For those who don't like "shouting healthy" powers

[DEFCON 1]

Well, look... I'm not trying to re-open the whole "just think about the rules differently!" idea that folks like KarinsDad and The Auld Grump have been defending themselves against this whole time. Goodness knows we've spent enough words going back and forth on the issue, and just changing how we "viewed" hit points (narratively rather than mechanically) in no way solved their specific problems. So going into that aspect of 'Martial Healing' is pointless at this time. No one's going to convince them otherwise.

So my point was to just to see if my possible mechanical solution would actually be steps to accomplish what it was it seemed those folks had a problem with in the dissonance between story and game. Now obviously, based upon what KarinsDad pointed out in his response... for him it just comes down to hit points should be injury and only magic should remove it... thereby negating all possibility of warlord healing regardless of mechanics. Which is fine by me... because that shows that the issue for KarinsDad isn't just a disconnect between the mechanics and the story, but rather its 4E's story itself he has a problem with in terms of damage and injury. So in that regard, there's no solution that will help him become comfortable with 4E.

I am still curious though whether it does help some other folks... those whose main complaint WAS just the disconnect between story and mechanics? Does what I put forth help in any way, shape or form?

 

[LurkAway]

I am still curious though whether it does help some other folks... those whose main complaint WAS just the disconnect between story and mechanics? Does what I put forth help in any way, shape or form?

A little bit, but not enough. See my post here.

I'm not sure how to articulate this -- There are processes and interactions going on other than just what hit points mean. I think ignoring those processes will only work for those who only truly interested in the end result (ie., a replacement for clerics). As for what hit points mean, I think that D&D has and should always allow wounds to be some part of how hit points are fluffed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

A little bit, but not enough. See my post here.

I'm not sure how to articulate this -- There are processes and interactions going on other than just what hit points mean. I think ignoring those processes will only work for those who only truly interested in the end result (ie., a replacement for clerics). As for what hit points mean, I think that D&D has and should always allow wounds to be some part of how hit points are fluffed.

I think you make very good points. I would not be surprised if you were correct that one of the main reasons those of us who like the Warlord concept do so because they just like the idea of non-clerics being able to heal. And that definitely comes more from a game perspective than a story perspective. I am certainly that way. Since I see the D&D game rules to so not be a mirror to any sort of reality... putting in game concepts that do not require the same things to be needed in every single game I ever play (like a cleric-- there because we need a healer, not because the person wants to play a cleric)... warlords, bards, and shaman are godsends.

If I'm playing a cleric, I would hope its because I want to play a divine agent of a god (and all the roleplaying that entails). Not because the game requires a healer be present and the cleric is the only healer available. Screw that. The game might be immersive as hell, but if I don't care about my character, that immersion is completely lost on me at that point.

 

[Neonchameleon]

[MENTION=2011]KarinsDad[/MENTION] There are games where damage is damage. D&D is not and has never been one of them. GURPS and Rolemaster, sure. But hit points without shock penalties simply aren't part of this. (Not to say that you can't butcher the sacred cow of hit points - just that it's a sacred cow).

 

[KarinsDad]

Warlords and Bards are not supposed to be like "any other creature behind a bush." When they scream a rallying cry or play a melody, it is supposed to be so well-delivered and perfectly timed and convincing that there is something supernatural about it.

Except that any creature behind a bush can come up and do a heal check, regardless of training, and have a fair chance of getting a PC conscious again. Any creature can do the equivalent of shouting a PC awake (just not from range).

As for the Bard, the Bard uses magic. I only have a little problem with him. The Arcane power source shouldn't have a healer nearly as good as other power sources (that source shouildn't have a healer at all, it should be a weakness of that power source) but if one Arcane class can heal, then the Arcane magic should be capable of healing with all classes of the Arcane power source (personally, I think the Arcane power source should never heal, but should hand out temp hit points or resistance instead).

The Warlord, on the other hand, is just a set of mechanical numbers, posing as a PC. The mechanics of "we need a martial leader" drive the PC class, not the other way around and it's why this thread was started in the first place, for people who do not like that concept and find it totally artificial and metagamey.

4E revolves around the concept of roles and how every power source must have every role and must allow the roles to work nearly the same. Power sources should drive classes, not roles.

There are games where damage is damage. D&D is not and has never been one of them.

