D&D 5E Second Wind: Yes or No?

[I'm A Banana]

But everyone has at least *two* ways to access their own inner reserves (Second Wind and Short Rests). Whatever else Billy can do for you, he's adding onto those two options.

Sure! My only quibble was with the idea that all healing requires surges to use, and specifically surges that you must, to a certain degree, rely on others to activate.

I feel like I'm bringing this up a lot, recently, but I think the 4e Skald gets that sensation pretty right.

What you posted about "a little psychological trick with agency, autonomy, and the sense of control" is actually the problem with the DDN Hit Dice model, where all your in-combat healing eggs are in the cleric's basket.

Not the cleric's basket, the basket of the guy with the Healer's Kit. Either way, though, I agree with defensive abilities like healing being locked away in one character to be a problem, but I think defensive abilities are also broader than HD or surges. Those can be useful mechanics, but they're not essential or unique. And in the case of "Someone else lets you spend a surge," there's weirdness there.

In the case of Inspiring Word, the answer to your question is stated in the name of the power. I take the answer to be implicit in the other comparable powers - Healing Word, Majestic Word, Word of Vigour, Battle Cry - the PC who does he healing is speaking the word that inspires and reinvigorates his/her allies. Like Gandalf's speech to Pippin in the film version of RotK.

But you see the disconnect, there. It's not within my control when to spend my resources. It is like "I have 100 gp, but I cannot spend them unless the party rogue allows me to." That's a pretty clear contradiction of the concept of ownership over your own character.

If you've got an alternative mechanic for inspiration that fits within the basic D&D framework, by all means share it! I don't think it's unreasonable that the mechanical agency for inspiration should be with the inspirer rather than the inspired: the subject of the verb rather than the object. Just as with attacking - you don't get to roll dice to parry either.

I'm reluctant, mostly because conversations about this generally seem to result in someone with a specific idea of what such a mechanic should look like resisting the alternatives. If one sees no problem in Mechanic X, one is not interested in a fix for those that do have a problem with that mechanic (and I'm not particularly interested in trying to offer fixes for people who don't need 'em!).

An RPGer raised on Runequest would expect to make a parry roll. D&D players don't. I think it's reasonable for the game to make a call on who gets to act - it's hardly outside the bounds of reasonableness.

The call of who gets to act runs pretty deep into the brain, though. Deciding to act is how we control our characters. Changing who makes that decision changes the control scheme.

Or, contra @pemerton , don't flavor divine healing magic as inspiration. Maybe it does close lacerations and remove bruises and other aches, but is also quite tiring. Like Aes Sedai healing in the Wheel of Time.

Maybe, and that certainly works as an explanation for why a person can't be healed over and over again. But it's also key, I think, for D&D in particular to meet the already-existing expectations of its audience, and that doesn't necessarily include the idea that healing is exhausting for anyone (except perhaps the healer).

It would work well if we had actual wounds, distinct from HP. So second wind could recover vigor, but not skin.

Why don't we go the other way, and have fate/morale/plot protection/vigor as distinct from HP, so that a second wind could recover vigor, but not skin?

Though I've gotta say, I'd personally use the smack out of any kind of second wind rule, 'cuz I love me some dramatic resurgence. I might tie it to a death flag or a daily ability, or a character motive moment or something, though, so that it becomes DRAMATIC.

 

[TwoSix]

Outrageous!

I admittedly felt weird just typing it.

 

[Manbearcat]

And in the case of "Someone else lets you spend a surge," there's weirdness there.

But you see the disconnect, there. It's not within my control when to spend my resources. It is like "I have 100 gp, but I cannot spend them unless the party rogue allows me to." That's a pretty clear contradiction of the concept of ownership over your own character.

Just want to take a look at these and confirm that these don't have "weirdness". When they do not, could you explain how these are not abstractly "someone else letting you spend a surge" etc. I'm sure you have some sound thoughts on this, but they escape me.

- Tennis player starts limping. Trainer comes out during a tennis match changeover. Trainer tapes player's ankle, thigh or knee. Tennis player plays on.

- You have strep throat/sinus infection. You go to the doctor. Doctor prescribes antibiotics. You take and get better in a few days.

- You have a 100 % ruptured achilles tendon and cannot walk. Orthopedic surgeon repairs the torn pieces and reattaches them. Only 20 years, this injury was life impairing. Now you're walking in a boot for 6-12 weeks and have total recovery in 6 months.

- You have horrible muscle spasms in your back and breathing or twisting is agony. You go to a massage therapist and they massage out the spasm and give you a muscle relaxer and you're good to go.

- Tons of cases of placebo effect from muscle relaxers, to blood pressure medicine to non-alcoholic beer to mommy kissing a booboo and making it all better.

