|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it's a bit of a silly question, but it's particularly relevant for my game at the moment. My heroes came out of a difficult fight very bloodied and we had to call it a night. Ding! Level up!
However, there are more trials and tribulations before they would be able to rest up. Do they get healed up to full, a-la many a video game? Or, are the out of luck?
I understand this is probably a "my call" kind of thing, but I was curious if there were any actual rules out there about it.
Very much so a "your call" thing.
Whichever contributes more to player fun is definitely the way to go.
Since HP are really arbitrary in relation to actual wounds, I think you can handle it as suggested, as you see fit for your game.
I believe the 'default' assumption is that you would gain HP equal to the amount you just gained when you level(Basically, it wouldn't 'hurt' or heal you).
RAW does not say they get HP back, but when I run it I let them have it back.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've always operated under the assumption that gaining a level does not reduce the wounds that you have already taking (total HP missing) but simply increases your capacity to endure those wounds (max HP).
Take this example:
A 1st-level barbarian has 16 maximum hit points. In a fight, he suffers 9 points of damage, leaving him with 7 HP remaining. After the fight, he levels and adds a new hit die. Assuming an average roll plus his CON modifier of +3, his maximum hit points increase by 10. His new maximum HP is 26, but he is still missing 9 HP from that 26 until he receives healing (meaning he has 17 HP remaining after the level up).
What do you mean by instant use of spells?
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Thanks for the advice guys. I think that I will let them gain however much their max HP increases by.
This brings up another interesting conundrum - do spellcasters get instant use of new spells? Even spellcasters such as wizards who must prepare spells?
Spontaneous casters receive them immediately. Casters who must prepare spells receive them as empty slots, which means they can spend some fraction of their normal preparation time (usually 15 minutes for only a couple of new slots) to fill those slots.
In my games, if they are injured when they level up, I usually take whatever they gained to their max HP and give them 1/2 that (rounded up) to their current total.
This seems to maintain both the injury and the advancement.
Interesting question, BZ. I've played since white box, through Advanced D&D, 2nd Ed, 3rd Ed, through the split of the D&D/Pathfinder tree to today.
The 0E answer is do whatever you want.
The 1E answer is no, it doesnt. Same with 2E and 3E. But 3E brought back more variants so though I never did it I wouldnt be surprised to hear someone did it but it would likely be very uncommon.
But I'm getting off track. I find our answer so interesting because of what you aren't asking. Normally (and historically) the question has been the opposite end of the spectrum--can you level without leaving the dungeon, going to town and seeing a trainer of some sort. Your question represents a more recent (some would say, as you do, "video game" based) thought towards gaming. That historical question of "can I level in the middle of the dungeon" is usually just that--do I get the extra plus to hit/save, the extra spell or skill/ability/whatever. I think the question always presumed that that alone was a sufficient benefit and if you were hurt you had to be healed--perhaps you could gain whatever hitpoints you gained from the level up, but that is it.
If leveling now also means healing up to max I think you run the risk of the "Skyrim" effect--people "saving" their level up to use it strategically for that healing in the middle of the dungeon. (I use that game name because I just did that very thing last night when playing Skyrim :) )
Being seriously old school, I agree it is your call. In fact, there is no right or wrong. Its a game, have fun. That said, you asked and I think some serious implications flow from permitting them to not only level but to fully heal from that level in the dungeon. I wouldnt permit it. Also, though I will agree there is not really a right or wrong, some people are sensitive to how the game is historically played and I would say if you permitted that you would be in a very recent and non-historical group by permitting such a thing.
Arguing against my own old school self, however, is Clark the practical DM. We all have limited game time. We dont all have the luxury of being college students who can blow off class and game all day (not saying you are, I'm talking merely of my own sordid gaming past). So time at the table is precious. Do we really need to force people to go back to town, train, blah blah blah, just to make it all seem more real? Why not just permit the level up, the heal and game on! Less chatter more splatter!
If you do permit it (I still wouldnt, but just saying if you do), I would recommend this--when they become eligible to level up, they have to level right then. They can't "save it up" and use the magic full heal later. That gets too metagame for my tastes.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
But I'm getting off track. I find our answer so interesting because of what you aren't asking. Normally (and historically) the question has been the opposite end of the spectrum--can you level without leaving the dungeon, going to town and seeing a trainer of some sort. Your question represents a more recent (some would say, as you do, "video game" based) thought towards gaming. That historical question of "can I level in the middle of the dungeon" is usually just that--do I get the extra plus to hit/save, the extra spell or skill/ability/whatever. I think the question always presumed that that alone was a sufficient benefit and if you were hurt you had to be healed--perhaps you could gain whatever hitpoints you gained from the level up, but that is it.
Yeah, it is exactly for this reason that I only allow characters to level up after a full night of rest. It seems to be a comfortable medium between "suddenly leveling in combat" and "waiting until you can go back to town and get training."
By the way, this question touches on topics I love--the art of GMing and the concept of house rules.
It may seem silly to wax philosophical on a game, but I love it.
