Heath:
Your rule actually benefits non-warriors more because they would get a minimum of the same percentage HP back as a warrior and a maximum of a much greater percentage back.
I disagree that this entails benefiting the non-warriors more. I think you are highly overestimating the signifcance of
percentage of HP versus the significance of
actual HP.
Heath:
It seems that a warrior should actually benefit more because their body is more fit and would respond more easily to healing.
The warriors
do benefit more -
by far. Take Borimer, for example. His max HP is 70. Cure Light Wounds restores 18 HP to him, while Cure Serious Wounds restores 35 HP to him. Now take Draaz. Cure Light Wounds restores only 8 HP to him, while Cure Serious Wounds restores only 17 HP to him -
less than half of the benefit Borimer receives.
I know you are comparing percentages rather than totals, but the point I'm making is that in actual gameplay, totals matter a whole lot more than percentages. Sure, technically speaking, low HP characters would be receiving a greater percentage of their max HP from healing than higher HP characters (at least, at lower levels) - but the reality is that 35 HP is still 35 HP, and 17 HP is still 17 HP.
The warriors are already
far superior to wizards when it comes to HP and defense, by dint of D&D's highly scaled HP and AC system. Your existing house rule, therefore, already takes warriors' superior physiques into account by granting them literally
many times greater return on healing than characters with less HP overall.
Saying that warriors should not only receive much higher HP totals from healing but
also receive equal
percentages of their max HP from healing makes the whole process even more unfairly skewed in favor of warriors than it already is. What's needed is to make the system fairer for wizards like Draaz, who right now aren't even getting the benefits of D&D's original healing rules, while the warriors have been enjoying far greater return from healing spells than they ever received from the original system.
Also, your above proposal would contradict your own point about inequality in terms of HP percentages, as well as contradict your point about warriors' superior healing abilities. That proposal
would actually benefit non-warriors more than warriors, and would fail to meet the criteria you raised for what is fair and logical. My suggestion, by contrast, would fulfill that criteria far better and not pose a disadvantage to warriors in any way - and it would also make things fairer for low HP characters. So why not go with what I suggested? The existing system sits on one extreme end of the spectrum, while your proposal sits on the opposite extreme end of that spectrum. My suggestion falls in-between the two and, in my opinion at least, is much more fair and balanced.
Lastly, there's another point I feel I should raise which seems to have so far been overlooked. While healing and HP are scaled percentage-wise for each character,
damage is not. Thus, even if Draaz were to receive 100% of his HP back (20), the damage he suffers from various sources is fixed, not scaled based on his total HP. Thus, Draaz could suffer 20 damage from a single, non-critical hit or missed saving throw and be on death's door, while someone like Borimer could practically shrug it off. The severity of damage is value-based and constant, not percentage-based and variable - 20 damage represents 20 damage, it is not scaled up or down based on a person's stamina. It deals the same point-value of damage to everyone equally - even though that may mean 30% HP for one person and 100% HP for another.
This goes further to show that in actual gameplay,
totals of HP, damage, and healing are far more important and relevant than
percentages of HP and healing. D&D's system is not centered around percentages, it's centered around actual totals. How much value does 40-85% healing actually have for someone if that 40-85% only equates to 8-17 HP? 8-17 HP is never worth more than 8-17 HP, no matter who possesses it - it will
always be considered a small and feeble amount
because damage in this game is not scaled to fit the victim receiving the damage. The
value of 1 pt of damage is fixed. Therefore, the value of 1 pt of healing is also fixed. A level 2 wizard who has a max HP of 8 can hardly be said to be getting an unfair advantage over a level 7 warrior by receiving 100% HP from a Cure Light Wounds spell. The absurdity of the argument basically boils down to this:
Lvl 2 Wizard: Okay, so CLW raises me from 0 to 8 HP.
Lvl 7 Warrior: Wait a minute - that spell healed you completely!
Lvl 2 Wizard: I know. My max HP is only 8.
Lvl 7 Warrior: But that's not fair! CLW only heals me 25%! It healed you 100%!
Lvl 2 Wizard: But I've only got 8 HP.
Lvl 7 Warrior: Yeah, but you're getting way more benefit out of that spell than I do!
Lvl 2 Wizard: No I'm not. You get 18 HP from CLW. I only get 8.
Lvl 7 Warrior: Yes, but your percentage of healing is 4 times what mine is!
Lvl 2 Wizard: So what? I only have 8 HP. You have 70.
Lvl 7 Warrior: Everyone should get the same percentage of healing from CLW.
Lvl 2 Wizard: That would mean I'd only get 2 HP.
Lvl 7 Warrior: Right.
Lvl 2 Wizard: You think 2 HP is fair, when you get 18 HP? That's 9 times greater!
Lvl 7 Warrior: 2 HP is 25% of your max, so it's fair.
Lvl 2 Wizard: You mean to tell me that 2 HP has the same value to me as 18 HP to you?
Lvl 7 Warrior: Yes. I'm a warrior, you're a wizard. I need more HP than you.
Lvl 2 Wizard: But that's still just 2 HP! I'll be dead in one hit!
Lvl 7 Warrior: Well, don't get hit then.
Lvl 2 Wizard: And if I do get hit? Or breathed on?
Lvl 7 Warrior: Then that's tough luck, buddy.
Conclusion: percentages are irrelevant. It's the actual totals that matter - because damage is in totals, not percentages.
This message was last edited by the player at 05:45, Thu 28 Apr 2011.