- No one, certainly not his teammates, thought Willis Reed would play game 7 of the 1970 NBA finals. While the teams were warming up, Reed, by far the best player on an outgunned Knicks team playing against a Lakers dynasty, hobbles onto the court after fully tearing a thigh muscle in game 6. He only scores the opening 2 points in the game but those short minutes were enough: "I saw the whole Laker team standing around staring at this man," said Knicks guard Walt Frazier. "When I saw that, when they stopped warming up, something told me we might have these guys!"

Are those not cases of someone else unlocking your surges?

 

[pemerton]

And in the case of "Someone else lets you spend a surge," there's weirdness there.

<snip>

It's not within my control when to spend my resources. It is like "I have 100 gp, but I cannot spend them unless the party rogue allows me to." That's a pretty clear contradiction of the concept of ownership over your own character.

The money analogy is an odd one, because traditionally in D&D I can't spend my money unless the GM (or if I'm buying something from another PC, the player of that PC) allows me to.

The call of who gets to act runs pretty deep into the brain, though.

I doubt that there's a Chomsky-level truth about whether RPGers prefer active or passive defences.

Undoubtedly relying on a fellow PC to unlock your surges creates a sense of dependence on them - but I take that to be the point - the relevant fiction is that, but for them, you would fail, but their inspiration spurs you on.

I know you like the skald, but personally I don't really get it - I especially don't have a strong sense of how A's rousing chant permits me to recover, but only if I [minor action] myself; nor how A's rousing chant permits B to help me, but only if B [minor actions] me. I'm also not sure what the verb is that belongs in place of [minor action] in those sentences.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Just want to take a look at these and confirm that these don't have "weirdness". When they do not, could you explain how these are not abstractly "someone else letting you spend a surge" etc. I'm sure you have some sound thoughts on this, but they escape me.

Most of these I wouldn't use the "surge" model for. The trainer, the antibiotics, the surgeon, the massage thearpist, all of these I'd describe as another character performing an action on the suffering character, and, as part of that other character's action, the suffering character gets better. Agency-wise, the traits of these people and objects "make you better." Even the placebo effect works like this, agency-wise. When mommy kisses a booboo, it is mommy's kiss that heals you (which is why daddy's kiss doesn't work). It is not your own internal chutzpah.

Now, Reed is a slightly different story, since there isn't an outside action. But there's a lot of mechanics that can represent that, too, surges or no. Possibly an "ignore this condition until the end of your next turn" or something. Heck, personally, I think that's the kind of effect I want from my barbarian's rage: the dude's just so dang tough, he pushes on through the pain. I'm not so sure I want my fragile wizards and fading elves to do that, but my doughty halflings and my tough-as-nails warriors, sure!

The money analogy is an odd one, because traditionally in D&D I can't spend my money unless the GM (or if I'm buying something from another PC, the player of that PC) allows me to.

Sure, but the GM has explicit control over all aspects of the game. Other players are generally understood to control their characters, and by and large only their characters.

I doubt that there's a Chomsky-level truth about whether RPGers prefer active or passive defences.

Undoubtedly relying on a fellow PC to unlock your surges creates a sense of dependence on them - but I take that to be the point - the relevant fiction is that, but for them, you would fail, but their inspiration spurs you on.

I know you like the skald, but personally I don't really get it - I especially don't have a strong sense of how A's rousing chant permits me to recover, but only if I [minor action] myself; nor how A's rousing chant permits B to help me, but only if B [minor actions] me. I'm also not sure what the verb is that belongs in place of [minor action] in those sentences.

I don't think it's about an absolute preference, I think it's about how the thing feels and flows and what people expect or want out of that. It's just a choice. Like you say, the idea with someone else spending your surges for you is that you depend on that person to spur yourself on, but the consequence of that is then you have a resource that is not really yours and get your character "played by" another player at the table. Which can be fine, but isn't necessarily. Which is why I pointed it out as one of the problems with the system, IMO. It breaks the idea that I control my character's abilities. Which, if you're into immersion, ain't really the best start.

For the verb, try "heal." Or the phrasing, "but only if I bind my wounds...or only if B binds my wounds." The skald's aura allows that to happen faster and more effectively (and it's not a perfect solution, either, it just better acknowledges that my surges aren't part of the healer's character, they're part of my character).

 

[Klaus]

When mommy kisses a booboo, it is mommy's kiss that heals you (which is why daddy's kiss doesn't work). It is not your own internal chutzpah.

Er... Unless mommy's kiss has painkiller and antiseptic functions, it *is* your own internal chutzpah that makes the pain go away. Mommy is just letting you spend your healing surge/hit dice.

 

[Manbearcat]

Er... Unless mommy's kiss has painkiller and antiseptic functions, it *is* your own internal chutzpah that makes the pain go away. Mommy is just letting you spend your healing surge/hit dice.

