Healing Surges

[DracoSuave]

Thank you for exaggerating my point(s) far into the Land of the Ludicrous.

Hyperbole is intended to be ludicrous. However, bear in mind that the point itself is what you should be attacking, not the figurative speech.

I said some effect should still occur, whether it be damage or a minor penalty. Otherwise, you're not allowing for the attack's full effect. If you're level 4, 4 damage is not a "nuclear bomb" and neither is a -1 attack penalty. Please don't put words in my mouth. If you can't address the issue without extreme exaggeration... well, enough said.

At level 4, the average party member has Con+27 hps or so. Assuming average 13 Con, it's save to eyeball that at 40 hps. It seems that 4 hps isn't a lot, and it isn't.

However, what are the monsters doing for damage around that level? What is the recommended damage for created monsters at 4th level? Monsters hit -hard- in D&D 4th.

And besides, you're NOT simply docking 4 hps. In a game where the design is around party members being able to get hit hard, hit hard back, and then get themselves up to full for the next encounter, that 'merely four hit points' is -actually- docking their maximum hit points by 4 until the end of their adventuring day. They do not get those back, unlike every other bit of damage the game is assumed to send them.

Of course, neither are the hits they're getting from the normal monsters either. It all adds up to a downward spiral. Once they are out of healing surges, adding even a tiny bit of extra damage 'just cause it seems right to do so' brings them ever closer to death.

Of course, once you knock them down, they -can- have someone Heal skill to have them spend a Second Wind---oh... wait... no. They can't. So they're helpless once they reach zero. The last thing you want to do is speed up that process -more- just because 'It seems right.' That's -not- a good enough reason.

My additional point is that a DM using monsters with healing surge draining abilities needs to take those abilities into consideration when building the encounter. It's the DM's fault if 5 Whatevers devastate a party of PCs because each attack they have drains a healing surge. That's regardless of whether or not a DM chooses to apply a "zero healing surges left" penalty or damage replacement.

I agree, the DM -does- need to put all that into consideration. But if that is the case, the DM needs to understand that making a bad situation worse is not always fun for the players. The players are already screwed. They're out of ways to erase the large smacks of damage they incur. You don't -need- to make the monsters more threatening. They've -done the job quite well.-

Regardless, let's get back on topic. The question was raised whether or not people would simply say nothing happens when a healing surge drain is used on a character with no healing surges or whether there is a rule that compensates. My argument is for a replacement for the healing surge drain. Given the situation is very akin to starvation/drowning in terms of healing surge losses and what happens when a PC is at zero, I agreed with others that a -1 penalty was a good idea. The OP can decide on whatever opinion he likes.

Yes, and I disagree with others because they aren't taking into consideration how it will actually affect the game, and they aren't properly weighing the level of fun the players will have. That's a DM's responsibility, and something he should be managing. I'm not against setting up situations where the players lose their healing surges. I'm against setting them up where they lose their healing surges, and now that they're helpless... NOW you turn the screws even more. There's a certain point that players can't get out of, where they literally have zero tactical options, and once you reach that point, you're punishing players for playing your game, not challenging them. This is Dungeons and Dragons, not Dungeons and Gimpboys.

The -worst- justification for punishing the players for participating in an encounter you set up is 'Well, it just seems right that monsters get to do more on top of what they've done.' as tho stat blocks deserve some form of justice or equivocation to make up for a slight that doesn't even exist.

It's 'simulationism' without actually simulating anything that actually makes sense at the expense of the player's sense of fun.


All that said, a situation where the party has no healing surges and now must be -extremely careful- can be -very- fun for all concerned, if managed correctly. But you have to be careful when you apply damage at that point. Damage should arise from players' mistakes, not because they 'ran out of healing surges' which is the situation -you- inflicted on them. Not to mention, it punishes Controllers and Strikers just because they decided not to roll a Defender, which is not something you have any call to do. In fact, it's double punishment. They'll be out of healing surges first, so they'll take damage first, and then they'll be taking a larger chunk of their hit points, as they'll have less hit points than the higher healing surge characters. Stop inflicting punishment, simply reminding them (with an evil grin) that 'Well, good thing you're out of healing surges, cause now you don't have to lose a healing surge' is just jerkish enough to make them want to beat your little challenge.

 

[elecgraystone]

My main point - and one that everyone else is agreeing with - is this: I think it's silly to have an effect that is supposed to be negative not do anything.

Hmmm... my bad, then. I was seeing a lot of agreement for some kind of penalty. Scratch the "everyone" and change it to "a decent number."

I thing what you are seeing is a lot of people saying 'I wouldn't have it do anything extra BUT if you insist on it doing something, make it a penalty instead of damage." That's what I was doing when I suggested a minus instead of damage.

I agree what DracoSuave just said. Taking extra HP away just seems like kicking the characters when they are down and laughing at them. It wouldn't make anyone but a sadistic DM enjoy the game. A house rule to kill me faster JUST because the attack HAD to do something is just guarantied to piss people off. It makes it seem like you are against the players and TRYING to kill them instead of challenging them.

Personally I see the idea of "I think it's silly to have an effect that is supposed to be negative not do anything" as kind of silly. There are plenty of situations where attacks to nothing negative. Stab an undead with a poison dagger, nothing negative happens. Poison someone twice with the same poison and nothing extra happend. Fireball a creature immune to fire and nothing happens.

 

[burntgerbil]

Let me say that I am one of Falstaff's players and I was probably the one that prompted his question - I assumed that losing a surge when at zero surges killed you outright. I thought being reduced to lvl 0 in 3.5 did the same thing.

