|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 4:46AM
#41
|
|
|
skills ought not be requried to do anything in 5E
They provide a bonus - they are't the normal way to do anything. At least not anything within the scope of a typical adventure.
Therefore - a ruling more consistant with the 5E approach would be:
- A Wisdom Check OR a Healing Kit can be used to stabalise a dying person (negative hit points) or regain Hit Points after rest. If the character has the Heal skill, they can add their Skill die to the check.
- A Wisdom Check + Antitoxin from Herbalism feat will allow removal of poison affects. If the character has the Heal skill, they can add their Skill die to the check.
- Both must be used to remove a condition (TN 20) or poisons effects (without the Herbalism feat).
Right on target. I just want to expand.
An ability check cant make something happen by itself. Before the check, the player must come up with some method that sounds “plausible” within narrative. The check is only to see if that method succeeds.
For example, say I use a Prestidigitation cantrip to create a lifelike mask to disguise myself. The Prestigitation doesnt give me any “bonus” to a “disguise check”. Rather ...
The Prestidigitation is itself the explanation for how a disguise might be possible - the method. To create and don a conjured mask that looks exactly like someone, I might need to make a Wisdom check with a high difficulty to see if I can get all the details right. Hopefully a big hooded cloak will obscure my body. Then I might also need to figure out a way to convince others of my assumed identity - despite the fact my face isnt actually moving. I am in an important rush, gesture imperiously with no time to talk while whisking by. A Charisma check whose difficulty depends on how plausible that is in context. If these ability checks succeed, then my methods work.
What needs emphasis is, it is the *story* that decides if something works or not. Not the ability check. Certainly not any skill bonus. Probably most explanations that players come up with for some action will appear plausible in the context of the story, and will automatically succeed. Rarely it is certain that a specific attempt will fail because of extenuating circumstances, and usually the attempt will immediately manifest the reason for its failure. Only in some situations will the results of an action be in doubt. It makes sense, maybe it will work, but maybe it wont work. Only in these cases of uncertainty does the ability check ever happen.
So, in the case of healing. It isnt that a Wisdom check can heal someone. Rather, in the story, I can see one of the sword wounds is deep. The victim is unconscious and bleeding. I am going to attempt to clean and sew the wound together, hoping the stitches lessen the bleeding. Does it work? Maybe, maybe not. I need to roll a Wisdom check to see.
If I dont have thread for stitches, I may have to burn the victim with fire to cauderize the wound. Does it work? Maybe. Roll Wisdom.
It is the story that makes things happen. Never the ability. Especially never the skill.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 5:01AM
#42
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
The story has always influenced the use of skill or ability checks, as that prompts the rolling of the dice. The same principle applies to combat. It still doesn't change the need to define certain aspects of the game in rules to address areas that will be visited frequently like healing. But for the sake of argument, I can accept the basic edition of the game being more "free form" versus the standard edition.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 5:28AM
#43
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
skills ought not be requried to do anything in 5E
They provide a bonus - they are't the normal way to do anything. At least not anything within the scope of a typical adventure.
Therefore - a ruling more consistant with the 5E approach would be:
- A Wisdom Check OR a Healing Kit can be used to stabalise a dying person (negative hit points) or regain Hit Points after rest. If the character has the Heal skill, they can add their Skill die to the check.
- A Wisdom Check + Antitoxin from Herbalism feat will allow removal of poison affects. If the character has the Heal skill, they can add their Skill die to the check.
- Both must be used to remove a condition (TN 20) or poisons effects (without the Herbalism feat).
Right on target. I just want to expand.
An ability check cant make something happen by itself. Before the check, the player must come up with some method that sounds “plausible” within narrative. The check is only to see if that method succeeds.
For example, say I use a Prestidigitation cantrip to create a lifelike mask to disguise myself. The Prestigitation doesnt give me any “bonus” to a “disguise check”. Rather ...
The Prestidigitation is itself the explanation for how a disguise might be possible - the method. To create and don a conjured mask that looks exactly like someone, I might need to make a Wisdom check with a high difficulty to see if I can get all the details right. Hopefully a big hooded cloak will obscure my body. Then I might also need to figure out a way to convince others of my assumed identity - despite the fact my face isnt actually moving. I am in an important rush, gesture imperiously with no time to talk while whisking by. A Charisma check whose difficulty depends on how plausible that is in context. If these ability checks succeed, then my methods work.
