Free healing with Life Transference

[Nifft]

Why should you in fact make any healing powers that heal large amounts without surges? I am ok with those that are meant to heal only a few points as a bonus when something else is the true effect, but this is just plain surgeless healing.

The usual way that surgeless healing works is: you have to be in a fight to get it. So you have to hit an enemy, or you have to be attacked, or something similarly dangerous.

In combat this power is not broken, it is broken out of combat.

Agreed.

The fact that it's a Standard action is just more evidence that it was poorly designed. Healing is supposed to be something you do in addition to your usual combat contribution, to avoid the 3.x situation where the Cleric had to choose between healing and kicking ass. 4e should be ALL KICKING ALL THE TIME (plus minor actions to heal).

Cheers, -- N

 

[LightPhoenix]

The usual way that surgeless healing works is: you have to be in a fight to get it. So you have to hit an enemy, or you have to be attacked, or something similarly dangerous.

Or by spending a Daily power (CLW, CSW, etc).

 

[Nifft]

Or by spending a Daily power (CLW, CSW, etc).

"Surgeless daily" powers are bonus surges in disguise. I don't like them because they obfuscate healing calculations for very little actual gain.

Cheers, -- N

 

[DracoSuave]

"Surgeless daily" powers are bonus surges in disguise. I don't like them because they obfuscate healing calculations for very little actual gain.

Cheers, -- N

Most groups don't go around making healing calculations. They go, kick down a door, beat up on some monsters, resolve some plot, and continue in the search for adventure.

Healing calculations is a part of the resource management, but is it a necessary part to the above?

I think you've stuck on the 'infinite oregano' part without understanding that oregano isn't -actually- game breaking.

Here's what it DOES add to the game: Your group can heal to full, go to the next door, kick it down, and continue on with the adventure without too much trouble. They ask the DM, 'Do we think we have enough time for the full monty?' and the DM says 'Yes' if he wants them to do it, and 'No' if he does not.

If you -want- to make the campaign gritty, and have them count every arrow and healing surge outside combat, fine, and in such a game, this use wouldn't be appropriate.

But that is not the same as it being broken. Broken means that it breaks the game, and makes the game trivial or unplayable.

Those Nasty Dragons still hit just as hard if you have this. It doesn't change the actual combat math.

 

[Nifft]

Most groups don't go around making healing calculations.

You mean players aren't all game designers? That's true, but irrelevant... unless you're trying to assert nobody should think like a game designer? That would be relevant, but absurd.

If you had a point worth making here, could you clarify it?

I think you've stuck on the 'infinite oregano' part without understanding that oregano isn't -actually- game breaking.

Address my arguments, please, not what you think I -actually- understand.

Here's what it DOES add to the game: (...) They ask the DM, 'Do we think we have enough time for the full monty?' and the DM says 'Yes' if he wants them to do it, and 'No' if he does not.

That's called an Extended Rest. It's already in the game.

Trying to cheese in a semi-extended-rest-but-it-only-took-half-an-hour adds nothing mechanically, and takes away the clarity of the current system: players tend to know when a short rest is likely to be safe, and when an extended rest is appropriate, without excessive meta-game hints.

If you -want- to make the campaign gritty, and have them count every arrow and healing surge outside combat, fine, and in such a game, this use wouldn't be appropriate.

Are there really games where people don't count healing surges? This is the first I've heard of that particular "house rule". Could you link to someone discussing a game like that? I'm honestly amazed.

Those Nasty Dragons still hit just as hard if you have this. It doesn't change the actual combat math.

Of course it does, because fighting a combat with full hit points and all healing surges available is different than having -12 hit points and only three surges left.

This is even more obvious when we consider skill challenges and monsters that directly consume healing surges, like certain undead.

-- N

 

[DracoSuave]

You mean players aren't all game designers? That's true, but irrelevant... unless you're trying to assert nobody should think like a game designer? That would be relevant, but absurd.

If you had a point worth making here, could you clarify it?

Alright. Games are social contracts between a DM and players. So when you talk about games in progress, you talk about groups, which includes a combination of DM and Players. Some groups don't give a crap about healing surges as an out of combat resource. They want to kick down the door, and go. Using this out of combat facilitates that, and is the logical extension of the 'top the hps off expediantly' that the game designers have already installed into the game.

It's not appropriate for all groups and games, but that doesn't make it broken. That's a different argument completely.

Address my arguments, please, not what you think I -actually- understand.

