D&D 4E 4e Heal info in new Confessions article

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

To quote Mustrum Ridcully from another thread, the motto of 4e should be: "Prolonged suffering instead of swift death." And I'm all for that.

I love it when people quote me in a confirming/positive manner. It makes me feel smart and useful.

[Buffy died]... and was raised. Twice. No real penalty for dying...

No real penalty for dying! You must have seen a different Season Five finale than I did.

Damn.
(But didn't I write she became "angsty"? And was it more a penalty for the viewers then for her? Or do you mean the penalty of being subject to Spikes attacks without his head exploding? She at least didn't get weaker or lose money in the process...)

 

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I haven't. I have seen them and have no interest.
...
That to me is not a good thing. Taking a more gamist approach, imo, is a horrible decision and is ruining the game (my opinion of course).
...
I suppose if I wanted a more cinematic.action movie approach, this would sound like a good thing. However, I don't want more cinematic over the top action.

My whole point was that this it's better from EVERY point of view to have characters to have the ability bounce back from the brink of defeat.

From a gamist POV, it adds tactical depth. You don't care about that, fine. From a dramatic POV, it makes for a more cinematic flow of combat. You don't care about that either, fine. From a realistic POV, once we're thinking of HP in the abstract sense that EVERY EDITION already tells us to, it makes a lot of sense for adrenaline surges and so on to allow people to continue fighting when they'd otherwise be down for the count. You don't comment on this. So... what kind of "gamer" ARE you, if you're not going for any of the three? (AFAIK these are the only options according to that game theory stuff.)

To put it another way: in 3e you had a Cleric using magic power to heal everyone's HP basically every round. In what way is this a BETTER paradigm than the 4e approach? It's less "natural," less realistic, less cinematic, and less fun.

 

[Wolfspider]

Damn.
(But didn't I write she became "angsty"? And was it more a penalty for the viewers then for her? Or do you mean the penalty of being subject to Spikes attacks without his head exploding? She at least didn't get weaker or lose money in the process...)

I do recall her having to work at Doublemeat Palace in order to pay the bills.....

And since Buffy's strength always depends on her emotional state, having gone through the entire dying thing at the end of Season Five definitely weakened her for a while....

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I do recall her having to work at Doublemeat Palace in order to pay the bills.....

I thought that was the penalty for
- growing up and having no parents any more
- being busy with another, "primary" job that took most of her time - the whole slayer business (which doesn't really pay off monetarily)


... straying off-topic ...

 

[baradtgnome]

I very rarely kill off players. As a matter of fact, I haven't killed one off in many years. However, my players do have a fear of dying. ..

Now that would really ruin a Sunday afternoon! Luckily for my players, its against the law in Australia for a GM to kill people.

Any can RBDM can make their players afraid of losing their characters. It takes a special RBDM to bring it to a higher level of personal fear.

... ok ... so I'll read my words before I post them next time.

Every two or three encounters at least one character, but usually more ends up close to perishing. Through the other characters herioc resolve, they manage to survive. That is exciting. .

This is closer to my experience. The excitement in play is a combination of two things: having to use the rules cleverly in order to overcome the challenge; and the in-game meaning of all that rules-talk. The sense of heroism comes from the latter, and in a close combat that will certainly include (as part of the in-game flavour) the threat of death.

Agreed. Frequent death is not a requirement for frequent threat of death. (character death )

 

[shilsen]

I love it when people quote me in a confirming/positive manner. It makes me feel smart and useful.

In the interests of making you feel even smarter and more useful, I should mention that you're one of only a small handful of posters whose posts I always make sure to stop and read in detail when skimming long threads on the 4e board. I invariably find you making really cogent arguments and comments, and coming up with a lot of interesting ideas for how things might/can/should work.

*tips hat*

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

In the interests of making you feel even smarter and more useful, I should mention that you're one of only a small handful of posters whose posts I always make sure to stop and read in detail when skimming long threads on the 4e board. I invariably find you making really cogent arguments and comments, and coming up with a lot of interesting ideas for how things might/can/should work.

*tips hat*

Thanks. I also noticed there are always some posters that have something interesting to say and that gives me something to think about or make me learn something new.
(The boards don't need an ignore list, but a "watch" list might be nice. Except it would probably work out the same way )

 

[Khur]

No, my 'problem' is that I don't like the idea of self-contained healing abilities in all characters. It makes little sense in a conscious character and becomes down-right silly in one that is at neg HP and 'unconscious'.

In all honesty, FireLance and others had convinced me that it may not be so bad. Now after reading your post, I'm pretty much back to thinking it's cheese.

Sorry if my use of the word "problem" offended you.

I do think it is a mere problem of perception, though, for you and Davyn. Second wind and even healing powers have the obvious outcomes in the game of increasing hit point numbers. The question ultimately is: What do hps represent? If they don't just represent physical damage, and they don't, then even a so-called "healing" power might just be strengthening a targeted character's resolve to fight on—or whatever the players and DM decide it means for the narrative at the time. Evidence for this is easily found in that the warlord has the martial power source, which isn't completely nonmagical, but certainly less magical than other power sources. Nevertheless, the warlord has healing powers, which my players model in the narrative as inspiring words, encouragements, or a "rub some dirt in it and get back in this fight, soldier" order. With the cleric, it's really a "Pelor cure your ills" sort of thing.

Healing surges, in general, have to be triggered. Second wind is a trigger, usually usable once a fight. Other triggers include healing powers and items, or the proper use of the Heal skill. I don’t see any cheese in healing surges within this context, even though everything is more delicious with cheese. Within this cinematic context, they do make sense.

As for second wind, we've all seen movies and read stories where the hero just won't stay down. Second wind gives a player that kind of control over a PC. What it means in the narrative, once again, is whatever the players and DM decide it means. It's an opportunity to expand the narrative, and not any cheesier than a beat-up action movie hero peeling himself off the pavement and giving the bad guys a few more fives across the lips. D&D aims at that kind of action, and how you imagine the action is up to you.

The same goes for bloodied, which is a state in which a character shows signs of faltering or injury. I can imagine all kinds of abilities keying off being bloodied or an enemy being bloodied. Some people who have posted here have pointed out just such narrative opportunities, such as the yuan-ti seeing he’s got you on the ropes and zealously attacking because of it. And that’s really what they are—narrative, or roleplaying if you prefer, opportunities.

None of the abstractions of the 4e D&D game are outside the realm of imagination’s ability to explain in a fun way within the narrative of the game. I can’t agree with assertions to the contrary.

 

[PeelSeel2]

If you do not like the extra healing, get rid of it. Make a 'grittier' 4e. I will play 4e as-is for a while, and then decide on personal changes. I do not like the idea of second wind. I didn't like it in Star Wars, I do not like it in 4e. I will play it, however, and then form a basis in fact rather than apprehension.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

Depending on how one plays the game (in the sense of telling the narrative of the game), uses of second wind can go from Frodo and Samwise trudging along at one end of the range to Hulk Hogan (in his glory days) at the other end of the range with Die Hard being somewhere in the middle.

Cool Hand Luke should be in there somewhere, too.