What needs emphasis is, it is the *story* that decides if something works or not. Not the ability check. Certainly not any skill bonus. Probably most explanations that players come up with for some action will appear plausible in the context of the story, and will automatically succeed. Rarely it is certain that a specific attempt will fail because of extenuating circumstances, and usually the attempt will immediately manifest the reason for its failure. Only in some situations will the results of an action be in doubt. It makes sense, maybe it will work, but maybe it wont work. Only in these cases of uncertainty does the ability check ever happen.
So, in the case of healing. It isnt that a Wisdom check can heal someone. Rather, in the story, I can see one of the sword wounds is deep. The victim is unconscious and bleeding. I am going to attempt to clean and sew the wound together, hoping the stitches lessen the bleeding. Does it work? Maybe, maybe not. I need to roll a Wisdom check to see.
It is the story that makes things happen. Never the ability. Especially never the skill.
ALthough I hate absolutes (for example in the case of an intelligence check you often won't need a tool or much of a narrative short of "I search my memory - do I recall anything about [x]" (although Tomes can affect the result) - I agree completely when it comes to situations (like healing) where you are attempting to affect things physically.
In the case of the healer's kit: Based on the descriptions, you don't need a Check to spend hit dice or to stabilize a comrade. On the other hand - if the players didn't have a healer's kit -I'd certainly let them attempt to stabilize a comrade with a Check - and yes, as above, I would ask them to give me some narration, whether it is tearing up their shirt to make bandage or whatever. And I suppose for consistencies sake - the same ought to be true of spending Hit Dice - although I've always thought of that as automatic, it does specify that a healing kit is necessary (and thus it probably shouldn't be automatic without a healer's kit).
On the other hand, my group has never been without a healer's kit - especially due to the Herbalist in the group. So it's never come up - and if it did the Herbalist could probably improvise something.....
But I wonder if the Healing Kit isn't guilty of making it too easy - of invalidating the skill and the ability check. Perhaps these actions should require a roll and the Healing Kit should just make that roll easier. Something more like the way Thieves' Tools work, rather than an automatic success on its most frequent use.
After all - would people support a Thieves' Tools descriptions which stated that it made opening locks automatic -even if that use expended a trivial amout of gold?
And perhaps it should require proficiency (not specifically the Heal skill - although the Heal skill should grant the necessary proficiency).
Instead, like the Theives' Tools, perhaps some classes would grant you proficiency with a Healer's Kit (say, Cleric and Fighter). Along with some backgrounds (Priest, Soldier) and Feats (Healing Initiate, Herbalist).
Instead of 'every charater has their own healing kit because it is part of the standard adventurer's pack and can automatically use it to spend their own and everyone else's hit dice (a group of five is covered for the next 125 short rests....) make Healing Kit a little less ubiquitous (and a little more expensive?)
(Personally - I'd make them non-expendable but more expensive. But that's because I think they are an example of pointless bookkeeping). Or else require them to expend a use per Hit Die spent so that the resource expense becomes significant enough to be worth tracking.)
Aside: I notice that Thieves' Tools require profiency to be used. Rogue's have proficiency in the Thieves' Tools (as you would expect). Guild Thief background - despite starting with a set of Thieves' Tools, does not (as written) grant profiiency in their use. Intentional or Oversight? Should the background grant the profiency or should it be attached to the relevant skills?
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 14, 2013 - 5:41AM
#44
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
To expand on that idea - if I were designing the system from scratch, I might go with something like this:
Healer's Kit: If you are proficient in the use of a healer's kit, you have a +2 bonus to any check to heal or treat injury, poison or disease. (Note: Non-expended).
Bandages: Bandages are required to treat injuries or to spend Hit Dice. One bandage is expended for every Hit Die recovered.
Hit Die Recovery: During a short rest, you can attempt a easy Constitution Check to spend your Hit Dice to recover hit points. You must have bandages available and you must expend one bandage for each Hit Die you wish to recover. If no bandages are available, bandages can be improvised but improvised bandages impose disadvantage on the Hit Die Recovery check. If you are under the care and treatment of someone with access to a Healer's Kit who is proficient in its use, you have a +2 to this Check and they can substitute their Wisdom Check (Heal) for your Constitution check.
Or something like that....
