D&D 5E Should 5E have Healing Surges?

Would you like to see Healing Surges in the next edition of D&D?


  • Poll closed .
and we are talking about 5E which is defined as an attempt to reunite the D&D fan base.

I'm self-selecting by the same criteria that WotC has advertised their target market for this game.

That is a good approach.




Reality doesn't have your back here.

Yes, there are X number of players out there that exactly fit your description. But if X was a big enough number to keep WotC happy, then we would not be discussing 5E in 2012.

I *KNOW* WotC wants YOU as a fan of 5E. They are going to try very hard to make you and me both happy. That is a good thing. But don't overplay your hand on the popularity of 4E (and even moreso the sub niche of 4E fans who DID happily play 3E, and as 4E fans used to gleefully point out, is a big chunck). The dirty secret is that if WotC could guarantee that they would get back as big a fan base as they had for 3E but doing it would cost them every new fan 4E brought in, then they would do it.

I also certainly agree with you that there is a serious risk of continued or even further split fanbase. I'll still be impressed if they can find a way to avoid it. The 4E fan base has been very specifically catered to, at the expense of everyone else. A chunk of that fan base is not going to respond well to being just part of the crowd again.
I'm not saying we won't go on to see more or worse split fan base.

But I am saying that overrating the 4E appeal will make it WORSE.


And doing the things that CREATED the split certainly won't be the way to fix it.

I think it is dangerous to make any assumptions about who is or isn't the "more valuable" part of the fan base. It is not at all clear to me that there's some great reservoir of pre-4e fans that will just magically carry the game forward.

In fact I think the evidence is entirely against that. If it were true then WotC would have felt no pressure to make significant changes to the game. The truth is that pre-4e D&D wasn't a viable enough business proposition for Hasbro. That's entirely clear from statements made by WotC employees themselves. They were seeing a customer base that was yearly shrinking by increments and wasn't onboarding new players as fast as it was losing old ones. There were other format issues as well, complexity issues, etc.

It isn't really an issue of "overrating 4e appeal", it is simply this. Either 5e grabs every darned fan there is out there, ALL OF THEM, or it crashes and burns and that's the end of the story. You cannot go there without me and I cannot go there without you. So we need to get right the heck off of that line of thinking, and I assure you that anyone over at WotC that thinks that way, is going to be OFF the team before the thought can be more than half out of their mouth because to think that way is to think failure.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Why are you assuming that all cleric healing is closing wounds? Cannot the power of the god infuse someone with more will to fight, some extra luck, etc? I don't think that's far fetched.

Likewise I think the assumption that a guy with a minor wound or two cannot be as durable and effective as one who has none isn't necessarily absolute either. With enough inspiration people can do a lot of things. Just because the fighter got wounded doesn't mean that wound MUST be closed up to make him equally effective again for a period of time.

There's plenty of room to consider what level of refreshes are possible, etc. I'd be concerned though if only clerics could really give a PC some way to get back into shape to go on beyond the current fight. People have proposed using THP for 'inspiration', but what happens afterwards? If you don't have those bandoleers of potions or Mr Cleric then it isn't going to work, and that was exactly what a lot of us were tired of. Maybe something can be worked out, but I don't know.

Because a majority of the powers talk about closing and mending wounds in their descriptions.
 

Why are you assuming that all cleric healing is closing wounds? Cannot the power of the god infuse someone with more will to fight, some extra luck, etc? I don't think that's far fetched.
I completely agree with you there.

I'm perfectly ok with HP being part luck. And I'm very ok with the concept of healing spells including restoration of "heroic luck".

The problem though comes in when "healing" and "surges" both do the same thing. It is OK for them to both restore luck. But if the cleric can close a real wound, then so can the fighter alone in the woods. You either only describe "luck" damage, which is bad or you permit fighters to do true healing by thinking about it, which is bad.
 

I completely agree with you there.

I'm perfectly ok with HP being part luck. And I'm very ok with the concept of healing spells including restoration of "heroic luck".

The problem though comes in when "healing" and "surges" both do the same thing. It is OK for them to both restore luck. But if the cleric can close a real wound, then so can the fighter alone in the woods. You either only describe "luck" damage, which is bad or you permit fighters to do true healing by thinking about it, which is bad.

I have no problem with the first part of what Abdul said but that's not really how healing powers from the cleric are described and like you said about all the healing being the same mechanically.
 

In fact I think the evidence is entirely against that. If it were true then WotC would have felt no pressure to make significant changes to the game. The truth is that pre-4e D&D wasn't a viable enough business proposition for Hasbro. That's entirely clear from statements made by WotC employees themselves. They were seeing a customer base that was yearly shrinking by increments and wasn't onboarding new players as fast as it was losing old ones. There were other format issues as well, complexity issues, etc.

.

