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

[Dalvyn]

I do think it is a mere problem of perception, though, for you and Davyn.

That is one way to see it, I suppose ... but I think it's a bit deeper than just perception. I can grasp abstract concepts like hit points representing more than just physical integrity, but other problems come with it. The main of those problems is the fact that the interpretation of a "technical result" depends on events that happen in the future.

For example, let's say an orc damages the fighter for 5 hit points. If this "damage" is later (let's say 3 rounds later) "healed" by a warlord's order, then what really happened is that the fighter dodged out the blow but somehow became less heroic/invulnerable/concentrated or more exhausted or got a decrease in morale because of the orc's attack. But if this "damage" is later "healed" by a Heal check or by divine magic healing, then what really happened is that the orc's blade cut through the fighter's skin and flesh and caused it to bleed.

When my orc rolls a hit and the damage die shows 5, I want to be able to describe what happens right then, and not have to say "Something happens ... but I'm not sure what exactly. I'll be able to say for sure in 3 rounds, when that damage is healed."

That's one of the main problems of the "dual" interpretation of hit points as physical integrity and "something else", which show that it's a bit more than just a question of perception.

Side note. One easy answer to my problem above is to say that all attacks that hit cause physical damage (i.e., the orc really damaged the fighter) and that the warlord's "healing" just inspires the PC to ignore the wound and continue fighting ... but that does not work, since the fighter still goes back to full hit points [= no wound] after the warlord's action.

Another answer is to say that all attacks except killing ones do not harm but simply reduce "combativity" (i.e., the orc missed the fighter and that the fighter just lost some "combativity"), and say that divine healing magic grants inspiration and courage instead of healing physical damage... but then why does a Heal check restore hit points? Shouldn't we use Diplomacy checks instead to cure people?

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.

Yup... but that can only be done at the time of the healing, not when the "damage" is done.

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.

Now, this is a reverse argument that does not work here in my opinion. The warlord's nonmagical "healing" abilities (as well as the second wind abilities) are the reasons why the "hit points = physical integrity" interpretation does not work anymore; they can't both be used as causes and justifications.

I remember reading somewhere that one of the novel concepts used in the development of 4th edition was that "rules" and "fluff" would interact with each other, while in previous editions, fluff would give birth to rules (and not the other way around). I'll first admit that I am biased here, because I like the "fluff/imagination gives birth to rules" direction, but I do not like the "That's a cool rule, let's come up with some fluff to plug it in the system". I feel that it is what started this whole topic.

I would imagine (but, of course, I can be wrong), that the developpers thought "Clerics that have to spend all their rounds healing are no fun; let's fix that." then concentrated on one solution, which is "Let's make everybody able to heal themselves, and let's make other kinds of healers." From a rule-based point of view, then things like second wind and the warlord's ability make sense ... they allow characters to heal themselves, and open up a new class option for a healer.

But things start to make much less sense (imo) when those "rules" are plugged in the system, because they have to be supported/justified by some fluff. And the fluff that is necessary to bring those new rules in is that hit points are no longer just a measure of physical integrity, that wounds are not only physical wounds, that healing is not only physical healing, and so on.

So, in that sense, I don't feel that you can really use second winds and warlords to justify that the new interpretation of hit points makes sense.

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.

As I wrote above, I could see a yuan-ti "feeling blood" and getting, for example, a flurry of attacks against a bloodied character, or some sort of to-hit/damage bonuses with perhaps a penalty to AC ... but being able to attack everybody around as in a whirldwind attack because ONE of them is bloodied? Why?

I feel like asking ... what "realistic reaction" of the yuan-ti is this rule supposed to mimic? Yuan-tis that fight several opponents and feel that one of them is next to being overcome might start fighting more aggressively against that creature - that, I can buy -; but start suddenly attacking everybody around? I can't see the relation. I guess that could work for some strange/new creatures, but that is not at all why one would expect from a yuan-ti (that being, I'm not a snake specialist, so I might be utterly wrong).

That too feels like a "hey, I thought up a cool rule... can you find some fluff to plug it in?" moment to me.

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.

You are correct ... it's always possible to find a fun way to explain things. But I feel that sometimes, the only possible explanations are cheesy at best, and that they force me out of the realistic/gritty games I like to play, where combats do cause blood to be shed from wounds that can't just -always- be healed by inspiring words.

