Schroedinger's Wounding (Forked Thread: Disappointed in 4e)

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Please, RC, we should know better to take anything we say as 100 % literal and if there is just one counter-example, everything said is invalid!

My main assertion is that relying on mundane healing happens very rarely, and people will always prefer magical items to it (assuming 3E healing rates or weaker) - be it by potions, wands of Cure Light Wounds or Clerics and Druids. Groups will typically ensure these means are available.

Which leads to the conclusion that the actual mundane healing rules exist only for a corner case. And as a drawback, they lead to
- Trivial book-keeping (Potions and Wands become very cheap at high levels, using default wealth by level assumptions)
- Magical healers becoming a necessity (Clerics, Druids, Bards or similar classes with access to healing spells)

So, the case of "we don't actually have any way of gaining magical healing" vs the case of "we don't rely on natural healing", and the former is a lot less common then the latter, and few care about it. The drawbacks seem to outweigh the benefits, so off they go.

How can I come to the "typically" conclusion? Quite simple - i have read the message boards and remember more posts indicating reliance on healing magic rather then mundane healing. Now, maybe the set of message board posters is very unusual, maybe I accidentally forgot the countless of counter examples. But... I don't believe that.

In game, there are a lot of good tactical and strategic reasons to heal characters fast. Since the only means to do that are spells or magical items, I think they will be prevalent, just like people probably more typically play Fighters with a high strength and Wizards with a high Intelligence, despite me never making a formal evaluation and poll on this matter to ensure that I have just noticed the 500 people that do it this way and missed the 5,000 people that don't.

Moreover, even in games outside of D&D, you will find a reliance on "fast healing" methods. Not always magical, but typically so. Potions and Healing Draughts in Warhammer are certainly frequently requested items. Most mages in Shadowrun will learn the healing spell, and many characters will look for having a high Biotech skill rating or a good medkit.

 

[Psion]

It's a bit beyond that though. He states that it is flat out impossible to buy magic items.

That's fine. What I am drawing attention to is the excluded middle that seems to be ignored here.

Note, I never stated universal.

Sigh.

See my response to Obryn on this score.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Please, RC, we should know better to take anything we say as 100 % literal and if there is just one counter-example, everything said is invalid!

I am not saying that there is a single counter-example. What I am saying is that you cannot know that "relying on mundane healing happens very rarely....that the actual mundane healing rules exist only for a corner case". That is not my experience. My experience is that, unless the DM mandates party composition, party composition cannot be assumed.

I have played D&D for many years, in several American states (Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, California, Virginia, Michigan) and in Canada. Part of this was moving because of being in the US Army. Overall, I would say that mundane healing took place at least 10% of the time, whether I was DMing or not. In some cases, even where magical (item) healing is available, players will conserve it for "more important" situations. I have also seen PCs require natural healing because the players have used their magical resources to heal NPCs.

IMHO, something that occurs that frequently is not a corner case.

I certainly accept that the same hasn't occurred as frequently in your experience. What I do not accept is that your experience is automatically more likely to be indicative of the norm than my experience.

Further, an examination of CR values, where a CR = APL encounter is intended to expend 1/4 or daily resources, demonstrates amply that the CLW wand wasn't intended as standard equipment within the context of the 3.x rules.

Moreover, even in games outside of D&D, you will find a reliance on "fast healing" methods. Not always magical, but typically so. Potions and Healing Draughts in Warhammer are certainly frequently requested items. Most mages in Shadowrun will learn the healing spell, and many characters will look for having a high Biotech skill rating or a good medkit.

There is a reason that these games make fast healing reliant on magic or superior-to-modern technology, you know. The designers are well aware that if they create a game with "mundane" healing that is, by any sane measure, so far beyond the threshold of our world that it seems like magic, it is going to throw some people right out of the immersive element of the game, every time.



RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I am not saying that there is a single counter-example. What I am saying is that you cannot know that "relying on mundane healing happens very rarely....that the actual mundane healing rules exist only for a corner case". That is not my experience. My experience is that, unless the DM mandates party composition, party composition cannot be assumed.

I have played D&D for many years, in several American states (Wisconsin, Indiana, Missouri, Louisiana, California, Virginia, Michigan) and in Canada. Part of this was moving because of being in the US Army. Overall, I would say that mundane healing took place at least 10% of the time, whether I was DMing or not. In some cases, even where magical (item) healing is available, players will conserve it for "more important" situations. I have also seen PCs require natural healing because the players have used their magical resources to heal NPCs.

I have done this, too, many years ago, when I hadn't figured out the CLW Wand "trick" yet, or when we didn't have a Cleric. But at some point, we decided that without magical healing, things were to tedious.

IMHO, something that occurs that frequently is not a corner case.

