April 3rd, Rule of 3

[YRUSirius]

Lots of us don't want to play a video-game style game. Third edition, did this, by the way. I wasn't a fan.

Then don't play D&D. I'd say every edition plays like a video game. D&D itself is pretty video gamey - like it or not. It was so video gamey (hitpoints, AC...) that the first computer roleplaying games copied the exact gameplay mechanics (not the limitless interactivity).

-YRUSirius

 

[ExploderWizard]

Just saying that resource recovery takes more game time, though, is pointless. "Game time" is meaningless in the real world - it gains relevance only via DM fiat - which is the most tedious and dysfunctional "system" I can imagine.

Game time is only meaningless if time passage in the campaign is meaningless. There are concerns involving supplies and the activity of monsters in the area which have meaning.

If the environment is not reactive then yes, passage of game time is pointless.

 

[Andor]

Then don't play D&D. I'd say every edition plays like a video game. D&D itself is pretty video gamey - like it or not. It was so video gamey (hitpoints, AC...) that the first computer roleplaying games copied the exact gameplay mechanics (not the limitless interactivity).

-YRUSirius

I think what you actually just said is that most videogames are D&Dey. It's that whole cause-effect thing.

On this approach, though, how would you model a character not undergoing any physical recovery, but nevertheless - by being comforted, or encouraged, or bullied, or just powerfully self-willed - pushing on and overcoming the shock/pain/physical hindrance?

Pre-4e non-physical damage is usually a status effect. Stat damage/drain, stunned, fatigued, shaken. These are not healed with cure spells.

Non-magical, morale based hp effects were also frequently done through temporary ht points. So the Sarge might give you a pep-talk that get you through the fight, but it doesn't last all day.

I, personally, don't have a problem with the possibility of morale based healing as long as it's not as powerful or prevalent as magic or skill based healing. A feat to 'man up' and do an adrenaline based self heal in combat for a fighter would be fine. Although if it's adrenaline aren't temporary hp a better model? An inspiring speech or presence power that works similarly would also be fine.

But frankly it makes more sense for that sort of thing to fix status effects (like fatigued/shaken, not so much petrified) than to fix gaping wounds.

 

[YRUSirius]

I think what you actually just said is that most videogames are D&Dey. It's that whole cause-effect thing.

No, what I think I want to say is that D&D was always very gamey.

-YRUSirius

 

[M.L. Martin]

Its not so much, 'how do we fight this encounter?' as ' do we fight this encounter?'

This is the old school mode of thought where actually having to use the combat rules is a black mark on your record, isn't it?

I never really understood how Wands of CLW made it into the game...

What about freaking healing potions? Most iconic non-spell healing ever.

-YRUSirius

Wand of cure light wounds came about as part of 3E's push to 'rationalize' magic by allowing any spell to be placed in a wand and letting them be crafted reliably and comparatively inexpensively.

 

[YRUSirius]

But frankly it makes more sense for that sort of thing to fix status effects (like fatigued/shaken, not so much petrified) than to fix gaping wounds.

Well, they wouldn't close gaping wounds. The wounds would still be there and bleeding. But a fighter who uses his second wind ability just keeps on fighting (think Boromir).

-YRUSirius

 

[Lanefan]

Why not just gold? -> Healing potions.

I'm hesitant to say this, but... almost every video roleplaying game has tons of healing potions for "non magical" healing.

Erm...last I checked, potions are a magic item; thus they'd still qualify as magical healing. Ditto wands of curing, staves of healing, etc.

Non-magical healing is pretty much limited to resting in whatever form and for however long, unless your game allows for things like healing herbs and classes them as non-magical.

Lanefan

 

[YRUSirius]

Erm...last I checked, potions are a magic item; thus they'd still qualify as magical healing. Ditto wands of curing, staves of healing, etc.

Non-magical healing is pretty much limited to resting in whatever form and for however long, unless your game allows for things like healing herbs and classes them as non-magical.

Lanefan

Yes, technically they may be "magical" in 3E/4E and in previous editions too. But they could be easily fluffed as non magical (alchemy, herbal lore) means to heal hp. In low magic campaigns they could be herb medicine etc that the old witches brew, etc that give life energy back.

That white kingsweed herb from LOTR might have been kinda magical or not, who cares, it gave them energy back to get them back on the feet and continue adventuring. Gandalf didn't cast healing spells to heal the group, nope, Aragorn gave them "something to chew on", and bang - the fiction can continue.

-YRUSirius

 

[ExploderWizard]

This is the old school mode of thought where actually having to use the combat rules is a black mark on your record, isn't it?

Not exactly. It does mean that a straight up charge in fight wasn't usually the best first option.

Using the combat rules is best done in situations where you can control things and hopefully do much of the winning before the dice hit the table.

 

[Balesir]

Game time is only meaningless if time passage in the campaign is meaningless. There are concerns involving supplies and the activity of monsters in the area which have meaning.

OK, I'll put it another way: game time is only as meaningful as the players (including the GM) make it - and that is all. Moreover, it is only relevant in the ways that the players want it to be relevant. If that way doesn't specifically feed into the strategic importance of resources and healing then linking healing and resource replenishment to game time won't help add strategic elements.

If the environment is not reactive then yes, passage of game time is pointless.

It doesn't have to be just reactive - it has to be specifically set up to demand action constantly as a tension to the time taken to heal. If the tension isn't constant, the game time is, for our purposes, meaningless. To get that tension needs some sort of invented reason for hurry.

Pre-4e non-physical damage is usually a status effect. Stat damage/drain, stunned, fatigued, shaken. These are not healed with cure spells.

Pre-4E?? Pre-3E there were no such things as stat damage or statuses except 'petrified'. For most of D&D's history, damage, be it physical or non-physical, does = hit points.

I, personally, don't have a problem with the possibility of morale based healing as long as it's not as powerful or prevalent as magic or skill based healing.

Sigh - back to the old saw of "magic should be more powerful than not-magic" again...

A feat to 'man up' and do an adrenaline based self heal in combat for a fighter would be fine. Although if it's adrenaline aren't temporary hp a better model?

Aren't all hit points temporary? I'm not looking for a scientific break-down of what the healing does - just an instinctive, non-rational understanding of what it represents.

But frankly it makes more sense for that sort of thing to fix status effects (like fatigued/shaken, not so much petrified) than to fix gaping wounds.

"Gaping wounds" are things that only dead adventurers and NPCs have in D&D.

In "real world" terms it doesn't "make sense" that faith healing can close gaping wounds, but in D&D we aren't in the "real world". Who knows what magic is inherent in the body of a Hero?