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

[Bedrockgames]

Few dispute the consistency issues in previous editions, but the problem with surges for many of us is they introduce glaring inconsistencies. Most of us probably had issues with healing not scaling with level. If the had fixed that problem by making cure light wounds heal something like 1d8 x level of the target, i would have liked that. What i didn't want was a new healing method that made consistency even more of an issue for me.

 

[harlokin]

Few dispute the consistency issues in previous editions, but the problem with surges for many of us is they introduce glaring inconsistencies. Most of us probably had issues with healing not scaling with level. If the had fixed that problem by making cure light wounds heal something like 1d8 x level of the target, i would have liked that. What i didn't want was a new healing method that made consistency even more of an issue for me.

Do you have an issue with certain Classes (Fighters, Barbarians etc) being able to insulate themselves with some mechanic similar to Temporary Hit Points, representing morale/rage/whatever?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Do you have an issue with certain Classes (Fighters, Barbarians etc) being able to insulate themselves with some mechanic similar to Temporary Hit Points, representing morale/rage/whatever?

In the case of rage no, because the hp are temporary, connect to what is happening to my character, and they don't creat inconsistencies in the narrative. I do have a problem with mundane instant heals that can create inconsistencies in game and make it so hp dont really represent physical damage.

But we've already had protracted debates on threads dedicated to this subject. It really bothers me when the 4E crowd just can't accept some people find believability issues with HS. It always turns into a socratic dialogue like this. Lets be clear here, barbarian rage is the exception in 3E, which is one reason many are okay with the extra hp representing rage or morLe in that instant. Healing surges are the norm in 4E and create consistent problems for me while playibg.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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 dont think most people find this a problem though because it is part of an internally consistent setting: magic exists and can be used to heal physical wounds quickly. Obviously the gm needs to ensure that access to said magic remain believable. A potion shop on every corner has always been a bit much for me.

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

And if this works for you that is fine, but for a lot of players it disrupts verisimiltude. That explanatin of healing surges has always been hard for me to accept. I get others are fine with it, but for me healing surges continue to bother me as i play despitr being told my warrior is "digging deep".

 

[Hassassin]

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.

As I've mentioned a few times in this thread, the scaling of healing was my number one issue with 3e healing. However, that could (again) have been fixed without a need to introduce any more inconsistencies. I also think the inconsistencies in 4e are much more glaring.

4 encounters per day was, BTW, the design target of 3e. It's mentioned there in the DMG. For more encounters per day, you'll have to make them easier, i.e. lower EL than APL.

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.

I agree!

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.

True. However, I disagree that *damage* has been an abstraction. It certainly hasn't been presented as such.

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.

Again, I disagree. The absence of numerical penalties shouldn't be taken to mean there are no serious injuries. It is partly a concession to playability, partly because not all serious injuries are immediately debilitating, and partly because characters may be assumed to compensate for their injuries by fighting more aggressively. (Sort of like a second wind I guess.)

There also is one clear penalty: the character is likelier to take a lethal hit.

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!").

Not always true, but 3e probably made coming back more frequent.

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.

I'm not sure about the cause and effect here, but certainly shorter fights make staying down more palatable to players whose character goes down.

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.

This is one of the things that are difficult when WOTC will try to come up with a system that makes everyone happy: I don't want HP to be strictly an encounter resource. That doesn't mean they cannot come up with a system that I like, where they are, of course.

 

[Hassassin]

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.

We'll have to agree to disagree, then.

To me gritty combat + quirky magic is a part of what makes it D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Wait, let me get this straight.

Someone posts on the board that certain ACTUAL sword combat techniques did not allow for an opponent to passively defend and catch their breath (i.e. Second Wind) because of the aggressiveness of the technique, illustrating that in a life and death situation, there is little time for regaining one's breath and you consider that a non-valid analogy.

But, you consider a sport where none of the individuals are actually fighting for their life, where every 10 to 20 seconds everyone stops their heavy exertions, and where not every individual is even necessarily trying hard every single play (depending on how the play develops) to be a perfectly valid analogy.

ROFLMAO!!!


I'm sorry, but sports analogies are the dumbest rationale to support Second Winds that I've ever heard. Second Winds are there for combat continuation reasons (keeping every player involved most rounds) and for nothing else. They don't actually make a whole lot of real sense in a 36 second encounter and they didn't even exist for almost 35 years of the game system.

This is pretty darn funny that people are defending Second Winds as making actual sense in a real life or death situation when a foe is attacking, and using sports analogies at that. The person who covers up and tries to catch their breath in real life while being attacked is the person who is defeated (ask any SCA participant or a martial artist who compete in tournaments). In a real battle, there are no rules about not attacking the legs or hands, or not aiming for the head. In a real battle, the participants have to be going full out the entire time that they are being attacked. They can take a breather if they are not being attacked, but Second Winds are totally illogical if one is being attacked. Amateur nerd faux expertise not withstanding.

Sorry, I've done the SCA thing, and while I don't particularly know that it teaches us a hell of a lot about real fights it most certainly does tell me that you can absolutely pace the intensity of your attack and collect yourself. Just because some guy has a technique of all-out attack is irrelevant. First of all I think that kind of thing is a myth, there's no such thing as an undefendable attack. It simply doesn't pass any basic smell test. Secondly, even if such a thing did exist it doesn't negate the advantage to a defender of playing defensive. Sorry, but you can save your contempt for someone else.

