D&D General 4e Healing was the best D&D healing

[CapnZapp]

Sorry, but if one very simple and obvious tweak that was offered very early on in the official rules and was trivial to houserule can fix something that "that all by itself disqualifies the system for me" then it seems fairly obvious you're looking for perfection.

No.

I said "by far biggest downside of the 4E system, that all by itself disqualifies the system for me"

That does not mean it was the only downside or even the only disqualifying downside.

What it means is that fixing 4E was far from trivial or obvious. I felt it was way easier to simply abandon the system. To a significant degree this was because of the - to me - stupendous decision to force every character to actively seek out damage, even though that might go completely counter to that character's build or personality.

(Soaking your fair share of damage is a really good party tactic. But that does not mean it's a good idea to have the rules enforce it!)

More generally, no, you don't get second chances. If your PHB contains enough stuff the customer dislikes, you will simply have to accept that customer will drop the edition and move on. You seem to harbor the idea that we are obliged to rate the edition on its state at some point after release, probably a point that differs between each customer, as if the point was to make 4E out to be much better than it really was. That is of course entirely delusional. I played 4E up until (and including) the PHB2. By that time it was obvious to us we would be better served by a new edition, and we simply went ahead and played other games to tide us over. And when 5E came out that proved correct, not only for us, but for a huge majority of the currently active hobbyists.

In this particular case, by decoupling most healing from individuals already in the core game. (Basically, the healing is in the potion where it belongs and not in you, the drinker!)

As for your claim that I seek perfection:

Regardless, I have stated my piece. Now stop making this out to be an argument between you and me. It definitely is not. I was merely pointing out to the thread that the OP didn't even mention what to me was the biggest unique aspect of 4E healing (good or bad).

 

[Danzauker]

Cap is the only one left standing, and even with Mjolnir gets beaten long and around by Thanos.

He's on the ground, down to a few HP (but of course, no broken bones or internal hemmorragies or the like).

He barely manages to get up and painfully strap the renmants of his shield for a last stand.

Then all the resurrected Avengers arrive to the battle ground. Cap psyches up, spends all his HD (or surges), and leads the charge.

If a damage system is able to emulate a scene like this in D&D, then it's good enough for me. And both 4E and 5E manage it, in different ways, so it's a matter of taste what you prefer, I guess. I'd say my favourite would be 4E with the Surge option.

P.S.

What 5E lacks is a system to differentiate physical damage from purely abstract HP. D&D has had a lot of optional systems for critical hits or would tracking, but none worked well enough IMO.

 

[Neonchameleon]

What it means is that fixing 4E was far from trivial or obvious. I felt it was way easier to simply abandon the system. To a significant degree this was because of the - to me - stupendous decision to force every character to actively seek out damage, even though that might go completely counter to that character's build or personality.

And that's not something that happened in 4e. I've played non-damaging characters in 4e. Every edition of D&D encourages players to seek out damage - but forcing everyone to maximise damage is a whole different story. 3.0's design decisions leading to wizards that actively worked round the hit point mechanic with save or suck spells were unintended design and the result of bad playtesting.

Indeed 4e opened up non-damaging options. First it was the first edition to have at will cantrips so there was something that e.g. pacifist clerics could do every round in combat (Astral Seal mostly); cantrips were limited before 4e. Second there's the warlord - even in the PHB you could contribute significantly to combat while never actually making an attack roll yourself or even using magic.

What it cut back on was party members who didn't contribute to combat, instead relying on everyone else to bail them out of a team situation. But minimising escort missions is not at all the same thing as forcing everyone to actively seek out damage.

To use a simple example in 3.5 at first level your wizard or cleric had three first level spells. The rest of the time what did they do in combat? Hide, cowering? Or did they try to do damage with weapons?

(Soaking your fair share of damage is a really good party tactic. But that does not mean it's a good idea to have the rules enforce it!)

That's not something that happened in 4e either. The rules don't say you must - just they make it a good idea. There is nothing enforcing good tactics in any edition. Simply things guiding you towards good tactics. 4e does not force you to soak your fair share of the damage.

Also if it's good tactics in other editions then they guide you to it as well yet you single out 4e simply for making it more obvious that these are good tactics.

More generally, no, you don't get second chances.

You also don't get to spread falsehoods. Like 4e forcing you to do things that it actually doesn't force you to do.

 

[Undrave]

You don't mention with a single word the by far biggest downside of the 4E system, that all by itself disqualifies the system for me:

That healing surges were tied to individuals.

Meaning, that in order to properly utilize this important resource, every party member must ensure he or she takes their fair share of the incoming damage.

The notion that a ranger shooting arrows from afar doesn't pull her weight unless she goes in close and soaks a couple of good whacks... or that the Wizard needs to break cover and "meat shield" at least a mook or two...

Completely broke 4E for us.

5E has a healing surges concept, but it is no longer the by far most important source of healing, so it isn't a problem it's tied to each individual.

That wasn't really my experience in play.