And yes, before you tell me these are two different games, I feel that the nature of negative energy/energy drain should be somewhat consistent - in 1st edition, I remember seeing wraiths and just getting up from the table, closing my book and leaving the game table - that's how much they frightened me. Am I supposed to believe that they have been completely neutered in 4e ? Well, maybe completely neutered was too strong, but undead always struck me as being powerful, evil enemies that one takes their life into their hands to battle. I felt that surge drain to death was a very powerful effect that DM's could use sparingly - but to simply make us need to run from the undead until daytime and have a sunshine-slumber party kinda dampens the experience for me.

I don't want to get drained to death, but if it happened in combat and I was reduced to negative surges, I would expect to need to make a new character right then and there - and I would go along with it if told so.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

I guess I just don't see why it has to be "drained to death". If you have 0 surges, any damage larger than your hit points (provided you don't have a Paladin) means you're dead. Or at least down for the time being, and then you could be revived to 1HP with no ability to heal. It's not like having 0 surges is some sort of "Oh, I can just walk it off" effect, it means you can't heal. Period. Finis. If the DM wants to kill people, then he just needs some kind of enemy to walk up and hit you a few times...why does there need to be this extra "drained to death" mechanic?

 

[elecgraystone]

I don't want to get drained to death, but if it happened in combat and I was reduced to negative surges, I would expect to need to make a new character right then and there - and I would go along with it if told so.

The reason this doesn't happen is the same reason there aren't any save or die spells left in the game. The same way you have to work your way though the monsters hp, the monsters have to work thier way through yours. The 'oops, your dead' attacks have been removed.

Also there is no such thing as 'negative surges'. You just can't heal and get hp back until you rest for 6 hours. (I should note there are a few ways to heal without surges) No surges by itself doesn't hurt you. It's the next damage you taken and all you can do is take it and hope the monster falls over before you do.

 

[Syrsuro]

The reason this doesn't happen is the same reason there aren't any save or die spells left in the game. The same way you have to work your way though the monsters hp, the monsters have to work thier way through yours. The 'oops, your dead' attacks have been removed.

Not relevant.

This would not be a 'save or die' type effect and explicitely would qualify as 'working their way through yours'. An effect that immediately drained all healing surges might be considered such. But an attack that took away your healing surges one at a time and then killed when you ran out would no more be 'save or die' than is an attack that takes away your hit points until you run out and then kills you.

The point is that no single attack or save will kill the players anymore. But attacks that can kill (or effectively kill in the case of petrification) do exist. They just are no longer dependant upon a single roll of the dice.

I most definately can see this as a valid mechanic and it may even arguably be a good one. It'd just be unpopular because it makes the game a little less safe than current trends seem to favor (the next thing you know, someone will be suggesting putting in potential encounters that are too high level for the players to handle and then what? Oh, the horror!)

Hmm. I might just change my mind and go with this for creatures that drain surges. Might actually make these creatures something to be feared again.

I'd probably feel obligated to let players know that this was a possibility. But the increased risk/tension is probably a good thing.

Carl

 

[ValhallaGH]

It'd just be unpopular because it makes the game a little less safe than current trends seem to favor (the next thing you know, someone will be suggesting putting in potential encounters that are too high level for the players to handle and then what? Oh, the horror!)

Here you're just being an ass. Please desist and return to the interesting and relevant discussion of ideas and mechanics.

P.S. If you think the game is "safe" then you need to play at one of my tables.

 

[Syrsuro]

Here you're just being an ass. Please desist and return to the interesting and relevant discussion of ideas and mechanics.

P.S. If you think the game is "safe" then you need to play at one of my tables.

I agree the point may be misplaced, but only because it touches on edition wars, not because it is incorrect.

Simply look at the trend taken by energy draining attacks starting with loss of a genuine level (or more than one level in some cases) to loss of a temporary level to loss of a healing surge.

Or the likelihood of dying at low level from OD&D to AD&D to 3.x to 4E.

Or the simple removal of the save or die mechanic.

There is no question that the game is far 'safer' for the characters now. I'm not saying this is necessarily bad (for example, one advantage of a safer world is that the increased chance of survival increases the incentive to create detailed characterizations - no point in detailing the character if you are unlikely to survive 1st level). But it is a demonstrable trend in game design and it is likewise a fact that the trend follows popularity and thus it is not inaccurate to say that a change that makes the game less safe would likely be unpopular.

The game may not be 'safe' at your table, but it's probably safer for low levels than it would have been under OD&D, AD&D or even 3.5.

And if we are discussing a possible interpretation of a mechanic that goes against that trend, the fact that it does so is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Carl

 

[DracoSuave]

Yes. The game is -not- safe. Compare monster damage capacity with the hps of your standard character. Then take away all healing ability for said character. You'll find character will tend to be very very doomed.

Hps in 4e are much more like a rollercoaster. They go down and up rapidly, and when they go down they go down FAST. Remove the ability to go up, and that character is definately in -great- danger.

 

[Syrsuro]

Yes. The game is -not- safe. Compare monster damage capacity with the hps of your standard character. Then take away all healing ability for said character. You'll find character will tend to be very very doomed.

Hps in 4e are much more like a rollercoaster. They go down and up rapidly, and when they go down they go down FAST. Remove the ability to go up, and that character is definately in -great- danger.

Now imagine that same character losing one or two levels, including all attack bonuses, hit points, powers, etc. gained due to those levels. Every time they are hit (and, if you go back to AD&D, without a saving throw).

Which is safer: A character who can only lose current hit points and the ability to regain those hit points or a character who can lose hit points, the ability to regain those hit points AND the ability to hit the opponent and the ability to use their most potent attacks?

"Safer" does not mean "Safe". It just means not as dangerous as it once was.

Carl