What would change with % based healing?

[mario]

CLW is really crummy at level 1 for level 1 characters under percentages.

I think we just have to accept that HPS are awkward and hamhanded, if simple and handy. There is no fix--this part of the system mechanics is ineluctably gamey.  It's like squeezing a balloon--you only move the awkwardness to another part of the system.  If you want something with a different feel, you'll have to play a different system (Riddle of Steel, Burning Wheel, etc.).

[SneeR]

I still don't see what's wrong with  ([spell level x 2]+[WIS mod])x[caster level] . Master high priests can heal lesser men with a touch, but can still top off high-level characters well. Nothing gamey about that at all.

[mario]

That's balanced, sure. It's just a tweak of the current system. It doesn't cure the (gamey) notion that a scratch to one man is a mortal wound to another, but they're both "moderate wounds" (or they could both be "light wounds"). (Thus, squeezing the balloon . . . .)  I thought that was the mischief that the % system was directed at, but perhaps I was wrong.

[lans]

Why not 20%+1Dx+caster level?
So at first level, a wizard would be healed dX+2.  A barbarian would be dX+4.

I'm thinking of keeping the die used to d8s, to give it a sorely needed boost

[RedWarlock]

I have no problem with HP and cure spells as written. I just choose to interpret hit points as pain as much as injury. Someone inexperienced can only handle so much pain and trauma before shock and death kicks in. Someone more experienced can take more. Cure spells soothe that pain.

I'm throwing injury conditions into the mix as well in my own houserules, but that's me and mine.

[Bauglir]

I mean, the fact of the matter is, a 10th level character can leap headlong off mile-high cliffs and be pretty well assured of survival with no impact on fighting ability or anything like that. You're no longer dealing with people for whom mundane concepts of wounds matter. You really have only two universally applicable definitions of hit points. You can either say that creatures with high hit points are incredibly tough, so that the spear blow that would impale a commoner barely breaks the skin, or you can say that they didn't really need that lung, anyway. Either way, you have to get over an attachment to real-world physics and biology. A 20th level fighter either has skin harder than the strongest steel, or else he doesn't need the contents of his chest cavity to live and can totally keep moving his arm even after multiple fractures and the severing of every tendon in it.

EDIT: Dodging blows, fighting spirit, or blind luck do handle a lot of scenarios, generally anything to do with combat, but they don't really spread well to non-combat situations in which you lose hit points. Such situations also come up less often, so YMMV.

[linklord231]

A (slightly) less gamey way to look at it would be to think of Hit Points more as a luck pool.  A person who takes a hit for 34 damage doesn't actually get hit - the blow surely would have killed him, but at the last moment something happened and the attack missed or was deflected or something.  When the character's hit points reach 0, he does get hit for real, and the blow does kill him.  A character's hit point total is a measure of how lucky/skillful a character is, rather than how healthy. 
The upside is that this explains why people don't suffer from wounds and stuff.  Of course, the obvious downside is that healing magic now makes no sense at all, so this too has its flaws. 

[SneeR]

A (slightly) less gamey way to look at it would be to think of Hit Points more as a luck pool.  A person who takes a hit for 34 damage doesn't actually get hit - the blow surely would have killed him, but at the last moment something happened and the attack missed or was deflected or something.  When the character's hit points reach 0, he does get hit for real, and the blow does kill him.  A character's hit point total is a measure of how lucky/skillful a character is, rather than how healthy. 
The upside is that this explains why people don't suffer from wounds and stuff.  Of course, the obvious downside is that healing magic now makes no sense at all, so this too has its flaws.

I have always despised this opinion. Is it so hard to accept that the wizard can turn into the hydra and the fighter can be turned into a pincushion?

How does the luck argument explain falling damage? I mean, luck makes sense to an extent, but are you saying that 20th level fighter who invariably survives falling 200 feet without any ranks in Tumble is either favored by Fate or unaffected by gravity?

Plus, as you said, healing magic makes sense. All the fluff implies that Cure is filling in all of the holes left in your clayamation-fueled face by axes.

What my question is, then, is, "Who came up with the hp=luck and how?" Nothing in any fluff supports that. The rogues, normally thought of as the lucky ones (represented by better Reflex Saves, you see), have fewer hp than barbarians who salsa through combat.

