Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I could be wrong but I believe you suggested changing the timeframe. For healing surges to be believable for me they would at least need to take a day (minimum). That is a major change since the whole point of them is to give players access to easy and quick healing.

Yeah, that was a mistake on my part. The point of healing surges isn't quick, easy access to healing. It's to limit the amount of healing a character can receive in a day.

The short rest thing has me stumped though. I mean natural healing doesn't scale and would take a hell of a long time. I suppose, now that I think about it, I don't think that narrative time really matters. If a character potentially has to take months of natural healing to achieve what extended rests do then it's going to be a very slow campaign or healing narratives will be mostly hand-waived.

I would image that extended rests are more supportive of pace than natural healing is.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Yeah, that was a mistake on my part. The point of healing surges isn't quick, easy access to healing. It's to limit the amount of healing a character can receive in a day.

Sorry about that. Missed your correction. Interesting point of view here. Have to say though I've always viewed Healing Surges as much the opposite, expanding healing so characters without access to magic can heal themselves during and directly after combat (something a fighter or rogue just couldn't do in 3E unless he had a healing potion or something).

The short rest thing has me stumped though. I mean natural healing doesn't scale and would take a hell of a long time. I suppose, now that I think about it, I don't think that narrative time really matters. If a character potentially has to take months of natural healing to achieve what extended rests do then it's going to be a very slow campaign or healing narratives will be mostly hand-waived.

I find that 3E natural healing struck a happy medium for most of our groups. Eventually obtaining some divine healing would enable you to get around the sumbling block of being sidelined, but until that point me and my players felt some modicum of believability was maintained (if in a simplified and accelerated form). Handwaiving an injury by making it take a day to a week to heal (sometimes longer) is something I am fine with when the party doesn't have access to supernatural healing.

I would image that extended rests are more supportive of pace than natural healing is.

I think that is the point. Though in 3E a high level character could recover somewhat quickly each day as level factored in. They just couldn't heal that in an hour or a round.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Let's just stick to narrative space outside of combat for now, since that is what your example illustrates. So war tactics are intellectual rather than experiential?

I would say both are influential. I would not wish to exclude either as a viable option.

If a non-martial class can not perform any notable feat of martial based action then how can an arcane wizard have any notable knowledge about something covered in the martial power source, namely the warlord's bread and butter?

Usually I would frame a war council in terms of a skill challenge (as much as I don't want to go down the path of skill challenges and their merits and issues). I think that a wizard's intelligence (or any PCs intelligence for that matter) and perhaps even arcane knowledge could be of value in this setting among other skill possibilities- it depends upon circumstances obviously. As significant as a warlord's knowledge and influence? Perhaps not. As significant as the warlord's actions in combat? Nowhere near.

Those limitations are not set by the rules. Healing surges aren't explicit, your assumptions have put those limitations there. Which was my motivation for the initial reply to ByronD's post.

The question then is this: can you isolate healing surges to such a point that they are divorced from the rules that govern their employment? From what you seem to be suggesting, your answer is yes while mine (and others) is no. A further quote highlights your thinking here:

What the phb says doesn't stop you from making it a day in narrative, if that's your thing.

This is what I was getting at before between the loose style I was attributing to you (or at the very least the style you were using to make your point) and the tighter style of play (RAW for want of less course terminology) that my group generally follows. The rules specifically govern the employment of surges and the rest of the rules and expectations of 4e are built around this government. While you may suggest a method of playing around with that, changing the rules as written to fit the narrative is possible but generally not preferable for me (and it would seem others as well).

Now if you extend healing time out as you suggest, this affects many of the assumptions that the 4e rules make about play. If I'm running a module built upon these expectations, then this houserule you suggest throws that slightly out of whack. As a fairly proficient DM, I can handle this but obviously the more I play around with the rules, the less secure is my use of "official" product and the more prep required to iron out the wrinkles.

