Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Ashanti 10-19-06, 10:33 AM	I was thinking the other day, as I sat down to plan a campaign what effect it would have on our game if pc's hit point recovered automatically after the encounter was over. I got the idea when I remembered playing KOTOR (I think), or was it HALO where your hit points went back up to max a short time after combat. Along with this I would remove sponataneous healing (well, all spontaneous spell casting from base clasess). As far as I can see this would do the following: Clerics would need to memorise healing spells to use in battle (as you would still need to be healed 'in combat'. Clerics would not wade into battles (treading on the fighter's toes) as much because they would be needed to be 'ambulances' for the warriors. Parties would not 'simply have to have' a cleric. People would play them if they liked the sound of playing a devout charater of faith and peity, not the all round power house he/she now is. It aways seemed an artificial cap on the immersion of the game when the group said "right, we are out of healing, bed time". Can anyone see any massive problems? I'm not too fussed on the effect this might have to funky prestige classess or non core builds as we only use the core rules an the XPH. Any insights would be greatfully recieved.
Godzilla 10-19-06, 10:49 AM	I can see a problem. If you can heal outside of battle, no longer will people want to use stealth or magic, they'll just make Barbarians, get as high of a Constitution score as they possibly can, and go on an all-out offensive. Why? Because they know that they'll be healed after the battle is over, and not have to worry about losing three HP per battle, at first level, since they'll be able to heal it. Without healing after every battle, it makes players think more so that they can stay alive and not have to rest after every fight. And what if they get hurt outside of battle? Like, if a trap hurts them, what then? Do you let them shurg it off, and get healed? Also, Clerics aren't the only class that can heal. All Divine casters can, but it takes longer for the Paladin and Ranger to. If you have the Paladin or Ranger in there fighting with the Fighter or Barbarian, the battle would go smoother, and you'd be able to heal. I also don't see why the Cleric is getting the way. The Cleric doesn't have as much HP as a Fighter or as good of a weapon selection, sure, but they can still deal out some substantial damage. I suppose you could give the players 10% of their total HP back after every battle, rounded down.
Selgard 10-19-06, 11:35 AM	I don't think you'd have many people playing Clerics in that sort of campaign. Being pigeon-holed into healbot is bad enough, but to take away their ability to memorize otherwise-useful spells and turn them into heals? You are Forcing Clerics, especially at lower levels, to just memorize healing spells. If your fighter is worried about a cleric "stepping on his toes" then I suggest that fighter get his ears boxed, then have him sit down and learn about "team work". D&D is NOT a competitive pc vs pc game. It is the TEAM vs the (monster/opponent/BBEG/trap/puzzle/whatever).
Ashanti 10-19-06, 01:25 PM	@ Godzilla Good point about traps; had not thought about that. Any suggestions? I'm not sure what you mean when you say that people will not want to play stealth or magic characters. Is it not the case that you play the character you fancy because of the image it holds in holds for you in your minds eye? Essentially I'm lifting VP from Star Wars with a much quicker recharge rate. The high hit point classes could act in the way you suggest, but is that not what a player who likes melee would want to do? You pick a class because you want to be in that role, no? I was thinking that you could take on more encounters set by the DM and not have to 'call it a night' when you run out of hit points (detracting from the narative). This would indeed make warrior types closer to a par with the caster types. Healing spells would still have a role (this I neglected to point out in my first post) to heal negative hit points (which we house rule as 10+Base attack). Loose these (effectively WP from Star Wars) and you are in the dead book. Clerics are overpowered from a balance point of view (but thats just my view). @ Selgard I would hope people would play a cleric to fulfill the role of party support for its own sake. My group played 1st and 2nd ed for years with a cleric without having to beef them up as they are now. If people want to play a cleric they will. Hopefully for the role it brings. There would be less need for a healbot if you healed up ultra quick don't you think? There would be less need to memorize healing spells. In our games the cleric ends up using her memorized spells to spam healing as it is. I would contend that there is more option to take non healing spells under these suggestions. A team game it is, but more fun I think to not have to rely on any one class to be the linch pin. As our game advances into the higher levels it becomes more and more an exercise in fine tuning encounters to balance the fighter types with the caster types. I am hoping my suggested approach may reduce this issue.
rydi123 10-19-06, 04:28 PM	a method that i am going to use in my next game is to make all healing convert damage into subdual damage which then heals normally. this has the benefit of making people think twice about the actions they take (they don't want to be out of commission for a week healing), and makes the healer a bit more focused on other spells (if your spells won't actually keep your fighters conscious longer, you have to join in the fighting and save the healing until after the fight).
