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

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ask yourself this: Why six hours? Why not simply say "five minutes after every fight, you're completely healed"?

"Ah. Do you still remember when we first level?" "Yes, this morning we really sucked, didn't we? But I think since we hit paragon this after noon, we really got somewhere!"

The "surviving" vancian/daily elements exist to retain the general feel of the pre 4E D&D strategic resource management, and to avoid that leveling goes to fast. People should preferably rest at least once per level. I am honestly not sure that the latter really is that useful (going from level 1 to level 30 in one month is still a little too fast, isn't it? Not that it was that different in 3E... Don't know about previous editions.) And the former - I generally like the idea of resource management, but I fear that the per day resource management can mess up the freedom of the DM/adventure designer to structure his adventure.

 

[SSquirrel]

Even Batman isn't that tough.

Yeah Batman was a pussy, taking months off when Bane snapped his back in half like a twig.

As far as people wanting grittier health systems, look up Ken Hood's Revised Grim n Gritty system and use that. It gets pretty nasty heh.

 

[FadedC]

Ask yourself this: Why six hours? Why not simply say "five minutes after every fight, you're completely healed"?

Actually you CAN heal yourslef completely after a 5 minute rest as long as you have enough healing surges. You only need to take the extended rest if you have run out of surges.

As for why they dont allow constant infinite healing, I think it's so there is some concept of resource management and getting injured is something you worry about because eventually your not going to be able to bounce back even with the help of magic. But if you need an in game reason you can imagine eventually you just get so tired and beaten up from all that fighting that a 5 minute rest just isn't going to do it for you.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

"Ah. Do you still remember when we first level?" "Yes, this morning we really sucked, didn't we? But I think since we hit paragon this after noon, we really got somewhere!"

In other words, "six hours and fully healed" is more believable to you than "five minutes and fully healed," right?

 

[pawsplay]

Ah so lets force someone to play the Cleric again...

I've played in games that don't even HAVE magical healing. What's the big deal? I don't remembering anything about anyone being forced to play a cleric. I just think complete restoration should have some kind of in-game justification. Is that bizarre? Is the fact that monsters don't die until they are damaged "forcing" someone to play a character with attack abilities?

You don't even need a cleric in D&D if you have a decent supply of healing potions.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Actually you CAN heal yourslef completely after a 5 minute rest as long as you have enough healing surges. You only need to take the extended rest if you have run out of surges.

Recovery of healing surges is part of being fully healed. You can be at full HP after five minutes, but probably not fully healed.

One of the better suggestions I've seen for long-term injury, in fact, is the gradual reduction of healing surges. (Something like losing one healing surge per crit, or Bloodying, or both. And it would only return with time or some form of magical healing.)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Yeah Batman was a pussy, taking months off when Bane snapped his back in half like a twig.

Speaking personally, I don't want "grittier." Problems aside -- mostly in the realm of badly-named healing magic -- I'm fine with HP in general and the 3.5 mechanics in particular, and they are far from "gritty." I just don't want "absolutely no grit." 4E looks like it's headed that way.

 

[mach1.9pants]

In other words, "six hours and fully healed" is more believable to you than "five minutes and fully healed," right?

Keep it up, someone will bite soon
I think we'd have a lot less arguments if the words heal, healing, HIT points, wounds, bloodied, etc. were removed fromt the game. If the were action points and adrenaline surge or 'phewthatwasacloseshave' points and 're-lucking' arguments would end. But I digress...

 

[pawsplay]

Keep it up, someone will bite soon
I think we'd have a lot less arguments if the words heal, healing, HIT points, wounds, bloodied, etc. were removed fromt the game. If the were action points and adrenaline surge or 'phewthatwasacloseshave' points and re-lucking arguments whould end. But I digress...

"You challenge the orc. Your check is more successful. His action points are depleted."

Truly, the stuff of which epics are made.

 

[Puggins]

This is untrue. In every other edition of D&D, it took either time or magical healing ... or else you were "closer to being dead." I'm not sure why it's such a stretch to see that "closer to being dead" and "being wounded" are often the same thing.

Your definition of injury hinges on hit points, which is itself an abstraction. I define a "long term injury" as one that impairs your ability. The 8th level fighter who is down to 1 hit point from his normal 90hp total might be "injured" to you, but he can still swing swords with the best of them. Forget the adrenaline rush- imagine said fighter going to sleep and being woken up an hour later as more goblins rush in to attack. Said adrenaline is gone, and he's close to dying outright due to a minor scratch, but until then he is swinging his sword with all the power and all the skill he has at full health. This defies all logic if you consider a fighter at 1 hit point to be seriously or critically injured. On the other hand, if 1hp meansthat fighter is merely exhausted to the point of collapse, then you can make a good case for suspension of disbelief.

The new system does not. Every other D&D has.

While your other arguments are valid and sometimes merely a difference in opinion, this one is plainly wrong. Serious, debilitating injury has never been modeled. The closest we ever got was ability damage, but since ability damage was an entirely different form of attack rather than a form of injury, even that wasn't very close.

See, this is what I don't get. On the one hand, 4E healing apologists keep saying, "It's not that you're not injured, it's that you fight on at full capacity anyway." But then you can't imagine a 3.5 fighter being injured, but fighting on anyway, not at full capacity (he's down HP due to injury, after all), but with no attack or defense penalties? If anything, isn't the latter less of a stretch?

It's an equal stretch. There's very little difference. In 3.5e, the fighter takes a couple days to heal his bumps and bruises. In 4e, they heal overnight. There is no serious injury that impairs his ability to fight or threatens his life.

Again, that's simply not true. A "serious injury" is one that takes either time or magical healing to recover from. Every edition of D&D modeled serious injuries ... until 4E, in which you're never injured until you're dead.

You're forming an artificial difference. A serious injury is not one that take a couple of days to heal- a serious injury is one that is DANGEROUS to your ongoing health. Neither 3.5e or 4e have such injuries. You never have to worry about kidney failure, which will kill you in days, or a broken arm that hinders your ability to fight. the hit point abstraction is horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE for modeling injury, since there are no consequences for dropping from 90hp to 1hp. The hit point abstraction, on the other hand, is great for modeling heroic behavior and the ability to survive superficial punishment. Both 3.5e and 4e work fine this way. 4e merely makes the whole thing more consistent in assuming no serious injuries normally occur before you're incapacitated.