(Want to clarify that I am am not attacking you, merely ranting about my dislike for that theory which your comment resurfaced from the putrid bowels of my memories)

[linklord231]

Don't get me wrong, I don't really buy the HP=luck idea either.  I have no idea who came up with it, but vaguely recall reading something similar in Unearthed Arcana or something.  I just threw it out on behalf of everyone who was bitching about how it doesn't make sense for people to shrug off wounds that would have killed a lesser man ten times over. 

Back to topic, has anyone tried the suggested fixes in an actual game?  Did they work?  I'm always on the lookout for ways to make in combat healing more viable, and bonus points if it fixes barbarians being harder to heal.

[veekie]

Well, I'm thinking the best way is to just add a Heal check when you case a Cure, while performing percentile healing on a successful Heal check, as well as adding other conditions to Heal than just poison/disease. It means multiple things.
Firstly, the spells remain relevant at low levels, percentile healing screws over low level characters massively when they can't reliably obtain non-Cure based healing yet.
Secondly, it means Cures can remove conditions like poison or disease with a successful check. Niche, but it means several ultra specific spells no longer need to be prepared.
Thirdly, it avoids affecting offensive uses of Cures, even while improving their functionality.
Fourth, it makes the Heal skill more relevant. Sure you can do it all with the right miracles, but a GOOD HEALER is more than the spells(which any idiot with a wand could do)

[Lycanthromancer]

Well, I'm thinking the best way is to just add a Heal check when you case a Cure, while performing percentile healing on a successful Heal check, as well as adding other conditions to Heal than just poison/disease.

Y'know, I REALLY like this. Why not just have percentage healing, and add the skill bonus to the amount healed? Then make a Heal check for things like poisons and such. Grant bonuses to the check for the higher level spells.

[veekie]

The opposite way(base static healing spell+ heal DC for %) allows for greater lower level survivability, while requiring Heal ranks investment for serious long term healers.

That way you just need to link heal check DCs to particular percentages and it'd work. Fully compatible with existing spells since it modifies a skill that few use anyway.

[snakeman830]

Actually, I really like that idea.  I will implement it in my next game and see how it goes.

What DC's would be fair for the varying percentages, do you think?

[TuggyNE]

Well, I'm thinking the best way is to just add a Heal check when you case a Cure, while performing percentile healing on a successful Heal check, as well as adding other conditions to Heal than just poison/disease. It means multiple things.
Firstly, the spells remain relevant at low levels, percentile healing screws over low level characters massively when they can't reliably obtain non-Cure based healing yet.
Secondly, it means Cures can remove conditions like poison or disease with a successful check. Niche, but it means several ultra specific spells no longer need to be prepared.
Thirdly, it avoids affecting offensive uses of Cures, even while improving their functionality.
Fourth, it makes the Heal skill more relevant. Sure you can do it all with the right miracles, but a GOOD HEALER is more than the spells(which any idiot with a wand could do)

So, you have the basic Cure X Wounds spells, largely unchanged, except for the addition of percentage-based healing at various Heal DCs? I think that would work very nicely, since it seems to integrate all the requirements in the thread so far.

Actually, I really like that idea.  I will implement it in my next game and see how it goes.

What DC's would be fair for the varying percentages, do you think?

I ran some math and figured that Heal, with the most common skill boosts (healer's kit, ability score, ranks, perhaps one or two other minor factors) goes from about +8 around first level to about +42 at 20; this doesn't include competence magic items, the skill synergy that should perhaps be added, or other things, which would take it to at least +75. Anyway, starting at DC 15, this would suggest an ending DC of 50 or so; however, since some people are likely to use the other skill-boosters, this should probably be increased, perhaps to a DC of 75? If so, assuming 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and perhaps 80% boosts, that suggests a tidy +10 to the DC for every additional 10% (peaking at DC 85 for 80%).

I'm assuming people are not going to be dumping guidance of the avatar or similar on these checks, of course. Anyone who dumps extra spell slots, bardic music, truenaming, or similar on healing deserves whatever bonus they can eke out.

[Bastian]

A random thought: How about the percentages be based on caster level with a cap for the lower level healing spells and some of the higher level healing spells giving you higher percentages per caster level (for example instead of caster level=%, caster level times two=%). You could also have a minimum number of hit points healed (possibly equal to the percentage the spell gives you or the result of a roll of a specific number of d6 depending on the spell, whichever is higher).

