PDA

View Full Version : Screw Clerics, healing is awesome



AstralFire
2008-10-09, 03:39 PM
My topic title probably sounds a bit contradictory, yes.

Before I continue:
http://otherbrooksbrother.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/marvingayesexualhealing.jpg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVTN5o9Kgu8)
^ Click

Ahem. Now that we have set the mood!

As our friend Marvin clearly understands, Healing is awesome. It is amazing, awe-inspiring, terrific.

It should not be mundane (http://www.answers.com/mundane). Commonplace. Yet, the assumption of D&D and several of its many spawn is that you need fast acting, in-battle usable TRUE healing in order to have a full group.

Exhibit A: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=91812&highlight=healer
Exhibit B: "LF Healer." Anyone who's MMOed in the last 5 years probably knows that one.
Exhibit C: Every JRPG ever.

Going back to D&D, 4E isn't intended for a healer role to be as necessary, so instead they gave everyone healing surges. 3E and earlier expect a Fighter/ing Man, Mage/ic User/Wizard/Sorcerer/headasploder, and Cleric/al Aide in every group. If you tell people to go without a Meat Shield, I've seen 'em do it. Especially in this day of Batman. If you tell people to go without Batman, oh lord do they do it, it actually bores a lot of people. Skill Monkey? Not a big deal if everyone has a few well-placed skill points.

Healer, though? Man, it's an argument oftentimes to get people to budge without it. In the system I'm developing, people were surprised to see a lack of after-battle healing. Going back to MMOs, in WoW I have done and gotten people to go along on level appropriate instance runs of anything pre-55 lacking tanks or DPS (meat shield or damage/utility). Healing though... they won't go into Deadmines, the second easiest dungeon in the game, without healing if it's level-appropriate. The only MMO I know that avoided the "Need healer" problem did so by going the route of "let everyone heal themselves!" (Though admittedly, Asheron's Call did this due to ultimately bad balancing, not actual intent.)

Tell me why. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXeC8nMdr_E)

What is so goddamned vital about having healers? In RPGs or Video Games, what is it?

Low Downtime?
http://nagios.sourceforge.net/docs/3_0/images/downtime.png

Yes, I appreciate that players who is for fite (http://www.wowinsider.com/2006/04/23/essential-advice-for-druids/) want to do that with as little downtime as possible. However, most RPGs have some sort of slow health recovery system and MMORPGs are basically mandated to have an out-of-combat recovery system. For RPGs, it means your character is now out of commission for 12 days... that you probably fast-forward through if you really want to get right back hard onto the action. Something which can allow your character to develop as they struggle to work beyond what their body can allow, and not just in a Heroic Sacrifice, but in every day stuff - if you want it to, or it's easy to gloss over.

This also really opens up the box for fighting by attrition, which is much harder to manage in a lot of high-level systems that allow for healing.

Game Mechanic Variety
This is the only other reason I can think of to include healing. You don't want everyone just being Damage McFaceshooter:
http://hasbrotoys.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/cable.jpg

And some people genuinely enjoy roleplaying a support role. There is nothing wrong with that, I enjoy support as well. So why does support have to be healing? Why does support come with a box of bandaids for after the battle, why can't it just be in-battle? Star Wars has Battle Meditation (http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Battle_meditation), D&D has Inspire Courage, and the later developments of 3 and 4 include more and more sources of temporary or in-combat only health, not permanent.

There is a lot to do with support, and the most common version of the actually played Batman Wizard IS a supporter of the first-class - more of an Oracle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Gordon)1 than an actual godman of 127 Martial Arts and infallible one-on-one planning.

Divine Magic is Awesome
Yes, it is, so don't you think it should be dispensed a little more rarely than it is? Magic healing is fine, but I don't see the need for half the systems under the sun to include someone being able to restore someone from death's door to fighting fit with 3 seconds of time at little effort - that is godly levels of power. If it takes 3 days to heal someone when it would have taken a year - or never - it is still extremely impressive.

And... yeah. I think that concludes this rant.

1(Note that Oracle can beat people up still, it's just not her main job... seems very appropriate.)