At what percentage does it become a corner case? How many of the 10 % you experienced for mundane healing was actually seen as "good" for the game and the game would have been missing something without it? How much of these 10 % were actually required by the way the game rules operated, and how many because people were "conservative" with their approach to magical healing (either a DM restricting access to items, or someone playing a Cleric not wanting to cast healing spells, or a variety of other reasons).

I certainly accept that the same hasn't occurred as frequently in your experience. What I do not accept is that your experience is automatically more likely to be indicative of the norm than my experience.

I didn't say it's automatically indicate of the norm. I post the reasons why I think my experience is more indicative of the norm. (Admittedly, I did so only in one of the latest post. But that didn't invalidate the point I made before, just explains how I came to that conclusion).

Further, an examination of CR values, where a CR = APL encounter is intended to expend 1/4 or daily resources, demonstrates amply that the CLW wand wasn't intended as standard equipment within the context of the 3.x rules.

Yes, indeed, a big flaw in the 3E rules. The designers didn't understand the implications of their magical item and wealth by levels rules, particularly in this case. But the CLW Wands are not the only source of magical healing. Potions might be more expensive, but they work pretty well, too.

There is a reason that these games make fast healing reliant on magic or superior-to-modern technology, you know. The designers are well aware that if they create a game with "mundane" healing that is, by any sane measure, so far beyond the threshold of our world that it seems like magic, it is going to throw some people right out of the immersive element of the game, every time.

And I think these designers might worry too much. I can see the point for a wound system like in Shadowrun or a non-ablative hit point model like Warhammer (with criticals dealing nasty to deadly injuries). But ablative hit points like in D&D?

But just to be clear on this: I say so because I think trying to use "simulation" to faciliate immersion and then give enough ways to allow people to ignore the consequences of the simulation is borderline self-deception. Maybe it falls in the "pretentious" category on that stupid-retro-pretentious scale.

"Huhu, we have the most realistic wound system ever! Let's create a few magical spells and items that effectively circumvent that wound system, so people can easily bypass having to go through 4 weeks of bed rest and rolling wound infection rolls after every combat!" Sure, you give people the option to ignore that magical healing, but you also make it difficult for people that like fast healing but don't like reliance on magic.

The designers could have easily fooled you. Using the disease track to make recovering healing surges difficult should be very easy, for example. And then just add a 1st level Ritual that allows people to recover all healing surges if cast before an extended rest. I could now go and defend their system against sandboxers that love mundane healing and discover that just one spell can ruin their fun: "Just don't use the ritual, and you'd be fine, just as you didn't use Clerics or Wands of CLW or Potions in some AD&D and D&D 3E campaigns!"

That's why I often think of the 4E design as "brutally honest".

 

[Raven Crowking]

I have done this, too, many years ago, when I hadn't figured out the CLW Wand "trick" yet, or when we didn't have a Cleric. But at some point, we decided that without magical healing, things were to tedious.

That is your experience, and your viewpoint.

It is not mine, nor do I believe that your experience in necessarily in the majority.

At what percentage does it become a corner case?

When it rarely comes up in a game, something like 1-2% at most.

How many of the 10 % you experienced for mundane healing was actually seen as "good" for the game and the game would have been missing something without it?

100%, IMHO. Obviously.

Even if you have a cleric in your party, that cleric isn't necessarily going to have the spellpower remaining by the time the party is well and truly banged up to heal everyone.

Obviously, you can design a game where a party is expected to have sufficient healing to be at (or near) full at the start of each encounter, but the closer you get to this design, IMHO, the closer you get to a game where each encounter plays out all too similarly.

There is a real benefit, IMHO, to having encounters that get handled in ways that the DM doesn't expect. Something that might have been a straight combat encounter becomes something different simply because the PC resources have changed. This is a good thing, IMHO and IME.

And having to hole up somewhere to heal can also bring major benefits to play with even a halfway decent DM. Time passes, which means that events move and the world seems more real. Having to heal makes combat seem less like the perfect Option #1 to all problems. Relying on NPCs for medical attention and/or a place to stay while resting hooks the players into the world, while giving them people that they can develop relationships with/care about.

In terms of actual game play, the whole thing need only take a few minutes of narration, or can be expanded as the details strike the players' fancy.

How much of these 10 % were actually required by the way the game rules operated, and how many because people were "conservative" with their approach to magical healing (either a DM restricting access to items, or someone playing a Cleric not wanting to cast healing spells, or a variety of other reasons).

Tough to say, because the amount of healing items the party has available relates to both sides of your question. 100% are because of the way the game rules operate. Probably 50% are related to conservation, but this number may be adjusted up or down by +/-15%, and is very guessy.

Yes, indeed, a big flaw in the 3E rules. The designers didn't understand the implications of their magical item and wealth by levels rules, particularly in this case. But the CLW Wands are not the only source of magical healing. Potions might be more expensive, but they work pretty well, too.

I am guessing that, re: damage/healing in 4e, the designers worried too little, and that a future edition will correct this "big flaw in the 4E rules".

