A gamist defense of limited in-combat healing

[Guest 85555]

For me, the threat of character death needs to be real for there to be much excitement. If there is a cushion (whether through fudging or by baking it into the system----and i am not suggesting HS do or do not achieve this) I eventually catch on and lose some interest.

 

[Balesir]

Assuming that the character's total hit points are significantly larger than the volume of one burst of healing, and significantly larger than the amount of damage the character is likely to take in one turn, that healing can easily be expended in a calculated, stress-free fashion to maximize durability. Those assumptions are often but not always true, given the enormous amount of hit pints D&D characters possess, the way healing is framed, and the relatively trivial by-the-book definition of a "challenging" encounter. If they are false, then yes, the world with self-healing gets more swingy.

Maybe it's because I run for seven players, so there are 140% of the "normal" number of monsters who can area effect/focus fire, but I find the amount of damage that can be incoming to a character in one turn is pretty high. Couple that with several nice bonuses that certain powers can grant for being bloodied, and we get quite a few heart-in-mouth moments.

YMMV, but I'm just speaking from a personal experience perspective.

I'd really rather guaranteed encounter-based healing was an option rather than mandatory. I think feeling overwhelmed means the players are probably overwhelmed unless they know better. As the example shows the game isn't actually overwhelming the PCs because the opponents are too difficult, rather the PCs are facing a beatable opponent where they can win most of the time.

In pretty much any challenge-based RPG, the characters have to face beatable (or escapable) opponents. If the chance of surviving even each level is ~50%, grinding through the ~1000 characters you'd need to get one to level 10 would be a real chore.

They simply must heal each other during combat to do so. This puts healing front and center as an important part of combat every combat. I don't think it necessarily needs to be. Healing used to be a resource tracked on a much longer timeline. That should also be an option again.

Again, I can only say what I have experienced, but I find that is situational. The most important thing deciding whether healing will be an "essential tactical component" in 4e is whether or not the characters manage to take control of the encounter circumstances. To seize the initiative in a non-system sense.

The other weekend, we had two combats particularly that were nominally the same level, but played out very differently. In the first encounter, the characters scouted out successfully, correctly assessed the situation going in and managed to gain surprise. The result was a real blow-through, for the party. I don't think any in-combat healing was used (although a few surges were spent in the ensuing short rest) and the monsters were hardly given a chance to apply their strength.

The second encounter was totally different. The party walked in hoping to negotiate when a previous encounter had ensured that this would be a throwdown. They got bounced, and only just scraped out without loss. Given the start they got, they actually did really well - but they still got hit pretty hard. And in this combat, yes - in-combat healing was a major "feature"...

Ultimately it's probably a matter of taste, something along the lines of tactical vs. strategic play.

Again - personal preference, but I find 4e does both. Hit points = tactical, healing surges = strategic.

 

[steeldragons]

Make it 10% of their HP (or even only 10% of their remaining HP instead of total) and we might have a deal. That's an extra breath...a slight cushion. 25% of their full HP? No thanks. Too much.

Appreciate the idea. But no.

 

[pauljathome]

I'm against in-combat healing,.

I think that their needs to be SOME in combat healing.

Last night I was running a Pathfinder Society game and the group had no healer.

In the final combat one of the characters went down fairly quickly. The fact that the party had no healer meant that he was down for the entire fight.

From my point of view the fight was exciting. The group nearly lost, pulling it out at the end by the skin of their teeth. If the fighter had bounced back quickly it would have been over quickly.

But from the point of view of the player who's character went down it was rather boring (he told me this AFTER the game as we walked away together, he was NOT whining at the table).

So I think that what I want is basically what 3.x has. Decent in combat healing that comes at a cost (the cost of the healers actions and spells works for me but I'm not wedded to that particular cost).

As an aside, I also really, really prefer 4th eds method of recovering from things like paralysis. On so many levels having the player roll dice every round is better than a random duration. Although I much prefer the way monsters recharge than the flat DC 10 saving throw

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Another option if such healing is made less frequent/strong is to make it less reliable (though then a bit different to compensate).

For example, you might have a second wind do "value based on full hit points + 1d6," require a move action to activate, and a Con check to succeed. That makes it a gamble, as it is likely there is something better you can do with that move in many cases. Then classes with abilities to boost this might make the check more reliable, instead of giving more of it. When a "warlord" is on your side, you simply make that check more often.

It would, however, also be good if there was something built into such a system that was a bit of an anti death spiral mechanic. That is, it got to be a better option when desperate than otherwise. This makes it probably a null choice when fighting early and/or when things are going ok--as you nearly always have a better option--but a still decent way to bail out when one character gets exceedingly pummelled.

 

[RangerWickett]

Make it 10% of their HP (or even only 10% of their remaining HP instead of total) and we might have a deal. That's an extra breath...a slight cushion. 25% of their full HP? No thanks. Too much.

Appreciate the idea. But no.

At 1st level, I have 10 HP, and I get chopped with an axe for 9 HP. That's all flesh getting chopped up there. I'm really bad off.

At 10th level I have 50 HP, and I get chopped with an axe for 9 HP. I'm clearly not as bad off as I'd be if I were 1st level, so that can't all have been flesh getting chopped up there. Some non-wound resource has been depleted.

To me, what makes the most sense is that I'm tired, strained, and need a breather. If the game is not going to complicate things with Wound Points vs. Vitality Points, then especially by high level, a lot of your HP has to represent something other than 'injured meat.'

 

[am181d]

Healing in combat is dramatic, so I'm all for it.

 

[Rhenny]

But if you have to choose between attacking your foe or backing off and catching your breath -- or if your party healer needs to rush into the fray to keep you alive, putting himself at risk -- it's not an empty choice. (However, it's also important to make sure your once-per-encounter healing restores more HP than a monsters use-every-round attack, or else healing actually becomes a bad idea.)

And this is a game. The whole point is to manufacture excitement.

I agree. Combat healing does add a substantial choice to the game, which does increase the tension and or excitement.

On the other hand, too much healing, forces Monster Design and Encounter Design to increase numbers or increase hit points of creatures or use more traps or terrain effects in an encounter to make the encounter more challenging. All of these force combats to last longer (sometimes nearly 2 hours in one combat..sheesh), 4e's achilles heal in my opinion.

 

[Recidivism]

I liked 4E's basic model of everyone being allowed one breather per combat, and specific characters having a little extra to spread around. The idea is fundamentally sound, it provides interest in combat without making it a death spiral.

However I felt in 4E that players quickly accumulated too much healing too easily. It really hampers the sense of drama and action economy the game tried to build when a player has so many ways around the basic rules.

 

[howandwhy99]

I was thinking... Fatigue used to be in the game. 3 attacks, 5 full moves, or 4 of any mix (edit: this includes move & attack) - all in a row - means every round thereafter a -1 fatigue penalty is incurred. This penalty affects all rolls, including damage. Performing more rigorous action, like that listed above, increases the penalty by 1 for every round. This increases until it's a -20, the full die basically, and resting is unavoidable.

A round spent resting, which means lowering one's guard, so a -4 AC penalty, removes any fatigue and cumulative action effects.

Now it doesn't have to be the above system, but would an encounter-based resource refreshing mechanic like it be interesting to those who like Second Wind and Healing Surges?