D&D 5E Should 5E have Healing Surges?

[KarinsDad]

What is this supposed to mean? Didn't Cure Light Wounds or Regenerate cure real damage?

No, it cured fake damage according to the healing surge proponents.


They will tell you over and over again that hit points do not represent damage, no matter how many different times the word damage shows up in the rules.

 

[Tallifer]

I think a vastly superior system of:

1) Hit points represent luck, courage, fatigue, etc.

2) Wound points represent real wounds.

No healing surges needed. PCs get one Second Wind per day or per encounter to rally with.

Every 10 hit points does 1 wound point, so a 25 hit point shot does 2 wound points which makes critical hits nastier, but 4 hit point shots do 0 wound points. PCs could get into barroom brawls where they take no actual wounds because the punches and kicks are not damaging enough, they just get knocked out. Minions often don't do wound points. But, BBEGs might do quite a few.

PCs have wound points = CON.

Wound points require magic or significant rest to heal.

Hit points recover with a short rest.

Run out of hit points, the PC is unconscious. Run out of wound points, the PC is dead.

The only limit on combat with regard to wounds is the number of times that PCs can magically heal (with spell or potion or whatever) wound points. Warlords restore hit points and rally allies, they do not restore wound points. That requires magical [my edit: or medical or spiritual] healing.

Maybe even rules that an unconscious PC is dying and takes a wound point each round that s/he isn't stabilized (by a good roll himself, or by an ally helping). This adds in an element of urgency to dying PCs that doesn't occur in 4E.

To me, such a system would be the better of 3E and 4E. PCs could still Second Wind, Warlords could still rally PCs, healing is still magical, if a group doesn't have a healer, they'd better get themselves some potions or even a healer henchmen to help out, etc. Throw in some rules for more ways to mitigate damage and the game is set. Damage resistance becomes a very favorable ability. Temporary hit points, not as much.

No player entitlement to self heal (which is an ease of game gamest concept, not a narrative one).

And, the terminology could be different. Hit points are real wounds damage. Stun points (or some such) represent getting knocked out, but I don't really see the need.

I normally gloss over your posts since I am a staunch defender of the Fourth Edition in all its glory (including warlords and healing surges and an accurate recreation of epic literature and action movies), but I really and truly like the system which you have proposed here. I hope that one of the "modules" in the Fifth Edition describe a system of wounds similar to this.

 

[KarinsDad]

I normally gloss over your posts since I am a staunch defender of the Fourth Edition in all its glory (including warlords and healing surges and an accurate recreation of epic literature and action movies), but I really and truly like the system which you have proposed here. I hope that one of the "modules" in the Fifth Edition describe a system of wounds similar to this.

Thanks.

I think the only way to get a larger 5E base of players (and hence support for some third party vendors as well) is for people from many different D&D spin off systems to compromise. This can only be done if better mechanics are put into place. Healing surges supported a good concept, I just think the implementation was lacking.

 

[harlokin]

What is this supposed to mean? Didn't Cure Light Wounds or Regenerate cure real damage?

No. It recovered Hit Points, which are an abstract life force measure used in DnD.

Real damage is what you take in real life.

I am not saying this to be an asshat, what I am pointing out is that is hard for someone to argue that they want realistic damage mechanics, but they want magic to be able to 'make it all better'.

 

[Naszir]

Ok, I'll explain this yet again for the 100th time.

No, earlier versions of hit points were not JUST the ability to withstand physical punishment. They included the ability to turn greater blows into lesser blows, a little bit of luck, etc.

But a PC that had 3 hit points left out of 100 was SERIOUSLY damaged. 3 more and that PC was dead for the first quarter century of rules. 3 more and that PC was dying in the 3E rules.

First I'll agree that Hit Points represent a mix of an ability to take physical punishment, skill at avoiding a potentially deadly shot, luck etc.

Second, you haven't explained it to me for the 100th time so don't act like you have.

Third, I haven't seen where, in any edition the exact percentage breakdown of what is physical and skill and luck. Where do you get a "little bit of luck"?

A PC with 3 hit points out of 100 is SERIOUSLY damaged in what way? The only thing we know is that he has 3 hit points. His movement isn't hampered. His sight isn't blurry. His not wobbly. You might expect this from a SERIOUSLY damaged PC but you don't get it.

In 4E, a PC that has 3 hit points left out of 100 is SERIOUSLY inconvenienced. If he takes 3 more, he has a (typically) slimmer chance of dying than in 3E, especially if he gets attack while unconscious. 4E PCs can sometimes survive that. Any other PC can come over and stabilize him and even get him conscious without healing of any sort (and yes, we've heard the Heal skill argument that the PC is being healed, but come on). Warlords can shout him awake.

So no, the earlier versions weren't just a supernatural way to take physical punishment, but they did include a semblance of physical damage.

4E doesn't. It's a "protect the PCs at all costs" system, not a system where PCs can typically die if they get hit a lot (with the somewhat rare TPK situation or a few downed PCs while the rest of the PCs run situation). Another reason that PCs do not take real physical damage in 4E is that after the battle, a short rest and they can be totally healed up without any sort of magic at all. It's the equivalent of self regeneration or self heal.


Do you understand now???

Earlier versions included a feeling of actual damage. 4E doesn't unless the PC dies.

This is probably one of the reasons some people fled 4E and why the poll here has over half of the participants wanting to get rid of healing surges. Many people want some semblance of real physical damage added back to the system.

Ok, time to stop being condesending. To me it seemed that healing surges were just an extension of hit points. Once characters used up their healing surges they were now on the same level as previous versions of D&D. The fact is that monsters deal out a lot more damage in 4th than in previous editions.