No, your claim is that surgeless healing is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't use surges. That it throws off 'healing calculations.'

The game isn't balanced around that, thankfully, and if it isn't balanced around the amount of surges you spend outside of battle then arguments that Life Transferance outside of battle are broken require a different tack.

That's called an Extended Rest. It's already in the game.

So, all rests must be five minutes or six hours? I disagree based on the fact that claim is lacks versimiliatude.

Trying to cheese in a semi-extended-rest-but-it-only-took-half-an-hour adds nothing mechanically, and takes away the clarity of the current system: players tend to know when a short rest is likely to be safe, and when an extended rest is appropriate, without excessive meta-game hints.

Who said -anything- about metagame hints? When the players ask the DM for information, the DM divulges that information in a manner appropriate to the group. For Group A, that might require a skill roll. For Group B, the DM might just utilize a Passive check. For Group C, the DM might just tell the players how much time they guestimate they have.

You're presuming a -lot- about how groups and players and DMs interract here.

Are there really games where people don't count healing surges? This is the first I've heard of that particular "house rule". Could you link to someone discussing a game like that? I'm honestly amazed.

I'm not saying they don't count them, but if the option comes out to minimize the amount of counting done outside of battle, in some groups it is beneficial. In some groups and in some campaigns, being able to say 'We all heal to full, let's go' without having to check how many healing surges to knock off, or how many times wisdom gets added in there, or whether or not to take Restful Healing' or what not might not actually be enjoyable to some groups.

This might be obvious, but if that level of 'healing math' doesn't appeal to some groups, then the option of 'You're at full go' isn't broken, it's a fun-adder. Things that add fun to a campaign aren't broken.

Of course it does, because fighting a combat with full hit points and all healing surges available is different than having -12 hit points and only three surges left.

Well no kidding they are different. But the primary determination of tension in battle isn't the number of surges left, in most games. It's the -access- to surges. So, '-12 hit points, and only three surges left' isn't as tense as '-12 hit points, and no powers to spend surges left'. Three surges left is -nothing- compared to that.

Of course, the irony of this is that the argument is irrelevant. This ability used like that doesn't negate that latter consequence, it postpones it. So, the question that should be asked is:

Is having the battle at -12 hp and 3 surges left considered game breaking if it's Battle 5 instead of Battle 3?

This is even more obvious when we consider skill challenges and monsters that directly consume healing surges, like certain undead.

-- N

Oh absolutely. These tools are used in campaigns where the careful slog and miniscule juggling of said healing resources is important and necessary to keep the campaign tone.

In -those- campaigns, use of this ability for infinite healing is a tone breaker. In such a case I'd not allow it, and for obvious reason.

However, all of these arguments hold one thing in common:

Using Life Transferance for infinite healing might break the -tone- of a campaign. However, it might also enhance it.

This doesn't make the ability broken however. Every DM has had to wrestle with that since the beginning of gaming. DMs had to wrestle with Raise Dead breaking the tone of Rokugon games. Of Create Water's power in Dark Sun. But -tone-breaking- is not the same as -game-breaking-.

The -worst- effect this has, from the point of view of actual game interractions, is extending the endurance of the characters over the course of an adventuring day. Is that broken? That's the question you have avoided, Nifft. Is that broken, or is the ability just something that defies your 'all healing must be healing surge-based' sensibility?

In other words, are you confusing 'tone-breaking' with 'game-breaking'?

 

[Nifft]

Some groups don't give a crap about healing surges as an out of combat resource. They want to kick down the door, and go. Using this out of combat facilitates that, and is the logical extension of the 'top the hps off expediantly' that the game designers have already installed into the game.

I'll say it as clearly as I can: I've never heard of any group playing with explicitly free & unmetered out-of-combat healing during anything but an extended rest.

I'm asking you to back up your claim that some groups do this.

No, your claim is that surgeless healing is fundamentally flawed because it doesn't use surges. That it throws off 'healing calculations.'

See, this is why it's better to address arguments. Now we can clear this up. Actually, what I said was that I didn't like daily powers like CLW, because they implicitly add Surges.

"I don't like" is different from "it is broken". I've got no problem with Cure Light Wounds being in the game from a balance standpoint, though it does muck up my calculations, and therefore I don't like it from an aesthetic standpoint.

So, all rests must be five minutes or six hours? I disagree based on the fact that claim is lacks versimiliatude.

The game without this Cleric power: all rests must be 5 minutes or 6 hours.
That's 4e for you.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with 4e's core rules.

