I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[Aberzanzorax]

Well, since we're discussing Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil....

My "group" ran it with 4 pcs (my "group" was myself, another player -each of us running two guys-, and a DM).

There were:
A dexterity based fighter (swashbuckler?).
A rogue (maybe shadowdancer?).
A barbarian.
A mystic theurge (who did not memorize healing spells).

We regularly completed six or more encounters on a regular basis, without the use of healing wands (spells were sometimes burned to keep us at full hp between fights, but this was not commonly needed).

How?

It was a stealth party. All characters had (from skills, feats, magic items, etc) average or above hide and move silently skills.

Our usual tactics were to ambush (free standard action of attacks for 3 damage doers, one or two of which had extra precision based damage). This also provided the benefit of US getting to decide positioning and tactics, rather than the enemy doing so, and allowed us to take out more dangerous targets (like enemy spellcasters). It also prevented enemies from raising the alarm in the complex crawling with enemies.

The mystic theurge never really did any damage. His name was Ulee, but his offical name/nickname in campaign was "Ulee Fixit", as his job was battlefield control (a "controller" in 4e). He put up walls, cast entangle, web, a few buffs (which were easy since we called the shots), dismissal, etc. etc.

Because of the style, this was (as I hope people can see) not a hit point attrition type of game. There were other challenges (precision damage against elementals is not effective; true seeing can be a p.i.t.a. against a party that relys upon stealth) and it was a fun module/experience.

But, to claim that D&D can only be played as hit point attrition is false. There are a dozen or more ways to make parties that overcome obstacles on a regular basis without letting hit points be the primary measure of capability.




For what it's worth, this was one group. My other D&D group (across the country at the time) was also running the module. I wasn't a part of this other group at the time. They WERE running a hp attrition style game (standard party makeup, healing wands, cleric based on healing). There's an evil priest in the module, name starts with an "H", I think (can't remember it though)***. He became a major recurring villain and killed several of them on more than one occasion, and nearly caused a TPK. My group doesn't remember his name because he was dead in 2 or 3 rounds.

The point here isn't "my group is tha awesomez!" It's about how healing is one of many resources, and you can set up an adventuring party to focus on lots of resources (stunning, instakill saves, battlefield control, stealth, divination, buffing, charm/domination/diplomacy/bluff, demolitions, etc. etc.).

It's not about "playing smart"...it's about choosing the limiting resource, or the focus on strengths, to be something other than HP. At that point, healing becomes less important.


***EDIT. Looked it up. The name was Hedrack.

 

[pemerton]

In effect, pemerton is building a interwoven narrative on the fly that maps to the mechanics and effects presented but ties the result into the wider universe based upon player input and expressed interest. The mechanics of polymorph are disassociated for pemerton, because in effect, the rationale for why it works that way is dependent on someone explaining it at the time -- the paladin's god got involved, the wizard knew a counter-spell, etc.

Yep.

This style breaks down when the players don't bother explaining the results in the world's terms and simply accept the mechanics.

I see this as relating to the vexed issue of 4e and fictional positioning.

Some people take the view that 4e's action resolution mechanics can be applied without regard to fictional positioning, and thus that the game has a built-in tendency (or, at least, a capacity), to degenerate into a series of dice rolls. (Personally, I think that this is where the "board game" thing comes from. In a board game there is no fictional positioning.)

But I don't agree with this claim. I think that 4e's action resolution mechanics do make the fiction relevant. On that same "dissociated mechanics" thread, I expressed some views about this.

I think that skill challenges, as written obviously make fictional positioning important, becaue the GM has to frame the initial situation, and then reframe as part of each new skill roll (PHB p 259; DMG p 74):

Your DM sets the stage for a skill challenge by describing the obstacle you [the player] face and giving you some idea of the options you have in the encounter. Then you describe your actions and make checks . . .

You [the GM] describe the environment, listen to the players’ responses, let them make their skill checks, and narrate the results.​

I interpret the plurals here as distributed, not collective - ie after each description a player responds, makes a check, and a result is narrated which provides the new environment to which a player then responds - because the other reading - describe the environment, let the players make X checks without any connection to the fiction, then narrate the overall outcome of the challenge, (i) seems to produce a crappy game and (ii) is at odds with the examples of play that are found in the DMG and RC.

