Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Harzel" data-source="post: 7487972" data-attributes="member: 6857506">Thanks for sharing your changes and results.  If I understand correctly, your changes could be summarized as1)  Many healing effects generally restore more HP.  The exceptions are  long rests (none), using HD (same), and healing spells (same).2) Healing other than spell healing generally scales with HD size and CON mod.I have several issues to explore:a) (Really just a clarification question) If you allow MC, how does that work with your formulae that depend on HD size?b) Since your experiment implemented both (1) and (2), it's not always clear whether the effects you noticed are attributable to (1), (2), or both.  Your implementation does both at once in many cases, but these are still different effects that could be accomplished separately.c) For (2), I don't understand why it is better in principle, and for the effects seemingly attributable to (2), I don't see why they are improvements.  To me they seem different, but not necessarily better or worse.  Specifics below.This seems to depend on what you think the appropriate measure for effectiveness is.  My take is that your changes make potions more cost effective for a high HP PC than for a low HP PC.  Put differently, why is % of HP healed a better effectiveness metric than absolute # of HP healed?  I get that you prefer it and that's fine, but "more cost effective" sounds like an objective claim.Are you saying that Durable as-is is not good enough to be taken?  I don't have an opinion one way or the other on that, but just making a feat better isn't an absolute good.  Bring it up to par with others is, but there would be other ways to do that.I could not find anything in X's that pertained to regaining HP during downtime.  Did I miss something?Your changes seem very likely to achieve that.  It's different, but I don't understand why it is better.If your players liked it, that's a benefit that is hard to argue with.  They certainly don't have to have a particular reason for liking it, either.  I guess I'll just say it doesn't resonate with me as something that I would find more (or less) fun.  Yes, that all makes sense.This is interesting to me because at my table this would be a desirable effect.  However, I'm not sure that I see the reasoning that would cause the players to do this based on your changes.  If they had healing resources such as HD, healing kit, lay-on-hands remaining, wouldn't they use them prior to combat and thereby go in at more than 1/2 health?  And if they were out of such healing resources, then your changes wouldn't make any difference in their situation.  I feel like I must be missing something.Maybe I'm making the comparison wrong.  I guess if the party was close to empty of HP, your changes might let them get back to 1/2 health instead of maybe 3/8 health, and so feel that they could take on one more battle.  Is that more like what you were seeing?Still, if you look at what is going to happen the next day (assuming they only get one long rest before they must continue), then it seems like they are going to be worse off compared to having the long rest restore all HP, and therefore have to scale back their activity - unless it is turning out that in terms of total HP available your changes actually more than make up for long rests not restoring all HP.  Is that part of what you saw?I can certainly see that tanks might be emboldened.  But are you saying that in addition to High HP PCs being better off, Low HP PCs are worse off (more fragile compared to themselves without your changes)?IMX, this is standard procedure.  Unless there is a special circumstance, take out the adds/trash first.  Can you expand on why you consider it odd?So even though they have better healing resources, they are trying to conserve HP and healing?  I feel I'm missing something again.  Is it because their total HP and healing resources over the course of several days is actually less?Ok, thanks again for reporting on your experiment.</blockquote>

Verification