A gamist defense of limited in-combat healing

[RangerWickett]

I noticed something about how 4e combats tend to go (at least with recent revisions to combat math).

Round 1. Holy crap that monster hits hard.

Round 2. Ha, we got one. But crap, Abe and Bob are bloodied.

Round 3. One more monster down, but so's Abe. Cleric!

Round 4. Abe's back, and he took out another monster. Oh crap, down goes Bob. Cleric!!!

Round 5. Bob's back, and down go the last monsters! We did it!

The monsters usually either hit harder than the PCs, or have more HP. Either trait makes them seem scary and dangerous. The party thinks they're going to be overwhelmed. But just two uses of HP restoration makes a huge difference. It causes the party to have more HP than the monsters without feeling like they have more HP than the monsters.

I'm not a fan of healing to full all the time, like with a wand of cure light wounds. I want at least the ability for the rules to handle wounds that last a while and make PCs wary of getting into combat. But I also think it's a great gameplay conceit to let the party think they're overwhelmed at first, and then have subtle ways to turn the tide.

My preference, I think, . . . and I'll not use the apparently loathsome term "healing surge," because that apparently incites rancor . . . is limited "clumps" of healing.

Say you have 40 HP. We've always agreed that some percentage of HP are "physical wounds" and some are "vigor and determination." So let's split that as half and half.

Twice per day you can take a second wind, which restores 1/4 your max HP (10 in this case). You can take a second wind as a standard action in combat, but only once in a given combat. Minor healing effects can trigger your second wind, but again, you only get one per fight.

So in the course of an entire day of adventuring, you get your base HP, plus 50% more. Any additional healing requires actual magic, and my preference would be that such healing a) generally has to take place outside of combat, and b) is still fairly limited.

For the sake of gameplay, I think it's important for there to be some small amount of healing during combat. Do you agree?

 

[Grimmjow]

i like the healing in combat but as a DM, i think it is too much. My groups cleric has caught on to exactly what you are saying and isn't afraid of anything now, which kinda ruins it. I mean i could send something so impossible hard that even with healing they would all be afraid but they would die in the end too, and where is the fun in that?

DDN needs to make healing more balanced!!

 

[Doug McCrae]

It causes the party to have more HP than the monsters without feeling like they have more HP than the monsters.

Yeah, it's good. For us, 3e didn't really have this feature until the spell Heal was available, as it was always a better tactic for the cleric to self-buff then smash. Likewise for the druid, except it was wildshape and smash.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I agree that such healing should be limited to a fraction of the total hit points. 50% of the total over the course of the day works as well as anything for a starting point for testing.

I think there might be room for something like 5 Second Winds per day, no more than one per combat, healing about 10% of the total hit points. Make it a move action instead of a standard. Then you can have very limited options to use a second one, perhaps with "warlord" or "bard" style inspiration (as a minor).

If the party is only in two or three fights, then they won't be as beat up, and presumably won't need all the second winds. This also assumes a more modest set of encounters and damage, similar to AD&D style, with the party gradually beat down. Getting 50% of your hit points back over the course of the day in AD&D, without having to use healing, is pretty helpful!

Another interesting variant is to have more (than 2 or 5) "Second Winds" but they only restore after an adventure is over. You are still limited to mainly one per fight, with perhaps that same isolated warlord or bard extra. This might work better for the adventure pacing, and removes the per day component entirely. Go on an adventure, every fight leaves you a little more compromised. As long as the magical healing holds out, it doesn't matter that much, but get in a tough fight and/or run out of such healing, the wearing down is palatable.

In any case, it is the kind of feel that can only be met by setting up some tests and trying it.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think that really subverts the few good things about hit points: their clarity and simplicity.

It causes the party to have more HP than the monsters without feeling like they have more HP than the monsters.

I think it's better that the PCs can look at their health total and know where they stand without having to factor in some kind of healing resource.

It also helps that whenever they are healed (by a cleric or the like), that really means something.

 

[Leatherhead]

I'm against in-combat healing, because it promotes a system that requires a combat healer. And quite frankly, combat healers influence the metagame far too much and aren't that popular to play, making them problematic all around.

The amount of in-combat healing shouldn't be significant. If a character is routinely getting more than two heals per combat, then the player doesn't feel as if they are in any danger. The combat changes in their mind from an intense clash to a war of attrition.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I believe, the most easy way to handle it would be allowing one or two heals per combatant, not per healer.

Say, everyone can second wind once or twice per combat. So if the cleric can trigger the second wind as some kind of action (maybe a free action to heal one person standard action to heal two persons, or heals someone with a big bonus), it really does not matter how many clerics you have in the group, it is a lot more predictable for the DM.
Also it is clear, that those "healing" words are just allowing to draw on its own powers. So now where is the limit per day? Maybe, you can only get your second wind back, if you are healed by magic or at least the heal skill is applied to you successfully after battle.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm not a huge fan of in-combat healing for the simple reason that it is basically just extra hit points each character has that requires an action to activate. At that point... you might as well just give the PC those extra HP right off the top.

Sure... there's a "feeling" that comes with taking damage and then the healer spends an action and you get some of that HP back. It presents a narrative within combat that is different than just having a higher HP total, and since the game has always had it, I think it's safe to say that the "feeling" that comes with healing is popular enough.

But as soon as this healing becomes so commonplace that every character gets healed in combat 2, 3 or 5 times (due to heal spells, Second Winds, potions, etc. etc.)... the narrative gets more and more kludged to the point where the "feeling" of healing goes away. Instead, all you have is the expectation that you have this huge hit point pool that you just have to wait for the cleric, bard, and warlord in the party to open up for you once you get hit.

 

[bloodtide]

I greatly dislike in combat healing, and even more so the way healing is done in modern games. I have always played a old school 1E bloody style D&D. So that it is normal for most characters to be wounded, at half HP or less, for the whole game session.

I miss the days when the group of bloody, beaten up characters with most of their equipment and magic used up and down to single number hit points, enters the lair of the lich lord at the lowest level of the dungeon. And the players would just charge into battle. But in 3e, and more over the top in 4E, all players feel like they 'must' be fully healed at all times.

And the fact that players are such heal junkies, makes healing limits pointless. Even if you put a limit like '5 times a day', the players will just use that up and then ''oh we spot and rest''. When the healing junkies use up all the healing before 11am, they won't just keep playing the game...they will whine and cry until they can rest.

 

[RangerWickett]

I think it's better that the PCs can look at their health total and know where they stand without having to factor in some kind of healing resource.

I'm not a huge fan of in-combat healing for the simple reason that it is basically just extra hit points each character has that requires an action to activate. At that point... you might as well just give the PC those extra HP right off the top.

But that's the whole point. The game is more exciting if you get close to death, then scrape by and win. Giving the PCs extra HP but no healing keeps the same result (the PCs win), but loses out on the aesthetic (they are really in danger).

And again, I'm only advocating one heal effect per PC per combat, max.

I think if you make healing highly limited, players won't "whine and cry." They'll adjust to the aesthetic and play through. I play Warhammer 40k Rogue Trader, and there ain't no magic healing. I got an arm blown off, and we kept adventuring.