This power introduces a grey area, where before there was clarity. That's bad design.

Who said -anything- about metagame hints? When the players ask the DM for information, the DM divulges that information in a manner appropriate to the group. For Group A, that might require a skill roll. For Group B, the DM might just utilize a Passive check. For Group C, the DM might just tell the players how much time they guestimate they have.

You're presuming a -lot- about how groups and players and DMs interract here.

Nope. I'm telling you that there is already a way DMs and PCs interact: players pick short or extended rests, or they choose not to rest at all. It's a very clear choice, and the risks of each ought to be distinct and easy to understand.

Adding an arbitrarily long chain of short rests muddies the waters.

Again: clarity good, muddy bad.

I'm not saying they don't count them, but if the option comes out to minimize the amount of counting done outside of battle, in some groups it is beneficial. In some groups and in some campaigns, being able to say 'We all heal to full, let's go'

... an extended rest. 4e has this already.

Nobody says you must fight more than once per day. If you like full healing, you don't need this power in the game to get it.

Is having the battle at -12 hp and 3 surges left considered game breaking if it's Battle 5 instead of Battle 3?

Every group I've seen stop anyway, surges or not, when few Daily attack powers remain. All you're doing is removing a managed resource from a game of resource management.

They'll run out of other resources eventually, but you haven't improved the game. All you've done is remove some of the challenge.

However, this next bit is the most telling thing you've said so far:

Using Life Transferance for infinite healing might break the -tone- of a campaign. However, it might also enhance it.

It is not appropriate for one power in one class to change the whole tone of a campaign.

If nothing else screamed broken before, this alone would be enough to do it.

Again, if you don't like the core 4e rules, just change them explicitly. If you want free, unmetered healing during a short rest, just make that house rule and be done. Don't demand that the whole campaign's tone hinge on one dude playing a Cleric, and picking that one power. Even if it weren't broken, it'd be unfair to all the other Leader classes.

But it is broken, and it should go away.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Rothe_]

First of all, I don't think there is anything wrong with several short rests in a row without combat in between, until you introduce powers like life transference.

You can by RAW use powers to heal, then short rest, use powers to heal, then short rest... etc. if you have time to do it. It works fine if you don't have encounter powers that heal without spending surges or requiring enemies to be present.

Our group does like to calculate how many surges were spent and they like the bonus healing on top of the surges, if they can get some. That includes all the healing powers that the leaders use. They'd be stupid not to take life transference, since it would probably let them use 1/2 or 1/3 less healing surges overall.
They also know it is broken for the same reason.

Obviously the power is not broken in games where healing surges don't matter. That is beside the point. It is like arguing that it does not matter if a barbarian power deals 5 times as much damage as any other since it is not broken if you don't play with barbarians in the game. It does matter to those players who play with the rules and don't have house rules limiting out the problem. It matters a lot in LFR and other games where you cannot even use house rules.

Why make a power that is broken in some cases where you still play by the rules as written? It just should not be done.

Now, I do see the idea behind cure light wounds and such daily healing powers. The idea is to avoid situations where one character is out of healing surges and the rest are still able to continue. If that surgeless character gets hit, it could be very bad. CLW mitigates this a bit.

 

[DracoSuave]

I'll say it as clearly as I can: I've never heard of any group playing with explicitly free & unmetered out-of-combat healing during anything but an extended rest.

I'm asking you to back up your claim that some groups do this.

My claim is that some groups would like to have this option available. That's not the same, or even -close to the same- has houseruling away the spending of surges outside of combat.

See, this is why it's better to address arguments. Now we can clear this up. Actually, what I said was that I didn't like daily powers like CLW, because they implicitly add Surges.

"I don't like" is different from "it is broken". I've got no problem with Cure Light Wounds being in the game from a balance standpoint, though it does muck up my calculations, and therefore I don't like it from an aesthetic standpoint.

That's what I meant by 'tone-breaking' as opposed to 'game-breaking.' A manner of aesthetics. Which isn't relevant to a discussion on whether a mechanic is broken or not.

The game without this Cleric power: all rests must be 5 minutes or 6 hours.
That's 4e for you.
If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with 4e's core rules.

All rests are those lengths. But not all time periods between encounters. Restful Healing is proof enough that using encounter powers outside of encounters to heal is a part of the game. As well, the existance of rules -for- using powers outside of encounters.

So, no, there IS an area between that, Rules. As. Written.

No, I don't have a problem with that. You do. Remember?

