I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Bedrockgames]

Well, let's look at what 4e ACTUALLY says about hit points:



Always useful to actually go to the source. The SRD is so abbreviated, that it becomes quite misleading in conversations like these.

I think this largely boils down to some people can buy that definition and other people have a harder time with it. This is all preference at this stage. If you like healing surges you like them; if you don't, you don't. Like all 4E debates it pretty much is that simple. Nothing I can say will convince Hussar to adopt my preferences (nor should it) and nothing Hussar can say will convince me to adopt his. This thread has gone on for a great length of time. I do not believe anyone has changed their mind in that time.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Uhm... no. We didn't start a thread called "Hey, I don't understand why you guys like healing surges..."

I'm not making any pretense about trying to understand why you guys like them, I can accept that you do for your own reasons (the logic of which makes no difference to me)...but that's as far as it goes. What I don't get is why people who like them come rushing into a thread asking why others don't, to defend and try to get them to see the error of their ways....

Well, let's be honest here, Imaro... I was in this thread a full two pages before you showed up... so you aren't exactly the best person to complain about "rushing into a thread"...

If Dannyalcatraz, Dausuul or Oryan77 got bent out of shape about us talking the other side of the thread they've been posting since the beginning... then maybe I'd concur. You don't get to claim ownership though.

 

[Bagpuss]

A game with them reminds me of the movie the Last Action Hero -- if the hero is alive, it's only a flesh wound.

D&D has always had that though a character on 1 hp is as effective as one on 30hp or 100hp.

Sure you us to have to have magical healing or lots of time to recover, but wounds never effected your performance like they do in most other systems.

 

[Imaro]

Well, let's be honest here, Imaro... I was in this thread a full two pages before you showed up... so you aren't exactly the best person to complain about "rushing into a thread"...

If Dannyalcatraz, Dausuul or Oryan77 got bent out of shape about us talking the other side of the thread they've been posting since the beginning... then maybe I'd concur. You don't get to claim ownership though.

Hey... you asked a question and I gave you an honest answer. I feel like this always happens in threads where someone is curious about why certain people don't like a particular aspect of 4e.

Reasons for not liking somethinng are posted in good faith in the thread... but really there's no effort of trying to understand it's more an opportunity for those who like whatever aspect of 4e we are discussing to rush in and tell all those who don't like that particular aspect why they should (very few posters try to understand the issues peole have and suggest ways to change 4e to suit their tastes)... it's pointless and tiring... and in all honesty has done more to put me off 4e than the actual game has.

A prime example is the grind and length of combat, the suggestions from posters on how to fix it has made 4e at least a little more palatable for me and my group.... telling me I'm imagining it or that if I dealt with the combat of earlier editions I should accept it in no way helps and in fact irritates me more. But hey to each his own.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Hey... you asked a question and I gave you an honest answer. I feel like this always happens in threads where someone is curious about why certain people don't like a particular aspect of 4e.

Reasons for not liking somethinng are posted in good faith in the thread... but really there's no effort of trying to understand it's more an opportunity for those who like whatever aspect of 4e we are discussing to rush in and tell all those who don't like that particular aspect why they should (very few posters try to understand the issues peole have and suggest ways to change 4e to suit their tastes)... it's pointless and tiring... and in all honesty has done more to put me off 4e than the actual game has.

A prime example is the grind and length of combat, the suggestions from posters on how to fix it has made 4e at least a little more palatable for me and my group.... telling me I'm imagining it or that if I dealt with the combat of earlier editions I should accept it in no way helps and in fact irritates me more. But hey to each his own.

I think this is a big problem with these threads on 3E, 4E, etc. I assume the OP wants some insight into why some people don't like healing surges. But there will be no insight if posters give the reason for their preference, but are told their preference is wrong and a debate ensues. I also just don't get the point of these kinds of back and forth anymore.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think this is a big problem with these threads on 3E, 4E, etc. I assume the OP wants some insight into why some people don't like healing surges. But there will be no insight if posters give the reason for their preference, but are told their preference is wrong and a debate ensues. I also just don't get the point of these kinds of back and forth anymore.

But what's wrong with debate? Debate is good. Debate allows you to make your points and then see the other side, perhaps even expanding your own vision on the subject.

What would you prefer to have? People come on here, say their one piece of why they don't like healing surges, and that's it? The thread would pretty much have died out 6 pages ago because once you make that single post explaining why you don't like it... there's nothing more to say. A dozen people rant for a paragraph, and then the thread goes away. What would be the point?

The fact that someone on the other side of the question asked the question in the first place pretty much presumes that there will be discussion on the subject. The fact that people responded to him tells us that those who didn't like healing surges CARED ENOUGH about their opinions to try and make a point to someone who didn't hold the same.

This wasn't someone posting "I hate healing surges, who's with me?" and then getting a response from like-minded individuals. This was someone on the other side asking a question TO GENERATE CONVERSATION. So really... it's your side that resulted in all the debate in the first place... because your side felt the desire to respond to Mercurius with your opinions. And don't get bent out of shape just because others on Mercurius' side felt like adding their voices to it.

If you didn't care to have the conversation, you wouldn't have taken Mercurius up on his question.

 

[Nagol]

D&D has always had that though a character on 1 hp is as effective as one on 30hp or 100hp.

Sure you us to have to have magical healing or lots of time to recover, but wounds never effected your performance like they do in most other systems.

