Prestidigitalis
First Post
What does this mean? Does it include Bull Rush, Grab, Melee Basic Attack, Stealth checks and the like? If not, how is it different?
Heal check in combat
- Thread starter Smurtis
- Start date
What does this mean? Does it include Bull Rush, Grab, Melee Basic Attack, Stealth checks and the like? If not, how is it different?
I suppose, I didnt qualify myself well and I dont have a good argument in this regard. Forget I said it.
I do however stick by the point that doing first aid, to me, definately seems like dropping ones guard and drawing an AOP. Yes, it does make using first aid while the ally is surrounded a pretty weak option, but hey, your backing it with a skill pick only. Its not like they paid a "big price" for the ability.
I also stick by combat medic trumping the AOP...gives it a bit moe "teeth"
Yeah, as malraux said... the status in 'Unconscious' because they needed to name it something. But if the person was truly unconscious you then get into the whole issue that's been discussed ad nauseum about how then could a Warlord use 'Inspiring Word' wake someone up. If you can "yell them healthy" (as the joke has been made), then the person probably really isn't unconscious in the literal sense. I mean after all... if someone was truly knocked out with as much frequency and in such a short period of time as a D&D PC is... that person will have had so many concussions that they wouldn't be able to function after like two weeks of adventuring.
It's the classic conundrum of using fluff terminology to describe game crunch... how do you merge the two together to make some sort of cohesive narrative sense? In most cases (especially in 4E) you really can't. There will always be terms applied to statuses and actions that go against the logic of a narrative story. You have to just accept that although the game status of being 'removed from combat with the loss of all actions, and with the chance of the character being eliminated from the game entirely after three failed Saving Throws' is termed "Unconscious"... in actuality, the literal concept of unconsciousness is not necessarily what is happening to the character.
DracoSuave
First Post
Let's not overlook something here....
D&D is not meant to be a simulation of the medical and physiological effects of combats. It's meant to be a simulation of a narrative expression of combat.
There's a huge difference.
Takes movies for example.
People are knocked unconscious in movies all the time. However, movies rarely explore the medical effects of this happening to them. Instead, they use unconsciousness as a narrative device to promote tension and show the vulnerability of the character.
How many action movies have you seen where a character is knocked out... but they hear a voice through the black that causes them to come back and rise to the call of action? Is it realistic? No. Is this some medical procedure? No. Is it entertaining narrative? You're damned right it is.
In the case of a druid, there's no necessity for Heal to even represent a mundane skill. It can reflect a magical or spiritual attunement that gives them the ability to do certain effects.
Who is to say that the druid couldn't represent her healing thusly:
Valona saw her companion Ironbeard fall to the pair of devilish orcs. She hurried towards them as she intoned a minor evocation to the spirits of the land... her body twisting into the shape of a cheetah, hoping to arrive on top. Just before the orc made ready to slice into the chest of the dwarf champion, Valona's body changed again... and a swipe with a heavy ursine arm knocked the would-be-killer off balance. Another evocation, she took a breif moment to touch Ironbeard's chest, glowing with a faint green energy, while she fought off the orcish menace, hoping to keep them away just long enough to give Ironbeard (and her orison), a chance to work.
Suddenly Ironbeard woke up, his eyes open and glowing with green light... 'You saved me, Valona!' 'No time for talking, dwarf. You're just lucky I hate this orcs a little more than I hate you. Now get the hell up and fight!'
And yet, in game, this could be represented in the abstract by:
Minor action to Beast Shape (for their MBAs)
Move action to move adjacent to the dwarf fighter
Standard action to make a heal check to allow second wind
Free action for playful banter
D&D is not meant to be a simulation of the medical and physiological effects of combats. It's meant to be a simulation of a narrative expression of combat.
There's a huge difference.
Takes movies for example.
People are knocked unconscious in movies all the time. However, movies rarely explore the medical effects of this happening to them. Instead, they use unconsciousness as a narrative device to promote tension and show the vulnerability of the character.
How many action movies have you seen where a character is knocked out... but they hear a voice through the black that causes them to come back and rise to the call of action? Is it realistic? No. Is this some medical procedure? No. Is it entertaining narrative? You're damned right it is.
In the case of a druid, there's no necessity for Heal to even represent a mundane skill. It can reflect a magical or spiritual attunement that gives them the ability to do certain effects.
Who is to say that the druid couldn't represent her healing thusly:
Valona saw her companion Ironbeard fall to the pair of devilish orcs. She hurried towards them as she intoned a minor evocation to the spirits of the land... her body twisting into the shape of a cheetah, hoping to arrive on top. Just before the orc made ready to slice into the chest of the dwarf champion, Valona's body changed again... and a swipe with a heavy ursine arm knocked the would-be-killer off balance. Another evocation, she took a breif moment to touch Ironbeard's chest, glowing with a faint green energy, while she fought off the orcish menace, hoping to keep them away just long enough to give Ironbeard (and her orison), a chance to work.
