in what I play. However, magical healing created by non-magical characters not only seem unrealistic (to me), but counter to the way I prefer to play.

Its really just a preferential thing.

And as far as 'balance' goes, 3x/PF is balanced enough for my fun - in reality, I would despise a perfectly balanced game (probably). Balance isn't the end all or be all of RPGs, so its not something I especially seek.

I dunno, as a former kickboxer I was always amazed by the amount of punishment someone could take and not only persevere but triumph. I remember quite a few times being kicked so hard that I flew backwards and hit a wall, only to get back up and keep fighting, and then take several very punishing blows that should have toppled me anyway.

I'm going to attempt to stop blowing my horn long enough to make a point: you'd be surprised what's "realistic" and what's "not realistic".

 

[TheAuldGrump]

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....

The Auld Grump

 

[gamerprinter]

I dunno, as a former kickboxer I was always amazed by the amount of punishment someone could take and not only persevere but triumph. I remember quite a few times being kicked so hard that I flew backwards and hit a wall, only to get back up and keep fighting, and then take several very punishing blows that should have toppled me anyway.

I'm going to attempt to stop blowing my horn long enough to make a point: you'd be surprised what's "realistic" and what's "not realistic".

Its kind of like the reality of war. There are those that have been shot a dozen times, perhaps in the same shooting incident and survives, while there's also the newbie that gets shot once and dies crying 'mother'. Hit points also include perseverance and some people just don't have that. Reality is tough to measure, so game mechanics do it for us, in game.

 

[tomBitonti]

I'm kindof surprised that there aren't more responses in the "mechanics" area. My quick response is that healing surges seem to interrupt the flow of mechanics to narration:

Orc swings at Bob. Ouch! That hurt!
(Bob spending a healing surge) Nawt, just a flesh wound (fights with renewed vigor.)

As opposed to:

orc swings at Bob. Watch out Bob, that looks like trouble!
(Bob spending a heroic surge). Hoohaw! (He makes an extra effort and steps aside from the blow.)

That is:

Attack/Damage/Surge Erases Damage

vs:

Attack/Incoming Potential Damage/Surge Prevents Damage

[Edit: This goes to the issue of the difference between numbers, which are abstract, and allow commutation, and the narrative flow, which tears apart if subject to the same operators. That is, from a mathy point of view, HP - D + S is a fine rearrangement of HP - (D - S); from a narrative point of view, the rearrangement fails. As a net, Healing Surges push the game too far into abstractions, hence the "gamist" criticism.]

TomB

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

A lot more can happen, narratively, in 8 hours of campaign time than in the few minutes between encounters in a 4Ed game when a PC simply burns enough HSs to improve his health.

And if that cleric isn't around...

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.

Regardless, it beats 3rd edition/pathfinder's "we poke each other with a stick" for x rounds using undercosted wands of cure light wounds.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I've never needed to abstract on the idea of hit points and AC, for me they mean what they look like. You need to get past my AC to hit me, and you need to drop my hit points to zero to get me to stop fighting, and whether it's -10 or my Constitution score below zero to actually kill me. That works fine for me.

If you've never needed to abstract HP, you've been willfully ignoring the advice of the game-makers since as long as I can remember, which is to abstract them, and that they represent a collection of things.

Incidentally, Rolemaster is thataway with its Lesser Nasal Repair" spells if you wantto nitpick every wound.

Healilng surges are like a cleric attached to my person, I press a button and healing occurs - that doesn't feel realistic. My fighter is not a caster, and cannot perform any kind of spell, which includes healing. I don't want my fighter to be able to heal himself - that's what a cleric is for.

Only if you intentionally view it that way. Back in my day though, gamers had imagination, instead of needing everything as concretely described as possible. Its called narrative play. Your surges represent your ability to keep the character alive. You describe how its done. Either it really was just a scratch, and you bonked your head for a few minutes, it looked worse than it was, etc. The system gives you big boy pants, and you can describe it how you want. If you wet yourself because you cant think beyond spamming the Cure Light Wounds button and blame the system, oh well. <= this is the kind of insults that get you a ban from ENworld. Don't do it people. Plane Sailing, ENworld admin

Your argument that this way you don't need a cleric... well I guess if you don't need to kill any monsters then, you don't need fighters either, but then why play the game. If you want to be kept healed over the long haul, you're going to need potions of healing, or a Cure Wand, otherwise you have to have a cleric.