Telonius
2008-10-09, 03:49 PM
Additional reason .... healing is a big part of magic, culturally. Stories of divine and magical healing are found in *just about* every real-world religion and mythology. When something's that enmeshed in myth, it would just be odd to leave it out of a magic system as big and broad as D&D is supposed to be. If D&D has gods that are at all effective in the world, they're going to have divine healing of some sort.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 03:51 PM
Additional reason .... healing is a big part of magic, culturally. Stories of divine and magical healing are found in *just about* every real-world religion and mythology. When something's that enmeshed in myth, it would just be odd to leave it out of a magic system as big and broad as D&D is supposed to be. If D&D has gods that are at all effective in the world, they're going to have divine healing of some sort.

I should clarify I'm referring to 'quick patch-up bandaid healing' - I knew I left something out.

If you take 3 days to heal when you should have taken a year, that's still a miracle.

Saph
2008-10-09, 03:52 PM
Great presentation, that was lots of fun to read. :)

As for your question, it's real simple - having lots of healing means you can have lots of combat. The more dangerous you make enemies, the more you need defensive/buffing/healing/recovery abilities to soften the blow. The D&D Cleric is the king of defensive and recovery magic, which is why they're so welcome in a party.

- Saph

Dr Bwaa
2008-10-09, 03:56 PM
Very fun to read. I routinely run parties (3.5) without healers for just these reasons (and because-surprise! no one wants to play one).

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 03:57 PM
Great presentation, that was lots of fun to read. :)

As for your question, it's real simple - having lots of healing means you can have lots of combat. The more dangerous you make enemies, the more you need defensive/buffing/healing/recovery abilities to soften the blow. The D&D Cleric is the king of defensive and recovery magic, which is why they're so welcome in a party.

- Saph

Thanks! :D

As mentioned, Defensive Magic is great and all. Recovery for lessening downtime, though... it's not any more RL downtime if you say "we skip over the next five days for Krusk to recover from his er, encounter with a comely wench and then leave town" - it does, however, invite more RP possibility, since if you DO carry around a magic first-aid kit, there's almost no reason for downtime, and it's harder to make enemies and scenarios based around attrition.

skywalker
2008-10-09, 03:58 PM
I think one reason why post-combat healing is fast is because, when you're trying to stop the madman from destroying the world 30 minutes from now, and his minions beat the crap out of you before you defeat them, you don't really have time for your natural healing(or your miraculous year of healing in 3 days). The madman needs to be stopped now.

Arbitrarity
2008-10-09, 04:03 PM
I think one reason why post-combat healing is fast is because, when you're trying to stop the madman from destroying the world 30 minutes from now, and his minions beat the crap out of you before you defeat them, you don't really have time for your natural healing(or your miraculous year of healing in 3 days). The madman needs to be stopped now.

In that case, the healing should be something taxing or very limited. Considering how little cure spells heal, it probably is, actually.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 04:05 PM
I think one reason why post-combat healing is fast is because, when you're trying to stop the madman from destroying the world 30 minutes from now, and his minions beat the crap out of you before you defeat them, you don't really have time for your natural healing(or your miraculous year of healing in 3 days). The madman needs to be stopped now.

And that opens up the floor for the PCs going "okay, it's a million-to-one shot - what have we got to lose?"

Really, hard and fast time limits to Game Over are a problem that can crop up with or without healing. What if the BBEG got lucky on rolls and beat them anyway?


In that case, the healing should be something taxing or very limited. Considering how little cure spells heal, it probably is, actually.

Cure spells don't heal a lot by high levels, no - but Heal certainly does, and you can get Mass Heal pretty easy.

Crow
2008-10-09, 04:06 PM
Magical healing is not and has never been essential to D&D. Convenient, yes. But not essential.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 04:09 PM
Magical healing is not and has never been essential to D&D. Convenient, yes. But not essential.

Even if the systems don't expect it, which I think is debatable, the players certainly seem to and the point of the thread is to challenge that school of thought for players and designers alike.