(Alternately - perhaps spending the Hit Dice happens whether you succeed or fail the check, but you have to succeed on the check to add your Con Bonus to the Hit Dice recovered. This ensure's some healing, but has the risk of reduced healing if you don't have access to bandages and a trained healer.)
Carl
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2013 - 12:25AM
#45
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Healer's Kit: If you are proficient in the use of a healer's kit, you have a +2 bonus to any check to heal or treat injury, poison or disease. (Note: Non-expended).
Bandages: Bandages are required to treat injuries or to spend Hit Dice. One bandage is expended for every Hit Die recovered.
Hit Die Recovery: During a short rest, you can attempt a easy Constitution Check to spend your Hit Dice to recover hit points. You must have bandages available and you must expend one bandage for each Hit Die you wish to recover. If no bandages are available, bandages can be improvised but improvised bandages impose disadvantage on the Hit Die Recovery check. If you are under the care and treatment of someone with access to a Healer's Kit who is proficient in its use, you have a +2 to this Check and they can substitute their Wisdom Check (Heal) for your Constitution check.
I think re-designing the way Healer's Kits interact with healing is warranted. Ruling that one use of a 'quasi-medieval' Healer's Kit per 10 characters stretches the boundaries of fantasy even for D&D.
The one bandage per Hit Dice mechanic, however, seems odd to me. It penalizes higher-level characters for being higher-level. I would keep it to 'one bandage per expenditure of Hit Dice', regardless of how many are used. That will create enough bookkeeping for those who care about such matters.
I still think we need codified DCs for treating disease, paralysis, and poison, but I like the idea of treating the Healer's Kit as a tool that can be used proficiently (with a +2 bonus) or non-proficiently. That feels better than granting anybody who uses a Healer's Kit advantage on healing checks. The dice rolling will hopefully come into play with more detailed rules for treating disease, paralysis, and poison.
I definitely think that Clerics should have tool proficiency with Healer's Kits, and possibly anybody who takes the Heal skill.
For the sake of simplicity, I prefer the automatic stabilizing of companions. If you take an action to help out a friend of need, you succeed in my books.
Going beyond that, however, I'd also like there to be way in which Healer's Kit can restore Hit Point to a limited degree.
Proposal: Spend one use of Healer's Kit. Healing check minus 10. You heal up to that number of hit points, but no more than the patient's Constitution modifier.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 15, 2013 - 8:31AM
#46
|
|
|
In the context of the “healers kit”, I hope to see a bloodied mechanic.
The first half of the hit points is unbloodied, where the damage is strictly superficial: minor bruises, scrapes, and so on. This loss of hit points mainly represents the exhaustion of energy, alertness, luck, and so on. After the combatants catch their breath and regain their wits, these minor injuries are completely ignorable. So the healers kit can fully restore superficial hit points simply by cleaning up scrapes, a bandage or two if necessary. Even a pep talk can be helpful for reinvigorating adventurers to press on.
However, the second half of the hit points is bloodied, where the damage becomes moderate: more serious wounds, deep cuts, blunt trauma, and so on. This loss of hit points mainly represents the penetration of defenses, physical injuries. The bloodied combatant may become vulnerable to temporary save or suck conditions, like a concussion, winded, compromising distraction, temporary loss of use of a bodypart, or so on. Here the healers kit may need to stitch gashes, brace fractures, and so on. Here bed rest might become necessary for recouperating hit points back to unbloodied. Magical healing becomes obviously useful.
Reaching 0 means, serious injuries have occurred, possibly including, the risk of longterm loss of use of a body part.
During 0 hit points, even a risk of critical injuries are possible, such as a permanent loss of use, shock, or death. Here there is need for intensive care.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 17, 2013 - 12:31AM
#47
|
Date Joined:
Mar 30, 2007
|
The bloodied mechanic is not a bad one for differentiating wounds that can be handled by a Healer's Kit versus those that require more serious attention. It will be interesting to see if the final version of healing incorporates a 'bloodied' condition.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 17, 2013 - 3:19AM
#48
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
The bloodied mechanic is not a bad one for differentiating wounds that can be handled by a Healer's Kit versus those that require more serious attention. It will be interesting to see if the final version of healing incorporates a 'bloodied' condition.
My initial reaction to this is that, although I might like it, it is too complex for the core rules.
I would like to see (and would not be surprised to see) an optional module for healing and injury which would encompass one or more of the optional healing rules and something like this.
But not the core rules.
Carl
|
|
|