Ashanti 10-20-06, 04:54 AM	@ rydi123 Interesting and something I would concider for realism although I would hazard that the net effect of this would be to only make combat more difficult to do man'o an man'o as the front line would go down quicker. That said when my group next play on Medkemia (where we have a much more gritty lethal game than when we play on Athas) I will implement this rule and see how it goes. My aim was to make combat encounters more cinematic with a cleaner narative.
rydi123 10-20-06, 05:07 AM	ah, i thought it was to just change the flow around and give healers more to do than heal in combat. my bad. but if you wouldn't mind, do mention how those rules work out, as i would love to see them playtested before i implement them myself. :)
Ashanti 10-20-06, 06:51 AM	@ rydi123 We have already had one session that went on for 6 encounters before the pcs had to rest. In the post game debrief we concluded: 1: Pcs were braver and took on more difficult odds. 2: There were more encounters. 3: Casters must ration their spells more prudently. 4: The cleric still waded into combat but (unexpectedly) did more healing 'in combat'. It was more efficient to keep a character in HP and not to let him drop into wounds (which don't regen like HP do). The psychology seemed to be 'keep the fighter going' rather than 'deal with the beast his self'. The fighter REALLY appreciated this. 5: Having untold numbers of potions, wands and other 'expendables' clogging up character sheets was no longer an issue as they were used in the last 2 encounters as the casters ran out of magic but the warriors kept going. 6: Cleric still need spontaneous healing (this I did not like, but thats play testing for you). 7: You can get a lot more done and you level quicker (yay!). 8: The cleric really liked not having to cross off endless healing spells from his list after combat.
Jerks 10-20-06, 02:36 PM	Have you looked at Reserve Points. This works similarly to what you suggest, but not quite as fast. Characters get a bank of reserve hit points equal to their hit point total. After combat, their reserve point funnel in to replace their lost hit points. When you heal, you can either choose to fill you hit points first or your reserve points. This effectively gives character twice as many hit points without affecting how much damage they can take in a single combat. Or you could just have them heal at the same rate as vitality does in Star Wars (1 h.p. per character level per hour). This is still plenty fast healing and does greatly mitigate the need for a cleric. Having the hit points just ping back to full after a combat rubs me the wrong way for some reason. It makes it seem to video gamey and lessens the ability of the GM to run anything other than straight up combats. Endurance challenges, sieges and hit and run combats and dungeon crawls become far less dangeous if the combatants are at full strength in every combat.
Thelon Fairblade 10-20-06, 03:32 PM	Ditto Jerks.
trapspringer 10-20-06, 04:00 PM	a method that i am going to use in my next game is to make all healing convert damage into subdual damage which then heals normally. this has the benefit of making people think twice about the actions they take (they don't want to be out of commission for a week healing), and makes the healer a bit more focused on other spells (if your spells won't actually keep your fighters conscious longer, you have to join in the fighting and save the healing until after the fight). It's a tried and true variant, from what I've seen. The feed back has generally been pretty positive about this system on the boards. It does make combat a lot grittier.
rydi123 10-20-06, 05:24 PM	@ rydi123 We have already had one session that went on for 6 encounters before the pcs had to rest. In the post game debrief we concluded: 1: Pcs were braver and took on more difficult odds. 2: There were more encounters. 3: Casters must ration their spells more prudently. 4: The cleric still waded into combat but (unexpectedly) did more healing 'in combat'. It was more efficient to keep a character in HP and not to let him drop into wounds (which don't regen like HP do). The psychology seemed to be 'keep the fighter going' rather than 'deal with the beast his self'. The fighter REALLY appreciated this. 5: Having untold numbers of potions, wands and other 'expendables' clogging up character sheets was no longer an issue as they were used in the last 2 encounters as the casters ran out of magic but the warriors kept going. 6: Cleric still need spontaneous healing (this I did not like, but thats play testing for you). 7: You can get a lot more done and you level quicker (yay!). 8: The cleric really liked not having to cross off endless healing spells from his list after combat. huh. those are some interesting results. i will have to contemplate this, and try to work this flow into my game. thanks much for the input. It's a tried and true variant, from what I've seen. The feed back has generally been pretty positive about this system on the boards. It does make combat a lot grittier. good to know that other people have found it successful. that encourages me. thank you.