Suddenly Ironbeard woke up, his eyes open and glowing with green light... 'You saved me, Valona!' 'No time for talking, dwarf. You're just lucky I hate this orcs a little more than I hate you. Now get the hell up and fight!'
And yet, in game, this could be represented in the abstract by:
Minor action to Beast Shape (for their MBAs)
Move action to move adjacent to the dwarf fighter
Standard action to make a heal check to allow second wind
Free action for playful banter
Very well put... I appreciate all the feedback, and will present them to my group... i have to say, the quote above has convinced me to side with it not being a AoO... Before reading this, i was siding with Bob's thoughts, for i saw the same visual effect... i guess with the proper story telling, it could explain the blunt and "tasteless" actions lol
DracoSuave
First Post
Ironicly, it's the "blunt" and "tasteless" that allows narrative interpretation to work -better.-
By forcing flavor on common game elements, you've constrained those game elements to specific character archtypes.
Take Bull Rush, for instance. It's an attack that pushes. That's all it is by the rules. But, if you force a fluff onto that, say, you must be bodily bashing into them, you've forced it to be a strictly martial expression.
Which can be fine... but what about a battlemind?
Must all his attacks be expressed with physical contact? Why could the same attack 'Bull Rush' not be represented by him using a short ranged telekinetic wave of power? Mechanically it's no different, but in terms of enhancing the narrative, in terms of making the character stand out, it means so much more.
Skill checks don't have to represent the mundane... there's no reason why Stealth as used by a rogue has to be the same technique as Stealth when used by a warlock. One is using cover and concealment, and body movement, and distraction in order to go unnoticed. The other is using an extension of his Shadow Walk ability and making it better than it was before, the eldritch things he has made deals with altering the perceptions of those around him.
Same effect, different explanation.
The real crux here is how narrative is expressed in role playing games. The games that are best designed around narrative, the ones that emphasize narrative, and are based around the expression of narrative... those are the most abstract.
Take a look at Over the Edge... you only have four traits, one character definition, two advantages, and a single disadvantage. What list can you choose from?
You don't. It's all on you.
A character could have as his attributes:
Builds Hot-Rods
Owns At All The Videogames
Has the Sexiest Car
Terrible Driver
and that is a complete OtE character. Look at the narrative implied in that... the system is so abstract that it requires narrative to come from the players.... and narrative SHOULD come from the players. That's the entire point to roleplaying.
D&D is no different; there's no reason why Cleave must represent a single blow with follow through, and cannot represent a pummel smack with your second weapon, or a shield bash, or a well-timed kick, or the enemy vomiting in sickness from the gruesome display of violence.
The idea is to empower your players to bring their narrative to the table, not enforce a narrative on them that may not coincide with their character's beliefs.
An example of this was a character I created for a home-brewed game. I decided to make 'A gnomish wizard, based on elemental magics.' When asked what that meant, I told him it'd be a gnomish fighter, and the element would be steel. He said 'That's not a wizard' and I replied 'No, it isn't, but to the gnomish mindset, there is no difference between magic and science, between mystics and physics. It's all just an expression of how the world works. He doesn't stab enemies, he 'cast spells' that cause his sword to enter them, with the somatic component of arm thrusts. He defends himself by creating 'steel armor', which consists of interposing his sword and shield between him and danger.' Suddenly it all became clear, how even the narrative of a gnome warrior changes based on the character's in-game mindset and perspective... how the character doesn't see the game mechanics, and is not limited by player assumptions.
I suppose a better way to put it:
The rules are abstractions, by necessity. Assigning arbitrary narratives to abstractions out of context, and then deciding that they must be ruled in a certain way because that's how that arbitrary narrative works, and so that's how it must work every single time... is illogical. You're dealing with an abstraction and you should not answer what it means in the narrative until context is formed. Does the wizard casting scorching burst conjure oil and a spark, or does he open portals to the elemental chaos? The ruleset doesn't force either, so why should anyone else?
By forcing flavor on common game elements, you've constrained those game elements to specific character archtypes.
Take Bull Rush, for instance. It's an attack that pushes. That's all it is by the rules. But, if you force a fluff onto that, say, you must be bodily bashing into them, you've forced it to be a strictly martial expression.
Which can be fine... but what about a battlemind?
Must all his attacks be expressed with physical contact? Why could the same attack 'Bull Rush' not be represented by him using a short ranged telekinetic wave of power? Mechanically it's no different, but in terms of enhancing the narrative, in terms of making the character stand out, it means so much more.
Skill checks don't have to represent the mundane... there's no reason why Stealth as used by a rogue has to be the same technique as Stealth when used by a warlock. One is using cover and concealment, and body movement, and distraction in order to go unnoticed. The other is using an extension of his Shadow Walk ability and making it better than it was before, the eldritch things he has made deals with altering the perceptions of those around him.
Same effect, different explanation.
The real crux here is how narrative is expressed in role playing games. The games that are best designed around narrative, the ones that emphasize narrative, and are based around the expression of narrative... those are the most abstract.