And so I think I see where the disagreement lies between you and I (if not others). It is not so much on the surge mechanic itself which in many respects I like and see promise in, but the rules surrounding it. We both agree that if these rules are changed to fit the narrative "traditionalists" are after, then surges can work very well. I would posit that the three changes I suggested upthread turn the 4e healing rules into something that I find clearly superior to 3e RAW.

But really that is not what this thread is about. This thread is about the spectrum of damage descriptions available to both the 3e and 4e DM using the rules as presented and the narrative inconsistencies that those rules may produce and the resulting confidence this gives DMs to fully explore that spectrum. For myself, the results are conclusive with only the degree varying depending upon playstyle. This is obviously not to say that one set of rules is objectively superior to the other as this really comes down to personal preference as to which ruleset most easily supports (or can be adapted to) your playstyle.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

....
This is what I was getting at before between the loose style I was attributing to you (or at the very least the style you were using to make your point) and the tighter style of play (RAW for want of less course terminology) that my group generally follows. The rules specifically govern the employment of surges and the rest of the rules and expectations of 4e are built around this government. While you may suggest a method of playing around with that, changing the rules as written to fit the narrative is possible but generally not preferable for me (and it would seem others as well).

Now if you extend healing time out as you suggest, this affects many of the assumptions that the 4e rules make about play. If I'm running a module built upon these expectations, then this houserule you suggest throws that slightly out of whack. As a fairly proficient DM, I can handle this but obviously the more I play around with the rules, the less secure is my use of "official" product and the more prep required to iron out the wrinkles.

So you are willing to stretch the mechanics to fit the wizard's tactical knowledge in war but healing surges are out of the question? It also doesn't matter how significant the wizard is in combat comparatively because you alluded that a wizard could never achieve anything notable because they are from a different power source. Which I find a hard claim to follow.

I understand what you mean now however, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you follow 3e RAW. You don't make any alternations to the rules what-so-ever? In any situation? What I'm getting is, you have a hard time incorporating healing surges because you don't want to while claiming that its because you stick to RAW, is that right?

So, 3E modules take into consideration that players will sideline themselves for weeks at a time to heal naturally? I don't natural healing was apart of play assumptions either but that doesn't stop people from bending and sometimes breaking believability to achieve this.

 

[Bedrockgames]

So, 3E modules take into consideration that players will sideline themselves for weeks at a time to heal naturally? I don't natural healing was apart of play assumptions either but that doesn't stop people from bending and sometimes breaking believability to achieve this.

Generally it wouldn't take weeks (I don't have the PHB in front of me but would need to take a look to crunch some possible numbers for you). And it could easily be overcome if they gained access to magical healing (though items, potions, or clerics). But in my group we never bent the rule when they didn't have access to these things and had to heal naturally. I think for us it was an important part of suspension of disbelief. If the guy who was just mauled down to 5 HP, could just get up without the intervention of something exceptional like magic, it just hurt our immersion in the game.

In other instances, we broke from RAW where we felt it could be improved. For example many in the group felt the Intimidate Skill should be based on STR rather than CHR, and we made that adjustment for our games. I think for us though, the tweaks were always in the direction of our sense of believability.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Generally it wouldn't take weeks (I don't have the PHB in front of me but would need to take a look to crunch some possible numbers for you). And it could easily be overcome if they gained access to magical healing (though items, potions, or clerics). But in my group we never bent the rule when they didn't have access to these things and had to heal naturally. I think for us it was an important part of suspension of disbelief. If the guy who was just mauled down to 5 HP, could just get up without the intervention of something exceptional like magic, it just hurt our immersion in the game.

In other instances, we broke from RAW where we felt it could be improved. For example many in the group felt the Intimidate Skill should be based on STR rather than CHR, and we made that adjustment for our games. I think for us though, the tweaks were always in the direction of our sense of believability.

