The Healing Paradox

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Late to the discussion; here's my 2¢:

1) Never seen the 15 minute workday in 35 years of playing D&D, in 3 states and 5 cities. Not saying it doesn't happen, but to me that says its a playstyle thing, not a systemic thing.

I also find it alien hearing about players' single minded drive to reach max HP.

2) I actually like the 4Ed Healing Surge mechanic, but think it is overused. I'd prefer 1 surge + bonus surges granted for having a high Con (and certain feats). Self-healing beyond that and natural healing should all be via magic or other abilities. Oh yeah- DITCH MAGICAL HEALING BASED ON SURGES! Magical healing should be magical, not based on the wounded PC's personal injury status. He's injured! To a man, everyone in our group finds this unbelievably annoying & counterintuitive; I doubt we're alone.

3) I like healing via actual spells, Laying on Hands and Ritual Healing. I'd also like to see more empathic healing- healing in which the healer exchanges his HP for the injured character's damage (albeit at an advantageous rate).




Of course, YMMV.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
pemerton said:
I find the surge distribution across PCs can be quite variable. If the players are in control, the defenders will take it all. If the GM is in control (due to numbers, surprise, mobility etc) then the squishies can find themselves sucking it up.

I believe that's the system working as intended. :)

Still, you seem to have a very low rate of attrition. If each character even spent 1 healing surge during each encounter (not out of character for a lower-level encounter), you'd have your sorcerer running out by halfway through the day!

With some quick math, it looks like your 2/encounter/character figure works out to an average of 10 total surges per encounter being depleted from the "average" party. It really doesn't seem like your party is hitting even half that, at least not early in the day! Your "two defenders" party would seem to be quite survivable even at that rate (though it doesn't look like you have a leader?).

pemerton said:
It seems that experiences of 4e are very varied. Some find it a TPK-machine. Some (eg @Johnny3D3D ) find it a walkover. I think my group is in the middle.

It sounds to me like your PC's are finding it significantly easier than any 4e group I've been a part of (and the general reaction of the groups I've been a part of is that the PC's are pretty dang robust -- I've seen exactly one legit character death (from a poorly-balanced minion monster in the DDI), and nothing even close to a TPK).

pemerton said:
Not at all. There was a lot of pressure on the PCs, with the 4e pace. That's the one thing I find 4e reliably delivers. And when the party is facing Calastryx with 10 or so healing surges between them, that pressure is really on!
You say this, but then the numbers don't quite add up. Unless your Sorcerer has a Constitution of 26 (which is, I suppose, totally possible!), there's no way that character could be experiencing this pace in each encounter. The party as a whole might, but it looks like even taking a party average, your party is not being hit as hard as in any game I've been a part of. Even with two defenders, loosing 10 surges per combat should be putting a hurt on them after one or two combats. I don't imagine the party has 130 surges between them all! :)

But even your experience, anomalous as it seems to me, doesn't escape the reach of that balance math. You might give your spellcasters more spells so they can do useful things more often, but ultimately, the numbers still work.
 

Gorgoroth

Banned
Banned
That's not my experience

My experience in 4e is that less than half the total surge capacity is used. We never had the Comrades Succor ritual, which would have helped. But I don't like a resource that needs to be redistributed to keep things flowing.

The wizard in our group NEVER ran out of surges, in three years. Not once. I've seen more defenders dying than strikers who were acting completely and unabashedly reckless, and even then...we'd end up resting for the day as soon as the first guy had no surges left. So the idea that you use the surge mechanic to avoid a 15 minute work day is ludicrous to me (and for the record, I enjoyed 4e a lot in some ways), in other systems and editions we'd have comparatively way more things happen. So the tradeoff of an extra layer of HP-like mechanic, was more complexity while being able to achieve less in a day...not exactly a smashing success.

We had a healbot cleric in our group for the first four levels in 4e, and got rid of him because frankly we never needed him, or the extra healing. Seriously. We played until level 11 without a leader...then I re-specced my dragonborn ranger guy to a ranger|warlord hybrid to boost party initiative and cohesion and tactics...I actually needed the encounter heal power to save someone...what, once? from level 11 to 13. Only one time did having a free surge matter. We rarely even second-winded.

I played 4e with 4 different DMs, and no matter their drive to make things challenging...to us "balance" meant "easy mode". Where you have a D&D game where not only are clerics not necessary to survive "tough" dungeons full of undead, but you are better off with another tank or striker, well that's not balanced. 4e could have been balanced PROPERLY to D&D norms had the community had input on the errata process, like some kind of voting mechanic built-into their DDI builder. But no...the One Ring does not share power. All others must bow and kneel before it and despair...(until we ran away, far, far from Mordor back to the Shire)
 

Lalato

Adventurer
I guess my 4e DM likes to give us nightmare mode. We've had several character deaths and a few TPKs. Part of it, I'm sure, is that he loves to put the characters in situations where the odds are tough, and where extended rests aren't easy to come by.

