I see no problem in this. After all the DM is the one who creates the world and the story and sets the rules. The players know these rules before the game starts and can choose to play with them or find another DM. But my experience tells me that everyone wants to be a player and none the DM. After all the golden rule of D&D is that you should not play with people that you would not be friends with, and most people choose to be friends with people that they share similar life views.
Fair enough. My point was more along the lines of "how much have you considered whether or not this would be fun for the players?" I think with things like this, or tracking ammunition, or restricted magic items, DMs tend to think in ideal terms and visualize great dramatic scenes where the party stumbles into the BBEG's lair with the wounds and scars of previous battles and barely manages to beat him, or the ranger fells the troll with her last arrow, or the party gasps in awe when they find the one magical sword in all the land. And frankly, I think none of those are what you'll actually get 90% of the time. You'll get the ranger who takes up everyone's time figuring out which orcs she shot so she can reclaim all of her arrows, and you'll get the party who carefully works their way into the dungeon, but falls prey to a couple of unfortunate crits and has to wait for 5 days to recover, throwing the whole plot into disarray.
There was a quote in one of WotC's podcasts about the low-magic thing, in particular, that I just felt the need to go dig up... D&D Podcast quoteShow
Yeah, I wonder about DMs who want the low-magic campaign, if there's some sort of element of aspirational DMing going on. Where like, you know, the player might have the aspirations of "One day I'll be 20th level and have all these cool feats," and to the DM, it's "One day, I'm gonna hand out this magic item, and everyone at the table is going to look at me with this wide-eyed sense of wonder... and they'll praise me for weeks, months, years after as this great DM who built this awesome story... and this item I gave out was just the total cincher on this great and epic story I wove in my world... and the players finally memorized all the history I wrote up... and can remember the names of all the NPCs and the nations I created, and all that..." because in a way [...] if you're the kind of DM who wants to tell a really gripping story, and that story's not really working, and you've spent all this time giving all these explanations of NPCs and the players are dozing off, and then you say "well, and then you find a +1 shortsword on this guy" and then everyone starts paying attention... You know, sometimes I wonder if there's a little bit of jealousy going on there.
It's not exactly the same thing, but I feel like there's some of that "I want the players to appreciate my setting and take it seriously" mindset sneaking in there without much consideration for whether it actually makes the game more enjoyable for them.
Well if Frodo (or better to say Aragorn, Legolas and Gimli) was fighting his level enemies he would need to take extensive rests. Of course they do not need to go back all the time when they are lvl 10+ and they fight Orcs.
Here's a thought. Would fighting high-level enemies and running back to Bree every time for several days of rest have made for an interesting/exciting book or movie? Probably not, which is neither Tolkien nor Peter Jackson took that approach... and which is why D&D isn't taking it by default, either.
I do not like how ... one night of rest makes everyone at top health and ready for more although they all might have been near death the evening before.
I think this is the issue right here.
I'm not going to tell you how to think of things, but I'll share how we do, which we believe is how the rules suggest you think of things. So I hope you don't take this as me telling you how to play.
You are not at "near death" if you have almost 0 HP.
HP merely measure luck, fatigue, glancing blows, will to fight on, endurance, morale, etc. Not your health. You're true health is between 0 HP and your negative bloodied value. For a character with 50 max HP, their health is 0 HP to -25 HP. Within that range, you are nearing death.
Until you reach 0 HP, you have not sustained a true wound that could threaten your life. If you have 1 HP left after a fight, you could simply call that truly exhausted, like after doing a crazy workout. No blood spilled. Some weary arms from swinging heavy weapons and blocking with thick shields while dodging in heavy armor. You're tired, nothing more. Sit down, eat, rest for a few minutes, and you're good to go. Thought of this way, it doesn't bother us at all that HP above 0 can so easily be recovered.
Now to my suggestion that might help what you are trying to achieve with limited alterations.