OneSidedDice 10-20-06, 07:17 PM	I guess you've already had some success with your new rules, but I'll play devil's advocate anyway. It aways seemed an artificial cap on the immersion of the game when the group said "right, we are out of healing, bed time". Isn't "Well, we're out of combat, let's cool our heels for a few (minutes/hours/however long it takes) until our hit points regenerate on their own" an equally artificial cap on immersiveness? I'm actually really confused about the results you saw after testing this rule. I can understand that your PCs would be more willing to press onward, since their HP recover after combat naturally, but I don't understand why your cleric changed his behavior. Basically, if I understand the house rule your group uses correctly, you equate a character's positive hit points to VP from Star Wars, and a character's negative hit points to WP. As long as the character is still in the positives, it's "just a flesh wound" and he's fine, but once in the negatives he'll die at -10-BAB. Under the new rule you've implemented, a character's positive hit points will recover on their own, but once in the negatives the character needs to be healed back to the positives before he can recover quickly on his own. Assuming I'm understanding you correctly, I don't really see why there was a change in the cleric's behavior. If the fighter is engaged with a creature that isn't likely to drop him to negatives by the time he kills it, I don't see any reason to heal him. Just keep the fighter at a high enough HP total that he'll survive the combat with at least 1 HP, and the group can just relax for a little while until the rest come back on their own--no need to spend party resources to restore them. As the player of my group's cleric using unmodified HP rules, on the other hand, I'm always concerned about keeping my party members healthy. Since we can't count on our hit points "growing back" after each combat, I'm going to need to spend healing spells to restore HP, whether it's in combat or out. My cleric is generally running around patching people up unless he's really needed on the front line to keep something away from the casters, for example. If I knew my companions could be restored to perfect health after combat just by waiting, I'd definitely take a more aggressive role. Consuming more perishable healing supplies also confuses me. My group generally uses those for out-of-combat healing, because they're almost always much weaker than the spells a cleric can cast, since they're at minimum level unless you shell out some extra cash. In combat, if someone's hurt bad, you don't want to hit them with a 2d8+3 cure moderate wand, you want to give them a 4d8+10 cure critical spell. I guess it depends on your group's level, because at low levels the difference isn't likely to be significant. I'm just confused that your players like not having those items around anymore. "Wow, I'm sure glad we don't have to deal with all this extra healing ability anymore!" doesn't seem like a logical statement for a player to make. Anyway, just my two cents. I'm curious as to how the new rules caused your group to react in such a fashion.
Ashanti 10-20-06, 08:09 PM	@ OneSidedDice OneSidedDice says: Isn't "Well, we're out of combat, let's cool our heels for a few (minutes/hours/however long it takes) until our hit points regenerate on their own" an equally artificial cap on immersiveness?" I take your point but think of it from a narative perspective. The charaters clean their weapons, adjust their armour, loot the dead and are back fighting fit. Compare this with having to make camp and sleep to do exactly the same thing. The immersion is greater when you take a breather than when you bed down in the dungeon. OneSidedDice says: "If the fighter is engaged with a creature that isn't likely to drop him to negatives by the time he kills it, I don't see any reason to heal him. Just keep the fighter at a high enough HP total that he'll survive the combat with at least 1 HP, and the group can just relax for a little while until the rest come back on their own--no need to spend party resources to restore them." What can I say? It's what happened. When you have a char that you have played for about 3 years you don't want to loose her. We had the 10+ BAB for wounds rule long before this one. OneSidedDice says: "Consuming more perishable healing supplies also confuses me. My group generally uses those for out-of-combat healing, because they're almost always much weaker than the spells a cleric can cast, since they're at minimum level unless you shell out some extra cash. In combat, if someone's hurt bad, you don't want to hit them with a 2d8+3 cure moderate wand, you want to give them a 4d8+10 cure critical spell." The increased amount of encounters meant that the casters ran out of magic and began to use up the hordes of consumables they have otherwise horded. I felt tihs was a good thing. OneSidedDice says: "Wow, I'm sure glad we don't have to deal with all this extra healing ability anymore!" doesn't seem like a logical statement for a player to make." If you were to take a look at the gear my group have and have never used over the past few years and have dutifully copied form character sheet to charater sheet you would not be as suprised as we were to actually use the 8 potion of cure critical wound our bard had horded (she is almost 4 years old). Btw: any one else having to log in every time you try to post?
