D&D 5E Should 5E have Healing Surges?

[BryonD]

They would argue that it's deep reserves the character has inside, and their character knows when to give that extra bit of effort. (Since hp is an abstraction of more than just actual wounds.)

I say it completely breaks the game from a realism point of view, but they argue the game is already unrealistic and thus their mechanic is justified on that basis.

Ok, now you are just rubbing my nose in it.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

At what point in 4th edition did HP's go from abstract to real wounds in the course of a battle?

Healing Surges were a universal mechanic that should have never been there to begin with.

What would have made things a little easier is how they handled the Warlord and the Cleric. There was no distinction between the two when they healed mechanically but in character you had a class that healed by the word of his god and you had another that yelled at you and were healed. Now if the Warlord could only give you THP then that would have been a little better but how could you explain being down to 5 hp with major blood loss and the Warlord yelling at you, healing you somehow and able to be fine after the moment is over. Do you explain wounds as abstract when the Warlord is in the party and you explain them as wounds when a cleric is there?

 

[harlokin]

At what point in 4th edition did HP's go from abstract to real wounds in the course of a battle?

Healing Surges were a universal mechanic that should have never been there to begin with.

What would have made things a little easier is how they handled the Warlord and the Cleric. There was no distinction between the two when they healed mechanically but in character you had a class that healed by the word of his god and you had another that yelled at you and were healed. Now if the Warlord could only give you THP then that would have been a little better but how could you explain being down to 5 hp with major blood loss and the Warlord yelling at you, healing you somehow and able to be fine after the moment is over. Do you explain wounds as abstract when the Warlord is in the party and you explain them as wounds when a cleric is there?

As any Athar will tell you, the Cleric was pretending that a deity was granting the power to heal, while secretly just doing what a Warlord does.

What "major blood loss"?

I'd understand a gritty wound system, if it didn't have fantastic magical healing as a deus ex machina. Either go gritty or not, but don't mix and match within the same setting.

 

[KarinsDad]

This thing keeps popping up, so I'll do my best to explain why *I* consider this to not be a very good argument.

A character takes a hit, loses 25% of their hit points. I narrate him as taking a painful stab to his shoulder, because I figure a fourth of his hit points is quite serious. Next round, the character uses his Second Wind. All hit points are restored. Apparently the wound ceased to exist, despite no healing taking place.

I trust you see how I can feel that non-healing hp restoration makes it seem like instead of *some* hit points being non-physical, no hit points can be narrated as representing physical damage. Any hp loss may *after the fact* turn out to have just been exhaustion or loss of luck or whatever.

That is where the argument of the other side breaks down conceptually.

No hit point damage is actual damage UNLESS the PC dies. Even unconsciousness is not being damaged, nor is running out of healing surges being damaged.

PCs never get damaged at all in 4E unless they die. The worse thing that happens to them shy of death is that they run out of healing surges, are unconscious and stable, but then magically spring back up complete un-phased the next day.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No hit point damage is actual damage UNLESS the PC dies.

<snip>

PCs never get damaged at all in 4E unless they die.

If this is true, then how are they getting to the point of being killed without taking actual damage?

That level of abstraction can really put people off- it lacks an internal logic.

 

[MooMan68]

I think much of this debate is missing the point.
Whatever any single person thinks of 4e healing, 5e can not and will not contain healing surges in the base rules.

Too large a percentage of the player base finds it unacceptable - there is no way they are going to include it in an edition designed to unify.

The only option they have, realistically, is to create a Base that does not use it, then add a 'module' (or other optional rules) that does.

So the question to debate is HOW would one do that, in a way that 4e players would find acceptable and would still be balanced.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Whatever any single person thinks of 4e healing, 5e can not and will not contain healing surges in the base rules.

Ahhhh...I can't agree with that 100%, and I'm no fan of Surges.

While I am like many who don't like them as is, I also know that many of the 4Ed fans think they're the greatest thing since delivery pizza. Beyond that, I can see ways in which they could be incorporated...and in fact, proposed a way in which they could work upthread, namely:

I could see a mechanic for Healing Surges that are based on a dice roll similar to 4Ed's saving throws (with a Con bonus), once per combat after being dropped below 50% max HP.

This means it is:

1. Not triggered at a player's will
2. Random, so not dependable enough to plan on having happen
3. Potentially available every combat
4. Makes high Con PCs feel tougher than low Con, since they not only have more HP, they're more likely to have their Surge trigger

Now, there wasn't much discussion of it from the pro-HS side*, but several people who dislike HSes as is thought my suggestion was a reasonable compromise, since it addresses many of the concerns some players have with HSes, but still leaves some form of cinematic, substantial healing available to the PCs in the absence of a cleric (or other leaders, if that mechanism persists- and I see little evidence that it won't).

And I am in no way a professional game designer.










* who might feel it is too weak, and thus unacceptable.

 

[JamesonCourage]

A character takes a hit, loses 25% of their hit points. I narrate him as taking a painful stab to his shoulder, because I figure a fourth of his hit points is quite serious. Next round, the character uses his Second Wind. All hit points are restored. Apparently the wound ceased to exist, despite no healing taking place.

I think that's part of the problem, for me. Narrating wounds with the 4e method (or non-3e method) of hit points (representing wounds, luck, morale, fatigue, fate, divine protection, etc.).

That is, someone takes a hit. If you describe it, it could be wrong. A Warlord could shout, and it was mainly morale. A Cleric could heal, and obviously it was physical. You could describe it as a superficial wound (bad wounds saved for when someone drops), but if someone drops, you have the 4e Schrodinger's wounds issue (is he badly injured? We won't know until he gets up or bleeds out).

The current method makes narration hard. That's why I prefer the two pool split (in my RPG, I have HP [wounds] and THP [fatigue]). If one is damaged, you know what it hits, what it effects, and how mechanics should interact with it. The narration is straightforward. Took HP damage? Wound. Took THP damage? Dodged, but it's tiring you out. Took THP and HP damage? You dodged some, but got hit anyways (though not as badly as it could have been).

I support the two pools for easy narration as we go. I don't like "retconning" the narrative, because it pulls my players out of immersion momentarily. That happens enough as it is. I know it's subjective, and I know it's a more simulation-oriented viewpoint, but I think it contributes to the disconnect for a lot of players (which is why the "dissociated mechanics" article struck a chord for so many people).

At any rate, that's my thoughts on it. As always, play what you like

 

[Izumi]

Ok, now you are just rubbing my nose in it.

I owe you an apology. I shouldn't have taken stuff so personally, and gotten rude. I do get your point. It's more silly to not to fight when somebody wants to break the suspension of disbelief. Be it abstract or not. Instead of getting disgusted and telling a player to roll forever, I should have just reminded him/her that Conan isn't a wizard. He wins his crown by strangling the king.

 

[MooMan68]

Ahhhh...I can't agree with that 100%, and I'm no fan of Surges.

While I am like many who don't like them as is, I also know that many of the 4Ed fans think they're the greatest thing since delivery pizza. Beyond that, I can see ways in which they could be incorporated...and in fact, proposed a way in which they could work upthread, namely:

Regardless of the actual merits of ideas such as you suggest, I think WOTC would be crazy to attempt it - for PR reasons. It's just not worth the risk.

The most likely result would be to have *everybody* dislike it - the surge hater because it is still there in any form, and the 4e people because Surges were nerfed.

Far safer to remove it from base and then add it as an option - perhaps even optional rules presented in the PHB and DMG.