I humbly suggest your house rule is to simply change the words "damage" and "healing" to something else so that you don't feel like HPs going down means dying. Perhaps you "weaken" or "fatigue" or "unnerve" or "demoralize" your foe (rather than damage) and you "embolden" or "encourage" or "inspire" (rather than heal).
Then when someone hits 0 HP or below, they get the wounding blow that draws blood, knocks them down, and they start their death saving throws. Now, they are near death. Even if you keep rolling 10-19 on the death saves, you are only delaying death unless you get stabilized. So it's finally in the danger zone.
You can also have the DM dramatically describe things in this light, so that it follows the weaken/inspire vs. damage/heal lingo. Your fighter gets hit for 10 damage is instead described as the foe's hammer hits your fighter's shield at a strange angle, forcing it down, straining the fighter's arm a bit. The tension and twisting causes some discomfort, which is abstractly converted into the mechanic of reducing HP.
I'd bet there will be some variant rules in the DMG for handling a more lethal system, but you could simply add that whenever someone visits the range of 0 HP or below, they suffer a scar they can RP, or if you are itching for more resting-from-wound, they need an extra hour of rest per point below 0 HP to recover. If you hit -30 HP, you need the base 6 hours rest, plus 30 more to be back to normal.
Well I wanted to replay to the comment of why change it when I can just have 2 encounters if I want: First, I like more realistic gameplay, and I want players that got into a bad (tough) fight to not just continue forward like unstoppable machines (especially not at low levels). I want them to have 1-2 tough fights and then need to lick their wounds and look for cover for a while. It makes them realize they are not supermen (or superelves :D ), and makes for interesting and bit different gameplay.
I believe that you feel that 6 hours is too short a time for players to get back to 100%. I believe that your definition of "taking time to lick their wounds" is a span of time much longer. I see where you are coming from. I've played in a 2E campaign with no cleric, so it took weeks to recover from a tough fight.
My sessions are mostly not dungeon romps, but different kind of adventures. I like big, tough fights instead of many smaller ones. If I let them have full resting rules and normal number of healing surges even after 2 encounters (even tough ones) the rules would let them just keep going, and I would need to railroad too much to stop that (like removing access to further enemies without real logic behind it). This way it is easy, rules say 4 encounters, I halve the HS and remove the full hp after 6 hours and they cannot do 4 encounters but 2 even if they wanted. And if I ever want to give them more then, then I will put weak fights for the first couple and then 2 tough ones.
I understand why the 4E healing/recovery rules would allow your players to continue on without too long of a rest. The 6 hours to recover seems like too short of a time to recover 100% to you. Realistically, depending on the severity of injury, it may take people weeks to months or more to recover before they can recover. Take a look at sports athelets and the recovery time some of them take. Some of my injuries from sports require me to rest 2-6 weeks before I can play again.
Anyway, suppose with whatever house rules you apply, you change the recovery period from 6 hours to say 6 days or 6 weeks. What's the difference between the party going back to town for 6 hours, 6 days or 6 weeks? They get into two very tough fights that deplete their resources. Now they decide to rest 6 units of time before continuing. What is there to prevent the party from resting those 6 units of time no matter how big those units?
I agree with Stuntman here, and I think I have a nifty solution.
Just change hours to days/weeks/months as you please.
Instead of changing the game so as to require that they rest for many periods of 6 hours, just change the word hours, and the number 6 to whatever you want. Now you've eliminated what you consider unrealistic fast healing, and kept the balance that's been worked so hard into the system.
"NthDegree256"]Fair enough. My point was more along the lines of "how much have you considered whether or not this would be fun for the players?" I think with things like this, or tracking ammunition, or restricted magic items, DMs tend to think in ideal terms and visualize great dramatic scenes where the party stumbles into the BBEG's lair with the wounds and scars of previous battles and barely manages to beat him, or the ranger fells the troll with her last arrow, or the party gasps in awe when they find the one magical sword in all the land. And frankly, I think none of those are what you'll actually get 90% of the time. You'll get the ranger who takes up everyone's time figuring out which orcs she shot so she can reclaim all of her arrows, and you'll get the party who carefully works their way into the dungeon, but falls prey to a couple of unfortunate crits and has to wait for 5 days to recover, throwing the whole plot into disarray.