Because of the role of the battlemat and tokens/minis, I think that the significance of fictional positioning in 4e combat is more contested. I think how 4e combat is experienced may depend a lot on whether, for any given group, the stuff that is drawn on the battlemap is first and foremost fictional stuff - trees, rubble, fog, walls with doors and windows, etc - or first and foremost mechanical stuff - cover, difficult terrain, obscuring terrain etc. Perhaps in part because my maps are fairly sketchy and my group uses board game tokens rather than miniatures or even WotC's picture tokens, I think that the fictional stuff prevails. And this is reinforced by the resolution of interactions with it that obviously involve fictionl positioning - treating the map as a guide to the fiction rather than just a mechanical artefact to be manipulated - like climbing walls, overturning furniture, opening or closing doors and shutters, etc.

I also think that there are mechanical aspects of 4e action resolution that mandate the importance of fictional positioning - the rules on damaging objects, for example, make it clear that keywords (like fire, ice, teleportation etc) have fictional signficance. A tree can be set alight, for instance, but a stone pillar can't - so here we have ficitonal positioning that matters. Icy terrain can be used to cross a river, whereas a grasping vines spell that also creates difficult terrain probably can't. And so on.

So I think that playing the game as just a series of dice rolls requres ignoring things like the signficance of keywords + fiction to action resolution that are expressly called out in the game rules.

How common this is, I don't know. My gut feel would be that skill challenges and page 42 in the way I've talked about them in this post do not loom large in Encounters or Lair Assault. (I don't actually know, not having played either.) But my gut feel is also that these are best treated as degenerate cases of what the game can offer.

unlike an actual story game, there is nothing mechanical in the game that results in PCs pushing their character goals or the GM building encounters to the players' thematic concerns.

Well, this is true of HeroWars/Quest also. And it is incorporated into The Dying Earth only somewhat indirectly, via the advancement rles.

But in my view a game can mechanically support narrativist play without having the sorts of direct mechanics that I take you to be referring to (I'm thinking eg Burning Wheel Beliefs).

I am saying that what you're doing has pretty much everything to do with how you're playing the game and pretty much nothing to do with the actual rules of the game.

<snip>

I'm not seeing anything about these encounters that couldn't be just as easily done in 3E or any other system that doesn't feature 4E's dissociated mechanics.

Besides the example that I gave and that Nagol elucidated upthread, I think there is some more general features of 4e that support my preferred playstyle in a way that 3E (I think) wouldn't.

First, at least in my view the game comes with a lot of built-in story elements, for both GMs and players, that make it easy to introduce thematic material into the game. Perhaps it is because I read the 4e monster books in light of Worlds and Monsters, but I find them richer than other monster books I'm familiar with, and I find also that more effort has been made by the designers to have that thematic richness actually emerge through the mechanical play. (Obviously there are exceptions, like Kruthiks and Bulettes. I don't use them.)

Second, the game's action resolution is (in my experience) very forgiving of variations in player choice, meaning it tends not to funnel the players into mechanically optimal choices in the course of play. It leaves room for other considerations to matter.

Third, and related, the action resolution mechanics themselves create "space" in play for things to happen. The absent of instakill combat resolution, combined with the dynamics of incombat healing, create space for the injection of material that (at least in my experience) tends not to be there in a game like Rolemaster, where (at mid- to high levels) getting off the first shot tends to be the overwhelming consideration in resolving a combat. And in skill challenges, the same "space" is created by the X before 3 mechanic - the GM has to keep the encounter alive, by introducing new complications in response to player successes or player failures, and - at least in my experience - this leads to things happening in the fiction that don't happen in a less structured resolution system.

Fourth, and also related, these "spaces" in action resolution create room to solve the fictional positioning issue, that I noted above, in another way - introduce thematic fictional content that matters to the resolution, by affecting both player choices, and NPC choices, and hence (in combat) who fights whom how, or (out of combat) the unfolding dynamics of a skill challenge.

I know that none of this can be done so easily in Rolemaster, because the mechanics push against it. And the experience and knowledge that I do have of 3E suggest that it would resemble RM more than 4e in this respect.

