D&D General 4e Healing was the best D&D healing

[Neonchameleon]

Like many things in 4e, the issue I had is that these things were made explicit, putting the "G" in "RPG" in unassailable first position. In previous editions, it was easier for me to imagine healing being healing, for example, or that player abilities meant more in the fiction than "damage and effect, rinse repeat". Obviously not everyone feels the same, and this debate was rendered moot years ago anyway.

Possibly it's that I played both GURPS and WFRP before I ever touched D&D - but to me (as to Gygax according to many quotes from the man himself) D&D has always put the G in unassailable first position. D&D was what you went to when you wanted a gamist system and not to have to worry about the communion wine giving you the galloping trots.

4e was to me comfortably the best D&D because it allowed me far more roleplaying - by designing things such as my character's movement and combat style almost from their idle animations upwards. Their two "at will" attacks are the foundation of how they move and fight and what makes them different from other people of the same class. Are they focused on controlling space or are they focused on damage to one target at the exclusion of everything else? What are their signature moves? What have they embedded into their muscle memory? The character creation and roleplaying in combat were the best as were the gamist elements. And the out of combat handling of wacky PC plans that weren't wholly based on spells was the best.

In other D&Ds I do not play martial types (the closest is a 5e shadow monk) because I spend all my time in combat walking forwards and mashing A to try to deplete the enemy's health bar with minimal tactics and long combats; I don't find the brainless barbarian fun for more than about two sessions. And spell slots are incredibly gamey, with "Vancian Casting" in the D&D (as opposed to Vance context) reminding me nothing more than OOTS-style worldbuilding where you start with the mechanics. 5e has at least some of the flavour 4e added to the game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Possibly it's that I played both GURPS and WFRP before I ever touched D&D - but to me (as to Gygax according to many quotes from the man himself) D&D has always put the G in unassailable first position. D&D was what you went to when you wanted a gamist system and not to have to worry about the communion wine giving you the galloping trots.

4e was to me comfortably the best D&D because it allowed me far more roleplaying - by designing things such as my character's movement and combat style almost from their idle animations upwards. Their two "at will" attacks are the foundation of how they move and fight and what makes them different from other people of the same class. Are they focused on controlling space or are they focused on damage to one target at the exclusion of everything else? What are their signature moves? What have they embedded into their muscle memory? The character creation and roleplaying in combat were the best as were the gamist elements. And the out of combat handling of wacky PC plans that weren't wholly based on spells was the best.

In other D&Ds I do not play martial types (the closest is a 5e shadow monk) because I spend all my time in combat walking forwards and mashing A to try to deplete the enemy's health bar with minimal tactics and long combats; I don't find the brainless barbarian fun for more than about two sessions. And spell slots are incredibly gamey, with "Vancian Casting" in the D&D (as opposed to Vance context) reminding me nothing more than OOTS-style worldbuilding where you start with the mechanics. 5e has at least some of the flavour 4e added to the game.

Well, first of all, OOTS is at least funny

Seriously though, I have always appreciated your passionate defense of 4e, and I do see what you're saying. Like I said, I played and/or ran 4e for about two years, and these were legitimate great times. For me, the mechanics being such a separate beast from the roleplaying side just rubbed me the wrong way. I'm aware of Gary's views (he was a cool guy, I met him once), and I think there are a lot of things about 4th ed he would have liked. My D&D touchstone was 2nd ed, where the focus was on all the stories you could tell and the creative campaign worlds, even if the rules were much the same as they'd always been. To me, 5th ed captures a lot of that with better rules (some of which are inspired by the previous edition).

4e is a good game, even if it's not for me. I wish there was a way to have both simultaneously, like Basic and AD&D back in the day.

 

[Blue]

Rob Heinsoo, lead designer of 4e, took Healing Surges with him when he later designed 13th Age (a d20 game) with Jonathan Tweet.

• All characters got eight Recoveries (read: Healing Surges), and some classes gave bonus ones.
• When you took a rally action or were healed, you rolled your Recovery Dice (instead of a static amount), which were a number per level based on your class. Basically, it was about 55% of your total HPs, though that was lower in later tiers. Healing also granted a bonus based on the healer, etc.
• If you were Staggered (read: Bloodied) after an encounter, you must take recoveries until you are over half.
• If you are out of Recoveries and still want/are required to take one (stagger, are healed, etc.), you do but you only gain back half as many HPs and you gains a cumulative -1 to all d20 rolls until you get a Full Heal Up (read: Long Rest).

 

[Micah Sweet]

Rob Heinsoo, lead designer of 4e, took Healing Surges with him when he later designed 13th Age (a d20 game) with Jonathan Tweet.

• All characters got eight Recoveries (read: Healing Surges), and some classes gave bonus ones.
• When you took a rally action or were healed, you rolled your Recovery Dice (instead of a static amount), which were a number per level based on your class. Basically, it was about 55% of your total HPs, though that was lower in later tiers. Healing also granted a bonus based on the healer, etc.
• If you were Staggered (read: Bloodied) after an encounter, you must take recoveries until you are over half.
• If you are out of Recoveries and still want/are required to take one (stagger, are healed, etc.), you do but you only gain back half as many HPs and you gains a cumulative -1 to all d20 rolls until you get a Full Heal Up (read: Long Rest).

I looked into 13th Age, but it seemed to double down on the issues I had with 4e. It did have a bitchin' Monster Manual though.

 

[Blue]

I looked into 13th Age, but it seemed to double down on the issues I had with 4e. It did have a bitchin' Monster Manual though.

If I fanboy over any single RPG book, the Bestiary for 13th Age is it. Dripping with flavor and lore with hooks. And art. Bestiary 2 was pretty good as well.

 

[Eric V]

I looked into 13th Age, but it seemed to double down on the issues I had with 4e. It did have a bitchin' Monster Manual though.

Did you feel that 13th Age had mechanics that are separate from roleplaying? My group found just the opposite...

 

[Micah Sweet]

The Icons seemed hokey and forced into the narrative to me, and the Escalation Die at the time was too obviously gamist. Just stuff off the top of my head; I no longer own the books. It's been a while since I looked at it though, and similar systems (philosophically speaking) have been turning my head as of late. I'm open to changing my mind on the subject.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The above should have been a reply, not a new post. Sorry about that.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Your entire approach seems to be predicted on the idea that a superficial injury from being hit by a greataxe or an oak tree is plausible. IMO, it isn't.

Not superficial, no. Any hit worth modeling must be substantive, or else it wouldn't be worth modeling. It's simply not worth the trouble of detailing with complex mechanics.

The narratives may be similar but the underlying mechanics are not (since in the former case you need to subtract hit points from your total). The former brings the target closer to suffering serious injury whereas the latter does not.

That's another issue entirely. The model simply isn't complex enough to possibly support using multiple mechanics for the same narrative. The whole point of modeling anything is so that we can use the mechanics to generate the narrative. The point of an attack roll is to determine whether or not the attack hits.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Not superficial, no. Any hit worth modeling must be substantive, or else it wouldn't be worth modeling. It's simply not worth the trouble of detailing with complex mechanics.

That's another issue entirely. The model simply isn't complex enough to possibly support using multiple mechanics for the same narrative. The whole point of modeling anything is so that we can use the mechanics to generate the narrative. The point of an attack roll is to determine whether or not the attack hits.

If the hit is substantive then it ought to result in wound penalties or the like. Otherwise we're back to superhuman PCs who can take a greataxe to the skull without missing a beat.