I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Aberzanzorax]

You may disagree with the rules but that does take you into house rule territory. You can't really expect your view to be supported by later rules or for the D&D community at large to find your argument persuasive.

Well, yes and no.

I think what he's saying (and what I am definitely saying, but said in more depth here http://www.enworld.org/forum/5697988-post118.html) is that they wrote "these are kinda abstract" but then they went ahead and made just about every rule as if they were concrete.

It's not houseruling in that situation, it's acknowledging that they said one thing and did another.

 

[Gargoyle]

I miss the simplicity of hit points without healing surges.

As far as their abstract nature...

I had a discussion with a player about hit points years ago, I forget the edition. I explained that I felt that hit points represented more than just damage taken, it was also exhaustion and luck. The DMG at the time backed me up on that. His reply was that "Well, then if that poisoned blade didn't actually hit me, why do I need to Save vs Poison?"

I didn't have a good response to that, and I still don't.

Healing surges plus non magical healing in 4e makes the down side of the abstract nature of hit points worse by creating scenarios that strain the suspension of disbelief. The fighter takes massive damage from the claws of a horrible dragon which the DM describes in gory detail. He gets his second wind, the warlord tells him to shake it off, and five seconds after the dragon is dead the fighter is ready to take on the next encounter - all without magic.

So what happens? The DM stops narrating descriptions of the fight.

Hit points are a snap to explain. Healing hit points with magic or even a healing skill is easy to accept as real in a fantasy game. Surges are harder to comprehend, and healing what was described in the narrative as real wounds with no magic is tough to enjoy.

I'm not saying I'm completely against healing surges, but they do cause problems.

 

[Gaerek]

Hit point loss represents taking physical damage. Conversely, regaining hit points represents physical healing.

The above point is fundamental to understanding why I don't like healing surges - they necessitate that the above understanding be discarded and replaced with an alternative understanding for what hit points represent (e.g. that hit points are a character's "ability to keep fighting" or something similar).

This may have already been talked about, but I haven't read the thread to the end, since I wanted to reply to Jameson. But, unfortunately, Hit Point loss, has never fully represented taking physical damage. Not with OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x, PF, 4e, not with any of them. Hit points have always been a very abstract concept that includes a bunch of factors, including, but certainly not limited to, physical health, mental health, endurance, vitality, ability to mitigate damage, glancing blows, luck, etc. Gary Gygax himself spoke about this, as far as I know, as early as the 1e DMG.

There are serious problems with thinking of HP as ONLY physical damage, more so than what you already spoke of. First and foremost, in my mind, if you take a sword hit that does 50% of your physical damage, how are you now able to continue fighting at 100%? I like to think of Boromir in LotR, when he takes the arrow in the chest. He's still conscious, he still has some motor activity, but he certainly cannot fight at 100%. He tries to fight of course, but as he keeps taking arrows, he becomes weaker and weaker.

Here's a quote from the 1e DMG, written by Mr. Gygax himself. (It's the only one I could find in a short amount of time, without access to my books, and at work, but it should suffice).

It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability
in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain
physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an
assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust
which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero
could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why
then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual
physical ability of the character to withstand damage - as indicated by
constitution bonuses- and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill
in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the "sixth sense" whith
warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck,
and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine
protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand
physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas
which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

Bolded area is key to understanding that HP do not completely reflect actual, physical damage.

Cool, looking forward to the civil discussion, and ready to call it a day with, "agree to disagree" whenever you feel it's appropriate

I'm not going to respond to everything you've written, mainly because I believe we're pretty close to being on the same page. I appreciate your being civil as well, and your willingness to agree to disagree. In the end, I like your sig, as it pretty much sums up my feelings.

First of all, I'd consider even the most simulationist game to be very, very abstracted. I mean, you have to heavily abstract things in order to make any game. You definitely have different levels of abstraction, no doubt, and some are much more simulationist than others, but to truly account for details without heavy abstraction is pretty much impossible. That is, really, because you have to leave the description open, and the more ways you can describe something, the more abstracted it is.

