What is a Wound? An attempt to bridge the divide.

[Remathilis]

This just reminds me of the debate...

 

[Hussar]

Your dm must be a pushover. It happens all the time. Why are you stopping because one or two pcs are low on hp? If you still have 3 or 4 guys in good shape, you move forward, only stopping when necessary. A pc or two whining when they are hurt when the rest of te party is fine, well, they won't be pcs long. Or at least party members. My group would tell them to suck it up.

There is a large amount of space between "a couple of PC's are very low on HP (and maybe everyone has taken some damage)" and "Every PC keeps going until all PC's are at exactly ONE Hp". I've already shown that the MAXIMUM healing time for your example is 9 days. That's the absolute longest that group will take to heal. Most of the time, as you say, you heal each day and carry on.

It helps, I suppose, to play editions where monsters are so much easier and combat much less lethal too.

The keep assumes you clear out a cave or two and return to the Keep. In that instance, a day or three might not matter much. But it's a simple matter to reset and move most traps. Or set a few new ones. The second foray in might not catch the cave dwellers as unprepared. At any rate, that's much different than finding a little used cave or secret room few know of and camping for a day. There are No wandering monsters in the keep, for one thing.

But, you're still missing the point. The module doesn't radically change if you spend 1 day healing or 3. It's pretty hard to move a pit trap. Sure, they might reset traps or whatnot, but, again, it's not a radical change to the adventure. Thus, either method of healing will not necessitate different adventure designs.

I've played in a ton of groups over the years, and every group has been the same. Spend a night, heal what you can, the next day you move on. I don't think that style of play is so rare.

Nope. It's exactly the way we played too. Only thing is, when you spend the night and heal what you can, by and large, that brings you back considerably. Depends on the edition. By 3rd, that generally brought you back to full, but that was necessary because the monsters could kill you in one round through straight damage. 1e it isn't so important because the monsters (barring save or die which ignore HP anyway) cannot kill you very quickly. It takes three, possibly four hits to kill PC's when your creatures are only doing 3-5 points of damage per hit, typically.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think that you may have misunderstood [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s point. He's not arguing for quick natural recovery of hp. He's arguing that, whether you use the quick recovery module or the slow recovery module, your adventure pacing won't be very different, because groups who use the slow recovery module will rely more heavily on magical healing of some form or another to speed up their PCs' recovery rates.

This is exactly right. Like I said, one day or three days, it likely isn't a huge deal when designing adventures - which is the bit we're discussing here.

And, as far as adventure design goes, days usually don't matter that much.

And I'd argue -from experience- that this can make for a very different style of play. While I haven't played with overnight healing (and probably wouldn't), I've seen the difference in-play with groups who need a single healer taking care of everyone.

I've played in a game with just two players (years ago), where after the the heals were dispensed, I took my character back in (as a LG half-orc Fighter) to finish the last of the bad guys. The healer stayed behind, being magically drained. We went in with different dynamics than we would have with overnight healing.

Now, why did I go back in? Was I just really hot-headed with my character? No. It was because I knew that if I waited until the next day, the remaining cult leaders would leave the city, and they'd get away. That one day made a huge difference.

Now, in a game with overnight healing and magical healing, could the same scenario play itself out? Yes. You could spend the same exact magical healing resources, and then send characters back in. And, you'd also know that you couldn't wait overnight, or you'd lose the bad guys. Same situation. No problems so far.

However, let's expand the situation somewhat. In fact, let's use another example (from play experience), so that we know I'm not just theorycrafting.

When I was running a game (for four players), they ended up healing magically (once they got magical healing). Sometimes, with four people to heal, it'd take a couple days to heal everyone completely, then a third day to get their spells back. What happened during some of these three day spans? The international magic council screwed them politically because they didn't act quickly enough; the elven nation just west of their home nation hid a refugee they were looking for; a lich they were opposed to (on a pretty personal level) killed an allied NPC; a raid was made against the dwarven city that one of the players had moved his hometown to, and many dwarves (and a few humans) were killed; an enchantress they were pursuing (and a couple days behind) ended up getting away when they stopped to rest; the party was attacked (multiple times) on their first night after healing, and had little resources to spare, bringing their recovery time down (especially since they usually moved after it happened).

On the flip side, a few good things came out of it: they weren't in a city when it was devastated by off-continent invaders than could have killed them, and were there to help pick up the pieces in a unique way (Blake, the blind fighter, using Blindsense to find survivors); an old ally that had been tracking them was able to catch up to them, and deliver important information to them, and aid them for the next few months; a king of a neighboring nation arrived the day before they would leave, asking for one of the players to heal him (he was diseased), and felt as if he owed them a favor.

These are just a few play examples. Days matter to me. I can fit a lot more evolution of the setting into 30 days than I can into 10 days. Politics will progress; a month will pass; the weather can start to really change; alliances can be formed, but also tested; multiple battles can be fought (not skirmishes, but actual battles); the plot of the bad guys (or the good guys) can come into fruition much 'faster' out-of-game, especially if it takes months or years; people traveling mundanely can cover much farther distances than if only 10 days had passed, potentially letting reinforcements / messengers / allies / enemies / etc. arrive to change the setup of the world.

As you've said before, pemerton, it's also a pacing issue. And overnight healing is not "essentially the same" as a few nights of healing, to me. Again, this it to me, and from my play experience. Days matter. Sometimes, quite a bit. And, to have the style of game I want (where the story I like produces cleanly from the mechanics), overnight healing falls short. It's just preference, but it matters.

Oh, no, I'm not saying this at all. I still want the two baselines as options. The criticism is that two baselines make adventure design too difficult.

