A gamist defense of limited in-combat healing

[NewJeffCT]

I don't know if anyone has mentioned this but back in 3rd edition, healing in combat was not as easy as some make it out to be because of the action economy. You only have so many actions that you can take a round and everyone is not going to huddle in a tight group so you can heal them with in reach.

My group never had a problem in 3E healing those in the group that have been hurt. At level 3, clerics had access to Close Wounds, which was an immediate interrupt (as if the damage never happened), which also had a range of 25 ft + 5ft/2 levels. At level 9, they had access to Mass Cure Light Wounds, also a ranged spell. And, by the time they get to level 9, they're most likely Hasted and/or moving faster than normal with a magic item, so can usually reach an injured/fallen companion on the battlefield.

We had in combat healing back in 1E/2E days as well - however, since clerics were more limited in 1E, it was less common. And, while clerics were better in 2E, they were still not capable of healing as much as their 3E/4E counterparts.

I think in combat healing should be limited, or should heal less.

Maybe in combat healing is less effective? A Healing Surge (or whatever you want to call it) heals 10% of hit points in combat, but 20% outside of combat? You can say that the clamor of battle makes healing less effective than when the cleric has the 10 minutes to properly invoke his or her deity in a proper manner.

 

[NewJeffCT]

- it depowers solo opponents considerably; if a party of adventurers can spell out to rest while keeping the dragon fighting, they can simply tire it to death...

the PCs in my group did that with one solo in my game.

I was playing a converted to 4E Burnt Offerings. At the end of the adventure, there is a demon/barghest like creature that is magically trapped in a room, Malfeshnakor. They bloodied this solo monster, Malfeshnakor, but had to retreat out of the room because they were pretty banged up themselves. One of the players in my group is an eladrin, who only needs 4 hours of rest to get an extended rest. So, when his 4 hours were up, he crept up to the room, fired an arrow at the solo and then retreated for another 2 hours of resting. This prevented the solo from also getting an extended rest.

Then, when the party was refreshed, it charged back into the room and made mincemeat of the weakened solo (who was able to spend a healing surge out of combat for 1/4 of his HP, but not recharge its daily powers)

I suppose I could have had the creature break out of its entrapment, and there could have been a hidden monster or three hidden in the complex that they thought they had cleared up to the solo, but I didn't.

It was good thinking on their parts, but I felt a bit cheated as DM. However, I also don't like adding in what one player call "grudge" monsters if the players find an easy way out of something.

(of course, they could have done similar in prior editions, too, especially with the 2E spell "Nap" that allowed you to take an extended rest in half the time or something like that)

 

[jodyjohnson]

I can see that. But to me, 0 HP is "Rocky hit the mat. Get up Rock! Get up and get back in the fight, you lug!"

Then again, I don't like 0 HP = dying. I prefer 0 HP = unconscious.

I prefer a system where 0 HP=non-combative and the situation determines what flavor of non-combative works best (surrendered, dead, dying, petrified, paralysed, unconscious, crippled, stunned, weakened/enfeebled, etc). Then 1 HP or higher always equals combat capable.

 

[Hautamaki]

I'm with RangerWickett--done right, in battle healing adds an interesting tactical dynamic to battles. However, it has to be balanced and it has to be an option, not a requirement.

A party with an in-battle-healer should have the advantage of a bit of swing-mitigation. An in-battle-healer is a sort of get out of jail free card; he can pull your chestnuts out of the fire when you make a strategic miscalculation or just happen to get ganked and triple critted in a single round against what was supposed to be a trivial band of goblins. However it is always to be assumed that any PCs HPs are more valuable than any monster's HPs, and thus if a healer can heal as much damage as another character can deal in the same round, then the healer is way more powerful. Therefore other characters should definitely be doing more damage than a healer can heal per round for it to be somewhat balanced.

Moreover this party should be giving up a lot by having this get-out-of-jail free card. They are losing out on a major damage dealer or a tank (this was not really the case of course with past clerics being combat machines too but it should have been); and they are also stacking their eggs into one more fragile basket. What if the healer is the one who gets ganked? Now he's dead and the whole party is hooped, whereas if he had been a fighter he'd have had the durability to survive. What if by having a healer instead of a rogue or powerful wizard they now can't take out the enemy healer quickly in the first round and get bogged down into a long term battle that aids the enemy who can always summon more reinforcements/wandering monsters/etc? There are downsides to your get-out-of-jail free healer card just as there are upsides.

Now when it comes to out-of-battle healing, all parties will need this (if it is available in the system at all) and I believe all parties should have equal access to it regardless of whether or not the party has elected to include an in-battle-healer. Personally as a DM I like to make sure that my parties have access to a sufficient amount of healing kits, medicinal herbs, potions, etc, to be able to heal themselves outside of battle enough times to get through a decent day's adventuring. The more potions I let them buy, the more adventuring they'll be able to do, and that's an interesting strategic choice they have to grapple with every time they set out on an expedition.

But I think the key is to divorce it from in-battle-healing in any case.