This is certainly correct. More simulation = more abstraction. More gamey = less abstraction. Abstraction isn't a bad thing, per se, but too much interferes with the actual game play.

However, immersion is the goal of my group because it's fun. However, immersion isn't the goal for some people. They want strongly narrative play, including director and author stance. These people can definitely appreciate and enjoy immersion, but by setting themselves up to be in a position where they aren't taking a first-person stance on things, they end up losing a lot of potential for true, deep immersion. And there's nothing wrong at all with that type of game. I like it in games like Mutants and Masterminds.

And this might be the difference. Immersion, for my regular group, comes secondary to having fun. We certainly enjoy immersion, don't get me wrong, but if it interferes with other things that make the game fun for us, we're willing to let a bit go. This is where the suspension of disbelief comes in. I have players in my group that run the gamut as well. For one of my players, he shows up at our games because he wants to "Kill some ." I have another player who doesn't particularly care for the combat system of 4e, but loves how unrestricted it is (with regards to alignment, and other "forced RP" mechanics of older systems) for RP, so he's willing to deal with the combat system for the immersion it gives him in other areas. My other players fall somewhere in between. As for me, as a player, I don't care what system I'm playing, I just want to play. As a DM, well, at this point, I won't DM anything but 4e, but I have other reasons for that, none of which have anything to do with the HS mechanic.

The point, however, is that the game is about immersion to my group because it's fun, but it's not as much fun for other groups to feel as limited as an immersion-first approach can make you. It can really limit your options as a player, and a lot of people want to put the story first, and be really hands-on with it. I can totally understand why that is.

Whole heartedly agree. My group is in that category.

Both approaches, however, tend to include many, many nods towards realism. Gravity nearly always works. Things can be created or destroyed. People die. RPGs tend to be nods to realism, tweaked by design focus and sprinkled with genre expectations. Realism is the base for most RPGs, in my experience, though not the goal for most. Is it simply because it's "fun, exciting, and interesting"? Maybe, but I suspect it's much easier to do than changing all aspects of realism, and I suspect it's because it gives the players a base for the game right away.

Most games can get away without a real heave base in realism. A tabletop RPG, like D&D, really can't. That's sort of the point of the game. My problem is rules that attempt to emulate reality by sacrificing fun. This is why every successful MMO (sorry to bring up video games, it's just a good example) doesn't have permanent death. And in most cases, their explanation was extremely half-assed. Star Wars Galaxies was one of the worst, if you've ever played that. They added "clone resurrection" in a world where nothing like this was ever mentioned in any movie, book, or source material. (I know, clones exsist, but the idea of cloning yourself after you die, did not.) But they knew that the game wouldn't be fun if you had to start over everytime you died.

I know many people disagree, but the Healing Surge Stick (aka. Wand of CLW) and required Cleric made the game less fun for me and my group. Hence, I'm ok with healing surges, even if they aren't realistic. And removing magic shops and not handing out Wand of CLW won't work if your players are more than willing to make them, and mine were.

Just the assumption of sleep, for example.

Just wanted to make a quick comment on this. According to all pre-4e rulesets, if my players have a Wand of CLW with enough charges, they could continue literally indefinately, without stopping for sleep/rest. Of course, the magic users wouldn't get their spells back, but the melee classes would never have to stop, ever. 4e gives each character a set amount of endurance. When you're out of HS, you pretty much need to stop. Now, before you comment, I know, the dual health, vitality system you proposed would fix this, but without it (like we are now) 4e means you must rest. 3e and prior, you don't.

It's going to depend on the group. If your group has a problem waiting for two weeks if you just got really injured, then it'll be a problem. I figure a lot of groups do, but I think people would like to see that as an option in the narrative. By eliminating that option, you can't have a hero be incapacitated for a while, healing up while the bad guy advances his plans, and pushing on only if it's completely necessary.