Well this is how it is done now. And all players play it like this and none have complained about it. So if we switch to 4e but keep the same recovery rate I see no reason for them to not like it. If I started to DM to a whole new group of people that only ever played 4e then this would be a valid concern. wrote:
Fair enough. My point was more along the lines of "how much have you considered whether or not this would be fun for the players?" I think with things like this, or tracking ammunition, or restricted magic items, DMs tend to think in ideal terms and visualize great dramatic scenes where the party stumbles into the BBEG's lair with the wounds and scars of previous battles and barely manages to beat him, or the ranger fells the troll with her last arrow, or the party gasps in awe when they find the one magical sword in all the land. And frankly, I think none of those are what you'll actually get 90% of the time. You'll get the ranger who takes up everyone's time figuring out which orcs she shot so she can reclaim all of her arrows, and you'll get the party who carefully works their way into the dungeon, but falls prey to a couple of unfortunate crits and has to wait for 5 days to recover, throwing the whole plot into disarray.[/quote] Well this is how it is done now. And all players play it like this and none have complained about it. So if we switch to 4e but keep the same recovery rate I see no reason for them to not like it. If I started to DM to a whole new group of people that only ever played 4e then this would be a valid concern.
"NthDegree256"]It's not exactly the same thing, but I feel like there's some of that "I want the players to appreciate my setting and take it seriously" mindset sneaking in there without much consideration for whether it actually makes the game more enjoyable for them.
I am not a crazy DM about my story and setting. I improvise most of my sessions and do not care if players stray off the path I set for them, I just find them a new path then wrote:
It's not exactly the same thing, but I feel like there's some of that "I want the players to appreciate my setting and take it seriously" mindset sneaking in there without much consideration for whether it actually makes the game more enjoyable for them.[/quote] I am not a crazy DM about my story and setting. I improvise most of my sessions and do not care if players stray off the path I set for them, I just find them a new path then.
"NthDegree256"]Here's a thought. Would fighting high-level enemies and running back to Bree every time for several days of rest have made for an interesting/exciting book or movie? Probably not, which is neither Tolkien nor Peter Jackson took that approach... and which is why D&D isn't taking it by default, either.
Books and movies story does not equal PnP story. You were just explaining me this in your last paragraph. You are contradicting yourself now wrote:
Here's a thought. Would fighting high-level enemies and running back to Bree every time for several days of rest have made for an interesting/exciting book or movie? Probably not, which is neither Tolkien nor Peter Jackson took that approach... and which is why D&D isn't taking it by default, either.[/quote] Books and movies story does not equal PnP story. You were just explaining me this in your last paragraph. You are contradicting yourself now.
"Moribund"]I would also consider limiting the recovery of daily powers to further equalize the effects of this change. If you only recover 1 daily power per extended rest, even characters that aren't down on healing surges would share the desire to rest for several days.
I advise against making the proposed changes to how cleric healing works. 4e was designed with the conscious effort to reduce the reliance on clerics for healing. Adding that back in makes clerics required and limits your players' choice in party composition.
That is a good idea, I just might do that as well.
As for clerics, my change to cleric healing will not make others dependent on clerics any more. It makes cleric healing a bit more useful since it depends of healing surges which I would halve. wrote:
I would also consider limiting the recovery of daily powers to further equalize the effects of this change. If you only recover 1 daily power per extended rest, even characters that aren't down on healing surges would share the desire to rest for several days.
I advise against making the proposed changes to how cleric healing works. 4e was designed with the conscious effort to reduce the reliance on clerics for healing. Adding that back in makes clerics required and limits your players' choice in party composition.[/quote] That is a good idea, I just might do that as well.
