Forked Thread: Healing Surges: Let's see them in Action!

[Jeff Wilder]

The point I was making is that 4e characters that Healing Surge loss is equivalent to straight hit point loss in prior editions.

If that were true, this argument wouldn't be happening.

In every prior edition of D&D, if a PC lost half of his "damage allotment" (say, 40 of 80 HP), on the next day -- barring magical aid of some kind -- he would still be down some of his "damage allotment."

By contrast, if a 4E PC uses everything but 1 HP of his "damage allotment" (say, 49 HP plus all of his healing surges), on the next day -- with absolutely no assistance whatsoever -- he's perfectly, 100 percent, full back to his "damage allotment."

That's not the same thing.

(Cue the "yeah, but the 3E guys will get fully healed by magic anyway, so it amounts to the same thing" argument.)

 

[Obryn]

You kep making these assertions about what hit points aren't...

But...

So I think you are actually ignoring evidence that contradicts your assertion. Do hit points represent damage 1:1 nope... but that in no way means hit points don't represent physical damage at all.

Well, no - clearly they have some relation to physical damage, given that the means to reduce them are almost all things with the potential to cause physical damage. They are related to the amount of punishment a character can take before something bad happens.

I don't see where there's an inconsistency here.

It's when you go much past this vague definition that things get ... well, insane.

The tendency in this thread and others has been to argue that some ways to relate HPs and physical conditions are clearly more "realistic" or more logical than others. That's where I disagree. I am arguing it's a playstyle choice, not a realism choice. And that your definition of HPs should be chosen to support the kinds of games you want to play, not on some murky connection between an imagined character and a functional game token.

-O

 

[Kraydak]

Well, no - clearly they have some relation to physical damage, given that the means to reduce them are almost all things with the potential to cause physical damage. They are related to the amount of punishment a character can take before something bad happens.

I don't see where there's an inconsistency here.

It's when you go much past this vague definition that things get ... well, insane.

The tendency in this thread and others has been to argue that some ways to relate HPs and physical conditions are clearly more "realistic" or more logical than others. That's where I disagree. I am arguing it's a playstyle choice, not a realism choice. And that your definition of HPs should be chosen to support the kinds of games you want to play, not on some murky connection between an imagined character and a functional game token.

-O

But, even if you go as abstract as you can, an injury that can be lethal (drops you below 0) will, IRL, take a while to heal up. Sooner or later you come up against that problem. *Eventually*, regardless of anything else you do, hp loss represents physical injury. There is nothing murky here. You can introduce some level of hp-injury disconnect, but it will not be total (baring some rather extreme assumptions, see below).

You can avoid dealing with the problem by not narrating. You can avoid the problem by assuming that characters don't need functional spleens (but then you pick up the problem of "why do you die when someone attacks you"). You can avoid the problem by assuming that characters regenerate only slightly slower than trolls.

None of the options are good, although the "not narrating" option is probably the best of the lot. Unfortunately, even if you avoid narrating as much as possible, occasionally it'll come up (raised by the players if nothing else), and even if it doesn't come up, if the best solution to an issue with an RPG (that didn't exist in previous editions) is "don't narrate", you have a problem.

 

[Obryn]

But, even if you go as abstract as you can, an injury that can be lethal (drops you below 0) will, IRL, take a while to heal up. Sooner or later you come up against that problem. *Eventually*, regardless of anything else you do, hp loss represents physical injury. There is nothing murky here. You can introduce some level of hp-injury disconnect, but it will not be total (baring some rather extreme assumptions, see below).

You can avoid dealing with the problem by not narrating. You can avoid the problem by assuming that characters don't need functional spleens (but then you pick up the problem of "why do you die when someone attacks you"). You can avoid the problem by assuming that characters regenerate only slightly slower than trolls.

None of the options are good, although the "not narrating" option is probably the best of the lot. Unfortunately, even if you avoid narrating as much as possible, occasionally it'll come up (raised by the players if nothing else), and even if it doesn't come up, if the best solution to an issue with an RPG (that didn't exist in previous editions) is "don't narrate", you have a problem.

You're excluding a lot of middle ground here. Sure, you can narrate combat as a series of misses, like Imaro suggested. Or you can narrate it as a series of deep wounds. Both run into problems. (Or you can not narrate it at all, which is boring, and a kind of silly suggestion.)

I'm not denying that there's some vagueness when a character's dying. That's an extension of the vagueness of the whole HP system, in my mind. But, on the flipside, I don't need to narrate that Bob Fighter's liver is flopping around on the floor after he's dropped below 0. He could, however, have - say - a cut that's bleeding badly, incapacitating him. Maybe it gets a bit better. Maybe it wasn't as bad as it looked. Maybe it IS that bad, but the character is just that badass. After the fight, he probably needs a good bandage or some quick stitches. Maybe some clerical help, even, if any is available.

Or, maybe he got a big crack on the head. Maybe it will be fatal, maybe not. These sorts of things tend to be uncertain.

All of this description serves the HP system, not the other way around. The PCs only look like regenerating trolls if you spend effort crafting your narrative to make them look that way.

-O

 

[Mallus]

If that were true, this argument wouldn't be happening.

Of course it would, this is the Internet.

By contrast, if a 4E PC uses everything but 1 HP of his "damage allotment" (say, 49 HP plus all of his healing surges), on the next day -- with absolutely no assistance whatsoever -- he's perfectly, 100 percent, full back to his "damage allotment."

That's not the same thing.

I should have been clearer. During the period of time between PC extended rests, healing surge loss/use maps to hit points loss in prior editions.