Thelon Fairblade 10-24-06, 11:17 AM	Sounds like you've already made up your mind to use this system. I would suggest a minor change, though -- don't let the auto-healing bring them all the way back to max. Leave them down 25% (or even 50%!), because "catching a breather" isn't the same as being completely refreshed and unwounded. The characters likely have some new bruises, minor cuts and scrapes, a pulled muscle, maybe an awkward dent in the armor that can't be quickly tapped out, whatever. If they want to be in tip-top fighting shape, they need a good night's rest or some clerical healing.
theblindman 10-25-06, 08:37 PM	I do like the basic idea of this system. Among other things, it fuses better with the rationalization of the HP system, namely that damage is non-specific fatigue. It seriously unbalances some things though. 3: Casters must ration their spells more prudently. I didn't think of this when I was reading the OP, but this is probably the most unbalancing aspect of the rule. Essentially what this rule does is give fighters an unlimited number of "combats per day" while keeping spell-casters on the same level they have always been. Spellcasters are rarely limited by their hitpoints because they spend so little time in combat - what is more important to the spellcaster is the number of spells he or she can cast per day. I think that if you're going to beef up the number of combats a tank-type can wade through, you need to do something similar for spellcasters. Otherwise you're just going to end up worsening the "well, we're out of spells, time for bed" problem you mentioned in your first post. Btw: any one else having to log in every time you try to post? Yes, but I recently moved to Japan, and I assumed it was some sort of connection problem or code-reading glitch. It only happens when I'm using the computers at school though.
Ashanti 10-26-06, 04:38 AM	Otherwise you're just going to end up worsening the "well, we're out of spells, time for bed" problem you mentioned in your first post. Quite so. However, my group always found that it was running out of healing that caused nap time. It is true that the casters were still the descision makers when it came to resting. This led to the warriors type feeling a little smug. He could (and would have) went on but the casters felt pretty exhausted. I feel this makes the 'spells per day' balancing feature of the class actually work and the much vaunted 'fighters can go on and on' advantage actually mean something.
theblindman 10-26-06, 08:33 AM	But the fighter can only be so smug before the wizard starts taking up the fighter's old complaints. I'm worried that you haven't balanced it any better, just rebalanced it the other way. In either case, if it works for you than D&D has become a better game. Go for it :)
Ashanti 10-26-06, 09:05 AM	But the fighter can only be so smug before the wizard starts taking up the fighter's old complaints. I'm worried that you haven't balanced it any better, just rebalanced it the other way. In either case, if it works for you than D&D has become a better game. Go for it :) Well in a way you are right. At the start of the day the full casters (at the level we play) are far more versitile and have a higher ceiling of challenges that they can cope with. When they are down to lower level spells they are are batting average to the warriors. When they run out of juice the warriors are markedly more competant. It seems to balance out nicely, with everyone feeling special at some point in the game. Functionally the warriors maintain a stable power level over the day, while the casters start high powerr and decline with each encounter.
calvinNhobbes 10-26-06, 04:05 PM	a method that i am going to use in my next game is to make all healing convert damage into subdual damage which then heals normally. That's a cool idea. Might have to try that one out.
rydi123 10-26-06, 04:40 PM	That's a cool idea. Might have to try that one out. well, if you do, tell me how it goes. it is a big help to see how something playtests before you actually implement it in a big campaign.
