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

[Jeff Wilder]

"Persistant" Damage is really a special effect in TV shows and movies.

More or less agreed. But it's there. It's basically a "rule" in writing a script that if you injure a character, you continue to have the injury affect him, or you explain how and why it doesn't. I just want the same thing from the D&D rules. In a game so heavily based on combat, that seems inarguably reasonable to me. (Note the last part of that dichotomy, BTW: "Or you explain how and why it doesn't." If 4E explains how and why characters never suffer from lingering injury, that's just as fine with me as if they provide rules for lingering injury.)

Aside from the story implications, persistent effects like injuries or diseases make "balancing" the game harder. If a Fighter can use his sword arm only at a significant penalty or none at all, he's severely weakened.

Is this just you ruminating? I have never once advocated applying combat-math penalties to 4E. (They do exist in 3.5, through the mechanism of ability damage and ability drain.)

That might be a reason why the designers could decide to remove most persistent effects, and leave it entirely in the hands of the DM or the group to decide (houserule) such issues...

Or you could trust the DM to understand when his PCs are suffering from persistent effects -- which shouldn't be too hard, since ultimately the DM is responsible for doling them out -- and adapt his game to it, right?

We haven't seen rules on diseases, for example.

Out of curiosity, do you think there will be rules for (non-supernatural) disease? Do you think there should be?

 

[Bagpuss]

I've played in games that don't even HAVE magical healing.

So then why do you need to have magical reason in this case?

I don't remembering anything about anyone being forced to play a cleric.

I've played in groups without a cleric and the mortality rate was significantly higher, if you are happy with that kind of play then yes no one is forced to play a cleric.

Your suggestion however would, effectively make a party with a cleric significantly more effective than one without, which while not forcing someone to play a cleric, put a significant pressure on the group to have one.

I just think complete restoration should have some kind of in-game justification. Is that bizarre?

And why does that justification have to be a cleric or even magical in origin?

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

If you are happy with a higher mortality rate then no you don't need cleric. Healing potions are considerably less effective than a cleric and also aren't available again once you've drunk them. They are a poor replacement.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If you are happy with a higher mortality rate then no you don't need cleric. Healing potions are considerably less effective than a cleric and also aren't available again once you've drunk them. They are a poor replacement.

Yes, as I've pointed out in other thread where people said you didn't HAVE to have a cleric...it seems they play entirely different versions of D&D than I do.

I'm used to coming up against creatures that can kill one of us in 2 rounds of combat. The average combat takes 3 rounds before we defeat it. That extra round requires us to be able to restore 50% of the fighters hitpoints in one round in order for him to survive until the end. At 11th+ level that means 50+ hitpoints in one round. Not coincidentally, 11th level is also the level that clerics get the Heal spell and can restore that much in one round.

I can't even count the number of times where it started off with: "This creature goes, he hits for 20, this creature goes, he hits for 20, this creature goes, he hits for 20. Your turn. Keep in mind, they all moved up to attack this round so they only got one attack in. Next round they'll get 2 attacks each for that much damage. Even if you kill 1, you'll be taking 40-80 damage from the remaining ones."

 

[Jeff Wilder]

And why does that justification have to be a cleric or even magical in origin?

Speaking just for myself (not pawsplay), it doesn't. (Although I can't immediately think of an explanation for the 4E mechanics that isn't at least mildly supernatural or fantastic. To be very clear, though, I'd be fine with mildly supernatural or fantastic. It shouldn't surprise anybody that I'm okay with supernatural or fantastic explanations for stuff in D&D.) In fact, I'm actually pretty happy with their decision to make clerics non-critical.

 

[Nightchilde-2]

Even Batman isn't that tough.

But Chuck Norris is.

In order to enjoy the hp system as (I suspect) is written in 4e, one is going to have to drop the entire notion of hp = wounds and damage and embrace that hp = grit, determination, sheer toughness, skill, luck and damage.

IMO, the designers could have maybe solved this issue by renaming hit points and healing surges to something else.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

IMO, the designers could have maybe solved this issue by renaming hit points and healing surges to something else.

I really don't think so. IMO the designers have displayed some remarkable contempt for the intellect of gamers, but I don't share it. (Always speaking generally.) People like me, who ask for token verisimilitude, will recognize that the problem exists, whether you call it "hit points" or "healing" or not. The problem isn't what you call it ... the problem is that in a game that focuses to a tremendous degree on combat, the designers have apparently chosen to excise even a nod toward actual injury, in favor of a system that has only "fully 100 percent functional" and "dead." It really doesn't matter if you call hit points "stamina" and healing surges "recoveries" ... the basic problem remains: there's no injury in 4E.

 

[hong]

The problem isn't what you call it ... the problem is that in a game that focuses to a tremendous degree on combat, the designers have apparently chosen to excise even a nod toward actual injury, in favor of a system that has only "fully 100 percent functional" and "dead."

Well, of course. Participation in combat is facilitated by being 100 percent functional, and the objective of combat is to render the other guy dead.

 

[KarinsDad]

Well, of course. Participation in combat is facilitated by being 100 percent functional, and the objective of combat is to render the other guy dead.

Participation in combat should also be a risk. One of those risks should be wounds.

Mystically healing after each combat (without magic being involved) or after a short night of resting is lame in two ways:

1) It's not realistic. Granted, we are talking a game, but dropping verisimilitude here drops suspension of disbelief for some players.

2) It means that earlier combats have limited effect (outside of the use of daily abilities) over later combats.


But, I think for each person, it comes down to where one wants to draw the line.

1E was fairly deadly. Roll the dice to determine stats (no point buy), Cure Light Wounds did D8 as a first level spell, Cure Serious Wounds did 2D8+1 as a fourth level spell.

2E was similar.

3E added many new rules to make the game less deadly: Point Buy, Spontaneous Healing, new cure spells, cure spells that did Spell Level * D8 + class level, wands of curing, Empowered Cure spells, etc.

4E is continuing to head in the "let's spoon feed the players by having everyone healed up all of the way before most combats".

The challenge is lessened. Some people like that. I find it dropping the standards of the game to the least common denominator. Several of my players expressed a bit of shock when they found out about it and one mentioned that he thought it was "way too generous".

It all depends on what a given person or group likes. Jeff does not appear to like it. Neither do I.

Some others do.

It's a matter of personal taste. I prefer games that are challenging and risk involved in multiple different facets. Games where reset buttons are pressed between each combat or from one day to the next are way too effortless and easygoing for me. It takes away one of the fun challenges of combat.

 

[hong]

Participation in combat should also be a risk.

D&D is risky?

One of those risks should be wounds.

And you do get wounded. If you get wounded enough, you die. If you don't die, you become unwounded.

 

[Bagpuss]

The problem isn't what you call it ... the problem is that in a game that focuses to a tremendous degree on combat, the designers have apparently chosen to excise even a nod toward actual injury, in favor of a system that has only "fully 100 percent functional" and "dead."

Don't speak ill of Mr Gygax. It's not a problem it's a feature.

"100% functional or dead" is pretty much how it's been in every edition of D&D I've played. If anything 3.5's weird 0 hp condition is the odd thing.