I still recall my first 4e character who died in his very first encounter (different DM, different city, different part of the country). It was a glorious death... lying in his own blood, counting down the death saves as the rest of the party ran away in defeat.

Every table plays the game differently. That's a lesson I've learned in my 30+ years of D&D.
 

GhostBear

Explorer
I recently bought the Thieves' World source book for 3e. It is a lower-magic, dark, gritty fantasy setting. There is magical healing available, but all it does it convert lethal damage into nonlethal damage. You still have to rest in order to get up to full health.

So, it may keep you from dying, but once you take enough damage you're still out of the fight anyway. Plus, it gives the Healing skill a reason to exist. Once you have a cleric past 3rd or 4th level, the Healing skill is nearly useless in standard D&D.

Just thought I would toss this into the discussion for a different take on things.
 

pemerton

Legend
DITCH MAGICAL HEALING BASED ON SURGES! Magical healing should be magical, not based on the wounded PC's personal injury status. He's injured! To a man, everyone in our group finds this unbelievably annoying & counterintuitive; I doubt we're alone.

<snip>

I'd also like to see more empathic healing- healing in which the healer exchanges his HP for the injured character's damage (albeit at an advantageous rate).
The main form of empathic healing is the paladin's Lay on Hands (there are also items that allow the shuffling round of surges, but I find them a bit less thematically compelling than the paladin).

On the healing based on surges, magical healing is surgeless: I refer you to the Cure X Wounds line of powers. The key to making the narrative work is to recognise that Healing Word is no different in its operation from Inspiring Word, except it is divine inspiration ("I speak the words of the deity") rather than mortal inspiration ("Come on, you can do it . . . for Gandalf!").

I don't know how popular that narrative is, of the cleric as primarily a source of inspiration rather than of miraculous healing, but it is the only obvious way to meld the fiction and the mechanics.
 

Tony Vargas

Legend
I actually like the 4Ed Healing Surge mechanic, but think it is overused. I'd prefer 1 surge + bonus surges granted for having a high Con (and certain feats). Self-healing beyond that and natural healing should all be via magic or other abilities. Oh yeah- DITCH MAGICAL HEALING BASED ON SURGES! Magical healing should be magical, not based on the wounded PC's personal injury status. He's injured! To a man, everyone in our group finds this unbelievably annoying & counterintuitive; I doubt we're alone.
You are certainly not alone. We play D&D long enough, we become acclamated to its weirdness. Hit points are pretty weird, wildly abstract, not really representing damage, exactly, etc. Armor that only keeps you from being hit, never makes a deadly hit into a bruising one, is pretty weird. But we get used to it.

One of the things that's fantastically weird about D&D is magical healing independent of the person being healed. A 90 hp fighter who takes 8 hps of damage is barely scratched, while a 1st level character who takes 8 hps might be dropped - yet good roll on a Cure Light Wounds spell will heal them both. The same spell that completely heals a nearly-mortal wound for one guy barely heals a scratch for another. How does that possibly make sense?

If a spell can heal a scratch, it should be able to heal a scratch, whether it's a 1 hp scratch on an 10 hp 1st-level character, or a 10 hp scratch on a 100-hp high-level character. It's just absurd that it takes vast magical power to patch up your booboos just because you got 'em from a Pit Fiend instead of a Lemure.

OTOH, healing based on your surge value, which is based on your hp value clears that right up. Cure Light Wounds heals your surge value, 1/4 of your total hps. You get a nasty little gash from Irontooth at 1st level at ~1/4 your hps, that's a 'light wound,' and Cure Light Wounds heals it. Get an identical injury from a Troll 10 levels later, and even though it's a lot more 'hit points,' the same spell heals the same injury. And, yes, heals it without costing you a surge. The classic healing spells (the Cure...Wounds series) are not limited by surges available to the subject. It's just the new 'easy heal' "I don't have to be a box of bandaids anymore" healing word and the like that use the Surge Mechanic.

5e should stick with healing magic healing proportionate to the subject's hit points. It just makes more sense that way. It's more internally consistent.
 

pemerton

Legend
Still, you seem to have a very low rate of attrition. If each character even spent 1 healing surge during each encounter (not out of character for a lower-level encounter), you'd have your sorcerer running out by halfway through the day!

