So, as the rules state, a character who has a treated Wound heals Endurance at a rate of 2 Endurance per lengthy (overnight) rest. His Wound is totally healed when his Endurance is fully refreshed, i.e. back to its maximum value.

I have no problem with these rules, and I feel like they do a good job of emulating conditions in the books, like Frodo's stabbing and lengthy recovery ...

However, my issue arises with the fact that the higher a character's maximum Endurance and, therefore, the higher his resilience and fortitude in the face of harm, fatigue, etc., the longer it takes for him to heal from a Wound.

In other words, my low Heart/low Endurance Barding who receives a wound and is knocked to 0 Endurance will be fully healed in a shorter period of time than a high Heart/high Endurance Woodsman.

Does this seem right?

O

Your point is quite succinct. In fact, many of us D&Ders over the years have often complained of the same thing when it comes to "Cure" spells/potions.

A wizard might be fully healed with one Cure Light Wounds Spell, while a fighter needs 4 to be fully healed!

If we abstract that your hit points are a "level of health" - it would presumed that 8 points of damage to someone who has 10 maximum hit points, is far more lethal (thus a grave wound) than one who is a 10th level fighter with 100 hit points!

So how is that "grave" wound able to be fully healed by a "cure light wounds" potion? Where as if the fighter was also reduced to only 2 hit points, he would need 98 points of healing and require a full Heal spell (6th level spell by comparison).


So how does this apply to TOR? A beorning/dwarf takes longer to recover from a Wound than it does for a hobbit, as they have so many more endurance points to earn back; given that all characters heal at the same rate.

On the other hand since they typically have more endurance to start with, it takes longer for them to become Weary and thus can afford to wear heavier armor; this then creates a better avoidance to the wounds in the first place, that then take longer to heal from.....


This then brings up some good questions:
Does this balance it out? Does this make sense? Does this sound fair? Have you noticed if hobbits get wounded more frequently than dwarves or beornings? Why am I not wearing pants?

I hope because you are wearing a kilt or bathrobe.

I have not played the game enough to say with confidence that it is well balanced as is, but my impression is a mild "yes" there are advantages to having more endurance that are far more important than the drawback of taking longer to go from 0 to full endurance.

My only observation is that the first group I played in the hobbit almost never got attacked much less wounded because he stayed in a rearward stance almost all the time and the other characters were the only ones to get wounded... but even that was rare because we didn't do massive amounts of fighting. anyway the hobbit's ability to avoid wounds in this case has nothing to do with game balance as much as it has to do with different play styles.

If you tried to implement a sliding scale of x endurance back per day or week based on max endurance I think you're going to make things needlessly complex, either you'll have number crunching or tables.... but if you want something you could have a house rule that says after 4 weeks of rest you can heal any wound, and after 2 weeks rest you can heal any treated wound or something to that effect.

I agree that in situations of long-term resting and healing, the advantages of having more Endurance far outweigh the disadvantage of taking longer to heal a Wound. If there is no danger, it doesn't really matter if healing takes 10 days or 16. But, in the case in which they PC is Wounded in the midst of travel in the Wild, being Wounded for an extra few days is a sizable disadvantage.

I certainly am am not interested in making things more complicated, but maybe a PC with a Treated Wound has a simple 1/10 of of your Max Endurance (rounded up) healed per day. Non-wounded PCs receive the same number plus Basic Heart. Thoughts?

I don't have the PCs' character sheets in front of me. Maybe this just works out to changing 2 Endurance per day to 3?

O

The hardiest of characters that ive seen have end scores in the mid to high 30s. While most in the 20s.

I suppose its not too unbalancing to house rule: those with 30+ end heal 3 pts while wounded (as opposed to 2 that all others would). If you manage to have 40+ then 4 per day i suppose. So yeah10% rounded down (min 2)


Slightly more complicated if perhaps a bit more soundly simulated and not overly imbalancing. I would merely give caution to benefit high endurance scores too much as we have already indicated a few ways that it's usually quite beneficial on its own to have a much higher score for other in-game reasons

I fully agree with this. No sliding scales. No recovery based on proportion of total endurance.

Some options:

1) Maybe reduce those timeframes by 2 and 1 week respectively if the character is resting/recovering properly or no longer Wearied (if not).

OR

2) You could even have a further Healing check after the injury has been treated. TN of 14 (non-wearied) or 16 (wearied) depending on the condition of the patient. An ordinary success results in the wound fully healing in 3 weeks, a great success in 2 weeks, and an extraordinary success in 1 week. Or crank those up even more to - 2 weeks, 1 week, and after a night's rest respectively.

The second option also addresses the recent debate in another thread that there's not enough to do with the Healing skill, no need to increase it, etc.

The thing you are missing is that a character with a high endurance that takes longer to heal took more damage in the first place.

It takes the same amount of time to heal 20 endurance (or 25, or 30) when wounded. What it seems like you want is to have one character heal 30 as fast as another heals 20, which doesn't make sense to me.

Rich, you're right the numbers I threw out were too high.... yours are probably more consitant with the game times... and I DO like the idea that a greater success on the heal check makes it heal faster, though overnight might on an exceptional success seems almost magical.. Then again we ARE in a somewhat magical world :-)
Seriously thoug make it half a week for the exceptional success... like 4 days... is my suggestion.

Yeah, I was being cheeky and pushing the envelope on that all the way!

I disagree, a character with high endurance only takes damage if wounded. Endurance damage is scrapes, bruises and getting tired avoiding lethal blows. In Dnd you would be correct as Dnd hit points are more physical damage, but TOR seperates actual damage into the wounded condition.

I think the point the OP was trying to make was that an extremely healthy and rugged character is wounded far longer than someone who would fall unconscious at the drop of a hat. I think that the big thing is that though the sturdier character will normally recover endurance fairly fast, if wounded you suddenly have someone who will likely remain wounded for the rest of the adventure unless they manage to find somewhere to lie up for several weeks.

I personally understood this point. To which I countered by saying that (IMO at least), this is counterbalanced by the notion that one with significantly more endurance is more capable of wearing heavier armor due to having a larger window before becoming WEARY. This heavier armor allowance, gives a higher resistance to becoming WOUNDED in the first place.


One thing I learned from my years of D&D is that when you look at one rule by itself - it may seem out of whack - but when you look at a bigger picture and see all of the ancillary rules and issues that piggyback onto that one rule, you find that there are checks and balances within that make the one rule more palatable. You cannot judge a rule of the game in a vacuum.


That being said - I'm not opposed to allowing say 10% of total Endurance being restored as a house rule (thus those cresting the 30 mark would gain 3 while the fairer races will still gain 2). In the end - proposed changes need to be slight - as I pointed out there's already checks and balances in most stated rules.