From memory, keep in mind I haven't played since 05, natural healing is 1hp for every 2 levels every 24 hours of rest. So, perhaps not weeks, although that is plausible, 2-4 days at least. Would that be fair? That's still alot of time to be sidelined in a module. So having the stumble around the believability of the plot didn't ruin your immersion? I think it'd be a stretch to say that any goal the PCs faced in those days of natural healing has not moved or changed in some very important way. In which case, the players would be tripping over plot lines in order to make healing more believable. Either way, you are sacrificing plausibility in an abstract game.

So you're willing to make adjustments for your sense of believability, just not with rules for short and extended rests?

 

[Bedrockgames]

From memory, keep in mind I haven't played since 05, natural healing is 1hp for every 2 levels every 24 hours of rest. So, perhaps not weeks, although that is plausible, 2-4 days at least. Would that be fair? That's still alot of time to be sidelined in a module. So having the stumble around the believability of the plot didn't ruin your immersion?

That sounds about right (I haven't been in a proper 3E campaign since about 2009 so I am a bit fuzzy on it as well). No this didn't ruin our immersion at all. First and foremost because it could be sidestepped by magical healing (even if we didn't have a cleric, you could usually find some remedy in a day or so). But also because in those cases where we were nursing injuries for a period of time, that became the focus of the adventure. Nothing more dangerous than trying to get your wounded self back to civilization after battle with an evil wizard. But it also added to our immersion for the simple fact that we found it all very plausible.

I think it'd be a stretch to say that any goal the PCs faced in those days of natural healing has not moved or changed in some very important way. In which case, the players would be tripping over plot lines in order to make healing more believable. Either way, you are sacrificing plausibility in an abstract game.

We didn't find it much of a problem. Maybe we took more of a sandbox approach. But for us, it was about facing legitimately challenging threats and preparing ourselves properly for them. There was always the chance someone would get seriously wounded and we'd have to retreat or regroup. In the end it made our accomplishments that much more significant.

So you're willing to make adjustments for your sense of believability, just not with rules for short and extended rests?

I never said I was unwilling to adjust the rest periods in 4E. I said adjustments would have been made with believability in mind and if I was running a 4E campaign, healing surges would be the first to get a makeover. However, with 4E I find the changes I produce overall just result in something more like 3E or 2E. So I don't really see the point. 4E just isn't my cup of tea. I play occassionally as a player (with people who do like it) and I make a point of not rocking the boat as they are satisfied with most of these 4E innovations.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

So you are willing to stretch the mechanics to fit the wizard's tactical knowledge in war but healing surges are out of the question?

I'm not seeing how it is stretching the rules. This type of thing is present in just about every skill challenge in any module I have seen. 4e tries to allow for all PCs to have an impact on a skill challenge and so it is supported by the rules governing checks, the products produced for those rules and as far as I can judge the clear intent of the rules, so I'm not really finding an issue here. Healing surges though are more strictly governed and have to satisfy several facets of the resulting narrative; the issues with which I have highlighted throughout this thread.

It also doesn't matter how significant the wizard is in combat comparatively because you alluded that a wizard could never achieve anything notable because they are from a different power source. Which I find a hard claim to follow.

Wizards don't have access to exploits. They are allowed to swing a sword though. I think this is fairly clear, I'm not quite getting your confusion here.

I understand what you mean now however, I find it incredibly hard to believe that you follow 3e RAW.

In my Age of Worms campaign that is exactly what we did as well as restricting the "ruleset" to core and complete only. It was refreshing to play within such "restrictions", and enhanced the enjoyment of that campaign (until higher levels (15th and above) started causing some issues.

You don't make any alternations to the rules what-so-ever? In any situation? What I'm getting is, you have a hard time incorporating healing surges because you don't want to while claiming that its because you stick to RAW, is that right?

I hate to say it but yeah... we generally follow RAW. I'd say the next 4e campaign might be different but so far, that is what we have done. [We have a traveller game, a 3.x game,a pathfinder game and two 4e games going at the moment in our group - all of them RAW]. We houseruled 2E ridiculously... enough for several lifetimes anyway; and perhaps this is why when you have a ruleset that in the main works well, it is just easier to play the system coping with its blemishes.

