Can you get too much healing?

[KidSnide]

Ah, hmm. I guess I'd still want to know what the 'else' is...

Really, if it's not 'Ritual finishes, world dies, campaign over' type stuff... the only other thing that would probably be a problem is being attacked while resting.

I don't know what your campaigns are like, but there is a lot of design space between "you lost the module" and "the campaign is over". It's just a matter of deciding what the badguy's plan actually *is*. If you never tell the PCs, then you're obviously bluffing about your willingness to do it.

For a mid-heroic adventure, the Necromancer's plan could be to create a force twenty mid-paragon monsters and turn the local town into his undead servants. If the PCs don't stop him in time, the adventure ends with them trying to escape the former NPCs that are trying to kill them while hiding from the elite level+5 monsters that are trying to kill them. (These monsters are newly created and presumably lack treasure. The balance hit they take will work itself out in a few levels.) That's still a potentially fun adventure, but not the adventure the PCs presumably want to play.

PC: 'Oh well, guess the princess dies and this guy will be tougher when we do face him. Hmm, guess we'll see if we can raise her or if we'll at least get a partial reward for her body, but damned if we're going in there with the wizard out of surges and all our dailies blown.'

OK, now this is just a question of calibration. As a DM, "how many extended rests do the PCs get?" is an essential part of the game design and should be communicated to the PCs. If the PCs get to the end unable to complete it, that may just be an example of an adventure that's too hard. (...or a game played poorly by the PCs. A good adventure design would allow them to aim for a partial victory at this point -- "killing the princess to stop the ritual" probably won't get a reward, but it should still be better than forfeiting the adventure completely.)

-KS

 

[Doctor Proctor]

This is interesting.

Yes, I feel that for a fight to be really exciting, there needs to be risks involved.

Okay, so this risk might not be running out of hit points.

You're saying the risk can instead be running out of healing surges.

But 4E isn't designed for any single given encounter to run you out of healing surges.

Just as a fight where the monsters can only expect to scratch your surface by hoping to do perhaps a dozen points of damage is dull, a fight where the monsters can only expect to make you use up one or two surges is dull.

My problem is that I have neither the time nor the patience to prefix every interesting combat with a string of easy fights whose sole purpose is to lower an abstract number like "8" to perhaps "3" before the real deal starts.

Then really, it's not the players that are the problem, it's you. You've created this need for a "healing nova" by forgoing the easier encounters in favor of only "interesting" ones. Since those "interesting" encounters are designed to create tension by being likely to drain HP, then the players are beefing up on healing to make sure that they survive.

At least in 3E, going low on resources meant your options changed and were reduced. Having fewer surges don't mean a thing in 4E, only running out of them does.

Yeah, that's true. However, blowing Dailies does mean that things have been reduced. The problem is that when you're dealing with potentially lethal encounters that require all the healing you can muster, you're probably going to see a lot of PC's blow Dailies too. So, you end up with PC's expending both resources simultaneously, and then they need an extended rest.

And thus I'm thinking I might start every fight at effectively 3 healing surges (one second wind, one healing potion and one Healing/Inspired Word).

Not only will this mean I'm getting to the beef early, I'm getting there every time. And not only this - but I've solved the 15 minute adventuring day too (because your three heals replenish after each fight).

This does nothing but punish players for something that you've created. Why invest in CON if it doesn't get you more surges? Why have multiple Leaders? Why use a Paladin ever, or at least, why invest in WIS as one since how many times per day you can use Lay on Hands no longer matters.

The only remaining issue is what to replace as an attrition mechanic. Of course, there needs to be a rule that explains how you can't go on forever.

It is in this light I came to think of disabling powers for being downed. (Not only would this be more reminiscent of 3E and its spell slots; but it sure beats trying to get worked up over having "only" a 3 on your sheet where you previously had an 8)

(Now I'm collecting my thoughts from all over, from several different threads. I'll probably summarize and post something up later)

There already is an attrition mechanic, you just don't want to use it.

If you were creating a series of balanced encounters then attrition would happen naturally over time. Instead, you've apparently chosen to ignore that and go with encounters that are much harder and eat up a large portion of PC resources, and so your PC's compensated by increasing their resources (not surges themselves, but ways to actually access them and get a good amount of healing). So now you're going to artificially decrease that resource? Why? Are you purposefully trying to kill your players?

That's a serious question BTW. I'm not understanding what you're trying to accomplish here by ramping up difficulty without regards to the system balance, and then further messing with the system balance because your players are trying to adjust.

Also, what happens when things go bad for one player? Or one player doesn't use their surges? The party I'm in has two Clerics, and I'm the Fighter. I've actually eaten all 4 Healing Words in a single encounter before. I've also received 0, and had to rely on only my own Second Wind because other people needed the healing. If everyone has 3 surges though, you've eliminated the ability to distribute healing where needed, and you might as well just increase everyone's HP by the value of 3 surges and take healing out altogether, because it amounts to the same thing in the end.

 

[DracoSuave]

One trick I do is with the time restraint, but not something that is rediculous or seems forced. So, for example, I'll say 'You gestimate you have a week to get to the castle and rescue the princess. Travel time is 5 days. Use your time wisely.'

The players can gather from that they have a day, give or take, to get the job done. So they have one extended rest that they can use. They can spend it early, or spend it late, but the decision point is up to them.

They don't feel like you're rushing them from point to point; rather, they know their decisions are driving the adventure and they react accordingly.

And if they use up their resources? Well, remind them -before- they take that second extended rest (which must be a full day later) that in that time the captive will probably be executed in that midnight ritual.

If they insist on the rest, then the campaign moves on without them, the ritual is done, and then the world changes to reflect their inaction. It's not even dickery, it's the player's choice that this occur.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't think you can plausibly have every fight offer a genuine chance of death, if you're assuming as part of your judgment the ability of intelligent player characters to react properly and save allies in danger. I mean, I guess you could have a genuine chance of death, but if you want a genuine chance of death after you've figured in the responses of intelligent, capable players, then what you're really asking for is combat that, even if you play intelligently and capably, WILL occasionally kill a PC.

Its probably better to go for the impression of danger, which is best analyzed before figuring in healing abilities. If the fighter goes down, but the cleric has the tools to rescue him and the intelligence to use them well, then you won't lose a PC. You also won't have "truly" dangerous combat. But you probably WILL have the IMPRESSION of truly dangerous combat, because the players will remember that the fighter went to the ground and failed a death save but the cleric rescued him in time.

4e is built to create "almost" moments. The fighter "almost" got killed by the orc. The rogue "almost" got eaten by a grue. But then someone else rescued them, or, if your party isn't very well coordinated, someone could have rescued them but didn't. If you don't think this counts as a valid sense of danger, then its unlikely that 4e will satisfy you.

Most likely, if that's how you feel, only two things will actually satisfy you. Either

1. Regular character deaths, or
2. Regularly encountering situations where, in spite of the player's best efforts, die rolls occur which entirely determine the life or death of a character. And of course math dictates that this will lead to regular character deaths.

This is why most people who don't like disposable PCs tend to go in for either a sense of "almost" like 4e creates, or they go in for non-pc-death related win/loss conditions.

Anyways, this is a long way of getting to the fact that your game may not actually have a problem. Your PCs have created a sort of healing nova. Alright. And they rest in between fights because there's no reason not to. Alright. And you don't want to force them not to rest between fights. Alright again.

If you're all happy with this, then just increase the number of monsters in your fights and have fun playing the game. The simple fact is that in any system where you can perform an action to recharge your character's strength, and there's no reason NOT to do it, the players will do it. If you don't want to provide a reason, then adjust your expectations and move on. You can still have fun and you can still have a feeling of threat, as long as that feeling of threat isn't intrinsically related to being down to your last healing surge. Because your characters will never get there, because you're letting them recharge their healing surges at will.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Heck yes you can have too much healing. Healers need to be careful about overhealing and keep an eye on thier threat. If they heal too much then they will pull mobs off the defenders and wipe the whole party.

 

[Nail]

Ah, hmm. I guess I'd still want to know what the 'else' is...

As would most players. Most of the time, the "else" is significant enough that the choice is really no choice at all.

DM: 'You have to go forward, or else.'
PC: 'Or else what?'
DM: 'Or else the ritual will finish and they'll sacrifice the princess on the altar ....(snip)....

Exactly: this is no choice at all. It's just Plot, and "the Power of the Plot compells you!" It seems you and I agree on this.

But further, if the DM lays out the choice (implicitly or explicitly) that "if you rest, the enemies will get tougher to compensate for you resting", then there's really no choice for the players. It's tougher for them to go in at less than 100%, and it's tougher for them to go in when they're at 100%. Same result, so no real choice.

If the DM lays out the choice (implicitly or explicitly) that "if you rest, you will fail to obtain your objective", then there's really no choice for the players. They simply must go on to achieve their objective. No choice.

Etc.

 

[Nail]

Yes, I feel that for a fight to be really exciting, there needs to be risks involved.

Okay, so this risk might not be running out of hit points.

You're saying the risk can instead be running out of healing surges.

It could be. The challenge might also have nothing to do with healing surges.

An in-game example? Skill Challenges. Done right (and, I must admit, "not using the DMG system, errata or not"), a skill challenge leads to different outcomes depending on PC choices and their rolls. Most of the time, those skill challenges won't drain either hps or healing surges.

A combat example? Multiple and competing combat goals. For example, one of my DMs just ran us through a messy town fight. Several different goblin groups were doing several different things during their raid on our town. We had to decide (and were challenged by) which groups to engage, and which groups to ignore. The point of the battle was never to just "kill 'em all", but rather prevent as much mischief as possible. ...and during the whole combat only one of us was ever seriously wounded. Again, hps and healing surges hardly entered into it at all. It wasn't part of the challenge.

The point is: Quit obsessing about hps when measuring challenge (or "risk"). It's simply one way of measuring. It's not the only way of measuring.

 

[keterys]

Your definition of no choice is incorrect. I'm sorry, but it's just grammatically wrong. There's a choice there. There's sometimes even a lot of them, like the 'kill the princess' answer.

You can always choose to retreat or to fail to get the best objective. In fact, a game that doesn't have that choice is doing a disservice to its players by failing to give them _meaningful_ choices.

I totally agree with the post that appeared right above this one, though. Good stuff

 

[Lauberfen]

Nail, perhaps you could provide an example of what he considers a meaningful choice?
Otherwise I'm failing to understand what you are chatting about- I've seen a load of choices offered here, ranging from ones a party would never take (which one could argue is not a meaningful choice in one sense), to a whole load that the party would really consider. I've also played and ran games many times where there were similar choices to be made. For example, in one case the players had just fought some hobgoblins, and could hear the hobbos in the next room breaking into a tomb. This left them the choice of taking a short rest, and risking the hobgoblins getting the item from the tomb, and using it against them, or go in less prepared.

This is a genuine choice in every respect. The two paths are probably of different hardness, but one is not much clearly harder than the other. Because the nature of the item and the amount of time pressure were unkown, it's really a choice between the unkown, and a challenging known.

Arguing that both are really the same is like arguing that being a fighter or a ranger are the same- in the end both do damage. This is clearly nonsense- they do different amounts of damage, in different ways.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Nail, perhaps you could provide an example of what he considers a meaningful choice?

Yeah, I would like to see that too. From what Nail is saying, it seems that he feels that failure is not a real option, and that the whole "continue on now and it will be easier, rest up to get powers/surges back will make it harder" choice is a non-choice. If so, what other choice can you give the players that are meaningful?

Plus, the option of failure doesn't necessarily mean failure of the whole campaign or failure of a major plot hook. It could simply mean failure to capture a "bonus" item that's not part of the regular treasure parcels. You can throw it in later in the adventure to keep PC's at the appropriate power level, but it gives you - and them - more control over when they get it.