Frankly I haven't seen anyone suggest anything yet in any thread anywhere I normally read which is better than HP/HS. You can come close with a few other variants, but 4e's healing system is pretty well geared towards giving a party the resources to hammer through a string of encounters while giving them interesting and meaningful resource management choices, and still allowing for attrition to be a relevant factor. You then get the nice bonus of having HS as a resource that can be used for other things like HS drains and such.

I have no desire to either go backwards for the sake of nostalgia nor construct some other less flexible variation on the same thing simply because of the poor excuse that someone wants to do it differently than 4e did.

HS recovery could certainly be different. The 'get them all back after an extended rest' mechanic is meant to shortcut the whole healing stick shennanigans and mandatory crates of healing potions that past editions had, but it was a bit harsh on the 'gritty survival' concept (at least unless the DM was willing to lay down the law on rests). I think some kind of HS-per-rest based on the kind of rest you got would be fine. So maybe camping in the woods is good for a couple surges, a nice bed at the inn is worth 3 or something, and sleeping on a hard stone floor in the middle of a dungeon is worth 1. Crouching in the shelter of a tree in a howling snowstorm? Probably not going to do much for you at all.

HP's I prefer more along #3.  Fairly limited healing in combat except for characters designed for it who use up important resources (i.e. the classic Cleric).  One can use potions, CLW wands, but they cost an all-important action for very limited healing.  Although this tactical use of an action when successful can make a memorable story.

As to healing after the fight, leave that open to style.  DMs who put control on resources can limit these resources (can't buy too many potions, etc) and others will let the PCs have all the pots, small wands they could want and be ready for the next battle after resting.

Feb 28, 2012 -- 11:56AM, Kalnaur wrote:

There is a ritual that allows players to swap out healing surges, I believe.  It's more of a stop-gap to poor planning or selfish playing on the part of others, but it does work.

Comrade's Succor is a perfectly valid and sensible resource management tool. It's particularly useful if there's a Vampire in the party, because a character of that particular class can actually gain healing surges during combat... but they are use-it-or-lose-it, and passing them to someone else counts as using them.

The monsters don't always do what the players expect, and the dice don't always come out about average...

Also, encourage that fighter to get some kind of power that builds temp HP up.  That poor sucker needs a buffer if he's going to be offense based.

Expecting - or even allowing - the defender to take all the hits is not good resource management. Lately I've mostly been playing an implement bard, and I try to take my share of the attacks. Granted that my share is a lot lower than anyone else's share because I have neither the HP nor the reserves of anyone else, and several other characters have AC higher full-time than I can match even with debuffing attackers, but if I have most of my surges when the melee striker has run out then I've mismanaged things.

Mar 1, 2012 -- 4:58PM, leozelig wrote:

Some minor bonus heal effects might still work like "you regain 5 hp" but if a cleric heals you, he should heal you in proportion to your max hp. 1/4 sounds about right.

Healing surges are easy to keep as an optional mechanic, but surge value is harder to separate since otherwise spells would need to refer to a number of hp and/or surge value both if one of these is optional.

I had a similar thought about healing spells...

cure light wounds = 1/4 hit points
cure serious wounds = 1/2 hit points

I don't think you need special terminology. Most gamers are smart enough to figure out 1/4 and 1/2 hit points. If not, pull out your calculator and write it down on your char sheet. 

I am not a big fan of healing surges after DMing a 4e game for a few years. I don't know why, I just felt like they created an over-abundance of healing. I guess I like more of a challenge.

I felt that way in the start of 4e but I sort of think that without surges the challenge falsely looks bigger but really is not.

If I know the PC's can survive around 4 tough encounters with decent risk of something going wrong, then that is what I aim for. That means, I am free to put such a challenge (I am not adversarial, but I like to challenge them).

In another alternate rules universe:
If the PC's can't heal up after encounter 2 because they might take damage specifically in that encounter and they had a limited healing resource, then they are unable to go to encounter 3 or they might die there because I anticipate it to be the toughest one. Can I really put those 4 encounters in their way? I should consider it more carefully.

The challenge level is different because I might make it different. I can always make the encounters more difficult or less difficult. The fact that there are surges does not remove the risk. If there are no surges in the rules, but there is limited encounter heals, then every "low impact" encounter will be quite meaningless because no resources really are spent (other than for plot reasons).

Because of time constraints I'd like each encounter to be meaninful and somewhat risky. We can skip combat and roleplay stuff that would be too easy as a regular combat encounter.

Feb 29, 2012 -- 8:44PM, NancyButtpeach wrote:

I like separating HP and Vitality, with Vitality being a measurement of how many wounds one can take.

This will likely not happen, so I would like to see HP be restored quickly/fully with rest, with clerical healing being used primarily within combat.

so damage would first affect your HP then your vitality.
so where would the divide between the 2 be ?

in such a system i would like to see it at 50%
meaning your bloodied when you start losing vitality.

i would like to see a biger difrence between magical and martial healing.

A bard/warlord peptalk might work very well for sombody who only lost hitpoints and isen't bloodied yet.
while magical healing that actualy closes wounds would works better on targets that are actualy bloodied.

both the priest and the warlord would get bonuses to the amount they heal,
but the priest would only get these bonuses healing bloodied targets.
and the worlord would only get this bonus when healing targets that are not bloodied.

so you get 2 difrent healing styles.
warlord who tries to keep targets as close to max Hp becouse his healing is less efective on bloodied targets, and becouse of this would start healing early in the encounter.

and the priest who would let people fall back till they are bloodied becouse his heals are more effective on bloodied targets.
a priest would start his healing later in the encounter then a warlord does.

Feb 29, 2012 -- 3:56PM, Rhenny wrote:

I also don't like having healing spell effectiveness based on the receiver of the spell.   I'd be all for just making heals do 1/4 heal...keep 2nd wind at 1/4 heal...and let PCs do short rests for 1/4 heal.

???

Your change simply removes the words "healing surge" while leaving the mechanics of how effective the basic healing spell is, pretty much the same - based on the receiver of the spell, not the caster.

That is, until the receiver runs out of healing surges.

4E, by the way, has a fair amount of surgeless healing. The Cleric and Shaman contend for who has the most of it, but I've picked up some for my Bard (a particularly good idea because the campaign I play her in has shifted a bit and I'll now be healing Gamma World characters as well as D&D characters). And there's now a potion that requires the recipient to spend a healing surge if he has one, but heals him just the same whether he has one or not.

I was really not a fan of all of the feats and powers that piled bonuses on top of healing surge values, so for what I was saying, you really don't need the terminology. Actually, I would like to see Second Wind / Healing Surges as optional material, if at all. But I like a simpler game.

I think the concept can be carried over in the amount of healing provided by spells. Rolling a d8 for cure light wounds (and potentially getting 1 hp back) should be left in the past, as far as I'm concerned. 

Further irony being healing surges represent a limit on healing.

Feb 27, 2012 -- 3:47PM, Salla wrote:

I like the encounter-based paradigm where you have all your resources going into every battle.

Easy mode, no strategy.

Double-posting madness.

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:44AM, warrl wrote:

Feb 28, 2012 -- 11:56AM, Kalnaur wrote:

There is a ritual that allows players to swap out healing surges, I believe.  It's more of a stop-gap to poor planning or selfish playing on the part of others, but it does work.

Comrade's Succor is a perfectly valid and sensible resource management tool. It's particularly useful if there's a Vampire in the party, because a character of that particular class can actually gain healing surges during combat... but they are use-it-or-lose-it, and passing them to someone else counts as using them.

The monsters don't always do what the players expect, and the dice don't always come out about average...

Also, encourage that fighter to get some kind of power that builds temp HP up.  That poor sucker needs a buffer if he's going to be offense based.

Expecting - or even allowing - the defender to take all the hits is not good resource management. Lately I've mostly been playing an implement bard, and I try to take my share of the attacks. Granted that my share is a lot lower than anyone else's share because I have neither the HP nor the reserves of anyone else, and several other characters have AC higher full-time than I can match even with debuffing attackers, but if I have most of my surges when the melee striker has run out then I've mismanaged things.

I did mention that the ritual was more of a stop-gap, not that it was only a stop-gap.

Also, I'm not saying that the fighter shouldn't retrain if he's going to try and take all the hits, I'm saying if he is going to stay the way he is and be stubborn, then he needs a buffer of some kind.   I agree that making one's self a target is sometimes the point, even if you aren't the defender.  I think it's something people don't understand, and honestly, it's probably born out of the assumption that fighter=defender=tank, and tanks run in and hit something hard holding argo while the healers heal them up.  That's at least the way I see most MMOs being played.  And since people seem to assume 4th=MMO, they assume tactics for the two games are the same where really, they're really not at all the same.

But I think you already know that.

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'll just respond to the OP:

Short answer: I want healing that makes sense *to me*.  4th is the most successful, so far.

Long answer: I really like Healing Surges and in general I like how 4th does things.  That said, I'm not married to the idea of Healing Surges (though if you ask me to design an alternative, I've got f#%&-all for suggestions...)

I like 4 major things about Healing Surges, and I'll list them in increasing importance.

1) It reduces the need for someone to play "the healer".  Between Healing Surges, and the ability to use them absent a healer, it frees up players to play what they want.  This by no means invalidates a healer, and there are consequences to going without a Leader (as there is with any role), but if you understand the risks, and plan accordingly, the party doesn't need to have a Leader, and certainly doesn't need a heal-bot.

2) They function as a wonderful pacing mechanic for adventures.  They are a great yardstick for when the party should rest.  They are a resource that isn't tied to power output.

3) They help distinguish between your total resiliance over the whole day, and your resiliance in the moment.  A fighter can have tons of healing surges and go adventuring all day long before he runs out of surges, but absent a way to use them, he can still be overcome in one fight.  It's kinda like a variation on the old massive damage rules from AD&D.

4) And most importantly, it fixes the problem of the weak, low constitution caster going from mortally wounded to fine FASTER than the tough warrior.  By tieing healing to the healing surge value, the tough adventurers always heal their wounds/overcome their weariness faster than those of less hardy constitutions.

If 5e can accomplish the preceding without healing surges *specifically*, then I'm game.  but until I see a valid alternative, I'm happy with surges.

Mar 2, 2012 -- 11:51AM, Foxface wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'll just respond to the OP:

Short answer: I want healing that makes sense *to me*.  4th is the most successful, so far.

Long answer: I really like Healing Surges and in general I like how 4th does things.  That said, I'm not married to the idea of Healing Surges (though if you ask me to design an alternative, I've got f#%&-all for suggestions...)

I like 4 major things about Healing Surges, and I'll list them in increasing importance.

1) It reduces the need for someone to play "the healer".  Between Healing Surges, and the ability to use them absent a healer, it frees up players to play what they want.  This by no means invalidates a healer, and there are consequences to going without a Leader (as there is with any role), but if you understand the risks, and plan accordingly, the party doesn't need to have a Leader, and certainly doesn't need a heal-bot.

2) They function as a wonderful pacing mechanic for adventures.  They are a great yardstick for when the party should rest.  They are a resource that isn't tied to power output.

3) They help distinguish between your total resiliance over the whole day, and your resiliance in the moment.  A fighter can have tons of healing surges and go adventuring all day long before he runs out of surges, but absent a way to use them, he can still be overcome in one fight.  It's kinda like a variation on the old massive damage rules from AD&D.

4) And most importantly, it fixes the problem of the weak, low constitution caster going from mortally wounded to fine FASTER than the tough warrior.  By tieing healing to the healing surge value, the tough adventurers always heal their wounds/overcome their weariness faster than those of less hardy constitutions.

If 5e can accomplish the preceding without healing surges *specifically*, then I'm game.  but until I see a valid alternative, I'm happy with surges.

Quoted for Awesomeness, although I would have listed it as (in increasing order of importance) 4, 1, 3, 2.

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:24PM, TheMormegil wrote:

Quoted for Awesomeness

Not for me so much, I find Healing Surges arbitrary and tacked on, but, hey, that's the way it goes.

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:24PM, TheMormegil wrote:

Mar 2, 2012 -- 11:51AM, Foxface wrote:

I haven't read the whole thread, so I'll just respond to the OP:

Short answer: I want healing that makes sense *to me*.  4th is the most successful, so far.

