I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[TheUltramark]

I'd say that your suspicion is far off base.

As has been described before, making crap up on the fly to retcon things is trivially easy.

But healing surges ask you to bend your story that way for benefit to the game parts of the system. There are other ways to handle it that doesn't ask the story to ne submissive to the mechanics. And if the story is far and away more important to you than mechanical expediency, then it only makes sense to prefer systems which put story first.

I am in NO way trying to question your methods in general, or disuade you from your style of play, but the highlighted portion of your comment has me somewhat baffled. Why <how do you play> do surges require some sort of special narrative or "story bending" ?

 

[Nagol]

To be fair, this has been true throughout all of D&D's history (and is also true in quite a few of the wargames from which D&D came from).

The only thing 4E has changed is the fact that you don't need a Cleric to get back into the fight the next day.

In 3E, you needed a Cleric or a Cleric-on-a-stick (ubiquitous wand of CLW or lesser vigor).

In 2E and previous, you just needed an extra day or two.

As I've posted elsewhere, this is not true of 1e.

If you fell unconscious and lived then there was a short coma followed by no less than 1 week of recovery. The recovery period prevented anything more strenuous than eating, sleeping, and slowly moving from place to place -- no spellcasting, no combat, no adventuring. A character needed a Heal spell or better to circumvent the recovery requirement.

 

[BryonD]

No, it's still there (although probably clotted up and starting to scab over); he's just, with a further heroic effort, ignoring the pain, or has taken one of his ubiquitous 3E belts (he's a converted character) and tightened it down over the wound.

In short, you can pretty easily narrate yourself out of any box you (foolishly?) narrate yourself into, if you actually want to put the effort into it.

Of course, it's far, far easier to just not narrate yourself into that box to begin with, don't you think? I mean, I know in the 3.5E games I run, I don't describe my players' characters getting their arms and legs chopped off or suffering other terrible wounds when they get dropped below 0 HP or are otherwise damaged. Why would I do that in 4E? Why would I create a problem and then complain about its existence?

So no one in your game EVER receives ANY wound that can't be shrugged off without ANY actual healing? And you would consider it foolish if they did?

Again, this just brings me back to the reality that people are playing VASTLY different games and it is absurd to try to equate them.

If you are trying to play a game that is about being in a cool story and involves a lot of combat and then you ban all injury that could possible require aid then you have created a HUGE irreconcilable problem. But that is for what I want.

Edit: Not to mention that "arms chopped off" is more than a bit of a straw man when the point was a major gash that just goes away spontaneously. There is a huge amount of more than reasonable space that is greater than "this is gonna need some medical attention or, at least, some down to to heal" and "arm chopped off".

 

[BryonD]

I am in NO way trying to question your methods in general, or disuade you from your style of play, but the highlighted portion of your comment has me somewhat baffled. Why <how do you play> do surges require some sort of special narrative or "story bending" ?

Man, I'm sorry but we are 29 pages into a thread in which 4E fans have over and over ADVOCATED that retconing and working with the narrative is the solution to surges. I don't see why you are asking ME that question.

 

[BryonD]

What do you mean by "story"?

I mean I want to feel like I am in a novel and TO HELL with "game".

Winning and Losing and anything REMOTELY like that are negligible to the true fun of what I experience.

I want great mechanics for creating a consistent model for how things interact. So instantly that brings "game" into it. And that is great. I love the game that is there to support my story. But the instant you start saying "yeah this isn't the way it would work in a novel, but it mechanically gets you to the same endpoint and is better for the game balance/game simplicity/game whatever, then you have gone off the rails for the experience I want.

 

[BryonD]

In 3E, you needed a Cleric or a Cleric-on-a-stick (ubiquitous wand of CLW or lesser vigor).

First, that is not true. You certainly COULD play that way, 3E had nothing in it that stopped you. But the presumption that because you played that way everyone else must have is simply wrong.

And I do find it interesting that over and over people who have zero problem with surges also presume that a wand of CLW can OBVIOUSLY just be declared ubiquitous. If the word ubiquitous applies at all in your sentence then your perspective has NO insight into my games and so you are incapable of commenting on them.

Second, even in the games that DID have the ubiquitous wand, the two conditions did NOT exist as the only options. You could be wounded and in need of actual medical care. The fact that the medical care was, in that game, in the form of a wand that was three rounds of casting away doesn't change the fact that a different condition DID exist.

Again, it is the error in equating getting to the same end point as being no different regardless of the path taken. To some people the path taken is the most important part of the process.