Take a look at Over the Edge... you only have four traits, one character definition, two advantages, and a single disadvantage. What list can you choose from?
You don't. It's all on you.
A character could have as his attributes:
Builds Hot-Rods
Owns At All The Videogames
Has the Sexiest Car
Terrible Driver
and that is a complete OtE character. Look at the narrative implied in that... the system is so abstract that it requires narrative to come from the players.... and narrative SHOULD come from the players. That's the entire point to roleplaying.
D&D is no different; there's no reason why Cleave must represent a single blow with follow through, and cannot represent a pummel smack with your second weapon, or a shield bash, or a well-timed kick, or the enemy vomiting in sickness from the gruesome display of violence.
The idea is to empower your players to bring their narrative to the table, not enforce a narrative on them that may not coincide with their character's beliefs.
An example of this was a character I created for a home-brewed game. I decided to make 'A gnomish wizard, based on elemental magics.' When asked what that meant, I told him it'd be a gnomish fighter, and the element would be steel. He said 'That's not a wizard' and I replied 'No, it isn't, but to the gnomish mindset, there is no difference between magic and science, between mystics and physics. It's all just an expression of how the world works. He doesn't stab enemies, he 'cast spells' that cause his sword to enter them, with the somatic component of arm thrusts. He defends himself by creating 'steel armor', which consists of interposing his sword and shield between him and danger.' Suddenly it all became clear, how even the narrative of a gnome warrior changes based on the character's in-game mindset and perspective... how the character doesn't see the game mechanics, and is not limited by player assumptions.
I suppose a better way to put it:
The rules are abstractions, by necessity. Assigning arbitrary narratives to abstractions out of context, and then deciding that they must be ruled in a certain way because that's how that arbitrary narrative works, and so that's how it must work every single time... is illogical. You're dealing with an abstraction and you should not answer what it means in the narrative until context is formed. Does the wizard casting scorching burst conjure oil and a spark, or does he open portals to the elemental chaos? The ruleset doesn't force either, so why should anyone else?
Rune
Once A Fool
First, a trained skill is a class ability in most cases, as it is among a few choices given to the character by the class and chosen from class list.
Second, a heal check's first aid is considerably inferior to all healing powers out there, as it requires a standard action and at best applies only a second wind with no defensive bonus.
Third, making a heal check provoke opportunity attacks drastically increases the chances of TPK, especially in parties with only one leader. If the healer goes unconscious while surrounded by enemies and no one can safely heal or stabilize him/her, things are going to get pretty grim. Fast. Even if combat medic negates the opportunity attack, the chance that a non-healer has the feat is pretty small.
All that said, I do understand the desire to heighten the dramatic significance of such dire situations. If that is your aim, perhaps it could be done a slightly different way?
Perhaps, assume that Defenders trained in Heal are sufficiently skilled in combat (and defending) to use first aid without provoking. All other classes would provoke without the combat medic feat.
moxcamel
Explorer
As the DM, it's completely within your rights to rule it any way that makes the most sense to you.
But from a gameplay perspective, having it generate an AoO doesn't really seem to put a tick in the "fun" column imho. Your party has just had a character drop--not exactly fun, but it does create tension which is good. Another character gives up a full action (and possibly a move action) to run over to provide healing. Not really fun, as it doesn't really contribute to the action at hand, but still generates long-term benefits. But the AoO? It's kind of a punishment for doing the right thing. Especially when you consider that if a PC has dropped then it means the fight isn't going well already. The person doing the Heal might not have hit points to spare, which is a terrible choice to have to make--do I try to Heal at the risk of both of us dropping?
I don't think it's a deal breaker either way, but I could see it being one of those house rules that kinda puts a damper on things.
But from a gameplay perspective, having it generate an AoO doesn't really seem to put a tick in the "fun" column imho. Your party has just had a character drop--not exactly fun, but it does create tension which is good. Another character gives up a full action (and possibly a move action) to run over to provide healing. Not really fun, as it doesn't really contribute to the action at hand, but still generates long-term benefits. But the AoO? It's kind of a punishment for doing the right thing. Especially when you consider that if a PC has dropped then it means the fight isn't going well already. The person doing the Heal might not have hit points to spare, which is a terrible choice to have to make--do I try to Heal at the risk of both of us dropping?
I don't think it's a deal breaker either way, but I could see it being one of those house rules that kinda puts a damper on things.
DracoSuave
First Post
What I might do is allow the player to attempt a Heal check as a move or minor action if he's willing to take a penalty to the roll, and risk attacks of opportunity.
moxcamel
Explorer
Do you mean make a Heal check to avoid the AoO, and then make another check to do the actual healing? Or are you saying to make a Heal check at a penalty, with success being they can heal without AoO, or..?
Seems very meta-gamey to me, the kinda thing I didn't care for in 3.x. It's one short step from having to cross-reference tables.
I'd either go with "Heal draws AoO" or RAW. I wouldn't add mechanics.Again, not telling you how to run your game, just sharing my own thoughts on the matter. Fortunately for all of us, there's no right or wrong way.