Saph
2008-10-09, 04:14 PM
As mentioned, Defensive Magic is great and all. Recovery for lessening downtime, though... it's not any more RL downtime if you say "we skip over the next five days for Krusk to recover from his er, encounter with a comely wench and then leave town" - it does, however, invite more RP possibility, since if you DO carry around a magic first-aid kit, there's almost no reason for downtime, and it's harder to make enemies and scenarios based around attrition.

Well, for whatever reason, the DMs I play with never seem to be willing to allow a party to fight one battle and then find a safe place to heal up. (It's kind of unfair, since that's exactly the in-character thing to do - soldiers who get shot call for medevac, they don't jump back into battle!) So without quick and reliable healing, you tend to end up with a party trailing around with half their members on 50% HP or less. I've seen at least one TPK as a result of this.

Personally I just make sure that every party I'm in has a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or equivalent. You might not need it (if the DM is allowing downtime) but you don't want to take the chance.

- Saph

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 04:19 PM
Well, for whatever reason, the DMs I play with never seem to be willing to allow a party to fight one battle and then find a safe place to heal up. (It's kind of unfair, since that's exactly the in-character thing to do - soldiers who get shot call for medevac, they don't jump back into battle!) So without quick and reliable healing, you tend to end up with a party trailing around with half their members on 50% HP or less. I've seen at least one TPK as a result of this.

Personally I just make sure that every party I'm in has a Wand of Cure Light Wounds or equivalent. You might not need it (if the DM is allowing downtime) but you don't want to take the chance.

- Saph

Well, this would take some adjustment in playing for everyone involved, of course. Smacking people with continual attrition would require a little more care and hesitation/abstinence. I think it falls to the responsibility of the system to remind the DM of the parameters of the game, and the DM to adjust accordingly.

Yakk
2008-10-09, 04:28 PM
This is one of the reasons why I sort of like the idea of advancement-based-recovery of resources.

Ie, in order to get back resources, you have to overcome challenges and advance the plot.

You still should sometimes do things like "I was wounded, so I retreat and heal up", but at the same time sometimes you should just forge onwards... Place pacing mechanisms in the hands of the DM, somehow.

Fax Celestis
2008-10-09, 04:31 PM
People don't like being dead because it means you stop playing (even if only for a short while). It also means level loss, something else players hate: nothing pisses a player off more than suddenly being a lot worse than he was before--especially when it's permanent.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-10-09, 04:34 PM
I should clarify I'm referring to 'quick patch-up bandaid healing' - I knew I left something out.

If you take 3 days to heal when you should have taken a year, that's still a miracle.

Old school vs new school train of thought.

If you look at older editions there is less healing... well to a degree ya i can make a priest that can do nothing but heal which is wicked boring (to most).

Thats why 2nd ed and 1st ed games where slower and more "realistic" for exactly why your saying.

I for one agree about your healing argument.

Also If your group didn't want to go into dead mines with out a healer, either A. There Newbs or B. they just suck.
We did the whole thing with a group of 5 warlock(me, affliction) 17, rogue(not sure spec) 18, druid(Feral[cat]), mage(fire) 16, shaman(elemental) or a shadow priest... depending on the time and there levels varied... its been almost a year or two.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 04:40 PM
People don't like being dead because it means you stop playing (even if only for a short while). It also means level loss, something else players hate: nothing pisses a player off more than suddenly being a lot worse than he was before--especially when it's permanent.

Patch-up is different from resurrection. I'm a firm believer that the perfected role of the DM As Antagonist is to constantly keep your PCs nearly dead enough that they are scared without actually killing them. (Note that this is DM As Antagonist, specifically. There are other roles for a DM to take.)

Level loss is an assumption of specifically 3.x and older D&D, and this is directed towards gaming in general. Many games have no appreciable penalty for death other than your immediate time setback.


This is one of the reasons why I sort of like the idea of advancement-based-recovery of resources.

Ie, in order to get back resources, you have to overcome challenges and advance the plot.

You still should sometimes do things like "I was wounded, so I retreat and heal up", but at the same time sometimes you should just forge onwards... Place pacing mechanisms in the hands of the DM, somehow.

