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

[SteveC]

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.

I think you have to be very careful with this attitude: there were a huge number of problems with the old hit point system and healing rules, and we will be going directly back to them again. As someone who was around on the internet in the Usenet days, I'd say that healing and hit points were the single biggest point of contention around (with Vancian magic coming in a close second).

Here's the thing: all the concerns about what hit points really represent in 4E are still there in 3X: hit points have been a nebulous mashup of health, fate, luck, and skill since the very beginning, and so you'll still have all those problems with "what did that swordblow for 10HP really represent?" You go from fully effective to unconscious in every edition of the game by the core rules.

4E was able to fix a lot of the problems from previous editions concerning why it takes higher level and more combat capable characters longer to heal than low level weaklings, and why you have to use so much more healing as you get to higher levels. These were also huge points of discussion, and they formed the basis for the new surge rules.

So if anyone thinks that going back to the old methods will actually solve the debates, they're sadly mistaken: you'll just bring back some old arguments.

For example: we mention Conan in this thread, and I'd say that he's a great example of most of the hit point problems: no healing magic in his world, no way to get hit points back between encounters, large downtimes between significant conflicts just to name a few. Running a Conan campaign will require many more house rules under the old system than under 4E.

I am still hopeful that there will be some middle ground yet found. We will have to see, of course... the playtest can't get here soon enough!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

Except for one thing: if, as has been proposed, 5Ed is to be an edition with something for everyone, then it needs to have something for everyone.

And as popular as Healing Surges are in the 4Ed community, I don't see the 5Ed design team excising them from the baseline assumptions of the new edition. (And that is my professional assessment, FWIW.)

 

[BryonD]

So if anyone thinks that going back to the old methods will actually solve the debates, they're sadly mistaken: you'll just bring back some old arguments.

The debates will persist. But, IMO, you are significantly off-base with the significance there.

Yes, there were and are intense debates about HP. But the thing is, these are all debates amongst people who enjoy a game that uses hit points. So suggesting that the debates indicate a fundamental flaw in not accurate.

You could find 6 different 1E groups with 6 different interpretations of HP and a wide range of house rules for making them work best for them. And the same for 3E. And for other editions as well. And there are many completely different RPGs that have gladly jumped on the HP wagon. And the reason that HP persist so strongly is that *they DO work*. Who cares that they work differently for different people?

You can find vast arguments over who will win the Superbowl ranging from technical analysis to pure team devotion. But the debates can get very hot. By the logic you have presented, the inability to make those debates go away shows a fundamental flaw in football. It doesn't work that way.

Now, I'm certain that you can find some RPG fans that just hate HP period. I know you can. But, the goal of 5E is to bring together fans of all editions of D&D. Someone who hates HP isn't going to be on that list.

IMO the whole "going back" thing isn't very thoughtful. Sometimes when you make a mistake, the best path forward is to retrace your steps to where the mistake was made and then start forward again from there, only in a better direction. They can "go back" to a hugely popular system (and in this case that simply means HP as done for editions prior to 4E) or they can refuse to admit to the mistake.

(And there was a rather successful Conan RPG based directly on the D20 system)

 

[ianleblanc]

HP have always been an abstraction.

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

It actually happened much before 4e. I had a 2nd ed Barbarian with 200+hp. He would often get hit with with 30 arrows in 1 encounter. The only way to explain that none of these arrows hit a vital organ or to explain why my barbarian could walk around without looking like a porcupine was for us to come to terms with the idea that HP represented a combination of factors, including morale, energy and health.

Also it's just not very cinematic to imagine a character receiving 20 hits in one combat, what happened to all those dodges, and blocs and near misses that also play a significant role in winding and yes wounding a characters fighting spirit? While dodging left and right might not seem as exciting to rp as getting hit in the shoulder, it is much more accurate in describing how high level characters deal with dozens of little hits.

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?

The problem here is your premise that assumes that the warlord was healing actual blood loss and physical health, when in fact he is healing moral, energy, etc. The cleric can also very well be healing abstract wounds and not strictly open gashes.