One of the biggest selling points of 4e to me was the cinematic feel of everything. John McClane in Die Hard should have been incapacitated after the first 20 minutes of the movie. Instead, he lasted the entire length of the movie and defeated the BBEG, Professor Snape.

It really takes away from that feel if my players have to go back to town to rest at the inn for 2 weeks after every 3 or 4 encounters. I'd quit a game like that, so would my players. Again, we're willing to suspend some disbelief to have that slightly over-the-top, cinematic feel.

That's one of my problems with the "healing to full" rules of some systems, and something I tie slightly into healing surges (I don't know if I should, honestly). But, by doing so, you don't have a situation where your hero is injured and unable to participate while the setting progresses (or story, for the narrative-minded).

Again, my players characters are heroes in the vein of any fantasy/action movie. In LotR, sure, Frodo had to rest after he got stabbed by the Nazgul, but after that point, he never had much of an extended break. Any real person wouldn't have been able to do what he did. They make the setting progress (either by actively affecting it, or choosing not to participate in something). The setting doesn't make my players progress.

I like that style of play. It's one reason (though not the main reason) that I eliminated long distance travel magic (well, for free, anyways). If you have to walk, ride, fly, or swim everywhere, time passes. You get to see the setting evolve, enemies fall before you reach them, new enemies rise around you, friends get married, have children die of old age, and the like. I'm sure you see the upsides to it. There are also downsides, though. It prevents people from being constantly in the action. It makes them vulnerable to attacks, and less mobile. Considerable, real downsides to consider.

Bolded is the key for me. That's not heroic. That's normal. Characters aren't normal. They are heroes. I agree with a lot of the travel stuff, but at a certain point, there's no reason why an 18th level wizard (thinking 3e and prior) can't go pretty much wherever he wants to go. He's practically a god in anything else he does, but he has to walk from town to town? Not very heroic. At low levels? Sure, you're hoofing it.

Seriously, though, I think it is a style issue. Your group didn't like the recovery time, and wasn't sad to see it go. I would be, and indeed was. I also prefer gritty fantasy games, though, so I have more of a niche taste in that regard, in all likelihood.

Here it is. The key point. It looks like we will be agreeing to disagree.

Which is why I support two pools of abstraction: physical, and "other" (fatigue, luck, fate, skill at dodging, etc.). Keep the physical HP pool relatively small, and keep the other HP pool bigger, and you eliminate a lot of this issue. Now, if you're getting an adrenaline burst, or heroic surge, or whatever, you're recovering your "other" HP pool, which makes perfect sense: it was never physical wounds to begin with.

Put this in a game and I'll play it. Seems like if gives the best of both worlds. Let's hope Mr. Cook can do something like this for 5e.

That makes sense to me, and I'm glad you like it. I'm not sure if it'll get implemented. I think we'll see even more abstracted mechanics, if the new skill system is the track they're on. Personally, I didn't like Monte's skill system, but I know a lot of people do. It's too abstract for me. Then again, I like narrow skills and skill points, so tastes vary!

From what I've seen, people either love or hate Monte Cook. For me, I like a lot of what he's done. But there are some things that are questionable. I don't like the 3e skill system. I think the more simplified 4e system is superior. But that's just an opinion. Sure he created the base of current skill system, but the older one just got out of hand very quickly.

I would too, if they separated the HP pools like I've said, or something similar. I think it'd win over a lot of people. At any rate, thanks for the discussion. And, as always, play what you like

I'm with you here.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Hit points across several editions, and curing:

Hit points across editions, and curing:

AD&D first edition phb, p34:
"These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed. A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant prtion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors. A typical man-at-arms can take about 5 hit points of damage before being killed. Let us suppose that a 10th level fighter has 55 hit points, plus a bonus of 30 hit points for his constitution, for a total of 85 hit points... It is ridiculous to assume that even a fantastic fighter can take that much punishment...Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."

