Flat Healing Without Using a Surge--Infinite Daily HP?

[Rystil Arden]

I've yet to play thru 4e. (We'll be starting KotS soon.) Read the books tho'....

IMO, all the DM really needs is the "meaningful threat" clause on p. 40 of the DMG to contain PCs that want infinite healing....or infinite whatever else that requires an attack. (3e's whirlwind attack and AoOs pops into mind....) The "meanignful threat" clause really is enough. After all, it's the DM that determines what monsters are where, etc.

Rystil, I'm a bit confused. How might it go down in your prefered campaign world where the PCs get infinite healing from something that's not a meaningful threat? I don't understand the story problem you're having.

Not a meaningful threat, if strictly defined, can include many of the standard fare warm-up encounters you would expect even in a published adventure like KotS. I can name several in KotS that really had no chance to actually be a threat to us.

As to your second question, after my name in bold, I don't understand it (or, I've come up with three ways to parse it that don't make sense, so I assume I've failed to parse it correctly).

 

[Cadfan]

4e does a pretty darn good job of discouraging these and other similar tactics in general. They should eliminate the sketchy and poorly-thought-out 'credible threat' mechanic to eliminate the chances for infinite healing.

No, they shouldn't. They should balance the game for regular people, and let those who intentionally poke holes in the rules go hang themselves.

I used to think the way you do, but then I realized just how absolutely anal a ruleset has to be if it wants to 1) allow a wide diversity of mechanics and abilities, and 2) avoid exploits from those who intentionally set out to find and utilize glitches in the rules. There's a limit to how much ink should be spilled to stop people from behaving in that manner. After all, every drop of ink spilled in that mission is in essence inflicted upon the rest of us in the form of narrow, lawyerly, text heavy rules.

 

[Rystil Arden]

No, they shouldn't. They should balance the game for regular people, and let those who intentionally poke holes in the rules go hang themselves.

I used to think the way you do, but then I realized just how absolutely anal a ruleset has to be if it wants to 1) allow a wide diversity of mechanics and abilities, and 2) avoid exploits from those who intentionally set out to find and utilize glitches in the rules. There's a limit to how much ink should be spilled to stop people from behaving in that manner. After all, every drop of ink spilled in that mission is in essence inflicted upon the rest of us in the form of narrow, lawyerly, text heavy rules.

See, the thing is, 4e has almost done it already. You could easily choose powers such that this is never an issue or concern. It would have taken no effort on their part to just not include the few that they did. It would be like doing everything they did, all the hard work on the economy of actions in 4e, and then giving Wizards the 3.0 Haste spell. Why do it?

 

[mattdm]

You say set up a story, I say railroading. It works for some people, and, ironically, I have no problem playing that kind of game, but when GMing, that's not my style. I create a world full of NPCs, plots, and agendas and then let the PCs interact as they see fit, biting whatever hooks they choose and doing as they please.

I'm not talking about forcing players into a linear, railroading story. I mean that you should think about your NPCs as characters (in the non-D&D sense), your plots as stories, and the agendas as activities of the people in the world. Don't think of the NPCs as a collection of stats and the plots as those stats bumping up against a set of game physics.

By all means, make a living world. Then, when your players interact with a portion of that world, figure out how the rules can be used to represent it.

I think 4E is actually a better "sandbox" campaign setting than 3E, precisely because it doesn't encourage you to shoehorn your world into rules meant to be balanced for PCs.

 

[SoulStorm]

Ok, what about Sunburst (Cleric Attack 27)? The healing in that case doesn't seem to be contingent upon actually hitting a target. I just assumed that the power was an area of effect that harms enemies and heals allies, each independent of the other. This thread is making me question that assumption, but from the way the power reads, I don't see why a cleric couldn't use this power every 5 minutes outside of combat for healing purposes only.

 

[Cadfan]

See, the thing is, 4e has almost done it already. You could easily choose powers such that this is never an issue or concern. It would have taken no effort on their part to just not include the few that they did. It would be like doing everything they did, all the hard work on the economy of actions in 4e, and then giving Wizards the 3.0 Haste spell. Why do it?