To some extent I like it. It works well for things that have 'destinies', like SW d20/SWSE. It doesn't fit -everything-, but it is an alternative.

Lycar
2008-10-09, 04:59 PM
Personally I believe, that a lot of what D&D is percieved to be is a game of heroes who go around battling 'Evil' and taking it's stuff for great justice.

If your band of world-saviors has to take a month off after every single encounter, it kinda takes the 'oomph' out of the world-saving buisiness.

Of course, other games have different conceptions. Take DSA (or Realms of Arcadia I believe) for another take on hero health: Heroes usually have between 25-35 'life points' at lv.1 and they will probably never get more then 45. It is possible but very expensive to do so.

A sword does about 1d6+4 damage. Maybe a point more for really strong heroes. Although there is a sort of power attack, where you trade to-hit for damage on a 1 to 1 ratio.

However, fighting works a wee bit different from D20: People have an attack action and a parry action. One parry action. If a hero and, say, a bandit face off, it usually means that the hero needs, on average, to roll a 8 to 12 to score a hit. The bandit, usually an inferior fighter, needs a roll of 12 to 14 to parry that attack. While his own attack might connect only on a roll of 8 to 10 and the hero might be able to parry on maybe a roll of 6 to 8.

So the chances are stacked in favour of the hero. Still, he/she will probably take a few hits. Armour reduces damage by the way. Heavy armour protects more but hinders both offense and defense. Lets say a suit of leather armour absorbs 2 points from every hit, a breast plate equivalent about 4-5 and the knights full battle armour could reach 7 or so.

Enter a second foe and suddenly you have tow incoming attacks. Only one of which you might parry, if they should both get lucky on their attack rolls.

being outnumbered can be really, REALLY bad, even to high-level, experienced heroes.

So, your hero is going to be nicked and bruised.

Heroes actaully heal at an amazing rate, about 1d6 worth per full night of rest. In a bed in an inn. In a cold tent in the wilderness, maybe only 1d6-2. Without a tent, maybe 1d6-4. If it rains, zilch.

Oh yes. Magic is available. There is a spell that cures life-point damage at a rate of 1 to 1. One life-point regained for a magic-point expended.

Full casters start around 30 magic points. They may eventually reach 40, 45, even 50. They recover about 1d6 of them per full night of sleep- In a bed in an inn...

Now they also can do combat spells. They usually do life-point damage around a 1 to 1 basis. Or they could do things like blinding enemies (which makes them easier to hit and almost prevents them from hitting back), petrifying enemies (temporarily) or other fun stuff.

And they'll need a few days to recover from the effort.

Back to healing: Remember the Heal skill? The one no-one ever uses becauses no-one ever gets sick? Or infected?

In this little game, every character who, at the end of a day, has still more then 5 life-points missing from his total risks an infection, if the wound has not been properly cleaned and dressed. Or magically healed. Except you want to save that for an emergency.

Getting sick is no laughing matter. Wound infection reduces your strength at an alarming rate. Fever causes loss of life-points. And no, you don't regain them through rest while you are sick. Better have someone who knows some Treat Disease. And have someone with enough Wilderness Lore and Plant Lore to find the right herbs to concoct a fever-reducing medicine (unless you have some in your equipment. Which is a really good idea).

And even then, you better head for an inn. Or a village. If you are out in the wildeness, may the goddess of medicine have mercy on you.

Suddenly, the little scuffle with the bandits, who you drove off almost effortlessly, threatens your life, days after the fact. Because someone rolled too low on their Treat Wounds roll.

Oh yes, suddenly you think twice about entering a combat. Any combat. But you knwo what? So do bandits. They'd rather try to intimidate you into paying a 'toll' for using 'their road' then risk dying in agony from an infested gut wound.

So what would have been a couple of rounds of combat in D&D suddenly becomes an intense RP scene where the PCs try to intimidate the bandits into leaving them alone. And the bandits try to bully the PCs into paying some gold.

Because combat is dangerous. And nobody wants to die.