 

[Stormonu]

It was good thinking on their parts, but I felt a bit cheated as DM. However, I also don't like adding in what one player call "grudge" monsters if the players find an easy way out of something.

You showed considerable restraint; had I been DM and the players had siezed upon such a gamist activity, then I'd have had no problem with responding in a like manner - perhaps undetected foes as you had mentioned, or that Malfeshnrkor needed only 2-4 hours for an extended rest; he is an outsider, after all who doesn't need to sleep or eat (as I recall).

 

[Mengu]

I don't like in combat healing being a requirement, but as an optional element that does some very minor patch up work, I don't have a problem with it. I don't like the yo-yo effect of I'm full this round, I'm almost down next round, I'm full again, then I'm almost down again. It pretty much means a healer is required, and while the tension created is not a bad thing, it's artificial, when you know your healer's got your back.

Between combats, I'd love to see some sort of wounding mechanism that carries over, but I want hit points to be filled up. In an adventure, you ideally want to use escalating threats, start out easy, and build up, provide an easy encounter to change up tempo a bit somewhere toward the end, and finish with a bang. There are other alternatives to tempo, but I think this is pretty typical. If you are depleted throughout the day, going into that last fight, the threats you can handle are lesser than what you could handle in the first fight. I think there should be injury (or exhaustion) involved difficulties going into the last fight, but since hit points are such a major resource, I would prefer if there weren't any major hindrances in that department.

You could also perhaps build up "heroism" as you go. So the longer your adventuring day and the more wounds you accumulate, the deeper reserves of energy you can access, leading to that crescendo battle, but that would be a whole other discussion...

 

[NewJeffCT]

You showed considerable restraint; had I been DM and the players had siezed upon such a gamist activity, then I'd have had no problem with responding in a like manner - perhaps undetected foes as you had mentioned, or that Malfeshnrkor needed only 2-4 hours for an extended rest; he is an outsider, after all who doesn't need to sleep or eat (as I recall).

well, they phrased it using in game terms, I just made it sound more meta-gamey. However, I wish I had thought of that idea of it being an outsider and not needing 8 hours for an extended rest. Would have been nice to surprise them with a fully healed and rested solo. Or, maybe they had skipped over a room of goblins on the way down...

But, they had cleared out a bunch of goblins on the way to the solo's room, and they had enough goblin knowledge to know that once the goblin leader & Nualia (the main villain of the adventure) were dead, the goblins would not risk coming back any time soon...

I had a few ideas at the time (forgot what exactly), but I just remember thinking it was cheap/cheesy to spring them.

 

[tomBitonti]

Monsters vs. players

Reposted from:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/new-ho...ispensible-d-d-4th-edition-7.html#post5900552

Re: Healing Surges
Returning to healing surges, is the problem here that monsters (whom the players fight) use different mechanics than the players?

That is, players heal. Monsters, barring abilities like fast healing or regeneration, usually don't.

Then, that an attack against a monster does real damage, and that a critical does exceptional damage, makes sense. The problem is for players, who have abilities to undo the damage. Narrating the damage as "strain from avoiding a blow" creates a tension with the different narration used for monsters.

Why not change healing surges into something that more closely matches the intent? Have a healing surge be used to negate the damage in the first place!

Then:

DM: The Orc stabs at you; you can tell the blow will likely get past your shield and seems aimed your light side armor.

Player: I dodge to the side (using up a heroic xxxhealingxxx surge).

Or:

Warlord: I shout at the player: Step to the side, you fool!

Or:

Cleric: I call to my god for mercy, and the Orcs blade is turned aside, leaving the player astonished with his sudden fortune.

With a carefully balanced damage budget (which was done in 4E), that could provide a near equivalent value in terms of the amount of damage which was affected.

Thx!

TomB

 

[jcrowland]

I'm with TomB here...

I'd like to se less in-combat healing and more in-combat damage mitigations: More blocks, parry's, and dodges, for example, as interrupts to damage. This, at the very least, would lessen the 4E yo-yo. Instead of :

Max HP - take damage - healed - take damage -take damage -healed - Final Hp

you would see

Max Hp - hit and blocked (ie no or partial dmg) - take damge - hit and parried (ie no or partial dmg) - Final HP

I still think there is space for in-combat healing, but it should be a VERY precious resource you save for the BBEG, or the oh shiznit moments, not taking out mooks at the dungeon entrance.

It doesn't have to mundane mitigation either, shield spells, illusions, etc...

Out of combat healing should be more universal, like a heal skill check, setting bones, binding wounds, catching ones breath, etc. In 4E parlance, I'd like to see a small amount of HP replenished automatically for a short rest, and another small amount for some kind of skill check (available to all classes) with difficulty set by the wound level. That leaves magical healing for the remainder, allowing for a strategic decision to use or save for later.

 

[Raith5]

I think Tom B's idea is interesting but the one problem is that these resources would be interrupts and we know that the number of interrupts in 4th ed could be a problem in terms of speed of play.