calvinNhobbes 10-26-06, 05:15 PM	well, if you do, tell me how it goes. it is a big help to see how something playtests before you actually implement it in a big campaign. Will do if I get the chance.
sylvak 10-29-06, 08:50 PM	me being a PC tank would REALLY appreciate this little (engine?) thingy sad part is, my DM isnt a very persuadable person (i made a class that gets the run feat at first level, then realized i already had the run feat as one of my three starting feats (three because: one for being created, one for being human, onr for having only one eye) and he said "well thats too bad, shoulda thought of that BEFORE you took the run feat"....bastard anyway, as for the whole gain your TOTAL amount of HP back, well thats not so great; im a max gamer and this seems overpowering...to ME, someone who played a dragon! being a monk, id just go up to any challenge and beat it to death, ping back to max health, go on to the next challenge wheras to having to WORRY and maybe even RUN from challenges makes the game more realistic (which my fellow P.Cs and my DM both seek). look at it this way, if im on my way home and i get mugged and the **** kicked outta me, but i fight off the hooded bastard, my scrapes and cuts arent just gonna "magically" heal (unless i have a cleric nearby (which i dont)) and after the first mugging, another guy can come seeing that im weak and just KILL me! but in your game after i would get beat to a pulp, id be just fine, then beat up the next guy...WTF IS DAT!?! anyways thered my very firstest post...enjoy
trapspringer 10-29-06, 09:10 PM	a method that i am going to use in my next game is to make all healing convert damage into subdual damage which then heals normally. One of the game designers suggested this variant in a splat book. Just throwin' that out there.
rydi123 10-30-06, 01:21 AM	welcome sylvak! enjoy the forums! One of the game designers suggested this variant in a splat book. Just throwin' that out there. interesting. would you happen to know who/which one? i would like to take a look at that.
Bleyn 10-30-06, 04:31 AM	the OPs suggested system seems somewhat similar to the one found here: http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/vitalityAndWoundPoints.htm I've been thinking about trying to use this system in our game, although it seems to require a bit more bookkeeping.
rydi123 10-30-06, 05:36 AM	eeew. the vitality/wound system. never liked how you could just suddenly drop dead from a solid hit with that system.
calvinNhobbes 10-30-06, 09:12 AM	eeew. the vitality/wound system. never liked how you could just suddenly drop dead from a solid hit with that system. It is the fact you can drop dead, or kill someone else, with one solid hit that I like the system. Gives fighter types their own "save or die" type of attack.
rydi123 10-30-06, 08:31 PM	it is certainly fitting for some types of games/campaigns, but i wouldn't want to play with it myself :)
kadeity 11-02-06, 11:50 PM	In the playtest for the New magic system im running, alot of times they have our cleric just heal them to full after the battle. This actually just makes the whole game more fun, and though COMBAT ITSELF is extremely lethal, since its very difficult to recieve in cobat healing, overall the game is affected positively by this. i mean how often have you come upon a monster in the dungeon who was at half of his max hp? Not very often huh? why shouldnt the Level5 party be at full hp when it goes against the full hp cr5 monster. p.s. if your interested in my magic system discusssion its here. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=728831
Ashanti 11-03-06, 05:59 AM	We did some more play testing this weekend and this is what we took from it. 1: The fighter really enjoys it and feels much more like an active hero and less a meat shield. 2: There was a new habit of the casters to buff up the warriors types with mobility type spells. 3: The Cleric became more active in combat (largly to put himself in a secondary meat shield role) and more conservative with spell use. 4: Wizards get to use offensive spells largely when the party is initiating an offensive strategy. When bing attacked, defensive spells see more use. There was less of a 'nuke whatever moves' mentallity. 5: There seemed to be a more even experience of difficulty for each encounter at a set CR; so a golem at CR 11 was more equivalent to a caster at CR 11. This was not felt by the warriors, only by the casters. 6: We had to balance more non combat encounters to cater for skill monkeys and this led to very rappid level increases that the players loved as we only play every blue moon. This also caused a change in how the DM (me) plotted the adventure (I relied too much on combat). 7: Casters expressed desire to take item creation feats where formerly this had not been the case. Of course, these findings are particular to our campaign only.