Long answer: I really like Healing Surges and in general I like how 4th does things.  That said, I'm not married to the idea of Healing Surges (though if you ask me to design an alternative, I've got f#%&-all for suggestions...)

I like 4 major things about Healing Surges, and I'll list them in increasing importance.

1) It reduces the need for someone to play "the healer".  Between Healing Surges, and the ability to use them absent a healer, it frees up players to play what they want.  This by no means invalidates a healer, and there are consequences to going without a Leader (as there is with any role), but if you understand the risks, and plan accordingly, the party doesn't need to have a Leader, and certainly doesn't need a heal-bot.

2) They function as a wonderful pacing mechanic for adventures.  They are a great yardstick for when the party should rest.  They are a resource that isn't tied to power output.

3) They help distinguish between your total resiliance over the whole day, and your resiliance in the moment.  A fighter can have tons of healing surges and go adventuring all day long before he runs out of surges, but absent a way to use them, he can still be overcome in one fight.  It's kinda like a variation on the old massive damage rules from AD&D.

4) And most importantly, it fixes the problem of the weak, low constitution caster going from mortally wounded to fine FASTER than the tough warrior.  By tieing healing to the healing surge value, the tough adventurers always heal their wounds/overcome their weariness faster than those of less hardy constitutions.

If 5e can accomplish the preceding without healing surges *specifically*, then I'm game.  but until I see a valid alternative, I'm happy with surges.

Quoted for Awesomeness, although I would have listed it as (in increasing order of importance) 4, 1, 3, 2.

Quoted once again.  But no order of importance.  I feel they all hold each other together, the numbered reasons.

#1, it does invalidate a healer when any character runs out of surges (either by poor luck or tactics). 4e had very limited ways to get around this (Dragon material being unavailable in most games I've played, Succor Comrade was not an option) and surgeless healing is actually pretty hard to stockpile enough to matter for more than finishing a given fight (believe me, I tried). There's an entire long and involed debate on the matter if you go back a few pages.

#2 Debateble once items powered by surges were added. Also somewhat redundant in a party with a vancian caster, which is confirmed for 5e. Potentially a downside either way since it offers the DM less scope to use scenarios that deny rest (harrasing attacks, waves, running battles, seiges, ect). I prefer that rest be something you do when you actually need to time to accomplish something (i.e. translate ancient runes, search a large room, pack all the loot you just found These don't require a direct correlation to any party resource at all.)

#3 I tend to take the opposite view that it makes more sense to ignore near-fatal wounds in the rush of combat, but potentially be overcome by your wounds after the fight ends (when other party members are easily available to assist you).  I like the idea of fast healing temp hp up to your bloodied value during any short rest ("shake it off") but leave actual hp recovery in the hands of healers and extended rest It seems kind of odd to go full tilt through waves of minions without slowing down at all and then suddenly drop where you stand.

I would also like to note that your #4 isn't actually about healing surges. Several posters (myself included) dislike surges but voted that healing should remain a percentage or max hp.

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:49PM, journeyman777 wrote:

#1, it does invalidate a healer when any character runs out of surges (either by poor luck or tactics). 4e had very limited ways to get around this (Dragon material being unavailable in most games I've played, Succor Comrade was not an option) and surgeless healing is actually pretty hard to stockpile enough to matter for more than finishing a given fight (believe me, I tried). There's an entire long and involed debate on the matter if you go back a few pages.

Which is, to me, a very good thing. The leader enables healing, isn't required for it nor it grants healing to characters who didn't invest in resilience. Otherwise, it's like 3.5: HPs are virtually meaningless as long as you don't die in a round.

#2 Debateble once items powered by surges were added. Also somewhat redundant in a party with a vancian caster, which is confirmed for 5e. Potentially a downside either way since it offers the DM less scope to use scenarios that deny rest (harrasing attacks, waves, running battles, seiges, ect). I prefer that rest be something you do when you actually need to time to accomplish something (i.e. translate ancient runes, search a large room, pack all the loot you just found These don't require a direct correlation to any party resource at all.)

Ugh... don't remind me. ._. Anyway, I didn't see many items powered by surges in 4E.

#3 I tend to take the opposite view that it makes more sense to ignore near-fatal wounds in the rush of combat, but potentially be overcome by your wounds after the fight ends (when other party members are easily available to assist you).  I like the idea of fast healing temp hp up to your bloodied value during any short rest ("shake it off") but leave actual hp recovery in the hands of healers and extended rest It seems kind of odd to go full tilt through waves of minions without slowing down at all and then suddenly drop where you stand.

I'd like to have something radically different from that.

I would also like to note that your #4 isn't actually about healing surges. Several posters (myself included) dislike surges but voted that healing should remain a percentage or max hp.

Which is something I certainly hope is kept. However, this means quite clearly that the game needs at LEAST two health systems. Which is a pain to balance around.

If two is good, then three may be better...

Assuming healing surges stay. Also add a wounds system that can power the same effects, but comes with a penalty. A character who runs out of surges can then take on wounds to continue restoring his Hp as normal. 

Pros: 

The unlucky character no longer halts the adventuring day early by virtue of simple bad luck or poor tactics exhausting his surges significantly faster than the rest of the party. This also reduces the need for a healer since you could get by without surgeless healing (albeit under an increasing burden of penalties).

The healer classes would have effects that reduce severity and/or remove wounds, thus allowing them to continue healing said unfortunate soul past his normal limits (albeit at reduced action and resource efficiency on their own part). The healer becomes less likely to be rendered irrelevant by another character's bad luck and/or poor tactics.

Players who want "Gritty" can just reduce/remove healing surges and the healer and healing powers in the system continue to work at their normal balance via wounds.

Everyone wins!

Cons?

If you were to implement a healing surge mechanic and recovery rate, then you  could adjust the recovery rate based on the environment and conditions. If you remove automatic recovery of all surges at the end of the day, then you have a gauge where you can make the campaign gritty or heroic based on the environment, conditiions, etc. How random you would like the healing could be worked into the equation, for instance wth older editions I would allow random healing in battle to match the chaos, but out of combat the healing was max.
 

Well you can be anti-healing surge and not want to limit healing to the cleric.   I'm for a feat chain that is healing related.  No spells are healing related.  Each feat is a power.  I'd then allow for a bunch of classes to take the chain.  Maybe not just anybody but many.

 

Mar 2, 2012 -- 2:39PM, journeyman777 wrote:

Cons?

Complexity. You can achieve the same thing with just wounds; simply have a certain number of wounds (based on class+con) that a character can take without penalty (fighters can simply grit their teeth and ignore tons of wounds. Wizards, only a few) and any further grants penalties. 

Grittyness can still be achieved by reducing/removing the buffer. 

Mar 2, 2012 -- 12:49PM, journeyman777 wrote:

#1, it does invalidate a healer when any character runs out of surges (either by poor luck or tactics). 4e had very limited ways to get around this (Dragon material being unavailable in most games I've played, Succor Comrade was not an option) and surgeless healing is actually pretty hard to stockpile enough to matter for more than finishing a given fight (believe me, I tried). There's an entire long and involed debate on the matter if you go back a few pages.

That's not invalidating the healer/leader.  That's the party reaching their limit.  That's more or less the same as a 3.X party running out of heal spells and wands of cure light wounds.  Not that that ever really happened...which is why I prefer 4e in practice anyway.  Parties can reach a reasonable limit without having to be thrown into some impossible situation.  The simply long adventuring day can wear them out, as seems natural.  Combine it with skill challenges that cost surges for failures (in place of combat encounters with probable healing surge loss), and you can have a nicely paced adventuring day with combats and exploration, with healing surges representing what you're body is capable of handling.

It does require a bit of rethinking of how magic works.  With wands of cure, and near limitless spells, magic simply could heal you.  In 4e, most magic is working with what you've got.  Magic can miraculously heal you very quickly (faster than you can do so yourself by spending surges via second wind or a short rest), but it can't heal you more than your own body is capable of healing.  Magic "unlocks" your potential.  It opens the floodgates, but if your resevoir is dry, then there is no flood.

I prefer it that way, but I understand that many don't like it.

#2 Debateble once items powered by surges were added. Also somewhat redundant in a party with a vancian caster, which is confirmed for 5e. Potentially a downside either way since it offers the DM less scope to use scenarios that deny rest (harrasing attacks, waves, running battles, seiges, ect). I prefer that rest be something you do when you actually need to time to accomplish something (i.e. translate ancient runes, search a large room, pack all the loot you just found These don't require a direct correlation to any party resource at all.)

Yeah, magic items that used surges have been more or less a mistake, and kinda interferes with pacing.

But I don't think it prevents a DM from running "no rest" scenarios.  The DM simply acknowledges that the party isn't getting a short rest inbetween "encounters", and takes that into account when designing adventures, same as they have always done.  Not having a rest to recharge, catch your breath, apply first aid, or use leader-enabled healing makes the subsequent encounter harder than it would normally be, due to reduced resources.  If you deviate from the assumption of breaks inbetween fights, then you can't expect the rules as written to account for that.  Such is the nature of houseruling.

Nothing is stopping a DM from delivering a gauntlet of encounters, except the DM him/herself (and the willingness of the players to go along with it).  As has always been the case.

#3 I tend to take the opposite view that it makes more sense to ignore near-fatal wounds in the rush of combat, but potentially be overcome by your wounds after the fight ends (when other party members are easily available to assist you).  I like the idea of fast healing temp hp up to your bloodied value during any short rest ("shake it off") but leave actual hp recovery in the hands of healers and extended rest It seems kind of odd to go full tilt through waves of minions without slowing down at all and then suddenly drop where you stand.

Well, that's kinda what Second Wind *is*.  It's the "shake it off" or "ignore the pain, feel the adrenaline".  It works because HP is abstract and "damage" isn't necessarily physical at all (altough it could be).  If you invite in a wound system, or codify that HP damage does truly represent actual physical harm (or psychosomatic harm via psychic damage), then what you suggest is sensible.  I'm wary however, since wounds tends to lead to death spirals.

But I don't follow how someone who mowed through waves of minions would "drop" suddenly once the fight was over.  You don't collapse if you're out of surges.  You're simply taxed to your limit, and if you're then *later* dropped, only *then* you're not getting back up.

I would also like to note that your #4 isn't actually about healing surges. Several posters (myself included) dislike surges but voted that healing should remain a percentage or max hp.

True, my number 4 isn't surges, specifically.  Surges are just the first time a percentage-based healing was implemented.

Again, I'm not married to surges, but whatever replaces them (if they are being replaced) should create the same "feel", if I am to be satisfied.

I want a typical fighter to heal faster than a typical wizard, I want some sense of self-healing to represent "pure grit" and "pushing through the pain".  A rogue got shot by an arrow in the last fight?  Mechanically, he spends a surge after the fight and heals some abstract HP.  Narratively, he grits his teeth, and breaks the shaft sticking out of his shoulder.  He grins to himself, thanks his god that the arrow missed his heart/throat/naughty bits, and resolves to work through the pain in his shoulder.

He "heals", but the wound doesn't stitch up within the narrative.

This of course only works if HP is truly abstract.  If you want to use Temp HP to model "grit" and "determination" and consider HP as something less abstract, all this is moot.  But I think it unnecessariy complicates things, considering abstract HP works just as well, and then you're only tracking one HP total, and not two (actual HP and temp HP).

"That's more or less the same as a 3.X party running out of heal spells and wands of cure light wounds.  Not that that ever really happened..." -Foxface

In more than a decade of play I've never seen a party where it didn't. Wands/scrolls/potions were always conserved for those time when rest wasn't a viable option (mid-dungeon against intelligent enemies that will escape/regroup/harass you, ect). I never saw a party willing to throw their wealth by level down the drain without a good narrative reason to press on. I've seen the occasional 15min workday when a fight turnout out really badly, but that had more to do with poor luck and tactics than anything else. Players really hated having to stop and rest that quickly. Maybe I simply found myself hanging with a better quality of players than some, but everyone I've gamed with had the most fun at around 3-5 encounters played over a 3-5 hour session with an extended rest marking the end of the session.

"Nothing is stopping a DM from delivering a gauntlet of encounters, except the DM him/herself (and the willingness of the players to go along with it).  As has always been the case." - Foxface

You are entirely correct. I simply noted that it (healing surges) limited the DM's scope to do so (particularly in comparison to older editions where consumable healing supplies were stockpiled for just this reason and could be used when needed to overcome this).