That being said, thank you very much for taking the time to answer.

 

[heirodule]

Is a corollary of all this that clerical healing now can be seen as "faith healing" where the healing doesn't actually close any wounds? It could be a completely non-magical effect too.

 

[mmu1]

I think there's a real possibility of all these "trigger abilities", Second Wind included, becoming really freakin' annoying.

Maybe it's just me, but it drives me completely up the wall when - whether in a PnP game or a CRPG - the enemy you've been beating the crap out suddenly hits the big red button when at 10% HP, effectively resetting the encounter, and forcing you to fight him all over again... except now you're down on resources and he's hitting even harder than before.

Once in a while, this sort of thing can be great - surprise, drama, all that good stuff. But if it's overdone, you just end up feeling like you're being forced to kill anyone of significance three times before they're really dead... or better yet, that you're beating on someone for all you're worth, and they just keep on getting stronger as a result.

Second Wind and various other healing surges / triggers just seem to me like a lesser case of that. They might allow for "dramatic" recovery, but I have a feeling that in reality they'll just diminish the dramatic value of those times when you open the fight with a big spectacular crit, or go for broke in hope of taking down an enemy on the spot and chaging the face of the battlefield. (without being able to count on those things to happen)

 

[Rallek]

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.

Well, I'm not exactly loving the sound of that. Looks like "non-magical" fighters may be difficult/impossible to pull off under the 4e rules as written, and that's a negative in my opinion. Still, don't want to derail the thread so on to more on-topic stuff.

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.

Now I may be alone here, but I don't really want my weekly D&D session to play like Die Hard 4. I like Die Hard 4, it was an above average "blow-stuff-up" action film, and I do tend to enjoy those, but it isn't what I'm looking for in my session. First of all, in my experience, action films tend to have one registered Bad Ass on team good guys, and then a side-kick or two for him to pal around with and bounce lines off of. Not exactly the best model for a party of 4 or 5.


Ahh, but there is always the Buddy Film, right? Maybe 4e is going for less Die Hard and more Lethal Weapon. Now we can have Alpha Bad Ass character (the Mel Gibson role), and slightly lesser Bad Ass character (Danny Glover)... that's still only two though, I guess someone is going to have to be Joe Pesci...


Maybe it's not so much an action film as a superhero film. There are lots of X men, and 4 members of the fantastic 4, right? Perhaps that's the vibe we're going for in 4e. Count me out if that is the case.


As far as fantasy books and movies go, I'm a fan of these as well, and I don't really recall one where characters are peeling themselves off of the pavement and giving the bad guys a few more fives across the lips... at least not in every fight. Usually (it seems to me) They tend to do that kind of thing once, or maybe twice, and that's in the entire arc of time covered by the story. That doesn't sound like a "per-encounter" ability to me, that sounds much closer to something like Fate Points ala WFRP.



Just my 2cp

 

[Jinete]

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.

That kind of "the hero just won't stay down" ability works great in a climactic moment. If you use it in every encounter it turns into an "I recover some of my hit-points" ability.

 

[Remathilis]

I think there's a real possibility of all these "trigger abilities", Second Wind included, becoming really freakin' annoying.

Maybe it's just me, but it drives me completely up the wall when - whether in a PnP game or a CRPG - the enemy you've been beating the crap out suddenly hits the big red button when at 10% HP, effectively resetting the encounter, and forcing you to fight him all over again... except now you're down on resources and he's hitting even harder than before.

Once in a while, this sort of thing can be great - surprise, drama, all that good stuff. But if it's overdone, you just end up feeling like you're being forced to kill anyone of significance three times before they're really dead... or better yet, that you're beating on someone for all you're worth, and they just keep on getting stronger as a result.

Second Wind and various other healing surges / triggers just seem to me like a lesser case of that. They might allow for "dramatic" recovery, but I have a feeling that in reality they'll just diminish the dramatic value of those times when you open the fight with a big spectacular crit, or go for broke in hope of taking down an enemy on the spot and changing the face of the battlefield. (without being able to count on those things to happen)

Speculation: In Saga, all classed foes have second winds. While currently we've only 3rd level, the second wind has YET to reset an encounter, usually it just prolongs it another round or two. Your con or 1/4 your total hp is a small amount, and it doesn't swing the fight to much unless you already had a way to swing it and you just need a few more rounds to get there...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

That is one way to see it, I suppose ... but I think it's a bit deeper than just perception. I can grasp abstract concepts like hit points representing more than just physical integrity, but other problems come with it. The main of those problems is the fact that the interpretation of a "technical result" depends on events that happen in the future.

