I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Crazy Jerome]

I love painted ponies and the sound of calliope music.

I once did. Then I read American Gods.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I once did. Then I read American Gods.

Read it, loved it, and STILL love painted ponies & calliope music!

 

[pemerton]

A "fix"?

<snip proposal>

Might this address some/the rest/all of the wonkiness of 3e hp?

If it does, does it also address some/the rest/all of the wonkiness of 4e hp?

If I've followed it properly, your proposal interacts with the negative hit point aspect of the game, and the death and dying rules.

Because these are very different in 4e from what they are in 3E (which is, in turn, different from but closer to AD&D), I suspect that your "fix", even if it "worked" for 3E, wouldn't fit with 4e. (I'm scare-quoting "fix" and "work" because personally I find that 4e works fine and doesn't produce wonkiness - but also doesn't produce wounds, as I've explained above.)

I think the problem comes when people investigate it in-game.

<snip>

If someone is injured, the guy with the Heal skill will stop in combat to assess someone's wounds before he makes a decision on continuing to fight or trying to heal them. If that happens, as far as I can tell, you have to say, "well, you don't know, it could go either way" (no matter how epicly trained they are), or you have to commit and possibly retcon.

It is impossible to make a meaningful decision regarding your friend's injuries (or lack thereof) because that information doesn't exist.

This isn't true. You know you friend has dropped. You can choose to inspect the wound. If you do, spend a standard action and make a Heal check. On a successful check, you learn that the wound is not too serious (because your friend is stable). On a failed check, you're not sure but are worried (because your friend must keep making death saves).

There is no barrier to meaningful decisions, and there is no need to retcon.

I'm just trying to figure out why players are trying to defend the surges as making sense in the narrative when they never were put in place as anything other than a way to expedite healing so that the characters can go on adventuring.

In my case, because (i) I'm not persuaded that the 4e designers are uninterested in narration of the fiction, given posts that were being made by designers at the time (eg Chris Sims on these forums), and given the obvious influence of indie design on 4e, and (ii) I personally am interested in having a coherent fiction in my game, and have not had any trouble incorporating healing surges into that.

 

[JamesonCourage]

This isn't true. You know you friend has dropped. You can choose to inspect the wound. If you do, spend a standard action and make a Heal check. On a successful check, you learn that the wound is not too serious (because your friend is stable). On a failed check, you're not sure but are worried (because your friend must keep making death saves).

There is no barrier to meaningful decisions, and there is no need to retcon.

Is this explicitly explained in the Heal rules, and, if so, can you produce them? I'm not familiar enough with 4e.

If I'm clear on how it works, after a skirmish, the party healer can walk around inspecting enemy bodies for survivors (he's not trying to heal them, just see if they're alive). If he makes his successful Heal check to determine their health, then they're stabilized? This seems unlikely within the rules, which is why I ask if they're expressed as such explicitly.

Edit: All I've found is the following:

Heal
You know how to help someone recover from wounds or debilitating conditions, including disease.
First Aid
Make a Heal check to administer first aid.
First Aid: Standard action.
✦ DC: Varies depending on the task you’re attempting.
✦ Stabilize the Dying: Make a DC 15 Heal check to stabilize an adjacent dying character. If you succeed, the character can stop making death saving throws until he or she takes damage. The character’s current hit point total doesn’t change as a result of being stabilized.

 

[pemerton]

The rules I describe apply to allies. And you've stated them in your post. The dying condition doesn't apply to monster and NPCs, only to PCs, so your question about inspecting enemies doesn't really apply. (This is a particular instance of the more general point that 4e's healing mechanics in general apply only to PCs.)

When a PC drops an enemy to 0 hp, the player gets to specify whether or not the enemy is dead or merely unconscious. Another PC could inspect the enemy fallen to see whether they are dead or unconscious - the DC for this is not specified in the rules that I can recall, but I would think it is a pretty easy check. But it does not give rise to any Schrodinger/retcon issues either. The status of the NPC is determined when the final blow is struck, and it is this status that an inspecting PC would determine.

 

[BryonD]

Again, this is where I'm puzzled. Why not just say it's a deep gash?

When the healing surge is expended, the gash doesn't go away. The extent to which it impedes the character's performance (ie not at all) doesn't change. All that the expenditure of the healing surge does is change the likelihood that any future blow will be a (near-)fatal one. Which is all about restoring luck and heroic verve, not about clotting wounds.

It's true that this means the existence of the gash has no immediate mechanical significance (just like the scuffing of my armour in combat has no immediate mechanical significance). Or cousre, it might have indirect mechanical significance - for example, if the gash has been narrated, and then the PC jumps into a drain without mentioning any cleaning or dressing of the wound, the GM might require a save to avoid filth fever (just like, if the PCs have a big fight and then go into a skill challenge with the duke without mentioning any cleaning or polishing of themselves and their gear, the GM might impose penalties to diplomacy checks).