Cure light wounds: "Upon laying his or her hand upon a creature, the cleric causes from 1 to 8 hit points of wound or other injury damage to the creature's body to be healed."


AD&D 2nd edition Player's Handbook, page 138-139:
"Sometimes, no degree of luck, skill, ability, or resistance to various attacks can prevent harm from coming to a character. The adventuring life carries with it unavoidable risks. Sooner or later a character is going to be hurt...Damage is subtracted from a character's (or creature's hit points. Should one of the player characters hit an ogre in the side of the head for 8 points of damage, those 8 points are subtraced from the ogre's total hit points. The damage isn't applied to the head, or divided among different areas of the body. Hit point loss is cumulative until a character ies or has a chance to heal his wounds." [A brief vignette follows and then a section entitled WOUNDS.] "When a character hits a monster, or vice versa, damage is suffered by the victim."

Cure light wounds: "When casting this spell and laying his hand upon a creature, the priest causes 1d8 points of wound or other injury damage to the creature's body to be healed."

D&D 3.0 player's handbook page 127+128
"Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. While exotic monsters have a number of special ways to hurt, harm, or kill you, usually you just take damage and lose hit points."
"What hit points represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. A 10th-level fighter who has taken 50 points of damage is not as badly hurt as a 10th-level wizard who has taken that much damage. Indeed, unless the wizard has a high constitution score, she's probably dead or dying, while the fighter is battered but otherwise doing fine. Why the difference? Partly because the fighter is better at rolling with the punches, protecting vital areas, and dodging just enough that a blow that would be fatal only wounds him. Partly because he's tough as nails. He can take damage that would drop a horse and still swing his sword with deadly effect. For some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to convince bystanders that she doesn't have the favor of some higher power."

glossary, p279: "Hit points (hp): A measure of character health or object integrity. Damage decreases current hit points, and lost hit points return with healing or natural recovery."

cure light wounds: "When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (up to +5."

D&D 3.5 player's handbook, page 145
(Basically the same as 3.0, but a shortened version)

(glossary and cure light wounds are same as 3.0)

D&D 4e player's handbook, page 293
"Over the course of a battle, you take damage from attacks. Hit points (hp) measure your ability to stand up to punishment, turn deadly strikes into glancing blows, and stay on your feet throughout a battle. Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve-all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation...Powers abilities and actions that restore are known as healing. You might regain hit points through rest, heroic resolve, or magic."
"Even in a heated battle, you can heal. You can heal yourself using your second wind,..."

Cure light wounds: "You utter a simple prayer and gain the power to instantly heal wounds, and your touch momentarily suffuses you or a wounded creature with a dim silver light....The target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge."

 

[gamerprinter]

You may disagree with the rules but that does take you into house rule territory. You can't really expect your view to be supported by later rules or for the D&D community at large to find your argument persuasive.

Nor was I trying to persuade anything. The question was asked why I don't like healing surges, and I've been quite clear as to how I view hit points damage. So I must accept that HP is some kind of mix of things as stated in 2e, even though THAC0 didn't follow along either. I think 2e and 3x/PF are apples and oranges to a great degree.

Houserules change the game. But by the book or by my explanation, HP works the same - how could my perception be a 'houserule' when this 'houserule' has no mechanical difference whatsoever.

And as stated its semantics really, whether HP is actual damage or something else doesn't change how HP works in game, nor how damage works, nor how healing works. When I get to -10/-CON Score, I'm dead, in under whatever explanation you want to give it. So whether I believe it works differently than how you think it works - it doesn't change its effect in game. It works by either explanation.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to my point of view - really I could care less. As long as HP = some kind of loss, and total loss = death, it's no different by any explanation of specific details. Those details don't change my game, so it's really meaningless. Its all 'handwavium'.