"But I don't follow how someone who mowed through waves of minions would "drop" suddenly once the fight was over." - Foxface

In this context I was talking about him dropping mid-combat (lack of surges preventing him from regaining hp mid-combat as he had in all previous fights). I happen to think that if an ability is going to work on an encounter basis, then it should work in every encounter. The logic isn't "I used healing word, so now you can heal yourself" it is "I used healing word, the power of my God has healed you". Healing is something done "to" the target, not "by" the target, just as damage is. Having a mechanic invisible to the character in-game and based off numbers not found on my (the healer) character sheet act as a binary on/off condition for my core function (healing) is detrimental to roleplaying and world verisimilitude, particularly if you don't interpret hp/surge loss as something that the character can see and estimate for himself. Without that, all healing decisions become effectively meta-gaming because they must be based on player knowledge rather than character knowledge.

 "I want some sense of self-healing to represent "pure grit" and "pushing through the pain"....ect" - Foxface

I agree completely. I'm willing to accept a number of different systems so long as they achieve this. I like playing healers under the old paradigm and I like limited self-healing. I feel that the two things complement each other by limiting the healer's job to the decisive moments of live or die rather than just fighting combat fatigue with band-aids. I simply don't feel that healing surges do this well. The few surgeless healing effects built in to the 4e healers end up too little, too late to serve as crude patches to a system that does the job imperfectly. A system that doesn't require such work-arounds in the first place sounds less complicated overall and less punitive to anyone who tries rolling up a healer without a firm grasp of the system and requirements of the role to begin with.

I would like something better in the next edition. I personally don't see these possibilities (split HP/VP, HP/HS/Wounds, ect) as being any more complicated than keeping track of "bloodied/unbloodied" but I admit to a high tolerance for complexity when it offers me greater simulation. For me, simulation creates and supports narrative. I recognize that this is not necessarily true for everyone. 

Mar 3, 2012 -- 2:15PM, journeyman777 wrote:

I happen to think that if an ability is going to work on an encounter basis, then it should work in every encounter. The logic isn't "I used healing word, so now you can heal yourself" it is "I used healing word, the power of my God has healed you". Healing is something done "to" the target, not "by" the target, just as damage is.

There are only a few gazillion literary references for the notion that, regardless of what *triggers* the healing to occur, the actual energy for it normally comes primarily from the character being healed.

For that matter, this same assumption is pretty much inherent in the fact that the 4E cleric's Healing Word will heal more HP for the fighter than it will for the wizard.

If the energy for healing actually comes from the character being healed, that energy eventually runs out.

Having a mechanic invisible to the character in-game and based off numbers not found on my (the healer) character sheet act as a binary on/off condition for my core function (healing) is detrimental to roleplaying and world verisimilitude

I disagree 100%. (Of course, it's entirely subjective. You're 100% wrong - if you're talking about ME. If you're talking about yourself, I have to assume you are 100% correct.)

And a few gazillion literary references for it coming from the healer, and another few gazillion for it coming from some other source entirerly (either divine or whatever generic source magic normally comes from in that setting). Healing is not an uncommon topic in fantasy literature. In D&D, it has traditionally been the express province of the divine with the limitation being the capacity of the faithful to channel it (lay on hands, number of spell slots/CL, ect). It relying at all on the target is something entirely new to 4e and not really ever discussed in the flavor. 

I agree that what affects roleplaying and to an extent world verisimilitude is subjective in play. If they had spent so much as a single paragraph in a sidebar saying "Hey, this is what this looks like in game" so that it would make sense and be a part of the world/setting rather than just another oddity of PC mechanics... well, I'd be annoyed at having to change a basic fact of my setting but I'd get over it. Even the 4e D&D novels (at least ones I've read, so about half of them) still express healing as a power that originates from the healer and works on the target. Thus the disconnect between what the flavor has and still says is happening and what the mechanics say is happening. I'm glad that it works fine for you, but I'd rather have something that works perfectly for both of us. That's all.

Mar 4, 2012 -- 3:05AM, journeyman777 wrote:

And a few gazillion literary references for it coming from the healer, and another few gazillion for it coming from some other source entirerly (either divine or whatever generic source magic normally comes from in that setting). Healing is not an uncommon topic in fantasy literature. In D&D, it has traditionally been the express province of the divine with the limitation being the capacity of the faithful to channel it (lay on hands, number of spell slots/CL, ect). It relying at all on the target is something entirely new to 4e and not really ever discussed in the flavor. 

I agree that what affects roleplaying and to an extent world verisimilitude is subjective in play. If they had spent so much as a single paragraph in a sidebar saying "Hey, this is what this looks like in game" so that it would make sense and be a part of the world/setting rather than just another oddity of PC mechanics... well, I'd be annoyed at having to change a basic fact of my setting but I'd get over it. Even the 4e D&D novels (at least ones I've read, so about half of them) still express healing as a power that originates from the healer and works on the target. Thus the disconnect between what the flavor has and still says is happening and what the mechanics say is happening. I'm glad that it works fine for you, but I'd rather have something that works perfectly for both of us. That's all.

I'd like to point out that this is often regarded as a feature, rather than a problem, by 4e supporters. Mechanics and flavor in this occasion are completely dissociated: what works works and it enhances the storytelling and atmosphere of the game. That's all we need, and the lack of a proper in-game reason just means we describe it differently each time it comes up, as fitting for the scene.

I think D&D Next needs a "default" flavor for its mechanics, for people like you, and the explicit categorization of what exactly is part of the mechanics, and what is just flavor (the part we can change without altering balance).

Mar 4, 2012 -- 3:13AM, TheMormegil wrote:

I'd like to point out that this is often regarded as a feature, rather than a problem, by 4e supporters. Mechanics and flavor in this occasion are completely dissociated: what works works and it enhances the storytelling and atmosphere of the game. That's all we need, and the lack of a proper in-game reason just means we describe it differently each time it comes up, as fitting for the scene.

I think D&D Next needs a "default" flavor for its mechanics, for people like you, and the explicit categorization of what exactly is part of the mechanics, and what is just flavor (the part we can change without altering balance).

I'm not sure in this specific example a casual observer wouldn't see the same effect regardless.  I do though think this is one of those classic simulationist vs narrativists arguments.   I want the rules to model reality in the world.  For that reason I want plausible realistic rules even if that makes the game design harder.  

Here are examples of things I'd hate even though they might help in other ways...
1.  Regain dailies every 4 encounters or between adventures.  (This has no real correlation to something in the game world)
2.  Encounter power - I explained this by saying it is 10 minutes which the designers suggested.  So it is minor.  I do though hold strict to 10 minutes so if an encounter breaks only very briefly I don't return the encounter powers.
3.  Martial Dailies -  while a nice way to achieve balance, there is no realistic correlation.  For those who think there is a corelation don't bother trying to convince me, entire threads have already been written.  
4.  Martial Healing - I understand hit points aren't real damage all the time.  The problem is they are some of the time.  When a character goes unconscious from his wounds or is making death saves then I assume he's hurt and not just out of breath.  This of course though makes more classes capable of healing which is nice in other ways.  I just can't swallow it in it's current incarnation for sure.

Not trying to convince you theMormegil but that is why otherwise perfectly reasonable mechanics get rejected and the narrativists sometimes don't understand why.   I say sometimes because you have of course figured out the dichotomy but I'm referring to those who've not yet came to the full understanding of it.  
 

Mar 4, 2012 -- 3:05AM, journeyman777 wrote:

In D&D, it has traditionally been the express province of the divine with the limitation being the capacity of the faithful to channel it (lay on hands, number of spell slots/CL, ect). It relying at all on the target is something entirely new to 4e and not really ever discussed in the flavor.

Can you provide quotes from previous editions that discuss the flavor of this concept?  It certainly matches the mechanics, but was it actually mentioned in such a way?  I will take a look myself later (I don't have time now), and I suspect that the answer will be no (though I hope to be surprised).  My research so far into the past editions has shown that the idea of 4E as being far less flavor-rich is simply not true.

Surges are very easy to explain: there is a limit to how much you can do.  Even magical healing requires you to pay back the debt eventually (this is a Discworld concept, but it fits nicely here).  Sure, right now it allows you to forget how tired you are, ignore the pain, and stitch up your cuts, etc.  But at some point you are going to need to actually tend to those wounds and get some rest.  In other words, healing (whether it is magical or inspirational) is like an energy drink.  It lets you keep going and ignore your fatigue, but eventually you do need to sleep.

Lastly, even with the surge mechanic, Clerics are still the best healers.  On top of their ability to heal massive amounts when they allow allies to spend a surge, they have access to many surgeless healing powers.  Cure Light Wounds (level 2, 1 surge worth), Cure Serious Wounds (level 6, 2 surges worth), Mass Cure Light Wounds (level 10, everyone gets 1 surge worth), Cure Critical Wounds (level 16, 3 surges worth), and Mass Cure Serious Wounds (level 22, everyone gets 2 surges worth).

@Emerikol: the issue is that when you say "I want plausible realistic rules", you mean "realistic" as defined by you.  There is no actual realism here; everything is in the eye of the beholder.  As you say, there have been entire threads dedicated to this, in which many people have given examples of explaining things in a plausible, realistic way, but it wasn't realistic to you.

For example, having casters unable to get spells back until the next day is not realistic.  Why can't the wizard simply look in his book more?  Why can't the cleric pray more?

With Martial healing, you assume something, but that doesn't have to be true.  In other words, you are setting the conditions for your own "game reality" and for how you define "realism" as it relates to the fantasy game world.

"I think D&D Next needs a "default" flavor for its mechanics, for people like you, and the explicit categorization of what exactly is part of the mechanics, and what is just flavor (the part we can change without altering balance)" -TheMormegil

THIS! Yes, I do not have the memory or the love of note taking to keep track of every bit of flavor text I must invent on the spot. I do not want to have to verbally walk every new player through the flavor of every choice race/class/power/ect available to them when they create/level a character or somehow forget between sessions. This should be in the book for them to read, see (a picture worth a 1,000 words), and be reminded of by the very nature of the mechanics themselves. 

D&D seems to draw number crunching simulationist and storytelling narrativists to the DM's art in similar numbers. The some may most appreciate balanced mechanics and content in the books, because for them flavor is an easy thing to provide. For me, flavor is the hard part and world building with appropriate systems and content is easy. If the books don't provide both then a lot of DMs are having to work harder and spend more time on the part of the job they like less and don't do as well.

@Arithzoo: Give me a little time to dig through my book collection. I'm fairly certain I can pull up a quote for you.

"Healing: Certain divine conjurations heal creatures or even bring them back to life. These include cure spells." - 3.5 PHB pg 173

"Unlike arcane spells, divine spells draw power from a divine source. ... Divine spells tend to focus on healing and protection and are less flashy, destructive, and disruptive than arcane spells." - 3.5 PHB pg 179

"A cleric uses the power of his god to make his god’s will manifest." - 3.5 PHB pg 30

"The divine energy of the spell that the cure or inflict spell substitutes for is converted into the cure or inflict spell as if that spell had been prepared all along." 3.5 PHB pg 180

"As the one who can channel divine energy, a cleric is a capable healer." - 3.5 PHB pg 31

"When laying your hand upon a living creature, you channel positive energy that cures.... - Cure Light Wounds, 3.5 PHB pg 215

"With a touch of your hand, you boost the subject’s life energy, granting him or her the fast healing ability for the duration of the spell." - Complete Divine pg 186

I suppose it is also worth noting that while 3.5 bards do have the "cure x wounds" spells on their class list (the only non-divine class to do so in all of 3.5 AFIAK), this potential to use healing magic is not referenced even once in the flavor, including the Characteristics, Other classes, or Role sections. they do however note: "A bard brings forth magic from his soul," (3.5 PHB pg 26) so his spell effects are still regarded as true magic drawing on his own power, not merely a way to let others access their own reserves. This difference is further illustrated in that his Bardic Music effect "Inspire Greatness" only grants temp hp, not actual healing.

 "Divine magic comes from the Gods. ... Divine magic excels at healing..." - 4e PHB pg 54

"Clerics ... bolster and heal companions," 4e PHB pg 60

"To this end, choose powers that grant bonuses and healing," - 4e PHB pg 61

"Using the Healing Word power, clerics can grant their comrades additional resilience with nothing more than a short prayer." - 4e PHB pg 61

"You whisper a brief prayer as divine light washes over your target, helping to mend its wounds." - Healing Word flavor text. 4e PHB pg 62 ("Helping" does imply that this power isn't up to the job all by itself. Let's look at some others, shall we?)