I think that this isn't actually an issue. Design the adventures however you want (or, my preference, however makes sense to this particular scenario that you're creating). When people choose their healing type, let them know that:
A) Overnight healing might make the game run faster, and that it might make certain adventures easier since you don't need to worry as much about reinforcements, new traps, etc.
B) Longer healing might slow down the game a little (with bookkeeping), and that it might make adventures harder since you need to worry more about reinforcements, new traps, being ambushed while you're still recovering, etc.

Personally, I want slower healing even with the harder game it might bring. That might even be part of the appeal (even if it's not the main appeal). Just let people know what their decisions will bring. As always, play what you like

 

[Hussar]

A) Overnight healing might make the game run faster, and that it might make certain adventures easier since you don't need to worry as much about reinforcements, new traps, etc.
B) Longer healing might slow down the game a little (with bookkeeping), and that it might make adventures harder since you need to worry more about reinforcements, new traps, being ambushed while you're still recovering, etc.

Yup. We're on the same page here. A bit of DMing advice never goes awry. Since it's likely the DM who's going to be making this choice, make it clear what exactly he's choosing.

I'm not saying that there is no difference. Obviously not. But, what I am saying is that for published adventures (which I believe this tangent is about), either option isn't going to make enormous differences in how you make a published adventure. Yup, longer healing might make that adventure more difficult and any really "race the clock" adventures might be a bit tricky, but, most of the time, it's not going to make huge differences.

At least not for published modules for general consumption.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

T

It helps, I suppose, to play editions where monsters are so much easier and combat much less lethal too.







Nope. It's exactly the way we played too. Only thing is, when you spend the night and heal what you can, by and large, that brings you back considerably. Depends on the edition. By 3rd, that generally brought you back to full, but that was necessary because the monsters could kill you in one round through straight damage. 1e it isn't so important because the monsters (barring save or die which ignore HP anyway) cannot kill you very quickly. It takes three, possibly four hits to kill PC's when your creatures are only doing 3-5 points of damage per hit, typically.

Heh, interesting enough, I just got back from my weekly game, and my 5th level ranger henchman just got hit for 52 points of damage and killed. Admittedly, we use a simple crit rule - a nat 20 does double damage - but the 26 points of damage would have put him at exactly -10. That's a far cry from 3-5 points of damage.

 

[Hussar]

Heh, interesting enough, I just got back from my weekly game, and my 5th level ranger henchman just got hit for 52 points of damage and killed. Admittedly, we use a simple crit rule - a nat 20 does double damage - but the 26 points of damage would have put him at exactly -10. That's a far cry from 3-5 points of damage.

Yes, because this is a regular occurrence. Weren't you just going on about averages not a couple of posts ago? And, what creature hit you for 26 points of damage in a single hit? I'm trying to think of something that a 5th level character would normally face that can do that kind of damage, and I'm drawing a blank.

But, yes, if you have house rules that increase the lethality of creatures, then yup, you will get more fatalities. That's entirely true.

And, lastly, your 5th level ranger has 16 HP? Really? 6d8 hp and you have 16 hp? Dude, that's sucky.

 

[Sadras]

And, lastly, your 5th level ranger has 16 HP? Really? 6d8 hp and you have 16 hp? Dude, that's sucky.

Maybe he had 16 current hp before the hit was landed...

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Yes, because this is a regular occurrence. Weren't you just going on about averages not a couple of posts ago? And, what creature hit you for 26 points of damage in a single hit? I'm trying to think of something that a 5th level character would normally face that can do that kind of damage, and I'm drawing a blank.

But, yes, if you have house rules that increase the lethality of creatures, then yup, you will get more fatalities. That's entirely true.

And, lastly, your 5th level ranger has 16 HP? Really? 6d8 hp and you have 16 hp? Dude, that's sucky.

It was a froghemoth. And it was almost exactly average. 5-50 damage. My ranger actually has (had) something like 48 hit points if I remember correctly. He went into the fight down 2 hit points, got bitten the first round for 33 points, and the 2nd round for 26 x2 for the crit. But, as I said, even without the house rule, it would have killed him. 3-5? Pffft. I can't remember the last thing, other than a trap that caused such little damage.

 

[Hussar]

IIRC, doesn't the Froghemoth appear in a 9-12th level module - Expedition to Barrier Peaks? IOW, it's a monster that's WAY above the pay grade for a 5th level character?

Bit of Googlefu later and:

So, it's a level NINE monster fighting a level 5 character. That XP value puts it on par with major demons and very large dragons. I'm not really sure that you're proving anything here JRRNeiklot. Other than you can always toss creatures at PC's that are way above their pay grade and kill them.

Just for some points of comparison, here are the xp values of a number of AD&D creatures:

--Type VI Demon: 3,600 +12 hp

--Clay Golem: 3600 (no hp bonus)

--Fire Elemental: 2,850 + 15 hp

--Fourteen-Headed Hydra: 3,950 + 18 hp

--Guardian Naga: 3,550 + 16hp

--Triceratops: 4,000 + 20 hp

--Vampire: 3,800 + 12 hp

So, if you'd like to come back to average encounters - 5th level party we're talking trolls, ogres, orcs, bugbears, that sort of thing. Which, I'll stand by my point where creatures are doing fairly reasonable damage.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I guess you missed the part where he was a henchman? At any rate, yes, that was a rare encounter, but there's generally one of those (rare, deadly encounters) in every adventure module. This is a tangent, and not really germane to the hit point discussion.

It helps, I suppose, to play editions where monsters are so much easier and combat much less lethal too.

I just thought I'd point out that earlier editions are a bit deadlier than you put forth.