I don't get the dislike of healing surges

[JamesonCourage]

But a character, in D&D, who continues with strenuous physical activity is not ignoring his wounds. Mechanically, he doesn't have any.

I disagree.

What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going, and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one.

 

[Pentius]

I could argue that D&D can't provide a quality narrative about combat if it can't handle wounds. And thus every single argument about D&D combat should be moot.

In general, I don't think A works well at B, therefore C, which makes A work less well at B, is not a problem, is not an argument for people who find B important. Maybe they should find a system where B works better; maybe there are a bunch of compromises making A the best system for them. Nonetheless, C is not a feature they're going to be happy with.

I might agree with that, but what I am responding to is the assertion that A handled B just fine before C came along and mucked it up, therefore C is a problem. I do not think A was doing a good job of handling B before or after the arrival of C, and therefore do not see why C is to blame for the failings of A.

 

[LostSoul]

As I described before, I see little to no connection there at all. The "head-scratcher" only comes in if you force HP into real or abstract boxes.

Let me try and put this in my own words: Pre-4E HP allow a much greater narrative range than 4E's Healing Surges, which create absurd narratives if you describe them as actual wounds; this means that there's more scope for how you decide to narrate wounds and healing using pre-4E HP.

Sound good?

 

[prosfilaes]

I might agree with that, but what I am responding to is the assertion that A handled B just fine before C came along and mucked it up, therefore C is a problem. I do not think A was doing a good job of handling B before or after the arrival of C, and therefore do not see why C is to blame for the failings of A.

You don't think that A was doing a good job of handling B before or after the arrival of C, so I don't see why we who found that A was doing a satisfactory job of handling B before C should care about your opinion. People who only watch dramas on TV are not the people I turn to for their opinion about how the Simpsons are doing, and their loud assertions that comedy on TV has always sucked doesn't help them at all.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

Hit Points are an easy way of keeping track of how much damage your character can take before he or she dies.

The narrative aspect should totally be up to the DM/GM/Ref/Judge, if a book tells me how to narrarate, I will not buy it or I will not listen. The DM/GM/Ref/Judge should be incontrol, not a book.


So how do I justify it?

Ever been in a fist fight?
Those normal blows that barely hurt, theyre like normal hits, those times you get the wind knocked out of you or knock you down or hurt you more, those are critical hits.
Technicallly you can only take so much before you start to fall apart, so in theory if a normal hit does 1d3 non-lethal (which in itself is sort of unrealistic, but we'll go along with that) you (being a 1st level character [even though we are more like 0-levels, sorry if that offends you, but the majority of us are]) only have anywhere from 1 hit point to 7 hit points.

So can we only take 1 to 7 punches?
Depends on who is throwing the punch, but I've seen big guys knocked clean out by a single fist, critical hits perhaps?
This is the point I'm making, I have never used a healing surge, I have been in fights, both 'for real' and some for fun. But I have also never needed a day of rest to repair nor have I ever had to go to a church and ask for healing (although forgivness for one, but we're not going there)

You could argue "But that is non-lethal!"
I broke my nose in a fight, by the end of the day I was feeling better, I just had to catch my breath, a 2nd wind makes sense, but the overall healing I needed was minmal. Even when I had a PVC pipe broken across my back I didn't need a cleric's healing, I just walked it off, it left a cool bruise, kinda awkward to sleep but overall I was okay in about ten minutes.
So the narrative aspect of the game is what makes sense, but mechanics are, however, flawed. But it works the best so why complain?

Healing surges are a good idea, but mechanically wrong. I never willed myself back together (well..once was with ice, but it wasn't just my mind that did it) so I find it fairly 'fantastic'. But D&D being a fantasy game, it works for me. I do think a 'random' health regeneration would work better, but thats just me.

 

[Pentius]

You don't think that A was doing a good job of handling B before or after the arrival of C, so I don't see why we who found that A was doing a satisfactory job of handling B before C should care about your opinion. People who only watch dramas on TV are not the people I turn to for their opinion about how the Simpsons are doing, and their loud assertions that comedy on TV has always sucked doesn't help them at all.

I disagree with you, therefore my opinion does not matter and I am also ill-informed?

 

[prosfilaes]

I disagree with you, therefore my opinion does not matter and I am also ill-informed?

No. You don't like HP=wounds. That makes your opinion uninteresting when it comes down to the impact of healing surges on HP=wounds. We've made an educated choice to choose HP=wounds, no matter how much you dislike it; telling us that HP=wounds sucks so much that healing surges are irrelevant isn't an interesting argument.

 

[NewJeffCT]

Let me try and put this in my own words: Pre-4E HP allow a much greater narrative range than 4E's Healing Surges, which create absurd narratives if you describe them as actual wounds; this means that there's more scope for how you decide to narrate wounds and healing using pre-4E HP.

Sound good?

Actually, no.

I think it's exactly the same as before. The only difference is now that it is called "healing surges" instead of "Cure Light Wounds" or "Cure Serious Wounds" and is easier to access for other classes than it was prior to 4E.

I don't see that big a difference between a PC in any edition getting whomped for 40 points of damage and being dropped to a few hit points left, and then the party cleric casting Cure Critical Wounds on him and healing 20 points of damage (pre 4E), or the party leader (in 4E) using an ability to let the PC spend a healing surge and heal 20 points of damage.

 

[prosfilaes]

I think it's exactly the same as before. The only difference is now that it is called "healing surges" instead of "Cure Light Wounds" or "Cure Serious Wounds" and is easier to access for other classes than it was prior to 4E.

Except one is magic and one is not.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I like Lostsoul's comment, and agree.


In terms of the magic versus not, check out the difference between the two polls I posted.

Again, I am not saying healing surges are inherently bad...but they ARE a different entity than magical healing.

http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/312559-do-healing-surges-close-wounds.html
http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...magic-e-g-cure-light-wounds-close-wounds.html