Suggestion for wording of Physicker talent.

[Kirk]

Originally Posted by Jim Kane

One thing that becomes immediately apparent is that some folks interpret the operational meaning behind the Physicker rule as stated in TFT:IL one way, and others, have a different take on the matter.

Therefore, I would ask SJ point-blank exactly what his stated intent in-back of the rule is *first*, and then, seek to compose a less ambiguous definition *second*.

Otherwise, much excellent brain-power and talent may end up being expended on composing perfect wording with which to perfectly mis-explain the designer's actual and original intent.

JK

Do we have a working, detailed list of all things that need better defining or clarification in the AM/AW/ITL docs, according to our experience. Not so much what we would like to have, like not a healing spell ;), but things we know or have discovered that are too subject to interpretation and end up being variant in execution?

Perhaps, while things are in the works, we can alert SJ to these areas so he can address them as he sees fit, before things are set in stone.

[Rick_Smith]

Hi all,
I asked the GURPS forum about healing individual wounds and the people there were kind enough to answer quickly. If you would like to check out their arguments, you can do so here...

http://forums.sjgames.com/showthread...ferrerid=98871

Warm regards, Rick.

[larsdangly]

I think the intent of the RAW in both TFT and GURPS is close enough to clear that we can surmise the idea was to have treatment apply once per encounter/event rather than once per wound. No arguments are presented to explain why, but I can imagine 3: limiting the possible rate of healing; avoiding the added complexity of tracking individual wounds; and perhaps a kind of 'realism' argument that what is being treated is systemic shock response rather than stitching cuts, binding fractures, etc.

I disagree with this approach and prefer to permit first aid or Physicker abilities apply per wound. But I don't object to the published game, and everyone else on earth, going a different way. House rules of this sort are so simple to define and implement that they are not worth debating.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

My $.02 - worrying about “logic” when discussing healing in a game with hit points is pointless in my opinion. Abstractions like hit points are a poor way of simulating damage, but they persist because they are fun and simple.* It seems silly to me to agonize over logic when the entire hit point system is a significant abstraction.

There are degrees of logic, and I think I and most of my friends have a higher bar for logic than some, but at some point things happen in play that are so illogical they don't make sense. I prefer to head those off when I can see them coming, rather than have deal with or retcon them during play.

But I am sure there are players who won't notice, and players who won't mind, having one character near death and needing to rest for three weeks, while another has no injuries, even though they had the same injuries, because of minor differences in when a physicker was able to get to them. We, on the other hand, will continue to notice and think it makes no sense and is a silly way to play that leads to annoying exaggerated gamey efforts to avoid taking more than one minor wound per combat.

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

From a game play perspective, allowing physicists to heal each discrete “wound” adds bookkeeping and affects game balance. As noted, one problem is that it makes armored characters even more overpowering.

We enjoyed the game balance situation, and the "added" bookkeeping seems extremely trivial to me.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Worrying about a treatment time limit being too complicated, but then having to track the size of every wound and if each individual wound is healed is NOT complicated???

I don't think "worrying about a treatment time is too complicated". I'd be happy to do so, if I thought it added something that made sense and played in an interesting way.

I don't really get how tracking wound size during combat is complicated - what do you guys do other than write "-5" and "-2" when someone takes a 5-point wound followed by a 2-point wound? The only other systems I ever remember using to track damage were tallies (which seem more annoying than digits to me) and printed square boxes on the character sheet (as on the Codex character sheets) which are also easy to track separate wounds with (you just make a quick mark between each wound). Am I missing something even simpler than writing the amount of each wound?

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by larsdangly

I think the intent of the RAW in both TFT and GURPS is close enough to clear that we can surmise the idea was to have treatment apply once per encounter/event rather than once per wound. No arguments are presented to explain why, but I can imagine 3: limiting the possible rate of healing; avoiding the added complexity of tracking individual wounds; and perhaps a kind of 'realism' argument that what is being treated is systemic shock response rather than stitching cuts, binding fractures, etc.

I disagree with this approach and prefer to permit first aid or Physicker abilities apply per wound. But I don't object to the published game, and everyone else on earth, going a different way. House rules of this sort are so simple to define and implement that they are not worth debating.

Yeah, I agree.

I think the intent as written in the GURPS Basic Set and probably TFT is "per combat".

However, I think the intent is based on a desire to avoid perceived complexity, even though I know from doing it per-wound that it's not complex to me at all.

Since my starting point comes from being 11 years old, and having other kids about that age agree that it would just be ridiculous to be able to heal wounds one at a time but only if you don't get two wounds in a row, it's hard for me not to be surprised that several obviously very smart and experienced gamers would be so resistant to the idea.

And yeah, no doubt there will continue to be people playing both ways, and other ways, regardless of whatever the published version is. And that's fine and has always been how RPGs are played.

[Steve Jackson]

Current state of rules:

Physicker (2). Healer’s ability. A Physicker can heal up to 2 new hits on any humanoid figure (wounds only – not exhaustion) within an hour after any combat or accident. He must have a physicker’s kit to do so. Efforts of more than one Physicker on the same wounded figure are not cumulative. Example: A figure takes 5 hits. No matter how many Physickers there are in the group, he can only be cured of 2 hits. However, if he later suffers a different mishap, he can be cured of 2 of those new hits by any Physicker. It takes 5 minutes to heal 2 hits.

Master Physicker (2). You must already be a Physicker. A Master Physicker can heal 3 hits (instead of 2) if he has a kit, or 1 hit even without a kit. Either way, it takes 5 minutes. Treatment by a Master Physicker is not cumulative with treatment by a Physicker for any one mishap – that is, if you have both a Master Physicker and a Physicker in your party, you can’t use them both together to cure a 5-hit wound. The Master Physicker can cure 3, and the Physicker can watch and learn. Note: Either a Physicker or a Master Physicker can work on his own wounds just as he can another’s. A Master Physicker can also make the Healing Potion (see Alchemist’s Table) as though he were an Alchemist.

Physickers can also, as spelled out under Water, resuscitate a drowning victim.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by Steve Jackson

Current state of rules:

Physicker (2). Healer’s ability. ...

Hi Steve, everyone.
Much clearer, thank you for keeping us up to date.

Warm regards, Rick.

[Kirk]

As a related aside with respect to Physicker and Master Physicker, IF there is some type of Healing Spell (not necessarily a fan unless it is done just right), the ability to use one or the other, or both, for a particular damage, needs to be clearly stated in the rules.

[JLV]

Thanks, Steve -- much clearer.