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

[FitzTheRuke]

(Although I can't immediately think of an explanation for the 4E mechanics that isn't at least mildly supernatural or fantastic.

So how many times do I have to explain it to you before you accept that it is a valid way of describing HP in ANY editon of D&D, and the only one that works well for what we know of 4th?

It is not supernatural or even fantastic to say that the skilled, heroic D&D combatant can roll with blows, take arrows to his armor, and scratches to his face, that do a certain amount of superficial damage, but nothing that won't be a scab, bruise, or minor puncture wound by the next day?

It's not a matter of 4th being "fine & then dead" while others were "fine, but need to rest a few days, and then dead" You have the latter, and "fine, or bloodied (which is fine with a lightly wounded descriptor) and then maybe dying, or maybe just knocked down and winded"

And it's not new. Some people chose to use this in ALL editions, and it simply still works for fourth, while you're version (which hinges on the recovery time) wasn't good enough because to describe a long-term injury, we felt that it should come with some kind of mechanical effect. (The same way you want injury to come with a mechanical effect - recovery time.)

I've said it before, I think your method was very valid for previous editions, and we agree that it's not good for 4e. But why can you still not accept that the other method is valid for all editions? The closest you've come is to say something like "If you can handle it being unrealistic, fine, but I can't."

It's not unrealistic, it follows abstact HP, and fully explains BOTH why you can be better after 6h, AND why you can fight perfectly fine while injured (you are NOT badly injured).

Your way works better when the down-in HP guy rests until he's better, but seems a little off when he gets back up the next day (still down in HP, still injured) and decides he's "better enough" to keep adventuring. Where is this injury? He sucks it up! Something that was going to take 11 days to heal? Sure. (I don't have a problem with this, I'm just pointing out that it's not foolproof either.)

If you can accept that his injury does not slow him down in any way (other than his lowered ability to defend himself, not by lowered defenses, but by the next shot being more likely to kill him.) why is it a problem to describe him injured, if you like, at full HP? Future shots can STILL kill him, and you'd have the fun (as I plan on doing, if I feel a previous shot SHOULD have given him more that a simple scratch - like a shot that brought a guy down) of having the bloodied condition often "open yesterday's well-bound wound." Because the 4E rules CAN model injury, if you want it to, it just leaves the recovery time abstract, but it doesn't have to.

I've enjoyed this discussion, by the way, Jeff, and agree with the poster who complimented you.

Fitz

 

[Grog]

If I may interject: spending the time performing tasks meant you recovered one hit point per day, maximum. So, roughly three months to recover, assuming no further damage. Strenuous activity meant no healing whatsoever.

So, technically, there was impairment built into the system.

That's not impairment. Sure, you don't get any better if you do so, but you can still preform strenuous activity at 100% of your usual effectiveness.

If someone can push boulders uphill all day, every day for a week or a month or whatever, he's not seriously injured. That's a simple fact.

 

[KarinsDad]

As I pointed out, the natural healing rules and the interaction between high HP characters and low HP characters tended to indicate that Loss of HP != Injury since for lower HP characters, it was easier to get back to full HEALTH than it was for high HP characters EVEN if the lower HP character had suffered a more grievous set of injuries (been taken down to 1 hp) than the high HP characters (been taken to 75% of their max)

It is NOT easier for lower hit point PCs to get back to health easier.

A first level Figher with 14 CON (12 hit points) takes 6 days to heal up completely from 1 HP with full bed rest since he heals 2 points per day.

A 10th level Figher with 14 CON (~70 hit points) takes 4 days to heal up completely from 1 HP with full bed rest since he heals 20 points per day. Ditto for the 10th level Fighter with a 18 CON (+4 CON item and ~9 hit points) taking 5 days.

If your argument is that two first level Cure Light Wounds can get the first level Fighter back up to fighting form and it takes three tenth level Cure Critical Wounds to get the tenth level Fighter back up, that's mostly irrelevant since the higher level PCs have access to more Cure spells and items than the lower level PCs.

Ditto for the Heal skill that works more often at higher levels.

The bottom line is that you are using a faulty premise. It is actually easier at higher level to heal up than at lower levels.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It is not inconsistent. Taxicab geometry is a perfectly valid metric and is probably more consistent than you are capable of understanding.

Khaim - it's impolite to assume he's incapable of understanding before you've given him a chance to read and respond. Please allow him the chance to demonstrate one way or the other before making such assumptions.

-Hyp.
(Moderator)

 

[Cadfan]

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.

Of course, when using magical healing (which is the only way anyone heals, lets not kid ourselves) its the other way around. Cure Light Wounds can patch together most anything at level 1, but is a drop in the bucket at level 10. Apparently you become healing resistant or something.

