Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4563115" data-attributes="member: 18280">That is your experience, and your viewpoint.It is not mine, nor do I believe that your experience in necessarily in the majority.When it rarely comes up in a game, something like 1-2% at most.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.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.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".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 toThere 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</blockquote>

Verification