But just to be clear on this: I say so because I think trying to use "simulation" to faciliate immersion and then give enough ways to allow people to ignore the consequences of the simulation is borderline self-deception. Maybe it falls in the "pretentious" category on that stupid-retro-pretentious scale.

Whereas, I think that simulating a world with magic should be approached by first determining how to simulate a world without magic, and then adding magic to it. In this way, both are parts of the same simulation, and what occurs within that simulation are the consequences of the simulation.

IOW, that clerics can magically cure damage is a consequence of the D&D simulation, not a means to avoid the consequences of the simulation. IMHO, of course.

I'll ignore the ad hominen attacks in the preceding and following paragraphs, and just roll on to

Sure, you give people the option to ignore that magical healing, but you also make it difficult for people that like fast healing but don't like reliance on magic.

There is no edition of D&D, prior to the 4th, that makes it at all difficult to adjust the rate of natural healing. If you had any difficulty whatsoever in changing, say, "1 hp/level, double with bedrest, double with medical attention" to, say, "5 hp/level, double with bedrest, double with medical attention" then I agree that you have a valid point here.

You would, I agree, make the CR system harder to use if you allowed the sort of healing that a CLW wand represents, but even so I am 100% certain that I, for one, could deal with such a difficulty with a minimum of fuss. If you don't find 4e that difficult to balance, I have to assume that you could too. So, again, unless I am mistaken here, I am not seeing a valid point.

Prior to now, AFAICT, D&D has never been balanced on the basis of the overnight healing rate, nor did you have to worry that increasing it was nerfing any given class. Certainly, doing so wouldn't nerf clerics, who have other spells to cast. I guess that you might want to increase paladin healing to match, but that is as easily done as said.

Sorry, but I am really, really having a hard time how any edition of D&D, from OD&D to 3.5e, made it at all difficult for people who wanted to increase the natural (mundane) healing rate.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Whereas, I think that simulating a world with magic should be approached by first determining how to simulate a world without magic, and then adding magic to it. In this way, both are parts of the same simulation, and what occurs within that simulation are the consequences of the simulation.

You're going from the world simulation, I am going from the gameplay.

I look to what those "simulation" rules create when people play the game using the rules. In a game where magical healing is available and not too difficult to attain, it will be typical for the players to use that healing instead of weaker means of healing. So, from a purely gamist perspective, those "weaker" options lose their value and brings up the question: Why do we keep it around?

The fundamental difference here is that I am just thinking of the Roleplaying Game as a game, not as a simulation, and you do it the other way around.

Sorry, but I am really, really having a hard time how any edition of D&D, from OD&D to 3.5e, made it at all difficult for people who wanted to increase the natural (mundane) healing rate.
RC

So, which edition of D&D makes it difficult to slow the natural healing rate?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're going from the world simulation, I am going from the gameplay.

I am going at this from both. However, when you make a claim that X allows one to ignore the simulation, my answer will be from that side, should I feel that X is untrue.

Moreover, if you say "Given Y, then Z loses value in a game" where Z has strong value in terms of actual play experience, the rational thing to do is to avoid Y, not to increase it.

So, which edition of D&D makes it difficult to slow the natural healing rate?

I have heard some good ideas about slowing the healing rate in 4e, but I am not at all certain that doing so will not affect class balance. It might be as easy as it is in all other editions; the jury's still out on this one.


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I have heard some good ideas about slowing the healing rate in 4e, but I am not at all certain that doing so will not affect class balance. It might be as easy as it is in all other editions; the jury's still out on this one.

One of the concerns one could have is that Defenders take more damage and might need more healing then other roles. But they also recieve more hit points and more healing surges in the first place, so I think the only thing you need to to do to keep balance is to make the healing surges recovered per day proportional to the total healing surges of a character. (Of course, that means a lot of rounding. )

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, which edition of D&D makes it difficult to slow the natural healing rate?

One of the concerns one could have is that Defenders take more damage and might need more healing then other roles. But they also recieve more hit points and more healing surges in the first place, so I think the only thing you need to to do to keep balance is to make the healing surges recovered per day proportional to the total healing surges of a character. (Of course, that means a lot of rounding. )

You answer your own question here, methinks.

Not necessarily "difficult", but certainly "more difficult".

(Your "brutally honest" is, apparently, my "hamfisted".)


RC

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You answer your own question here, methinks.

Not necessarily "difficult", but certainly "more difficult".

(Your "brutally honest" is, apparently, my "hamfisted".)


RC

Actually, it is just as in 3E. If you increase natural healing, Wizards get healed to full health faster then Fighters. Is that what you'd want? For verisimilitude? For balance? For gampeplay? "Hey, Fighters, get off your lazy ass, Mr.Wizard is already fit to blast his enemies".

Speaking of Wizards - what if I'd see spell levels recovering over night as stupid or bad for my game? How would you change the spell recovery rates?