I agree with most of what your said elsewhere in this post, but on this point here I think your assumptions may be incorrect. First, by any measure 3E was a big success, helping to usher in the d20 boom and growing the hobby more than it had been in at least ten, but more likely twenty years. I dont think the issue was fewer people playing, but fewer people buying their books. And this wasn't a problem with the core product. The problem was their business model built around splat books and churning out new editions every few years. Their expectations were also simply unrealistic. The hobby is a niche market. Sure it can grow here and there, but in all liklihood you arent going to grab video gamers, card gamers, board gamers by altering the mechanics. 4E basically proves this point, it was the one edition designed with more mass appeal in mind, yet it failed to grow the hobby.
 

I think it is dangerous to make any assumptions about who is or isn't the "more valuable" part of the fan base. It is not at all clear to me that there's some great reservoir of pre-4e fans that will just magically carry the game forward.
Again, I agree with you.

As I said WotC is taking a real risk here.

But if they were going with your logic then why change, just double down on your 4E fan base.

In fact I think the evidence is entirely against that. If it were true then WotC would have felt no pressure to make significant changes to the game. The truth is that pre-4e D&D wasn't a viable enough business proposition for Hasbro. That's entirely clear from statements made by WotC employees themselves. They were seeing a customer base that was yearly shrinking by increments and wasn't onboarding new players as fast as it was losing old ones. There were other format issues as well, complexity issues, etc.
I don't think this is a good assessment.

They had a HUGE fan base. And 3E ran its life cycle. It makes sense. When 4E was announced I was completely on board because I thought it was time to move forward. But you can't judge a game by its popularity at the end of the cycle. The 3E/D20 era has repeatedly been called the second Golden Age and was criticized for glut and pushing out innovation in other games. It was hugely popular for quite a few years.

4E was on shelves in June 2008. Fans were crowing about it being a New York Times Bestseller. According to recent WotC statements they decided to start work on 5E in "late 2010". So in 18 MONTHS (at most) WotC threw in the towel internally. And it was easy to see along the way, but it is far easier to see now with 20/20 hindsight that they were desperately trying to "fix" the game and salvage their fan base for quite some time. In 18 months they had time to go from bestseller to realizing they had a problem, thinking of an developing solutions to try, publishing the solutions, looking for the results of that change, and then realizing they needed to go new edition.

You are comparing a game at the end of its life cycle to a game that, frankly, never had a life cycle.


It isn't really an issue of "overrating 4e appeal", it is simply this. Either 5e grabs every darned fan there is out there, ALL OF THEM, or it crashes and burns and that's the end of the story. You cannot go there without me and I cannot go there without you. So we need to get right the heck off of that line of thinking, and I assure you that anyone over at WotC that thinks that way, is going to be OFF the team before the thought can be more than half out of their mouth because to think that way is to think failure.
Nope. That isn't true.

I do agree that the designers should be thinking "EVERY FAN". They should have a positive attitude and an aggressive approach. But from a real business point of view, getting back to being the icon of RPGs will be more than viable and is a realistic goal.

Anyone on the design team that doesn't want "EVERY FAN" should be off the team.
Anyone on the design team who has not learned the lessons of the past few years should also be off the team.
 

I agree with most of what your said elsewhere in this post, but on this point here I think your assumptions may be incorrect. First, by any measure 3E was a big success, helping to usher in the d20 boom and growing the hobby more than it had been in at least ten, but more likely twenty years.
Exactly right. Of COURSE it was declining after that many years.

I think it is very interesting that Pathfinder TODAY appears to be solidly more popular than 3E was *in its waning days*.
 

Exactly right. Of COURSE it was declining after that many years.

I think it is very interesting that Pathfinder TODAY appears to be solidly more popular than 3E was *in its waning days*.

Exactly. It was declining because the model was all wrong. Modules, fluff supps that dont break the game, setting material etc. This will draw people to your product and keep them interested. 3E was putting out a lot of very bad flavor material toward the end because they seemed to buy into a mechanics matter, flavor doesnt approach. Castle Ravenloft (which I know I bring up a lot) is an example of how they just didn't understand the flavor ekements people want.
 

Sorry, I've done the SCA thing, and while I don't particularly know that it teaches us a hell of a lot about real fights it most certainly does tell me that you can absolutely pace the intensity of your attack and collect yourself. Just because some guy has a technique of all-out attack is irrelevant. First of all I think that kind of thing is a myth, there's no such thing as an undefendable attack. It simply doesn't pass any basic smell test. Secondly, even if such a thing did exist it doesn't negate the advantage to a defender of playing defensive. Sorry, but you can save your contempt for someone else.

I agree that there is no undefendable attack. Most attacks are usually a series of attacks, footwork, balance, and timing no matter what you are discussing. Your opponent makes a mistake or is not quick enough, and pays the price.

But, there are overwhelming attacks. I've seen powerful martial artists (state championship level fighters) through power, speed, and timing, take a foe out with a single kick to the stomach, even though the other foe had protective gear and tried to block the attack. 10 seconds into the fight and it's already over when you kick someone extremely hard in the stomach as they are moving in towards you for an attack.

