Upgrading Healing Potions

[Tywyll]

So one of the problems with TFT is that characters aren't very durable. This prevents characters from going on extended adventures and makes dungeon delving difficult. With no core healing spell and potions only healing 1 point, this is real problem. So real, in fact, that in the company published modules you often find healing potions that break the rules (1d3, 1d6, or all heals).

What if healing potions just were better. Instead of 1 point per $150, make them heal 1d3?

[MikMod]

Originally Posted by Tywyll

What if healing potions just were better. Instead of 1 point per $150, make them heal 1d3?

:) Yup. That's exactly what we did.

[JLV]

Originally Posted by MikMod

:) Yup. That's exactly what we did.

Same here. It worked just fine.

[Skarg]

We just used the "physickers heal every wound individually" system, and then didn't really see a need or desire for better healing potions. We did allow multiple doses of HP per flask, but having HP at all was a luxury that tended to get used up even if you started with a bunch of it.

Our parties had at least one physicker who was kept out of harm's way, and had enough companions (often several NPCs) so that the party could have some people resting while on adventures, and part of challenge, limit, realism, and interesting developing situation of going on an adventure was dealing with people who get injured and need serious time to heal.

It means that sometimes a party needs to back off and rest, but that seems a good and desirable feature of the game, and not something that prevents long adventures or large dangerous destinations if the players learn how to usually avoid getting maimed and manage for that possibility.

[JLV]

Perhaps the real difference among us on this issue revolves around player style. My player groups frequently, for some reason, seem to tend towards hyper-aggressive combat as a preferred solution (possibly because several of my players were SCA members, one went on to be a Green Beret, and several were either former Marines or Army Ranger types) -- which tends to put them on the (literally) bleeding edge of survival. To that end, I always sought solutions that increased their ability to heal more quickly than the base rules allowed.

Perhaps other groups are less inclined to solve their problems with a sword?

[Anthony]

Preference for easy or difficult healing depends mostly on the type of fights you find interesting.

If healing is difficult to obtain, the difference between "we won while taking 2 damage" and "we won while taking 4 damage" actually matters, which makes the easy fights seem important. On the other hand, fights with a real chance of losing are pretty well limited to once per adventure, because even if you win you're so beat up you can't go onward.

If healing is easy to obtain, those easy fights become boring trash fights that it's tempting to just elide over, but you can actually have multiple hard fights per adventure.

Thus, if you like multiple hard fights per adventure, you want easy healing. On the other hand, if you find 'how can I beat this group without taking any net damage' an interesting challenge, you want harder healing, and if you are fine with only one fight per adventure you don't much care.

[Tywyll]

I'm happy with extra healing. I want to be able to run dungeons and not have players retreat after a single room. I don't mind 15 minute work days, but I want them to have a few encounters before they head home.

In DT2, the players did fine till the fire elemental at which point they ran out of water and needed the healing potions to put the elemental out and then heal up their friend who had nearly been burned to death.

They were facing some grim odds at that point as they were almost completely out of potions and if they took more than 3 or so damage in a fight they'd be carrying wounds. It still felt tense, but they were able to push through the entirety of DT2 (I think they hit 7-8 rooms?) without a loss.

[Skarg]

Originally Posted by JLV

Perhaps the real difference among us on this issue revolves around player style. My player groups frequently, for some reason, seem to tend towards hyper-aggressive combat as a preferred solution (possibly because several of my players were SCA members, one went on to be a Green Beret, and several were either former Marines or Army Ranger types) -- which tends to put them on the (literally) bleeding edge of survival. To that end, I always sought solutions that increased their ability to heal more quickly than the base rules allowed.

Perhaps other groups are less inclined to solve their problems with a sword?

Yes, I think it is about player style and also play experience.

I've been lucky to have some very clever players, and also most of my players were cautious and responsible about keeping their characters alive by not attacking everything, and being willing to run away from foes they couldn't beat. (I may take partial credit for that from my GM style - I tend to give players as many warnings and hints as I can when their characters detect foes and danger and so on, and make it clear there are options other than combat to the death with everything.)