This power introduces a grey area, where before there was clarity. That's bad design.

Which grey area is this exactly? I've always -known- you could Healing Word outside of an encounter, then rest, and repeat. The developers have added support to increase the power of healing during rest.

Where is this grey area, because it seems to only exist for you, but not for me, and not for the game itself.

Nope. I'm telling you that there is already a way DMs and PCs interact: players pick short or extended rests, or they choose not to rest at all. It's a very clear choice, and the risks of each ought to be distinct and easy to understand.

Again, support for lengths of time between encounters longer than five minutes and shorter than six hours exist, Rules as Written. I can't make that any clearer.

If not, please explain what Restful Healing does, because under your understanding, Ze Goggles do Nothing.

Adding an arbitrarily long chain of short rests muddies the waters.

How so? You tell the players they have so-and-so many minutes to complete the adventure, the players then spend those minutes on encounters and rests as they see fit.

Simple as that.

Again: clarity good, muddy bad.

It -is- clear tho. You're just choosing to allow personal aesthetics get in the way of a clear understanding of how the rules work.

Nobody says you must fight more than once per day. If you like full healing, you don't need this power in the game to get it.

You have two hours to save the princess before the big bad uses his evil ritual to destroy the world.

Extended rest at your own risk.

Every group I've seen stop anyway, surges or not, when few Daily attack powers remain. All you're doing is removing a managed resource from a game of resource management.

Not at all. All it does is remove the need for that resource -for one single aspect- of the game, while retaining it for other, more dramatic aspects.

If this is more fun for the party, it is not a bad thing. If it is less fun, it is a bad thing.

That's simplicity right there.

They'll run out of other resources eventually, but you haven't improved the game. All you've done is remove some of the challenge.

It only removes the challenge in campaigns designed around that specific challenge. And I said, flat out, it isn't appropriate in those games. In games where that challenge isn't relevant, there is no change in challenge by the implementation.

However, this next bit is the most telling thing you've said so far:

It is not appropriate for one power in one class to change the whole tone of a campaign.

No, it is not appropriate for it to do so. That's why the DM has the right to veto it for reasons such as 'It doesn't fit the campaign tone.' I believe we are in agreement about that.

But this isn't a discussion about that fundamental right of a DM. It's a discussion on whether or not the ability is game-breaking, a conversation you've managed to avoid.

If nothing else screamed broken before, this alone would be enough to do it.

I have addressed this point already. Tone-breaking is not game-breaking. Both are a reason for DM veto, but both are not the same thing. I gave examples of how they are not.

Again, if you don't like the core 4e rules, just change them explicitly. If you want free, unmetered healing during a short rest, just make that house rule and be done. Don't demand that the whole campaign's tone hinge on one dude playing a Cleric, and picking that one power. Even if it weren't broken, it'd be unfair to all the other Leader classes.

We're discussing whether or not this power breaks those core rules. Not your fundamental assumptions. Not one player's aesthetics, but whether it breaks the game. Whether the game is rendered unfun and unplayable, trivializing the entire challenge of it. Hell, does it even trivialize other Leader classes?

I can think of -many- reasons to bring a different Leader. Cause 'Free out of combat healing' just isn't that impactful in comparison to all the other upside the other leaders bring. The other leader classes have tons of upside--this is hardly a deal breaker for bringing one of them in. 'Can a Cleric Guileful Switch?' 'No.' 'Then I think we can make do without that small benefit.'

Because it -isn't- a huge benefit, in terms of surviving combats in many campaigns.

That's the simple fact you have to determine. Does it break the combat? Or does it simply allow for more combats. That's it.

And is more combats a bad thing?

But it is broken, and it should go away.

Prove this, then. Prove that it breaks the game. You've proven that it breaks your sense of aesthetics, and I admit that is a strong possibility for many games, and that -in those games- it isn't appropriate.

Cheers, -- N

As an aside... you must hate the Artificer. Simply having him in the group means two free surges per day. That must make him the most powerful of the leaders without Transferance of Life.

 

[Rothe_]

I still think that the power is significantly overpowered in some games (where healing surges regularly run low or run out). In some games it is not, but is no excuse to print it in the form it is.

It causes situations where the DM has to take into account this single power when he is designing the pacing of game events. This is not desired, as this will escalate into a huge list of things that the DM has to keep in mind to create a proper challenge.

If it is not a problem to some players, they can houserule the power with errata to its original form (Basically ignore the errata), but those who care about it could use some official errata.