Hit Points & Healing Surges Finally Explained!

[CleverNickName]

Not really the point of the thread.

I'm tired of players arguing or making fun of my efforts in game to be creative and interpret 'damage' in a variety of different and interesting ways to accommodate the abstraction.

So the fact that a D&D designer, nay, Mr. Mike Mearls himself, the man, the legend, the icon of D&D design, has officially stated in a podcast that hit points and damage and healing surges aren't meant to be taken literally and that one should use a bit of imagination to interpret them, goes a long way towards backing up my efforts in games I run.

This makes me happy.

It's not the point? I must have misread the first paragraph of the thread...

EDIT: Ah, the fault is mine...I wasn't specific. I was trying to say that Mearls's podcast isn't really going to change anyone's minds about healing surges. I wasn't referring to this thread.

 

[Spatula]

It's customary to provide a link to the discussion topic... and not hard to do so.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It isn't the concept of healing surges that I find distasteful; it is the execution of that concept in 4e. RCFG uses a mechanic called "shaking it off" which is similar to healing surges in some respects, but avoids the problems I see with WotC's execution of the same basic concept.

"Hit points" cannot be taken literally, unless you imagine that D&D beings have some body part (etc.) that we do not. But there is a big difference, IMHO, between "some part of every hit represents actual damage taken by the character" and "every time the character takes damage, you don't know what it represents until it is healed, which, due to the method of healing, defines the nature of the damage."

There are some wonderful work-arounds for the 4e hp/hs mechanic that have been shared due to earlier discussion of the same. That these work-arounds exist, however, doesn't mean that WotC's execution didn't suck.

IMHO, it did. YMMV. In the end, so long as we are each happy playing games we like, I don't think it really matters.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

When I started playing DnD, it took my a while to get used to hitpoints. For one, I was used to fantasy/folklore stories where the "king was felled by a single arrow". This couldn't happen in DnD.

You couldn't hold someone at bay by pointing an arrow at them. At best, the hand-to-hand fight would start with them being 6 hitpoints down.

Take a look at the "Getting the Drop" mechanic in my RCFG thread (link in sig.). It should work in any version of D&D equally well, and makes these things possible.

RC

 

[Halivar]

"every time the character takes damage, you don't know what it represents until it is healed, which, due to the method of healing, defines the nature of the damage."

I can only speak for my table, but we don't narrate it that way. The means by which characters regain hp, whether magical or non-magical, do not ret-con the grievousness of their wounds. Rather, the two means of healing have different narrative results: one makes your wounds go away, and the other helps you cope with your wounds (which do not go away). If it isn't magical, you look like hamburger meat after the fight, and feel like it, too. There's no way to model that simulation-wise, really, without adding more layers of subsystems. The narrative approach is easier for us.

 

[The Ghost]

The amount of times I've run games and described the combats using concepts like near misses, strained muscles, minor cuts or bruises, being winded, armour damage that hinders the character, etc. only to be mocked by players who can't seem to wrap their minds around an abstract concept is truly tiring.

I am curious about how people describe combat occurring. In my home games combat generally goes:

Fighter: I attack the orc. Does a sixteen hit?
DM: Yes.
Fighter: Ok, eight damage.
DM: The orc attacks you. Natural twenty, chance for critical. Does an eighteen confirm?
Fighter: Yes.
DM: Alright, take fifteen damage.
Fighter: I go down.

Now, I have observed people at my local game store play out the same situation as follows:

Fighter: Sixteen to hit for eight damage.
DM: Ok, Sir Henry you swing your trusty sword at the foul-mouthed beast. The blow strikes him deep on the shoulder. Blood sprays from the wound while the beast howls in obvious pain. He turns toward you and with a smile swings his axe. <rolls dice: twenty. rolls again: eighteen> The axe smashes deep into your chest, a sharp pain enters your mind and then quickly vanishes as you fall to your knees. The orc lets out a hearty laugh and then gazes toward Merlin.
Fighter. As Sir Henry falls to his knees he cries out "Lady Anna. My love."