@Kamikaze Midget

See Klaus's response to that. Further, the antibiotics, the muscle relaxer's, the massage and the surgery don't do it by themselves. If these were all applied to a corpse that had no internal processes that facilitated cellular and soft tissue healing, then nothing would occur. The reason that all of these procedures work is because they "jumpstart" your own internal processes to enable faster or more correct healing or allow you to push on past your limits. They trigger your healing surges.

Regarding Reed, the external force is the existence of his responsibility to his teammates and their despair at losing him, specifically against a force such as that Lakers team. Without those teammates there would be no responsibility to them nor would their be any despair to assuage. Without those Lakers there would be no implacable obstacle to overcome. They triggered Willis's healing surges!

 

[Klaus]

@Kamikaze Midget

See Klaus's response to that. Further, the antibiotics, the muscle relaxer's, the massage and the surgery don't do it by themselves. If these were all applied to a corpse that had no internal processes that facilitated cellular and soft tissue healing, then nothing would occur. The reason that all of these procedures work is because they "jumpstart" your own internal processes to enable faster or more correct healing or allow you to push on past your limits. They trigger your healing surges.

Regarding Reed, the external force is the existence of his responsibility to his teammates and their despair at losing him, specifically against a force such as that Lakers team. Without those teammates there would be no responsibility to them nor would their be any despair to assuage. Without those Lakers there would be no implacable obstacle to overcome. They triggered Willis's healing surges!

IMHO, that's an example of Reed using his Second Wind. Responsibility to his team, his companions' despair, the challenge of the Lakers, those are all great dramatic reasons for a heroic comeback (aka Second Wind). Now, if the coach came to him and delivered one hell of a pep talk, then I'd say the coach triggered his Second Wind.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Er... Unless mommy's kiss has painkiller and antiseptic functions, it *is* your own internal chutzpah that makes the pain go away. Mommy is just letting you spend your healing surge/hit dice.

See Klaus's response to that. Further, the antibiotics, the muscle relaxer's, the massage and the surgery don't do it by themselves. If these were all applied to a corpse that had no internal processes that facilitated cellular and soft tissue healing, then nothing would occur. The reason that all of these procedures work is because they "jumpstart" your own internal processes to enable faster or more correct healing or allow you to push on past your limits. They trigger your healing surges.

That's not how it works in your mind, though. Placebo effects rely on external phenomena. Biologically, it's nothing external, psychologically, it's entirely external. And I think we'd all agree that a fantasy RPG that tries to accurately model biology at the expense of how we actually think and talk about these things as human beings with magical thinking and narrative instincts is aiming for the wrong goals.

The agency is mom's. The agency is the sugar pills', or the snake oil's, or that of the deity you pray to or the medicine man who makes you drink the hallucinogen or the spirits that surround you.

Regarding Reed, the external force is the existence of his responsibility to his teammates and their despair at losing him, specifically against a force such as that Lakers team. Without those teammates there would be no responsibility to them nor would their be any despair to assuage. Without those Lakers there would be no implacable obstacle to overcome. They triggered Willis's healing surges!

Again, I'm not trying to convince someone away from what works for them. I'm just trying to describe why this is really problematic for a big chunk of players. You can say the team triggered Willis's healing surges, but you can also say that Willis entered "rage" and powered through just long enough to give the rest of the team some hope. One isn't more correct than the other, but one comports with how human beings generally conceive of agency, and the other conflicts with it. The degree to which that conflict is a problem is going to depend on the individual and their own goals (such as how deeply they want to be immersive).

 

[Manbearcat]

IMHO, that's an example of Reed using his Second Wind. Responsibility to his team, his companions' despair, the challenge of the Lakers, those are all great dramatic reasons for a heroic comeback (aka Second Wind). Now, if the coach came to him and delivered one hell of a pep talk, then I'd say the coach triggered his Second Wind.

Again, I'm not trying to convince someone away from what works for them. I'm just trying to describe why this is really problematic for a big chunk of players. You can say the team triggered Willis's healing surges, but you can also say that Willis entered "rage" and powered through just long enough to give the rest of the team some hope. One isn't more correct than the other, but one comports with how human beings generally conceive of agency, and the other conflicts with it. The degree to which that conflict is a problem is going to depend on the individual and their own goals (such as how deeply they want to be immersive).

Fair enough on both of these. I can absolutely see Second Wind or Rage here too. There is a locus of control, chicken and the egg issue at the root of this that is likely not solvable...and I agree with you KM, that its unlikely that we want our D&D to enter that tangled web. I think both narrative renderings are entirely applicable and I hope that friendliness toward it is a design aim of 5e. "Martial forced movement" is our other "hot potato" that draws the same battle lines.