Healing surges and other such fail.

[Talisman]

Technically, I believe that is Bigode's argument, not mine.

But thank you for your answer.

Hence why I said "the" argument, not "your" argument.

Last I heard, however, Lord Dread the Dreadly didn't put signs around his castle saying "you have a 60% chance of dying if you fight me.", and if he did, how many heroes would believe those signs?

For some reason I find this idea absolutely hilarious.

"Uh-oh! Guys, it looks like we have a 60% chance of dying if we fight Lord Dreadly!"

"What? How could you know that?"

"It says so on this sign right here."

" "

[Bigode]

You're misinterpreting my point here.

Let's assume you're a Heroic AdventurerTM, and you're on your way to save Princess Beautifulla before Lord Evil kills her at midnight. If the princess dies, Bad Stuff Happens. It's your job to save her and prevent this.

If you live, being a Heroic AdventurerTM, you will undoubtedly go on to save more princesses, duchesses, baronesses, and farmers' wives. That doesn't make saving this princess any less important, or in any way mitigate the Bad Stuff that will happen if she dies.

If you're constantly worried about the unspecified amount of indeterminate people who will may not be saved if you die, it seems that ultimately you will take fewer and fewer risks to your precious self, and thus actually save fewer and fewer people because of your refusal to take risks.

Also, I remind you (and yes, it's metagaming) that if your character dies, those hypothetical future princesses may never exist.

Edit: I have no idea what you're referring to with the "sex slave" business.

Sure, figuring out how much restraint you can exercise before losing heroism's a non-trivial calculation. Interestingly, one of the hints I can trivially give you's that fighting an opponent closer to your group's power level while depleted == TPK. And, barring the death being part of an abracalypse, it's indeed less important that what you should expect to do in the future by picking non-retarded fights - if you came to that situation, you already failed, better be ready to try other times instead of not. Metagaming: I thought the talk was about a hero instead of a berserker, so I guess the future counts - whether the next victims will exist or not has next to nothing to do with you being alive or not, actually, and whatever little relation between the 2'd be actually that if a sufficiently important hero dies, not only the capacity for safety lowers, but the number of people actually endangered in the first place might well rise. Sex slaves: if you don't see the obvious, your problem. Besides, given that it was a part of your example that I listed for the sole purpose of saying I'd ignore it (indeed I did, for the rest of the post), doesn't matter anyway.

[Talisman]

*sigh*

I don't think either Elennsar or I (or anyone else) ever argued in favor of a mindless berserker charge. Nor did anyone argue with the idea that, if the situation allows for it, the smart thing to do is to rest up before the Big Fight.

I am saying that refusing to take risks on the chance that you might, at some point in the future, save more people (which you would preumably be taking risks to save at that point) is not heroic. I want to play Heroic Adventure, not Precision Accounting!*

Example sittuation: It's fifteen minutes to midnight. Your party is somewhat beaten-up (not out of spells and at 5% health). At midnight, the princess dies, Sauron finds the Ring, the bomb goes off, whatever - unless someone stops it.

Your answer seems to be, "Screw it. We have a lesser chance of success, so we're not even going to try. Sure, this country will be laid waste, but well make it up by saving more people in neighboring countries."

What I would like to see, however, is: "This is it, boys. It may cost us our lives, but one of us has to get through to stop the Evil Whatsit. If we don't...who will?"

PCs are just pieces of paper and imagination. Sure, you don't want 'em to die, but I'd rather have a PC die heroically than live as a coward. Heck, one of my most memorable PC moments was at a Con game when my paladin PC knowingly sacrificed herself to keep Orcus from manifesting for a few rounds (thus letting the rest of the party survive and win).



*I recognize the irony in this statement, given that most RPGs require a great deal of very precise accounting.

[Bigode]

You fail to recognize the actual irony: that you're refusing to calculate the single most important thing about being a hero. Congratulations. And no one cares about something fixable with a wand and and 2 min - we were talking actual depletion.

[Talisman]

You fail to recognize the actual irony: that you're refusing to calculate the single most important thing about being a hero. Congratulations.

You fail to communicate clearly.