Defenders, and to a lesser extend Leaders, as well as any character with more CON had more Healing Surge than back row guys. And the back row guys wouldn't be expected to run into melee. Some melee strikers could off-tank, (and it was understood a melee striker WOULD take damage) some melee leaders too (the Cleric had a few Encounter powers that marked) but back row characters weren't expected to run into the fray.

They were not expected to stay unharmed either. A good encounter would include skirmishers, skulkers and controller monsters that COULD attack the back row. A good DM would make use of the different monster types. At that point you had your own reserve or healing to keep you up. A 4e Wizard is certainly tougher than in other editions.

The whole point of Defenders was to direct damage their way.

Having individual pool of HP meant that you were always responsible for your own HP. A leader would make you more efficient at healing (Cleric with surge-less healing and bigger bonus to surges in combat, Bard with optimizing out of combat short rests, Warlord with more Temp HP, and Shaman healing multiple targets) but you still had to consider your own ressources of strength and not waste it recklessly.

To me, it wasn't a bug, but a feature.

I guess I should have made more clear reference to it in my OP, however.

It's not as if the AC14 wizard can take remotely the pounding in melee the AC19 fighter can - but a many on one fight should inflict more damage.

Let's not forget that in 4e you can use your INT for calculating your AC and that a Wizard had a Impliment Mastery called 'Staff of Defence' that granted them a +1 to AC when using a staff AND allowed them a once per encounter Shield spells effect equal to their CON mod (a good CON gave them more surges and HP). By spending a single feat to grab Leather Armor you could make a pretty solid Wizard that could use Close Blast and Close Burst spells effectively.

 

[Garthanos]

There is the optional healing surge mechanic in 5E in the DMG, pg. 266.

View attachment 123703
View attachment 123704

Not really hs its a bit more like giving back second wind. Allow people to spend hit dice whenever they recieve healing gets closer in feal and yet still does not limit daily healing the way 4e healing surges did.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's a good movie, and a good scene, but it's not a good fight scene. A comedic movie just doesn't lend itself toward serious role-playing.

It's absolutely a good fight scene.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

The notion that a ranger shooting arrows from afar doesn't pull her weight unless she goes in close and soaks a couple of good whacks... or that the Wizard needs to break cover and "meat shield" at least a mook or two...

Isn't a thing.

I spent way too much time on the wotc forums, played with many different groups, etc, and never (literally not once before your post) heard anyone express that every character needs to get hit in order to contribute.

There were discussions of rogues leaving the other warriors hanging by using permastealth tactics, but always in the context of people claiming that permastealth was a flawless unbeatable tactic with no drawbacks, and pointing out that never being available to be attacked meant the defenders had to work harder, which is a tradeoff.

Also, the archer and wizard get attacked in normal gameplay, in any edition. In 4e, you have more tools to make sure they don't get hit, and to punish enemies for targeting them.

So...what "broke" 4e for you...is a thing you brought to the game.

 

[Xeviat]

Isn't a thing.

I spent way too much time on the wotc forums, played with many different groups, etc, and never (literally not once before your post) heard anyone express that every character needs to get hit in order to contribute.

There were discussions of rogues leaving the other warriors hanging by using permastealth tactics, but always in the context of people claiming that permastealth was a flawless unbeatable tactic with no drawbacks, and pointing out that never being available to be attacked meant the defenders had to work harder, which is a tradeoff.

Also, the archer and wizard get attacked in normal gameplay, in any edition. In 4e, you have more tools to make sure they don't get hit, and to punish enemies for targeting them.

So...what "broke" 4e for you...is a thing you brought to the game.

I concur. I never saw this, and I was big on the WotC boards and played more 4E than any other edition. Might go back to it for a bit.

 

[RangerWickett]

@RangerWickett, did you ever play SW 2nd Ed (I think) which used both Vitality (i.e.HP) and Wounds? It has always been my favorite blend of mechanics, the only downside IMO is another numeric to track. Our current system uses fatigue almost like a "condition monitor" from ShadowRun for critical hits and critically failed saves.

If I recall correctly, the D20 Star Wars let critical hits go to your Wound Points immediately, but wounds didn't actually do anything until you hit zero. It didn't quite fit for me.

I mean, if any game needs the ability to slice someone's hand off, it's Star Wars, but in the narrative you never saw someone get a hand sliced off and then keep fighting.

 

[DND_Reborn]

If I recall correctly, the D20 Star Wars let critical hits go to your Wound Points immediately, but wounds didn't actually do anything until you hit zero. It didn't quite fit for me.

I mean, if any game needs the ability to slice someone's hand off, it's Star Wars, but in the narrative you never saw someone get a hand sliced off and then keep fighting.

Actually, yes crits went directly to wounds, but had two effects:

1. You were fatigued. You had a -2 to attacks and saves IIRC (or something along those lines).
2. You had to make a Fort save DC equal to 5 plus the number of wounds or you were knocked unconscious.

I think SWSE expanded something with the fatigue idea into a cumulative penalty that maxed out at -5, but I am not certain.