Some people enjoy this kind of play. And the nerve-wracking suspense if their character is going to survive the last night of fever, before the medicine kicks in and the fever stops.

Other people abhorr this kind of play.

But even D&D has the potential. There is a heal skill. There is a Healer's kit. There are diseases.

What if clerics aren't available as player characters, because all the churches ban their chosen priests from adventuring? Suddenly bards become everybody's best friend. :smallamused:

But hey, what if they never took CLW as a spell?

Oh well, better hope that you find some shelter soon and that your fighter, who took the Able Learner feat and some ranks in Heal (he's a veteran from the last war, see, and he saw many die of their wounds days after the actual battle was over.. scarred him for life it did...), makes his Long Term Care roll so you get back a few more HP tonight...

But yes, some people hate that kind of play. because it means you better sit tight in that little cave you found and hope that that thing out there in the darkness doesn't come in to find out if you're edible.

Because they think 'I'm a friggin' world-saving hero! I should not HAVE to be sitting in a cave, shivering, peeing my pants because some dumb monster is out there and I only have 4 HP left! What's heroic about that! Huh?! What!?!'

And thus, different game rules carter to different styles of play. D&D RAW caters to 'Okay, we finished off the ork patrol, lets pop some band-aids, wash them down with a few bandages and on we go to the border keep. Huzzah!!!' :smallamused:

Lycar

CthulhuM
2008-10-09, 05:03 PM
I agree that removing quick healing can make for some interesting situations, and open up new strategies to both the DM and the players... but unfortunately it doesn't work very well in a hit point-based system like d20, at least not beyond the first few levels. Limited healing works in a system where actually being hit and wounded in combat is a big deal (you know, like in real life), but in dnd, it just isn't.

Particularly at higher levels, you're pretty much expected to take hits in combat; that's what your hit points are for. If you aren't taking damage in a combat (even a combat against minions or mooks), then you aren't being challenged. So, if you remove instant healing, every single combat is going to involve someone sustaining a wound serious enough that they have to spend days recovering... but not serious enough that their life was actually in danger or their physical capabilities were in any way impaired. That isn't a fantasy trope, or any other sort of trope - it's just ridiculous. And while, yes, technically all of that is true even with magical healing around, the fact that everyone can generally get their wounds healed up at the end of combat, or at the very least by the next day, makes it much less likely to interfere with suspension of disbelief.

EDIT: Though Lycar has it right - it could work if you really want to make combat very dangerous, and something to be avoided if at all possible. But if that's the case, I'd say DnD probably isn't the system you're looking for, what with 80-90% of all the rules and abilities in the game being focused around combat.

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 05:06 PM
Personally I believe, that a lot of what D&D is percieved to be is a game of heroes who go around battling 'Evil' and taking it's stuff for great justice.

If your band of world-saviors has to take a month off after every single encounter, it kinda takes the 'oomph' out of the world-saving buisiness.

A month? Sure. Ducking their heads and not scraping everything for 5 days as they trail the orc army from a safe distance? Not as much of an issue. But I digress.


And thus, different game rules carter to different styles of play. D&D RAW caters to 'Okay, we finished off the ork patrol, lets pop some band-aids, wash them down with a few bandages and on we go to the border keep. Huzzah!!!' :smallamused:

Lycar

I have no inherent issue to "different game rules cater to different styles of play", or I wouldn't have made the 'Fangled Gamers' thread today. However, it seems like something which is able to break out of the pattern set by D&D in this realm is by and large the exception and not nearly as popular - I'd never even heard of the game you'd mentioned. So this is a thread to encourage more people to adopt those different styles.


I agree that removing quick healing can make for some interesting situations, and open up new strategies to both the DM and the players... but unfortunately it doesn't work very well in a hit point-based system like d20, at least not beyond the first few levels. Limited healing works in a system where actually being hit and wounded in combat is a big deal (you know, like in real life), but in dnd, it just isn't.

Yeah, I can appreciate that, but it doesn't work like that only because D&D wasn't designed like that. If people had had an interest in experimenting more on that front, D&D might be like that today, and I might now be making a thread about "<3 Magic Bandaids, More Games Should Have Them."