That being said, even the most most life threatening wound dealt to the slowest healing 3e PC will heal in under a week. Typical healing will take under 2 days with a physician present.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

That's not impairment. Sure, you don't get any better if you do so, but you can still preform strenuous activity at 100% of your usual effectiveness.

If someone can push boulders uphill all day, every day for a week or a month or whatever, he's not seriously injured. That's a simple fact.

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

Additionally, a character at full hit points can't push a boulder uphill all day, every day for a month.

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.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Of course, when using magical healing (which is the only way anyone heals, lets not kid ourselves) its the other way around. Cure Light Wounds can patch together most anything at level 1, but is a drop in the bucket at level 10. Apparently you become healing resistant or something.

But, let's also not kid ourselves that there is adequate healing at low levels. With a 1st level Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, and Rogue, that tends to be 2 Cure Light Wounds and 3 Cure Minor Wounds max. At higher levels, healing is everywhere. Potions, scrolls, wands, spontaneous high level spells, Heal spells, Empowered spells, healing from multiple PCs, etc. In reality, magical healing is faster at higher levels (not slower as you claim) because more PCs that go down into negatives can be healed up by a PC group each day.

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

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

This argument has seriously reached the point of circularity that can only be described as "futile."

Each side has clearly and unequivocally stated their viewpoints.

One side thinks hit points should represent "meat resistance."

The other side thinks hit points should represent "combat readiness/fatigue points with some injury mixed in once you're reaching dangerously low levels of hit points." That is, negative.

4th edition is stating that the second viewpoint is the 4th edition's official viewpoint.

The earlier editions had hit points as "meat resistance." To some people, that's ridiculous.

The current edition has hit points as "combat fatigue." I personally find this more realistic, but apparently, to some people, that's ridiculous.

To say that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE to use hit points to represent combat fatigue is an illogical argument. The 4th edition mechanic says that hit points represent (mostly) combat fatigue. IN TERMS OF THIS EDITION'S MECHANIC WITH HIT POINTS A COMBAT FATIGUE, HAVING QUICK RECOVERY IS NOT ILLOGICAL.

I've explained again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and again how this would work in a fight. I've tried to be patient. I've tried to keep myself from being snarky and to explain everything clearly, even to the umpteenth repetition. But I'm tired of this stupid argument. I'm putting certain people on ignore, and I'm through with this b.s. Truly. I've explained my position ten thousand times. Just scroll up. If you hate 4th edition, fine. Go ahead. I really don't care. But to pretend that you're sense of 'verisimilitude' is offended .... pah.

 

[Sashi]

Majoru Oakheart
The whole point of an abstraction is that it is abstract. If you define the details of it, then it is no longer an abstraction.

I can't believe it took this long for someone to point this out.

If we're going to accept that hit points are abstract, the problem with them isn't that it takes this long or that long to get them back, or that you can cure them instantly with magic, or that there's no debilitating effects that come with low HP. The problem is that people keep trying to figure out what HP represent, in a concrete fashion, which is a stance that is incommensurable with the notion that HP are abstract.

Thirded. Monster gotta attack, PC Gotta die. Player gotta ask "why? why? why?"

 

[glass]

I never said it represented serious injury. I said it represented injury and damage. Talk about misrepresenting.

Sorry, if you are saying that hp represent, amongst other things, superficial injury then noone in this thread (apart from Jeff) will have any argument with you. So I wasn't misrepresenting you, I was honestly confused by the fact that you were seemingly supporting Jeff even though his position and yours are apparently slightly different.

My only point is that 4E regards hit point wounds as mostly superficial unless they bloody you, knock you unconscous or kill you. They are almost totally superficial with regard to one combat to the next or one day to the next. They are mostly a per encounter resource.

Agreed on all counts.

In previous editions, hit points represented two things: damage and turning damage into lesser damage. The concept that they were mostly superficial except in a few special cases like with 4E was not a part of the previous editions.

And this is where we part company. Despite your assertion above that I was misrepresenting you, you in fact are arguing that hp damage represented non-superficial injuries.

Did you see my post above about how any injury that doesn't impair you in any way is, by definition, superficial?

Without magic, it took a longer time to recover from one's wounds in previous editions because they were considered actual injuries. They were more of a per dungeon (or per adventure) type of resource.

In terms of gameplay, they were indeed more of a 'per dungeon' resource. However, that didn't jibe with the lack of impairment. It was a verisimilitude problem.

Now, if you want to argue this point, fine. Quote some rules (as opposed to misrepresenting what I am stating).

It isn't a matter of rules. It is a matter of in game effects.

We all agree (I assume) on how hp worked as a mechanic; the difference is in what that represented in character.

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. QED.


glass.