But the lost hit points in 3E have no direct mechanical significance either. They don't impede the character's performance. All they do is make it more likely that a future blow will be (near-)fatal. Which means they represent only a loss of luck/verve, not a physical impedence.

How quickly should heroic verve recover? I don't know - that looks to me like a pacing issue, and different tables and different games might want to answer it differently. But I can't see how it has anything to do with the narration of the inflicting of, and the recovery from, wounds.

I don't think you are considering both sides of the coin.

I don't have an argument with your analysis of HP mechanically.
But again, months ago I was debating with you about the concept of whether the story follows the mechanics or the mechanics follow the story.

You are saying: here is what the mechanics say, now I will make up a story to fit that.

I want to say: here is what the story says, now I want to mechanics to model the results.

When you put the mechanics first, elements of the narrative become ruled out. That isn't to say that you can't still create a valid narrative omitting those parts. But, at least to some of us, simply being a valid narrative doe not make it the most enjoyable possible experience.

Before I sit down at the table I already know that the character are going to be in battles and, sometimes, they are going to receive wounds that require medical care. Some fights they will get out of without needing any care. And I can happily describe those in the same style that you are advocating.

But what you are saying is that because you can always describe why no care is needed, the fact that care is never needed isn't a problem.

To me this missed the point. And I'm not speaking of the point of this debate, I'm speaking of the point of why *I* play the game. I want that complete range of narrative. If the game doesn't include the need for actual care at certain points, I'm going to find that game to be very unsatisfactory for my desires.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The rules I describe apply to allies. And you've stated them in your post. The dying condition doesn't apply to monster and NPCs, only to PCs, so your question about inspecting enemies doesn't really apply. (This is a particular instance of the more general point that 4e's healing mechanics in general apply only to PCs.)

I don't see this getting resolved in our conversation, because if those rules I posted are correct, then it's very clear to me that you're house ruling in favor of narrative coherence. While I understand the motive, I dislike that it needs to be house ruled to achieve.

That is, if I want to "check" an ally, it doesn't mean I want to start to stabilize him. You say that the "stabilize the dying" action covers the narrative portion of checking a creature, where the mechanics disagree (as far as I can tell). This specific action seems intent on stopping the character from making death saving throws. I was asking about merely inspecting the wound, and nothing more.

To that end, I still hold that you've house ruled it as one and the same, "you didn't patch them up, you just discovered that they aren't bleeding out." I have two issues with this.
(1) It's a house rule "fix" to what I think shouldn't need to be fixed in the game.
(2) It's restrictive. It forces the player out of "actor stance" and into a place where he needs to narrate the fiction he wishes. To a group that wants to stay immersed, this is jarring enough to pull you out of a deep immersion state. If I checked on another PC to see if he was okay, and I heard, "do you want him to be stabilized?" I'd say, "uh, I was just curious if he was." I was taking an information-gathering action, and nothing more. I wasn't trying to shape the story other than by having my character investigate, and that's been taken away. By having a separate action that allows you to investigate in-game, you leave both avenues open. That is, you can investigate in-game (and stay in-character), or you can attempt to stabilize someone (and flavor it as in-game or from a more story perspective ["after inspecting him, you find out he's going to be fine."]).

To that end, can't you basically attempt to "stunt" or the like with skills with page 42? Shouldn't this cover areas that skills don't explicitly cover (like checking to see the physical state of a downed character)? If so, couldn't that be used to check the character in-game? And, if the above is true, wouldn't that produce the Schrodinger's Wound problem?

In other words, I think it leads back to being a problem to people that prefer to remain immersed in the game. If you don't mind getting pulled out of immersion (that's not to say the story or the game), it's probably fine (or even great). To others, I still hold that it's a problem.

When a PC drops an enemy to 0 hp, the player gets to specify whether or not the enemy is dead or merely unconscious. Another PC could inspect the enemy fallen to see whether they are dead or unconscious - the DC for this is not specified in the rules that I can recall, but I would think it is a pretty easy check. But it does not give rise to any Schrodinger/retcon issues either. The status of the NPC is determined when the final blow is struck, and it is this status that an inspecting PC would determine.

I don't like that there's no wiggle room for NPCs (they're either unconscious or dead, not ever bleeding out), but that's just preference on my part (narrative paths and all that). So, fair enough on the mechanics (I assumed it applied to more since it referred to "characters", but that was my mistake).

As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

you're house ruling in favor of narrative coherence.

<snip>

I have two issues with this.
(1) It's a house rule "fix" to what I think shouldn't need to be fixed in the game.
(2) It's restrictive. It forces the player out of "actor stance" and into a place where he needs to narrate the fiction he wishes. To a group that wants to stay immersed, this is jarring enough to pull you out of a deep immersion state. If I checked on another PC to see if he was okay, and I heard, "do you want him to be stabilized?" I'd say, "uh, I was just curious if he was." I was taking an information-gathering action, and nothing more.