However, most of my players have also been pretty eager (often more than I'd like or expect) to fight things and initiate difficult combat. And my games (especially my original TFT games) tended to be very combat-focused and combat-heavy, with multiple battles per session.

How is that possible? Well, tactics, avoiding super-deadly situations, willingness to retreat, and numbers. Numbers as in, being sure you have enough people and at least one non-combatant physicker, so that you can handle most encounters and also not be stopped if a few people get seriously hurt.

And, this often only takes a few minutes of play time:
Bob: "I think we have too many wounded. Let's make camp and rest."
(Discussion of camp set up and who's resting, how many days, etc.)
GM rolls for encounters for a few days and deducts rations, lets any game situations advance (e.g. moving/resting injured opponents), etc.

Originally Posted by Anthony

... On the other hand, fights with a real chance of losing are pretty well limited to once per adventure, because even if you win you're so beat up you can't go onward.

A real chance or a high chance? You can have multiple battles with real chances of failure, if you manage to not fail. Battles with high chances of failure might be considered mistakes to engage in, unless you must or choose them for some chance of great reward, but the same thing applies.

As does the ability to resolve the non-combat events quickly, even if it means weeks of rest, travel and recruiting new comrades.

Originally Posted by Anthony

If healing is easy to obtain, those easy fights become boring trash fights that it's tempting to just elide over...

Yes, because they are so unlikely to have any real consequences at all. And that does tend to make players escalate what they're willing to take on, which eventually gets to a chance of consequences... which at that point is likely to be either death, or no one died and everyone was trivially healed.

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Skarg

A real chance or a high chance? You can have multiple battles with real chances of failure, if you manage to not fail.

I said chance of losing, not chance of failing. If you win the fight but take enough damage that you can't or shouldn't continue, that's a fail.

Originally Posted by Skarg

Yes, because they are so unlikely to have any real consequences at all. And that does tend to make players escalate what they're willing to take on, which eventually gets to a chance of consequences... which at that point is likely to be either death, or no one died and everyone was trivially healed.

Agreed.

To give a more concrete example, let's say you have four PCs, and we'll simplify and assume the opposition is equal to the PCs, just different in number. Also, we'll ignore healing entirely.

Against four NPCs, the winner is random, and heavy casualties can be expected, so you can have one fight.
Against three NPCs, the PCs are substantially favored to win, but are likely to take more than 50% injury in the process, so if you put in a second fight, the PCs are likely to lose the second fight.
Against two NPCs, expected damage is about 25%, so you can have three fights with the PCs still favored to win.
Against one NPC, expected damage is about 6%, so you can have fifteen fights with the PCs still favored.

If healing is easy, a dungeon should probably contain a mix of 2s and 3s. If healing is hard, it should probably contain a mix of 1s and 2s.

[MikMod]

Originally Posted by Anthony

If healing is easy, a dungeon should probably contain a mix of 2s and 3s. If healing is hard, it should probably contain a mix of 1s and 2s.

Interesting.

My ideal adventure might contain something like:

• One or two NPCs (or groups of NPCs) who could easily destroy the party. They cannot be fought by any normal means. You would have to trick, negotiate with, work for, run from, obey, avoid, develop a proper 'sting' for, or somehow manipulate these guys.
  
• Quite a lot of individuals or small groups who may or may not be able to help the party. And that might not be immediately obvious, or it might be both! They could be killed easily. If attacked they will run, surrender, plead, lie, throw cash etc. However, if killed or annoyed or bullied, they or their friends/kin may be able to muster more of their number, or call on a powerful ally - either of which could cause the party real problems. Attack survivors or kin could easily become an arch enemy bent on vengeance and likely to trip up the party at the most inconvenient time.
  
• Some fairly equal parties or foes. These could be attacked directly but it is likely the cost will be high. The party might more fruitfully work with, persuade, buy off, trick or bluff these guys.

Any combat will go A WHOLE LOT BETTER if the party plan ahead, set up the situation and arrange for all possible advantages to be on their side. Otherwise they will fail, fail and fail again.