You're just wrong IME KD. People DO summon inner strength. It is simply a fact. You can poo poo it all you want because it doesn't happen to support your idea of how you want to play the game, but get real man. You can tell me all day I can't do that, but plenty of times I've watched people in fights, whether SCA ones or martial arts or whatever. Watch them sometime. One guy knocks the other guy back a bit, clears himself a space for a few seconds and clearly psyches himself up to have at it again. What do you think he's doing? Modeling that with Second Wind is perfectly reasonable.

I used to do martial arts and assist at tournaments for years, and I've never seen what you are talking about. Really hurt competitors don't shake it off unless time is called and they actually have time to recover a bit. Get kicked in the hand in martial arts and you might not be able to use that hand for much the rest of the fight (I know because I have cartilage damage in my right hand from blocking a kick in a bout).

Summoning the will to fight on when hurt? Sure. But, that's not healing and shaking it off. If that's what you are calling inner strength (inner willpower), I agree with you. Some people can keep coming at you when hurt. But Second Wind models a defensive stance combined with some type of healing or shaking off of damage. That's not the willpower to keep fighting. It allows time for additional fighting by undoing previous damage, but has nothing to do with willpower. In fact, using up a Standard Action with Second Wind means that the PC stops fighting for that moment in time and covers up (which also gets one in trouble in a real fight).

Once someone is hurt, they tend to be in a world of trouble in martial arts and they'd be in more trouble with weapons. Real combat isn't like Die Hard. The aggressor almost always wins against a hurt foe. In real life combat, there is no "go to your corner" like boxing and catch your breath. There is no "you cannot attack my hands or my legs" like in the SCA. There is no "you cannot attack the head" or "one side goes to the corner when the other is hurt" like in some martial arts. There is no 10 count like boxing. A hurt foe in martial arts is usually finished. He might get a few lucky blows in and win, but it rarely happens that way. And martial artists are often merely dazed or have the breath knocked out of them. They typically aren't (significantly) cut or have broken bones or a variety of other more serious injuries.

And, there is no "I was hurt, but I'm no longer hurt" like with Second Wind in real life. And even boxing covering up in a corner only works defensively because he cannot be attacked below the belt or from other angles.

In fact, I've seen the will to keep fighting. One competitor is just plain better than the other, but isn't really good enough or aggressive enough to just end it quickly. The losing competitor keeps coming back for more and more, but just keeps getting nailed and the hurt competitor's attacks and responses get slower and slower until finally the bout is ended, or time runs out. One sometimes sees this a bit more with women competitors because quite frankly, some women are just plain more stubborn (or tough) than some men. Winning men are often more aggressive and just take their injured foe out when/if they get the chance. You might be confusing this level of willpower to keep going with Second Wind, but that's not what Second Wind does.

The injured competitor doesn't get better and start fighting as well as s/he did at first, the injured competitor merely keeps coming back for more and starts attacking uncontrolled with less power and speed, and worse timing and balance.

The closest thing we have to no hold bars fighting is mixed martial arts and even it has safety rules. There are rare but occasional deaths in mixed martial arts, something you almost never see in tournament martial arts even though the number of tournament bouts far outnumber the number of mixed martial arts bouts. In mixed martial arts, the competitor who gets hurt almost always loses and unless they are in a grapple on the ground where he might be able to delay, the hurt competitor tends to lose quickly.


But, there are many unrealistic elements to D&D combat, Second Wind is no different. For one thing, smart opponents would take a heavily armored foe to the ground as fast as they can and keep him there. A fighter with two similarly skilled foes on him is in serious trouble in reality, not so much in D&D. D&D doesn't actually model combat that well at all.

Including Second Wind. Second Wind is unrealistic. It's merely a way to give players a healing boost in combat in order to keep the PC active and the player engaged. It doesn't actually relate to anything real. In sports and boxing and martial arts, people get breathers between bouts, not during. There isn't time. If you get hurt in real combat, you stay hurt and tend to get even more hurt.

Second Wind doesn't model squat and sports analogies where people get time outs are stupid. Second Wind models less of real combat than hit points do and everyone knows that hit points are an abstraction. But, at least they are an abstraction of someone getting whittled down over time.

Obviously, you disagree. But anyone that thinks that any portion of D&D combat models real combat well is mistaken by definition.
 
Last edited:

Obviously, you disagree. But anyone that thinks that any portion of D&D combat models real combat well is mistaken by definition.

I think the root of it is that REAL combat is rarely fair, nor does it proceed in anything like the organized fashion of encounters in any flavor of D&D. It isn't a matter of some vast degree of disagreement, RPG combat systems generally are highly unrealistic. The thing is there are all sorts of ways in which they're unrealistic, but the idea is to capture some aspect of the 'essence' of the thing, and not necessarily the essence of real fighting. There's nothing wrong with capturing the essence of 'Die Hard'.

In that context I think the idea of 'summoning inner strength' is thematic and fun and meshes pretty well with people's ideas of how they would like to imagine their alter egos behaving in a fight.
 

Remove ads

Top