Community

It seems to me that it would be fine to just take averages (round down) on everything thats not a d20 roll- and just incorporate that onto the character sheets.

So your cure light wounds does 5 (1d8+1)
The fighter in the playtest deals 14 (2d6+7)

etc

would speed up play by however long it takes people to grab the right dice, roll and add them up.

In fact you could choose to let damage be static and healing random- it's really up to how your table wants to do it.  I really like that, that is a heavily pushed concept in all the stuff they're putting out for dndnext (with the modular play philosophy) 

Loss Aversion and the idea that the average value is really "breaking even" on a die rather than every number being a pure gain, combined with a little bit of me vs. other psychology going on.

First, considering that healing the average amount feels like the baseline, healing the minimum damage feels about twice as bad as healing the maximum damage feels good.  

Secondly, when you deal damage, you're changing the state of another.  It doesn't directly affect you, so it feels more even--the highs and lows are less severe.  Meanwhile, when you are healing damage, it affects you, so the effects are intensified.  I mean, think about it--when the cleric rolls minimum to heal the Fighter, does the Cleric feel bad (hint: not really) or does the Fighter (hint: he's totally unhappy)?

When combined, this means you're feeling pretty decent when you roll max damage, slightly less good than normal when dealing minimum damage, pretty good when you heal max damage, and absolutely horrible when you heal minimum.  

Having static healing values keeps the averages the same, so it's not statistically different than the expected values are over a long period of time, but it takes away the sting of low rolls, which is worth it in the long run when high rolls are equally likely, but less satisfying than the low rolls are bitter.

Note that I actually have no problem with random healing rolls, I just understand the psychology behind wanting static values.

Jul 6, 2012 -- 9:24PM, penandpaper2 wrote:

I've read quite a few complaints on here about the healing system set up for Next.  This is especially true when the subject of using a random die roll for healing comes up. 

My only question is this: For those opposed to the random, then why do you play using random damage?  Why not have damage static, just as you want your healing?

This only makes sense to me.  The two are literally the same thing; damage and healing both directly affect hit points.  They are actually the only two things that do.  So why be so consistent with one, yet unwielding to compromise about the other?   

I'm guessing there are supporters out there that can answer this question.  I cannot.  And I am a fan of static healing. 

Because variable damage adds a sense of uncertainty to combat that variable healing does not.  If damage were always a static number, with the way HP work, every hit would not only result in a binary fine or not fine scenario, it would also be an entirely predicatable one.  Risks become much easier to take when you know whether or not they can kill you, like if the fighter dealt precisely 8 damage per hit, when the DM is running an orc with 10hp, he knows the orc can take a hit and still get away.  However, if that same fighter deals 1d8+4, then the DM knows that hit could kill the orc or leave him alive.  It makes combat less predictable.

Out of combat variable healing doesn't do that.  In combat variable healing kind of/sort of does that, but it also isn't under much contention. 

Jul 6, 2012 -- 9:49PM, ShinQuickMan wrote:

Vaiable healing is only part of the problem. Even 4E had it to some extent. No, the general  issue is with how minimal and  magic-constrained healing currently is.

Jul 7, 2012 -- 12:18AM, Ellyh wrote:

As above and average healing is less than average damage making it feel week and underpowered while at the same time encounter design makes it mandatory to have it.

Both of these reasons, for me, are the big issues. I don't mind variable healing, as long as it's also effective healing. But I saw 1's rolled on too many healing potions during the playtest I've been running, and that becomes a major disappointment. Add in the fact that only magic allows people to heal without relying on gimmicky healing kits (no mid-combat second winds), and the healbot cleric becomes a necessity. This is directly opposed to the idea of making all the classes optional.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually miss 4e healing surges. And I'm one of the folk who disliked healing surges as being too gamist and immersion breaking. I think my main complaint was the NUMBER of healing surges characters got. I think I could stomach healing surges combined with randomly rolled HP, as long as I limited the number of surges and allowed character to get some static modifier (like adding con) to the number rolled so that rolling low doesn't sting so much.