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

[Zustiur]

There's nothing inherent in magical-or-long-term-healing that is more realistic than a quick recovery system.

But that's the point isn't it? Neither is realistic, but at least with magic we can say "oh, it's magic to that's okay". Without magic, people just get better overnight... and that doesn't suit a lot of people because it makes NO SENSE. Magic allows us to bypass sense, but 4E says to bypass sense without magic.

A lot of the complaints are along the lines of, "it is more/too abstract now". And the responses are along the lines of, "But it was always abstract".
The fact it is abstract isn't the problem. The degree to which that abstraction is taken is the problem. For many gaming groups the change in the degree of abstraction is just fine, to others it is not.

The complaint is that the degree of abstraction changed, but the response is that abstraction is okay. Which rather misses the point of the complaint.

I'll now present a slightly alternative way of handling the Healing Surge mechanic. From a game results standpoint it is identical - there is no alteration in how much damage you can take etc. The difference is in how it is tracked, and it MAY help with people trying to understand how healing surges work.

A 1st Level Fighter with 14 Con has 29 HP and 11 surges. A surge heals 7 HP.
So per RAW that's written as HP: 29/29 and Surges: 11/11.
My alternate way of writing that is:
HP: 106/106 Danger Point: 77 HP.

It works as follows: Your character's total hit points is their orignal hit points value plus # of surges * surge value.
The Danger Point is the point where you fall unconscious/dying.
Each time a surge is triggered, the Danger Point moves down by the surge value, thereby giving the character more breathing room, but not 'healing' the character.
The only healing he/she receives is from special powers, not the surges themselves.
Example:
After spending 2 surges already our character is at 70/106 HP, and Danger Point 63. The party cleric casts Healing Word, causing the fighter to lower his danger point to 56, and heal 1d6 + Cleric's Wisdom HP.

From a narration point of view, this makes a little more sense - you can map the amount of narrated damage received against the total of 106 HP, instead of mapping it against 29 HP. Each time a blow takes the character close to, or even below the Danger Point, you narrate a blow that is questionable - it looks bad, there's lots of blood, but only time will tell if it's serious or not. This is the 'blood nose' of wounds - There's blood everywhere so it looks bad, but it won't kill you. You don't know that it won't kill you until you've had a few seconds (a round or two) to stem the flow and assess the real damage.

Mechanically this method would fail due to overcomplexity, as you'd have to ensure you never receive too much healing because that would leave you with a greater range of HP than you should ever have at a time. Also your bloodied value would continually move. But narrating it would make a great deal more sense to some players.
Each time you reach your danger point, it's a telling blow, the kind that make you wince and wonder just how bad it is... but when you're not near that point, the blows just glance off, or the character rolls with it etc. Healing surges don't appear as healing, because they don't restore your HP, they just give you access to a lower section of your HP reserve.

When you get right down to it, part of the problem is the choice of words. If "healing surge" was replaced with "Hit point reserve" it would fit the logic a little better. Being given encouragement from the warlord makes sense in that it allows you to 'dig into your reserve', but doesn't make sense if it 'heals' you.


The term badass keeps coming up also. 4E present badass differently to earlier editions. A 4E character takes damage, sucks up healing surges and continues on his badass way with full HP. A 1/2/3E character takes damage, and continues fighting, despite the fact he's a lot closer to death. Both are badass, but in different ways. I prefer the earlier representation. 4E assumes all characters are badass. Earlier editions presented it as a choice - you can keep fighting even though your wounded (be badass), or you can take the better part of valor and return another day (play a character that isn't badass). Running away after using some healing surges makes less sense because it appears as though the character is fully healed, although in fact he isn't.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

OK, so correct me if I am wrong, but I have never stated that I can't fathom other's thoughts about this. In fact, on many occasions on this boartd, I have stated clearly that I know others have different opinions about this and that I accept that their interpretations are different than mine and agree that because of this 4e might not be the game for them.

Where have I said or even implied that I can't fathom nother opinions about this?

And I wouldn't say that it isn't a priority, to mesh mechanics and narrative, but instead, we have been able to mesh it in a way that works for us (and apparently others have as well, so I am not alone here.)

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.