It is true D&D always avoided the general combat death spiral, but not necessarily all aspects of "It's only a flesh wound!" situation. One of my complaints with healing surges is the game device that below 0 your dying and as soon as you wake up it is a flesh wound and a few deep breaths and about 10 minutes or recovery and you'll be fine. A good night's rest puts you back to the peak of health -- unless you're diseased, of course. This is even better than the deal many of the cinematic good guys get - John McClane in Die Hard has the persistent foot damage and is certainly showing wear and tear overall by the end of the movie, for instance.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it hasn't always been this case. 1e had the rule where if you fell below 0 then it was a BAD BAD thing and successful groups fought long and hard to keep people conscious and devise situations where the group was in control of the battelfield because the consequences could be so dire.

3e loosened the consequences, but even in it there certainly have been a bunch of times at my table where the group did not heal overnight because the damage outclassed their healing capability or they taken damage that wouldn't heal (ability damage/drain, vargiulle'skiss, whatever) and pressed on regardless in the morning because the party goals demanded it.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

What would you prefer to have? People come on here, say their one piece of why they don't like healing surges, and that's it? The thread would pretty much have died out 6 pages ago because once you make that single post explaining why you don't like it... there's nothing more to say. A dozen people rant for a paragraph, and then the thread goes away. What would be the point?

<snip>

Yes; that's exactly what I'd like. people come on, say their piece perhaps a request for clarity or further exposition if the original wasn't sufficient. Perhaps pointing out when their rationale is objectively incorrect, i.e. I don't like chocolate ice cream because I hate its pink colour -- perhaps you meant strawberry? Chocolate is brown).

What I don't like is people jumping on and saying "I played the game for X years and I've never experienced that! It's always worked like this for me!" or "It's works fine so long as you squint like this, don't think of that, and go with the flow!" I'm sure their viewpoints and experiences are true. However, they don't match mine.


*EDIT*

I come into the threads that ask for my experience to provide it, not to debate the validity of that experience.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But what's wrong with debate? Debate is good. Debate allows you to make your points and then see the other side, perhaps even expanding your own vision on the subject.

There is nothing wrong with a debate. But if someone is just asking "hey why are healing surges a problem for you", I don't think the best response to replies is to aggressively grill the people. The problem is people are debating preferences the same way they would debate facts. There are definitely threads where I think a debate about healing surges would be fine (though like I said these debates pretty much amount to nothing in the end). But the thread topic really seems more like a clarfication issue. Sort of like if I made a thread called "People who like 4E, help me understand your enjoyment of the edition." It wouldn't make much sense to jump on the posters who respond and get into a debate over 4E versus 3E. One certainly could do that, but it won't address the OPs original question really.

This wasn't someone posting "I hate healing surges, who's with me?" and then getting a response from like-minded individuals. This was someone on the other side asking a question TO GENERATE CONVERSATION. So really... it's your side that resulted in all the debate in the first place... because your side felt the desire to respond to Mercurius with your opinions. And don't get bent out of shape just because others on Mercurius' side felt like adding their voices to it.

The the "I hate healing surges, who is with me" thread souds like a much more appropriate platform for heated debate. If you disagree with the thread title you are going to want to put in your two cents. This thread is more "help me understand why you don't like healing surges" IMO.

I am actually not getting bent out of shape at all (check out my posts I've been pretty calm). It doesn't bother me that people don't share my opinions. I am just agreeing with another poster's observation that it is not very productive to have a thread about clarifying the reason for the negative response toward healing surges to become a debate about healing surges.

 

[Hussar]

It is true D&D always avoided the general combat death spiral, but not necessarily all aspects of "It's only a flesh wound!" situation. One of my complaints with healing surges is the game device that below 0 your dying and as soon as you wake up it is a flesh wound and a few deep breaths and about 10 minutes or recovery and you'll be fine. A good night's rest puts you back to the peak of health -- unless you're diseased, of course. This is even better than the deal many of the cinematic good guys get - John McClane in Die Hard has the persistent foot damage and is certainly showing wear and tear overall by the end of the movie, for instance.

As I pointed out earlier in the thread, it hasn't always been this case. 1e had the rule where if you fell below 0 then it was a BAD BAD thing and successful groups fought long and hard to keep people conscious and devise situations where the group was in control of the battelfield because the consequences could be so dire.

3e loosened the consequences, but even in it there certainly have been a bunch of times at my table where the group did not heal overnight because the damage outclassed their healing capability or they taken damage that wouldn't heal (ability damage/drain, vargiulle'skiss, whatever) and pressed on regardless in the morning because the party goals demanded it.

I can see why that would trip people up. To be honest, it's never really been a consideration in my groups because we stopped playing 1e 20 years ago. Since then, it's been, "Drop below 0 hp, the cleric steps in and hits you with cure light wounds and you're fresh as rain again."

And, depending on the edition, it was either a matter of a few minutes, or perhaps a day or two of rest and the cleric had all your hp's restored to you again. So, again, this specific point isn't one where I see a huge difference. Does it really matter that I'm right as rain the next day because the cleric healed me or because the game mechanics allow me to regain hp's that fast? At the end of the day (or rather, at the start of the next one. ) I've still got all my hp's back and I'm good to go.

I guess I just look at the results. How we got there just doesn't really matter to me.

But I can totally grok that other people care about the process. So, yeah, if the process really bugs you, then 4e is not going to do it for you.