With some quick math, it looks like your 2/encounter/character figure works out to an average of 10 total surges per encounter being depleted from the "average" party. It really doesn't seem like your party is hitting even half that, at least not early in the day! Your "two defenders" party would seem to be quite survivable even at that rate (though it doesn't look like you have a leader?).
The leader is a hybrid archer ranger-cleric. Then there is a paladin (who has 4 LoH per day), a dwarf (minor second wind with Cloak of the Walking Wounded, plus cleric multi-class), a chaos sorcerer and (at the time) a wizard (since reborn as an invoker).

Party-wide healing surges:

*Fighter 14 (17 CON, Dwarven Durability, and also Toughness for more hp and hence higher surge value);

*Paladin 13 (16 CON);

*Ranger-Cleric 8 (15 CON);

*Sorcerer 7 (13 CON);

*Wizard 7 (12 CON).​

That's 49 in total. Now, having just recounted my encounter list, I see 9 significant combat encounters (plus a 7th level combat encounter - that was a negotiation with a trapped Yochlol that went badly for the Yochlol - and 3 skill challenges, only 1 of which would have inflicted damage, and that on only one PC, namely, the sorcerer).

Let's treat every PC's actual hit points as being worth another 3 surges (in fact, the ranger went into the final 2 combats at 3 hp, and in the final combat fell unconscious and had to be revived with one of the new-style healing potions that can grant surgeless healing in extremis - that's more than 3 surges, but I can't swear that every other PC was bloodied at the end of it). That's another 15, for 64 in total.

I can't remember all the surgeless healing from the ranger-cleric's power, but there were two surgeless surge-recovery items used: Dwarven Armour, and the Healing Star of Pelor (a home-made item converted from the d20 Eden Odyssey scenario "Wonders out of Time"). That brings it up to 66. Which, divided by 9 encounters, is more than 7 surges lost per encounter. That's close to three quarters of my "10 per encounter" calculation.

It sounds to me like your PC's are finding it significantly easier than any 4e group I've been a part of (and the general reaction of the groups I've been a part of is that the PC's are pretty dang robust -- I've seen exactly one legit character death (from a poorly-balanced minion monster in the DDI), and nothing even close to a TPK).
The wizard died recently (a necessar precondition to rebirth as an invoker) - you can read about it here.

As to whether my group has it easier or harder - as I said, there seems to be a wide spectrum of experience.

You say this, but then the numbers don't quite add up. Unless your Sorcerer has a Constitution of 26 (which is, I suppose, totally possible!), there's no way that character could be experiencing this pace in each encounter.
On the contrary - the sorcerer feels it more than anyone but the fighter, I think, because he has a lot of close attacks (as a drow, he uses his Cloud of Darkness to make these viable). But he doesn't generally feel the pressure in terms of damage - he uses a range of interrupts and reactions - Dragonflame Mantle, Swift Escape, Narrow Escape and Slaad's Gambit - to mitigate attacks. It's only once these have all been soaked that the damage starts cutting in.

Other forms of damage mitigation - like powers that grant temporary hit points or damage reduction - are also used by the party.

That's one of the things I very much enjoy about 4e - it doesn't play exclusively as an attrition game (at least, not as my group plays it). Hit point and surge attrition is there, but there is a whole other layer of move and counter move which comes into play before damage is even a factor.

And even when it comes to damage mitigation by healing, there is a lot of scope for tactical play. In the fight against either Calastryx or the mooncalves (I can't remember now), the PCs had one daily item use left, two healing words left (fighter and ranger), one surge on the fighter, no surges on the ranger-cleric or sorcerer, and one surge on the wizard. The fighter had two healing daily item powers - dwarven armour, and symbol of shared healing. After quite a bit of deliberation and calculation, the fighter dwarven armoured and then healing worded himself, while the ranger then healing worded the wizard on the ranger's turn. If the symbol of shared healing had been used instead to bring up the wizard, the ranger's healing word could not have been used on the fighter until the ranger's turn, which would have been too late - because Calastryx was doing too much damage.

My group, at least, feels under pressure when survival turns on that degree of tactical accuracy. (It was a somewhat comparable failure of tactical play a few sessions later that led to the wizard dying.)

But even your experience, anomalous as it seems to me, doesn't escape the reach of that balance math. You might give your spellcasters more spells so they can do useful things more often, but ultimately, the numbers still work.
Which numbers? If I'm trying to balance (say) encounter powers against daily powers, how many encounters should I factor in between rests? The 9 that took place in the episode we're talking about? The 1 that took place in a more recent session (3 PCs vs 2 15th level rock hurler gargoyles, a 14th(?) level dire rat swarm, and a 13th (?) level solo troll - the wererats vacated the PC's new tower in response to a court order, but left behind some lodgers)?

