A gamist defense of limited in-combat healing

[Balesir]

Wow, I didn't realise in-combat healing was so unpopular. I love it - as both DM and player. It makes tactics more interesting, makes the adventuring "day" more balanced and I can't say that, as a DM, I have found any difficulty (since the MM3 monster damage adjustments came in) draining PCs down to "yeek!" levels.

One or two conceptions seem odd, to me. A character with full hit points but down on healing surges is still roughed up, as I see it. Being at full HP but zero surges is not "at full strength" - it's begging to find yourself in deep do-do!

Pure clerics - especially "pacifist healers" - do seem to be fountains for a lot of healing. But they are one end of quite a wide spectrum. I DM for a seven player party with one paladin, one multi-class cleric and one multi-class warlord. The healing in combat does not seem excessive, and PCs are regularly down to 0-1 healing surge by the time the last encounter before a rest comes around. That's risky territory, in 4e. Quite similar to "group of bloody, beaten up characters with most of their equipment and magic used up and down to single number hit points, entering the lair of the lich lord at the lowest level of the dungeon", in fact.

 

[Ahnehnois]

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).

If you have 2 hit points, but your turn is coming and you have a second wind (or whatever healing), you don't really have 2 hit points. Your contention seems to be that excitment is manufactured by having characters "feel" closer to being dead than they really are.

I don't think experienced players buy that at all. D&D players are an analytical bunch. They know that healing is a buffer, and having it available reduces the sense of danger. Why try to fool them?

Frankly, I think the really exciting ones are when the PCs are out of resources, severely wounded, and they scrape out the battle without healing.

 

[dangerous jack]

It's attractive to give clerics and PCs more healing powers (hey, who doesn't like more power), but that inevitably causes inflation pressures on the amount of hp PCs need to get through fights. For me, in-combat healing should only be a way to smooth out the swinginess. So limited use, significant effect. e.g. PlayerA gets critted by the most powerful enemy, or PlayerB fails an unusual amount of saves.

I don't like games where each PC routinely spends 2 or 3 healing surges and they rely on that to get through the fight.

Spending your actions to heal yourself shouldn't be something you do every encounter. It's boring. And as a healer, spending all of your actions to keep healing PCs a little bit each is also boring.

Gamma World almost got it right (Second Wind as minor action for 50% hp, 1/encounter). But I don't like the minor action aspect, because if it has that insignificant an impact on your action economy, then just give PCs 50% more hp.

 

[Balesir]

If you have 2 hit points, but your turn is coming and you have a second wind (or whatever healing), you don't really have 2 hit points. Your contention seems to be that excitment is manufactured by having characters "feel" closer to being dead than they really are.

You have to reach your turn (or an ally needs to help you). In by far the majority of cases I have seen, that is not a trivial stipulation. If you take any damage at all (and, in some situations, you might take some at the start of your turn), that second wind ain't gonna blow!

 

[RangerWickett]

If you have 2 hit points, but your turn is coming and you have a second wind (or whatever healing), you don't really have 2 hit points. Your contention seems to be that excitment is manufactured by having characters "feel" closer to being dead than they really are.

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.

 

[TerraDave]

Its a good case of: a little goes a long way.

Too much, and combat will loose its tension, and (if the DM is to challenge the players) take longer. Hit point bloat through another channel.

 

[Ahnehnois]

You have to reach your turn (or an ally needs to help you). In by far the majority of cases I have seen, that is not a trivial stipulation. If you take any damage at all (and, in some situations, you might take some at the start of your turn), that second wind ain't gonna blow!

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.

 

[howandwhy99]

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. 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.

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

 

[Ahnehnois]

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

This argument just seems like a rather indirect and deceptive way of doing it. If I want to create excitement by having the PCs be in serious danger, I throw a monster at them that is tactically superior to them and let the dice fly.

If those PCs almost die, the excitement is created by the fact that none of us know what will happen. The stakes are raised if you have a wound or injury system, making every strike have lasting consequences. You don't need healing to get that. If anything, ubiquitous healing takes away from that uncertainty and from the weight of those actions.

Or, on a broader level, yes we're trying to manufacture excitement, but that's the DM's job, not the designers'.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm also a fan of there being other options. Everyone might be able to second wind as a standard action, but the cleric might be able to heal once a fight as a minor action. The wizard might use an illusion to get out of combat and trick the monster into attacking thin air. The fighter might be able to move up next to a vulnerable ally and shield him. The rogue might be able to throw a dagger right as the monster attacks, and cause the monster to wince in pain so it misses.

Healing and damage mitigation. Give the PCs ways to use these tricks so that what looks like a deadly fight can consistently go the party's way without feeling like a cake walk. If you actually throw deadly encounters at them, since campaigns generally have lots of encounters you'll end up with high death and PC turnover. I'd prefer to maintain a high apparent threat, while actually making it very likely the party survives and can enjoy the ongoing campaign.