For example, let's say an orc damages the fighter for 5 hit points. If this "damage" is later (let's say 3 rounds later) "healed" by a warlord's order, then what really happened is that the fighter dodged out the blow but somehow became less heroic/invulnerable/concentrated or more exhausted or got a decrease in morale because of the orc's attack. But if this "damage" is later "healed" by a Heal check or by divine magic healing, then what really happened is that the orc's blade cut through the fighter's skin and flesh and caused it to bleed.

When my orc rolls a hit and the damage die shows 5, I want to be able to describe what happens right then, and not have to say "Something happens ... but I'm not sure what exactly. I'll be able to say for sure in 3 rounds, when that damage is healed."

I see your problem here, and I think I agree with it. Maybe the best way to handle is to avoid describing any blow as physical unless
- it causes you to become blooded
- drops you below 0 hit points.
- no way you can get a healing surge again. (Maybe there is a daily limit, I don't know.
From what I know, what can't happen is that you can be healed back to 100 %. I thought it could usually only be triggered if below 50 %, and doesn't heal more than 1/4 of your normal hp. But I might be wrong on that. I have only limited experience due to reading through Saga, but haven't played with any of it yet.

I remember reading somewhere that one of the novel concepts used in the development of 4th edition was that "rules" and "fluff" would interact with each other, while in previous editions, fluff would give birth to rules (and not the other way around). I'll first admit that I am biased here, because I like the "fluff/imagination gives birth to rules" direction, but I do not like the "That's a cool rule, let's come up with some fluff to plug it in the system". I feel that it is what started this whole topic.

I thought it was more the direction of fluff goes into the rules. You don't just get the "Modify Spell Area" feat, you become a "Golden Wyvern Adept".

Maybe they were actually going both ways, and it turns out that many people don't like either one direction or the other, or both.


Personally, I think it's nice if rules have a (possible) fluff explaination, and I also like it if the fluff of a game is found in its rules again. If I am playing a LotR game, I don't want my Wizard to throw a fireball. If Fighters can learn how to disarm enemies better, it's nice if there is a "martial school" in the setting that teaches it.
If a game uses hit points scaling with level, I want a kind of in-game explaination how I can explain damage or healing. In all cases, I'd prefer if the fluff-explainations aren't to narrow (not "you must have gone to the Montoya Fighting College for 1 year before you can learn Ambidexterity." "You must be a Cleric to even have a chance of healing hit points!"

 

[Dunamin]

That is one way to see it, I suppose ... but I think it's a bit deeper than just perception. I can grasp abstract concepts like hit points representing more than just physical integrity, but other problems come with it. The main of those problems is the fact that the interpretation of a "technical result" depends on events that happen in the future.

For example, let's say an orc damages the fighter for 5 hit points. If this "damage" is later (let's say 3 rounds later) "healed" by a warlord's order, then what really happened is that the fighter dodged out the blow but somehow became less heroic/invulnerable/concentrated or more exhausted or got a decrease in morale because of the orc's attack. But if this "damage" is later "healed" by a Heal check or by divine magic healing, then what really happened is that the orc's blade cut through the fighter's skin and flesh and caused it to bleed.

When my orc rolls a hit and the damage die shows 5, I want to be able to describe what happens right then, and not have to say "Something happens ... but I'm not sure what exactly. I'll be able to say for sure in 3 rounds, when that damage is healed."

That's one of the main problems of the "dual" interpretation of hit points as physical integrity and "something else", which show that it's a bit more than just a question of perception.

Side note. One easy answer to my problem above is to say that all attacks that hit cause physical damage (i.e., the orc really damaged the fighter) and that the warlord's "healing" just inspires the PC to ignore the wound and continue fighting ... but that does not work, since the fighter still goes back to full hit points [= no wound] after the warlord's action.

