Hit Points & Healing Surges Finally Explained!

[SHARK]

I think most of the problem is terminology. Most of the argument comes because they are called Hit Points, Damage and Healing Surges.

In D&D combat there are only two states Combat Effective and Not-So. If you have "Hit Points" left you are combat effective. That swing from your sword can do damage to your opponent when you have 40 hit points or 1. However, when you drop to 0 you are no longer combat effective. You can't even swing the sword.

Damage is also "esoteric" in the sense that not every "hit" is really a hit. Some times you are losing "Hit Points" because you are winded, you got lucky and the"hit" was not solid, etc.

Long Term injuries (broken bones, torn ligaments, etc.) have never been a part of D&D. D&D has never had a "death spiral" mechanic either, where your combat effectiveness gets worse as you lose hit points. If you fell of a high cliff and only took half your hit points in "damage" you were still as combat effective as if you had not fallen down.

So the only sticking point about this is about "long term" recovery. 4e does not provide a mechanic for "long term injury" recovery without house ruling it. When I see some of the complaints, they seem to boil down to that point. However, the previous edition did not provide for that either. The default assumption of the game provided for magic to "heal" to be prevalent at almost any level. So if you wanted to model "long term injury" recovery you had to house rule it too.

Me, I'm having a great time playing and DMing and worrying about this particular aspect is handled the same way I did before. If I want long term injuries I house rule them.

Greetings!

*Exactly* In my own campaigns, I have on occasion--when the situation seemed particularly damaging/difficult, used some long-term injuries for characters--both players and NPC's. However, most of the time, it was a non-issue. How many Cure X Wounds spells/Cure Disease/Restoration blah, blah, blah is needed to get X character back up and ready? It was abstracted. Even if some character did have longer-term injuries, the group would say,

"Fine. We're done here in this castle/dungeon/lair/wilderness for now. We go back to town or city, get as much necessary healing as we can, and hang out recuperating at the Tavern/Temple/Barracks/Castle. When everyone is healed up and ready for action, we'll go back to wherever we need to go."

They either did that, or any wounds were taken care of within an hour or a few at most of *in-game* time between magic/herbs/skills and rest. If they could move on after an hour or so, they did. If not, they would camp and fortify, and sleep/regen for the next day, then proceed with the mission.

I guess I'm not seeing it. It all takes but a few minutes of *real time* and whatever is needed is figured out. Bottom line is, the players want to be up and going after the mission. How much of *game time* that may or may not take isn't especially important, is it?

(1) Either you're fully healed and ready to go in moments;

(2) Either you're fully healed and ready to go in 1-3 hours;

(3) Either you're fully healed and ready to go over an 8-hour rest/sleep period;

(4) Either you're fully healed and ready to go after healing/resting for a few days;

(5) Either you're fully healed and ready to go after recuperating for days/weeks/months

With any of these, isn't it all just abstracted in a few minutes of discussion and notes, one way or the other, so that in 10 minutes of *real time* you guys are back in the saddle pursuing the adventure?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Spatula]

How often do you think wands of CLW (especially used abusively) were disregarded compared to disregarding healing surges and long rests? How dispensible do you think wands of CLW are compared to dispensing with healing surges and long rests?

Just as dispensible. After all, they're the same thing - a resource you expend to recover hit points after encounters.

As an aside, I'd like to note that all the complaints about "healing surges" are actually about about the short & extended rest rules (and also second winds and the warlord's healing) and not about surges at all.

So anyway, if you were to throw out non-magical healing and alter the rest rules (say, you heal 1 surge's worth with a night of rest instead of healing 100%), you have a party that has to be more cautious and proceed at a slower pace. Just like a 3e party without cure wands. I don't see the big deal. If you can house-rule easy access to magic out of 3e, which is built into the system, then you can house-rule easy healing out of 4e.

And, after hearing about all the horror stories of CLW abuse

Horror stories? Abuse? Bwah?

 

[billd91]

I think most of the problem is terminology. Most of the argument comes because they are called Hit Points, Damage and Healing Surges.

For some people, maybe. But it's not the problem at all for some of us. For some of us, it's the change in healing methods from essentially unlimited, transferable, and external to limited, non-transferable, and internal. Regardless of terminology, healing surges are different from magical healing in 1e-3e.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Man, this thread makes me feel like an anomaly.

I'm not a fan of healing surges, but I'm basically okay with full HP at the start of every encounter.