You're just wrong IME KD. People DO summon inner strength. It is simply a fact. You can poo poo it all you want because it doesn't happen to support your idea of how you want to play the game, but get real man. You can tell me all day I can't do that, but plenty of times I've watched people in fights, whether SCA ones or martial arts or whatever. Watch them sometime. One guy knocks the other guy back a bit, clears himself a space for a few seconds and clearly psyches himself up to have at it again. What do you think he's doing? Modeling that with Second Wind is perfectly reasonable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Your ignorance shows, and despite your accusations, I gave easily confirmable truths about one famous Ryuuha from Kagoshima. One of the core tenants is that a second strike is not even to be considered.

Riiiiiggghhhhhttttt. Its balderdash friend. I'm not saying people don't try to psych themselves into some attitude of invincibility but NOBODY can guarantee landing a blow. Even the most suicidal attack without any regard to defense whatsoever cannot guarantee anything. In fact such a predictable sort of tactic is almost certainly the easiest sort of thing to counter.

Again, it demonstrates nothing. Even assuming this concept actually worked, which even a casual perusal of military history will make you doubt seriously, it has no relevance to the argument at hand. A warrior assuming a defensive aspect momentarily, say by clearing his enemy back with a quick flurry of blows and a couple of half steps back, can most certainly make attacks against him more difficult and his position less pressed. People DO summon 'inner strength', catch their breathes and go back at it with renewed vigor.

You guys watch far too many movie fight scenes or something. Try actually doing it. Honestly, even the most incredibly fit and well-trained fighter cannot possibly continue to press the attack relentlessly every second. It simply isn't possible.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Sorry, I've done the SCA thing, and while I don't particularly know that it teaches us a hell of a lot about real fights it most certainly does tell me that you can absolutely pace the intensity of your attack and collect yourself. Just because some guy has a technique of all-out attack is irrelevant. First of all I think that kind of thing is a myth, there's no such thing as an undefendable attack. It simply doesn't pass any basic smell test. Secondly, even if such a thing did exist it doesn't negate the advantage to a defender of playing defensive. Sorry, but you can save your contempt for someone else.

You're just wrong IME KD. People DO summon inner strength. It is simply a fact. You can poo poo it all you want because it doesn't happen to support your idea of how you want to play the game, but get real man. You can tell me all day I can't do that, but plenty of times I've watched people in fights, whether SCA ones or martial arts or whatever. Watch them sometime. One guy knocks the other guy back a bit, clears himself a space for a few seconds and clearly psyches himself up to have at it again. What do you think he's doing? Modeling that with Second Wind is perfectly reasonable.

i see what your are saying and this makes some sense. I used to box and summoning inner strength to keep fighting when you are hurt is real. There is certainly room for pushing through pain, but the problem most people encounter with this in the HP system is things like second wind don't model it well for our tastes. Smeone mentioned the barbarian rage and that is probably the closest to summoning inner strength in a previous edition. It works out okay because the hp you gain are temporary and there id kind of s dead man walking thing going on. You are still physically hurt, so after the rage spell you lose the temp hp. In 4E your inner strength can sometimes make the damage go away comlpletely. I would never tell you it is unreasonable to model this with second wind (it is entirely up to you), but for me it creates some believability issues I would rather not have in my game.

The thing people need to understand about healing surges is while they may have no problem with it, a large number of players have a serious problem with the mechanic. When we made the switch to 4e (which was short lived for us) in my group, the pro 4E person had trouble understanding other peoples' issues with them. This created real tensions and assumptions of bad faith on both sides. I would just encourage people to realize we dont dislike healing surges to make your lives difficult, to dump on 4E or because we simply fear change. It is just like any other thing that gets gamers worked up. We have tastes and preferences.

This goes for the other side of the coin as well. Just because I have a problem buying into the healing surge concept and think it disrupts believability, I shouldn't force this position on people who dont share my view. It is an overly aggressive thing in my opinion to try to "prove" to someone that they really like a mechanic, or that the mechanic doesn't/does support suspension of disbelief, as these are all sujective calls.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

I look at it this way.

1) The fighter isn't 'just fine', he's now down a healing surge, one that he will inevitably lack later on. In other words that little wound is going to catch up to him sooner or later.

2) There's no exact meaning for what 'at full hit points' means except that you are now in a position to fight for as long and hard as you could at any other point in time when you were at full hit points.

So our doughty fighter has a minor wound. We KNOW it is a minor wound because it isn't even slightly affecting his ability to fight. Now he summons up extra reserves of energy and redoubles his efforts to WIN that fight. He's at least as dangerous now as he was before. Again, this is the measure of a hero. Go back and read the reports about people in real life who performed great acts of heroism. Again and again the same theme runs through these stories. People who absorbed incredible punishment, often so great that at the end of the fight they plain dropped dead, and they just GOT BACK UP and did it again, and again, and again. Do you think that guy with several bullets in him was less dangerous the 3rd time around than the first? I think it is at least REASONABLE to say "yes he was".

It just seems to me that somehow the argument gets distorted into an argument against PCs being able to take infinite damage or suffering no consequences of damage at all. I just think that is not a fair way of looking at it. When I see people arguing an extreme version of something it gets me thinking that the argument isn't really at all one about the facts but more one of people just like things to be the way they were before. Its not a wrong argument, it is just one of preference vs any kind of logic. I'm happy to have people's preferences met, but I don't think any of us will fault each other for wanting their own to be first in line hehe.