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

[bjorn2bwild]

You could argue that somebody at full hp but down on surges isn't full healed and I could see the healing surge rule, although given that magical healing can be done pretty an unlimited times in a day it might not be worth the trouble of keeping track of.

But either way I'd say 5 minutes vs. 6 hours is more about gameplay then realism. Getting all your surges back in 5 minutes would have a tremendous impact on gameplay.

Not exactly. Magical healing is not unlimited. Three out of the four known ways to heal in 4E require the use of healing surges.

The only known healing in 4e that does not require healing surges is the extended rest.

Second Wind/personal healing- requires your (the target's) healing surges.

Lay on Hands requires the Paladin's (not necessarily the target's) healing surges.

Healing Word requires the target's healing surges. Well, this is a matter of interpretation of the RAW, actually. The way I see healing word working is it allows the target to immediately use a healing surge that is magically boosted. Some people might interpret healing word as something more like "the target is healed for X hit points and may spend a healing surge as well." ---While I don't agree with that, I can see rules lawyers arguing that one.

But, yes, I agree with you. Getting healing surges back in 5 minutes would have a huge impact on gameplay.


The simple and elegant solution to Jeff's dilemma, and one that would reconcile the differences between extended rest healing and the other three types, has already been suggested in this thread.

Have an extended rest recover your healing surges, but none of your hit points. You will still be at full hit points at the end of an extended rest (if you so choose), but you will have to use some of your healing potential for the coming day.

 

[Grog]

Actually, there were a lot of traps in AD&D that lopped off hands, fingers, feet, etc (I managed to take one of the pc's arms with one). and there were penalties associated with those injuries. 2E kept the swords of sharpness and vorpal blades, but no, you really don't see any serious injury past that.

Which was rather silly in its own way, when you think about it. How is it that a PC could have his hand chopped off by a trap or a special magical weapon, but this could never happen in a deadly battle?

But anyway, as you said, those rare instances were the exception and not the rule. And they certainly weren't modeled by hit point damage.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Which brings up a point: why couldn't WOTC come up with a model to reflect the increase of wounds/fatigue/etc?

Because "Death Spiral" rules - the more injured you are, the more likely you are to be injured - are inherently inimical to core D&D play (where kicking in the door and bashing monsters - more than once! - is a perfectly acceptable thing to do).

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I save colorful describtions of that sort for when the foe's been dropped. Until then it's all nicks and grazes. Maybe a jarring attack parried.

So the heroes -- the PCs -- are never injured ... until they're dead. Right? If you're fighting, say, an elephant, it can take actual injury -- say, a couple of daggers hilt-deep in the ribs -- before dropping, right?

And BTW, I get that HP are something different in 4E. I just don't like what they are, because as a consequence it means there's no injury without death, when every edition of D&D before 4E has had "fine," "injured, but gimme some time," and "dead."

[Hector and Achilles.]

And on the other side, there's Boromir. Boromir did take wounds before he was actually killed, right? If he'd somehow survived, would he have been perfectly fine in six hours?

You can pick fights in movies to model your version of HP all day. I can do the same. These are scripted and given visuals for maximum dramatics, depending upon what the writer and director want. Hector and Achilles weren't playing D&D, and nor were Boromir and the uruk-hai.

 

[Pale Jackal]

Actually, it increases my suspension of disbelief, because it shows that hit points aren't increasing resistance of meat -- they represent your skill, staying power, morale, and general 'sharpness.' The idea of someone being hacked 15 times with a sword and still being alive, never mind healing, is just about as laughable an idea as I can think of.

Agreed, absolutely.

And on the other side, there's Boromir. Boromir did take wounds before he was actually killed, right? If he'd somehow survived, would he have been perfectly fine in six hours?

I think it'd be entirely appropriate to say Boromir went into a "rage" (as per D&D barbarian), and really, the first center-of-the-torso arrow meant he was a goner.

It would have to be an extraordinary circumstance (or very high level play) for me to describe a PC as taking an arrow to the chest.

And as other people have pointed out: is Boromir healing from an arrow in one or two days believable? I would say: yes, it's not quite as burdensome as it was... however you're espousing the "flesh and blood model"... an arrow wound healed in a day or two? That's preposterous.

 

[mach1.9pants]

No, you weren't.

I'm sorry, but if you can run, and jump, and swim, and climb, and tumble, and lift heavy weights, and perform a myriad of other physically demanding activities, and perform them at 100% of your usual ability all day long, you are not seriously injured. Period.

No edition of D&D has ever modeled serious injury (barring optional rules about coming back from negative hit points).

This, totally. DnD has only ever modelled serious hit point loss not serious injury, not even minor injuries- a twisted ankle would make you a very poor combatant for a few days!

