[.11] Appears to heal me

Christopher

Newbie
Please please please please please, put "got it appears to heal me" back in!

It was extremely annoying, distracting and emersion breaking to hear players constantly asking "are you healed" with what felt like every weapon swing or spell thrown.
 

jwconvery

Spellsword
We also ran into some monsters with gems on their face that changed what affected them, so with that in play, "Are you Healed" became needed even when hitting the same monster with duplicate effects.
Plus, someone pointed out that Life Leech is a ritual that can be in play, so we even had to query our adventurer friends to protect ourselves from hidden Necromancers.

Please please bring back some kind of call that is prompted by the person being healed.

-Joe
 

MaxIrons

Squire
Oregon Staff
Marshal
I'll be honest, if it doesn't make it as a national rule, I'm going to very strongly ask my owner for "Healed" to remain a LCO call for anything healed by something other than Healing or Necro (I'm personally okay with sneaky necromancers).
 

Christopher

Newbie
I agree, earth spells are fine without a call (WTB more sneaky necromancers!) but I would give that up and rather have everyone have to call anything that heals them if its that or having everyone on the battlefield constantly asking "Are you healed?"..... Honestly the play test event I just went to was amazing and I had a blast. The new rules are (for the most part) refreshing and fun, but if fights are just going to be constant mini-holds where everyone is asking over and over again "Are you healed?" that is not a game I want to play.
 
Last edited:

PYKE

Adept
Anything that physically changes when someone is hit like healing or reduced needs to be in the person being affected stating a oog affect. As a imaginary affect I can't visually see if someone is healed. As if this was real you look at someone with a gash to their torso and swings and all a sudden the gash is healed. We can't see that in real life so there needs to be a call from whom ever has the affect change the health.
 

Gilwing

Baron
Alliance Logistics
Anything that physically changes when someone is hit like healing or reduced needs to be in the person being affected stating a oog affect. As a imaginary affect I can't visually see if someone is healed. As if this was real you look at someone with a gash to their torso and swings and all a sudden the gash is healed. We can't see that in real life so there needs to be a call from whom ever has the affect change the health.
But someone also can't tell if the other person is a full body or one body, so why would we seen wounds close up? The "are you healed" statement is your character inspecting and paying attention to what happened (which is stated in the 2.0 rules)
 

PYKE

Adept
This is designed for when a action happens not an overall viewing. I understand we can't see how our body looks at 1 hit point but when there is a action or healing or does something outside of the norm there needs to be a call from the person affected
 

Christopher

Newbie
But someone also can't tell if the other person is a full body or one body, so why would we seen wounds close up? The "are you healed" statement is your character inspecting and paying attention to what happened (which is stated in the 2.0 rules)
Yes However I would argue that while we can not tell how much it hurts someone or how hurt they are (this is what healing arts if for, closer inspection) we as adventurers and monsters should be able to tell IF something hurts or heals, I would argue that if this were real life you would see opponents wince or begin to bleed or recover and feel a surge of power/energy. The point is that in the real world there would be a visual que of some kind that we can not rep this is what the oog call "healed" or "appears to heal me" was for, likewise with saying got it to a hit or spell that connects.
We can only rep so much and other things are stated to make up for that.

Saying "got it appears to heal me" does nothing to tell your opponent how much it healed you or what your current body is at, it is simply a oog call to make up for a lack of ability to rep every possible thing in game. Otherwise we should all be wearing blood packs and we a hit connects we bleed, and when we heal that blood would go away. Clearly this is not something we can do.....

I honestly do not know why this is something even being argued over, it makes perfect sense at least to me. The idea that you would healing arts (because effectively that is what you are asking for) an opponent is ridiculous!
 

Polare

Count
Alliance Rules
Moderator
Seattle Staff
FWIW, 2.0 originally approached this problem by adding a required "Healed" response (as a number of chapters already have as an LCO response). However, after discussion, this was rejected as a solution by the Owners due to a number of concerns. Instead, what's currently in the 2.0 packet was accepted.

As with any feedback, I encourage playtesters to add their comments on this topic to their playtest feedback.

On the other hand, I will note that the intent of this rule is to allow players a venue by which to look if their opponent is being healed by closely examining their target during combat. This means that the spirit of this rule is for players to ask if they have a specific reason to ask - perhaps their opponent is staying up much longer than anticipated, perhaps they think that a certain element *might* be healing their opponent, etc. But characters really should have a reason to ask the question "Did that appear to heal you?", not ask it after every individual swing.

-Bryan Gregory
ARC
 

Cory Walker

Scholar
Based on my experience from running TC Playtest this last weekend; it was annoying and help jam up the flow. Like that was stated; hard to see imaginary effects.

Would suggested a single response per mod encounter from npc to pc about "Appears to heal me". And then resume combat with no more Appears to heal me calls.
 

Muir

Fighter
FWIW, 2.0 originally approached this problem by adding a required "Healed" response (as a number of chapters already have as an LCO response). However, after discussion, this was rejected as a solution by the Owners due to a number of concerns. Instead, what's currently in the 2.0 packet was accepted.

As with any feedback, I encourage playtesters to add their comments on this topic to their playtest feedback.

On the other hand, I will note that the intent of this rule is to allow players a venue by which to look if their opponent is being healed by closely examining their target during combat. This means that the spirit of this rule is for players to ask if they have a specific reason to ask - perhaps their opponent is staying up much longer than anticipated, perhaps they think that a certain element *might* be healing their opponent, etc. But characters really should have a reason to ask the question "Did that appear to heal you?", not ask it after every individual swing.