Or just not get seriously hurt. Which is what not being killed is. If you arent dead, its nothing a little

And due to the power clerics have in combat, I've never seen a group where somebody didn't want to play cleric. We've never seen a situation where a cleric was not desired by someone.

Basically, its keep your spells out of my martial characters skillset. I don't want my fighter to cast spells, and to me that's what healing surges are - healing spells. It ain't natural...

So dont describe it that way? Oh wait, that would require your imagination and contribution to the story...

Not to be contrary, and not that there's anything wrong with it, but I don't get why you like healing surges, nor that you are concerned that I (we) don't?

It makes the game play easier, is more narratively interesting that poking each other with sticks for a few minutes after a fight, and lets you tell a wider range of stories, including those without divine healers.

I also like it because it drives the neckbeards crazy, but that's just a side perk.

 

[Ahnehnois]

...In many ways 3E was a saving grace; not only did it revive D&D as a community and game, but it vastly improved the rules system itself.

One of the most commonly discussed D&D rules (if I remember correctly) was Hit Points (and its related partner in crime, Armor Class). Even though HP was always meant to be an abstract gestalt of different factors--body, vitality, endurance, even luck, etc--it never seemed to make sense that an Ancient Red Dragon had less HP than a 10th level fighter. This problem wasn't really solved with 2E or even 3E. The numbers just got bigger all around.
...
If you dislike healing surges, why? And what would your solution be?

The problem with healing surges is that they take the problem that is hit points, and they make it worse. As you've pointed out, hit points have always been abstract and vague. As you've also pointed out, while 3e improved the verisimilitude, fairness, and comprehensibility of many of the rules, hit points remained basically the same. This is a bad thing.

If I had been designing 4e, one of if not my single top priority would have been to dispose of hit points and introduce a system that really tracked health, injury, and sickness, and at least made some effort to reflect the fact that wounds hurt, wounds disable you, and wounds take time to heal. Doing that while keeping the game beginner-friendly (and rules lawyer-friendly, and everyone else-friendly) would be extraordinarily difficult, which is why it hasn't been done. But that is the next big breakthrough the PnP rpg hobby is waiting for.

I use a modified vitality/wound system, which is not perfect but so much better than hit points, and still certainly allows heroes to be tough. Quick healing of vitality damage (but not severe wounds) also removes the "need" for healing surges.

Healing surges have several problems. They describe instant healing of damage that, while abstract, is lethal damage that could have killed a character. Verisimilitude is a problem, no matter what examples of people "shaking off" wounds you can come up with. They create another "per [time period]" resource, which was another big problem with 3e, both in terms of verisimilitude and balance. They also completely redefine the archetypical D&D roles. Whether you liked it or not, a "healer" has always been central to a D&D party. With everyone being able to heal themselves, this is much less true, and required a radical reimagining of the divine classes. Some people might view this sort of change as good, others are conservative and will object to any change. Personally, I prefer clerics to be quasi-doctors, although I wish they were less effective at it.

 

[GSHamster]

One thing I do find odd about this discussion is that several detractors of healing surges have referred to the system as "videogamey".

Yet the vast majority of videogames tend to follow the old system, with healing potions, or characters who specifically cast healing spells.

I guess I just don't get the connection between videogames and healing surges.

 

[Ahnehnois]

One thing I do find odd about this discussion is that several detractors of healing surges have referred to the system as "videogamey".

Yet the vast majority of videogames tend to follow the old system, with healing potions, or characters who specifically cast healing spells.

I guess I just don't get the connection between videogames and healing surges.

If you compare PnP rpgs to video games, then no, healing surges aren't especially reminiscent of video games. If you think about D&D as being a combination of dramatic fiction, storytime around the campfire, a strategy game, healing surges are pretty strongly game-y. The TV/movies/books I use as inspiration for D&D don't have a lot of instant healing (although plenty of fiction does, truthfully), and I would not allow something like that in straight improvisational storytelling.

To be fair, "gamist" would be a better way of putting it. I think that usually what "videogamey" means. The merits of that philosophy are the real point of debate, which is a contentious one.

 

[JamesonCourage]

a) D&D is not a realistic simulation
b) There are dozens, if not hundreds of abstract, gamist, non-realistic rules that are bundled with EVERY edition of D&D. If you're not ok with HS because they aren't realistic, then you're not ok with D&D in general.

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.

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 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.

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).

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."

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.

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.

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