Take the fight between Hector and Achilles in "Troy," for example...

Thanks mate, awesome forgot about this. I am gonna watch it again with my group if there are any quibbles with 4E recovery (I know there is not, hell it is such a great fight scene we'll watch it anyway)

Hector and Achilles weren't playing D&D, and nor were Boromir and the uruk-hai.

H&A were playing 4E, B&UH 3E

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

So the heroes -- the PCs -- are never injured ... until they're dead. Right? If you're fighting, say, an elephant, it can take actual injury -- say, a couple of daggers hilt-deep in the ribs -- before dropping, right?

And BTW, I get that HP are something different in 4E. I just don't like what they are, because as a consequence it means there's no injury without death, when every edition of D&D before 4E has had "fine," "injured, but gimme some time," and "dead."

[Hector and Achilles.]

And on the other side, there's Boromir. Boromir did take wounds before he was actually killed, right? If he'd somehow survived, would he have been perfectly fine in six hours?

You can pick fights in movies to model your version of HP all day. I can do the same. These are scripted and given visuals for maximum dramatics, depending upon what the writer and director want. Hector and Achilles weren't playing D&D, and nor were Boromir and the uruk-hai.

Permit me to explain.

I am trying to explain why healing surges and quick rests make sense in certain types of fight. I am trying to explain why hit points do not necessarily HAVE TO represent "meat resistance." I am trying to explain why hit points CAN work the way they are shown.

I am not trying to say that this the ONLY way to represent combat.



Let me say it once more.

I am trying to say that the Hector and Achilles fight explains how a fighter CAN lose most of his hit points without being injured.

The key word is CAN.



People keep saying "Hit points in 4th edition are stupid, they make it so you can be hacked to pieces and get up and fiight again in 6 hours!!! How videogamey!!! How Anime!!!"


All I am saying is that loss of hit points does not imply that you're being hacked to pieces. It doesn't imply that you aren't, either.

What does imply one or the other is recovery. If you take 95 points of damage out of 96, and take 6 months to heal, then yes, you've received 95 almost-mortal wounds. If you can rest 6 hours and be ready to fight, then you've been tired out, demoralized, put at a disadvantage, but you're not hurt, or at least not too much.


Yes, it would be more realistic if you had two pools of hit points -- one representing fighting ability, one physical resilience. Maybe you could have crits bypass the fighting ability and cause direct damage to the physical resilience (that is, Constitution). Or make individual defensive powers that you can use as counters to attacks. ANd make armor a LOT better than it is, like it really was.

At this point, though, you're going to add so much complexity to the system that nobody is going to enjoy playing it.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I was really hoping that HP would go away entirely in 4E, due to many of the issues brought up in this thread. Oh well, I can still hope for the next edition.

 

[TwinBahamut]

So if daily and encounter powers were replaced with something else equivalently tactical, you'd be okay with perfect healing in five minutes, right?

You seem to be missing my point entirely. The tactical element of daily powers and daily healing surges is one of conservation and the balance between winning the fight and staving off attrition. If there is "perfect" healing with just a five minute rest, then it is impossible to wear down resources or force the players to weigh their options regarding limited healing and abilities. As such, there is no possible way to have something "equivalently tactical" to make up for the complete loss of the possibility of attrition, or at least I would not want to play in such a version of D&D, so I don't think your question really applies to the question at hand.

But, I guess I will say that, ignoring my concerns above, I would not have a problem with full healing of injuries after each fight based on any kind of simulationist concern or risk of breaking verisimilitude.

However, I don't think this line of discussion even has any relevance on the believability or gameplay concerns of healing after a night's rest. As I said in my last post, they are very different things, and I don't even see why you keep saying that healing to full after every battle is some kind of logical progression.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I am trying to explain why healing surges and quick rests make sense in certain types of fight. I am trying to explain why hit points do not necessarily HAVE TO represent "meat resistance." I am trying to explain why hit points CAN work the way they are shown.

I appreciate it, but I really don't need that kind of help. I don't have any problem with healing surges ... in fact, I like them, as I've stated in this thread at least once. I fully understand that HP are not "meat resistance," and have understood it for literally decades.

It is not the abstraction of HP or healing surges that I have an issue with. It's the complete perfect recovery of individuals -- including those 1 HP from actual death -- in only six hours that I have a problem with.

And I understand that 4E just doesn't care. I'm saying that's my problem with 4E.

As for adding complexity, 3.5 healing modeled long-term injury just fine. (Very abstractly, but I'm fine with abstract to a remarkable degree.) 4E is, if anything, adding complexity to healing ... that's fine with me, but the fact that they're adding both complexity and abstraction (no more "injured, but gimme some time") is pretty bizarre.

But, again, maybe there are rules to model long-term injury, and we just haven't seen them yet.