 

[Mercurius]

Wow, this thread got out of hand (in terms of size). I can't possibly take the hour or two to read through every post, but I tried to skim through. Forgive me if I'm repeating a view already expressed.

The idea that Hit Points represent the capacity to withstand physical damage is, quite frankly, erroneous. It just doesn't make sense--the curve in every edition is too great (4E is a bit better because of higher starting HP, but still). In pretty much every edition, the designers have clearly stated that HP is *not* only the capacity to withstand physical damage, that it is a combination of factors including skill, endurance, vitality, etc.

Healing surges are based upon that assumption, and therefore make sense in the context of the rules as they are written. The only way they don't make sense and are "videogamey" is if HP represent physical damage capacity only, and the only way that HP represent physical damage capacity only is if a given DM and group decide to change the rules, or at least interpret it in a way that the rules were not intended. There is nothing wrong with that, but you end up in a pick-up-sticks situation: move one stick and everything else is impacted (or, in this case, doesn't make sense). Yes, if HP are physical damage capacity only, then healing surges don't make sense and/or are videogamey, but then also high HP totals don't make sense either, so I would suggest a reduction of HP altogether with some kind of size multiplier.

But the problem with this interpretation is that it is essentially a kind of category error, like saying "Mozart is crappy heavy metal." Mozart isn't heavy metal, wasn't intended to be heavy metal. Everyone has the right to categorize Mozart as he or she chooses, and certainly if one thinks of Mozart as heavy metal than his music will be rather crappy, but it is taking interpretation a bit far.

Of course that is a bit extreme, but its the same general idea.

[MENTION=26473]The Shaman[/MENTION] - I'm sorry that you were offended by my suggestions 1E and 2E were imperfect games, but I am not interested in the semantic game of "You're putting forth your personal opinion as if it is fact." That must be the most out-worn, over-used debate on the internet. Not interested in rehashing that for the umpteenth time.

[MENTION=18701]Oryan77[/MENTION] - First of all, I haven't been participating on EN World much over the last couple months, except the last week or so. But admittedly, yes, I like controversial topics. They tend to be interesting. I didn't start this to get people riled up; I was honestly curious as to why people don't like healing surges. I'm getting the sense that the dislike is largely based upon an idiosyncratic interpretation of the rules which leads to the category error I described above.

Now there are other reasons that some have stated for disliking healing surges that, imo, have more validity (because they don't "liberally interpret" HP)--for example, the fact that they contribute to the The Grind. That makes sense to me. But again, not liking healing surges because one interprets HP as physical damage capacity only is based upon an interpretation of the rules that isn't how the rules were written or intended.

 

[gamerprinter]

That's all fine. The question was why some people don't like healing surges. Not 'liking' something is a question of preference involving feelings. So why must the supporters of healing surges insist on some kind of exacting explanation on how it works 'between the rules'. No scientific explanation is going to make any kind of difference on my 'feelings' on this or that. It doesn't feel right to me, isn't that enough?

 

[DEFCON 1]

The reason why I've never considered hit point loss to be "real" damage or injury is because of the loss of versimilitude I see between D&D combat and "real" combat if I did.

In actually swordfighting... especially between highly armored individuals, you usually don't see actual real injury occur until one of them manages a killing blow. Instead, you see two guys getting bruised, getting tired, getting their bells rung, slowing down, perhaps get some small cuts across the face or arm... until finally someone manages to get their weapon past their opponent's defenses and cuts off a limb, or guts the other guy in the stomach or face. But once that happens, the fight is over.

Now for the guy who wins... he usually isn't massively injured, because if he was, he wouldn't have been able to continue fighting. His guard would have dropped, and he would have been the one to have received the killing blow (or the 'took such a catastrophic injury that he ain't getting up any time soon, if ever' blow.) Instead, he takes off his helmet, he regains his breath, he drinks some water, he maybe bandages some superficial wounds, and he then gets ready to continue on to the next battle. He never was actually hurt.