"...your deity bestows a minor blessing in the form of healing for you or one of your allies." Healing Strike flavor text, 4e PHB Pg 63 

"You conjure an insubstantial spirit that hovers in the air nearby and heals your wounded comrades." - Spirit of Health flavor text, 4e PHB pg 70

 "The light...bathes your allies in a protective, healing glow." - Healing Torch flavor text, 4e PHB pg 71

"Strength flows out from you to your injured comrades, rekindling their resolve. - Channel Divinity: Healer's Mercy, Divine Power pg 30 (This is the closest the flavor text ever comes to splitting the difference and even here it is using divine power to transfer your own strength to the target.)

I don't bother to list the surgeless healing powers but the flavor text on them reads exactly the same way as the powers that require surges (or even the Paladin's Lay on Hands, which uses his own surges). In contrast, the Warlord specifies "Your powers help your allies find new surges of courage and confidence within themselves, helping them to heal,..." (4e PHB pg 144).

Divine healing is still described as the cleric channeling power or the deity directly granting healing with few references to limitations of the target. Warlord healing explicitly uses verbs such as "inspires, marshals, instructs, lifts the spirits" as something he does, but doesn't use phrases that imply a transfer or direct effect of any kind, such as "gives, grants, mend wounds, heals, ect. The cleric does. Flavor-wise, even in 4e divine magic heals directly most of the time without any distinction in flavor text between those effects that require surges and those that do not. Martial inspiration flavors it very much as a result of the target simply digging deeper into his reserves than he had the will to do before, but also lacks any clear difference in flavor between those effects that require surges and those that restore hit points directly.

Perhaps most interestingly, there is no flavor text or explanation whatsoever in the 4e PHB as to what healing surges are supposed to represent. The only mention of them in the entire four paragraphs on healing is "From this number (maximum HP) you derive your blooding and healing surge values." Hit points themselves get quite a bit of description (much more broadly than previous editions) as a combination of ability to withstand punishment/turn strikes into glancing blows/physical endurance/skill/luck/resolve. None of that is assigned to Healing surges or any text associated with the limited nature of them. Quite simply, they don't represent anything at all in terms of flavor. The world doesn't see, recognize, or reference them in any way. They are purely a mechanical construct setting an arbitrary limit on character action without even an attempt at justification. They exist not to simulate "physical endurance" (explicitly part of HP itself) or any kind of "resistance to further healing" (never mentioned anywhere), but purely as a way to make the party need an extended rest even if no encounter in the adventuring day was difficult enough to require the expenditure of dailies. 

In terms of flavor, the healing of actual wounds is still very much associated directly with the action of divine power on a target. Martial healing is explained in the context that Hp itself now includes skill/luck/resolve. I have good personal experience to argue that such motivation is indeed very effective in driving a person to greater heights of performance or in ignoring injury temporarily. This still doesn't explain how an inspiring speech helps an unconscious person (the dying state is expressly described as such), but that's just another instance of mechanical balance and simplicity trampling over world verisimilitude.

Mar 4, 2012 -- 11:55AM, journeyman777 wrote:

This still doesn't explain how an inspiring speech helps an unconscious person (the dying state is expressly described as such), but that's just another instance of mechanical balance and simplicity trampling over world verisimilitude.

Riggs, you're not dead until I tell you.

It's a cinematic conceit, not a simulatory one.

And a cool one to boot! :D

Mar 4, 2012 -- 12:23PM, TheMormegil wrote:

And a cool one to boot! :D

Something I think many people miss is that 4th edition provided mechanical things that needed to be explained to the best of a specific table's willingness to accept, instead of trying to find an in-world reason for everything to exist.  I'm not sure how older editions did this, but I prefer the 4th ed approach.

There's "suspension of disbelief" and then there's "hanging it from the neck until dead." I find that one supports play and immersion while the other destroys it. Sadly that's pretty much a personal judgement call on where the line is betwixt the two. I suppose that's much the point of all the polls. WotC needs to have an idea where and how players draw that line so they can keep as much as possible on the right side of it.

Kalnaur, you've mentioned before that you haven't played any of the older editions. I accept that you like the way 4e does things, but without actually having tried it other ways I don't think it possible for you to "prefer" 4e over them. Give 3.5 a try sometime and you might find that you like it as well or better (in general or even just for certain styles of campaign). I get the impression from the other things you've said that you would enjoy playing 3.5 under me or my usual DMs. I'm confident that I would have a good time playing in one of yours.

Mar 4, 2012 -- 1:14PM, journeyman777 wrote:

There's "suspension of disbelief" and then there's "hanging it from the neck until dead." I find that one supports play and immersion while the other destroys it. Sadly that's pretty much a personal judgement call on where the line is betwixt the two. I suppose that's much the point of all the polls. WotC needs to have an idea where and how players draw that line so they can keep as much as possible on the right side of it.

Kalnaur, you've mentioned before that you haven't played any of the older editions. I accept that you like the way 4e does things, but without actually having tried it other ways I don't think it possible for you to "prefer" 4e over them. Give 3.5 a try sometime and you might find that you like it as well or better (in general or even just for certain styles of campaign). I get the impression from the other things you've said that you would enjoy playing 3.5 under me or my usual DMs. I'm confident that I would have a good time playing in one of yours.

I might ineed have fun playing once in a while, but all the books be they player or DM that I have tried to read in past editions just . . . don't jive with me.  4th ed had the first books that I could read cover to cover, and not only enjoy the read, but feel like I understood the game.  Also, I prefer 4th ed's style of build and play over the games I have played based on the older systems, and that has to count for something.

I would like something more straightforward, I am not a fan of negative HP, the Bloodied condition, or Healing Surges, but I do like Second Wind and non-divine healing.

Fair enough. I'd still recommend you take a look at the 3.5 PHBII if you get the chance. 4e drew heavily on material tested in the later end of 3.5 (ToM, ToB), so you can get much the same style of build and play. That's one reason a lot of us switched back from 4e. There wasn't much it offered that we couldn't already do with a full collection of splats. The finer points of the mechanics are really for the DM to deal with. If he's good they become quite transparent to the players. My average time to get a new player (never played any tabletop RPG before) into the game and having fun is about 30min. It just looks more confusing in text than it is in play.

BTW: You don't need to quote my post every time. It kind of takes up space.


@Steely_Dan: Care to elaborate on not liking negative HP? That isn't a comment usually seen around here and I'm not sure what you would prefer instead happen at 0 HP.

Mar 4, 2012 -- 3:05AM, journeyman777 wrote:

And a few gazillion literary references for it coming from the healer, and another few gazillion for it coming from some other source entirerly (either divine or whatever generic source magic normally comes from in that setting). Healing is not an uncommon topic in fantasy literature.

I have no problem with that, and neither does 4E - most leader classes have SOME access to healing that does not drain the resources of the person being healed. The best at that form of healing are clerics and shamans, but bards do it too (offhand I can't recall any warlord powers that do surgeless healing). Plus, ALL leader classes, at least when they use their standard healing, allow the target to spend a surge and gain a surge worth of hit points PLUS some additional amount that is based on the healer, not the target. 

In D&D, it has traditionally been the express province of the divine

Lots of other mistakes have been traditional at various times, too. That doesn't mean we are stuck with them.

with the limitation being the capacity of the faithful to channel it (lay on hands, number of spell slots/CL, ect). It relying at all on the target is something entirely new to 4e and not really ever discussed in the flavor.

So we expand our literary roots.

Even the 4e D&D novels (at least ones I've read, so about half of them)

I think I've read about half of one D&D novel. I don't recall what edition. Obviously I am not much influenced by what the novels based on D&D say.

Mar 4, 2012 -- 1:42PM, Steely_Dan wrote:

I would like something more straightforward, I am not a fan of negative HP, the Bloodied condition, or Healing Surges, but I do like Second Wind and non-divine healing.

I see about eye-to-eye with you here. I would like to see the following.

Second Wind: Player has an(1) healing surge to use in combat. This is literally his "second wind" and restores those HP's that aren't physical damage (since we've already agreed that HP are both physical damage and damage avoidance/fatigue/luck etc.)

Non-Divine Healing: Players actually have a Healing skill that DOES something. If a player takes the healing skill, it should be something that is somewhat potent. The die amount healed after a successful healing check could scale with skill level.

Other than that, I would like to continue to see divine healing from divine classes (with some psionic psychometabolic thrown in as well) necromantic arcane (with a cost) and (rare) healing potions. Otherwise use natural means to heal up. It's hard to fight a combat almost to the death and bounce back the next day without a lot of rest or some magical intervention.

While I agree that it is somewhat subjective, I do represent more than a singular view.   Lots of people have issues with versimilitude smashing things and they tend to agree a lot on what those things are.  I hear it a lot about 4e.  I heard it occasionally in earlier editions.

The example above about the martial healer and the dead guy are hilarious.  If I was playing a slapstick game I might buy it.  I tend to prefer a more serious game.   I'm sure if I were joining a campaign and got told that explanation I'd know immediately that this crew is not for me.

So the question is... could I devise a logical method of determining realism as I and many others see it?  I think I could do so.

My issues are more player metagame actions vs character actions.  

The more that thoughts in the characters head are different than what the player is thinking it's bad to me. 

@Once again for those that think magic can be made more or less realistic
First of all there is no magic in this world.  You can keep talking about this novel or that novel or tv or bla bla bla.  That is not realism.   I could devise a hundred different magic systems.   They would everyone be realistic.  Why? Because magic has no analog in our world.  So from my perspective, I view magic as the thing we want to play with to achieve a good game.   Because magic can be anything.   I have extensive "believable" explanations on another thread for why a spell could be a daily power.  It was easy.   I could just as easily devise systems that had only at-wills, only encounters (10 minutes), only rituals.   Any one of those could be realistic.  Any one done wrong could break a game.  


Edited: fixed sentence by adding question mark above pointed out by Draco18.  Thanks!  I get to typing so fast sometimes I really get sloppy.  

Grammar nitpick.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 6:14AM, Emerikol wrote:

So the question is... could I devise a logical method of determining realism as I and many others see it.  I think I could do so.

You don't have a question mark in that statement.  You have a question, but you turned it into a statement by ending it with a period.

examples of divine healing fluff from 3.5 Show

Thanks for providing those examples, but they don't address the real issue: that of a limitation being on the caster rather than the recipient.

Here was your original statement that I quoted, bolded for emphasis: "In D&D, it has traditionally been the express province of the divine with the limitation being the capacity of the faithful to channel it (lay on hands, number of spell slots/CL, ect)."

So not only does it not discuss this issue (which is as important as the fact that 4E never talks about what exactly a surge represents), but, as you pointed out (quite fairly), the bard could heal without being divine.  So why can't the wizard or sorcerer heal?

I do wish there was a short sidebar that talked about what HP and surges represent, as I think it would have taken away some of the dislike of Martial healing that people have.  From the very 1st edition of D&D, hp was much, much more than just physical injury.  Surges are simply an extension of your hp: your own inner reserves of strength, luck, etc.  But there is a limit to how long you can keep going...eventually even the body of the toughest fighter just gives out.  Thus surges are not only a great game mechanic (they put a limit on daily healing), but they also make sense.

Regarding the warlord healing his unconscious friend...being unconscious doesn't mean you can no longer hear (plenty of cases of people in a coma being aware of stuff said around them).  It just means you fall down and can no longer take actions or defend yourself effectively.  It is just a game term.  Sort of like how "Prone" in game doesn't have to mean "having the front or ventral surface downward".  In game, someone could be lying on their back and still count as being prone. 

So, as others have said, when the warlord heals an unconscious ally, he is shouting, "You don't die until I say you can die!"  He is yelling, "Get up and FIGHT, soldier!"  It isn't slapstick; it is awesome and cinematic and happens in real life.

HP is much more than just physical injury.  That means, even when you are lying on the ground at 0 hp (not dead yet), and thinking that there is no way you can possibly keep fighting, some of that is because you are exhausted.  You are beaten because you are tired and don't think you have it in you to keep going.  But then your friend inspires you to dig down deep, find those reserves of strength you didn't even know about, stand up, and keep prodding buttock.

