April 3rd, Rule of 3

[Lanefan]

Character has lost HP and burns a healing surge. He's now down a healing surge, thus his HP are not at maximum. Healing surges do not remove damage, they simply shift it from one set of resources to another. But, your total are still reduced.

So, why do you insist that using a healing surge removes damage?

Er...because it does?

I may not know 4e from 4H but even I can see you're not making sense here. If my full h.p. total is 50 and I take 8 damage from something, I'm at 42. I then burn a healing surge by whatever means and get the 8 points back (i.e. that damage has been removed), so my total is right back where it started: 50.

And if you're trying to imply that unused healing surges count toward my (virtual) h.p. total, that's kind of ludicrous - just as ludicrous as saying in a 1e game that because the Cleric has 6 cures left my h.p. total is somehow a bit higher.

Lan-"my hit point total is never high enough"-efan

 

[pemerton]

Why are they called "healing" surges?

Because they restore lost hit points.

"Damage": the removal of hit points.
"Healing": the restoration of hit points.

In your assessment, what is the difference between using a surge and regaining your surges?

Mechanically: to use/spend a surge is to draw on a finite resource to restore hit points. It requires either respite (second wind/short rest) or inspiration (a power).

In the fiction: spending a surge is pushing on through hurt/shock/dispiritedness, either because one has had some brief respite, or one has been inspired. In the technical language of this thread, it is mojo.

Mechanically: to regain one's surges is to replenish the above-mentioned finite resource. It requires rest (6 hours, no more than once per day).

In the fiction: having rested for 6 or more hours, one has either recovered from shock, dispiritedness and (relatively minor) hurt, or is able to push on again in spite of them.

So in the fiction there is not necessarily much difference between spending and regaining surges, but they occur at different places in the fiction - one after a brief respite or after being inspired, the other after a longer rest.

By the model you are describing there is no reason to have these two different resources because they represent the exact same thing. And you have just moved the flash healing to when the surges come back.

So you have changed a narrative disfunction into a needlessly convoluted narrative disfunction.

Losing hit points, and spending surges, may well represent the same thing in the fiction. They both represent having to push on, or try and endure, despite shock, dispiritedness, minor hurt, and comparable burdens on a PC's mojo.

Spending a surge, and regaining one's surges, may also represent the same thing in the fiction: having mustered or replenished one's mojo and pushing on.

But the context is different (both mechanical context and fictional context). Hit points are what the PC him-/herself brings to bear. Surge expenditure is what you can do with a brief respite, or with inspiration. (Note that a clerical Healing Word is, like a Bard's Majestic Word or a warlord's Inspiring Word, is on this model a source of inspiration. Divine inspiration - which has been mooted as an element of hit points at least since Gygax's DMG.) And surge recovery is what happens after a longer rest (typically, a sleep).

Whether it's convoluted I'll leave to others to judge. I don't find it needless, though. In play it produces dramatic pacing and reinforces strong (and fairly classic) tropes and themes. (The weakest mechanical component is the extended rest. It should be established on a narrative basis rather than an ingame time basis. The workaround I use is to link availability of extended rests to success or failures in skill challenges, which introduces at least a degree of narratively-determined pacing.)

 

[Hussar]

Why are they called "healing" surges?


It is clear to me that this moving of goal posts demonstrates the inability to defend the surge mechanic from a narrative perspective.

By the model you are describing there is no reason to have these two different resources because they represent the exact same thing. And you have just moved the flash healing to when the surges come back.

So you have changed a narrative disfunction into a needlessly convoluted narrative disfunction.

When 4E came along surge were advertised and praised for letting the fighter heal himself, thus removing the need for clerics. After all, a cleric healing spell is "just another resource", so I could say that healing spells don't heal either, they just move the damage to a different set of resources.

If you look at playing as a mechanical exercise of moving chits from one bucket to another then this works for both cure spells and surges.
If you look at playing as a narrative exercise, then you are just shuffling the issue around.

