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

[Wormwood]

As I noted in an earlier post, maybe every encounter should be a climactic moment. Otherwise, what contribution is the encounter making to the game?

Precisely! I really hope 4e finally puts a stake in the heart of the 'encounter as resource sink'.

 

[Remathilis]

Is second wind limited to 1/4 max hp?
I thought it could also be used to restore hp = con
I am trying this in a 3.75 game in the pbp forums, and it was used today. A 2nd level character with three arrows in him was suddenly restored to full (8hp) and it is bothering eveyone's suspension of disbelief (except the victim)

Clarification would be helpful.

In SAGA, your second wind only works when your below 1/2 hp. Its a swift action to use. It heals 1/4 your total hp OR your con score, whichever is greater (Saga PCs start with triple starting hp). You can use this ability once per day (without feats or talents) and only if you have levels in a "heroic" class (solider, scout, scoundrel, jedi, noble).

In a 3.75, I'd cut the "or con score" part, since scaling for hp is different. Otherwise, it works fine for important "classes" villains or those willing to blow a feat to use it. (PCs are natch).

 

[pemerton]

Is second wind limited to 1/4 max hp?
I thought it could also be used to restore hp = con
I am trying this in a 3.75 game in the pbp forums, and it was used today. A 2nd level character with three arrows in him was suddenly restored to full (8hp) and it is bothering eveyone's suspension of disbelief (except the victim)

If your suspension of disbelief is not troubled by the fact that someone with 3 arros stuck in him is performing without physical hindrance, then why is it more troubling to imagine him pulling them out and soldiering on?

Conversely, if you don't want to envisage such superheroic goings on, you could assume that the 3 arrow hits did not constitute the actual loding of arrows in the flesh, but rather grazes, or blows which forced the performance of evasive action, or which resulted in the character being in a less advantageous position, or losing the momentum of the combat (and thus being closer to ultimate defeat). The second wind would then represent a surge which shrugs off the minor damage or exhaustion, or reestablishes momentum in favour of the character.

 

[Rallek]

I think that I would have a much easier time swallowing "second wind" and "I'm healed because a warlord struck an enemy" type of powers if they granted temporary hit points, rather than actually healing damage.


Maybe I'm alone on this (and I think I'm alone on most things when it comes to 4e), but I can envision a wounded character watching the "warlord" strike the orc chieftain and gaining a boost in morale that allows them to fight on, ignoring the pain of their wounds. After that boost of adrenaline/morale/what-have-you clears their system, however, they're going to notice all the aggravation to their injuries that occurred due to fighting as if they were unwounded. So warlord hits something, character gets a "rush" gains some temporary hp, finishes fight/encounter, loses temporary hp (much like a barbarian's "rage" receding), and is now in need of actual healing. Perhaps they've "cinematically" hung on long enough to finish the fight, only to die of their wounds almost immediately afterward (13th Warrior, anyone?).


Just a brief opinion on the matter.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If bloodied was merely an additional state that inflicted penalties and indicated how a particular battle was going, I would have no problem. The gimmick, imo, is triggering monster attacks (e.g., the dragon's area attack in an early playtest)- it might be cool the first time the player's ever encounter that particular creature type's ability, but after that it is just an annoyingly cheesey ability in my opinion and that of the friends with whom I have talked about bloodied.

I guess it will in fact become less cool over time (if a blooded mechanic is used for every monster and every character), but I don't think that will make it cheesy. Well, not for me or my group (as far as I can speak for them) at least*.

As it stands now, I only get to describe a cool attack once per monster - the attack that kills it (and preferably brings it far into the negative, so any gory description fits). Now I get two per monster. A serious blow that turns it bloodied, and the finishing move.

I think the bloodied mechanic is a good way to keep a longer lasting combat interesting. After a few rounds, the combat dynamic can change. In the extreme case, you can get all the dynamic of fighting two different monsters with a single monster.

*) I think I am going to experiment with this kind of stuff, and maybe so should you? Add special actions for the "blooded" state to some monsters and see how it works out. Try figure out something interesting to do. Maybe use a variant ooze that only splits (once) if its hit points are reduced to half. Or use an Ettin whose one head is dropped unconcious if the Ettin is bloodied. A psychic creature that emits a confusing telepathic sound if bloodied.

 

[FireLance]

I think that I would have a much easier time swallowing "second wind" and "I'm healed because a warlord struck an enemy" type of powers if they granted temporary hit points, rather than actually healing damage.

I would prefer this approach as well, and in fact, I would probably run the hp-restoring Devoted Spirit maneuvers from Bo9S in this way. However, this does mean that you are required to track temporary hp and when they expire. I get the feeling that for some people, the distinction isn't important enough to justify the extra effort of keeping track of two hp scores.

 

[Khur]

Could you clarify this a bit? Are fighters and warlords going to have powers that are, essentially, magical, or is it more open to interpretation?

It's more open to interpretation. Fighters and warlords are going to be doing stuff that is very cinematic and fantastic, which could be interpreted as magical. That's reasonable in a D&D world. However, even with that interpretation, the fighter and warlord (and other martial power source PCs) will seem distinctly less magical than members of classes such as the cleric and, of course, the wizard.

I think that I would have a much easier time swallowing "second wind" and "I'm healed because a warlord struck an enemy" type of powers if they granted temporary hit points, rather than actually healing damage.

That's not a bad idea for a house rule, but just be aware that you necessarily make the warlord a poorer choice as a leader unless the temporary hp he gives seem as good as what a cleric or other leader might give. On the flip side, it's just as easy to imagine that the cleric's "healing" powers aren't actually healing physical damage either.

[[Generalization follows]]

In both of these cases, how each game group works with the rules and narrates the results is really up to it's members, and that seems like a good thing to me. I don't think the rules should necessarily dictate such interpretation to the players. That would hobble the organic (as opposed to mechanistic) nature of roleplaying and storytelling.

 

[AZRogue]

I really, really like the changes I've heard about so far, including Second Wind and the special Bloodied abilities some monsters have. They look like great cues for new players to pick up and run with. Give them the signal to start thinking cinematically and encourage them to roleplay a bit.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It's more open to interpretation. Fighters and warlords are going to be doing stuff that is very cinematic and fantastic, which could be interpreted as magical. That's reasonable in a D&D world. However, even with that interpretation, the fighter and warlord (and other martial power source PCs) will seem distinctly less magical than members of classes such as the cleric and, of course, the wizard.

That's not a bad idea for a house rule, but just be aware that you necessarily make the warlord a poorer choice as a leader unless the temporary hp he gives seem as good as what a cleric or other leader might give. On the flip side, it's just as easy to imagine that the cleric's "healing" powers aren't actually healing physical damage either.

The Cleric thing is an interesting idea. Having a Cleric without obvious magical effects (no Flame Strikes) is an interesting effect. The Clerics strength of belief and personality is enough to inspire his comrades. The power might come from within, or is granted by a divine might...

But then, that's already was the Warlord does, except he isn't a Priest.

 

[pemerton]

how each game group works with the rules and narrates the results is really up to it's members, and that seems like a good thing to me. I don't think the rules should necessarily dictate such interpretation to the players. That would hobble the organic (as opposed to mechanistic) nature of roleplaying and storytelling.

QFT.