Another answer is to say that all attacks except killing ones do not harm but simply reduce "combativity" (i.e., the orc missed the fighter and that the fighter just lost some "combativity"), and say that divine healing magic grants inspiration and courage instead of healing physical damage... but then why does a Heal check restore hit points? Shouldn't we use Diplomacy checks instead to cure people?

I’m not really biased one way or another here, but perhaps I might be able to offer a partial alleviation to your dilemma.

Describe wounds as you always have – wound slashes with swords, burns with fireballs, etc. - but don’t go into overt detail. When a warlord uses his healing powers, choose your narration as something like: “You look down at the cut the orc gave you and realize your ally is right – it’s not as bad as it seems.”
In case of a full recovery, state that the cut “turned out to be merely a flesh wound,” nothing that significantly impacted the character’s health.

Don’t equal full hit points with necessarily no physical wound. State that a warrior healed by a warlord discovered that the slash turned out superficial (another scar for the collection), and a warrior healed by a cleric had his gash close before his very eyes.
In effect, all wounds in the game are potentially mere flesh wounds until that final killing blow.

Just throwing out ideas here. I’m also having some difficulty adjusting to the idea of second winds and similar types of healing in the game, but I don’t see their implementation as too much of a problem once I’ve gotten used to it.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

For example, let's say an orc damages the fighter for 5 hit points. If this "damage" is later (let's say 3 rounds later) "healed" by a warlord's order, then what really happened is that the fighter dodged out the blow but somehow became less heroic/invulnerable/concentrated or more exhausted or got a decrease in morale because of the orc's attack. But if this "damage" is later "healed" by a Heal check or by divine magic healing, then what really happened is that the orc's blade cut through the fighter's skin and flesh and caused it to bleed.

When my orc rolls a hit and the damage die shows 5, I want to be able to describe what happens right then, and not have to say "Something happens ... but I'm not sure what exactly. I'll be able to say for sure in 3 rounds, when that damage is healed."

What exactly is the problem, here? Why does it matter if the hp loss is described as fatigue/exertion that is later "healed" by a Heal check or divine magic? I don't mean any disrespect, I'm just trying to understand your point of view.

It sounds to me like you think that the initial narration of damage needs to be firmly established, and that "overturning" that initial narration through healing somehow "breaks" things. Is that right?

Side note. One easy answer to my problem above is to say that all attacks that hit cause physical damage (i.e., the orc really damaged the fighter) and that the warlord's "healing" just inspires the PC to ignore the wound and continue fighting ... but that does not work, since the fighter still goes back to full hit points [= no wound] after the warlord's action.

Sure it works. Just because the fighter is at full hitpoints doesn't mean he doesn't still look like crap. He could have tons of small cuts and bruises, or maybe even a serious one (heroes fighting on with what looks like serious wounds is a common trope of action movies), but he is at peak fighting potential because his spirit has been renewed.

Another answer is to say that all attacks except killing ones do not harm but simply reduce "combativity" (i.e., the orc missed the fighter and that the fighter just lost some "combativity"), and say that divine healing magic grants inspiration and courage instead of healing physical damage... but then why does a Heal check restore hit points? Shouldn't we use Diplomacy checks instead to cure people?

A Diploamcy based heal would make an interesting feat (or, even better, an Intimidate based heal ... ) In any even, I think of a Heal check as having a lot to do with words of encouragement and giving the care and support to eases your patient's troubled spirit.

Now, this is a reverse argument that does not work here in my opinion. The warlord's nonmagical "healing" abilities (as well as the second wind abilities) are the reasons why the "hit points = physical integrity" interpretation does not work anymore; they can't both be used as causes and justifications.

Again, why not?

But things start to make much less sense (imo) when those "rules" are plugged in the system, because they have to be supported/justified by some fluff. And the fluff that is necessary to bring those new rules in is that hit points are no longer just a measure of physical integrity, that wounds are not only physical wounds, that healing is not only physical healing, and so on.

Well, IMO, I think it might be better to focus less of fluff for fluff's sake[1] and more on allowing fluff to describe the outcome of the mechanics and lead the narrative and story in certain directions. Fluff is just a tool IMO, not the central aspect of the game.