I know it's easier/sometimes funner for the DM to say "the arrow hits you in the knee" but the fact is that that wouldn't be very representative of actual combat where an arrow to the knee would incapacitate you and lead to a whole new set of penalty mechanics.

Anyways all to say that HP have been an abstraction since long before 4e, most of you had just never really taken the time to think about it is all.

 

[FireLance]

Frankly, I think the way ahead would be to have two more-or-less balanced approaches to hit points: both a VP/HP system and a healing surge system.

For example, a paladin might have the capability to use cure personal wounds a number of times per day, restoring 25% of his total hit points each time. This is effectively the healing surge system - just renamed and given a magical (divine) justification.

On the other hand, a fighter uses the VP/HP system instead. He gains a vigor pool equal to 25% of his full normal hit points, and damage is normally taken first from this vigor pool before being taken from hit points. The vigor pool replenishes after every short rest, but HP can only be regained through rest or external magic. Once per day, he can use a second wind action to replenish his vigor pool in the middle of a fight.

There are differences between the two approaches - a VP/WP character will probably do better when facing a large number of easier encounters, while a healing surge character would do better against a smaller number of tougher encounters - but I think the specifics can be tweaked so that the two options are generally (though not perfectly) balanced.

Mind you, even though the example above uses Divine healing surges and Martial VP/HP, there is nothing to stop any character from adopting either system (renaming as necessary) if the DM allows it, or even neither if the DM wants to have a tougher campaign with less innate healing/hit point recovery.

 

[Hassassin]

Here's the thing: all the concerns about what hit points really represent in 4E are still there in 3X: hit points have been a nebulous mashup of health, fate, luck, and skill since the very beginning, and so you'll still have all those problems with "what did that swordblow for 10HP really represent?" You go from fully effective to unconscious in every edition of the game by the core rules.

Not *all* concerns. That's what I've been trying to say.

In 3e a 10hp wound means different things to different targets, but always the same thing to my unwounded 5th level fighter, for example. It represents a wound that will take two nights' rest to heal naturally - to the degree that it affects survival.

The only point at which it might mean other things is if it takes hp to or below 0, or to -10. But again, I know what it means at those points. I can offer a consistent narrative, without having to wind back time in case someone uses an ability.

This consistency is what was lost in 4e. Some may call it loss of verisimilitude or realism, but I think that's what it comes down to.

 

[harlokin]

Not *all* concerns. That's what I've been trying to say.

In 3e a 10hp wound means different things to different targets, but always the same thing to my unwounded 5th level fighter, for example. It represents a wound that will take two nights' rest to heal naturally - to the degree that it affects survival.

This consistency is what was lost in 4e. Some may call it loss of verisimilitude or realism, but I think that's what it comes down to.

With respect, it also represented a wound which vanished after a few glugs of Healing Potion. That also challenges realism.

I find characters carrying bandoleers of Healing Potions, or a stack of Wands of Cure Light Wounds detracts from my verisimilitude.

I would like the adventurers I DM to have inner reserves of determination to recover from battles, without needing magic at all.

 

[Hassassin]

With respect, it also represented a wound which vanished after a few glugs of Healing Potion. That also challenges realism.

I find characters carrying bandoleers of Healing Potions, or a stack of Wands of Cure Light Wounds detracts from my verisimilitude.

I would like the adventurers I DM to have inner reserves of determination to recover from battles, without needing magic at all.

That is your opinion, you are of course entitled to it, but it differs from mine. In any case, I hope you agree that it works out consistently. Magic can cure wounds, but the wounds don't just disappear otherwise.

 

[JohnSnow]

Not *all* concerns. That's what I've been trying to say.

In 3e a 10hp wound means different things to different targets, but always the same thing to my unwounded 5th level fighter, for example. It represents a wound that will take two nights' rest to heal naturally - to the degree that it affects survival.

The only point at which it might mean other things is if it takes hp to or below 0, or to -10. But again, I know what it means at those points. I can offer a consistent narrative, without having to wind back time in case someone uses an ability.