Completely different. The 3e haste spell was broken because it was too good. The benefit from casting it was too high. It didn't take sideways reasoning or exploitation to be broken, it just was.

Healing when you hit a target but without spending a healing surge isn't inherently too good. It works just fine, until your PCs decide to cart around a peasant, give him a dagger and tell him to try to stab someone, and then club him unconscious.

Its another "bad o' rats" problem, and nothing more.

 

[Rystil Arden]

Ok, what about Sunburst (Cleric Attack 27)? The healing in that case doesn't seem to be contingent upon actually hitting a target. I just assumed that the power was an area of effect that harms enemies and heals allies, each independent of the other. This thread is making me question that assumption, but from the way the power reads, I don't see why a cleric couldn't use this power every 5 minutes outside of combat for healing purposes only.

Aha, Sunburst is indeed a better example. It does the healing as an effect, so you don't need any enemy targets at all. Excellent find SoulStorm! I'll go edit the OP right away to stop all these people who have focused nitpickingly on the one power I used as an example and ignored the big picture.

 

[Ydars]

Nail; your point is uncomfortably true about 4e because the definition of metagaming is when players have their characters react to the world around them as if it was just a game.

4E encourages metagaming because the way around this in most RPGs is to play your character so that he/she reacts to the EFFECT that the rule was designed to simulate. In 4E, these effects are VERY ambigious and so it is much harder to stop meta-gaming. However, I will never allow it in my games, for the simple reason that it completely destroys immersion and if you don't have immersion in a pen and paper RPG then you might as well play Oblivion, since it models combat and all the other action type malarky so much better than a pen and paper RPG ever can.

The simple way to stop meta-game thinking is to ask, would this character really react like this if he was really living in the game world? I agree it is difficult to completely eliminate it but if we don't try then we are just playing a war-game. Although D&D is about 3/4 of the way there now, it isn't there just yet.

 

[Digital M@]

If a certain monster is a significant threat, then it's a significant threat, yes? Nothing stops you from KOing the same monster (particularly a minion) that is actually a significant threat many times. Having to make the judgment call is annoying, and seriously problematic for beginner GMs, which should be something 4e aims to avoid, since it is aimed at expanding the GM base to just such GMs.

Where do you draw the line? What about a monster that the party Wizard has put to sleep with a Sleep effect. And it's the last monster in an expected planned encounter. Can the Paladin finish it off and heal her allies? Okay, what if the party Wizard is an Orb Wizard who has put the monster to sleep for over 50 rounds. Can the Paladin do it twice? If not, what if it's a really dangerous monster like an elite? Would stunned instead of asleep make it okay?

It's just a pain. I know how I would rule (very very strictly and disallow the healing in almost any case), but that doesn't mean a reasonable GM might not reasonably differ. And, especially a beginner GM, they might get into a rough corner.

I am so glad I do not game with anyone who thinks like this. Lets be serious for a moment shall we. These arguments sound like something a 7th grader wold come up with. A single minion is not a threat to any party so you could not use it. A prisoner is not a threat. A monster beat down to one hit point, allowed to re-coop a point or two and beat down again s not a threat.

Does ignoring all logic to try and create breaks in rules or complications in games really make people feel smart or clever. I am dumber (if that is possible) for reading this thread. I figure that you are just trolling, but...

 

[Ximenes088]

Aha, Sunburst is indeed a better example. It does the healing as an effect, so you don't need any enemy targets at all. Excellent find SoulStorm! I'll go edit the OP right away to stop all these people who have focused nitpickingly on the one power I used and ignored the big picture.

At 27th level, I'm not sure this is an issue. So you no longer have to spend healing surges outside of combat to heal up if you've got an Epic Cleric hanging around. Big deal. _Inside_ combat, you're certainly not going to be able to Sunburst yourself to health, and you're going to be burning surges.

If I did feel it was a problem, I'd just declare that because there were no enemies in the area of effect, there were no hit rolls. And because there were no hit rolls, the Effect did not trigger- because the Effect triggers on a hit or miss, and neither a hit nor a miss occurred. If you don't offer blood and souls for my lord Pelor, you don't get the healing.