Otherwise, you need to keep track of all types of "damage" separately.  You will have separate values for your physical health, your luck, your stamina, your mental fortitude, etc.  And then you have to figure out how much damage of each is down with every attack.  It isn't as simple as saying, "well, a sword does lethal damage", because damage isn't lethal until you are dead (not simply dying, but fully dead).

For example, take an elven rogue.  He isn't physically tough at all.  His HP thus mostly represent luck, his ability to dodge and roll, and his stamina.  But during a fight he surely gets minor scrapes, bruises, and cuts.  So how much physical hp does this represent?

It is just far easier to keep it all lumped into HP, and stop worrying so much about martial healing.

I've always felt that healing should be divine only but that it should not be a spell.  Instead I'd like it to be a feat chain of encounter powers that ANY class could take.   The only drawback is the loss of other feats and the requirement to submit to some kind of divine order of some sort.

So the cleric would exist and could be a healer.  But so could any other class.   Now my presumption is that it is divine influence that allows healing so it is magic.

An example would be...
FEAT [DIVINE] - Cure Light Wounds
Cast this 6 times per day (or Once per Encounter if using that mechanic).
prerequisite level: 1 
heal 1/4 of a targets hit points.

To take divine feats you have to be religious.   Thats a pretty broad concept though.  Think buddhist monk or mystic as well as cleric and priest.

I think if these feat powers were balanced against other feat powers like martial, arcane, etc... then it would be fun.  You don't have to have a dedicated healer but rather any class can take up that mantle.


 

Mar 5, 2012 -- 7:40AM, Emerikol wrote:

I've always felt that healing should be divine only but that it should not be a spell.

Why on earth should only the divine be able to grant healing?

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:12AM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 5, 2012 -- 7:40AM, Emerikol wrote:

I've always felt that healing should be divine only but that it should not be a spell.

Why on earth should only the divine be able to grant healing?

Indeed:

Divine Healing: "God, heal this poor soul."
Arcane Healing: "Drink this, it's good for you." (Alchemist)
Martial Healing: "GET UP SOLDIER."
Mundane Healing: "Here, let me bandage that up." (Heal Skill)

For a game about high fantasy and creating a story at the table, I am amazed at the lack of imagination of some players. That being said I think an optional wound system parallel to HP would help bring more realism to those where surges destroy versimilitude.

I like the 4e implementation of healing surge as a resource as well as second wind. What I don't like is the use of healing surge outside of combat.

An option I would like is for Heal skill or Healing ability to be required both in and out of combat. Since 4e has a 5 minute recovery time for encounters, I would apply that to the Heal skill outside of combat. You could then have a adventure that sets a brisk pace where you have 5 or 10 minutes to refresh major injuries and recover enough stamina to use their special abilities, but not reset everyones hp instantly.

This would give an interesting group composition element also. A group with multiple people with the Heal skill can recover fast as they can tend each others wounds quickly. A group with one primary healer may have potent healing through skills and magic but would have a slower recovery time as they would be the only one tending to the wounded.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:50AM, sleypy wrote:

I like the 4e implementation of healing surge as a resource as well as second wind. What I don't like is the use of healing surge outside of combat.

I would apply that to the Heal skill outside of combat. You could then have a adventure that sets a brisk pace where you have 5 or 10 minutes to refresh major injuries and recover enough stamina to use their special abilities, but not reset everyones hp instantly.

Oh, I like this.

Not sure how it would work mechanically, but I like the idea.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:18AM, Draco18s wrote:

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:12AM, Kalnaur wrote:

Mar 5, 2012 -- 7:40AM, Emerikol wrote:

I've always felt that healing should be divine only but that it should not be a spell.

Why on earth should only the divine be able to grant healing?

Indeed:

Divine Healing: "God, heal this poor soul."
Arcane Healing: "Drink this, it's good for you." (Alchemist)
Martial Healing: "GET UP SOLDIER."
Mundane Healing: "Here, let me bandage that up." (Heal Skill)

Indeed seconded.
There is also...

Primal Healing: "I call upon the spirits of water and earth!"

And I don't understand how anyone can have no issue with hp (in terms of versimilitude and immersion), but suddenly when you throw in surges everything is ruined.  Surges are just an extension of HP.  They are just as abstract, and represent the same sort of mechanic.  What they also do is put a cap on how much healing you can get over the course of a day.  At some point, you are just too drained.  The warlord can shout, the cleric can channel divine energy, etc, but you just can't take anymore.  You will need to get a good night's rest before you are ready to continue adventuring.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:23AM, Arithezoo wrote:

Primal Healing: "I call upon the spirits of water and earth!"

IMHO, that's a variant of divine healing.  It's still faith-based (i.e. voodoo magic vs. christian miracles).

But yes.

I can give you the quotes on spell slots, CL, and the limited size of a paladin's lay on hands pool of hp if you want them. As for wiz/sorc? 

 "Wizards and Sorcerers should not cast healing spells," - 3.5 DMG pg 35

There actually is a paragraph on what HP represents. I quoted the 4e version. Perhaps you'll find the 3.5 version illuminating as it is not quite the same. 

"What Hit Points Represent: Hit points mean two things in the
game world: the ability to take physical punishment and keep going,
and the ability to turn a serious blow into a less serious one. For
some characters, hit points may represent divine favor or inner
power. When a paladin survives a fireball, you will be hard pressed to
convince bystanders that she doesn’t have the favor of some higher
power." 3.5 PHB pg 145

So it used to be just toughness/skill/personal power (with the assumption of divine sponsorship). In 3.5 having high Hp itself was a possible sign of divine intervention on your behalf. I can probably dig out the 1e and 2e books if you really want the quotes from those too. I haven't played them in long enough that I don't remember off the top of my head how they put it.

The state you describe is Disabled: "When your current hit points drop to exactly 0, you’re disabled. You’re not unconscious, but you’re close to it."

I am quite willing to accept that if the right person says "Rise and walk" that guy will get up off his deathbed and back to work. Dying on the other hand...
Dying: "When your character’s current hit points drop to between –1 and –9 inclusive, he’s dying. A dying character immediately falls unconscious and can take no actions." 

That's plain english.  Compare:

"Healing that raises the dying character’s hit points to 0 makes him conscious and disabled."

Petrified: "Turned to stone. Petrified characters are considered unconscious." - 3.5 PHB pg 311 (A fine example that unconscious = out like a rock )

And of course

Unconscious: "Knocked out and helpless. ... A character who is unconscious as a result of having nonlethal damage in excess of current hit points has a 10% chance every minute to wake up and be staggered." - 3.5 PHB pg 311

Also for sake of reference: Prone: "Lying on the ground."  - 3.5 PHB pg 311

The "plain english" text of 3.5 is a plus form my PoV because it makes them easy to read.  We all know perfectly well what "knocked out" means. Unconscious people don't respond. This is a pretty basic fact of the definition of unconscious. Volume or content of speech can't do a thing to change that. (I have very good reason to know whether this happens in real life. It doesn't. I would have far less funerals to attend if it did.)

There's no need to track different types of damage seperately regardless. Negative Hp only occurs when you are beyond your limit of all of them combined, therefor by definition you have exceeded your physical limits (and not merely run out of motivation).

For the record I don't have much of a problem with martial healing even under the 3.5 definition of HP. Warlord is hands down my favorite class in 4e and reason enough that I would play occasionally if I could find a group that runs it around here. So long as HP included toughness and skill, I'm willing to accept that you learned from your injuries, found something to concentrate on besides the pain, and your skill (to turn a deadly blow into a glancing strike) has temporarily improved enough to put you back in the fight in spite of your injuries. After that you're just ignoring the injuries.

History (and personal experience) is full of examples of motivated people doing this. History is not so full of unconscious people getting back up. If the entire concept of martial healing is that it isn't magical, than doesn't it make more sense that a martial character would need to actually use the "normal" nonmagical means to revive the dying (The much underused Heal skill)? That's about the only tweak that I ask of that concept. Given that it weakens my favorite class you can perhaps accept that the distinction is important to me.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:23AM, Arithezoo wrote:

 And I don't understand how anyone can have no issue with hp (in terms of versimilitude and immersion), but suddenly when you throw in surges everything is ruined.  Surges are just an extension of HP.  They are just as abstract, and represent the same sort of mechanic.  What they also do is put a cap on how much healing you can get over the course of a day.  At some point, you are just too drained.  The warlord can shout, the cleric can channel divine energy, etc, but you just can't take anymore.  You will need to get a good night's rest before you are ready to continue adventuring.

Hp has an explantion (many actually, of which pretty much everyone is willing to accept at least one), surges do not have any, but mostly this:

 "What they also do is put a cap on how much healing you can get over the course of a day."

There is no explanation given for why this should be. We can guess pretty reasonably that it is a meta-game design trick to ensure that parties eventually require an extended rest even if they never use their dailies, but "At some point, you are just too drained." is never said, referenced, or even implied anywhere in the book. It's also a statement that many of us consider patently false given the lack of similar rules regarding physical fatigue, existence of magical healing at all, and the unlimited use of surgeless healing (which has no significant difference in description or mechanics except that surges are irrelevant).  Many of us get pretty ticked when we get told "You have to stop now." and the DM has no answer to our inevitable "Why!?" We find this particularly frustrating in a mechanic that directly interferes with our usual playstyle or sense of narrative. If even the designers couldn't justify it in game, then I see no reason for it to be there. You may not agree, but I hope that at least clarifies the point of disagreement somewhat.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 9:20AM, Draco18s wrote:

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:50AM, sleypy wrote:

I like the 4e implementation of healing surge as a resource as well as second wind. What I don't like is the use of healing surge outside of combat.

I would apply that to the Heal skill outside of combat. You could then have a adventure that sets a brisk pace where you have 5 or 10 minutes to refresh major injuries and recover enough stamina to use their special abilities, but not reset everyones hp instantly.

Oh, I like this.

Not sure how it would work mechanically, but I like the idea.

Mechanically only a few changes:

• Remove the rules allowing you to spend any number of healing surges out side of combat. 
• Heal skill can only be used once and it takes 5 minutes rest before using it again.

I like the idea of having a pace that is race against time where you can't afford to rest. However, having the party just be in a hurry only stopping to heal the major cuts and injuries would be good on other occasions.

The other benefits are having more then one person with the heal skill not go to waste and a group without a healer type at all has some option that lets them be able to press on.
 

Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:20AM, sleypy wrote:

• Heal skill can only be used once and it takes 5 minutes rest before using it again.

What's the DC for success?
What happens if you exceed that DC by 5? 10? Double?

Second (Third?) the suggestion for more reliance on the heal skill. It deserves more significance and use than it gets.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:24AM, Draco18s wrote:

Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:20AM, sleypy wrote:

• Heal skill can only be used once and it takes 5 minutes rest before using it again.

What's the DC for success?
What happens if you exceed that DC by 5? 10? Double?

I would hope to have it based on whatever way the skill system gets fleshed out for 5e. However Based on the current 4e, I would use the same rules for second wind as the base (DC 10).

I prefer to keep things simple, but a more complex usage could be something like:

heal result / 10 = number of surges           (Athletic high jump math for reusability)

Mar 5, 2012 -- 11:14AM, journeyman777 wrote:

 

  I can probably dig out the 1e and 2e books if you really want the quotes from those too. I haven't played them in long enough that I don't remember off the top of my head how they put it. 

 

Prior to 3e.
1e and 2e definitions are the original Gygax based defintion which amount to the same as the 4e definition very abstracted ... And were based on ESP, luck, fatiguing of defensive skill, miraculous and magical shielding,all of which generally turn an attack in to a near miss... with an exception being all but the last few hit points lost.

The difference seems to be that the resources a fighter had including?fatigue? seem to come back over the course of a month? and that of other classes came back entirely in a day.

Gary openly mocked the idea of a pin cushion fighter where hit point loss represented wounds... note that this kind of flies in the face of when he referred to high level fighters as being like superheros.
 
 

Mar 4, 2012 -- 2:00PM, journeyman777 wrote:

That isn't a comment usually seen around here and I'm not sure what you would prefer instead happen at 0 HP.

You die, or are dying (maybe a chance to simply be unconscious until healed), would rather not have the negative deal enter into it.

Mar 5, 2012 -- 6:39PM, Garthanos wrote:

Gary openly mocked the idea of a pin cushion fighter where hit point loss represented wounds... note that this kind of flies in the face of when he referred to high level fighters as being like superheros.

Would you please stop with the constant passive-aggressive digs at Gary's expense.

It's just offensive at this point; I mean, no one is constantly remarking on that avatar of yours. 

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:16AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Mar 4, 2012 -- 2:00PM, journeyman777 wrote:

That isn't a comment usually seen around here and I'm not sure what you would prefer instead happen at 0 HP.

You die, or are dying (maybe a chance to simply be unconscious until healed), would rather not have the negative deal enter into it.

"Dying" implies that there's an overflow buffer between "conscious and fine" and "actually dead."
"Dead" implies that characters move from "conscious and fine" to "actually dead" instantly.

You can't have both at the same time.  The former implies that negative hitpoints (or some variation that works out to be mathematically identical to negative hitpoints) are involved.

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:32AM, Draco18s wrote:

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:16AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Mar 4, 2012 -- 2:00PM, journeyman777 wrote:

That isn't a comment usually seen around here and I'm not sure what you would prefer instead happen at 0 HP.

You die, or are dying (maybe a chance to simply be unconscious until healed), would rather not have the negative deal enter into it.

"Dying" implies that there's an overflow buffer between "conscious and fine" and "actually dead."
"Dead" implies that characters move from "conscious and fine" to "actually dead" instantly.

You can't have both at the same time.  The former implies that negative hitpoints (or some variation that works out to be mathematically identical to negative hitpoints) are involved.

Death saves are not mathematically identical to negative hitpoints, but they supply the intermediate stage just fine.

Just add in a rule about damage making you count as failing one, and it's complete with no need for neg hitpoints. 

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:32AM, Draco18s wrote:

"Dying" implies that there's an overflow buffer between "conscious and fine" and "actually dead."
"Dead" implies that characters move from "conscious and fine" to "actually dead" instantly.

You can't have both at the same time.  The former implies that negative hitpoints (or some variation that works out to be mathematically identical to negative hitpoints) are involved.

"...ooh, look who knows so much, there is a big differnce between mostly dead, and all dead..."

It in no way has to be mathematically identical to negative HP in any way. 

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:39AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:32AM, Draco18s wrote:

"Dying" implies that there's an overflow buffer between "conscious and fine" and "actually dead."
"Dead" implies that characters move from "conscious and fine" to "actually dead" instantly.

You can't have both at the same time.  The former implies that negative hitpoints (or some variation that works out to be mathematically identical to negative hitpoints) are involved.

"...ooh, look who knows so much, there is a big differnce between mostly dead, and all dead..."

If I deal 20 damage to a guy who's "mostly dead" what happens?

What about 50 damage?  10?  1?

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:42AM, Draco18s wrote:

If I deal 20 damage to a guy who's "mostly dead" what happens?

What about 50 damage?  10?  1?

You'd have to ask Miracle Max.

I would probably prefer death at 0 HPs.  It's the easiest way to get rid of lying around unconscious - your having fun until you die, and then your sad.

But if you wanted to have some unconscious mechanic, 4e's negative Bloodied death and Healing from 0 are pretty awesome innovations.

Then the death saves (strikes) mechanic is great to get rid of lying around uncouscious.

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:55AM, Jim11735 wrote:

Then the death saves (strikes) mechanic is great to get rid of lying around uncouscious.

See, I like the death saves, a chance for a buddy to help you.

I have always felt negative HP to be a bit clunky, hey, maybe I can be swung around in the next edition if they implement it in a way that jives with me.

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:20AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Mar 5, 2012 -- 6:39PM, Garthanos wrote:

Gary openly mocked the idea of a pin cushion fighter where hit point loss represented wounds... note that this kind of flies in the face of when he referred to high level fighters as being like superheros.

Would you please stop with the constant passive-aggressive digs at Gary's expense.

How about you stop passive-aggressively defending him?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with showing that the man, even though he did a large part in inventing modern PnP RPG's, was wrong and self-contradictory at times. Gygax was not free of fault and that needs to be accepted, too, besides his achievements.

I can understand what you're trying to do, but you are overdoing it. I have respect for Gygax too, but come on, man...

It's just offensive at this point; I mean, no one is constantly remarking on that avatar of yours. 

Again, I see nothing offensive there. And I do not see where the the Avatar figures into all of this...

You, on the other hand, have repeadetly shown passive aggressive behavior to the point. How many fricken times did you already state, as off-hand "OH MY GOD I HAVE FOUNDED THE AVENGERS WHAT DID I DO" in different variations? THAT is a good example of passive-aggressiveness. Pointing out contradictory statements in another's statement is not passive aggressive.

Mar 6, 2012 -- 11:55AM, Jim11735 wrote:

I would probably prefer death at 0 HPs.  It's the easiest way to get rid of lying around unconscious - your having fun until you die, and then your sad.

But if you wanted to have some unconscious mechanic, 4e's negative Bloodied death and Healing from 0 are pretty awesome innovations.

Then the death saves (strikes) mechanic is great to get rid of lying around uncouscious.

I really like this idea so as not to overcomplicate things.  I do feel that when a player reaches zero they should be out for the battle.  Dead is probably the wrong word though.  I would like to think of them as being hurt badly enough to have lasting consequences (albeit small), but not gone forever.  Like a fighter who "dies" might lose a constitution point, or a point of wisdom (he might of got hit in the head).  This way, you could better discern a player who was lucky and skilled as opposed to a neanderthall that just charged in each and every time. 

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:18AM, Draco18s wrote:

Arcane Healing: "Drink this, it's good for you." (Alchemist)

That's alchemical (primarily Artificer) healing.

Bardic healing: (hums a couple measures of a song that lifts your morale while his magic helps your body reshape itself to its normal, proper, uninjured state)

Primal healing: "Draw upon the strength of your ancestors" (or the earth spirits, or)

Mar 6, 2012 -- 7:08PM, warrl wrote:

Mar 5, 2012 -- 8:18AM, Draco18s wrote:

Arcane Healing: "Drink this, it's good for you." (Alchemist)

That's alchemical (primarily Artificer) healing.

I do believe that's what I said.

I would like to have the death save strikes mechanic expanded to use the similiar disease progression design from 4e for the "dying" condition.

I think simply having damage taken after you have the "dying" condition count as a failed save that pushes you along the dying progression. Here is an example, I made up some stuff just to have more then one stage.

Near Death

Your harrowing near death experience leaves you weakened and in need of rest.

Stage 0: The target recovers from the condition.
Stage 1: While affected by this stage, the target takes a -2 penalty to Fortitude.
Stage 2: While affected by this stage, the target takes a -2 penalty to Fortitude, and grants combat advantage.
Stage 3: The target dies.
Check: At the end of each round, the target makes an Endurance check if it is at stage 1 or 2.
Lower than Easy DC: The stage of the condition increases by one.
Easy DC: No Change
Moderate DC: The stage of the condition decreases by one.
Special: The Check occurs after each extended rest while target has 1 or more hit points. Any damage taken with 0 hit points counts as a failed endurance check.

Edit: I used the "Foul Rotting" disease as a base for the example.

Spoiler: Show

Anyway, back to healing and HP, how do people feel about the current number of HPs characters have in 4th Ed (would you like more, less, the same etc)?

You do realize that your responses to this poster ring of immaturity, right?

I like the current HP in 4th ed.  I think the only reason for more would be so that they could include, for those that desire it, a random method of generating HP: earning 8 or d8 for Fighters, Paladins per level, 6 or d6 per level for Middle Road guys like Warlocks and Rangers, and 4 or d4 for Wizards and the like.  As far as Starting HP?  I prefer more front-loaded to less, so the idea of about 24-25 HP for a starting Wizard, and 35ish for a starting fighter seems about right to me.

Mar 7, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Kalnaur wrote:

1) You do realize that your responses to this poster ring of immaturity, right?

2) I think the only reason for more would be so that they could include, for those that desire it, a random method of generating HP: earning 8 or d8 for Fighters, Paladins per level, 6 or d6 per level for Middle Road guys like Warlocks and Rangers, and 4 or d4 for Wizards and the like.

2) Yeah, the HP per level in 4th are close to the taking average HP of previous edtions.


Sorry, folks, in a foul mood today (moving is always stressful).

Mar 7, 2012 -- 11:04AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Mar 7, 2012 -- 10:54AM, Kalnaur wrote:

1) You do realize that your responses to this poster ring of immaturity, right?

2) I think the only reason for more would be so that they could include, for those that desire it, a random method of generating HP: earning 8 or d8 for Fighters, Paladins per level, 6 or d6 per level for Middle Road guys like Warlocks and Rangers, and 4 or d4 for Wizards and the like.

2) Yeah, the HP per level in 4th are close to the taking average HP of previous edtions.


Sorry, folks, in a foul mood today (moving is always stressful).

I think we would apreciate that you attempt not to take your foul mood out on other people.

Mar 7, 2012 -- 11:11AM, Kalnaur wrote:

I think we would apreciate that you attempt not to take your foul mood out on other people.

Just not tolerating the usual, and don't take it/these boards too personally/seriously, not good for you.

I like the current amount of hit points. Feels like you're playing someone who doesn't fear the housecats, rats and stiff winds in the world.

Mar 7, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Anyway, back to healing and HP, how do people feel about the current number of HPs characters have in 4th Ed (would you like more, less, the same etc)? 

Too many at level 1. and con doesn't matter enough. 10 at creation, plus 1-3 per level (dependent upon class, includes level 1) plus con bonus would have been a much nicer progression. 

Feb 28, 2012 -- 12:08PM, journeyman777 wrote:

Tactical Misteps? He rushed straight into the middle of the enemy group on the initiative immediately after the wizard softened them up. This locked them in place quite effectively. Not having played a defender, I'm assuming that is at least the standard tactic.

Focus fire usually kicked in around round 2-3 when the enemies realized that our defenses were similar and are offenses rather less so.

Since 3/5 characters stayed out of melee range and the fighter was a bigger threat than I was...

All armor and other defensive items were the best our level allowed (including feats to access better armor). I take no responsibility for his preference for two-handed weapons. I generally used a glaive myself, so it wasn't like my AC was actually hgiher than his or anything. 

I have no idea what book Comrade's Succor is in. Our wizard was the only ritual caster and he pretty much stuck to the floating disc to carry his share of the loot. I don't think he ever bothered to get any rituals beyond his first few and I'm quite sure that he didn't have religion, nature, or heal for skills.

By one opinion, we seem to have spent too much on defense.

I don't tell the DM to run monsters as anything less than intelligent. If their tactics make sense for them, then it would strain suspension of disbelief for them to start suiciding via mark when they have no compelling reason to target me instead. Besides, he was an experienced 4e DM and most of our group was new to D&D period. We kind of had to assume that he was doing it right.

Another thing nobody seems to be pointing out in response to Journeyman's rather unique (in my experience) problem is that a party with 3/5 characters pure ranged should be encountering a lot more artillery.  Space out your artillery and the fighter can't lock down more than one at a time, so there's no reason for them to target the fighter as opposed to the much lower AC warlock or the much lower HP wizard.

Also, he seems to completely misunderstand intelligent tactics.  The fighter should not be capable of locking down more than 2 or 3 guys at a time.  If he can, then the monsters are in fact playing stupid and bunching up close enough that he can mark them all, rather than spreading out from round 1 and chasing down the ranged characters.  Even if they are all stuck in melee with the fighter, just because he does more damage doesn't mean it isn't worthwhile knocking down the leader so you only have to kill the fighter once.  Focusing fire on the leader is one of the smartest things to do, even though they are the only characters who aren't closet strikers.

I would also argue that a defender's job is not to lock down every monster on every turn and appropriate 100% of the damage.  His job is to know his limits, and take what he can take.  No more, no less.  Would you really prefer a game where the fighter can't bite off more than he can chew?  More particularly, would you prefer a game where a fighter optimized for offense instead of defense can't bite off more than he can chew?  

A few points here:

1.  Many monsters are, in fact, stupid. When creatures with Int<10 and no decent range attack have a choice of a) attacking the people that they can reach, or b) spending their round getting shot at and then charged by those same melee types... Makes sense to me. YMMV No idea why we saw relatively few artillery monsters. Might have had something to do with how fast they died. Also, Warlords have a wonderful power that lets me force move all enemies within an area (and several others for moving allies.) We weren't easy to bypass.