And no one cares about something fixable with a wand and and 2 min - we were talking actual depletion.

Agreed, but that's not what I was talking about. Apparently the specific nuances of my example were not to your liking.

[Kaelik]

Well, two huge problems Talisman:

1) If you literally have a 10-20% chance of stopping the Princess from dieing, is it really that good an idea?

85% of the time, Princess dies, and the evil bad guy takes over the kingdom, and oppresses everyone for the next 800 years.

15% You save the Princess.

Compared to:

50% of the time, the evil bad guy takes over the kingdom, the Princess dies, and the next 800 years are oppression.

50% of the time, the Princess dies, the bad guys is killed, and the next 800 years are under the benevolent rule of the Princess's cousin and her descendants.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure everyone except the Princess in question would prefer that extra 35% of not being horribly oppressed for the rest of their life.

2) See, stuff like Sauron, ect, literally can't be the providence of PCs in D&D unless they are level 15+, at which time, a couple wands of Cure light and a thought bottle (or Heward's Fortifying Bedroll if you have an hour and 15 minutes) is in play, and they can fight the bad guy at relatively full str, like they should.

Because prior to level 15, there are definitionally people out there of higher level then the PCs who don't want the end of the world/Sauron. So they will totally teleport in and go batshit on your arbitrary timeclock to the end of the world who is CR 10.



Honestly, I don't know why you actually want the party fighting ever in a situation in which they have a 70-90% chance of failing to accomplish an objective that their characters consider more important then their lives.

That's genuinely retarded, because it means 90% of your campaigns end with: "And then darkness descends on the Earth for the next billion years, Gandorf has the Triforce, Link is dead, and Zelda is forced to service Gandorf's trusty steed while Hump-mummies run the streets at night."

And if any campaign ever ends that way without the PCs doing something massively stupid, then you are a failure as a DM.

[Bigode]

Kaelik, it might perhaps matter somewhat that I'd otherwise decided to just allow this crap to sink.

[Talisman]

Well, two huge problems Talisman:

1) If you literally have a 10-20% chance of stopping the Princess from dieing, is it really that good an idea?

And yet again, I'm not referring to situations where your chance of success is so minimal as to be near-nonexistant.

Because prior to level 15, there are definitionally people out there of higher level then the PCs who don't want the end of the world/Sauron. So they will totally teleport in and go batshit on your arbitrary timeclock to the end of the world who is CR 10.

So, let Elminster do it for you?
More non-heroism. "Let's never take any but the most minimal risks, because there are powerful people out there who will fix things if we don't feel like it. Remind me again why we're adventurers?"
Also, blatant metagaming.

Honestly, I don't know why you actually want the party fighting ever in a situation in which they have a 70-90% chance of failing to accomplish an objective that their characters consider more important then their lives.

Honestly, I don't know why you and Bigode refuse to hear what I'm saying. That isn't it at all, as I have stated numerous times before.

Nevertheless, it looks like you have your opinions and I have mine, and never the twain shall meet.

[Kaelik]

And yet again, I'm not referring to situations where your chance of success is so minimal as to be near-nonexistant.

Then you aren't really talking about anything at all. Because definitionally, any enemy you face that is a challenge to your party when you are fully rested is going to fucking destroy you if you are out of your highest level of spells.

That's how the game works. So either the great BBEG is seriously a guy who any one of you could take solo while the others handle his henchies, or if you go in unrested, you fucking die.

No one cares whether you rest or not before a fight you have a 70% chance of winning, we are talking about actual BBEGs in actual campaigns and actual adventure paths.

So, let Elminster do it for you?
More non-heroism. "Let's never take any but the most minimal risks, because there are powerful people out there who will fix things if we don't feel like it. Remind me again why we're adventurers?"
Also, blatant metagaming.

No, I don't let Eleminster do it for, or never take a risk, I fucking go due shit of my level, which never involves the end of the world. All I'm saying is end of the world completely breaks all immersion, because why the fuck is Eliminster sitting in his tower when he's seconds away from death?

Honestly, I don't know why you and Bigode refuse to hear what I'm saying. That isn't it at all, as I have stated numerous times before.

