How Do you Feel About Healing Surges? (Read First!)

[Bedrockgames]

Should I infer from this that you don't like saving throws in AD&D. Because what you criticise about death saves in 4e is exactly how Gygax describes saves working in the DMG: if the roll is successful, then some explanation appropriate to character and context is offered to explain what just happened in the game.

Something to keep in mind, saves evolved a bit over time and by 3E they are rather different than Gygax first describes (not really requiring much more description than "you get out of the way" or "you resist the magical effects"). So he could be coming at it from there. But he might also just accept saves because they have been arund forever. That doesn't mean a newer mechanic that achieves something similar can't bother him on the same grounds. These court room style interogations are getting old. It is entirely possible for some to accept saves due to X but not like the addition ofhealing surges due to X (for all kinds of reasons ranging from saves have been there so long they just dont notice the problem as much to they reluctantly put up with saves because they are a sacred cow). And just because something exists in D&D that is funky or disruptive, that doesn't mean it is a good idea to add more funky and disruptive elements. A person may be able to handle a 3 long standing dissasociative mechanics, but not a newer fourth one. Relax and allow folks to have their preferences without the third degree.

 

[pemerton]

Something to keep in mind, saves evolved a bit over time and by 3E they are rather different than Gygax first describes

I very much agree with this, and use 3E's changes to saves - which I've mentioned in some other recent posts - as one example of 3E's many changes to some fundamental aspects of the game.

But he might also just accept saves because they have been arund forever. That doesn't mean a newer mechanic that achieves something similar can't bother him on the same grounds. These court room style interogations are getting old.

<snip>

Relax and allow folks to have their preferences without the third degree.

The relevant thing here seems to me for people to have some degree of overt self-knowledge. If "it's been around for a long time so I've got used to it" is a major factor in reasoning, then be upfront about it. And then acknowledge that other people are used to some other things, and aren't therefore of necessity non-RPGers, or "dissociated" players, or "rollplayers", or whatever other term of (pejorative) art gets tossed around to describe them.

I mean, "I'm used to it" isn't articulating any robust and insightful theory of simulationist RPGing. It's just stating a fairly banal biographical fact. It's at about the same level as a reply of "Well, the new thing doesn't bother me". There's no argument about design in those two statements, just bare expressions of taste.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I

The relevant thing here seems to me for people to have some degree of overt self-knowledge. If "it's been around for a long time so I've got used to it" is a major factor in reasoning, then be upfront about it. And then acknowledge that other people are used to some other things, and aren't therefore of necessity non-RPGers, or "dissociated" players, or "rollplayers", or whatever other term of (pejorative) art gets tossed around to describe them.

I am not saying these are his reasons. I am saying there are reasons why someone might be okay with saves but not healing surges and interogating them for a perceived inconsistency just intensifies the hostility (and aggressive rhetoric just intimidates it doesn't illuminate).

I can see that you are troubled by perceived insults. If that is your issue with a poster, then mention you think these labels are unfair. But most of us who criticize 4e do so becuase it genuinely doesn't appeal to us (some of us find it unrealistic, but that isn't true of all pposters).

I have been pretty consistent all along. All i feel anyone is obligated to give is their preference. They don't need to go into minute self examination of their inner motives. You are adept at socratic questioning, but I really think it is unproductive in these cases. People who are not aquainted with rhetoric will be easy pickings, but that doesn't make them any less right in their position (it just means they don't know how to handle a well constructed line of debate).

I mean, "I'm used to it" isn't articulating any robust and insightful theory of simulationist RPGing. It's just stating a fairly banal biographical fact. It's at about the same level as a reply of "Well, the new thing doesn't bother me". There's no argument about design in those two statements, just bare expressions of taste.

and no one is trying to articulate a robust theory of rpging. They are just giving their preferences. It is possible to want more simulationsist mechanics in D&D but to also accept the established mechanics that are less simulationist simply because they are accustomed to them. So again, someone could reject HS on simulationist grounds, but be okay with saves remaining in the game. It may just be a matter of not wanting to add in more stuff they find dissassociative ( i dont mean this as an insult, it is just a handy decription for why certain mechanics rub me the wrong way----and i understand some maybnot find them dissassociative at all).