I've frequently expressed the view that the 4e rules aren't as well-expressed as they might be. This is one such case. But I don't think that drifting a slightly abashed ruleset so as to make it coherent is very serious house-ruling. Others may think differently - apparently you're one of them!

I don't really agree on the actor-stance point: the player says "I want to check", the GM says "Roll a Heal check", and based on the result of the check replies as appropriate: either the inspecting PC sees a stable, non-fatal wound, or is unsure but concerned.

That said, my general view, frequently expressed on these forums, is that 4e isn't aimed at those who want to play the game solely in actor stance. It encourages players to take some self-conscious responsibility for shaping the fiction.

If the game doesn't include the need for actual care at certain points, I'm going to find that game to be very unsatisfactory for my desires.

I can see that. 4e is very heroic/cinemtic/gonzo in this respect.

But again, months ago I was debating with you about the concept of whether the story follows the mechanics or the mechanics follow the story.

You are saying: here is what the mechanics say, now I will make up a story to fit that.

I want to say: here is what the story says, now I want to mechanics to model the results.

On the other hand, I don't really feel the force of this way of putting it, because (like Hussar) I want to say: in AD&D or 3E the mechanics also determine the story (eg if the damage roll is a fatal amount of hp, they dictate that the story is one about someone being killed).

Which is not to deny the contrast between 4e's rules and 3E's rules. My thoughts on that contrast are in the thread I started on Monte Cook's account of the role of rules. (I think it is still on the front page.)

 

[BryonD]

On the other hand, I don't really feel the force of this way of putting it, because (like Hussar) I want to say: in AD&D or 3E the mechanics also determine the story (eg if the damage roll is a fatal amount of hp, they dictate that the story is one about someone being killed).

I don't see that as remotely equivalent.

A giant's club has different dice than a goblin's short sword. And those dice are informed by the intrinsic narrative qualities of the giant as opposed to the goblin. Allowing a random range of outcomes within that narrative definition does nothing to undo the fact that it is still soundly based on the narrative concept.

In the same manner the fighter's chance to hit the ogre is defined by the narrative concept of the fighter and the ogre. And the narrative concept of a 14th level fighter is distinctly different than the narrative concept of a 1st level fighter. That the 14th level fighter MIGHT miss and the 1st level fighter MIGHT hit are not details that need to be predetermined. It is that the chance of these happenings are acceptable to the players that is important and the differences in the chances are appropriate to the narrative instructions.

The idea that a fighter may never receive a wound that requires medical aid is a mechanical dictate that resides outside the range of narrative expectations.

In my games the ranges of the possible are defined by the narrative*, the mechanics just decide where. Surges trump narrative in defining the range of possibilities. (And this is not the only place in 4E in which this happens)

* - I don't challenge the notion that you can present elements of 3E that don't do a great job of meeting my standard. But I avoid or houserule those elements and I'm always open to better ideas. If surges WERE the only issue like this in 4E AND they were less fundamental to the system, I'd just as happily play 4E and house rule them out. But, this thread is about dislike of surges, so saying that I'd would play 4E without surges in that alternate universe really changes nothing I've said in this thread.


also interestingly:

I can see that. 4e is very heroic/cinemtic/gonzo in this respect.

I've got no argument for your choice of terms in this context.

But it is interesting to note that my point has been that 4E FAILS, to me, in meeting the "cinematic" standard. And several surge defenders have told me that "of course it doesn't", because fiction has different needs and expectations that it would be bad form for D&D to consider trying to match.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I've frequently expressed the view that the 4e rules aren't as well-expressed as they might be. This is one such case. But I don't think that drifting a slightly abashed ruleset so as to make it coherent is very serious house-ruling. Others may think differently - apparently you're one of them!

I don't like a system that begs a house rule to help fill in a potential narrative conflict. I'd rather the system deal with it.

That said, I'm a big fan of systems that really help you "house rule", and things like page 42 are very nice (in my opinion).

I don't really agree on the actor-stance point: the player says "I want to check", the GM says "Roll a Heal check", and based on the result of the check replies as appropriate: either the inspecting PC sees a stable, non-fatal wound, or is unsure but concerned.

Again, though, if it was me, I'd be a little annoyed (not greatly or anything) that the check was being used in a way I didn't intend it to be used. I'm trying to investigate the game as it currently stands, and my investigation is altering the past fiction (just how bad the wound was) based off of my investigation. To an extent, I'd consider this nearly retconning (nothing has actually been replaced, but past fiction is now being filled in).

That said, my general view, frequently expressed on these forums, is that 4e isn't aimed at those who want to play the game solely in actor stance. It encourages players to take some self-conscious responsibility for shaping the fiction.

That's probably very true. As I said, though, it's going to justifiably cause some people to dislike the way the game operates. This happens no matter what (your view of 3.X mechanics did the same), but it boils down to preference more than what's "right" or "wrong". Which leads me, of course, to play what you like