D&D 4E 4e Healing - Is This Right?

[Thyrwyn]

If we are going to use the argument that "they are 'real' wounds because the spell is called Cure Light Wounds", it is relevant to point out that by that reasoning a 'light' wound constitutes "any injury capable of killing the vast majority of the populace", since most 'people' are 1st lvl, and most have less than 8 hp.

Just sayin'. . .

 

[Hypersmurf]

Does anyone have a 1E PHB handy? Just before the equipment section, there's a passage where Gary talks about a 10th level fighter having more hit points than four warhorses...?

-Hyp.

 

[Cadfan]

It's also not that a PC becomes healing resistant, it's that the Cure mechanics suck.

How convenient, then, that 4e fixed that by giving everyone their own "healing surge" amount.

 

[glass]

KarinsDad is correct. With natural healing and no magic involvement, the higher your level the faster you heal. This is because the amount you heal per rest period increases linearly, while the amount of hit points you receive is frontloaded.

In 3.x this is true (although we still have the oddity that high Con people 'heal' slower because both level land Con affect hp but only level affects healing rate).

In 2e (and presumably previous editions) it was not true -rate of hp return did not depend on level at all.


glass.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

How convenient, then, that 4e fixed that by giving everyone their own "healing surge" amount.

Begging the question.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Whatever words you care to use to describe them, 'injuries' represented by hp in any edition of D&D do not impair the character in any way. Thus, no edition modelled long-term impairment with hp damage.

To be fair, it impairs you in ONE WAY ONLY: You can no longer take as many "hits" as you used to be able to.

While I agree that to define abstract kinda ruins the point of abstract, there has always been guidelines as to what HP represent.

In EVERY edtion HP is a combination of luck, skill at turning what might have been a lethal blowt into a superficial wound (I call "rolling with it"), injury (and the ability to deal with shock), and fatigue.

The DEGREE of each of those is, and should always be, up to the player, DM, and the myriad of situations that can cause the damage.

4E is simply implying that the degree of injury should be considered less than in previous editions.

Unless you are arguing that the lack of rules for every single detail in previous editions gives 4e a pass on having to contain rules that don't require handwaving by the end-user.

It requires no more "hand waving" than the "hand waving" that had to be done to explain why an "injured" character was ready to fight at any time with no penalties apart from it being dangerous. It simply lacks a rule for every single detail, right?

Fitz

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Except the strenuous activity prevents that character from getting above 1hp, therefore, they are seriously injured.

But shouldn't it be the other way around? Being seriously injured should not mean that it's hard to heal, it should mean that it limits my ability to perform strenuous activity...

 

[Storm-Bringer]

It requires no more "hand waving" than the "hand waving" that had to be done to explain why an "injured" character was ready to fight at any time with no penalties apart from it being dangerous. It simply lacks a rule for every single detail, right?

Except 4e doesn't even have that concession. The push is for total abstraction so it meshes with healing surges. As has been noted, hit points in previous editions at least paid lip service to having a physical component, mostly because of effects like poison which can't sap your 'luck' or 'skill at dodging' exclusively. In addition to effects of that sort, spells such as fireball and lightning bolt must have a physical component to deliver their damage.

You can certainly describe every battle like the fight between Hector and Achilles, but that removes the 'epic' feel of a truly difficult fight. When all fights are special, no fight is special. This was also a fight between two of the most skilled warriors in Greece. If every battle between the characters and a pack of goblins is a series of near misses, it starts to sound a bit silly after a while. Additionally, Achilles more or less walked unhindered to the temple at the end, and was felled by a single arrow from Paris. I would assume there was plenty of time to use several 'healing surges' to get back up near full from the few 'encounters' he had along the way.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

But shouldn't it be the other way around? Being seriously injured should not mean that it's hard to heal, it should mean that it limits my ability to perform strenuous activity...

To a degree, yes, it probably should. It would also be good to have strenuous activity causing further damage. But then we are talking about a death-spiral mechanic, which isn't something D&D has ever encompassed.

My argument, which may be different than others' here, is that the hit point mechanic struck a good balance in previous editions. The push for a near wholly abstract concept for hit points really does introduce certain problems beyond explaining how they interact with the game world. The Crimson Edge ability of the Rogue makes implicit that some successful hits are physical damage.

 

[glass]

It's also not that a PC becomes healing resistant, it's that the Cure mechanics suck.

How convenient, then, that 4e fixed that by giving everyone their own "healing surge" amount.

Begging the question.

Huh? I know begging the question gets missused a lot, but I have no idea what you are talking about.

To be fair, it impairs you in ONE WAY ONLY: You can no longer take as many "hits" as you used to be able to.

That is not impairment. It does not in any way affect your ability to keep fighting (the wisdom of doing so notwithstanding).


glass.