Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Frostmarrow" data-source="post: 577881" data-attributes="member: 1122">After the last session of the Scarred Lands campaign we begun discussing running a double-DM swashbuckling campaign. Not that Scarred Lands is not good enough, it is, but we have multiple DMs and the gaming time is limited so...I mentioned that if we are to run a swashbuckling city campaign we ought to make it so that everyone can heal themselves fully after each combat. In order to make the campaign less cleric-centred if you see what I mean. My reasoning went something like this: If we are to have an intrigue-filled campaign where you might cheat your fellows out of the treasure it's vital that you can take care of yourself and that being on the cleric's good side is not an issue. I also argued that after the combat is won any left over injuries on the characters part does not matter anymore. For who wants to lie in sickbed for days as the story will most certainly still progress? I called this the Ivanhoe-syndrome. Moreover in all/most RPGs there is always some cheesy way of healing people in no time from the most grievous wounds. So why bother making excuses? Why not say that if you survive the combat you are at full strength immediately. (We might call this the John Wayne-solution.) The most important thing is to get people role-playing and progress the story. And you can't easily do that if you are half-dead already.Now, much to my surprise my fellow gamers agreed completely and said that they always thought of the 'magical healing' as a bit redundant. So I turn to you, mighty EN-boarders, what do you think: Is it vital that you are still wounded after the battle is won?(Naturally the DM may impose hard-healed injuries to further the story.)</blockquote>

Verification