 

[Nagol]

<snip>

I also think that there are mechanical aspects of 4e action resolution that mandate the importance of fictional positioning - the rules on damaging objects, for example, make it clear that keywords (like fire, ice, teleportation etc) have fictional signficance. A tree can be set alight, for instance, but a stone pillar can't - so here we have ficitonal positioning that matters. Icy terrain can be used to cross a river, whereas a grasping vines spell that also creates difficult terrain probably can't. And so on.

So I think that playing the game as just a series of dice rolls requres ignoring things like the signficance of keywords + fiction to action resolution that are expressly called out in the game rules.

Where this breaks for me is where an effect's specific mechanic -- which will always come into pla y-- is tied to any target's fiction when the target has no particular investment in the result.

Polymorph is a great example of this. The victim will always revert to the original shape the next round. No god-like interference necessary -- no counter-spell. The character can be a godless, friendless, sleeping, helpless, first level ally of the PCs -- and the mechanics say the effect will end. Full stop. It doesn't matter who is targeted, there is no greater effect that can come about except through DM fiat.

Tying that ending mechanic to the fiction around a character is neat and all, but for me it obfuscates the way the universe operates (there is always areason the effect ends) and removes or at least hides forms of meaningful choice (e.g. the paladin directly calling for divine aid) and strategic play (e.g. bringing counter-spell reagents, curative magicks, or picking the battlefield wisely).

<snip>

Fourth, and also related, these "spaces" in action resolution create room to solve the fictional positioning issue, that I noted above, in another way - introduce thematic fictional content that matters to the resolution, by affecting both player choices, and NPC choices, and hence (in combat) who fights whom how, or (out of combat) the unfolding dynamics of a skill challenge.

I know that none of this can be done so easily in Rolemaster, because the mechanics push against it. And the experience and knowledge that I do have of 3E suggest that it would resemble RM more than 4e in this respect.

See, many of the 4e mechanics make it immaterial who fights whom; the narration changes, but "ze game remains ze same".

 

[Crazy Jerome]

My style overlaps somewhat with pemertons' style, but also has some differences. The point he makes here is a major piece of the overlap:

Third, and related, the action resolution mechanics themselves create "space" in play for things to happen. The absent of instakill combat resolution, combined with the dynamics of incombat healing, create space for the injection of material that (at least in my experience) tends not to be there in a game like Rolemaster, where (at mid- to high levels) getting off the first shot tends to be the overwhelming consideration in resolving a combat. And in skill challenges, the same "space" is created by the X before 3 mechanic - the GM has to keep the encounter alive, by introducing new complications in response to player successes or player failures, and - at least in my experience - this leads to things happening in the fiction that don't happen in a less structured resolution system.

It is not so much that 4E does a lot to force one into a narrative style, though it does hint at it rather pervasively. If nothing else, the metagaming constructs create a vaccuum that, for anyone used to a narrative style, beg to be exploited by that style. See for example, the original Come and Get It. You have to really work to make that work in a traditional manner. If you want to narrate a broad variety of results, as partially determined by the situation at hand, then the vaccuum created in the story begs for you to pull something into it, rather than the mechanic pushing you to do that.

But for those of us who wanted something more like this when we first played Basic D&D, it is more about the lack of narrative restraints than anything else. Ignoring the Forge "narrative" in favor of a broader, earlier, literary conception mixed with gaming--"narrative" is about getting the story result consistent with what you want, versus following a process and hoping you get it.

That is, this is for me not a traditional versus indy (Forge), Big Model, Creative Agenda question as much as it is a metagaming versus immersion question. Immersion demands process, preferably at some risk. The satisfaction is in experiencing the process. Metagaming pushes a result, but preferably at some cost. The satisfaction is in reaching the goal, or failing to do so in an interesting way.

Of course, to be much of a story or a game, both methods need meaningful decision points. In their purer forms (neither of which exists in any version of D&D), I'd say that the decision points for immersion involve "risk A for a chance to get X." In contrast, the metagaming decision points involve "trade A for X, with a risk of consequence Y."

 

[pemerton]

Another comment on fictional positioning.

