Take the Narrative Wounding Challenge.

[Bedrockgames]

Don't have time for indepth response but the reason we accepted instant magical healing was magic provides a believable explanation for tge quick rate of healing. The issue I have issues with healing surges is they include mundane insta heals. In our games we used divine healing when available or when we had a cleric in tge party. When magic healing wasn't available we hsd to resort to natural healing.

With modules and adventures, time spent healing, retreating or resting to regain resources was never handwaived. We did a world in motion style campaign. Sometimes the party getting wrecked, forced them to decide between resting to heal/regain spells, or press on while weakened to stop the bad guy. It all worked very well.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

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

My categorization regards exploits, powers, spells etc. as they are specifically linked to a particular power source. In essence, wizards don't do exploits and non-arcane people don't do arcane magic. The field of knowledge and experience though is far wider open as defined by the rules. If a player utilizes their PC's in game experiences or the capacities at their PCs command, then that is utilizing the rules to good effect as far as I see. I think you might be stretching a little here to try and prove your point.

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.

Narratively speaking things to do with mundane issues such as knowledge and swinging swords is the least restrictive (anyone can achieve such things although martial exploits (as in martial "powers") are equally restrictive as other "powers". Dealing with and controlling the arcane is also more restrictive in terms of the rules. You cannot just say that your character can perform magical acts. You need to have a mechanical basis for it - such as choosing a multiclassing feat or having access to the "arcane 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?

Having knowledge is fine. Having arcane power is mechanically and narratively a different kettle of fish.

As for the rest, well you said you generally stick to RAW which implies there are times you don't.

To clarify, the above 5 campaigns (3.x, PF, 2 x 4e and a Traveller) are RAW. We have houseruled previous campaigns and I allude to our next 4e campaign being a heavily houseruled one.

If your whole problem boils down to length of time, then I guess that's too hard an obstacle for you to overcome.

It's not. I have given upthread the 3 things I intend to change next campaign. However, in terms of discussion on this thread and the natural effect of following the rules as written, the issues raised still stand.

If your problem is healing magics are more believable, well healing surges work in the same way healing magics do.

It is the rules governing the way surges are used that is the problem, not necessarily the surges in and of themselves.

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

The thing is, I'm thinking we actually agree.
You identified the exact same issue that BRG, BryonD, myself and others identified (as well as an obvious houserule to deal with it); it is just the way we each go about dealing with that issue that differs. You deal with it your way, I deal with it by playing RAW but modifying the severity of my damage descriptions to maintain the narrative consistency my group wants.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

Well, okay, whatever. I mean, I've addressed the issues in your first paragraph so many times and it's just going around and around and around in circles. Everytime I think I'm moving closer to understanding you, you have a new problem.

I'm not a liberty to say what you and your group did but I find that the plot of a module or game would rapidly overwhelm to PCs because of the constant narrative time lost to healing. Most people fix this through hand waiving the meaning of time during the plot and concentrate on having the plot reactive to the PCs.

You're are one of the only people I've encountered who hasn't and found that the plot stayed in the realms of believability.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

...

I'm way too confused to even begin to know what your original problems were. As I remember, they are purely narrative, until more and more problems kept piling up.

I don't think we do agree. I don't see a problem with rest times or healing surges. I was trying to think through ways to overcome your own problems. The idea of believability in a game like D&D, to me, is absurd and I just see you guys trading off for a reason I am no closer to understanding now than I was with my first post.

The only thing I can think of is that, you don't like it because it's not how things are traditionally done. I could be wrong but as I said, I'm so very confused at this stage. I really think this has run its course.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think believability is very important in a fantasy game, novel or movie. That is pretty much thr issue I have surges. Doesn't have anything with them going against tradition. Had they replaced HP with wounds in 4e I would have been all for that.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I think believability is very important in a fantasy game, novel or movie. That is pretty much thr issue I have surges. Doesn't have anything with them going against tradition. Had they replaced HP with wounds in 4e I would have been all for that.