2. As noted, the fighter and I had fairly identical defenses once mark was used. This meant that attacking me would draw a very powerful attack from him, whereas attacking him had no immediate downside. I can't really fault creatures for assuming that 3-1 odds would let them drop him even after they realized that I could heal. Particularly given that I can heal myself just as easily as healing him.

3. No meta-gaming allowed. If the monster lacks the skill to recognize a class, he doesn't recognize the class until he actually sees what it does. Not many monsters can just look at a guy in armor and say "That's no fighter, that a Warlord!" until it's too late. 

4. a)I've been corrected on the notion that a defender can hold 100% aggro safely (under 4e at least).
b) I prefer a game where basing your roleplay concept around being the best at x (where x is what the class theoretically does best) is not setting yourself up for failure. A Defender should theoretically be able to defend everyone. A healer should theoretically be able to heal anyone. Their success at this should depend primarily on their own choices (character build/equipment/tactics), not those of another player. 4e is not set up to do this out of the box.
c) I lack the full range of books or experience to say conclusively whether 4e is capable of this at all. 
d) My experience was apparently less typical than I assumed. Given the design objectives of 4e I did not expect system mastery to be a prerequisite to playing a simple class "properly". 

An idea for healing in 5th edition D&D:

In 4th edition D&D, I find the question about when a character should use his Daily abilities to be a bit problematic. I would rather that most abilities be At-Will or Encounter.

I wanted to come up with a way for a character to recover from damage without needing to use a daily resource, such as the Healing Surges of 4th edition D&D.

D&D Gamma World deals with the problem by simply giving a character full recovery of all hit points during a short rest.  This is convenient, but rather too good, and makes the consequences of injury almost unimportant.  Certainly traps that deal damage would be useless outside of combat.

The following rules can work with any D&D game, though with the importance of healing surges in 4th edition, perhaps it would be best considered for use in the upcoming 5th edition D&D.

These rules can also be made to work with OGL-based games, such as 3rd edition D&D.  Note, however, that it increases the characters' healing rate quite a bit without use of magical healing, and effectively doubles the effects of magical healing.  Therefore, you might want to make adjustments to compensate.

The rules:

Injury is tracked in two simple ways.  A character has Hit Points, which start at his maximum (uninjured value), and Damage Points, which start at zero and are accumulated.

Whenever a character takes damage, it is added to his Damage Points.

If the character's Damage Points ever exceed his current hit points, then the character gains the dying condition and may expire if not helped.

When the character takes a short rest, he recovers some of his vigour -- half the Damage Points are subtracted from his Hit Points, and his Damage Points drop to zero.

If the character is healed a number of points, say with a spell or potion, then the healing is applied to both the Damage Points and the Hit Points -- Damage Points get reduced (minimum zero), and the same number is added to his current Hit Points (up to his normal maximum).

An alternative version of healing may be equivalent to a short rest, as described above.

Natural healing occurs after a short rest has occurred (when the character has zero Damage Points and less than maximum Hit Points).  A character naturally heals 1 hit point per day for each character level.

For example, suppose a Fighter is uninjured and starts combat with his full 63 Hit Points and 0 Damage Points.  After sustaining a couple hits, he has accumulated 16 Damage Points.  He still has 63 Hit Points, however.  After winning the fight, he takes a short rest.  His Hit Points drop to 63-(16/2)=55, and his Damage Points drop to 0.  As you can see, he has partially recovered from his injuries, but has been weakened to an extent.  During a second combat encounter, if he is badly injured, and his Damage Points exceed his current 55 Hit Points, he may die.  If he imbibes a healing potion that heals 5 points, then his Damage Points are reduced by 5 points and his Hit Points are increased by 5 points.  Thus, a character who needs healing badly gets more benefit than one who is at maximum Hit Points or has accumulated no Damage Points.

To maximize magical healing benefits, a character may choose to use magical healing after combat but before he begins his short rest.

This method allows a character to recover from injuries quickly, but not completely.  Damage that occurs during combat is no more or less deadly when using these rules. However, injuries can still carry over from one combat to the next until a character has sufficient time (or magic) to fully recover.  The only resources expended are those which accelerate healing (such as healing spells and potions), and a character never has to worry about running out of healing surges.  With every new injury, he has the ability to recovery partially, but not completely.

Thus healing still has its limits, yet effectively becomes an Encounter ability.

--

Can we please not use the < pre> tag when it's not needed?  Your post stretched the forum.

Mar 7, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Anyway, back to healing and HP, how do people feel about the current number of HPs characters have in 4th Ed (would you like more, less, the same etc)?

The amount of HP a character has is irrelevant without the context of potential damage.  I think a more pertinent question is how many attacks can a tough/average/frail expect to survive before dropping.  And really, we need to compare that against expected attack values compared against defenses.  Maybe a tough character can only take a couple of hits before dropping, but has etraordinarily high defenses.  Or maybe defenses are roughly flat for all characters, but HP levels differ widely.  Certainly the latter is more common in D&D historically than the former.

Personally, assuming 5e maintains the expected paradigm, I would like average monsters to hit average same-level PCs about 55-65% of the time, and be able to suffer through 4-5 hits before dropping.  So, a character should be able to suruve around 10 attempted attacks before dropping, assuming no support.

Mar 9, 2012 -- 1:55AM, Foxface wrote:

Mar 7, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Anyway, back to healing and HP, how do people feel about the current number of HPs characters have in 4th Ed (would you like more, less, the same etc)?

The amount of HP a character has is irrelevant without the context of potential damage.  I think a more pertinent question is how many attacks can a tough/average/frail expect to survive before dropping.  And really, we need to compare that against expected attack values compared against defenses.  Maybe a tough character can only take a couple of hits before dropping, but has etraordinarily high defenses.  Or maybe defenses are roughly flat for all characters, but HP levels differ widely.  Certainly the latter is more common in D&D historically than the former.

Personally, assuming 5e maintains the expected paradigm, I would like average monsters to hit average same-level PCs about 55-65% of the time, and be able to suffer through 4-5 hits before dropping.  So, a character should be able to suruve around 10 attempted attacks before dropping, assuming no support.

While I agree with the bolded sentence, remember that dice represent a hard lower cap to that equation, and higher quantities mean more granularity. A longsword is going to deal d8 damages, you can bet on that: therefore, in order to survive 4-5 attacks you need to have about 20 hps at first level as a minimum. You can increase that, but you can't as readily decrease it, because dice are dice, physical pieces of plastic with actual numbers on them.

Mar 7, 2012 -- 12:13PM, Leichenreiter wrote:

I like the current amount of hit points. Feels like you're playing someone who doesn't fear the housecats, rats and stiff winds in the world.

Yes, I would not like to go back to the pre-4th Ed scenario of: "...a gnome throws a carrot at you; you die..."

That's why in all pre-4th Ed seshes I run (for many, many years now) all classes get triple max HP at level 1, and average rounded up for levelling, no Con bonus (so a Fighter gets 30, + 6 per level, similar to 4th Ed, one of the thngs I love about that edition).  

Mar 9, 2012 -- 9:21AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Mar 7, 2012 -- 12:13PM, Leichenreiter wrote:

I like the current amount of hit points. Feels like you're playing someone who doesn't fear the housecats, rats and stiff winds in the world.

Yes, I would not like to go back to the pre-4th Ed scenario of: "...a gnome throws a carrot at you; you die...

Hey, careful, thrown weapons are deadly!

Mar 9, 2012 -- 4:40AM, TheMormegil wrote:

Mar 9, 2012 -- 1:55AM, Foxface wrote:

Mar 7, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Anyway, back to healing and HP, how do people feel about the current number of HPs characters have in 4th Ed (would you like more, less, the same etc)?

The amount of HP a character has is irrelevant without the context of potential damage.  I think a more pertinent question is how many attacks can a tough/average/frail expect to survive before dropping.  And really, we need to compare that against expected attack values compared against defenses.  Maybe a tough character can only take a couple of hits before dropping, but has etraordinarily high defenses.  Or maybe defenses are roughly flat for all characters, but HP levels differ widely.  Certainly the latter is more common in D&D historically than the former.

Personally, assuming 5e maintains the expected paradigm, I would like average monsters to hit average same-level PCs about 55-65% of the time, and be able to suffer through 4-5 hits before dropping.  So, a character should be able to suruve around 10 attempted attacks before dropping, assuming no support.

While I agree with the bolded sentence, remember that dice represent a hard lower cap to that equation, and higher quantities mean more granularity. A longsword is going to deal d8 damages, you can bet on that: therefore, in order to survive 4-5 attacks you need to have about 20 hps at first level as a minimum. You can increase that, but you can't as readily decrease it, because dice are dice, physical pieces of plastic with actual numbers on them.

Which is why I buck for higher HP, at least for the fighter.  And skewing the HP chart in favor of more HP for the fighter.  Like, 30-35ish.  Wizards lower by at least 10, rogues and clerics middle of the road.

Mar 9, 2012 -- 4:40AM, TheMormegil wrote:

Mar 9, 2012 -- 1:55AM, Foxface wrote:

Mar 7, 2012 -- 10:43AM, Steely_Dan wrote:

Anyway, back to healing and HP, how do people feel about the current number of HPs characters have in 4th Ed (would you like more, less, the same etc)?

The amount of HP a character has is irrelevant without the context of potential damage.  I think a more pertinent question is how many attacks can a tough/average/frail expect to survive before dropping.  And really, we need to compare that against expected attack values compared against defenses.  Maybe a tough character can only take a couple of hits before dropping, but has etraordinarily high defenses.  Or maybe defenses are roughly flat for all characters, but HP levels differ widely.  Certainly the latter is more common in D&D historically than the former.

Personally, assuming 5e maintains the expected paradigm, I would like average monsters to hit average same-level PCs about 55-65% of the time, and be able to suffer through 4-5 hits before dropping.  So, a character should be able to suruve around 10 attempted attacks before dropping, assuming no support.

While I agree with the bolded sentence, remember that dice represent a hard lower cap to that equation, and higher quantities mean more granularity. A longsword is going to deal d8 damages, you can bet on that: therefore, in order to survive 4-5 attacks you need to have about 20 hps at first level as a minimum. You can increase that, but you can't as readily decrease it, because dice are dice, physical pieces of plastic with actual numbers on them.

True.

But what about Stat modifiers?  Will a bonus to STR translate to a higher hit bonus?  Damage bonus?  Both?  Will armor be a defense bonus, or offer damage reduction?  Both?  Will crits max damage?  Double damage?  How much instant healing will the party have access to?  Self-healing?  Potions?  Will healing be limited by internal limits (a la surges) or by external forces (number of heal spells/potions)?  There are a lot of factors, and they are all interelated.  How you decide on one particular instance can have a cascading effect through design, a sort of "Butterfly Effect".

But yes, assuming armor doesn't grant DR, and stats don't add much or anything to damage, a 1st level character needs to have ~20-25 HP at first level to be considered of average hardiness under my paradigm.  Assuming a 3-18 stats spread, and low adventuring CON is 8, then averag CON should be about 14-15.

CON score + variable class bonus would be a good starting point for my preferred style.

I personally would like a system like this:

Base (1st level) HP given by class :
Fighter 6
Cleric 5
Thief 4
Wizard 3

then, apply a Con bonus made of:

Con score -- bonus
 8                -1
10                0
12              +1
14              +3
16              +6
18             +10
20             +15 

Mar 9, 2012 -- 12:27PM, uglyvan wrote:

I personally would like a system like this:

Base (1st level) HP given by class :
Fighter 6
Cleric 5
Thief 4
Wizard 3

then, apply a Con bonus made of:

Con score -- bonus
 8                -1
10                0
12              +1
14              +3
16              +6
18             +10
20             +15 

With a mere 3 hit points, how does a wizard with a 10 con survive an encounter with a house cat?

Well, one must admit that Constitution is a must for all classes; furthermore, no classic class from DnD has Con as his prime requisite;

I did an essai GAYCOP

STR  Guerrier (warrior)
DEX Acrobate 
CON Yogin
INT  créateur (creator)
CHA orateur (orator)
WIS penseur (thinker)  

Con stat could well get along with fire magics, or perhaps endurance reserve for  spellcasters

I think one half con score + 6 for a fighter works fine for a level 1 fighter. One half Con score + 4 for a mage. On top of these numbers the characters should gain an amount of morale (temp HP) after each short rest equal to their max HP. Fighters should gain 3 HP a level and mages 2. Total HP will be lower but players will have a nice buffer that allows them to press forward without requiring a week of rest after each fight. HP should recover at a rate of 1/4 max each full nights rest.