I've been following the Tomb of Horrors thread. The general view seems to be that the best way to "beat" the Tomb is to use a flying thief on a rope, lots of divination, etc.

There's no doubt that this makes fictional positioning matter - to resolve the actions of the thief on a rope, for example, requires drawing on the properties and relations of the rope to other things and events in the shared fiction.

Still, I personally have close to zero interest in that sort of play. I find that sort of operational dungeon crawl, where nothing higher is at stake, quite tedious both to GM and to play.

From which I infer that it is not just fictional positioning that makes for a fun RPG experience. The fiction has to be engaging.

This also relates to healing and healing surges. In 4e there is fictional positioning based on injuries taken - for example, NPCs who see all the scrapes and cuts on the PCs might draw certain inferences and act appropriately. But the fiction - as that example shows - will not be a fiction about physiology and recovery.

 

[pemerton]

See, many of the 4e mechanics make it immaterial who fights whom; the narration changes, but "ze game remains ze same".

If I've undestood you then I think I disagree, but it might turn on the metric for "many".

If you mean "immaterial as far as the mechanical resolution is concerned" then I would tend to agree. In this respect 4e is closer to a traditional RPG then (eg) HeroWars/Quest, where relationships etc matter to action resolution. Although this is not universally true in 4e - page 42 resolution can (at my table, at least) make these sorts of things matter, and WotC seem to recognise this too, in the mechanical suggestions for at least some combats. (I'm thinking of Heathen, in an early 4e Dragon, and Cairn of the Winter King, from Monster Vault. Both allow emotional/relational aspects to play into the climactic combat resolution.)

The mechanical elements of resolution are sometimes suggestive of thematic/relational matters, however - the most obvious being the divine mastery of radiant powers. Another that comes up frequently in my game is the consequence - on a 1 or 20 - of the chaos sorcerer's attempt to control is power.

And then, once we look at materiality beyond the mechanics of resolution, and involving the broader elements of the fiction, then this is as important in 4e as in any other traditional game - but, as I tried to explain in my earlier post, 4e creates a "space" for these elements to emerge which is, in my view, different from other games that create much more pressure towards mechanically optimal choices.

 

[tomBitonti]

Two ogres against a 5th level party is a good example. Your AC 23 and +8 attack are reasonable for a sword+shield Fighter at that level (though 25 and +10 wouldn't be impossible). Approximately 2/3 chance to hit an ogre, 1/4 chance to be hit. For damage lets say 9 (1d10 + 4), though this is probably too low.

Simulate combat between two fighters and two ogres. Straight up fight, no tactics, ogres go first.

Ogres do an average of 4 damage/round each, fighters do an average of 6. The first ogre drops on average after five fighter turns, i.e. it gets three actions of 4 damage average each. The second gets another two on top for a total of 32 damage from the both of them.

If the fighters go first instead its a total of six actions for the ogres, for 24 damage.

That damage is approximately 25% of the total hp resources of the two fighters. No other resources (e.g. magic items) from them were consumed, nor anything from the other PCs. No real tactics were used, the contribution of other party members was ignored, there was no surprise round.

I think you can imagine how a real party might have done *much* better than this <10% loss of resources.

Oh wow; I'm thinking that the fight could swing a lot worse, either way.

Don't Ogres have greatclubs, for 1d10+4? They also have power attack, with a +4 bonus would make damage up to 1d10+12.

If, on the first round, the Ogres charge (they were hiding on the sides of the road), then both Ogres get a +2 for charging, and one gets +2 on top of that for a flank. Plus whatever penalty the player gets for being flat footed.

At 4th level, a 21-22 AC for a fighter (+8 Plate, +2 Shield, +1 Magic, +1 Dex) is very normal. On the other hand, that might be: (+4 Chain, +1 Buckler, +3 Dex, +1 Magic) for 19, with a 16 when flat footed.

A +8 attack against AC 21 with either 2 PA or 4 PA would be:

0.4 * 1d10 + 8:
0.4 * 1d10 + 12

0.8 * 31 or about 24 points.

Here is a breakdown of the damage ranges:

0.36 (Both miss)
0.24 (9-18) (One hit)
0.24 (13-22) (The other hit)
0.16 (22-40) (Both hit)

That is a little low because crits are ignored. And a lot low if the second target is used.