I realize folks take these debates seriously. But I really think we need to take a step back and not take it so personally when peoples' preferences differ from our own (or feel insulted if someone thinks our prefered edition isn't balanced, is not realistic, or just isn't fun).

 

[Ratskinner]

There's a lot of Healing Surge bashing going on, and I just wanted to set the record straight.

This poll will use the following definition of healing surges:

Healing Surges have two components: Surges Per Day, which is a daily limit on how often a character can be healed by healing effects; and Surge Value, which ensures that each of said healing effects is worth at least 1/4 of the character's maximum hit points.

That's it. We're not talking about Second Winds, short rests, Warlord healing, or any of that. We're just talking about Surges Per Day and Surge Value as ways of regulating healing effects. Namely, that healing effects scale with the heal-ee's max HP, and healing effects cannot be used a million times a day.

So, how do you feel about healing surges?

I feel :meh: about healing surges.

Why limit magical healing? If you need to do so for your campaign...just do it? Though, I'd support a short module on it for the DMs who are inclined this way. On the other hand, I never actually found my 4e bumping up against this limit. Then again, if there's a limit that doesn't get reached...why have it...my 'surges' become another number to track with no influence on the game.

I never saw the CLW wand problem in 3.x play, but it seems more like a 3e wand-design issue, not a healing mechanic problem. Especially since there are other low-level utility spells that are problematic when wand-ified.

Here's a crazy thought....why not just make healing effects scale with the target instead of with the level of caster/initiator/perpetrator? I mean healing surges do this alright, but older school editions could houserule this with a pencil.

I don't really hate Healing Surges as presented in 4e, but to me, they felt like a mildly klunky solution to other problems. They weren't so clunky that I've thought, "OMG! Healing surges killed my D&D!" Nor do I feel they played a large part in the "feel" differences between 4e and previous editions. (My irritation at HP mechanics in general might overshadow that, though.)

Given the profound hatred that they seem to engender/embody in many others, I'm not sure I'd like to see them as part of the default healing mechanic in D&DN.

 

[Tovec]

Should I infer from this that you don't like saving throws in AD&D. Because what you criticise about death saves in 4e is exactly how Gygax describes saves working in the DMG: if the roll is successful, then some explanation appropriate to character and context is offered to explain what just happened in the game.

I haven't played AD&D so I don't know how accurate that would be. Even if it is true, and I don't like AD&D I don't see what that has to do with anything. It is a personal preference of how I would like the game to perform.

Next, Gygax may have said that about a previous form of DnD, he may have even said that my version of DnD is his least favourite. Should I infer that I am not truly having fun just because the exalted Gygax doesn't like my edition?

Also, I didn't say I had a problem with it depending on the ROLL. What you said is an over-exaggerating what I have said to infer something different. I said I didn't like the mechanic telling me what I should do, then it happens then I have to deal with the results. I prefer that I make a decision to do something or try something then the mechanic informs how that happens, how well or how poorly (aka the ROLL) is part of that.

For me it should go:

Intended Event -> Mechanic (roll) -> Outcome of Event
Example, Attempted Knockback: Want to knockback-> Use KnockbackRules -> Roll well = knocked back, roll poorly = not knocked back.

Not

Mechanic -> Roll -> Outcome -> Explanation
Example, Bloodstorm: Use power (because it does damage) -> Roll -> Roll well [hit] = Roll damage, Roll poorly [miss] = target takes half damage -> Why does target do half damage on a miss.

If a system can accommodate my preferred form then I will play it, if it cannot (or does my non-preferred form) I will not. Incidentally if, in my preferred system, I end up in a situation (often with spells) that sounds like my non-preferred set then I dislike it equally as much. This leads to me trying to improve, fix or remove, it in(from) the system.

 

[CleverNickName]

I never saw the CLW wand problem in 3.x play, but it seems more like a 3e wand-design issue, not a healing mechanic problem. Especially since there are other low-level utility spells that are problematic when wand-ified.

Here's a crazy thought....why not just make healing effects scale with the target instead of with the level of caster/initiator/perpetrator? I mean healing surges do this alright, but older school editions could houserule this with a pencil.

Absolutely. If CLW was breaking my game, I wouldn't rewrite the way combat works; I would just revise four spells and be done.