HEAL spell?

[Chris Rice]

Another way to allow more combat encounters in sequence, is to allow Hero points or Luck points for experienced characters. I've know I've mentioned this before so pardon the repetition. This was my choice of ways to allow a more D&D style game without the need for expanded healing.

[Jim Kane]

Careful consideration should be given to the inadvertent dilution of the game tension level, affecting the dilemma of having to make the decision between advancing an injured party further into the Labyrinth to risk certain death, or retreating to the surface - assuming the party can make it out alive - to heal-up before another descent into the Labyrinth can be wisely undertaken.

A magical healing system, if too efficient in it's effects, will kill that dramatic gaming moment from occurring in frequency and intensity in direct proportion to that efficiency.

JK

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by David Bofinger

[*]In order to be exciting/fun, fights have to be difficult. There should be at least a perceived risk of player characters dying and/or of the heroes being defeated and starting the next session in some unpleasant situation like being enslaved and trying to think of a way to escape from a salt mine.

I totally agree with this. My games tend to have a fair body count and I really think that a genuine fear of character death creates the dramatic tension that generally makes campaigns successful.

[*]In order to avoid long boring pauses in the game, wounded characters need to more or less full health at the next fight. In particular we want to avoid a situation where some of the party is healthy and wishes to continue, but are held back by the most wounded members.

Agreed. I'm personally ambivalent about allowing healing during combat. As noted, I want the ability to heal between fights, though not necessarily completely.

As an aside, here's a sudden thought. Create a Healing spell that requires several minutes to cast (therefore they won't work during combat).

It will restore ST lost from physical damage up to the figure's starting ST. Another casting (in the same 24 hour period) will restore ST to starting ST minus 2. A third casting will restore to starting ST minus 4. And so on.

A recipient of a healing spell cannot be further healed by a physicker/master physicker. If the figure is injured again, he can be healed by another healing spell OR by a physicker/master physicker (but not both).

Example - Bob has ST12. After a combat he's down to ST3. A healing spell is cast and he is restored to his starting ST, or 12. In the next combat, he takes 4 points of damage and is at ST8. After that, a healing spell is cast on him, and his ST is restored to starting ST-2, or ST 10. He takes 5 points of damage in a third combat. A third healing spell is cast and his ST is restored to starting ST-4 or ST 8. At this point, he's starting to think hard about leaving the dungeon. Instead, he decides to drink 2 doses of healing potion, raising his ST to 10. He takes 7 points of damage in a 4th combat, then receives a 4th healing spell, which restores him to ST 6.

I would also limit the amount of ST restored to (say) 18.

This creates a diminishing returns situation, which might be good. It is a bit fiddly, though.

[*]For various reasons I can enumerate if required we don't want player characters dying very often.

…[*]Therefore, bring on the easy convenient effective healing as Steve proposes. In fact, make it easier and even more convenient.

Well, I agree with the sentiment, but I really don't think Steve's spell is very useful, for reasons I already covered. If an average high level wizard has (say) ST 12, you'll use 50% of his ST to heal a paltry 2 points. I just don't see that as very useful.

Gotta run; will respond to other items in detail later. But I largely agree with you.

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

... As an aside, here's a sudden thought. Create a Healing spell that requires several minutes to cast (therefore they won't work during combat).

It will restore ST lost from physical damage up to the figure's starting ST. Another casting (in the same 24 hour period) will restore ST to starting ST minus 2. A third casting will restore to starting ST minus 4. And so on. ...

This creates a diminishing returns situation, which might be good. It is a bit fiddly, though. ...

but I really don't think Steve's spell is very useful, for reasons I already covered. ...

Hi Everyone, Ty.
I like your idea that healing spells take a long time to cast (so combat stays dramatic and deadly (unless you have some healing potions handy)). But keeping track of how many times you have cast a spell on each member of the party would be easy to make mistakes on. (As you say it is fiddly.)

So how about this:

Spell costs 4 fST to cast. (fST = fatigue ST cost, not damage cost like the Death Spell.)

-- If you spend 1 minute casting the spell, it heals up to 3 hits but not to within 5 of your max ST.

-- If you spend 5 minutes casting the spell, it heals up to 4 hits, but not to within 3 of your max ST.

-- If you spend 30 minutes casting the spell, it heals up to 5 hits. It MAY heal you to full ST.

Thus, you don't have to remember which party member you cast it on or how many times a day. If you cast it very slowly and carefully, it is more effective.

Comments anyone?

Warm regards, Rick.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Hi Everyone, Ty.
I like your idea that healing spells take a long time to cast (so combat stays dramatic and deadly (unless you have some healing potions handy)). But keeping track of how many times you have cast a spell on each member of the party would be easy to make mistakes on. (As you say it is fiddly.)

So how about this:

Spell costs 4 fST to cast. (fST = fatigue ST cost, not damage cost like the Death Spell.)

-- If you spend 1 minute casting the spell, it heals up to 3 hits but not to within 5 of your max ST.

-- If you spend 5 minutes casting the spell, it heals up to 4 hits, but not to within 3 of your max ST.