Nevertheless, it looks like you have your opinions and I have mine, and never the twain shall meet.

All I'm "hearing" from you is that you should be willing to give your life for something, and you should push on and risk a real chance of death (aka, higher CR then you, by a good 2-3 at least) when you are short on resources, because what happens if you don't get there right now is actually worse then dieing.

But at the same time, even when you are short on resources, you should have a really good chance of stopping this horrible thing from happening: AKA, last fight of the day, CR=party level.

[Elennsar]

I could be entirely mistaken, but I imagine that there are challenges that don't involve out of resources to hurt people (still have plenty of arrows) that do involve plenty of challenge of not getting killed.

Heroes tend to run into "hard to survive" before "hard to win".

Elminster is presumably doing something else while the PCs do this. Maybe he's protecting them from the BBEG doing a scry or die on the party while they get to his tower.

There are plenty of reasons why Glorfindel didn't go with the Fellowship and Merry did, and it isn't tied to Tolkien liking hobbits.

But hey, you don't want to have "The end of the world" in your campaigns at all, so listing any of those reasons would be a waste of space and time.

[Kaelik]

I could be entirely mistaken, but I imagine that there are challenges that don't involve out of resources to hurt people (still have plenty of arrows) that do involve plenty of challenge of not getting killed.

Heroes tend to run into "hard to survive" before "hard to win".

Not surviving is exactly equivalent to failing to win. It doesn't matter how many arrows you have if you are dead. Your killing people resources stop mattering when you die.

The choice is that something can be a peace of cake when you are at full resources (Making Teleport or invis or some other way of passing minions turn the BBEG into an easy win) and therefore of 50% difficulty when you are pushing on after beating minions. Or they can be a 50% encounter when full, and an 80% KO rate when having fought minions.

There is no such thing as a 50% encounter at full resources and 50% when not well rested.

If the BBEG is easy enough to have a good shot after facing his minions, then he is easy enough to have an assured victory by bypassing minions.

Elminster is presumably doing something else while the PCs do this. Maybe he's protecting them from the BBEG doing a scry or die on the party while they get to his tower.

Elminster is level 20+, for him to not be able to teleport in and defeat then enemy in seconds, the enemy must also be 20+. If that is the case, the party needs to be at least level 15, and level 15 parties are capable of resting for 9 hours in 12 seconds. So your entire timeline goes out the window.

But hey, you don't want to have "The end of the world" in your campaigns at all, so listing any of those reasons would be a waste of space and time.

As I said, the end of the world is fine, if your PCs are realistically the highest level people in the world, and therefore those best suited to stopping it. That isn't true at level 10, when you know there is a guy who's level 15 and doesn't want the world to end either. And should therefore be trying to stop it.

[Elennsar]

Not surviving is exactly equivalent to failing to win. It doesn't matter how many arrows you have if you are dead. Your killing people resources stop mattering when you die.

Not really, no. You could have a 30% chance of survival and a 60% chance of surviving long enough to win. Or some other such numbers.

Kamikazing really ought to be supported better by the mechanics, but even without being supported, it is an option.

That isn't true at level 10, when you know there is a guy who's level 15 and doesn't want the world to end either. And should therefore be trying to stop it.

Trying to stop it may or may not be best done by showing up in person. There are presumably other things going on than the "ritual o' doom" scenario.

[RandomCasualty2]

If that is the case, the party needs to be at least level 15, and level 15 parties are capable of resting for 9 hours in 12 seconds.

How do you figure?

If you're thinking of using variable time speed planes, the only timeless plane that's been documented so far is the Far Realms, which are likely to be more dangerous than simply resting in the material plane, since the Far Realms are ridiculously epic.

[Kaelik]

If that is the case, the party needs to be at least level 15, and level 15 parties are capable of resting for 9 hours in 12 seconds.

How do you figure?

If you're thinking of using variable time speed planes, the only timeless plane that's been documented so far is the Far Realms, which are likely to be more dangerous than simply resting in the material plane, since the Far Realms are ridiculously epic.