Encounter powers that are balanced against the daily powers for the long day will be somewhat overshadowed by the daily power nova-ing that took place on the short day!

And it's not just a balance of mechanical effectiveness. It's also about a balance of choices and spotlight. Different suites of abilities with different recharge times make it less likely, I think, that every player will have a comparable range of choices in a wide variety of scenarios, and comparably many chances to make his/her PC's distinctive mark on the encounter.
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
The wizard in our group NEVER ran out of surges, in three years. Not once. I've seen more defenders dying than strikers who were acting completely and unabashedly reckless
Out of curiosity, did your GMs ever have the monsters walk away from the defenders to take on other foes? I do this all the time, in part because it's fun, and in part because the defenders are too hard to hit (a scale-armoured fighter with the +1 AC from Warpriest paragon path, and a paladin wearing Meliorating Plate).

Anyway, I personally don't find I have a lot of trouble tocking the sorcerer or the wizard. The ranger, with his longer range, seems more astute at keeping out of harm's way, and is the only PC regularly to have a significant pool of surges left when the others have all been drained.
 

I'm A Banana

Potassium-Rich
So ~7 surges per encounter? Over nine actual encounters (your SC's don't drain surges, eh? Mostly narrative failures?)? Sounds like your party is pretty solid at defending themselves -- lots of little ticks to avoid getting damaged in the first place! And they seem to be low on healing (though both your fighter and your ranger have healing words?), which is further impressive. But they're high on Defenders (two of 'em!), so that probably helps in both longevity and less surges lost per battle.

Which is all great and fine and awesome. Your players are solid tactical strategists, they are built to survive, and it looks like 4e accommodates their high-survival ideal quite nicely. And there's no reason a balanced vancian casting should disrupt that.

pemerton said:
Which numbers? If I'm trying to balance (say) encounter powers against daily powers, how many encounters should I factor in between rests? The 9 that took place in the episode we're talking about? The 1 that took place in a more recent session (3 PCs vs 2 15th level rock hurler gargoyles, a 14th(?) level dire rat swarm, and a 13th (?) level solo troll - the wererats vacated the PC's new tower in response to a court order, but left behind some lodgers)?

Because the number doesn't demand precision, you can take a rough median and go with that and be fine. If your party is regularly cutting through three times the number of encounters because they're solidly skilled like that, you up the number. If your party is regularly having one-encounter days because that's the pacing you prefer, you drop the number. The balance, after all, is in pursuit of the goal of keeping everyone entertained.

And, of course, while you CAN balance Vancian casting, you might not care to. Some folks don't like Vancian casting for reasons having nothing to do with balance (such as problems with pacing, or a personal dislike of the word "slots," or that it doesn't match up with their preferred fiction, or whatever). Just because a balanced Vancian caster exists in the game doesn't mean your table won't prefer, say, an at-will based warlock, because of your table's own idiosyncrasies.

pemerton said:
Encounter powers that are balanced against the daily powers for the long day will be somewhat overshadowed by the daily power nova-ing that took place on the short day!

That's fine. Just as it's fine that your players probably feature their encounter and at-will powers more than their daily powers during 9-encounter days. An encounter where everyone blows up and dominates is part of the variety.

If that's something you do a lot of, to avoid the supremacy of dailies, you might try rolling together several encounters into one to make it significant, or dropping the power of the daily abilities. Because there is a recognition of how many "successes" a given limited-resource is worth, it's pretty easy for a DM to slide that scale.

The balance does not need to be on a razor's edge to meet its design goals, I feel. ;) Indeed, if it WERE, that would remove some significant variation. Your party is tough and resolute: they SHOULD cut through more encounters than usual! I wouldn't want to make a system that would make them loose that endurance in pursuit of precise balance.

pemerton said:
And it's not just a balance of mechanical effectiveness. It's also about a balance of choices and spotlight. Different suites of abilities with different recharge times make it less likely, I think, that every player will have a comparable range of choices in a wide variety of scenarios, and comparably many chances to make his/her PC's distinctive mark on the encounter.

When an encounter only lasts 5 minutes, and the "adventuring day" only takes a half hour of table time, this is less of a concern than when the encounter lasts a half hour, and the "adventuring day' takes six hours of table time. You cycle a lot faster, and the "spotlight" tends to revolve much more quickly.

The playtest has certainly borne this out for me. Different recharge rates haven't left anyone feeling "left out" so far, in part because the spotlight revolves so quickly.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top