As I said, as far as I can see, you trade off one element for its believability while another element suffers. Of course, as you have repeatedly claimed to be, you could be an exception but I wouldn't say that changes the rule.

 

[Bedrockgames]

As I said, as far as I can see, you trade off one element for its believability while another element suffers. Of course, as you have repeatedly claimed to be, you could be an exception but I wouldn't say that changes the rule.

I don't see how believable healing impacts the believability of plot. If anything I think our plots tended to be pretty believable. And as I said all we were doing was play 3.5 RAW for the most part. Magic healing was often available, but when it wasn't you relied on the slower natural healing the rules. Nothing unusual about that at all.

 

[Hungry Like The Wolf]

I don't see how believable healing impacts the believability of plot. If anything I think our plots tended to be pretty believable. And as I said all we were doing was play 3.5 RAW for the most part. Magic healing was often available, but when it wasn't you relied on the slower natural healing the rules. Nothing unusual about that at all.

Believable plots are not reactive to the PCs. A game where healing times can take up to 4 days, even longer depending on level, the plot would have to be reactive because the bad guys would simply overwhelm the PCs.

So magic healing was often available? Which means quick zap and move on. Which is exactly what healing surges do. The above plot problem comes into play when natural healing does.

If you can't see how or why then, I'm just going to have to drop it as I'm afraid we'll be treading ground already covered.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think we just disagree on some key things. But that is cool.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I'm way too confused to even begin to know what your original problems were.

Well you could go back to page one and read it I suppose. That's the problem with jumping into this style of thread half-way in.

As I remember, they are purely narrative, until more and more problems kept piling up.

No they are explicitly linked to the mechanics of the game.

I don't think we do agree. I don't see a problem with rest times or healing surges.

Answer me this though please:

I narrate a really serious chest injury to your PC as they go deep into the negatives and two strikes to his name already. Completely on his own, your character: saves with a 20. Your PC's allies rescue him but the group healer (be he cleric or warlord or whatever) died and the group is out of magical healing. [In other words no aid]. He is able to achieve an extended rest and 6 hours later he is back to full capacity - that serious chest wound I described no longer effects him. Do you think your character has done some pretty miraculous healing all on his own compared to my description? Do you think then that my description was over the top to begin with and should have been toned down? Can you see why without the intrusion of magic upon this scene, it does not really hold together very well?

I was trying to think through ways to overcome your own problems. The idea of believability in a game like D&D, to me, is absurd and I just see you guys trading off for a reason I am no closer to understanding now than I was with my first post.

But some of us like to play what if. What if the world was not entirely dissimilar to our world in terms of physics etc. except for the intrusion of "magic" and all the other wonderful things that go with it. I'm not sure believability is as much the word as reasonableness. I'm looking as a player/DM to present a reasonable world to my players that makes some sort of sense to the players. Sure there might be rough edges here and there if you poke hard enough but on the whole, as DM I try to ensure that reasonable things happen. It keeps my players happy.

Being able to completely ignore a serious wound within 6 hours without the use of magic is to me and my group unreasonable. We make it reasonable by not narrating serious wounds in the first place and then when the PCs health or death has been determined the "serious" wound is now either minor or fatal. We do not find second winds, short rests or extended rests magical in any way unless there is a character capable of such magic; and in which case, the magic is because of the character, not because of the mechanic itself.

This seems a pretty standard way of looking at things, so I'm not getting your confusion.

The only thing I can think of is that, you don't like it because it's not how things are traditionally done. I could be wrong but as I said, I'm so very confused at this stage. I really think this has run its course.

The thing is I am not confused. I have kept a very open mind and understood exactly what you have said and thought and applied it to my situation. When dealing with the vagueness of generalisations, what you are saying seems like it should be reasonable but as soon as we start discussing specifics, all the same issues are still there with the RAW needing "correction". Unless you can give me a concrete example using 4e RAW how to explain such healing alacrity, then I'm left with no choice but to keep doing what I'm doing in terms of playing and DMing 4e; and still believing that there is a hole in the spectrum of reasonable damage description that remains unfilled.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise