Innerdude, just out of curiosity, do you have the same reservations about 5e healing? After all, a 5e fighter, at first level, can take enough damage during the day to outright kill him, but, by spending short rests and Second Wind, he could not only have full HP, but also, not have spent a single character resource.
And if 5e doesn't bother you, why not?
Never read anything for 5e beyond the 3rd (or was it the 2nd?) playtest packet. I simply don't have any context to make a comparison.
It's interesting though, I'm not a huge fan of the soaking mechanic (spend a "hero point" to prevent damage) in Savage Worlds. It's probably my least favorite part of the system, but since I love everything else about it I deal with it.
But yet I've always been much more okay with "soaking" damage rather than a post-factum "healing surge," and I've never really understood why until now. The difference is "soaking" damage only requires a single narrative change to the fiction, whereas a "healing surge" requires more input to keep the narrative consistent---how long was that rest? Did you expend a surge? How much did you heal? How much of that was "meat" and how much of it was "grit, resolve, and fighting spirit"?
"Soaking" damage makes it much easier to determine "if you're hurt, you're hurt." Once your "heroic pool" runs out, and you start taking
real damage, it's all
real damage. And once you're taking real damage, it then has to be healed naturally or through magical means.
Even just now, hearing about the 5e low-level fighter makes me think "soaking" damage with "hero points" is the better way to go. Again, from a player's perspective, what's the difference between soaking all the damage using hero points, versus using rests / Second Wind after a battle to regen hit points? None. The HP result for the character is the same, the difference is it makes the narrative MUCH easier to generate.
"Oh, wow, Mr. Fighter, you made it through that fight without a scratch!"
"Yeah, some luck, fighting skill, and resolve brought me through" (i.e., he spent all of his "hero pool" preventing the damage), "but man, I'm beat, and I'm not sure I want to keep fighting today unless I have to" (in-fiction recognition that his resolve/grit/heroic prowess can only protect him so far).
It also eliminates the uneven resource expenditure issue you mentioned, since the fighter has to manage his "pool" points as a resource. It allows for the same kind of "dramatic" / "heroic" narratives in the fiction without requiring nearly as much fictional explanation as post-factum healing. It also keeps natural healing, healing checks, and magical healing important, because it creates the distinct narrative where there's no "free lunch" for actual hit point restoration.
Wow, I suddenly have a newfound, deeper appreciation for the Savage Worlds soak mechanic. It was doing so much more under the surface than I ever realized before.
I can also see why the 4e designers wanted to do something like it with healing surges, but couldn't use "soaking" as a mechanic, because D&D has historically used HP restoration as the primary mechanic, not HP "loss prevention."
But man, it's suddenly interesting to me.......I'm actually starting to catch a glimpse of what 4e was trying to do as a system. Healing surges really were trying to model "gritty heroism" and the "will to continue," it just doesn't do it quite right for my taste.
And the even weirder thing---I'm realizing that 4e may have been much closer to the game experience I was really looking for than I gave it credit for. It wasn't just some brain fart, misappropriation of resources, it really was trying to give me high action, dramatic narrative with a hint of control given to the players. It just didn't do it right (for me at least)!
I........get it. I finally GET what kind of a game is in there, trying to come out its shell, but it's hampered by the legacy D&D tropes, the poor written presentation, the terrible delve format adventures, and the odd problematic power or two. Wow, this is a very strange feeling.......I totally GET it. And wow, I totally GET why [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] defend it, because D&D 3 and earlier really CAN'T provide that kind of experience. Frankly you'd be better off going to the OSR to get that play experience than anything that's "actual D&D." Not because the mechanics are any BETTER for it than D&D, but most of the OSR stuff has shed a lot of the detritus of 1e to make it easier to play.
4e answers a "yes" to all of these questions:
- Is it pushing the stakes of the narrative?
- Do the mechanics point the characters towards their own individual stakes and narratives?
- Do the mechanics allow the players to have some narrative control over the "heroism" of their character?
- Does the action at the table drive the players to view the "heroics" of their characters as a necessary part of the fiction?
- Does the system have easy enough preparation to allow the GM to manage encounters in such a way that the focus of play remains on the framed scenes and the stakes at hand?
Wow you guys, how the heck have you put up with it all this time??? Don't you just want to go back and SHOOT the 4e designers for trying to shoehorn this round peg of innovative, progressive style of play into an old D&D square peg? Or do you like the fact that it's still kind of / sort of running on a D&D framework? I personally got tired of the D&D framework, but I can see why it would still work for a lot of people. I'd be sooooo frustrated that 4e just can't seem to get out of its own way enough to really let it shine.......
Holy cow, this is so.....surreal.
Seriously, though you guys, I'd stop worrying about when people say "It isn't D&D." I mean, it really ISN'T D&D, not in the classic sense. If you like what it's doing, 4e is better--MUCH, MUCH BETTER--than "D&D."
