I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[billd91]

DannyA - I'll totally agree that pre-3e, healing wands were never an issue. But, that's a separate thing. For one, PC's generally had a lot less HP's. For two, it was entirely possible in AD&D to go an entire combat without anyone taking any damage and, even if they did take damage, it was relatively minor - around 10% of their total HP, simply because the monsters did so little damage. Death was more often due to Save or Die than anything else.

I would disagree with many of these assessments, particularly when looking at games 10th level and lower where PC hit points are actually very similar (and the levels most people played at in both editions), particularly if you rolled hit points and stats the same way between the two games.

 

[Nagol]

I would disagree with many of these assessments, particularly when looking at games 10th level and lower where PC hit points are actually very similar (and the levels most people played at in both editions), particularly if you rolled hit points and stats the same way between the two games.

Even by 10th level, hit point inflation really gets going in 3e. The Con bonus was hard to acquire in pre-3e games and was stringently limited to no more than +2 at 16+ Con.

A 8th level Wizard in 1e would have 8d4 + 8xCon mod. Even with a 16 Con (and the incentive to get higher was almost non-existent), the Wizard is looking at 36 hp.

In 3.X, the same Wizard has 4 + 7d4 + 24 = 45.5 hp (>125% of the pre-3e version) and the incentive to improve Con is much greater. Every additional +1 Con modifier grants another 8 hp.

With a 14 Con, the 1e wizard has 8d4 (~20 hp) hp and the 3e has 20 + 7d4 (~37.5 hp) -- over 187% of the 1e character.

The Dwarf Wizard in my campaign by 8th level had a Belt of Endurance (character-created) for a total 22 Con and had 67 hitpoints! (He rolled lower than average).

 

[Oryan77]

DannyA - I'll totally agree that pre-3e, healing wands were never an issue.

Healing wands were never an issue even in 3e. It was the individual groups/players that made it an issue in their games.

Somehow you've taken that statement and turned it around into a debate about whether or not DannyA had proper healing abilities in his group.

He's been telling you this entire time that his group didn't need tons of healing wands like people seem to think (and those people are the ones saying that healing surges are so great because they eliminate the need for the wands).

He never said they didn't have any way to heal up. He's been saying they didn't need the infinite wands! So I'm not sure why you keep focusing on whether or not his group had a good healer. All you're doing is pointing out how his group had good enough healing abilities. Which you're proving our point as to why we didn't need to have wands and the ability to buy wands at magic shops. So we should thank you.

My fighter types don't have lots of wands in 3e, and they don't have healing surges, and they get by just fine. You are also showing how DannyA didn't need healing wands, nor did he need a full blown cleric, and they still came up with alternative ways to get enough healing abilities to go several encounters. That's the whole point for why the healing surge/wand comparison is bunk.

Healing surges aren't changing anything other than making the game easier to play.

 

[billd91]

Even by 10th level, hit point inflation really gets going in 3e. The Con bonus was hard to acquire in pre-3e games and was stringently limited to no more than +2 at 16+ Con.

A 8th level Wizard in 1e would have 8d4 + 8xCon mod. Even with a 16 Con (and the incentive to get higher was almost non-existent), the Wizard is looking at 36 hp.

In 3.X, the same Wizard has 4 + 7d4 + 24 = 45.5 hp (>125% of the pre-3e version) and the incentive to improve Con is much greater. Every additional +1 Con modifier grants another 8 hp.

With a 14 Con, the 1e wizard has 8d4 (~20 hp) hp and the 3e has 20 + 7d4 (~37.5 hp) -- over 187% of the 1e character.

The Dwarf Wizard in my campaign by 8th level had a Belt of Endurance (character-created) for a total 22 Con and had 67 hitpoints! (He rolled lower than average).

It's true that in 3e, a Con modifier is easier to acquire... should you choose to buy one. And you could get the same result out of a Con of 14 in 3e that you got with a Con of 16.

