How Do you Feel About Healing Surges? (Read First!)

[Tovec]

Fighter, bleeding, tiredly growls and straightens ... and despite the bleeding head wounds, stalks forward with grim determination to see the job done.

I think you just hit on another major issue we "dislikers" have. He has a head wound, he is stalking and grim...... None of which is displayed in the rules or actions of the character. Yes recovering 1/4 (assuming you are near 0 in the first place) puts you into your bloodied condition but otherwise you are able to act just as freely and normally as anything. The bloodied condition does little to remedy this in general terms but after shrugging off the most recent injuries and going back into the fray it looks even more silly.

The objection isn't that we think the wounds are just disappearing. The problem is that they act as though the wounds do not exist. This is a small but critical distinction. Using the boxing example (from the link), it isn't that he gets back up and continues fighting. It is that he does so while considered more or less as fit as if he hadn't been knocked down in the first place. It doesn't matter if he has 1/4 HP after getting back up or 1/4 HP before getting knocked down in the first place - except where the Healing Surges tally ranks.

So the big tough fighter cant go fight because he might get a boo boo?

Arent these supposed to be tough, epic, heroes?

Healing should be secondary to glory, treasure, vanquishing evil.....

A tank that doesnt tank is just a slow moving coward.

What if you don't want to be the "epic" heroes. Kind of hard to remove the system when it is engrained. There are any number of ways of adding it in for those who want it but there are no good and simple ways of taking it out.

So only which ever version of D&D YOU play (like), is REAL D&D? I think NOT. Healing Surges & KITS are both D&D, and ALWAYS will be. So far in the poll, less than 50% "dislike" HSs, so plenty of gamers like them.

HSs give a reasonable limit to healing, rather than the unstopable 3e CLW party.

You seem to be assuming the 26% who said "okay idea but.." fall in with the ranks of the "Like" side as opposed to being neutral. If they meant HS to be a good idea they could have voted that way. If they meant them to be a bad idea they could have voted that way too.

Since we can't say for certain exactly where all the "Idea was okay" votes should go if the option was removed, we should exclude the neutral 26% entirely. What is left over is the 44% saying "Dislike" and 29% saying "Like", and 1.5% saying "I don't care". I think you should look at those numbers instead. Just saying.

Put another way, comparing JUST the Like/Dislike figures - 60% Dislike, 40% Like. That seems to be about right as far as figures on this issue go. Some people do like the surges, some don't. There is no sense forcing the surges (in any form) on those who don't like it as it will only serve to alienate them further. What is better is to provide an option where healing surges can be used by the 40% and discarded by the 60%.

The 3e CLW party is a strawman. With perfect rolls you could generate 450 hp worth of healing. In reality average only 275.

Picture 2 Iconic parties Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric one of them 3e the other 4e.

A 10th level 3e party with 10's for constitution can bring the entire party back from 0hp 1.6 times (2.6 if they roll perfectly 50 times) with the wand only. Cost 750gp per 50 charges.

a 10th level 4e party with 10's for constitution each party member is different the average is 1.7 times. ( F =2.2, W=1.5, R=1.4, C=1.7)
Cost free EVERY DAY.

If the constitution scores go up 4e really starts to edge 3e out. If all have 14's in Constitution 4e averages 2.2 time to the 3e 1.08 times.

As Wiseblood keeps saying, but I'll put another way. As Wiseblood DOES say, they are not a good example - they are a Strawman.

A. CLW wands were not free. They weren't expensive by higher levels but they weren't FREE.
B. CLW wands didn't heal 1/4 HP. They healed 1d8+1 (iirc). If you are higher level, they still heal 1d8+1.
C. Not everyone can use CLW wands - clerics certainly can, but UMD users required a roll which they may fail.
D. CLW wands are AT BEST an out of combat solution only.
E. You still had to buy and ensure you had the wand available, not just simply "feel better".
F. Removing CLW (or increasing the price) fixes the problem. No more CLW wands and the "free healing" arugment against 3e goes away. As others have pointed out, you can't remove HS and Second Wind so easily.
G. Also, this is clearly a strawman example. Yes CLW wands can be done, but it isn't the norm, it is the exception. Power-gamers or those looking to exploit the system can grab the wand but the average group doesn't or at least doesn't acquire them in the quantities which seems to be necessary for the myth to arise around these boards.
H. I can easily remove clerics (or normal, traditional healers) from a group and replace them with other things. It is certainly not the issue that is thought to be fixed exclusively by 4e. Yes having a cleric helps but no group I have played with has ever felt FORCED to play the cleric.

 

[Tony Vargas]

e think the wounds are just disappearing. The problem is that they act as though the wounds do not exist. This is a small but critical distinction.

It's a problem with hit points and damage more than healing surges, then. If you're at 1 hit point, you're still fighting at full strength.

What if you don't want to be the "epic" heroes. Kind of hard to remove the system when it is engrained. There are any number of ways of adding it in for those who want it but there are no good and simple ways of taking it out.