D&D has always been a damage game until 4E.

Yes, Gary put a writeup in 1E to explain how a PC could get hit by many sword swings and still survive (and people use this lame excuse as a rationale as to why D&D never did real abstract damage), but until 4E, hit points were as much damage as they were anything else. In fact, they were an abstract of damage more than anything else because they took actual magic or significant rest to heal.

The PC wasn't healthy until he rested for a long period of time, or was healed magically.

Now, hit points are a quantum state of physics which vanish like the morning dew as the PC catches his breath for 5 minutes. Meh. That is so far from Gary's original vision of them it's not funny.

But hit points without shock penalties simply aren't part of this.

I didn't say that they should be. But, they should be at the 1E through 3.5 level of abstract damage plausibility, not the mmorph level of abstract damage plausibility where all they are is a little red bar that constantly changes without any magic to do so.

The designers perceived a curing problem and fixed it the wrong way. IMO. Obviously, a large segment of our gaming community either like how it got fixed, or they have bought into it over the last 3 years.

When I play the game, I use that same healing mechanic as everyone else, but that doesn't mean that I changed my mind and now think that the game mechanic somehow makes logical sense. It is still as implausible as the first day 4E came out and I wish 5E would come up with a better system where damage is damage, and healing is healing, and PCs aren't in quantum states, and only divine or primal magic can heal, and PCs cannot be shouted awake. Again, IMO. I think the "anything goes" from a power source perspective (without solid designer metagame rules) adds to the bloat ware and amount of errata of 4E as much as the splat books do.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The Warlord, on the other hand, is just a set of mechanical numbers, posing as a PC.

If that's the case then it's an implementation fail rather than a concept fail. The Warlord is a great concept - and there is nothing wrong with the Sergeant Major shouting someone back on to their feet. This needs fixing.

D&D has always been a damage game until 4E.

Complete rot. Other than ability to take a hit, a pre-4e PC is every bit as capable if they have one hit point left as if they have 100. They are functionally undamaged until the final straw breaks the camel's back. No penalties for shock, for blood loss, for bruising, etc.

To me when something is damaged, it is damaged. It doesn't work as well and isn't as effective. This was never the case in editions prior to 4e.

Yes, Gary put a writeup in 1E to explain how a PC could get hit by many sword swings and still survive (and people use this lame excuse as a rationale as to why D&D never did real abstract damage), but until 4E, hit points were as much damage as they were anything else.

Hit points are a pure gamist mechanic to allow people to take more than one hit in a tabletop skirmish game. They were fluffed as damage but were put in out of pure gamism and otherwise do nothing to impede the damaged party. You get gashed in the leg and you aren't going to be able to run as fast or effectively. But this doesn't apply in D&D. Gashed in the arm and you are going to have problems using it. So hits in D&D aren't damaging leg or arm. Or anything else.

In fact, they were an abstract of damage more than anything else because they took actual magic or significant rest to heal.

They just lack the important component of damage. Meaningful damage. They were designed as and are simple raw gamism.

The PC wasn't healthy until he rested for a long period of time, or was healed magically.

Where "not healthy" means "able to run a marathon as well as if he was at full health, able to see as far and move as fast as he is when healthy. And eat as heartily and drink as much. In all ways except his ability to resist being hit he is 100% as healthy as he is on full hit points.

This isn't health. It's a magical anti-weapon force field that takes an arbitrary time to recharge.

Now, hit points are a quantum state of physics which vanish like the morning dew as the PC catches his breath for 5 minutes. Meh. That is so far from Gary's original vision of them it's not funny.

You mean they are no longer a gamist mechanic designed to allow swashbuckling fights to go on? Oh, wait...

When I play the game, I use that same healing mechanic as everyone else, but that doesn't mean that I changed my mind and now think that the game mechanic somehow makes logical sense.

It makes more sense than hit points. They make no logical sense. None. Nada. Zip. They are damage without being damage. They allow you to take an orc hitting a human as hard as he can with a two handed axe while unarmoured and only being scratched. And Gygax wrote them for gamist reasons.

That you are used to the truly implausible mechanic doesn't make it more plausible than the justified one. It just means it's what you are used to.