But the 8th level wizard in 1e and 3e still has pretty much the same hit points - 8d4 + 8x Con modifier. Maybe he's invested in a higher Con modifier, maybe not. It's not like there aren't plenty of other things to choose to invest in. All things considered, the typical wizard in 3e might have 1 extra hit point per level before the 1e character caps out his hit dice. Not a really huge difference, and proportionally less of one when you consider characters who start with larger hit dice like clerics or fighters.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

1. You could regularly do many encounters per rest period
2. You had no core healers and little or no healing items.
3. You had many encounters that left you with 20% of HP.

Do you not see what the problem here is? 1 and 3 are contradictory.

1) "Contradictory" means "mutually opposed or inconsistent", not "mutually exclusionary". The fact is, we regularly went into encounters low on HP, and having gotten through one, continued to play through to yet another, etc., until we felt we could go no further. The decision point would be how far we thought we could go away from an area we had picked out to be a "safe" camp. This sometimes meant my Whip & ShSwd wielding Ftr/Rgr/Diviner/SpSword was the front-line fighter while we fought our way back because the main fighter was barely still in double-digit HPs.

2) If by "core healer", you mean "single class full divine caster", then no, we rarely had one. We had 2 different players at 2 different times play a Druid and a Favored Soul, and only for 2-3 months each...and we only had 2 gaming sessions per month max.

 

[Griego]

Hussar, I'd xp you if I could, but let me just add that I'm having a hard time with those assertions too. Something had to give; in most campaigns that kind of behavior would result in a lot of dead PCs.

 

[LostSoul]

DannyA: What I find interesting is that you chose not to use wands in your game. Given that the costs are rather low (750 GP and some travel time/a quick Teleport to Verbobonc) for good return (having max HP, or nearly so, for each encounter), why didn't you make that decision? You didn't need those wands, obviously, but it seems like they could have helped or made things easier - especially since you didn't know, at the time, whether or not you'd need them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What I find interesting is that you chose not to use wands in your game.

While you raise good points, it comes down to just a few reasons:

1) No crafter casters in the party.

2) Where we are, it's easier to buy potions than wands.

3) Potions can be used by anyone, wands require being a caster or taking ranks in UMD. Nobody has taken ranks in UMD.

 

[pemerton]

Healing surges aren't changing anything other than making the game easier to play.

I replied to this upthread, and will have another go now.

First, not everyone plays the game in the sort of challenge-mode that your comment presupposes.

Second, difficulty is reletive to the encounters/challenges placed by the GM and taken on by the players. So for all you know, 4e games see more/more difficult encounters between rest periods.

Third, the main effect of healing surges on 4e play is to change the dynamics of combat, via the role they play in in-combat healing. This is not about being easier or harder, but about being different.

Fourth, the extended rest rules in 4e affect the pacing of the game (less ingame time is spent recovering). This isn't an issue of easier or harder either. Just different.

The idea of "cheat codes" makes some sense in the context of a challenge-based video game. But in a game in which the challenges are being set by one participant (the GM) based on constantly-updated information about the status of the PCs, in which the players are able to choose if/how/when they tackle those challenges, and in which the main aim of the players probably isn't just to win challenges, but to achieve some story goal which has also been negotiated with the GM, the idea has (in my view) no work to do.

 

[LostSoul]

While you raise good points, it comes down to just a few reasons:

1) No crafter casters in the party.

2) Where we are, it's easier to buy potions than wands.

3) Potions can be used by anyone, wands require being a caster or taking ranks in UMD. Nobody has taken ranks in UMD.

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense to me, especially if you didn't come across the need for a wand.

I'm playing a 3.5 game as a fighter/magic-user (fighter/wizard/prcs) alongside a githzerai psi-warrior. We have a bunch of NPC henchmen (9!) along with us, but, even though I know it would be much easier on us, I've chosen not to recruit a cleric or divine caster-type. The reason for this is that my PC doesn't want to have to deal with religion. Seems likely to cause a lot of problems I don't have time for. If we come across a cleric that would get along with our party I'd hire him or her, but the only one we've met so far that fits the bill declined our invitation.