To me, that's swordfighting. Lots of superficial bruises and cuts until one to two massive blows occur that result in bodily shock, physical trauma, or immediate death. Each attack is not real injury, not real injury, not real injury, not real injury, not real injury, BOOM! SWORD TO THE FACE! And this is where I think the Healing Surge mechanic actually makes a little bit of sense.

Now you put this up against the D&D format, where if we assume that hit point loss is actual physical injury... you have a guy with 100 HPs taking anywhere from 3 to 15 physically damaging blows (attacks which cause hit point loss) over the course of an entire fight. To me, that seems patently ridiculous. Especially when at the end of a fight when a guy only has 5 HPs left, the only way he can regain those hit points is through magical healing potions or the blessed cures of a man of the cloth?

What kind of attacks were these things? Somehow deadly enough that they require magical healing to remove... but not deadly enough that the fighter could take 3 to 15 of them during the fight? Doesn't make sense. Sure, you might occasionally see a guy take a massive gouge to a non-critical part of the body (say, the thigh or something) that would ordinarily require surgery (or magical healing)... but that would only account for one of those 15 injurous attacks.

I dunno about anyone else... but if I see a swordfighter getting hit by a sword 15 times and is still fighting at full strength... those aren't causing actual physical injury (save for maybe one or two, plus the actual killing blow.) They just aren't. They're just bruising. They're just fatigue. They're just superficial loss of energy that you can get past by getting a Second Wind or a having a friend to tell you to Rub Some Dirt Into It.

So all in all... while the 4E doesn't take all parts of swordplay into account via hit points / healing surges... it's no more unrealistic than any of the other edition's damage systems. They're ALL abstractions. And thus you have to just accept them as game rules, rather than trying to mimic reality.

 

[Oryan77]

I am fully aware some groups regard HP as concrete. You are actively narrating against the rules, via any edition. The developers are NOT beholden to your against-the-rules-narration. DEAL WITH IT.

You're ok with the rules actively going against your narrating? Rules are a tool for me, they are not going to dictate my narrating.

I can use the hitpoint rule and narrate how it works just fine (regardless if people agree what HPs represent). You can't do that with healing surges without making all kinds of assumptions and contradicting your narrating. If I could make sense of it in my narrations (in a way I liked) then it wouldn't be ok. But rather than let it dictate how I narrate, I'd rather not use the rule at all. Especially because I don't need the rule unless I want D&D to be easier to win.

BTW, just because you bold lines of text doesn't mean you just proved how I'm playing D&D wrong. You don't need to do that. The "deal with it" comment was also unnecessary. You need to chill out if you're getting that upset just because I hate healing surges.

 

[NewJeffCT]

I had a discussion with a player about hit points years ago, I forget the edition. I explained that I felt that hit points represented more than just damage taken, it was also exhaustion and luck. The DMG at the time backed me up on that. His reply was that "Well, then if that poisoned blade didn't actually hit me, why do I need to Save vs Poison?"

I didn't have a good response to that, and I still don't.

Easy explanation on that one. A level one fighter gets hit by a poisoned sword and take 8 points of damage from the slashing gash the orc just opened from his hip to his armpit. He then needs to make a saving throw vs poison.

A level 10 fighter gets hit by a poisoned sword and gets nicked in the arm for 8 points of damage. However, since he was hit, he still has to make a save vs poison.

The difference is a huge gash on a level 1 fighter, vs a nick on a level 10 fighter, even though both attacks did the same damage.

I've been playing D&D since the late 70s now and have been DMing a 4E campaign for a bit over a year now and I'm still getting used to the idea of healing surges. I don't love how they work, but what I do love is that it really limits the 15 minute adventuring day - if the players have surges/reserves/hit-point-getter-backers or whatever you want to call them - the party can rest 5 minutes and press on and have access to all their at-will and encounter powers. In prior editions, it was one big combat a day and rest/recover and move out the next day.