improving Second Wind (Forked Thread: House Rule: Second Effort)

[KarinsDad]

How about, when a player Second Winds, they may choose to spend an additional healing surge (for a total of 2) to regain an encounter power?

I would rarely trade a healing surge for an encounter power.

Even at first level, that's 6 points of healing (13+ points if the healing surge is used with a power like Healing Word) vs. an extra 2 to 4 average points of damage (over an At Will power because the Encounter power will not always hit).

At level 30, that's 40+ points of healing (70+ with healing word) vs. an extra 4 to 8 average points of damage.

Sure, there are potential other benefits for the encounter power, but they typically aren't that impressive that it's worth a healing surge. YMMV.

The only time I would do this is if I was running a PC that almost always had several healing surges remaining at the end of the combat day, or if I had an area effect Encounter power that would target 3 or more foes in a given situation. But if a PC runs out of healing surges in an encounter, was the extra 5 points of damage earlier on worth it?

 

[WhatGravitas]

Your suggestion is a lot more balanced and I suspect one that many players would seriously enjoy.

The more I think about it, the more I think you're right - a good benchmark is probably WotC's "Sacrifice to Caiphon" feat from the Star Warlock article - that feat pegs regaining a totally missing encounter power at 1 hp/power level. Even if we say double that for a power that actually hit (which may not be always the case), it is in the range of healing that the various healing boosters (i.e. Healing Word et al.) provide in terms of extra healing.

I think I found a new house rule for my games...

Cheers, LT.

 

[Pale Jackal]

The only time I would do this is if I was running a PC that almost always had several healing surges remaining at the end of the combat day, or if I had an area effect Encounter power that would target 3 or more foes in a given situation. But if a PC runs out of healing surges in an encounter, was the extra 5 points of damage earlier on worth it?

Powers that stun (or daze, etc.), or heal your allies who DO need the healing (whether it costs a surge or not), may also be worth translating your surges into encounter powers. Maybe you're right, but I'd prefer to default towards "not used enough" than "used too often." I also really like the idea of translating surges (or maybe just HP) into damage, so that the PC who does have a lot surges remaining can make use of them, since that's kind of my intent: that excess surges can be channeled. I also don't want it to be a no-brainer, though maybe I'm leaning too far in the other direction, since I tend to run two fight days currently, but perhaps that's a reward for not taking damage in the previous fight.

 

[CapnZapp]

Your suggestion here is illogical. The healing Clerical power does the least amount of healing and the self-heal does more. The reason they did not do that is because from an in game perspective, that does not make sense. Healing prayers should heal more than catching your breath.

Hang on here a minute - aren't you a believer of 4E's newfound philosophy promoting the game before the history?

I would have thought we could agree clinging to sacred cows of editions past and notions of "realism" would be the "illogical" thing here...

I would say you haven't really responded to my suggestion. All you have done is dismissing it on grounds that I feel isn't what a 4E designer would use.

Let me ask you the question this way: okay, so 4E might not be ready to ditch the notion clerical healing should do the most healing; but do you see any inherent gameplay reasons to keep to this scheme, or can you see my change in a 5E down the line?

That is, I would like to know if there are any hidden mechanism or balance issues that make what on the surface seems like a strange and illogical idea (the current healing system) necessary? Are there any hidden pitfalls with my reshuffle of the power of these Powers?

Fluff issues should really not come into play. Neither here nor anywhere. Right?

The implementations you have suggested so far all deal with increasing the amount of healing in the party which is not so fine.

Well, I do confess I like the idea, as it helps keep the brick wall that is "running out of surges" at a distance.

Obviously, I need to dismantle the brick wall to solve that particular problem.

However, when it comes to moving the bonus healing (the extra d6's) from Healing Word to Second Wind, you could equally easily say the current system is borked.

All it takes is having a second Leader, or people taking MC feats.

As I see it, in a party where you don't have any Leader at all, boosting Second Wind might not be necessary (simply because the boost is intended to help it in the competition with Healing Word, a competition that doesn't exist in these parties) it is certainly not broken (after all, these parties are the most healing-starved there are, so it's not exactly like we're seeing "too much" healing here).

All I see is that you're taking a fairly small step towards encouraging Leader-less parties. However, if the presence or absence of a Leader in your party depends on something as little as some bonus healing then I really think the problem lies with such a weak and useless class. (And for the record: I don't see Leaders as weak and useless, I am confident in their ability to be appreciated even with this shift in healing power balance).

Let's look at the bigger picture here: D&D is supposed to be a game where you always need to compromise; to get this, you can't have that.

Why should healing be an exception?

Especially as the solution seems so simple? Again, I am not telling you all I have found some Holy Grail here. I'm asking: what am I missing?

If the only reason 4E healing's balanced the way it is is this thing about "but second wind can't be powerful - that's unrealistic" then I will feel a bit sad. Thinking about all the sacred cows they slaughtered and still they forgot about this one...

 

[KarinsDad]

Hang on here a minute - aren't you a believer of 4E's newfound philosophy promoting the game before the history?

If you really want to go down this path, I'll discuss it.