Dude, I am not dredging up another argument about abstraction. If you read the quoted part, I was simply putting my position about HP abstraction in words. I was trying to provide context for my opinion. Why are you bent on denouncing my opinions? I wasn't stating that it was the only way, it's just how I see it.

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?

Did I say that it wasn't more abstract? No. I said that it didn't feel any more wonky for my group. The diference in abstraction doesn't make a difference for us.

 

[LostSoul]

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.

In 4E, the "fictional reality", or Exploration, matters a lot.

You can see it with Skill Challenges, different Powers for different monsters, different Powers for PCs at different Tiers, the value of using a certain Power at a certain time, movement, the differing Powers of each class, and, since you know you love it!, page 42.

I have a thread about my ongoing game on the front page. Check it out. It doesn't read like a board or war game (at least I don't think it does). We're playing 4E by-the-book, with very few choices that stray from it (which I've always taken the time to point out), in the way that I believe the books tell you to play. (The biggest step off the path that I made was, I think, to threaten the PC's ability to take an Extended rest. Maybe as a DM you're supposed to do that, though. I don't know. I don't see evidence of that in the DMG.)

But hey. Maybe you consider that we're playing a board or war game. That's cool. If so, our expectations for an RPG are so wildly different that we'd have to discuss our 2nd-favourite pasttime in a totally different way. (That way would be, "So what makes a game an RPG for you? Why do you play?" I think that could be interesting, because I know you're an honest guy, Imaro.) edit: No sarcasm there. I know this is the internet, that sort of thing can be easily lost unless you can write well and that ain't me.

 

[catsclaw227]

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.

Let me ask you a question.

If I were to introduce a more serious version of my Alta Spelltzer + ritual above, that makes the extended rest and recovery of HP and surges a magical thing, would it make healing surges easier to digest for you?

And if I used it in my game, does that change anything (being the functional eqivalent of CLW wands?)

[EDIT: No sarcasm or ill will intended at all. I am seriously wondering if this sort of thing would make the HP/healing surge stuff more palatable]

Materially, for us, it really wouldn't change anything. The game would play the same way it does now, but now it would be easier to justify the healing because it was "magic".

Another quick question... Are you playing or DMing 4e, or are you planning to? Is there a houserule that you would accept that would make the game more enjoyable? I know that, for me, I've had to houserule something in every edition to get my screwy head to deal with stuff.

 

[LostSoul]

But that's the point isn't it? Neither is realistic, but at least with magic we can say "oh, it's magic to that's okay". Without magic, people just get better overnight... and that doesn't suit a lot of people because it makes NO SENSE. Magic allows us to bypass sense, but 4E says to bypass sense without magic.

I think the idea that it makes NO SENSE! is what the argument is all about. Like the play experience or not, I don't think it has to be nonsense. At least any less sense than the old Dragon (or was it in the DMG?) comic, where the big brute is standing there, tied to a tree, full of arrows, and the archer is saying, "He's still got 43 hit points."

 

[LostSoul]

I just read this on Rob Heinsoo's blog:

A recent issue of Archaeology magazine (November/December 2008) had a fascinating article called “The Gladiator Diet: How to eat, exercise, and die a violent death.”

The world’s only known gladiator graveyard has turned up at Ephesus in Turkey. Analysis of the bones reveals that Roman gladiators ate an almost exclusively vegetarian diet. Why? Apparently so they could fatten up on simple carbohydrates like beans and barley. A thick cushion of fat protected against injuries. And for extra showmanship points, a gladiator who got cut in their fat bled wildly, like a Monty Python skit-victim, without having his fighting abilities impaired.​

So maybe all 4E PCs are not badasses, but lardasses?

 

[Obryn]

But that's the point isn't it? Neither is realistic, but at least with magic we can say "oh, it's magic to that's okay". Without magic, people just get better overnight... and that doesn't suit a lot of people because it makes NO SENSE. Magic allows us to bypass sense, but 4E says to bypass sense without magic.

Only if you make a conscious effort to choose one kind of injury narration.

I'm not saying that long-term/magic healing is bad. It's just one choice among many.

A lot of the complaints are along the lines of, "it is more/too abstract now". And the responses are along the lines of, "But it was always abstract".
The fact it is abstract isn't the problem. The degree to which that abstraction is taken is the problem. For many gaming groups the change in the degree of abstraction is just fine, to others it is not.

