Hit Points & Healing Surges Finally Explained!

[Fifth Element]

Why is it different? Because of the healing surges? You have a limited supply of healing surges, so there's stilla loss of something.

He's beat up, bloody, and you can see his eyes showing less of a willingness to keep going then before.

I believe he's referring to the fact that with 6 hours rest, you regain all of your hit points and all of your surges, while some posters have advised that you can still narrate this situation as the character having physical wounds.

 

[D'karr]

I believe he's referring to the fact that with 6 hours rest, you regain all of your hit points and all of your surges, while some posters have advised that you can still narrate this situation as the character having physical wounds.

Whereas before any character that could cast cure light wounds would use "a trusty wand" and bring you back to full HP.

The only difference between systems is that the resource management has shifted to the individual.

Is it realistic? No more than the CLW wand.

Is it playable? Yes

Can it be modified by the DM to take into account the requyirement for long term healing? Absolutely.

Everytime somebody goes to 0 or below and fails a death save, remove one healing surge from their daily total. This effect remains until they have "medical / magical" treatment.

Any such ruling is more than acceptable if the DM wants to create a "grittier" game.

Me, I'm happy with the way it works and I make sure that I describe the effects of combat so that it does not contradict the "mechanics" (poison dart through the eye, etc.)

 

[Fifth Element]

Whereas before any character that could cast cure light wounds would use "a trusty wand" and bring you back to full HP.

The only difference between systems is that the resource management has shifted to the individual.

Is it realistic? No more than the CLW wand.

Is it playable? Yes

Bear in mind I have no problem with the 4E system as written, I was just trying to point out a misunderstanding.

I think it's a perfectly valid complaint, in that I can see how it would bother someone. Yes, it's just resource management from a metagame point of view, but at least a CLW wand was magic. From an in-world point of view, we've gone from needing magic to heal completely overnight, to anyone being able to do it just by getting some shut-eye.

 

[Lacyon]

Blargh.

 

[Celebrim]

Whereas before any character that could cast cure light wounds would use "a trusty wand" and bring you back to full HP.

Aside from the fact that a wand of cure light wounds assumes an ability override the natural laws of the game universe, a wand of cure light wounds is relatively easily removed. It's presence is in no way integral to the game.

You can build your game around the assumption of its presence, or you can build the game without it and never miss it.

 

[Obryn]

I dunno, when I bother narrating extended rests, I talk about PCs getting bandaged up, using some poultices, and the cleric casting some healing spells. I could throw in a wand, too, for color - but I don't know that it's necessary for my players' or my enjoyment.

I've learned to appreciate the 4e way of doing things because it's (largely) functionally identical to how things actually worked in my 3e games, but without all the accounting. They'd find a secured location (or rope trick or secured shelter etc.), get out their d8's, the cleric would cast his or her remaining spells as healing, and then the CLW wands would come out. About the only functional difference I've seen is that there are fewer 750gp expenditures for CLW wands. The temptation to just handwave it was strong, and in fact, I often did when the results were clear.

-O

 

[D'karr]

Blargh.

I was going to respond to your unedited one but you beat me to it.

The point still remains that it's a matter of preference. The argument is circular. If you don't like the "new" healing mechanics you can find anything wrong with them. The same way as finding things wrong with the previous mechanics.

Me, I'll continue to play what I'm enjoying.

 

[gizmo33]

But it demonstrably does.

By "demonstrable" I meant that you can demonstrate how the rules do this. AFAICT this demonstrates how the DM can make any claim that he wants to about a character's injuries.

And the "bloodied" mechanic indicates when a character is closer to death, so the information is there, isn't it? You can match your descriptions to characters physical states the same way as you could in 4E.

What do you tell a 1st level character about the physical state of an 80 hp character whose take 50 points of damage? And why couldn't you use virtually the same description for a 4E character who has 10 of 40 hp left and 10 healing surges?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think it's a perfectly valid complaint, in that I can see how it would bother someone. Yes, it's just resource management from a metagame point of view, but at least a CLW wand was magic. From an in-world point of view, we've gone from needing magic to heal completely overnight, to anyone being able to do it just by getting some shut-eye.

Exactly. And I honestly think that this difference explains about 95 percent of the "I like 4E" vs. "I don't like 4E" schism.

I want non-gamist explanations for stuff. A wand of cure light wounds (or, in our games, healing from clerics or other spellcasters) is a narrativist/simulationist explanation for extremely rapid healing.

4E proponents, on the other hand, don't seem to need "in-game" explanations for things, thus all of the posts to the effect that 4E's "six-hour healing" and earlier editions' "magical healing" are more or less identical. If the effect in-game ends up the same, to these folks the means to the effect is all but irrelevant.

(BTW, I think the whole wand of cure light wounds things is rarer than many folks on the Internet seem to think. My groups have never used it, nor have I ever seen a group equipped with high-charge wands of cure light wounds in any convention games I've played in, since 3E was released.)

 

[maddman75]

I've not played 4e, I'm getting a demo this weekend. I like a lot of what I've heard, and threads like this are very informative.

It did make me think of a house rule I'd used in previous editions, and I think it would work fine in the new one. Hit points have always at least in part been described as the ability to turn severe blows into minor ones. That 15th level fighter might have over a hundred hit points, but that doesn't mean you can run him through six times and he just laughs it off. You never get to run him through. That strike just scratches the skin, it bruises him, it beats him back and wears him down. Even if its described as a hit - ie your mace crushing into his shoulder and blood flying - it isn't a serious hit, and looks much worse than it is.

Once you run through his hit points, you've gotten past all that. He has no more immunity to your sword than a level 1 peasant. You can do what you like on a hit. Therefore we had the kill/capture/maim rule. Normally you were striking to kill, and when the enemy was out of hp you'd slay them in an appropriately gruesome manner. If you can do that though, you can do other things. You can maim by putting out an eye, cutting off a hand, shattering a kneecap, whatever you like. This is only done to humiliate an opponent, and to be honest I don't think anyone ever did it. Then there's capture. Rather than running them through, you put your sword to their throat. In 3e terms you have a readied action to attack if they move. This attack automatically hits for a critical. Any creature maimed or captured in this way is considered to be at 0 hp.

This is how I've always looked at hp, so 4e's model doesn't bother me at all. From playing Buffy, my players will already be used to healing surges, as that game has a similar mechanic (I Think I'm Okay).