Taking the epicness out of healing surges is as simple as reducing how many you have and how quickly you recover them. Pretty easily fine-tuned. There could be a Fuzion-style 'dial' for it.

A. CLW wands were not free. They weren't expensive by higher levels but they weren't FREE.
B. CLW wands didn't heal 1/4 HP. They healed 1d8+1 (iirc). If you are higher level, they still heal 1d8+1.

Yes, it takes more taps with a CLW wand to heal a scratch on a 17th level character than on a 7th level one. Wonderfully un-realistic, that. But the cost of a charge of CLW charge is utterly trivial to the 17th level character, he can afford to have a bag of holding filled to bursting with them. The only possible inconvenience is how long the guy activating the wand has to sit there repeating the command word at six-second intervals.

C. Not everyone can use CLW wands - clerics certainly can, but UMD users required a roll which they may fail.

No one fails a 3.x skill check unless they don't want to succeed at it. They're just too easy to optimize. And, at higher levels

D. CLW wands are AT BEST an out of combat solution only.[/qoute]Absolutely. Much like the surges spent at the end of a short rest. Only surges aren't a trivial resource at any level, of course.

E. You still had to buy and ensure you had the wand available, not just simply "feel better".
F. Removing CLW (or increasing the price) fixes the problem. No more CLW wands and the "free healing" arugment against 3e goes away. As others have pointed out, you can't remove HS and Second Wind so easily.

You can resolve the 'problem' with HS and
Second Wind even more easily: by not being a jerk.

G. Also, this is clearly a strawman example. Yes CLW wands can be done, but it isn't the norm, it is the exception. Power-gamers or those looking to exploit the system can grab the wand but the average group doesn't or at least doesn't acquire them in the quantities which seems to be necessary for the myth to arise around these boards.

Common practice in the groups around here by 3.5, common enough that they're mentioned in guidelines at conventions. And, yes, the Pathfinder guidelines say "/do/ have a Wand of CLW."

H. I can easily remove clerics (or normal, traditional healers) from a group and replace them with other things. It is certainly not the issue that is thought to be fixed exclusively by 4e. Yes having a cleric helps but no group I have played with has ever felt FORCED to play the cleric.

The 'last player is stuck with the cleric' thing was classic. Stereotypes like that don't arise because no one ever does it. It was a D&D/early-AD&D thing though. 2e reduced it by making some speciality clerics more interesting and overpowered. 3e solved it by making the Cleric wildly overpowered. 4e solved it with alternate leaders that were the Clerics equal in that role, and balanced with other classes.

Not addressed exclusively by 4e, but resolved much better by 4e.

Keeping the leader role viable and attractive without overpowering it without healing surges may be possible, but it will certainly be more difficult. One option would be to 'silo' healing abilities. So a Cleric could cast some spells from a pool of vancian slots - mostly direct combat, since they're short-casting time prepared spells, and heal some number of times per day or encounter in combat by "Laying on Hands" or some such, and perform rituals/prayers/rites/whatever to speed between-combat and longer-term healing or remove diseases or curses or impairing wounds (if those were added) or invoke other out-of-combat 'utility' miracles.

 

[EmbraCraig]

There's a lot of Healing Surge bashing going on, and I just wanted to set the record straight.

This poll will use the following definition of healing surges:

Healing Surges have two components: Surges Per Day, which is a daily limit on how often a character can be healed by healing effects; and Surge Value, which ensures that each of said healing effects is worth at least 1/4 of the character's maximum hit points.

That's it. We're not talking about Second Winds, short rests, Warlord healing, or any of that. We're just talking about Surges Per Day and Surge Value as ways of regulating healing effects. Namely, that healing effects scale with the heal-ee's max HP, and healing effects cannot be used a million times a day.

So, how do you feel about healing surges?

I like both aspects of them - the surge value (Especially that it isn't fixed at -/4 hp - you can invest in improving it...). Max healing/day for each character without pulling something special out also appeals to me.

If healing spells go back to being daily rather than per encounter stuff, I'm expecting surges per day to disappear though, with the limit being back on the caster instead of the recipient of the healing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You seem to be assuming the 26% who said "okay idea but.." fall in with the ranks of the "Like" side as opposed to being neutral.

That's a reasonable interpretation. The implementation of healing surges is modestly complex, you could like the idea, but have quibbles and vote that way. If you dislike it, your only option in the poll is to dislike.

It's actually a bias in the poll that will under-report those who approve, since any quibble may get them to go for the more 'moderate' positive response.

What is clear is 44% "dislike" that is a large minority, but it's also not very informative, because there are many possible reasons for and degrees of dislike.

Other way, comparing JUST the Like/Dislike figures - 60% Dislike, 40% Like.

That's just cooking the numbers. A trick like that could get a data analyst fired.

 

[eamon]

You seem to be assuming the 26% who said "okay idea but.." fall in with the ranks of the "Like" side as opposed to being neutral. If they meant HS to be a good idea they could have voted that way. If they meant them to be a bad idea they could have voted that way too.