In the first situation, like my games, all hits points are is a way to track how long any given character can last in whatever the siuation is.

In the second, I can certainly understand how that description matters and therefor why certain ways of healing don't seem right. Do the people who have problems with what hit points are or what healing surges are play like the second example? I may be way off base here in my analysis - but I am curious to find out.

 

[roguerouge]

From chastising someone's use of the word "princess" to calling Mr. Mearls "great and mighty" in a clearly derisive manner, all in two sentences. Well done.

The derision is towards the concept that a podcast from an authority figure can magically solve every problem, as was the general trend of this thread. The reference was towards how people were imagining Mearls as the solver of all problems, not towards the man himself. I'm sorry that was unclear in my writing. Better done, sir?

I have a lot more respect for posters who make their arguments without appeals to authority figures, as has been done on this thread. Change my mind for me. Don't say that I should change my mind because of what a VIP says. Consider it the CN side of me coming out.

As far as the many posts on this topic in response to mine, all I can say is that yes: hit points are abstract; they don't model real world damage well; they're not intended to model real world damage well in service towards a good time. I agree with you on all of that. They're part of suspending disbelief. Healing spells allow me to suspend that disbelief because they provide a narrative hook that explains much and what they don't explain gets covered up, precisely because it is very rare for PCs to rely on natural healing to do much of the work at all. What spells don't explain, they cover up in real game experience.

I get the point of healing surges, which is to make the cleric requirement go away (a necessity which IMHO has always been over-stated). That is, indeed, a good thing. So, healing surges are foundational in the same way that healing spells are. But the conceptual difficulties of hit points are no longer swept under the rug by the "it's magic" explanation and the rarity of natural healing. Now, the idea that mere words can "heal" me from dying or a wound rubs my nose in all of the weaknesses of the system, rather than elegantly explained away by two complementary mechanics from the founders of the game.

The GSL snafus, the money investment (DMs spend 2K on gaming materials on average), and my profound distrust in WotC's ability to write a module or an adventure path are the reasons why I won't play 4E. While I find the nap or inspiring words mechanic unconvincing and a primary target for house-ruling, don't get the impression that convincing me that healing surges are super is going to convince me to play 4e.

 

[Fifth Element]

But there is a big difference, IMHO, between "some part of every hit represents actual damage taken by the character" and "every time the character takes damage, you don't know what it represents until it is healed, which, due to the method of healing, defines the nature of the damage."

Who had post #63 in the pool?

 

[Raven Crowking]

I can only speak for my table, but we don't narrate it that way. The means by which characters regain hp, whether magical or non-magical, do not ret-con the grievousness of their wounds. Rather, the two means of healing have different narrative results: one makes your wounds go away, and the other helps you cope with your wounds (which do not go away). If it isn't magical, you look like hamburger meat after the fight, and feel like it, too. There's no way to model that simulation-wise, really, without adding more layers of subsystems. The narrative approach is easier for us.

Yes, in the other thread all of the potential ways of dealing with the WotC system were parsed out. IMHO, all are found wanting. Obviously, YMMV. Others devised systems that dealt with my objections, without undue (again, IMHO) "layers" of subsystems. Some solutions were quite elegant, and simple to utilize, as I recall. It is a pity (IMHO) that WotC couldn't have done so well with the core rules as a half-dozen EN Worlders did over a couple of days.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Who had post #63 in the pool?

You will note, I hope, that I am objecting to an erroneous view of the other side (i.e., believing that all damage represents some amount of physical injury =/= believing that hit points are not an abstract concept), not jumping into an argument about what hit points or healing surges represent.

We have been there and done that.

As I have said, I don't find the concept problematic -- RCFG uses the concept, after all, as I stated in the other thread as well -- only the execution of that concept.

And half a dozen EN Worlders in the other thread offered simple, elegant means to make that concept work without having to rewrite all of 4e.

EN Worlders are awesome.

And post #63 was awesome, too, regardless of whatever you might have chosen to read into it.


RC