Again, this goes beyond D&D 3.x. I'm not just asking "why don't more people play D&D 3.x like this", I am also asking "why don't more people play games designed like this?"

Lycar
2008-10-09, 05:20 PM
A month? Sure. Ducking their heads and not scraping everything for 5 days as they trail the orc army from a safe distance? Not as much of an issue. But I digress.

I was just exaggerating. But you get the idea. :smallwink:



I'd never even heard of the game you'd mentioned.


Actually, I would have been surprised if you had.

Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dark_Eye)'s some more information. Maybe it gives somebody ideas.

EDIT: Oh, apparently it's called Realms of Arkania in the US.

Lycar

AstralFire
2008-10-09, 06:50 PM
Interesting; I'd heard in passing about it, actually, but I only recalled the bit about how there was a German RPG more locally popular than D&D.

DM Raven
2008-10-09, 07:31 PM
Patch-up is different from resurrection. I'm a firm believer that the perfected role of the DM As Antagonist is to constantly keep your PCs nearly dead enough that they are scared without actually killing them.


Ah, a DM after my own heart.

I think healing has just become ingrained in the mind of most gamers as being necessary. From our early days of gaming (especially those of use over 24), most RPGs or shooters, or games involving jumping plumbers had healing somehow play a huge role. Whether that healing be in the form of curaga spells and potions, stimp-packs/medikits/soul orbs, or mushrooms that made you get big so you could survive longer. Healing is just something that we all come to expect in games. Those that can provide us with this healing are thought of as necessary and good to have along for the ride. In reality, you don't need them, but they sure do make life easier...

Townopolis
2008-10-09, 08:36 PM
Astral, lately I've noticed that I agree with a lot of your posts.

I concur, and I will be looking at that Realms of Arkania link. I've also picked up Harnmaster, which looks similar, but I haven't delved enough into it to be 100% sure that combat has that fast and deadly feel to it that I so crave after too much D&D.

Also, I once was in a 3-man to Uldaman with myself (tauren protection warrior) and 2 rogues. We got to the boss room but wiped on the statues and it locked us out after that.

LotharBot
2008-10-09, 09:10 PM
D&D normally needs healing because it's centered around losing HP, and the expectation is that a decently challenging fight will tear off a certain (high) percentage of HP from a certain number of characters (often the same ones.) Without healing, this means you have to stop and rest for a long time after every encounter, which most groups don't want to spend their time playing.

You can play D&D, or any number of other systems, without "healing"... you just have to write your story and encounters accordingly. You could declare that everyone always heals to full between encounters, for free, and get rid of the default wand of CLW / healing surge / whatever mechanic, again, writing your story and encounters accordingly. You could give characters "wounds" and associated penalties based on the way fights went, again, as long as you wrote your story and encounters with that in mind. There's nothing wrong with any of these approaches... it's just not the way the D&D books are written, so you have to do some customizing if that's how you want to play.

For the record, "attrition" works just fine in D&D. In 3.5, you only have so many spell slots; in 4e, you only have so many surges and so many daily powers. If the DM gives adequate reason for the group to get through a certain number of encounters before resting, and builds the encounters with the understanding that players will have to conserve those resources, you can have a tremendously interesting session of attrition warfare.

Lycar
2008-10-10, 01:43 AM
How about using a slightly modified HP system?

Consider the first half of HP 'plot armour', they refresh after each fight, with a bit of rest. Only after you are down to 1/2 HP, the bleeding starts. Those are the HP that need to actually be healed. Those the various Cure spells effect. The ones that the various at-will healing powers seem to affect.

Except that maybe these really only affect the 'exhaustion' HP. You know, morale boosts and such.

Or just use the vitality system, like Star Wars or in the UA: Vitality recovers quickly, wound points, not so much. Of course, Cure spells only restore vitality at the normal rate. Wound points: CLW restores 1 wound point, CMW maybe 3, CSW 5 and CCW 7 respectivly. Maybe make that 3, 6, 9 and 12, with CMW at 1 maybe.