That's a reasonable interpretation. The implementation of healing surges is modestly complex, you could like the idea, but have quibbles and vote that way. If you dislike it, your only option in the poll is to dislike.

It's actually a bias in the poll that will under-report those who approve, since any quibble may get them to go for the more 'moderate' positive response.

Actually, I dislike healing surges as they are in 4e, yet voted "okay in principle, but...". I think the idea (particular the surge value bit) has merit, but find the conflation of healing with pacing to be bad in any case. The execution in 4e is mostly poor: the flavor is off; the interaction with magical healing weird, and there's lots of little bits that interact with healing surges that have nothing to do with healing.

I'd like to see something akin to Star Wars d20's Wound/Vitality split, with unlimited self-healing for the vitality bit (like short rests in 4e), and very limited healing for the "real wounds" bit (which you should only get if you've no vitality left).

Pacing - the idea that PC's can't fight all day - is neat, but I think its best dealt with separately. Other strenuous activity might also cause fatigue (such as using dailies, some skill checks, hard travel, etc). And the consequences of pushing through fatigue shouldn't be "you die" but softer. Not to mention that something like this would be perfect for one of 5e's optional modules, since I can well imagine that for many campaigns, it's just unnecessary bookkeeping.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The 3e CLW party is a strawman. With perfect rolls you could generate 450 hp worth of healing. In reality average only 275.

Picture 2 Iconic parties Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, Cleric one of them 3e the other 4e.

A 10th level 3e party with 10's for constitution can bring the entire party back from 0hp 1.6 times (2.6 if they roll perfectly 50 times) with the wand only. Cost 750gp per 50 charges.

a 10th level 4e party with 10's for constitution each party member is different the average is 1.7 times. ( F =2.2, W=1.5, R=1.4, C=1.7)
Cost free EVERY DAY.

Now that really is a strawman comparison.

1: Who says that the damage is that well spread around the party? Focus fire matters.

2: Who says a tenth party only has a single wand of CLW. Under Wealth by Level rules, a second level party can each buy a wand of CLW. 750 GP is trivial.

3: A challenging 4e fight will routinely take at least one PC to below zero hit points. The system is designed to encourage this. In 3.X not so much.

 

[fjw70]

I'm not advocating removing all of it, just most.

The Cleric risking her neck to throw a cure into a fallen comrade while the swords and spells fly around her, every one of which might possibly slip and interrupt her spell - now that's pure gold.

But it should be risky enough to be the exception, not the expectation.

Lanefan

I agree with this.

 

[Wiseblood]

Now that really is a strawman comparison.

1: Who says that the damage is that well spread around the party? Focus fire matters.

2: Who says a tenth party only has a single wand of CLW. Under Wealth by Level rules, a second level party can each buy a wand of CLW. 750 GP is trivial.

3: A challenging 4e fight will routinely take at least one PC to below zero hit points. The system is designed to encourage this. In 3.X not so much.

It is indeed a strawman. I thought my example was pretty plain but then again I was sleepy.


1. It's not about damage it is about recovery.

2. 750gp is not trivial. I cite that wealth by level is not currency owned by level but the estimated total value of equipment and money owned.

3. 4e does not encourage reducing characters to below zero hit points more than 3e.

Tovec covers it well upthread.

 

[Neonchameleon]

It is indeed a strawman. I thought my example was pretty plain but then again I was sleepy.

1. It's not about damage it is about recovery.

2. 750gp is not trivial. I cite that wealth by level is not currency owned by level but the estimated total value of equipment and money owned.

3. 4e does not encourage reducing characters to below zero hit points more than 3e.

Tovec covers it well upthread.

1: If you're down surges you aren't recovered. Now criticising extended rests is something I definitely agree with.

2: 750GP might not be trivial, but it's low. Putting a lot of money into happy sticks is a good investment. It's almost three wands of Cure Light Wounds (2250GP) to a single +1 sword (2000GP for the enchantment, 150GP for the masterwork, and change for the base weapon).

3: You are flat wrong here. First in 3.X, being reduced to 0 hit points is literally 10hp away from death. Unless you're a real killer DM this is a nasty margin. In 4e being reduced to 0hp is still your bloodied value from death. So there's no real reason to not pull your blows against someone still standing. Second in 3.X 0hp is someone just about out of the fight - they don't even have dice to roll. The 4e healing means they can come back in the same fight - thus not disengaging the player (this goes doubly when there are powers that only trigger when someone hits 0hp). And thirdly they can come back much better after the fight unless you've completely gone the sensible wand of CLW (or Wand of Lesser Vigour) method - which makes HP attrition not matter at all.

 

[avin]

Dislike... Healing Surges, in my 4E experience, lead to situations with no reasonable roleplaying explanation, at least for what I would consider reasonable.

On the other hand, in D&D I have no problem with "full recover after fight", as long it's tied to Magic healing. "The God of Battles grants his bless for those who survive" or something like that...