In 4E you never receive a wound you can't "shrug off". There is no need for healing, you just go "poof" and you are all better. And this applies to any and every character concept. It is truly, implicitly ubiquitous.
One solution is to say that any and every wound can be shrugged off.
Another solution is to say that no combat injury short of a killing blow may EVER cause a true wound.
If I was reading a novel and EITHER of these options were presented as part of the narrative, I'd not bother to continue reading.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

So no one in your game EVER receives ANY wound that can't be shrugged off without ANY actual healing?

Pretty much, no. If they were taking wounds which required actual healing (either magical or surgical), then you'd also have things like on-going bleeding damage, penalties to your attack rolls and skill checks, etc. After all, if you've got a "wicked huge gash" in your leg, aren't you going to at least be hobbling around a bit, taking penalty to your speed and Tumble and Jump checks at least?

And you would consider it foolish if they did?

If they narrated that a particular attack caused a particular wound (even though the rules don't say it does), but then complained when the effects of that wound weren't mechanically supported, then yes - they'd be acting foolishly.

If you are trying to play a game that is about being in a cool story and involves a lot of combat and then you ban all injury that could possible require aid then you have created a HUGE irreconcilable problem.

No, you haven't. By adding in meaningful injuries, you are creating the problem.

Edit: Not to mention that "arms chopped off" is more than a bit of a straw man when the point was a major gash that just goes away spontaneously.

Why in the HELL are you narrating in a gash, anyway, since the rules don't require or meaningfully support it's existence? And then why are you complaining when the rules don't mechanically support getting rid of something they never told you to put there in the first place?

"Doctor, it hurts when I keep doing this!"
"Well, then, stop doing that!"

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

First, that is not true.

Er, yes, it is. In 3E, if you want to be back in the fight the next day, all you needed was a cleric or a cleric-in-a-can.

In what way is this a controversial statement?

And I do find it interesting that over and over people who have zero problem with surges also presume that a wand of CLW can OBVIOUSLY just be declared ubiquitous. If the word ubiquitous applies at all in your sentence then your perspective has NO insight into my games and so you are incapable of commenting on them.

It's 375gp + a handful of XP + a single day of downtime for 50 uses of Cure Light Wounds. (And a feat, but Craft Wand's a damn good feat for a wizard to pick up anyway.)

It's cheaply available and ridiculously useful for the cost. It's ~half the price of brewing potions of CLW, and even they aren't terribly expensive if you prefer that route.

The fact that you never had standard-issue-healsticks, IMO, marks you as more the outlier than my game.

But, even then, that's just one option. The other option is the same one that's been there since forever - just bring a Cleric with you. Then, he blows all his spells on healing, rests, and does it again (if necessary). Everyone's back to fully capable!

You could be wounded and in need of actual medical care.

... which was available, at worst, within 24 hours (e.g., the next time the Cleric regained his spells).

That's the point I'm making.

The only real difference between 4E and 3E here is that you don't have to tote around Father Maynard if you don't want to.

 

[billd91]

The only real difference between 4E and 3E here is that you don't have to tote around Father Maynard if you don't want to.

That is, however, a pretty big difference. To bounce back in 3e requires some form of outside resource - wands, potions, healing spells, scrolls, etc. Those outside resources, and the delivery systems for them (Father Maynard, Sir Upstanding, or the enigmatic hermit Meadowman) may be completely or partially absent. They could be exhausted pending a return to a major town. They may not have survived the last night's fight at the adventure site. The rest of the adventuring party may have to get by on bandages and Ranger Rupert's injury-tending skills. And though the bounce back may still be unrealistically swift compared to real life, it isn't quite the same as just getting a 6 hours of sleep.

 

[prosfilaes]

Pretty much, no. If they were taking wounds which required actual healing (either magical or surgical), then you'd also have things like on-going bleeding damage, penalties to your attack rolls and skill checks, etc. After all, if you've got a "wicked huge gash" in your leg, aren't you going to at least be hobbling around a bit, taking penalty to your speed and Tumble and Jump checks at least?

There's no rules for that in D&D. You interpret that as you can't take a wicked huge gash in D&D; I interpret that as D&D characters ignore the realistic effects of nasty wounds.

The only real difference between 4E and 3E here is that you don't have to tote around Father Maynard if you don't want to.

The only real difference to you. Some people find the in-world difference between calling on the power of the gods and using a healing surge to be real and important.