Realistically, you're right. Clerical healing spells are just another resource. However, there are a few key differences:

1. You require the presence of a cleric or other healer in order to access those resources which means that the in-game fiction is being dictated by the mechanics. Either you have a healer, in which case you can continue the adventure relatively quickly, or you don't have a healer and, at least for the context of the given adventure, you probably cannot heal any significant damage.

2. The resources are all controlled by one player. Instead of the entire group having access to this, you have only one player, or at least, controlled by whoever happens to be playing the healer.

3. Healing can only be performed at very specific times - the healing character's turn and that action means that that character can only do that action and nothing else.

These differences are more than enough to say that they are not exactly the same from an in play perspective. However, from a narrative perspective, healing surges represent a resource for that character not for the group. Being down healing surges means that the character is not at full HP. Also, since you cannot regain healing surges they are a limited resource, unlike earlier edition healing which are only limited by the amount of healing on hand. If you have a healing wand, there is effectively very little limit on the amount of healing you can do between regaining resources.

However, being pedantic about the word "healing" is a bit strange. After all, the meaning is clearly defined by the game. Trying to redefine the word outside of its game defined meaning and then complaining that the word doesn't mean the right thing is not exactly going to work.

 

[Hussar]

Er...because it does?

I may not know 4e from 4H but even I can see you're not making sense here. If my full h.p. total is 50 and I take 8 damage from something, I'm at 42. I then burn a healing surge by whatever means and get the 8 points back (i.e. that damage has been removed), so my total is right back where it started: 50.

And if you're trying to imply that unused healing surges count toward my (virtual) h.p. total, that's kind of ludicrous - just as ludicrous as saying in a 1e game that because the Cleric has 6 cures left my h.p. total is somehow a bit higher.

Lan-"my hit point total is never high enough"-efan

Isn't it? After all, you potentially have 50+6d8 HP to use. However, see my answer to BryonD above for more detail on the differences.

 

[FireLance]

Frankly, and IMO, hit point loss has only ever modelled hit point loss perfectly. Even if hit point loss is described as serious injury, it does not seem to have any other mechanical impact.

So, if a 100 hp fighter who has been reduced to 1 hp has sustained no serious, life-threatening, incapacitating injuries (since he is otherwise treated as if he is uninjured), and is only covered with cuts, scratches and bruises, then hit points can be defined as any intangible factor that can keep him from being killed, such as vigor or luck, and can be quickly and easily restored, even through non-magical means.

If a 100 hp fighter who has been reduced to 1 hp has sustained serious injury but is somehow able to ignore it (since he is otherwise treated as if he is uninjured), then hit points can be defined as any intangible factor that allows him to function at (mostly) full effectiveness despite serious injury, such as willpower or determination, and quick, non-magical recovery of hit points simply represents a renewal of those factors, leaving the underlying injuries unchanged.

So, while it might not be a narration you are used to or are comfortable with, I don't think it's fair to say that the narration is dysfunctional or convoluted.

 

[Lanefan]

Isn't it? After all, you potentially have 50+6d8 HP to use.

No, I have 50. The Cleric has potentially 6d8 to spread around however she chooses, 1d8 at a time, preferably after the fighting's done so she doesn't get interrupted while casting.

2. The resources are all controlled by one player. Instead of the entire group having access to this, you have only one player, or at least, controlled by whoever happens to be playing the healer.

Assuming there's only one Cleric or other healing class character in the party...

I've never understood why people don't like playing Clerics in pre-3e games.

3. Healing can only be performed at very specific times - the healing character's turn and that action means that that character can only do that action and nothing else.

Which sounds like you're trying to heal during combat; which is a waste. During combat the Cleric has - or should have - things that'll help pile on the smackdown: decent fighting ability, decent AC in most cases, non-curative spells that can help out, etc.; and most of the time should be using these to help put the opponents down as quickly as possible. Healing comes after.