So, 3E modules take into consideration that players will sideline themselves for weeks at a time to heal naturally?

No, they assume the party has ready access to healing magic. I mentioned upthread of the couple of occasions when this healing has not been available and the interesting effect it had on the game. For myself, I try to provide descriptions that are mechanically supported by the rules and mesh well with the narrative. If someone is deep into the negatives in 3.x, they need healing assistance pronto, and this is normally most easily accomplished through the use of magical items (we really don't like the 3e/4e standard action heal check).

I don't natural healing was apart of play assumptions either but that doesn't stop people from bending and sometimes breaking believability to achieve this.

As I have mentioned previously, the bending I do with 4e is purely reigning back my descriptions if the PC is still alive. If they die (which is exceedingly rare for us - 2 deaths only I think so far), I have gone to town on the "discovered" severity of what initially seemed quite light.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

That sounds about right (I haven't been in a proper 3E campaign since about 2009 so I am a bit fuzzy on it as well). No this didn't ruin our immersion at all. First and foremost because it could be sidestepped by magical healing (even if we didn't have a cleric, you could usually find some remedy in a day or so). But also because in those cases where we were nursing injuries for a period of time, that became the focus of the adventure. Nothing more dangerous than trying to get your wounded self back to civilization after battle with an evil wizard. But it also added to our immersion for the simple fact that we found it all very plausible.

You accuse healing surges of being easy and quick yet don't stick with natural healing in favour of easy and quick healing magic? That seems like a double standard considering in this situation a cleric allowing their companions to use healing surges is the same as tacking down a "remedy" to speed things up.

We didn't find it much of a problem. Maybe we took more of a sandbox approach. But for us, it was about facing legitimately challenging threats and preparing ourselves properly for them. There was always the chance someone would get seriously wounded and we'd have to retreat or regroup. In the end it made our accomplishments that much more significant.

So elements surrounding the module or plot were never handwaived to account for lost time? That seems a bit implausible doesn't it?

I never said I was unwilling to adjust the rest periods in 4E. I said adjustments would have been made with believability in mind and if I was running a 4E campaign, healing surges would be the first to get a makeover...

Although, you wouldn't be making changes to healing surges. Their function remains the same, no matter what the length of time is. That's why I really don't see the fuss over damning them on length of time. Then again, the time really isn't the point with healing surges.

Healing surges are quick and easy, which decreases their believability. Yet ducking out to find quick and easy healing in 3e increases the believability.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I'm not seeing how it is stretching the rules. This type of thing is present in just about every skill challenge in any module I have seen. 4e tries to allow for all PCs to have an impact on a skill challenge and so it is supported by the rules governing checks, the products produced for those rules and as far as I can judge the clear intent of the rules, so I'm not really finding an issue here. Healing surges though are more strictly governed and have to satisfy several facets of the resulting narrative; the issues with which I have highlighted throughout this thread.

By your categorization, the wizard can't really know anything notable about war tactics. However, in a skill check, a wizard does.

Wizards don't have access to exploits. They are allowed to swing a sword though. I think this is fairly clear, I'm not quite getting your confusion here.

Maybe because I think you mean powers and not exploits? There is nothing stopping a wizard from being martially effective because of their power source. Yet, if the power sources are so rigid as to not allow narratives from other power sources then surely a wizard has no martial knowledge, skills or ability. If he does (like in tactical knowledge example) then why can't a warlord have some divine knowledge, skills or ability?

As for the rest, well you said you generally stick to RAW which implies there are times you don't. If your whole problem boils down to length of time, then I guess that's too hard an obstacle for you to overcome. If your problem is healing magics are more believable, well healing surges work in the same way healing magics do.

I guess we'll just have to disagree. I don't see the big issue.