As for clerics, my change to cleric healing will not make others dependent on clerics any more. It makes cleric healing a bit more useful since it depends of healing surges which I would halve.
"Gruff_Ironfist"]-SNIP-
No, that would not get me what I want, and that is 2 real, dangerous encounters per day + more walkover encounters if I need them. How the HP and damage is named has nothing to do with that. Or with time players need to heal 100%. As for more lethal rules in the DMG 4e: I hope some will be put in there and if I find them good I will use them, but I am forming these house rules if none are present. wrote:
-SNIP-[/quote] No, that would not get me what I want, and that is 2 real, dangerous encounters per day + more walkover encounters if I need them. How the HP and damage is named has nothing to do with that. Or with time players need to heal 100%. As for more lethal rules in the DMG 4e: I hope some will be put in there and if I find them good I will use them, but I am forming these house rules if none are present.
"Stuntman"]I believe that you feel that 6 hours is too short a time for players to get back to 100%. I believe that your definition of "taking time to lick their wounds" is a span of time much longer. I see where you are coming from. I've played in a 2E campaign with no cleric, so it took weeks to recover from a tough fight.
No, I am not a 2e lover. I only played about 4-5 sessions in 2e and led maybe 6-7 before 3e came out. I switched to 3e immediately and never looked back. So I do not want this so players need weeks to recover. I just want more then 6 hours. 1 or 2 days sounds OK. I also want players to sometimes make a choice of going forward or retreating to lick their wounds. This is also a chance for them to show how heroic they are, or they can roleplay their coward or sly side. wrote:
I believe that you feel that 6 hours is too short a time for players to get back to 100%. I believe that your definition of "taking time to lick their wounds" is a span of time much longer. I see where you are coming from. I've played in a 2E campaign with no cleric, so it took weeks to recover from a tough fight.[/quote] No, I am not a 2e lover. I only played about 4-5 sessions in 2e and led maybe 6-7 before 3e came out. I switched to 3e immediately and never looked back. So I do not want this so players need weeks to recover. I just want more then 6 hours. 1 or 2 days sounds OK. I also want players to sometimes make a choice of going forward or retreating to lick their wounds. This is also a chance for them to show how heroic they are, or they can roleplay their coward or sly side.
"Stuntman"]Anyway, suppose with whatever house rules you apply, you change the recovery period from 6 hours to say 6 days or 6 weeks. What's the difference between the party going back to town for 6 hours, 6 days or 6 weeks? They get into two very tough fights that deplete their resources. Now they decide to rest 6 units of time before continuing. What is there to prevent the party from resting those 6 units of time no matter how big those units?
The difference is that in the time they are back they can get another adventure, they can meet new or old friends/enemies. They can ROLEPLAY, not just ROLLPLAY. They can make choices that are more then just which power they will use to kill the next opponent. Also adventures that are based on time restrictions will make the players make difficult choices. There are million different things that can happen (chosen by me or more important by the players) while they are resting. Maybe they decide to not go back and this opens a whole lot of adventure options. Something that would never happen if they had double HS and all got to full HP after each fight and could just take a 6 hour break and be fresh and like new, they would just keep wrote:
Anyway, suppose with whatever house rules you apply, you change the recovery period from 6 hours to say 6 days or 6 weeks. What's the difference between the party going back to town for 6 hours, 6 days or 6 weeks? They get into two very tough fights that deplete their resources. Now they decide to rest 6 units of time before continuing. What is there to prevent the party from resting those 6 units of time no matter how big those units?[/quote] The difference is that in the time they are back they can get another adventure, they can meet new or old friends/enemies. They can ROLEPLAY, not just ROLLPLAY. They can make choices that are more then just which power they will use to kill the next opponent. Also adventures that are based on time restrictions will make the players make difficult choices. There are million different things that can happen (chosen by me or more important by the players) while they are resting. Maybe they decide to not go back and this opens a whole lot of adventure options. Something that would never happen if they had double HS and all got to full HP after each fight and could just take a 6 hour break and be fresh and like new, they would just keep going.