And then, this becomes much worse if the Ogres also win initiative. Another round of attacks!

Of course, that is pretty much a worst case scenario. And a rather contrived circumstance: Except in very hostile regions, how often do two bloodthirsty Ogres jump out of the roadside offering no quarter? Then, if the area is so hostile, why is the party traipsing down the road oblivious to the danger? A careful party would be cautious around any obvious hiding points. (As a parallel example: I'm continuous adjusting my driving to keep away potential hazards. Well in advance of an actual hazard.)

Fights are often very sensitive to the starting conditions.

TomB

 

[Hassassin]

Don't Ogres have greatclubs, for 1d10+4? They also have power attack, with a +4 bonus would make damage up to 1d10+12.

They have large greatclubs that deal 2d8+7. They don't have Power Attack (by the book).

At 4th level, a 21-22 AC for a fighter (+8 Plate, +2 Shield, +1 Magic, +1 Dex) is very normal. On the other hand, that might be: (+4 Chain, +1 Buckler, +3 Dex, +1 Magic) for 19, with a 16 when flat footed.

The fighters were 5th level in my/pemerton's example (because two ogres are EL 5). I'd say +2 magic (i.e. armor +1, shield +1) or even a ring or amulet on top wouldn't be out of the ordinary with 9k WBL.

A +8 attack against AC 21 with either 2 PA or 4 PA would be:

0.4 * 1d10 + 8:
0.4 * 1d10 + 12

0.8 * 31 or about 24 points.

You are double counting. 0.4 * (1d10 + 8) + 0.4 * (1d10 + 12) = average 0.4 * 31 = 11-12.

(Although the premise is wrong due to the above.)

Fights are often very sensitive to the starting conditions.

This.

 

[Wiseblood]

It's funny. I said that combat in AD&D was far more forgiving than in 3e. Bill91 immedietely questioned me on it. Yet, it's pretty easy to prove. Monsters in 3e do about 4 times as much damage (they hit twice as often and twice as hard) in 3e and have about twice (or more) as many HP as AD&D monsters. Additionally, AD&D PC's can deal (at least up to about level 10) about twice as much damage per round as a 3e PC (fighter types anyway).

I had to go find where you said that. Having read the posts I understand you meant from a melee damage standpoint.

I couldhave listed 20+ things that show that 3e was vastly more forgiving than AD&D.

On a side note I played RttToEE our DM took it waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too easy on us. I would have LOVED the threat of dying. I did not feel that tingle of fear except when fighting the dragon in the beginning. Oh, that was a very long campaign.

 

[Hussar]

Wiseblood - IMO, the lethality in AD&D generally came from save or die effects which everyone and his bloody dog got. Outright combat damage? Not so much. 3e monsters are just so much bigger and output so much more damage than AD&D monsters. Never minding that at least by 2e anyway, the fighter types do considerably more damage while the monsters aren't typically (with a few notable exceptions - giants and dragons) much higher HP than their 1e counterparts.

But, as I said, that wasn't really the point. I'm more than willing to debate this and examine it further, although that would derail this thread even further. It was more the fact that this actually could be discussed using facts.

------------

Honestly, I'm not trying to be a dick here. Really I'm not. HOnest. No stop laughing. I'm really not. Ok. I'll wait until you clean up your monitor. Yes. yes. Ok.

Take Az(sp)'s group. Nice group. The only problem is, eventually you're going to fail stealth checks. That's going to happen. And, when it does, this group is going to die. It has no healing beyond potions. The MT didn't memorize healing spells, so, no healing in combat. The party has AC's that are easily hit (unless the party is lazer beam focusing) and the first mass Will save and the MT is toast as the other three characters obliterate him.

Heck, Harpies would absolutely destroy this party, just as an easy example.

If you're regularly scoring surprise on every encounter, something funky is going on. There's just too many die rolls for you to succeed that often. This particular group would be Fine.. Fine... Fine... DEAD.

I have a very strong suspicion that these playstyles are being aided considerably by the playstyle of the DM. That the ability to play this way has a lot less to do with mechanics and a lot more to do with what the DM brings to the table.