I think 4E screwed up a lot of things because they put simpler game mechanics before game flavor and fun. The most obvious of these is that spells do not have significant durations. They totally dropped the concept of protection spells. They totally dropped the concept of summoning. They totally dropped the concept of autonomous allies like henchmen and animal companions.

Sure, they put a tiny bit of lip service on these, but some of the new mechanics are pretty bad.

In fact, we just added a house rule to our game for the Ranger's animal companion because it felt like a moveable terrain feature in the game instead of a creature. It was totally boring and felt more like an appendage of the PC instead of a friend and ally of the PC. I suspect that Familiars will feel the same, but we do not have them yet.

So yes, they killed some sacred cows and ended up screwing some things up in the process. There were some really good reasons that some of the early game mechanics were the way they were and WotC basically ignored that in the name of simplicity. Sometimes, it worked well in 4E. Other times, it did not.


You and I often disagree on things like house rules, but it's not that I think you do not see elements of the game system that are problematic. You do. You are really good at that. I just find your solutions to be "too grandiose". You tend to kill the fly with a sledgehammer. Once you have a design idea, you tend to not see the flaws in it, just the good in it.

Like some of the WotC ideas in 4E, I don't think your design ideas are well thought out. You see the big picture, but tend to not see the small important details. Just like many of the features in 4E. IMO.

I would say you haven't really responded to my suggestion. All you have done is dismissing it on grounds that I feel isn't what a 4E designer would use.

I cannot help it if you ignore what I write. I said that the idea to make the useage of Second Wind more desirable by players was fine, your implementations were not. I am not dismissing your ideas out of hand, I just find the implementations too powerful.

I did not find Lord Tirian's suggestion too powerful, but instead useful for your originally stated goal. His solution adds a game element that is both not powerful and something that players would really enjoy. Yours is too powerful and not very exciting or original. Boost healing. Ok. Ho hum.

Your implementations result in significantly increased healing capability. The game system is non-challenging enough without significantly boosting party healing. IMO. You are free to disagree and play whatever house rules in your game you like.

Let's look at the bigger picture here: D&D is supposed to be a game where you always need to compromise; to get this, you can't have that.

Why should healing be an exception?

Especially as the solution seems so simple? Again, I am not telling you all I have found some Holy Grail here. I'm asking: what am I missing?

If the only reason 4E healing's balanced the way it is is this thing about "but second wind can't be powerful - that's unrealistic" then I will feel a bit sad. Thinking about all the sacred cows they slaughtered and still they forgot about this one...

Second Wind should not even be in the game system in the first place. It's not a plausible flavor element, it's totally a game mechanic wrapped in an artificial flavor element. It's a nonsensical "go to the well" ability. "Oh look, I can heal myself". Yeah, I've heard all of the lame justifications of how it makes sense from a "pick yourself up" POV. I'm not impressed with those rationales.

In our game, it really is a "pick yourself up" ability because we have wound points which do not heal up when the player wants them to. But in the core rules, the PC is not really hurt until he is dead because there are so many ways to instantly heal up even without magic, especially out of combat.

So yeah, it's not a sacred cow that magical healing should be greater than second wind BS healing, it's that it outright makes more logical sense that magic works better. If the designers would have made it the opposite way around, I think there would have been a small uproar over it.

Just because you can think of an idea does not make it a good idea, no matter how excited you get over it. This seems to be something you appear to have in common with WotC, especially in their splat books.

 

[CapnZapp]

The game system is non-challenging enough without significantly boosting party healing.

Okay, fair enough.

And btw, next time, you don't need to make me feel as if I'm dragging your opinions out of you kicking and screaming, you know*...

Cheers,
the Zapper

*) In case the mood of that comment doesn't come across the text medium, let me assure you I'm writing this in good humor.

 

[KarinsDad]

Okay, fair enough.

And btw, next time, you don't need to make me feel as if I'm dragging your opinions out of you kicking and screaming, you know*...

Cheers,
the Zapper

*) In case the mood of that comment doesn't come across the text medium, let me assure you I'm writing this in good humor.

No worries. I'm just glad you take my strong opinions in stride. Not everyone does.

 

[Alex319]

The game system is non-challenging enough without significantly boosting party healing.

Don't forget that you, as the DM, can control what challenges you throw at the players. If you think the game is not challenging enough, you can always use higher level monsters.

 

[CapnZapp]

Don't forget that you, as the DM, can control what challenges you throw at the players. If you think the game is not challenging enough, you can always use higher level monsters.

Or rather, what works well in this situation is more monsters. Either added to the encounter, or as a separate encounter afterwards.

Unfortunately upping the level of the monsters brings its own set of pitfalls. In other words; the grind.

But now we're way off topic - see Stalkers excellent guide on how to avoid grind for more on that (ultrashort version: "avoid high level monsters"). Here I just need to say that by the very design of 4E, few high-level monsters does not work nearly so well as in previous editions.

The problem then is that your options to challenge the party are reduced. It's still possible to do so, it's just that you have few by-the-book options if you don't have more monsters in mind.

Again, we're off topic. Here's a good thread to continue this discussion: http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-fan...55506-adding-oomph-high-level-encounters.html