 

[KarinsDad]

Complete rot. Other than ability to take a hit, a pre-4e PC is every bit as capable if they have one hit point left as if they have 100. They are functionally undamaged until the final straw breaks the camel's back. No penalties for shock, for blood loss, for bruising, etc.

To me when something is damaged, it is damaged. It doesn't work as well and isn't as effective. This was never the case in editions prior to 4e.

While I agree with part of this (and actually had damage categories in 2E through 3.5 in my game system where PCs had penalties to D20 rolls for being damaged), the difference between a 1 hit point PC and a 100 hit point PC that you so cavalierly dismiss was important.

The former could be killed with a single shot and the latter could survive many such hits.

Both PCs were just as functional offensively, but one was seriously degradated defensively.


A player with a PC with 1 hit point remaining in earlier versions of the game knew that his PC was seriously hurt and was vulnerable. In 4E, that same player with a PC with 1 hit point does not have a seriously hurt PC unless he is out of healing surges. It's a totally different state of quantum mechanics of what hit points represent.

 

[Neonchameleon]

While I agree with part of this (and actually had damage categories in 2E through 3.5 in my game system where PCs had penalties to D20 rolls for being damaged), the difference between a 1 hit point PC and a 100 hit point PC that you so cavalierly dismiss was important.

The former could be killed with a single shot and the latter could survive many such hits.

Both PCs were just as functional offensively, but one was seriously degradated defensively.

As I say, hit points aren't about damage - they are a magical force field and a strictly gamist construct. Only after the force field runs out is the PC actually affected by being hit. The only thing that is affected by the RAW for being "hit" is ability to take further hits.

If you added a house rule inflicting penalties for being hurt that makes your metaphor a bit more consistent. But it is a house rule and as such not part of the actual rules.

A player with a PC with 1 hit point remaining in earlier versions of the game knew that his PC was seriously hurt and was vulnerable. In 4E, that same player with a PC with 1 hit point does not have a seriously hurt PC unless he is out of healing surges. It's a totally different state of quantum mechanics of what hit points represent.

Oh, indeed. The metaphor of hit points has changed. It's now no longer "pay no attention to the force field behind the curtain". It's "You are John McClane or Indiana Jones". You can be knocked down in a scene but still keep going for the rest of the film with just a few bandages (hitting 0 hp). Or you can have nothing left in the tank while still being standing (hitting 0 surges). It's a consistent metaphor that involves stamina as well as ability to take a hit. But it's a changed metaphor.

The thing to remember is that your level of health in 4e is measured on two axes, not just one. Hit points and healing surges. Full hit points, reduced surges doesn't mean you are unhurt. It means you're battered but ready to keep going.

The one thing I wish they'd done was written differently about the extended rest rules. An extended rest IMO should be a rest between episodes. Or at least a weekend's rest in a safe place. Not a simple 8 hours overnight.

 

[Keenberg]

While I agree with part of this (and actually had damage categories in 2E through 3.5 in my game system where PCs had penalties to D20 rolls for being damaged), the difference between a 1 hit point PC and a 100 hit point PC that you so cavalierly dismiss was important.

The former could be killed with a single shot and the latter could survive many such hits.

Both PCs were just as functional offensively, but one was seriously degradated defensively.


A player with a PC with 1 hit point remaining in earlier versions of the game knew that his PC was seriously hurt and was vulnerable. In 4E, that same player with a PC with 1 hit point does not have a seriously hurt PC unless he is out of healing surges. It's a totally different state of quantum mechanics of what hit points represent.

In your terms, Second Wind could be narratively described as

• a bruised, battered and bloodied character focusing just enough to get his head to stop spinning. With his recovered perception, he finds it easier to defend himself. (explains the increase in defense potential.)

• pausing for a quick moment to set a dislocated body part

• detaching from the physical pain like a Buddhist monk, etc...

So a martial healing power is just an outside influence rather than an internal instinct.motivation that inspires/instructs someone to do one of the above. It can be described in any number of ways.

 

[KarinsDad]

In your terms, Second Wind could be narratively described as

In my terms, Second Wind shouldn't exist in the game system.

It's self healing for all classes and shouldn't exist. It's a mmorpg derivative and no matter how eloquent a narrative is about what it does, it's still dumb and shouldn't be part of the game system. PCs shouldn't be able to self heal, PCs should rely on external forces (like divine intervention) for healing. IMO.