I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Herremann the Wise]

What I'm confused by is what narrative has actually been lost.

Well you know the other thread...

I'm with Pentius. Why does the surge expenditure have to be narrated as "removing wounds"? Why can it not just be narrated as "ignoring wounds"?

I think most people do view it as ignoring rather than removing wounds. A wound naturally recovered (hps restored) from in 3 days is not completely healed but simply not capable of disrupting the capacity of the PC any more. It might take several weeks to fully scar over.

However, I find it difficult to narrate a serious wound if there is a significant chance that it can be practically "ignored" within the time it takes to have an extended rest (less than 24 hours and assuming no magical healing).

As a side thing, I like to think though that most divine magical healing doesn't leave a scar. However, for flavour I like druidic healing to restore healing BUT leave a scar but that's just my own flavour preference.

For NPCs, the GM can just stipulate that they are "still recovering". For PCs, it goes without saying (in 4e, at least) that they are heroic and therefore get up earlier than they should!

That's kind of boxing in character options a little if they are all so "heroic". Variety, spice, life and all that.

Agreed. Healing time is a red herring - it is a trivial house rule. The real contribution that surges make to the game is to dramatically change the dynamics of combat on the player side of the table.

I agree with this. The reason why perhaps it is such an "issue" for some (well at least me) is that hps and heaing has always bothered me in D&D and I keep getting drawn into these threads no matter how hard I try to ignore them. For others, it is just one of a long line of "gamist" issues with 4e that makes houseruling all of them difficult. Far easier to stick to a previous edition and highlight surges as one of the main issues I suppose.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Oryan77]

Hitpoints don't represent physical damage. But when you are half your hitpoints, you're "bloodied".

 

[Mallus]

Hitpoints don't represent physical damage. But when you are half your hitpoints, you're "bloodied".

You could look at it from the other side...

Hit points do represent physical damage, but when you lose half your hit points from a bunch of sword cuts or spear pokes, you don't bleed.

(unless your opponent was using a Sword of Wounding).

Both are equally silly. The difference is the first is New Silliness while the latter is Silliness Classic (which we've had years to get used to, and develop a taste for).

 

[The Shaman]

Variety, spice, life and all that.

I like my variety spicy!

 

[Mallus]

I like my variety spicy!

Have you tried Spanish-language television?

 

[Desdichado]

Although I've never played 4e, I adopted healing surges--somewhat--into my house-ruled 3e game by making them something you can do with Action Points. To me they aren't really too terribly unrealistic. Or rather--they aren't too terribly out of genre, I should say.

It's pretty much a staple of every good action movie I've ever seen that the protagonist is beat to within an inch of his life in one scene, and in the next (or heck, later in the same scene, often) he's up kicking butt and taking names as if nothing had happened other than that the actor is not covered in fake blood to simulate his earlier beating. If anything, it improves protagonist performance to have been beat to within an inch of your life. It works even better if right before finishing the protagonist off, the antagonist makes some kind of smarmy remark that pisses the protagonist off.

Since a good action movie is often the genre and vibe I'd like my games to represent, I naturally saw healing surges as a valuable tool to emulate this curious convention of the genre. And since I've pretty much house-ruled away a lot of the magical healing that standard D&D would assume, it also has a gamist/strategic element too--it keeps the game from bogging down while the PCs sit around for weeks healing after every major fight.

Also, my games are strictly low-level to low-mid-level games anyway. In fact, I've toyed with officially adopting an E6 tophat, although it seems a bit of a moot point because my games tend to 1) have slowed advancement, and 2) not be open-ended, so they end before it becomes an issue anyway.

 

[JamesonCourage]

For NPCs, the GM can just stipulate that they are "still recovering". For PCs, it goes without saying (in 4e, at least) that they are heroic and therefore get up earlier than they should!

This doesn't address my problem with PCs getting up every day with wounds they can always completely brush off without external healing. That bugs me, because you're losing a lot of potential narrative paths by that always happening.

As I've expressed before, I've probably had 8-10 different instances of long recovery significantly shaping the story over the past year. The party waits while someone is healed, or waits for a healer to arrive, or goes looking for a missing and injured party member, etc., and while this happens, NPCs progress with their plans, nations send forces to fight the demons that the players should (wasting resources), a fortress falls (or tightens security too much to handle), etc.

I feel these narratives paths are lost, where they were open before. Mind you, quick healing isn't the biggest culprit here (I'd peg long range teleportation), but it's a large contributing factor, and thus my complaint. It's cool if it's not a problem for other people, but it is for me. As always, though, play what you like

 

[Mort]

This doesn't address my problem with PCs getting up every day with wounds they can always completely brush off without external healing. That bugs me, because you're losing a lot of potential narrative paths by that always happening.

As I've expressed before, I've probably had 8-10 different instances of long recovery significantly shaping the story over the past year. The party waits while someone is healed, or waits for a healer to arrive, or goes looking for a missing and injured party member, etc., and while this happens, NPCs progress with their plans, nations send forces to fight the demons that the players should (wasting resources), a fortress falls (or tightens security too much to handle), etc.

I feel these narratives paths are lost, where they were open before. Mind you, quick healing isn't the biggest culprit here (I'd peg long range teleportation), but it's a large contributing factor, and thus my complaint. It's cool if it's not a problem for other people, but it is for me. As always, though, play what you like

But this is easy, realy easy, to deal with in 4e. Just introduce more diseases and the like (I mentioned this in a prior post but it's a long thread).

Easy example - filth fever. Group gets into a fight in a filthy sewer. Every time a PC takes damage there's a chance they contract filth fever (save at the end if fail = filth fever). Suddenly resting becomes a gamble. Rest and fail an endurance check? You now have -2 to AC, Fortitude and reflex. Try to rest again without treatment (which is harder in 4e than 3e) and fail another endurance check - lose all healing surges (and cannot regain HPs) - until treated (likely through a remove disease ritual).

Or how about - Rusty Paralysis (from a Dragon magazine) - if cut by rusty metal - need to save. If fail - lose a healing surge and the disease starts. If fail endurance check after a rest -2 to attack rolls and cannot spend healing surges. Final stage -you're restrained.

Point being - it's pretty easy to introduce lasting problems/damage that the party has to deal with in 4e (heck I did this a few sessions ago, the party, lacking a healer, had to track one down).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But this is easy, realy easy, to deal with in 4e. Just introduce more diseases and the like (I mentioned this in a prior post but it's a long thread).

No- one should not have to introduce diseases as a method of maintaining the narrative of lingering effects from 2 handed sword wounds.

 

[Mort]

No- one should not have to introduce diseases as a method of maintaining the narrative of lingering effects from 2 handed sword wounds.

Disease, condition - whatever - its a mechanic. Want more realism? Don't call it a disease; just call it a consequence of getting hit by a big sword and have the save happen all the time (or if damage above a certain amount is taken, or whatever - set the condition to what you like).

Personaly, I don't like it to be the default condition as I don't usually like things that grim and gritty - doesn't mean it's not easy to do.