-Bryan Gregory
ARC
Did anyone bother to conceptually consider this in light of our already too fast for conversational damage combat mechanics, where people have repeatedly argued that acknowledging hits is too much talking that isn't offense?
 

jwconvery

Spellsword
On the other hand, I will note that the intent of this rule is to allow players a venue by which to look if their opponent is being healed by closely examining their target during combat. This means that the spirit of this rule is for players to ask if they have a specific reason to ask - perhaps their opponent is staying up much longer than anticipated, perhaps they think that a certain element *might* be healing their opponent, etc. But characters really should have a reason to ask the question "Did that appear to heal you?", not ask it after every individual swing.
I can understand that thought process, in theory. In practice, for me, since the monster manual is new I don't have any indicators like you talked about. I don't know that something is "staying up longer than expected" because I have no expectations. There aren't any mechanical indicators to give a reason to ask the question, on an individual basis. Also as a back line Celestial Caster, locally I spend many fights just watching and paying attention to the overall battle. "Are you healed?" is an out of game question to simulate paying close attention to the battle, so as a "Battle field general/Commander" asking that question is part of the roleplay.

If there was something in the rules that stated "In order to be healed by an X, plot should make an effort to ensure those hints are available during the fight some how. Perhaps through additional roleplay or environmental indicators." However, that seems restrictive and vague. I personally dislike vague-ness in rules. It always seem to lead to confusion and frustration.

As with any feedback, I encourage playtesters to add their comments on this topic to their playtest feedback.
I am glad this forum is available to talk about this, and I also hope people will voice their opinions.

-Joe
 

Alkalin3

Administrator
Chief Technology Officer
South Michigan Staff
Marshal
I can understand that thought process, in theory. In practice, for me, since the monster manual is new I don't have any indicators like you talked about.
Chapters aren't forced to use this as well. (While we all agreed for the playtest it was a good idea) I imagine things will deviate pretty quickly by virtue of it not covering many of the monsters types that are more common in different areas.
 

MaxIrons

Squire
Oregon Staff
Marshal
Did anyone bother to conceptually consider this in light of our already too fast for conversational damage combat mechanics, where people have repeatedly argued that acknowledging hits is too much talking that isn't offense?
Not to be flippant Muir, but I have direct experience of, not just a conceptual framework, both with and without the "Healed" call, as a PC and an NPC. I will tell you that the addition of the LCO "Healed" call has made combat better on both sides. As I have that direct experience I'd like to explain why. As a PC, lets say that one of my primary offensive attacks is elemental stone charges from my staff (because it is for my PC), and a rocky looking sea creature comes out of monster camp. I toss some stone damage at it, because while it might be an elemental healed by it, it might be a construct or animal that isn't. Under 1.3, I have no way of knowing if it's helping or hurting. Under 2.0 I now need to Throw - have it hit/be acknowledged as a hit - ask if it healed it - get a response. Under the LCO, it's Throw - get response that it is healed. It cuts down on the chatter, and we can all get on with murdering the rock lobster.

Now, as the NPC, I come out as a rock lobster that's healed by stone. In 1.3 I will be using a lot of my limited processing power calculating damage and healing as they throw stone at me. Under 2.0 I either do as in 1.3, or I get hit - - get ask if it healed me, which pulls me away from what I was just doing - tell them yes. Under the LCO, it's get hit - call healed - move on to killing the PCs. Furthermore, since I can't be healed with carriers, it doesn't apply to weapon combat, and it's just as simple as current "no effect" when someone charms my lobster buddy to attack me with its stone carrier claws. This also has the benefit of reducing the number of times PCs will throw those non-standard healing effects at me, so I don't have to do as much math on the fly while still allowing me to use my elemental stone attack to heal myself instead of to hurt the PCs if I wish.

Overall, having played both with and without this rule, having a "Healed" call for non-Healing, non-Necromantic, effects has improved the game in Oregon and Seattle. It's not theory-craft, but real world experience and actual play that has shown me that.
 

Muir

Fighter
I agree. The thing I dont see as good is expecting players to keep asking, not expecting a one word response. :)

Not to be flippant Muir, but I have direct experience of, not just a conceptual framework, both with and without the "Healed" call, as a PC and an NPC. I will tell you that the addition of the LCO "Healed" call has made combat better on both sides. As I have that direct experience I'd like to explain why. As a PC, lets say that one of my primary offensive attacks is elemental stone charges from my staff (because it is for my PC), and a rocky looking sea creature comes out of monster camp. I toss some stone damage at it, because while it might be an elemental healed by it, it might be a construct or animal that isn't. Under 1.3, I have no way of knowing if it's helping or hurting. Under 2.0 I now need to Throw - have it hit/be acknowledged as a hit - ask if it healed it - get a response. Under the LCO, it's Throw - get response that it is healed. It cuts down on the chatter, and we can all get on with murdering the rock lobster.

Now, as the NPC, I come out as a rock lobster that's healed by stone. In 1.3 I will be using a lot of my limited processing power calculating damage and healing as they throw stone at me. Under 2.0 I either do as in 1.3, or I get hit - - get ask if it healed me, which pulls me away from what I was just doing - tell them yes. Under the LCO, it's get hit - call healed - move on to killing the PCs. Furthermore, since I can't be healed with carriers, it doesn't apply to weapon combat, and it's just as simple as current "no effect" when someone charms my lobster buddy to attack me with its stone carrier claws. This also has the benefit of reducing the number of times PCs will throw those non-standard healing effects at me, so I don't have to do as much math on the fly while still allowing me to use my elemental stone attack to heal myself instead of to hurt the PCs if I wish.

Overall, having played both with and without this rule, having a "Healed" call for non-Healing, non-Necromantic, effects has improved the game in Oregon and Seattle. It's not theory-craft, but real world experience and actual play that has shown me that.
 
Top