-- If you spend 30 minutes casting the spell, it heals up to 5 hits. It MAY heal you to full ST.

Thus, you don't have to remember which party member you cast it on or how many times a day. If you cast it very slowly and carefully, it is more effective.

Comments anyone?

Warm regards, Rick.

I think that there’s typically not much difference *in the game* between 1 minute and 30 minutes. Both time periods occur normally in the time between combats or encounters. And it takes no more time for the GM to say, “one minute passes” than it does for him to say “30 minutes pass”. I mean, really, how often in an adventure does a party *have* to keep moving after 1 minute or 5 minutes?

And yeah, I’m not as impressed with my bright idea that you were responding to. At the end of the day, I personally favor my cinematic healing spells. Or my non-cinematic spells for more “realistic” games.

[tbeard1999]

I believe David alluded to this earlier, but you could simply allow everyone to “bandage their wounds” after a fight. They’d get the same benefit as TFT figures get from a physicker or master physicker. Those talents, of course, would need to be redefined (perhaps focused on healing diseases, rather than combat damage).

This would be a very low footprint solution that would be particularly beneficial to lower level parties.

Or, you could also adapt my “non-cinematic” healing spells above - they allow you to heal 1-4 points for 1-2 ST (which can’t be stacked with physicker/master physicker healing) and radically lower the IQ level of the 3 spells.

[tbeard1999]

Originally Posted by Chris Rice

The best way to maintain TFT as it is, but still allow a D&D style dungeon crawl, is to have the means of healing be external to the party. So for instance, the party have a potentially deadly encounter where some are wounded and perhaps killed - normally, they'd have to exit the dungeon and return to base to heal up. But deeper in the dungeon is a magical healing pool or a Wizards study with healing potions or something of that nature. This allows the survivors to continue with their mission. As long as these sort of dungeons are an occasional foray this won't feel too contrived.

And for many years, this is what I did. I even had demonic vending machines in some dungeons that dispensed potions (at a 20% markup from list prices). They were protected by some infernal being named TOM’S... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom%27s_Snacks

But it DID feel contrived.

[Jim Kane]

Gentlemen - Would someone please clarify for me what it is about making a strategic retreat out of the bowels of the Labyrinth when a party is injured to the point that the risk/reward needs to be critically re-assessed, and resource management is on everyone's mind more than looking out for trolls, so to attack the Labyrinth again when the party is fresh and reinforced, that some seem to find so unappealing; that they would rather artificially *tweak* the rules-system, rather than make their way out to the surface?

Military Men have used the fighting/strategic retreat as a key maneuver for mobilized forces in bringing about eventual victory conditions since the Caveman fought in loose associations against other competing loose associations. Frankly, in my past campaigns, some of the most terrifying gaming moments were fighting our way out of the Labyrinth, scratching to get to the surface on limited ST, while the whole population of the Labyrinth Level seemed to be closing in on us as we backtracked our way through the tunnels, in order to get to the stairs that led to the surface-world above.

And not everyone would make it, every time.

So, if someone would explain to me why those thrills should be a thing to be avoided, I would be pleased to learn why it is so; as *Escape* is one of the most basic literary plots all on it's own - let alone as a plot-point inside a larger story-arc.

Anyone, please, clue me in.

Thanks.

JK

[Rick_Smith]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I think that there’s typically not much difference *in the game* between 1 minute and 30 minutes. Both time periods occur normally in the time between combats or encounters. And it takes no more time for the GM to say, “one minute passes” than it does for him to say “30 minutes pass”. I mean, really, how often in an adventure does a party *have* to keep moving after 1 minute or 5 minutes? ...

Hi Ty, everyone.
Well I track time that finely. And if you are in a dungeon, 30 minutes gives you two wandering monster rolls. :-D

Warm regards, Rick.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by tbeard1999

I think that there’s typically not much difference *in the game* between 1 minute and 30 minutes. Both time periods occur normally in the time between combats or encounters. And it takes no more time for the GM to say, “one minute passes” than it does for him to say “30 minutes pass”. I mean, really, how often in an adventure does a party *have* to keep moving after 1 minute or 5 minutes?

That's a good question, especially in the context of a spell that ramps up from a little healing to "poof, you're healed" based on the difference between taking 1 minute or 30 minutes. My reaction when reading that was mainly that if you're really set on having instant healing of major wounds, why quibble about the shortness of the time needed to cast? Though it could make a difference in some situations, mostly you're removing lasting wounds from play, except for schmucks out of luck because they have no healing wizard.

The answer to the question, of course, depends on the situation, but also, I wonder why some people seem to think it's boring to have to rest for several days, when that also doesn't take much time to say, and if a convalescent camp is attacked while people are still wounded, that can be a pretty interesting and tense situation.

Originally Posted by Rick_Smith

Well I track time that finely. And if you are in a dungeon, 30 minutes gives you two wandering monster rolls. :-D

Also, some GMs actually know who's where in the dungeon, and are tracking what they're doing while the party rests. And, they will be resting up too, if they're injured, and if you have healing spells, they may too.