The complaint is that the degree of abstraction changed, but the response is that abstraction is okay. Which rather misses the point of the complaint.

The difference in abstraction isn't inherent in the system. It's a consequence of the narration.

I agree that 4e and 1e combats can easily be narrated differently. I disagree that this makes one necessarily more abstract than another.

Reasonable people can certainly prefer one way over the other, but when you're talking about a mechanic that makes no sense at its core - like hit points - we're not really talking about degrees of abstraction. We're talking about different gaming styles.

...The term badass keeps coming up also. 4E present badass differently to earlier editions. A 4E character takes damage, sucks up healing surges and continues on his badass way with full HP. A 1/2/3E character takes damage, and continues fighting, despite the fact he's a lot closer to death. Both are badass, but in different ways. I prefer the earlier representation. 4E assumes all characters are badass. Earlier editions presented it as a choice - you can keep fighting even though your wounded (be badass), or you can take the better part of valor and return another day (play a character that isn't badass). Running away after using some healing surges makes less sense because it appears as though the character is fully healed, although in fact he isn't.

I think I've already beaten this dead horse a few times. But I'll try again. I think HPs are a functional tool: a token implemented in a game to facilitate a certain kind of play. To me, they're little different from Action Points. In 1e, healing needs to be magical and characters have no "reserves" to speak of - but when magical healing is available, it's unlimited. In 4e, characters have a (daily limited) amount of self-healing they can perform, so HPs are primarily an encounter resource rather than a long-term resource. It's possible to conceive of a situation where a 1e (and certainly a 3e) character could burn through more HPs than a 4e character has access to. This leads to different strategies, different resource management, and different adventuring timeframes.

I think it's great that you have a preference.

I know it will sound crazy if you've read the thread, but I really don't. I like different implementations of HPs depending on which kind of game I'm running. As I mentioned, I use 1e-style healing times in my 1e game, and 4e-style healing times in my 4e game. I get different enjoyment out of different games (which to me is kind of the point of having different games in the first place). I think 1e's healing rates provide a certain kind of fun, 3e's healing rates another, and 4e's healing rates yet another.

No rate of healing makes more sense than another because HPs themselves don't make sense. Each playstyle might limit a DM's sensible narrative choices - but each also opens up its own narrative avenues. By the same token, each HP style encourages certain kinds of play and discourages others. Arguing about which kind of HP implementation is "more abstract" is like arguing about whether or not the Enterprise could blow up a Star Destroyer - in the end, neither one is real.

-O

 

[Zustiur]

The difference in abstraction isn't inherent in the system. It's a consequence of the narration.

This is precisely where I disagree with you. The system either has healing surges or it doesn't -
We agree that HP are an abstraction of physical health, luck, skill and other things involved in not dying. That remains true for all editions. It hasn't changed. It's a single mechanic to represent health via an abstract route.

HP + Healing surges is a dual mechanic to represent health via an abstract route. Instead of being a 1:1 type relationship, where you only need to look at a characters HP to get an idea of how 'healthy' he is, it's a 2:1 relationship, where you have to two separate but related systems. You have to consider both in order to determine the character's current 'health'.

Totally regardless of narration, HP + surges is more abstract than HP alone. From "full" to "dead" is measured by 1 thing in most DnD editions, and 2 separate things in 4E. That, to me is an increase in the degree of abstraction. In a sense, Healing surges are an abstraction of HP and healing combined. Making it an abstraction, of an abstraction.

While the concept of health can be measured in many ways; the two we are comparing are HP alone, and HP + surges. HP alone gives you a direct reference to how healthy the character is. HP + surges is not as direct, therefore it is more abstract.

I have not once involved narration in this. How I describe a wound is irrelevant to the point I'm making.

Only if you make a conscious effort to choose one kind of injury narration.

Given how many people seem to be making that choice without considering alternative methods of narration, I'd say it's not actually a conscious effort!

Aside from those two points I think we agree.

 

[Hussar]

ok in 3.5 ... "Hit points mean two things in the game world: The ability to take physical punishment and keep going and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less seious one."

Both of these explanations imply a certain amount of physical damage.

With your example above...100 points of damge would have required a massive damage check, with a chance of outright dying from trauma. So I think hit points do map to a certain amount of physical damage, regardless of how you choose to look at it.