(Cue the "yeah, but the 3E guys will get fully healed by magic anyway, so it amounts to the same thing" argument.)

Because it does amount to the same thing. 3e made healing --in most cases-- into pointless bean-counting, thanks to its costing scheme, 4e merely acknowledges that and simplifies. It's easy enough to fix, create a homebrew ritual priced similarly to a CLW wand and you're golden.

 

[Mallus]

For others it's the mechanical effect or result that is important...not the means of describing said effect or even how said effect came about in a logical or consistent way through the narrative or simulation parts of the rpg. Their priority is an interesting set of mechanics to play with, and the narrative or simulation are secondary at best.

My group cares a great deal about characters, narrative, and the simulation of exciting fantasy literature but we have no issues with the healing surge mechanic.

I think a better distinction would be between those people who believe the game world is an outgrowth of the rules and those who think the game world is the outgrowth of the agreement/interplay between the players and DM (with the role of the rules being conflict/task resolution).

 

[Imaro]

My group cares a great deal about characters, narrative, and the simulation of exciting fantasy literature but we have no issues with the healing surge mechanic.

I think a better distinction would be between those people who believe the game world is an outgrowth of the rules and those who think the game world is the outgrowth of the agreement/interplay between the players and DM (with the role of the rules being conflict/task resolution).

Uhm no...it's not a better distinction since rules=conflict resolution does not necessitate rules=/= facilitate logical and consistent narrative.

I believe the narrative, simulation and rules should mesh and thus all be "informed" by each other so that a dissonance doesn't arise in play.

You seem to believe rules should not affect anything outside of determining a binary answer...that in fact determines nothing (at least in a logical or consistent manner) about the narrative or the world. This type of play is ultimately unsatisfying to me and numerous others. It provides no immersion and actually has alot more in common with a wargame or boardgame that players choose to, as an afterthought throw narrative and a thin veil of simulation over as opposed to the meshing of game, narration and simulation I and my group enjoy.

 

[catsclaw227]

=LostSoulI think it's because 4E takes Immersion to the shed and shoots it in the face.

Total agreement about 4E and immersion.

<snip>

You partly missed my point. In 4e, you are either alive and kicking or dead. Incapacitation will last for rounds, at most. This kills a whole lot of "narration space", and also (in the absence of magical healing) makes life a whole lot more complicated immersion-wise.

<snip>

And that is a problem, if you want to narrate wounds, because you are going to take immersion out behind the shed and shoot it in the face.

I just wanted to comment that in our 4e game, we have no more difficulty becoming immersed in the adventure/story/plot in 4e than we did with 3.x or prior editions.

Immersion is waht you want to make of it. My players have stated that they don't mind the hand-waving of descriptive narration of wounds, and we've even have been able to describe some wounds (as narration, not mechanic) without loss of verisimilitude. It doesn't seem to be any more difficult than it was in 3e.

I would often ponder, while playing prior editions, why (with all the sharp objects flying around) we never saw rules about fingers getting cut off or worse, arms or legs. If was able to accept the abstract nature of healing and HP before, playing 4e doesn't change it at all.

Yes, the healing mechanic is different. Maybe if the terminology was different, this discussion would be different.

But for us, bottom line, is that it doesn't feel any more wonky than it did before, so we roll with it and enjoy the game as a whole.

 

[catsclaw227]

It's easy enough to fix, create a homebrew ritual priced similarly to a CLW wand and you're golden.

Alka-Spelltzer +
You whip up a tonic that you serve to your comrades. It effervesces with sparkly magical bubbles and tastes like chalk.

Level: 1
Component Cost: 1sp
Category: Healing
Time: 10 minutes
Market Price: 1gp
Key Skill: Heal
Duration: Overnight

You give this to your PC allies. After taking their extended rest they feel refreshed and magically healed. All PCs are restored to full HP and full Healing Surges. You may perform this ritual within 1 hour before or after taking an extended rest, provided they PCs have not had an encounter in the meantime.

 

[Imaro]

I just wanted to comment that in our 4e game, we have no more difficulty becoming immersed in the adventure/story/plot in 4e than we did with 3.x or prior editions.

Immersion is waht you want to make of it. My players have stated that they don't mind the hand-waving of descriptive narration of wounds, and we've even have been able to describe some wounds (as narration, not mechanic) without loss of verisimilitude. It doesn't seem to be any more difficult than it was in 3e.

emphasis mine... you state right here you and your players could care less about handwaving the narrative, so really you are exactly the group I was saying would like 4e, you are concerned with the binary answers the mechanics give you and feel no need to relate them to narrative or simulation. What I find hard to believe is that you can't fathom some people put other aspects such as narrative or simulation on an equal or higher level than mechanics.

Of course you don't find it any harder than 3e... your group doesn't put to high a priority on the meshing of mechanics and narrative...so of course it's no different for you all.

I would often ponder, while playing prior editions, why (with all the sharp objects flying around) we never saw rules about fingers getting cut off or worse, arms or legs. If was able to accept the abstract nature of healing and HP before, playing 4e doesn't change it at all.

Here we go with this argument... if it's abstraction level was 4 what does it matter if it's a 10 now...it's still abstract. Well honestly the difference can be the same as having a minor cut and having an artery cut...but they're both still cuts right? Wrong, I'll take the minor cut.

Yes, the healing mechanic is different. Maybe if the terminology was different, this discussion would be different.

But for us, bottom line, is that it doesn't feel any more wonky than it did before, so we roll with it and enjoy the game as a whole.

That's great for your group, but really I find it hard to believe that people don't realize it has become more abstract in nature... I mean is this even up for debate still?