This consistency is what was lost in 4e. Some may call it loss of verisimilitude or realism, but I think that's what it comes down to.

So the pre-4e system is "consistent," is it? Then why, for all that's holy, can "Cure light wounds" fully restore one person who's close to death, but only gives your 5th-level fighter back SOME of your hit points? Hmm?

My point is that the old system had its own internal inconsistencies too. And that doesn't even address that the healing system is probably the major culprit for the so-called "15-minute workday." If you don't do anything about that, you're basically stuck with the notion of the 4 encounter day.

A logically consistent hit point system that dispensed with the need for someone to be "stuck playing the cleric," but still allowed cleric players to feel useful, would be welcomed with open arms, I think. 4e was an attempt at this, but the designers didn't realize how vehemently some people would react to having "hit point abstraction" rubbed in their faces.

However, the 4e system has flaws. And I say that as someone who loves having alternatives to clerics in the party. I personally have no problem narrating all of the hits in a fight without getting too graphic, but even for me the Schrodinger's wounds thing is...troubling. So, what to do? First, we need to agree on a few things.

Premise 1: Hit points are, and always have been, an abstraction. They're a combination of toughness with immeasurable things such as sixth sense and luck. They have been thus since the earliest editions of the game.

Premise 2: Until a character hits zero hit points, he's not, physically speaking, seriously hurt. This is why there's no penalties associated with losing hit points. This doesn't mean he's uninjured, as he might be scratched, scraped, bruised, or even bleeding from what are mostly superficial wounds.

Premise 3: In the earliest editions of the game, going down in a fight meant that you were out of the fight. Once a character went down, they were OUT. Maybe not dead, but they sure weren't coming back into play. 3e changed this - and created an incipient problem (which could be glossed over by saying "it's magic!").

Premise 4: 3e changed this because combats took a long time, and a player that was unlucky enough to go down early would be bored for a long time unless he could get back into the fight. With magic, this is believable. With martial healing - less so.

So the solution is simple - Warlord "healing" only works on conscious (not seriously wounded) targets. If a character goes down and the only healer in the group is a warlord, well, they'd better win the fight quickly. So his healing is a bit worse than the cleric's - so what? You can balance that by having the warlord provide his allies with better tactical buffs (for example) than the cleric can. Or just make him a more effective fighter than the cleric is.

Once you do away with the need to restore characters from 'dying' mid-fight, the discrepancy between martial healing and reality goes away. No more Schrodinger's wounds. That character who dropped is dying, until he receives some form of magical healing or medical treatment. But between combats, there's plenty of time to make a poultice, bandage him up, have him chew some medicinal herbs, and so forth.

At this point (sans magical healing), our dropped character, like John McClane in "Die Hard," is still HURT, he's just bandaged up and fully combat effective. Yeah, it might start to stretch suspension of disbelief if the character keeps going down in fight after fight, implying he's the recipient of a dozen wounds, but a smart DM might start to narrate what takes the character down as a grazing blow plus an existing wound re-opening.

Simple. Elegant. It still means that between combats, you can recover full hit points. So hit points become strictly an encounter resource - no more attrition and no more 15 minute adventuring day.

(Yes, this system does assume that eventually the party of characters will either receive magical healing that fixes those wounds, or that they'll knock off adventuring for a while and take a lengthy rest - on the order of a few weeks - during which the wounds they sustained on their last adventure will heal naturally).

Anyway, that's my suggestion. It also allows them to do away with counting surges, which is basically unnecessary bookkeeping. On the other hand, some people like the restriction surges attach to how much adventuring can get done in a day, so, I dunno. Maybe the switch I propose above to martial healing will totally change people's opinion of healing surges. I doubt it, but I can hope.

 

[harlokin]

That is your opinion, you are of course entitled to it, but it differs from mine. In any case, I hope you agree that it works out consistently. Magic can cure wounds, but the wounds don't just disappear otherwise.

That you are entitled to your opinion goes without saying.

I however vehemently disagree that a gritty wound system which has a high fantasy healing magic mechanic tacked-on, is in any way consistent.