As to the art of GMing, players will always push you for a benefit that the rules do not clearly grant them or deny them. They will push and stretch for a benefit. That's a good thing. That means you are challenging them and the nature of players is to want to beat challenges and you beat challenges by being better. And leveling up is fun. You, as the GM, are wise if you recognize this is a game and not a court of law and thus some flexibility for the purpose of fun is a trait to be admired in a GM. That said, you also have to be fair, not only between you and the players as a group, but also between players individually. If you allow something, you set a precedent. Grant the level up with heal and you pretty much have to let it happen next time too, and the next and every time after that. That is something worth thinking about. It may be fun now, but do you want that every time? And if you allow it this time but not in the future then the guy whose PC didnt get to level up and heal will be mad when you dont allow it and you will seem unfair. So when judging if you should or should not fudge or flex the relatively well established rules and traditions, dont just decide in light of the current game circumstances, think about the long term implications of your decision.
As to house rules, this is exactly the kind of thing I usually put in a "house rules" document I talk about with the players at the start of the campaign (or email around, or better yet post to a yahoo group you make for the campaign ahead of time). I talk about character creation methods, level progression, end of session XP awards, my favorite rule called the "death penalty" (its a penalty for yelling out to other players and telling them what to do when the choice should be theirs), and other house rules (dice roll off the table is a re-roll, etc.). Having good, clear, house rules on some of these key topics is the hallmark of an experienced GM. Also, as you know, these types of house rules have an annoying habit of cropping up right in the middle of a tense gaming moment--the fight with the big bad guy, a crucial role, etc. If you talked about some of this stuff ahead of time when everyone is calm, that is way better than mentioning they have to re-roll that 20 they got when they rolled and the die went off the table and onto the floor and it was a 20 and the player wants to keep it and the party really needed that critical. If you talked about it in advance, you dont get any argument and you seem fair. Your level up question seems to be arising in just one of those circumstances. All the more reason to think about it and address it in advance.
Though I will admit my current house rule document does not address your leveling question, that is only because I am so old school everyone knows I might permit mid-dungeon leveling under certain circumstances, I would not grant a full heal. But your question is so interesting, and it so conflicts with perhaps some modern expectations, that I might just include it in the future.
|
|
All very interesting stuff. CP, thanks for the in depth analysis!
My own personal GMing style might be a little off topic, but if we are going into specifics, then why not.
First off, there is no exp - leveling up is story driven. I have a level I want for the end of the campaign, and levels are awarded roughly evenly distributed from here till there. I encourage my players to avoid fights if they can, instead of looking for every possible way to gain exp. I feel that characters living in a world with dragons and aboleths should not go charging around every bend, and should sometimes seek to avoid encounters, an objective that exp based leveling does not reward.
Second, right now we are in a ramp up stage, a time for players to test their character concepts. For the first four sessions, they gain one level per session (level one for session one, level two for session two), and can make as many adjustments as they like between sessions. After the fourth session they are locked into their characters, and character advancement happens slower . . . although still reasonably quickly for many GMs and players: about once every three sessions, depending on current story.
Third, I'm against the concept of "dungeons" from a personal GMing standpoint. I've found that good stories rarely have many "dungeons" in them. In what good stories the heroes faced with a number of small encounters and enemies without the storyline advancing significantly between each encounter? What good story seems to be driven by these sequences as a primary tool? My own personal GMing style tends to shun "dungeons," as they slow down the plot of the game. I feel that every encounter should move the story along. This makes it hard to do many traditional gaming mechanics, but hey, that's what I get I suppose.
But I fear I'm getting far afield from the "rules" section of the messageboards.
Clark, it's been great discussing this with you. I do indeed have a house-rules document, and it also does not cover this. But I've linked my players to this thread, so hopefully that should be enough validation.
Anyway, it's past my bedtime. Thanks!
One way to avoid all (or most anyway) of those complications is to move the leveling up into downtime. It's likely they have healed up by then anyway, and the spell issue is also no problem since once the leveled up a new day starts.
BZ that was fun.
I think you could replace "dungeon" with "site based encounter with multiple stages," in other words a place where the PCs may not be able to simply go in and out, even if not a traditional big multi-level dungeon. It could be a four room cave wherein lies the item they need to advance the story, they just fought monster in room 2 but still have to get to the big fight in room 4 when you stop the game session.
The point is, the PCs are "stuck" in a location with no access to their local support network at the end of the session and so leveling up during down time doesnt really work with the break you are taking at the game table. It appears, whether a dungeon or not, that is the circumstance your players are in. And that is what drives the question--how do we level when we are away from "home" or some other "safe place," whether its a dungeon or some other site based encounter.
An interesting discussion. Thank you.
I agree with Qatar.
That said, the way I envision things, there's really no such thing as a level. Characters are always slowly improving themselves through, well... experience. When a character levels, it's just an out-of-game incremental improvement. A trickle of hit-points, marginally better saves, maybe a new spell known or two.
I always require a party to rest in order to level though, to simplify the mechanics. It forces the most obvious question "what happens to spell-casters?" to be be resolved neatly; they get new spells when they get all their other ones... after resting.
Mid-day leveling breaks immersion. You've spent all day slugging through encounters and all of the sudden you just happened to learn a new trick? It'd odd for a barbarian to acquire DR in the middle of the day, or a bard to pull off a new type of song. Not impossible, but odd. So for me leveling is always something that only exposes itself during down-time.
Note: I don't require leaving a dungeon. I just require getting a night's rest. If you get hit points back, if you get spells back, that's good enough.