To those posters using a longsword (1d8) as their reference for number of hits survivable at level 1 I'd like to point out that isn't the most common damage range at that level. The d6 medium-sized creature natural weapon or humanoid with simple weapon were much more common at level 1. The lower end enemies also typically had Str penalties skewing the damage considerably toward the low end. When a typical CR 1 monster deals d6-1 or d4+1 on average, you get a typical level 1 damage of 2-3 with a bias toward 1 damage rather than 5-6. This means that if you want

Frail Wizard 3-4 hits, Standard Cleric/Rogue 4-5 hits, Tough fighter 5-6 hits, then you get approximate numbers of

Frail: 9-14 Hp or Con score (8-10) + 1d4HD or 11 Hp average
Standard: 12-18 Hp or Con score (12-14) + 1d4HD or about 15/16 Hp average depending on if rogue/cleric get the same
Tough: 16-22 (Con score 14-18) + 1d4HD or about 19 hp average.

20Hp seems to be more of an upper limit than a minimum at level 1, unless you assume that typical Lv1 foes will have better than average attributes or that those attibutes will no longer apply to damage. Since AC also factors in to number of hits/misses, the fighter above probably only takes damage from about 1/4  of the attacks (based on AC 16-18) aimed at him and thus can survive an impressive 20-25 attacks without healing. Assuming the 5 round combat remains standard that works out to the similarly standard 4-5 encounters per day. That works fine for me.
 

I'm going for option 2 in the original post. Damage should weaken the characters considerably for a long time unless they turn to the deities and aqcuire a healer or healing potions.


This allows the game to be played with or without a healer, but should one accept the role, it will become less expensive on the party treasury, and reduced need for the other party members to waste valueable time in combat on quaffing potions.


If healing is weak enough by potion or cast, it allows combat to be quicker and more interesting and requires the resources to be used wisely where it is most needed. Healing should not be able to keep pace with damage in combat (unless several characters work together to keep one character going), but should be able to prolong life a little where most needed.


Healing surges as they are now are to powerful and allows for immortality as long as there are surges and ways to activate them remaining, meaning that fights do not become interesting until there are no more surge activations which takes too long.


I'd like to see healing as more of a boost in combat... and that healing can be used better after battle. Add to that some limitation on the number of potions a character can quaff in a given timeframe and the issue with infinite healing goes away.


These limitations allow the DM to keep the adventure in a good pace. If the characters are feeling a little bruised he can add a surprise encounter within the hour, allowing only for minor healing to take place and keeping the PCs under an appropriate amount of stress... If the characters are badly injured he can opt to wait a few hours more before throwing in a suprise encounter.


As it is now, the power for full healing is always in the PCs grasp, forcing the DM into the wave system to keep the pressure up. As long as 5 minutes of respite are given, the PCs are dancing around with full HP doing somersaults again.        

Mar 10, 2012 -- 5:59AM, journeyman777 wrote:

To those posters using a longsword (1d8) as their reference for number of hits survivable at level 1 I'd like to point out that isn't the most common damage range at that level. The d6 medium-sized creature natural weapon or humanoid with simple weapon were much more common at level 1. The lower end enemies also typically had Str penalties skewing the damage considerably toward the low end. When a typical CR 1 monster deals d6-1 or d4+1 on average, you get a typical level 1 damage of 2-3 with a bias toward 1 damage rather than 5-6. This means that if you want

Frail Wizard 3-4 hits, Standard Cleric/Rogue 4-5 hits, Tough fighter 5-6 hits, then you get approximate numbers of

Frail: 9-14 Hp or Con score (8-10) + 1d4HD or 11 Hp average
Standard: 12-18 Hp or Con score (12-14) + 1d4HD or about 15/16 Hp average depending on if rogue/cleric get the same
Tough: 16-22 (Con score 14-18) + 1d4HD or about 19 hp average.

20Hp seems to be more of an upper limit than a minimum at level 1, unless you assume that typical Lv1 foes will have better than average attributes or that those attibutes will no longer apply to damage. Since AC also factors in to number of hits/misses, the fighter above probably only takes damage from about 1/4  of the attacks (based on AC 16-18) aimed at him and thus can survive an impressive 20-25 attacks without healing. Assuming the 5 round combat remains standard that works out to the similarly standard 4-5 encounters per day. That works fine for me.
 

I don't know what version of D&D you're talking about. There ARE 'half hit die' monsters in AD&D, yes, and a few '1-1' hit die monsters (goblins in particular), but all of these are distinctly weaker than a 1st level PC and not suitable as a comparison. A straight-up comparison is thus with something like the classic orc, which has an AC5, 1 HD, and generally armed with a 1d8 damage weapon (axe, sword, scimitar).

In fact I'd point out that the comparison is still flawed, as a level 1 4e monster is not the equal of a level 1 PC. A standard 4e Goblin is AC17, HP 29 1d8+2 damage. Most 1st level PCs will be able to take this creature out without a huge amount of problems. It is at best on a par with 1e kobolds or goblins, but certainly not the equivalent of an orc. For sure 5 goblin warriors is no match for 5 PCs, whereas 5 AD&D orcs are definitely a pretty good match for a 1e 5 man party. To make the comparision equal we'd probably have to go to a level 2 4e creature, maybe even a level 3 one, possibly more. A goblin skullcleaver is a good choice. This guy has HP 53, AC 16, and 1d10+5 (2d10+5 when bloodied) damage. Clearly a skullcleaver can do average of 10.5 damage per hit to PCs, or 16 when bloodied. That's 2 hits to kill a wizard, 3 to kill a fighter, going down to 2 when bloodied and with some luck 1.5 (and can with luck one-shot a level 1 wizard when bloodied). That actually puts it pretty close to par with the effectiveness of a 1e orc on a level 1 PC. I'd also just say that the skullcleaver is a somewhat weak MM1 brute, a level 4 bugbear thug does 2d8+6 (15 avg) or 3d8+6 (19.5 avg) when bloodied, a stiff fight for 5 level 1 PCs but again pretty close to the par with the 1e orcs. In this case the monster can almost 1 shot a wizard and can 2 shot any fighter. Compared to a 12 HP level 1 1e fighter vs an orc this a very equivalent situation.

I don't recall anything in the comparison calling for a creature to "be the equal" of a PC. I use 3.5 numbers because it's what I'm more familiar using. The question however was number of hits survivable against the typical opposition. That's a description that has a bias toward enemies that will outnumber the party or comprise the "easy" encounters of the day (enemies that will be making the majority of attacks for that day). For something to go blow for blow with a PC pretty much requires an extreme challenge rating or said enemies being outnumbered significantly by the party. While a 3.5 orc with the default Falchion did indeed deal 2d4+4 (9) damage per hit, encounter design meant that a level 1 party rarely faced more than 2 of them, thus cutting their effective damage in half (or more since a single hit by the party reduced the number of enemy attacks by a porportionally larger amount than when fighting goblins). The fact that my comparison uses the more common enemies isn't a flaw. If you want to compare only encounters where party numbers are equal we can do that separately.

I'm fine with the hit point system in 4th (in fact, I love it). Healing surges are a blast to manage and second winds are a wonderful mechanic allowing PCs to get a slight HP boost in combat.

However, I did enjoy rolling dice for HP after the first level in previous editions.  If this became the norm in the core of D&D Next that's cool as long as a module comes out giving me the option to use healing surges.

Mar 10, 2012 -- 12:18PM, journeyman777 wrote:

I don't recall anything in the comparison calling for a creature to "be the equal" of a PC. I use 3.5 numbers because it's what I'm more familiar using. The question however was number of hits survivable against the typical opposition. That's a description that has a bias toward enemies that will outnumber the party or comprise the "easy" encounters of the day (enemies that will be making the majority of attacks for that day). For something to go blow for blow with a PC pretty much requires an extreme challenge rating or said enemies being outnumbered significantly by the party. While a 3.5 orc with the default Falchion did indeed deal 2d4+4 (9) damage per hit, encounter design meant that a level 1 party rarely faced more than 2 of them, thus cutting their effective damage in half (or more since a single hit by the party reduced the number of enemy attacks by a porportionally larger amount than when fighting goblins). The fact that my comparison uses the more common enemies isn't a flaw. If you want to compare only encounters where party numbers are equal we can do that separately.

The comparison COULD be anything, yes. but to make it meaningful between games the challenge rating of the comparison needs to be equal, that's all I was saying.

So, if we were comparing 4e to 1e then you'd want to compare a fighter to an orc (a pretty equal matchup) for instance. In that case you'd do an equal 4e matchup too, like a fighter vs a level 3 brute or soldier probably. In each system the monster would stand at least a 50/50 chance of winning those matchups, circumstances depending.

Now, for 5e we could assume our matchup is an orc too, we don't know what it would be, but for comparison purposes we'll assume it is an even match to the fighter. Now, the question is simply how many hits should an even match go at level 1? In 1e it could go 1 round, or it could go several, but the first hit on average will be the end of it half the time, 3 rounds probably on average. In the 4e case with a monster doing around 15 damage a hit we'll see at least 2 and around 4 rounds on average, maybe up to 6. 5e would presumably want to come in somewhere in the same 3 round average I'd think.

Really the final consideration is just swinginess. The 1e fight is going to hinge on each die roll pretty much. The 4e fight less so, requiring 2 hits at least for anything to happen.

Why equals? Unless 1-2e advised encounter design rather differently that 3-4e it was never common for PCs to go toe-to-toe with an equal number of NPC that had a 50/50 chance of winning. That kind of encounter kills half the party on average. Fighting 2-1 against an NPC that could go 50/50 with a single PC meets the CR guidelines, but is too variable based on the PC classes and tactical positioning involved for any comparison. If you're going to compare totals for any class that typically doesn't willingly draw aggro, then you need to use opposition that realistically gets past the front line to attack them. I interpret that as the weaker NPCs that are often used in greater numbers than 1-1 against the party (i.e. goblins and kobolds), since they make up a larger number of the attacks any given character will face throughout the day. After all, estimating #hits is most predictive if you stick to the most common damage per hit. Encounters that take up 10-25% of party resources are the most common, so a monster that hits for more than that over the course of the typical 5 round combat strikes me as a less than suitable standard for comparison.

Mar 10, 2012 -- 7:34PM, journeyman777 wrote:

Why equals? Unless 1-2e advised encounter design rather differently that 3-4e it was never common for PCs to go toe-to-toe with an equal number of NPC that had a 50/50 chance of winning. That kind of encounter kills half the party on average. Fighting 2-1 against an NPC that could go 50/50 with a single PC meets the CR guidelines, but is too variable based on the PC classes and tactical positioning involved for any comparison. If you're going to compare totals for any class that typically doesn't willingly draw aggro, then you need to use opposition that realistically gets past the front line to attack them. I interpret that as the weaker NPCs that are often used in greater numbers than 1-1 against the party (i.e. goblins and kobolds), since they make up a larger number of the attacks any given character will face throughout the day. After all, estimating #hits is most predictive if you stick to the most common damage per hit. Encounters that take up 10-25% of party resources are the most common, so a monster that hits for more than that over the course of the typical 5 round combat strikes me as a less than suitable standard for comparison.

You can use any standard of comparison you want. I don't think it is going to make any real difference. The easiest standard to find is one where the combatants are pretty much equal and the easiest baseline of PC to use is a level 1 PC since that gives us the starting point for our curves. This also adds to the equal comparison choice since it gets harder to find sub-level-1 opponents and the math in any edition is likely to be a bit different in that kind of case than typical.

In other words this is all basic theorycrafting. You can't compare an apple to an orange and get very meaningful results. If you want to make realistic non-theorycrafted comparisons then by all means do so and tell us what you find out. I don't have the time and resources to invent a whole bunch of different possible options and run them through my group in playtests and report the results. That kind of thing is what we pay the developers to do.

So, I think my comparison stands as a useful exercise, and I think it is more useful than comparisons with different preconditions for each system I'm comparing. My representative fighter vs my representative 'orc' seems to be the practical and reasonably useful choice, and equal deadliness in each system compared seems like it makes sense, given that mostly we're examining deadliness here.