Lanefan

 

[pemerton]

If a 100 hp fighter who has been reduced to 1 hp has sustained serious injury but is somehow able to ignore it (since he is otherwise treated as if he is uninjured), then hit points can be defined as any intangible factor that allows him to function at (mostly) full effectiveness despite serious injury, such as willpower or determination, and quick, non-magical recovery of hit points simply represents a renewal of those factors, leaving the underlying injuries unchanged.

So, while it might not be a narration you are used to or are comfortable with, I don't think it's fair to say that the narration is dysfunctional or convoluted.

Needless to say, I agree with this.

Which sounds like you're trying to heal during combat; which is a waste.

In 4e, at least, incombat healing is an assumed part of gameplay. (I'm not sure about 3E. I remember very little if any of it in classic D&D.)

 

[BryonD]

Because they restore lost hit points.

"Damage": the removal of hit points.
"Healing": the restoration of hit points.

Mechanically: to use/spend a surge is to draw on a finite resource to restore hit points. It requires either respite (second wind/short rest) or inspiration (a power).

In the fiction: spending a surge is pushing on through hurt/shock/dispiritedness, either because one has had some brief respite, or one has been inspired. In the technical language of this thread, it is mojo.

Your definitions contradict each other.

One the on hand you are calling it "damage" but on the other you are very careful to confine it to " hurt/shock/dispiritedness".

If the intent was as you have adapted them then "healing surges" is a major misnomer and they should instead be called "spirit surges" or "resolve surges".

Mechanically: to regain one's surges is to replenish the above-mentioned finite resource. It requires rest (6 hours, no more than once per day).

In the fiction: having rested for 6 or more hours, one has either recovered from shock, dispiritedness and (relatively minor) hurt, or is able to push on again in spite of them.

So in the fiction there is not necessarily much difference between spending and regaining surges, but they occur at different places in the fiction - one after a brief respite or after being inspired, the other after a longer rest.

Losing hit points, and spending surges, may well represent the same thing in the fiction. They both represent having to push on, or try and endure, despite shock, dispiritedness, minor hurt, and comparable burdens on a PC's mojo.

Spending a surge, and regaining one's surges, may also represent the same thing in the fiction: having mustered or replenished one's mojo and pushing on.

But the context is different (both mechanical context and fictional context). Hit points are what the PC him-/herself brings to bear. Surge expenditure is what you can do with a brief respite, or with inspiration. (Note that a clerical Healing Word is, like a Bard's Majestic Word or a warlord's Inspiring Word, is on this model a source of inspiration. Divine inspiration - which has been mooted as an element of hit points at least since Gygax's DMG.) And surge recovery is what happens after a longer rest (typically, a sleep).

Go back and look at the context of this recent conversation.


I said there are two options. I said you can EITHER require that ALL healing is mojo OR instead you can say that surges flash away real wounds. Hussar took exception with the "flash away wounds" part.

Now you are defending his point by demanding that wounds can be just mojo. I agree that you can solve problem set A by introducing problem set B.
What neither of you have offered is a way to solve both problems at the same time.

Whether it's convoluted I'll leave to others to judge. I don't find it needless, though. In play it produces dramatic pacing and reinforces strong (and fairly classic) tropes and themes. (The weakest mechanical component is the extended rest. It should be established on a narrative basis rather than an ingame time basis. The workaround I use is to link availability of extended rests to success or failures in skill challenges, which introduces at least a degree of narratively-determined pacing.)

No, this mojo-only options isn't what I was calling convoluted.
I was talking about moving actual healing between surge use and surge recovery.


But you added a new point here. Regarding "pacing, tropes, and themes" I won't dispute that you have those. But I've always had those and still do. Plus I have things working the way they should work in a great novel. So, for me, I'm theoretically gaining something I already have at a price of losing something else that is in the end even more important. (thought really I find these items to be rather intertwined)

 

[BryonD]

Realistically, you're right. Clerical healing spells are just another resource. However, there are a few key differences:

1. You require the presence of a cleric or other healer in order to access those resources which means that the in-game fiction is being dictated by the mechanics. Either you have a healer, in which case you can continue the adventure relatively quickly, or you don't have a healer and, at least for the context of the given adventure, you probably cannot heal any significant damage.