You've quoted the line twice now in this thread, yet, you ignore the line before it. Why?

Your hit points measure how hard you are to kill. No matter how many hit points you lose, your character isn’t hindered in any way until your hit points drop to 0 or lower.

There, right there, it's flat out contradicting what you are claiming. It's a measure of how hard you are to kill. Yes, sometimes that means physical damage, and sometimes it doesn't.

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.

Are you trying to claim that a physical wound which you can actually look at, not a game mechanic, but, a real world event which is entirely quantifiable, is now somehow akin to abstract mechanics?

To me, this is the crux of this entire arguement. "Oh, but it's too abstract"? What? That's like saying Dada is more abstract that Picasso. Sorry, they're abstract. That's the whole point of abstract. It's kinda like pregnancy. Either you are or you're not. So, while a woman in her first trimester may be somewhat less visibly pregnant than one in her third, they are both simply pregnant.

Again, if you insist on using narratives that lead to nonsensical answers, that's your own fault. Not the fault of the mechanics.

 

[D'karr]

I don't buy it. Immersion and narration are not needs of the rules, they are simply needs of certain players.

The "problem" that 4e Healing Surges "fixes" is the dependency on magical healing, but more importantly the associated baggage needed to support it.

In 3e the "default" assumption was that magic was a resource just as HP are a resource. You could easily acquire a CLW wand. Which is all that is really needed for "rapid healing." Therefore the "default" assumption of 3e is that "rapid healing" is just a function of spending 750gp. The associated baggage is having a healer or a rogue with "use magic device" in the party. This built a dependency in the game for healing magic casters. So the default assumption is that "rapid healing" is just a speed bump away.

Some DMs didn't want "rapid healing" so they made it more difficult or impossible to acquire the magic necessary for it. This is obviously not the default assumption of the rules.

4e does the exact same thing. The "default" assumption is that rapid healing is just a speed bump away. All you need is an extended rest. However, 4e went one step further and removed the associated baggage. Now you don't need a healing magic caster to get "fully healed", with the caveat "if you take an extended rest." Which I think is the best feature of this.

By the same token and assumption as in 3e, DM's that don't want "rapid healing, can also make it so. All the mechanics are there to support it. The same way that "increasing the difficulty of acquiring CLW wands" is a houserule. If you don't want "non-magical rapid healing" you have multiple options. Choose the one that best fits your play style:

1.) Healing Surges are only recovered at the rate of 1 per level with an extended rest.

2.) Require that "rapid healing" be magical in nature. Use rituals, to spend an appropriate amount of resources (gp) to recover "Healing Surges"

3.) Limit the possibility of an extended rest. If your characters are being hunted and pursued, it becomes difficult to take an extended rest.

4.) Interrupt the extended rest. Have the enemies attack when the characters are resting.

5.) Use the "disease track" mechanic to slow down rapid healing. Whenever you fail a "death save" you are placed on a "WOUNDS TRACK". At the end of the encounter you make a number of saves equal to the number of failed death saves (2 max obviously, since at 3 you're dead). If you fail that save you immediately lose a healing surge. Each day you must make an endurance check to see if your wounds are healed. DC X Improve, you regain a healing surge. DC Y Maintain, no effect. DC Z Worse, you lose an additional healing surge. All these healing surges can be recovered by the use of "healing magic"

I understand the apprehension of some. At first the shift seems weird, until you see that 3e tried to do the same thing but did it with additional mechanics that were cumbersome, simple bean-counting and no more than a speed bump.

No edition of D&D has provided for "long term" wounding. Some say that HP is a measure of long term wounding but it obviously can't be since at 5 HP you are as capable of continuing to fight as at 200HP. HP only measure how long you have before you are no longer able to fight.

4e provides a very fun way of playing a "heroic fantasy" game. The fact that you have to houserule long term injury is not any different that previous editions. In addition, it got rid of the bean-counting that unnecessarily created a burden for continuing the adventure. If you like the bean-counting and want to "simulate" long term injury then any of the houserules I detailed above serve that purpose.

However, saying that the game does not provide enough or any mechanics to approximate the type of play experience you want is not entirely true.

I'm not going to convince anyone with this. I'm just going to keep on playing and DMing and having a blast doing it.