Were healing surges implemented perfectly? No but they were an attempt to take a different look at hit points and how they interact with the game.

I read somewhere that Arneson is the one who came up with hit points. Search out what he had to say about them.

 

[Naszir]

Since when is every combat in a fantasy world going to allow a second wind? And even so, It's not the point that the tactic was possibly avoidable, only that the historical record shows it was feared and effective on the field. It's strategy is all offense, allow them no defense. D&D came from a game that attempted to mimic real life medieval warfare and had rules for Japanese armies. You see a great need to rip out that background? Nobody told you this art was always unblockable, but we do know for a fact that bodies found had the back of their own swords embedded in their skulls. They had tried to block the famous strike of this art.

I see what you are saying but the fact is that D&D is not a game that is attempting to mimic real medieval warfare. It developed from it but it is no longer that game.

Second wind makes sense as part of a heroic game because that is what it is.

 

[Tallifer]

I see what you are saying but the fact is that D&D is not a game that is attempting to mimic real medieval warfare. It developed from it but it is no longer that game.

Second wind makes sense as part of a heroic game because that is what it is.

Quoted for its absolute truth. D&D recreates movies, epic poems and pulp fantasy.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how gamers can attack healing surges and warlords as unrealistic, because D&D has always been considered childish and unrealistic by the players of all the other systems out there. I remember the early 1980s when I was actually embarrassed to play D&D: I usually played Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, Harn, Rolemaster and other more experimental systems with their wounds and maiming and horrible deaths. Turn-based combat itself is ridiculous if one is trying to recreate mediaeval warfare. Now I am much older and just enjoy a good story.

 

[Izumi]

Quoted for its absolute truth. D&D recreates movies, epic poems and pulp fantasy.

For the life of me, I cannot fathom how gamers can attack healing surges and warlords as unrealistic, because D&D has always been considered childish and unrealistic by the players of all the other systems out there. I remember the early 1980s when I was actually embarrassed to play D&D: I usually played Runequest, Call of Cthulhu, Harn, Rolemaster and other more experimental systems with their wounds and maiming and horrible deaths. Turn-based combat itself is ridiculous if one is trying to recreate mediaeval warfare. Now I am much older and just enjoy a good story.

You are both right, of course. Some of us like a little more verisimilitude than others, but it's kinda silly to argue over which unrealistic abstraction is more unrealistic.

 

[MoxieFu]

You are both right, of course. Some of us like a little more verisimilitude than others, but it's kinda silly to argue over which unrealistic abstraction is more unrealistic.

This whole thread is reminding me of King Arthur's encounter with the Black Knight.

"Look, your arm's off"

"No it isn't"

"Tis a flesh wound"

"I'M INVINCIBLE!"

"You're a Looney"

 

[KarinsDad]

Second, you haven't explained it to me for the 100th time so don't act like you have.

I didn't say that I was explaining it to you the 100th time. I said that I was explaining it for the 100th time.

Talking about this subject to some people here on the boards is like talking to a child that's running around with their fingers in their ears shouting "LA LA LA LA".

Mod Note: Please see my post below. ~Umbran

People are purposely obtuse when it comes to a rational discussion on 4E on some subjects. I'm not saying that you are being purposely obtuse, but the fact remains is that you are bring up minutia and you sound like you are being purposely obtuse with responses like yours here.

Third, I haven't seen where, in any edition the exact percentage breakdown of what is physical and skill and luck. Where do you get a "little bit of luck"?

Case in point of minutia. This has no bearing on the conversation, but you seem to be bringing this lack of percentage breakdown definition up as if it actually means something.

This is what I consider a typical logical fallacy. One concept isn't defined, hence, a different concept cannot exist.

A PC with 3 hit points out of 100 is SERIOUSLY damaged in what way? The only thing we know is that he has 3 hit points. His movement isn't hampered. His sight isn't blurry. His not wobbly. You might expect this from a SERIOUSLY damaged PC but you don't get it.

This is yet another of the "well, he isn't damaged" arguments that don't make sense. These are self defeating. Because we do not have rules of impairment doesn't mean that a child with a dagger couldn't kill such a PC in earlier editions.

I'm not quite sure if you can understand my POV on this, but your paragraph here does seem like you are just blowing smoke.

People take the "hit points are an abstraction" argument to absurd levels of semantics and illogical conclusions.

Sorry, but in earlier versions of the game, there WAS a feeling that a PC was seriously damaged if a cat could come along and kill that PC in a round. Absurd "hit points are an abstraction" arguments to the contrary, 4E feels like monsters are pussies, or alternatively, 4E feels like PCs are 4 color comic superheroes where after a building is dropped on them in one panel, they brush it off in the next.

No amount of off the wall "abstraction" arguments change the concept of how many people perceive these healing mechanics. They aren't healing at all (because there is no 4E damage). They are catching one's breath.

Ok, time to stop being condesending.

Not trying to be that way, but it does get frustrating when people appear to purposely go out of their way to come up with the most inane arguments and are not even willing to attempt to comprehend what is actually written.


To me, damage is damage. Taking hit points is taking SOME MEASURE of damage in earlier versions. Since PCs can self heal all of the way up by themselves in a few minutes, 4E damage does not seem like damage in any way, shape or form. It seems exactly like STUN in the Champions game system.

This is a lack of real damage perception issue for players based on the implementation of the rules. Sorry, but you won't change people's perception with an argument that percentages of damage were never defined, or PCs are not wobbly, hence, they are not damaged. Those are illogical arguments. IMO.


From my perspective, 4E is the kinder, gentler, wussier version of D&D combat. It's all good. Nobody really gets hurt.