2. The resources are all controlled by one player. Instead of the entire group having access to this, you have only one player, or at least, controlled by whoever happens to be playing the healer.

3. Healing can only be performed at very specific times - the healing character's turn and that action means that that character can only do that action and nothing else.

Right. You have named three great things about pre-surge style healing for narrative story telling and three problems with pre-surge style healing for gamist expediency.

These differences are more than enough to say that they are not exactly the same from an in play perspective. However, from a narrative perspective, healing surges represent a resource for that character not for the group. Being down healing surges means that the character is not at full HP.

Does it say that in the book anywhere?
I fully understand that being down a surge is less than at full supply (just as being down a CMW would be). But two 20 HP characters, both currently at 20 HP function exactly the same whether one is down a surge and the other is not.

Whereas if the one down a surge had instead kept that surge and was at 14 HP (or whatever) then a 15 pnt hit would down one guy and not the other. The two conditions are not equivalent.

Also, since you cannot regain healing surges they are a limited resource, unlike earlier edition healing which are only limited by the amount of healing on hand. If you have a healing wand, there is effectively very little limit on the amount of healing you can do between regaining resources.

Again, this is perfectly fine if the gamist issues trump story to you.

I'll still not concede the idea of draining wands of CLW at will. 3E doesn't have anything to force that to not happen. But if it is happening in your game then you have a whole different problem to solve, and rules can't fix playstyle.

For narrative based play as long as there is a cause to drive an effect, it is all good. I'd rather have a cleric burn 50 CLWs from a wand in a row and have the narrative connection of divine healing is why the wounds went away rather than a fighter flashing his wounds away just once. And since I don't even have the lesser problem, I come out far ahead.

However, being pedantic about the word "healing" is a bit strange. After all, the meaning is clearly defined by the game. Trying to redefine the word outside of its game defined meaning and then complaining that the word doesn't mean the right thing is not exactly going to work.

Yeah. That's obvious to me. You are the one that took exception to me describing the use of a healing surge as being "healing". Recovering surges is not called "healing".

 

[BryonD]

Frankly, and IMO, hit point loss has only ever modelled hit point loss perfectly. Even if hit point loss is described as serious injury, it does not seem to have any other mechanical impact.

So, if a 100 hp fighter who has been reduced to 1 hp has sustained no serious, life-threatening, incapacitating injuries (since he is otherwise treated as if he is uninjured), and is only covered with cuts, scratches and bruises, then hit points can be defined as any intangible factor that can keep him from being killed, such as vigor or luck, and can be quickly and easily restored, even through non-magical means.

If a 100 hp fighter who has been reduced to 1 hp has sustained serious injury but is somehow able to ignore it (since he is otherwise treated as if he is uninjured), then hit points can be defined as any intangible factor that allows him to function at (mostly) full effectiveness despite serious injury, such as willpower or determination, and quick, non-magical recovery of hit points simply represents a renewal of those factors, leaving the underlying injuries unchanged.

So, while it might not be a narration you are used to or are comfortable with, I don't think it's fair to say that the narration is dysfunctional or convoluted.

There is the narrative issue I dislike.
There is the convoluted issue.

These are two different issues and nothing in your post touches on either of them.

Under either situation you described, 24 hours later the fighter's wounds are gone even if he is alone and naked in the woods. There is no cause and effect. This isn't a big problem for scenario A but the price for that is restricting that only scenario A ever happens.

The convolution only comes in if you say that HP loss is *real* wounds and yet surges don't heal them. The fighter is still healed 24 hours later, so instead of flashing healed at the second he surges, he flashed healed some time later when his surges came back. Same narrative problem, only now it is convoluted over when, how and why the wounds went away.