It's not so much a verisimilitude issue for me as it is a game play issue for me. It jars me out of the game when the wound I described as a heavy blow with an axe is shrugged off with some words of prodding praise. Nicks and cuts, sure.

And I have no problem with HPs mostly representing nicks and cuts and bruises and luck and "rolling with it."

At issue isn't HP -- or even how fast it is regained. At issue is the idea that HP (via Healing Surges) represent both a short-term and a long-term resource.

It would be kind of like if you could only regain your Encounter Powers a certain number of times per day. It's wonky.

It doesn't need to be. It should have been high time in 4e that HP got clarified, instead of being muddied further. It would have been as easy as disconnecting healing surges from HP, and instead making them a totally separate mechanic (with a correspondingly different name) and just biting the bullet and having HP recover automatically after a short rest.

These two great tastes do not taste great together. Like pizza milkshakes or something...

 

[Fifth Element]

I think most of the problem is terminology. Most of the argument comes because they are called Hit Points, Damage and Healing Surges.

I think "most" is an overstatement, but yes the terminology doesn't help. When designing 4E, they decided to emphasize that hit points are abstract, and their recovery does not necessarily represent actual healing; and then they go and call the new hit point recovery system healing surges. Not a good choice.

 

[Plane Sailing]

HPs are a way to say with 100% certainty that even if the opponent rolls enough to "hit" me, and does max "damage" with his weapon I will not die.

This to me more appropriately suggests a way to model luck or moxie, and not damage. You character is so awesome that at certain time he just cannot be killed.

Aha! Obviously hit points should be renamed as PIPs!

Plot Immunity Points!

Nobody can die until their plot immunity points have run out, and then they become vulnerable! You need warlords and clerics and other leaders to boost your importance to the story and give you plot immunity points back!

Plot Immunity Points FTW!

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Conan 4E" with 40 hp and 8 healing surges takes 10 points of damage. The DM says he takes a scratch. The DM says he's feeling tired. At the end of the battle he uses a healing surge. Conan 4E still has a scratch on his shoulder. It doesn't affect his strength, climbing ability, agility, saves, etc. He's going to fight orcs and still kill them.

Strike One: No orcs in Conan!

Conan 1E might leave the dungeon to get his 5 hp back if he knows (metagaming) that Thoth Amon is a tough customer. The other Cimmerians would laugh that Conan 1E left the dungeon because of a scratch on his shoulder and some whining about the intangible effect on his luck.

Strike Two: Conan is smart enough in the REH stories not to undertake a fight where he has no reasonable chance of success, unless he has a very strong reason to chance his life. There is more than one REH story where Conan opts for the better part of valour.

Crom is an uncaring god, and Conan knows he needs to save himself.

1e (and 2e) were scaled so that an adventurer could take on opponents even when wounded. AFAICT, the 1e Cimmerians wouldn't know about "the 15 minute adventuring day" because it didn't yet exist.

Nor would they send in "3 orc warriors to assassinate Conan" because (1) orcs don't exist in Conan, (2) Cimmerians don't assassinate people -- they take them on manfully, and (3) they know that Conan will slay them manfully anon if they did so.

Then again, I cannot begin to fathom how 1E (page 82 of the DMG or not) ever provided a satisfactory simulation of injury. "Injured" Conan 1E is sprinting out of the dungeon and riding back to the castle unhindered. Met by a few low-level brigands on the road, he'd still kill them all. There are a myriad of physical effects of injury, and none of them are modeled by the system.

That is a pretty good description of what happens in the REH stories, however.



RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

One of my points is that you're describing 4E damage in 1E terms. While both systems use the same vagueness, IMO you're describing 4E damage as a lasting effect with no good reason.

Sorry, but which is it?

Is there a difference, so that saying "you're describing 4E damage in 1E terms" has meaning?

Or is there no difference, so that saying "both systems use the same vagueness" has meaning?


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And yet the game since day one has been based on description. The DM, using the rules (whether gamist, simulationist, or narrativist) translates these rules and describes the world with their effect to the players. The players in turn rely on this information to make decisions and interact with the world. When the game's rules become convulted or even illogical to translate and describe... IMO, the game becomes much worse for it.

This.

Very well put.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think this is an extremely harsh and pessimistic interpretation of the intent and statements of the 4E designers. Designing a game that is intended to be played in a certain way is not the same thing as calling other styles of game bad.

One could read the advice in the 4e DMG and come to a different conclusion. Or, for that matter, all the talk of what was "unfun" during the design phase.


RC