As I wrote above, I could see a yuan-ti "feeling blood" and getting, for example, a flurry of attacks against a bloodied character, or some sort of to-hit/damage bonuses with perhaps a penalty to AC ... but being able to attack everybody around as in a whirldwind attack because ONE of them is bloodied? Why?

Why do sharks go into a frenzy when they smell blood? Why does a boxer, observing momentary weakness in his opponent, suddenly go all out? You can think of it as adrenaline rush, desperation, or what have you.

You are correct ... it's always possible to find a fun way to explain things. But I feel that sometimes, the only possible explanations are cheesy at best, and that they force me out of the realistic/gritty games I like to play, where combats do cause blood to be shed from wounds that can't just -always- be healed by inspiring words.

I bet in a future D&D supplement, they'll make a damage type called "lethal" or something that can only be healed by magic. This would allow you to dial up or down the grittiness of the game. Having said that, IMO the core D&D game is cinematic and action-oriented. All the rules and fluff should reflect that style IMO.

[1] "For fluff's sake" ... I'll have to remember that phraseology .

 

[Khur]

One point that needs to be emphasized, again, is that the "interpretation" of hit points as something more than raw physical integrity is not a new one. It has existed almost as long, if not as long, as the D&D game has. If you have trouble with that aspect of the game, your trouble isn't anything new either. The abstractness of hit points is something I've struggled with in a narrative sense in my D&D games for, well, ever.

The only new aspects are:

—Each PC, and thereby player, has more control over healing. I'd like to point out that I never mentioned NPCs or monsters having these things.

—Healing surges combine with hit points to form a "death avoidance" resource. The use of healing surges is limited and often beyond an individual player's control, except for with regard to second wind. PCs have gone down in combats I've participated in without having the chance to use even one healing surge by any means.

If the idea that a creature just goes crazy at the sight of someone’s weakness (bloodied condition) and makes multiple attacks in a bloodthirsty zeal because of that seems ridiculous to you, I won’t be able to convince you otherwise. I’m not going to try to convince you.

I will say plenty of media other than the D&D game and other RPGs show and support this type of cinematic behavior—Bruce Lee, Conan, WWE, Cap’n. Mal of Firefly, and on and on. I can also say that nobody who’s played 4e and been on the receiving end of these abilities feels the same. The same goes for any creature in a bloodied condition that uses or loses an ability because of it—bloodied is a weakened state. Some creatures take advantage of that weakness in others by going on an attack spree, like the yuan-ti does, and others react to their own weakness by pulling out all the stops, like the dragon does. Other possibilities also exist and are played on with monsters.

That the yuan-ti atacks those who aren't bloodied when inspired to do so by seeing a weakened target seems to me to just be a natural outgrowth of that inspiration. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me at all, similar to the berserker strength rage alternative for the barbarian presented in 3e's PH2. Hoepfully, in your evaluation, you aren't assuming the yuan-ti can do this all the time or anything else not openly detailed about the power. Most such powers have carefully constructed controls and timing built in.

Another aspect that isn't new in D&D game is the idea that every party member is an utter name-taker, in some way, when it comes to combat. True, at least, at levels higher than about 3rd or 4th. D&D heroes regularly take on and defeat monsters that could destroy entire cities if let loose to do so. That's part of the game that has always existed and has always been fun. If you have trouble with that aspect of D&D, your trouble isn't anything new either. This aspect of D&D hasn’t ever bothered me, except at levels when it’s not true (I’m looking at you, 1st level). If I wanted a highly simulationist game, I wouldn’t choose the D&D game, as written, to do it.

D&D is an utterly cinematic fantasy game that allows players to co-create and experience a narrative about high-fantasy adventures. It’s a game first and foremost, meaning the entertainment value to the players is most important. That fun is as much based on how the rules allow players to act through their characters as it is about story. My experience is that the 4e rules try and succeed better than other editions at getting out of the way of the fun, unless someone is hung up on largely meaningless minutiae or lacking in imagination.

My players are demanding in the roleplaying and narrative departments, so I know where snags can occur. But even my hardcore roleplayers think this version of the game is more fun than any other they’ve played. Many have played them all, as well as many other RPGs, for years and years. Sure, they had opinions on certain rules upon hearing or reading about them, but many negative opinions quickly changed when play showed the whole system working together.

Unfortunately, we can't have that discussion yet.