Oh and here in germany, the game DVD for Drakensang also contained a pdf with the 4th edition basic rules for the game. Maybe they do in the US too? That way you get 2 neat games in one package. :smallbiggrin:

Lycar

AstralFire
2008-10-10, 05:26 PM
For the record, "attrition" works just fine in D&D. In 3.5, you only have so many spell slots; in 4e, you only have so many surges and so many daily powers. If the DM gives adequate reason for the group to get through a certain number of encounters before resting, and builds the encounters with the understanding that players will have to conserve those resources, you can have a tremendously interesting session of attrition warfare.

You can do it, it just takes a lot longer, in my experience. Unless you're carrying a load of Psions/Wilders, you won't even notice a performance dent in many cases before Encounter 3 or so.


Astral, lately I've noticed that I agree with a lot of your posts.

My thought-virus prerogative is pleased. :smallbiggrin: Thank you.


Also, I once was in a 3-man to Uldaman with myself (tauren protection warrior) and 2 rogues. We got to the boss room but wiped on the statues and it locked us out after that.

I've four-manned it successfully with similar results - Moonkin (myself), a BM hunter, and I forget the rest. But I was playing healerkin mostly.

Prometheus
2008-10-10, 07:47 PM
To me, healing serves two vital roles:
1)Interactive Defense: Some battle just go by too quickly, especially if your PCs are all focused on the offensive. No fight can really be epic if it just doesn't last long enough to see all the special attacks or to make a gains or losses seem worthwhile. Defense draws out the battle in an important way. More importantly about healing magic, however, is that it is much more interactive and strategic than mere buffs and armor. Now a player has to decide how to prioritize their actions in combat and is uncertain about both how effective the next monstrous attack will be and their healing spell will be
2)Quick Recovery: This is the antethesis of the attrition style warfare, but attrition style warfare is a lot more fun when you giving rather than the receiving end anyway. If there is attrition warfare, it should be interactive anyway rather than powerless, and if it is unfeasible there simply just needs to be more attrition type magic. Anyway on to the main point, and that is RPGs should be full of adventurers. Downtime is uninteresting and tends to ruin any plot that is based on urgency. It is true that the PCs can limp from one battle-scene to the next, but why do they have their full capabilities if they never get the chance to use them anyway? Ironically enough, the only way to make the loss of life truly meaningful is to have it be easily solved.

Nobody likes to the healer. Nobody likes to have healing be universal. But healing is an important part of the game, at least, for games in the style of D&D.

AstralFire
2008-10-10, 07:59 PM
Direct instant healing is probably the second least interesting support mechanic I can think of - the first being <Long-Lasting Number-Improving Buff>. Healing can be made more interesting, but that requires a variety of healing strategies be employed, much as you use a variety of direct damage strategies.


Anyway on to the main point, and that is RPGs should be full of adventurers. Downtime is uninteresting and tends to ruin any plot that is based on urgency.

Irrelevant downtime can be skipped over in fluff; relevant downtime becomes all the more climactic, actually, as I mentioned. In movies and books, characters push on until their very end, but there isn't a magical reset button on their health that can be used quickly, precisely because it takes all the suspense out. You sometimes get downtime reducer healing, but you just about never get in-combat usable healing.


It is true that the PCs can limp from one battle-scene to the next, but why do they have their full capabilities if they never get the chance to use them anyway

Why do we give the PCs abilities which require downtime to use, why do we give the PCs day-limited abilities, if those themselves never mean much of anything?

Lord of the Rings spans a fair amount of time, and we never see anything like a D&D dungeon with plenty of random encounters - the Mines of Moria are uneventful for most of the way. Now, no one's going to argue Lord of the Rings ISN'T classical fantasy...

So why does classical fantasy RP gaming need to have dungeons of non-stop fighting?


Nobody likes to the healer. Some do, and I actually enjoy healing when it's not "pop goes the weasel" reactive stuff only. WoW's actually made a good deal of progress in finding a variety of healing mechanics to switch things up.


Nobody likes to have healing be universal.

It's not necessary, so move past it.