Healing Surges innate Blessed band aids

[Lacyon]

It seems to me that there is a middle ground.

A game system where damage is painful, dibilitating, and, well, damaging.

But also where access to healing is readily available, and the guy who loses a leg will be up walking around in real-life minutes thanks to the availability of healing magic (or in cyberpunk, regenerative and/or cybernetic technology).

HP don't have to be abstracted to "Well, it might be damage, unless you get it back by resting, or it might be exhaustion unless a cleric heals you, or it might just be your luck running out unless you get it back by any means, or it might be something else entirely - we just don't know what it is, so I guess it's a little red bar floating in the air overy your characters head that gets shorter when you get hurt/tired/unlucky and longer when you get healed/rested/more lucky."

To me, that seems like going too far.

If you can imagine a character who's suffered painful, debilitating damage and surviving X additional hits, why is it a problem for you to imagine that, if he can catch a breather, recieve medical attention, replenish fluids, refocus his mind to get past the pain, or bandage his wounds before moving on, that character can survive X+1, X+2, or X+3 hits instead?

Put another way, consider two injuries - the loss of several fingers on one hand, and a severed tendon in the leg. Set aside the fact that HP loss doesn't model any after-effects of these injuries, just the fact that you've suffered some. Is it that much of a stretch to think that the guy who suffers both of these injuries in the same fight is more likely to go into shock and possibly die if nobody treats him (he falls below 0 hp), but the guy who has a chance to bandage his wounds and recieve first aid after the first injury might have a better chance of withstanding the shock (has recovered some hp, so might not fall below 0)?

There's still an upper limit on how much any character can withstand, as nobody gets unlimited healing surges. There's a much stricter limit on how much you can withstand in a short time.

If you want magical or techno-based healing to be required for recovery, it's pretty simple to do that too - remove or restrict each character's innate ability to use healing surges and give the Cleric more healing words per encounter (or make magical healing potions common). You'll lose out on the ability to play effectively without a Cleric (or massive stockpiles of healing potions), which was a purported design goal of 4E, but if that's what's fun for you, nobody's stopping it.

 

[hong]

So, you would consider these characters 1st level or so?

Is there a reason? You seem to be speaking? In rising inflections?

 

[Cadfan]

I'm just not a fan of creating extensive injury rules and then negating them with magic healing rules. I played 3e for a long time, and I was the rules guy of the group. And you know what? I never memorized the rules for nonmagical healing. Why would I? The cleric always handled things. You get your level in hit points per night, assuming the DM lets you handwave the fact that you didn't technically sleep eight hours because you were on watch part of that time, and... stuff. In my mind, that's poor design.

The only way I will possibly have a problem with 4e healing rules is if there's no incentive to use the Heal skill instead of Second Wind when healing between fights, or at the end of the day. As long as that happens, then healing, taken as a whole across the course of the day, will be a mixture of magical effect, mundane bandaging, and recovering one's stamina. And even without the magical effects, the mixture of mundane bandaging and recovering one's stamina will be perfectly fine with me.

If there's no reason to preference the Heal skill over Second Wind, I'll be a little annoyed. But only a little.

 

[AllisterH]

Actually, healing surges are one of the things I can't find a match for in games (video or table top). I've seen something similar in sci-fi and fantasy novels though.

Healing surges are dependant on the character itsel being healed. Presumably, if you are out of healing surges for the day, your body simply won't accept anymore healing magic. This doesn't occur in any game that I know of which I'm somewhat surprised more people haven't picked up on.

In novels though, I've read settings where character's have an inherent limit to how much magical/technological healing they can take in a day

So, is 4E becoming too much like a novel now though?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It seems to me that there is a middle ground.

A game system where damage is painful, dibilitating, and, well, damaging.

But also where access to healing is readily available, and the guy who loses a leg will be up walking around in real-life minutes thanks to the availability of healing magic (or in cyberpunk, regenerative and/or cybernetic technology).

Oh yes, off course you can do that. But you become dependent on technological or magical gimmicks. This means, depending on your setting, the game system has an acceptable level of lethality, or it doesn't. Not a flexible game system, but a workable. (It's after all, what D&D until the 3rd edition did, right? As long as you have a spellcaster with magical healing, lethality is fine. If you don't, all bets are off.)

If you heavily depend on hit points representing a noteable amount of physical healing, here is my explaination: In 4E worlds, everyone has access to some kind of healing "gimmick".
Spellcasters can cast healing spells, off course. Non-spellcasters have technical devices that heal them, or there are some special kind of spells (rirtuals?) or magical items that even non-spellcasters can cast/use. (3E equivalent where healing potions and Wand of Cure Light Wounds combined with Use Magic Device).

 

[Goreg Skullcrusher]

If you heavily depend on hit points representing a noteable amount of physical healing, here is my explaination: In 4E worlds, everyone has access to some kind of healing "gimmick".
Spellcasters can cast healing spells, off course. Non-spellcasters have technical devices that heal them, or there are some special kind of spells (rirtuals?) or magical items that even non-spellcasters can cast/use. (3E equivalent where healing potions and Wand of Cure Light Wounds combined with Use Magic Device).

The problem with this model is that you need to explain why the spellcasters don't have access to this technical device. It's hard to equate the power of reality to the power of magic, which is why there is such a logical disconnect between magical and martial healing.

