Can you get too much healing?

Mustrum_Ridcully: How do you (or your DM) make fights exciting, if you find that monsters do not threaten the lives of the PCs?
Who says I don't find that the threaten the lives of the PCs?

The hard part with my Warlord is - I need that healing at some point, but it takes quite a while till I need it. This means I've got lots of encounter powers I don't get to use for some time, which always has me anxious. Of course, it's a direct counter to the grind problem - I still do cool stuff way into the battle.

As a DM: The monsters are still threatening, they just don't cause any kills or even TPKs because the players play smart. That's not the same as not threatening at all. It means that if you know what you do, you will prevail. And if you don't, you'll waste powers at best, lose party members at worst.
I can't imagine doing it in any other way (well, at least satisfyingly.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I've met plenty of GMs who thought that the only fights worth fighting were ones where the PCs might lose, but I've never met a player who said that.
This statement is worth pausing to think about.



(Are you thinking about it, or just moving on?) :)
 

Here's the final thing to consider.

The idea of whether fights are 'challenging' or not isn't in the hands of the DM to decide. The DM's job is to attempt to reach a mark where combat ends in satisfaction, where victory is uncertain enough that the players garner satisfaction from it.

Does this mean victory from a single encounter, or victory over a number of escalating encounters? That can't be answered by me, or by any one person. This can only be answered by the gaming group itself, and it varies between groups, and sometimes even between campaigns with the same group.

If the players seem bored or uninterested, then chances are you need to ratchet things up. If players seem frustrated, then maybe things need to be toned down.

Regardless, the question of challenge for the players can only be answered by the players. And if they feel they have access to too much healing, try to suggest that they retrain some of that multiclassing into stuff that makes them better at their role.

The DM's job is to share in the player's fun, not to crush it beneath his thumb. It's a tightrope to walk, and there's no one right answer.

That said, if my party pisses away all their healing in the first fight, then too bad. They -know- there's more coming and that they should prepare for it.
 

This cuts to the core of my troubles. You're repeating what the game wants to be, and what it tells you it is.

My problem is that this isn't what I see. The game seems to make certain assumptions regarding how the players act, without actually making those actions logical and encouraging them.

The monsters are still threatening, they just don't cause any kills or even TPKs because the players play smart. That's not the same as not threatening at all. It means that if you know what you do, you will prevail. And if you don't, you'll waste powers at best, lose party members at worst.
When you say "the monsters don't get to kill the party because they play smart" what I am seeing in the game is "the monsters don't get to kill the party because they have healing abilities that do not let them".

That is, to me it seems you need to fool yourself into forgetting all the healing surge triggers the game makes available to you before there can be any actual excitement.

You don't need to be "smart" to use healing in D&D.

Perhaps me and my players are too analytical, too rational, for this game?

What I am seeing is that as long as you have surges left, there simply isn't any risk of the party losing (unless, of course, the party gets separated; either physically or by everybody being stunlocked, dominated etc). That is effects can still play a part, but with the anemic damage output of most monsters, PCs simply won't drop until they run out of surges (or their triggers).

I want a different game. I want a game where the excitement and risks come right away. Not only for the fourth fight of the day. And I especially don't want a game that allows and encourages you to never have that fourth fight in a given day, relying on player recklessness or heavy-handed DM intervention to force it anyway.

Put simply, I want a game that produces the excitement and risk all by itself. Not a game whose mechanics are geared towards avoiding excitement and risk, asking the players and DM to ignore what's in their best interest to generate it anyway.

That said, if my party pisses away all their healing in the first fight, then too bad. They -know- there's more coming and that they should prepare for it.
You say "pissing away their healing" as if there somehow is another option. I think it's important that we stick to this point until it's been made absolutely clear.

As for me, I only see two alternatives: either the party uses sufficient heals to stay alive or they don't.

Sure, they can use more or less sound tactics. But as written D&D does not punish bad tactics and stupid moves by having the heroes lose the fight (having to run away, becoming captured, or simply being killed and eaten).

Instead, it has become apparent D&D punishes bad tactics in this way:
1) theoretically, it means the next fight becomes more challenging (I'm not going to say the game will make you actually lose the next fight)
2) practically, it means the story flow is disrupted because the heroes will have to rest up for the day.

What you're saying could be that you throw the next encounter at the heroes regardless of how they managed the last one, and regardless of how much they want to rest up.

In this case, I actually think the game works as intended. You screw up a fight; you get to die. Not right away, but at least in the next encounter. Unless the short rest (and how it renews your encounter powers) save you.

