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

[Izumi]

Anyone trying to tell anyone else what they should prefer is silly. So I certainly agree with that.

But this point has over and over been presented in the reverse. It does not work that way.

I agree with you, and I think I need to make my posts more clear from now on to my positions.

 

[KarinsDad]

The point is your definition of "verisimilitude" is bunk. It's a snobbish word telling other people they're goofy freaks who like weird stuff based on its relation to your own preferences.

...

Like what you like, play what you want but get over the idea that "realism" has much of anything to do with the game because it's a self lie. I was there at one point myself and I now laugh that I ever thought that way.

Realism (or verisimilitude or plausibility) has a lot to do with the game FOR HIM and for many other players.

Just because it's not your thing doesn't mean that it isn't important for many other players and something for the game designers to put considerable thought into.

I consider the more recent trend to avoid verisimilitude in game mechanics to be snobbish.

4E went way overboard in that direction for many players and it's one reason (out of many) that some players jumped ship to Pathfinder and other game systems.

Self healing, Daily powers for non-casters, non-magical healing, shouting PCs conscious. All of these break some people's verisimilitude and you considering the word to be snobbish doesn't change that fact.

 

[Guest 85555]

The point is your definition of "verisimilitude" is bunk. It's a snobbish word telling other people they're goofy freaks who like weird stuff based on its relation to your own preferences. This is a fantasy game of dragons and wizards. Trying to say "my game is more realistic than yours", especially based on an abstract damage mechanic, is ridculous when the very foundation of the game is steeped in pure fantasy and myth. Adding bits of actual (or at least what any of of us thinks is actual) doesn't change that, it just adds flavor we may want.

Like what you like, play what you want but get over the idea that "realism" has much of anything to do with the game because it's a self lie. I was there at one point myself and I now laugh that I ever thought that way.

I agree people shouldn't say their style is better or more realistic than others, but I also think your post sort of does the same thing by dismissing realism as a valid preference. Believability is very important to me in RPGs, particularly because there are so many fantasic elements. Anything that disrupts my suspension of disbelief is problematic. And I have been gaming for twenty five years, so I dont think it is a phase. Broadly speaking there are lots of D&D players who didn't like 4E due to believability issues. That doesn't mean you and others have to see those problems in 4E, but for us they were genuine.

 

[Herschel]

No, it's the snobbish use that makes it snobbish. Things can "break verisimilitude" for a person but that doesn't make that element a "verisimilitude breaker" in the game. It affected ONE person. Other things will have an effect on different people the same way. Everyone has different ideas and goals and trying to attach a nice-sopunding word to it doesn't change the fact it's bunk to try and claim one's way is 'more realistic".

 

[Herschel]

I agree people shouldn't say their style is better or more realistic than others, but I also think your post sort of does the same thing by dismissing realism as a valid preference. Believability is very important to me in RPGs, particularly because there are so many fantasic elements. Anything that disrupts my suspension of disbelief is problematic. And I have been gaming for twenty five years, so I dont think it is a phase. Broadly speaking there are lots of D&D players who didn't like 4E due to believability issues. That doesn't mean you and others have to see those problems in 4E, but for us they were genuine.

And the key is "for you". Your suspension of disbelief does not equate equally to others, nor does mine. I used to be in the "realsim" camp, but then I sat down with friends and we actually chatted about everything and realized it's all prespective not objective. I always though Clerical healing was kind of dumb when Wizards didn't heal also if it's all going to be based on "magic". Arcane energy can re-write history and change the cosmos yet you can't seal an axe cut with it?

 

[BryonD]

No, it's the snobbish use that makes it snobbish. Things can "break verisimilitude" for a person but that doesn't make that element a "verisimilitude breaker" in the game. It affected ONE person. Other things will have an effect on different people the same way. Everyone has different ideas and goals and trying to attach a nice-sopunding word to it doesn't change the fact it's bunk to try and claim one's way is 'more realistic".

I strongly agree with this.


But I also can't help but be a bit amused at seeing how quickly the shoe has moved to the other foot and tunes have changed.

I was told over and over by 4E fans that not embracing the 4E approach was just fear of change and closed mindedness. I was told that everything 3E offered 4E offered only "more modern" "easier" and all around better. You were either on board with the one true paragon of RPG progress or you were a heathen edition warmonger.

Now, suddenly, with 4E on equal footing with 3E (at best) it seems that acceptance of a wide range of preferences and being willing to reject a valid option in favor of another option you prefer is all the rage.

Welcome to the club!!!!

 

[BryonD]

Arcane energy can re-write history and change the cosmos yet you can't seal an axe cut with it?

There are dozens of ways you can talk me into arcane magic healing. I am very happy with the divine / arcane divide as a D&D convention. But there is no reason to get hung up on it either.

Fighters alone in the woods and going back to full health overnight is an entirely different matter.

You could establish a specific setting in which this makes sense and you won't get the slightest complaint from me. But make that the default expectation of modeling high fantasy fiction and you've just crashed and burned.

 

[KarinsDad]

I always though Clerical healing was kind of dumb when Wizards didn't heal also if it's all going to be based on "magic". Arcane energy can re-write history and change the cosmos yet you can't seal an axe cut with it?

I view certain types of magic to change reality so much that mere Wizards cannot do it. Clerics cannot do it either. The Cleric's Deity does it. Only the gods have this level of reality changing ability.


What do Wizard really do? Summon some creatures. Throw some fire around. Teleport. Go invisible. Wizards are, for the most part, charlatans when compared to the Gods. Illusion, opening up portals to areas of fire or lightning, moving energy or objects from one spot to another. They can be viewed mostly as transportation specialists, creating energy and effects where they do not currently occur.

These effects can be powerful, but they are not anywhere near the level of complexity and control of magic that healing a wound in real time should conceivably be. I think the reason Clerics have deities in the first place is because Gary envisioned healing to be something that mere mortals could not do, but Gary needed healing in his game system.


Granted, everything I wrote here is a rationalization of how I view magic and my view is based on 3.5 decades of playing D&D and similar games.

But, I do think there are some (mostly) "sacred cows" in D&D that do not need slaughtering either. Just because someone can think of an idea doesn't make it a good idea, nor does it mean that the game designers should seriously consider it.

I think self healing in 4E was extremely irrational from an in character perspective, but makes sense from a "keep the game flowing" out of character perspective. It's effectively taking one of the most powerful magics in the game system and handing it to everyone for free.

 

[Izumi]

I think self healing in 4E was extremely irrational from an in character perspective, but makes sense from a "keep the game flowing" out of character perspective. It's effectively taking one of the most powerful magics in the game system and handing it to everyone for free.

They would argue that it's deep reserves the character has inside, and their character knows when to give that extra bit of effort. (Since hp is an abstraction of more than just actual wounds.)

I say it completely breaks the game from a realism point of view, but they argue the game is already unrealistic and thus their mechanic is justified on that basis.

 

[Hassassin]

Since hit points are NOT all physical damage I've never seen this as terribly verisimilitude breaking.

This thing keeps popping up, so I'll do my best to explain why *I* consider this to not be a very good argument.

A character takes a hit, loses 25% of their hit points. I narrate him as taking a painful stab to his shoulder, because I figure a fourth of his hit points is quite serious. Next round, the character uses his Second Wind. All hit points are restored. Apparently the wound ceased to exist, despite no healing taking place.

I trust you see how I can feel that non-healing hp restoration makes it seem like instead of *some* hit points being non-physical, no hit points can be narrated as representing physical damage. Any hp loss may *after the fact* turn out to have just been exhaustion or loss of luck or whatever.