I can accept Sims' proposal though. Seems like we have slightly differing playstyles, and for him (and the rest of the development team) sacrificing elements that adhere to reality for ones that play better as a game was more fun.

I guess for me all that remains is to see whether good qualities of 4E supercede those with which I take issue.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Is it important what level they are?

Yes.

Whenever the example of John McClane comes up, the underlying assumption seems to be that he is fresh out of the police academy.

What is important to remember about a class and level system is the 'level' part. The simulation is of a raw beginner progressing to great power. D&D has never been a game where characters start out as even merely competent, let alone 'cinematic'. Now, you can always start characters out at a higher level, but that is kind of a workaround. Skill based systems are where you start out with competent or better characters.

Certainly, a more cinematic character generation system could be added as an option, or an alternate in the core books. But there is still a sizable audience that likes starting out with a hardscrabble life and building that into greatness. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

So, what it really boils down to is this change to superheroes D&D. Which is a perfectly acceptable style of play, if that is what a given group likes. The problem is that by implication, the rest of the people who like starting out as minor actors are not playing the One True Way. The further development goals of designing that style of play out of the rules is also going against the grain. In previous incarnations, D&D has always allowed for a more 'heroic' level of play, although it may not have always been particularly simple to start out there.

If, in your estimation, John McClane is a first level character, and that is how you like to play, great. I am all for D&D supporting that style. What is off-putting is that they are supporting that style of play by sacrificing any other.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Is there a reason? You seem to be speaking? In rising inflections?

Isn't this where you usually reference one of your ridiculous 'laws' that have no standing outside of your gaming table?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

The problem with this model is that you need to explain why the spellcasters don't have access to this technical device. It's hard to equate the power of reality to the power of magic, which is why there is such a logical disconnect between magical and martial healing.

Why do you have to explain this? In 4E, everybody gets healing. Apparently, some spellcasters have a healing tool that allows them to heal other people. For your self-healing, you use rituals, or magical items, or technology.

 

[D'karr]

Whenever the example of John McClane comes up, the underlying assumption seems to be that he is fresh out of the police academy.

I haven't seen that. The example of John McClane is used to show that most wounds incurred by the protagonist in movies "are merely flesh wounds."

What is important to remember about a class and level system is the 'level' part. The simulation is of a raw beginner progressing to great power. D&D has never been a game where characters start out as even merely competent, let alone 'cinematic'. Now, you can always start characters out at a higher level, but that is kind of a workaround. Skill based systems are where you start out with competent or better characters.

And what is being remedied by making first level characters more survivable is the "start at X level" situation. There have been plenty of games that simply started at 3rd level, as an example, because that was the beginning of the "sweet spot." The spot where survivability and playability met.

Certainly, a more cinematic character generation system could be added as an option, or an alternate in the core books. But there is still a sizable audience that likes starting out with a hardscrabble life and building that into greatness. They don't have to be mutually exclusive.

Just so that you know, the boost in survivability also applies to the opposition. Take a look at a Human Guard 1st level skirmisher and you will see that it applies to their end too. Making the challenge fit the opposition makes the "sweet spot" better. If your group only encounters one solitary guard you can easily and quite correctly assume that the power level of PCs is overwhelming and not what you really want. But when you start looking at the actual rules for building encounters you will see that taking on 4-6 guards is not going to be the cake-walk you are estimating and riling up against.

So, what it really boils down to is this change to superheroes D&D. Which is a perfectly acceptable style of play, if that is what a given group likes. The problem is that by implication, the rest of the people who like starting out as minor actors are not playing the One True Way. The further development goals of designing that style of play out of the rules is also going against the grain. In previous incarnations, D&D has always allowed for a more 'heroic' level of play, although it may not have always been particularly simple to start out there.

I'm sorry superheros are in aisle five. You mean like mid-high level D&D?

The point is that D&D in incarnations before 3e was not necessarily super heroes but at mid to high level the characters were head and shoulders over the competition. But at high level playability was horrid.

In 3e, the characters were slightly more survivable at lower levels (more hit points) but the one hit wonders were really bad. Oh, that orc just critted you with his falchion, bye bye rogue. At mid to high level the PCs didn't have that problem so much but the one hit wonders still existed. And to top it off high level playability was still horrid. And if there is one edition that can be considered the Justice League my vote is for 3e.

4e attempts to level the curve so that playability is maintained at all levels. So the curve has to be flattened. High level play will still be super heroes but low to mid level are now balanced for survival. They've shifted the sweet spot so that levels 1-4 still provide fun without swingy deaths from random chance.

Color me red, but I prefer to have a game that plays great at all levels than one that only does so from level 4 to level 12.

If, in your estimation, John McClane is a first level character, and that is how you like to play, great. I am all for D&D supporting that style. What is off-putting is that they are supporting that style of play by sacrificing any other.

I don't think that John McClane is a first level character but I don't think that the first level characters we've seen are nearly as bad ass as John McClane.

See if you want your characters to be bums from the git go, then all you have to do is increase the opposition. In previous editions the players that wanted more capable characters started at a higher level. So now all you have to do is start the opposition at a higher level to give the same feel in the opposite direction.

You're right I'm all for supporting a style of game that makes it fun to actually play. If that is off-putting I'm sorry. I guess we'll always have 3e.