[Prime32]

I mean, the fact of the matter is, a 10th level character can leap headlong off mile-high cliffs and be pretty well assured of survival with no impact on fighting ability or anything like that. You're no longer dealing with people for whom mundane concepts of wounds matter. You really have only two universally applicable definitions of hit points. You can either say that creatures with high hit points are incredibly tough, so that the spear blow that would impale a commoner barely breaks the skin, or you can say that they didn't really need that lung, anyway. Either way, you have to get over an attachment to real-world physics and biology. A 20th level fighter either has skin harder than the strongest steel, or else he doesn't need the contents of his chest cavity to live and can totally keep moving his arm even after multiple fractures and the severing of every tendon in it.

EDIT: Dodging blows, fighting spirit, or blind luck do handle a lot of scenarios, generally anything to do with combat, but they don't really spread well to non-combat situations in which you lose hit points. Such situations also come up less often, so YMMV.

The explanation that makes most sense (especially with Wounds/Vitality) is "Your spiritual energy forms a barrier which protects you from harm; attacks wear it down and cure spells recharge it. Attacks don't really make contact until you're down to your last HD." Y'know, the Dragonball route.

[Bauglir]

That's perfectly acceptable, yeah. That's along the lines of the option where you're just not hurt as much by the same blow as people with fewer hit points. It requires being okay with discarding basic physics (identical blows to identical anatomies penetrate less deeply, in this case due to a supernatural energy field), but honestly. It's a game where you can create huge explosions by throwing bat poo at people, I think we can live with that. My point is that you just need to abandon standard notions about how much punishment a body can take.

[veekie]

Well, I'm thinking the best way is to just add a Heal check when you case a Cure, while performing percentile healing on a successful Heal check, as well as adding other conditions to Heal than just poison/disease. It means multiple things.
Firstly, the spells remain relevant at low levels, percentile healing screws over low level characters massively when they can't reliably obtain non-Cure based healing yet.
Secondly, it means Cures can remove conditions like poison or disease with a successful check. Niche, but it means several ultra specific spells no longer need to be prepared.
Thirdly, it avoids affecting offensive uses of Cures, even while improving their functionality.
Fourth, it makes the Heal skill more relevant. Sure you can do it all with the right miracles, but a GOOD HEALER is more than the spells(which any idiot with a wand could do)

So, you have the basic Cure X Wounds spells, largely unchanged, except for the addition of percentage-based healing at various Heal DCs? I think that would work very nicely, since it seems to integrate all the requirements in the thread so far.

Actually, I really like that idea.  I will implement it in my next game and see how it goes.

What DC's would be fair for the varying percentages, do you think?

I ran some math and figured that Heal, with the most common skill boosts (healer's kit, ability score, ranks, perhaps one or two other minor factors) goes from about +8 around first level to about +42 at 20; this doesn't include competence magic items, the skill synergy that should perhaps be added, or other things, which would take it to at least +75. Anyway, starting at DC 15, this would suggest an ending DC of 50 or so; however, since some people are likely to use the other skill-boosters, this should probably be increased, perhaps to a DC of 75? If so, assuming 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, and perhaps 80% boosts, that suggests a tidy +10 to the DC for every additional 10% (peaking at DC 85 for 80%).

I'm assuming people are not going to be dumping guidance of the avatar or similar on these checks, of course. Anyone who dumps extra spell slots, bardic music, truenaming, or similar on healing deserves whatever bonus they can eke out.

That seems to work out yeah.

Incidentally, that also means any halfway optimized healer can blast away pretty much any condition that Heal could fix, since Heal's DC for condition removal is the condition's save DC, and you're gonna crush that like a bug, barring conditions with multiple saves(in which case it substitutes one save).

[skydragonknight]

For conditions, how about Cure Light you can attempt to heal one condition. Cure Moderate can attempt to heal two conditions and so on. Legend has Cure spells heal a certain number of conditions as well, but coupling this with the Heal check is nice.

If it goes from +8 to +42, why not every 5 DC = 5% + the fixed amount? Tweak as necessary.

[veekie]

That depends on how highly you value the individual condition removal spells, and of course, the condition sweeper spells. Personally, you are rarely concurrently afflicted by more than one condition at a time, if you are, it implies an enemy using a debuff strategy, and you have to consider the consequences of thus, crippling a debuff strategy by taking them off faster than they can go on.