1) It doesn't matter how dangerous resting in that plane is, as long as you can survive, it matters how quick.

2) Arbitrarily fast is pretty much just as good as timeless.

3) level 15 parties have access to Genesis.

[violence in the media]

Kamikazing really ought to be supported better by the mechanics, but even without being supported, it is an option.

Why should it be mechanically supported? If you put any significant design work into it you are elevating it from an act of desperation to something that becomes a perceived part of the game. By this, I mean DMs will construct scenarios where they intend a player to use those mechanics, and players will be on the lookout for when to optimally use them and circumvent the penalties.

Starting every adventure arc knowing, as a result of such game mechanics, that one of the Players will probably lose their character just promotes disassociation from the game. Maybe not for you, but certainly for me and, in my experiance, many people I've gamed with.

On the subject of higher level characters saving the world, one of my buddies incorporated the reverse of that into a game he ran. As the PCs became higher level (15+) he would have them occassionally approached by lower level adventurers seeking their help. Some would be do-gooders, some would be mercenary, and some would seek to manipulate the party. It was a fun twist, though it did mean he had to implement some house rules preventing complete and accurate divinations.

[Elennsar]

I don't mind it being an act of desperation, its just that the gap between "Dead" and "unconscious" as written doesn't permit the "last gasp action" very well.

So you're at 0. You take an action. You're at -1 and dying and unconscious.

D&D's death and dying rules, in a word, suck. They don't model instant death very well, they don't represent "last stand of Boromir" very well, and they don't model ran three blocks before collapsing when stabbed through the heart very well.

[Psychic Robot]

One of my friend’s biggest complaints about healing surges is that they aren’t actually resource management. When you want to use a healing surge, you use it. There’s no “the cleric has to choose between casting CLW and casting something else.” (He hates wands of CLW.)

[Elennsar]

What a bizzare complaint.

That's all I can really think to say.

[Username17]

Kamikaze charges are very anti-player friendly of a thing to include in the game. If the player uses it, they die. If the monsters use it against the players, the monsters become a disproportionate threat to the players.

Basically, it's lose/lose. As a player, I would very much be against the inclusion of any such rules.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty2]

One of my friend’s biggest complaints about healing surges is that they aren’t actually resource management. When you want to use a healing surge, you use it. There’s no “the cleric has to choose between casting CLW and casting something else.” (He hates wands of CLW.)

Actually that complaint makes some sense.

The thing with healing surges is that tracking them doesn't really do anything you want. They exist not really to limit healing, but to specify when you've got to go back to town. Of course, you really don't want to have to head back to town unless it fits the story. Otherwise having an amount of surges that run out forces you to return to town before you've saved the princess because you ran out of juice. And that's bad.

Other than that, healing surges don't really have much of a tactical use, except in the rarest of cases, like when a paladin can spend a surge in place of you to heal. Otherwise healing surges don't tend to be a resource that you'll ever conserve. There's very little reason you'd ever not want to heal when you can.

[Bigode]

IIRC, healing surges as per 4E fulfill one concrete purpose: protecting the healers (not properly the "leader" role, since healing spilled out of it) since other characters could only use one per (during an) encounter otherwise. That's assuming protecting healing is good design, and that actually using a second wind's not necessarily stupid - I'm not sure about the first, and have a strong impression that the second's largely false (it might not be if not by how healing gets applied to negative HP).

[Psychic Robot]

I would rather be able to heal whenever I choose.

[Draco_Argentum]

And yet again, I'm not referring to situations where your chance of success is so minimal as to be near-nonexistant.

What success chance are you referring to then? What chance do you think a rested party should have for the climatic encounter of an adventure? What about non-rested?

[Psychic Robot]

It would depend on the percent depletion of resources, I'd imagine.

[Elennsar]

And the definition of success.

I mean, if we can win by disrupting the ritual, that might be about the same whether rested or not.

If we have to toe to toe it, not so much.

Also, just on kamikaze charges: I'm more concerned with the fact D&D makes "Dying" the same as "incapaciated", than anything else.

It should be possible (at least under some conditions or with some triggers) to avoid that, even if one wants them in general to be linked.