I agree with Stuntman here, and I think I have a nifty solution.
Just change hours to days/weeks/months as you please.
Instead of changing the game so as to require that they rest for many periods of 6 hours, just change the word hours, and the number 6 to whatever you want. Now you've eliminated what you consider unrealistic fast healing, and kept the balance that's been worked so hard into the system.
HUZZAH!
So what is here different that just halving the max HS and making them rest for 24h-48h instead of 6h? It is the same thing, but in different definition.
So what is here different that just halving the max HS and making them rest for 24h-48h instead of 6h? It is the same thing, but in different definition.
The difference is that by just changing how long they have to actually rest you aren't screwing dangerously around with, what I believe is safe to assume, a very thought out, balanced, and essential mechanic to 4th Ed.
Why change the mechanics when you could accomplish the same thing -without- possibly destroying the game?
Am I the only person who's actually going to play with the RAW before starting to mess with them? You know, maybe it's just me, but I trust full rules with years of playtesting behind them (plus a few months of my own direct experiences with those rules) more than my own theoretical judgements from incomplete leaked information...
No, you're not. I've already tried out a few house rules with the PHbLite, but I won't be porting them over to full 4E until after I've had a chance to play the full game as written.
I also want players to sometimes make a choice of going forward or retreating to lick their wounds. This is also a chance for them to show how heroic they are, or they can roleplay their coward or sly side.
Hello Archangel. I can understand your concern with the quick over night healing. I also enjoy the opportunity for players to roleplay and make the decisions of Fight or Flight (or trick, or hide, etc).
With the information we have now, I do not agree that to achieve your goals you will need houserules. I only know the same amount of information that you do (and have done a few playtests with what limited information is available) but I think that the current healing surge system still gives the characters PLENTY of opportunity for this to happen.
During some brief playtesting (and again, this is not the -official- playtesting, just mock combat from DDXP) I have found 4th edition combat to be EXTREMELY deadly and/or challenging to the players. There are many combats that characters can walk into with full hp and still come out with exhausted resources.
It seems to me that the real resources are not HP, but rather Daily powers and abilities.
Every combat seems a gamble, and once those daily powers are spent, the party could conceivable walk into a combat with full hp and many healing surges left, but with no powers to actually USE those healing surges (ie, the paladins 3x lay on hands, and some -assumed- clerical/warlord dalies), could wind up TPK or fleeing at the very least.
My suggestion is to try D&D as written for a game or two, and see if the loss of role playing really exists. I think you -might- find that you will beable to give the players the feeling of "oh, *$%#, do I risk going forward, or do I risk healing back up while the enemies fortify their defenses?".
I really think, even with FULL HP, the players will still have PLENTY of reasons to run back to town.
And heres an anecdotal tip - if they get too GUNG-HO, throw a Bugbear Headreaver at 'em. Or two, or three. That will take care of your healing surges right there =P.
In any case, my advice for house rules is to always consider how it might change other balances in the game, but either way, I hope you find the right balance that works for you and your group! - Gnome
OK lets change the discussion a bit since I do not feel anything of value can be said about the current topic anymore, or to better phrase it: Anything more said would just be repeating what was already said.
Now my question is, if I wanted to accomplish less encounters per day and slower healing would my house rules which I will repeat for newcomers to the topic do it? Or would you propose different house rules (please no more of the you do not need any house rules to accomplish the same thing)? 1. All players get half their healing surges. 2. 6h of rest does not recover all hp and all healing surges. It recovers 1/4 hp and (Constitution modifier + one half the level (round down) -> min 1) of healing surges. 24h or rest recovers 1/2 HP and +1 HS. 3. (Also under considerations) Only one daily power is recovered per 6h of rest and two per 24h.