But the problems of this approach are numerous:
1) do the players have free will in stopping for the day or do they not? Because if they do, they sure will trade excitement for security.
2) it's a rare encounter indeed where the difference between life and death hinge only on you having your encounter powers or not. Its more likely your daily powers are the decider, and it's much much more likely your healing surges are the decider.
By this I mean that a party without any surges are dead already if they face any relevant opposition.
3) Notice what I'm saying above? "D&D punishes bad tactics in this way:" followed by "the next fight becomes more challenging". That doesn't sound like a punishment to me, that sounds like a reward! This is clueing me in to the fact that something isn't right.

As for the thread topic, yes, you can get too much healing. Essentially, any party with more than one Leader, or any party focusing on MC feats and/or magic items that yield "triggers" will be a party where at least one party member can start the game with a hundred hit points. And that you don't need to specify which party member until you see which PC gets attacked. And that this makes it next to impossible for an average encounter to down any hero.
 
Last edited:

Thanks everybody for participating in this thread (and others).

I might not have had this goal in mind when I first started it, but during the discussion I have more and more regarded it as a way to test my misgivings about the system to see if I have missed something essential.

Your replies have been insightful, partly in what you haven't said.

Basically, I haven't seen anything that makes me think I am unjust when I conclude the surge mechanic in 4E relies heavily on self-deception. Things simply don't get as exciting as they should when you see through the math, realizing that any peril is mostly illusory.

I need... what I need I have told you already. Time to go to the next phase; which means move over to the house rules forum.

Again thank you. You have convinced me I either need to make some drastic changes to 4E for it to work the way I want it; change nothing and just suck it up; or simply move to another system. :)
 

This cuts to the core of my troubles. You're repeating what the game wants to be, and what it tells you it is.

My problem is that this isn't what I see. The game seems to make certain assumptions regarding how the players act, without actually making those actions logical and encouraging them.


When you say "the monsters don't get to kill the party because they play smart" what I am seeing in the game is "the monsters don't get to kill the party because they have healing abilities that do not let them".
"the monsters don't get to kill the party because they use healing abilities that do not let them".

You can use healing triggers at the wrong time, take unnecessary amounts of damage and take down the wrong targets first to deal more damage than you can heal.

Maybe you need to see a party in play with less leaders (or Paladins) and see how they still rock? This time because they use their offensive abilities in a way to minimize damage taken?
 

Thanks everybody for participating in this thread (and others).
As long as we're bustin' out the "thank you's".

CapnZapp, thanks for being so tolerant, accepting, and gracious in your replies. Lots of posters have been critical of your gaming style and your assumptions, and you've taken it in stride. That's cool.

Game on, man.
 

I've met plenty of GMs who thought that the only fights worth fighting were ones where the PCs might lose, but I've never met a player who said that.

This statement is worth pausing to think about.

(Are you thinking about it, or just moving on?) :)

Pretty much all my players would agree. But then pretty much all my players are also frequent GMs. The ones who aren't GMs are also the three youngest who also have played less and also have less demands on their time and so value it less.

Generally neophyte players enjoy non-challenging fights because they get what they want out of it, XP and loot, which helps achieve their goal of making their character more powerful.

Experienced players, of which most GMs are, more frequently are of the viewpoint that it's not the destination of a powerful character that matters, but the journey and look for more out of the game than ending the night with lots of gold and XP. After all... they've already done epic before and heck, the GM can just say "and you all gain 5 levels, ta da" anyway.

To me a fight that isn't challenging or a meaningful part of the story is simply a pointless waste of my time.
 
Last edited:

KidSnide said:
I've met plenty of GMs who thought that the only fights worth fighting were ones where the PCs might lose, but I've never met a player who said that
This statement is worth pausing to think about.

There are four types of encounters:

1) Short challenging
2) Short non-challenging
3) Long challenging
4) Long non-challenging

#1 through #3 are acceptable. #4 is just boring.

#2 is totally fine, both from the DM and the player's POV as long as there are not too many of them. There is nothing wrong with the PCs wiping the floor up with a bunch of mooks in 3 rounds. As a player, I do enjoy challenging encounters more than non-challenging ones. But, the non-challenging short ones are fine too on occasion, as long as it is not a dietary staple.

And #1 only happens if the players get real lucky or real unlucky (e.g. TPK). Typically, it is not by design.
 

I guess that is my cue for a final remark that I want to make sure gets across:

None of this criticism (not all of it anyway) apply if you run the game "as intended". That is, with preliminary fights where the foes have no real chance of beating you but where the tension comes from how many resources (specifically, surges) they use up.

And so my comment to KD's taxonomy ;) of encounters is this:

I agree. My issue is instead if the game, not the story (the DM), dictates which kind a given fight will become: if I can't challenge my PCs on the first fight of the day no matter what (unless by throwing a TPK-level foe at them). This is a next step, beyond simply classifying the encounters; looking at why an encounter is or isn't challenging.
 

Remove ads

Top