Allow some sort of healing

[Stue (DC)]

Houses of healing to offer some sort of health improvement for older chars to somewhat balance with increased wounding which leads to unplayability of chars in their best years.

Healing to work as training in academy, but to be much more expensive. To add to balance, older chars should have healing limit, i.e. each age to have health maximum, the older the char, the lower health maximum attainable.

Older chars would still be unhealthy relatively to younger ones, but nobles would have some feeling that they are able to influence it.

[fodder]

... what's wrong with hiring 10 healers?

[Stue (DC)]

i admit to did not hear so far that such measure could improve things.

i tried to hold from one to three healers, and more healers seemingly better heal soldiers, but i never notice influence of number of healers on character healing to the extent that i could say no any difference is noticable.

[Indirik]

Healer paraphernalia have no effect on player characters.

[Bael]

A long time ago I suggested that there could be some herbs that an adventurer could find (and sell) to the lords. These herbs could then be used to help heal them faster.

[fodder]

they don't? wtf is my priest doing with healers?

[acrandal]

they don't? wtf is my priest doing with healers?

I figured that was between you and your healers.

My priestess ran around with a lone scout for a couple of years until I forgot to pay him too long.

[fodder]

but you can't hire a scout.. you can hire a healer.. no?

[acrandal]

but you can't hire a scout.. you can hire a healer.. no?

Ah!  But you can keep the scouts you had before you became a priest class.  You can't send them anywhere, but you can retain them for larks.

[fodder]

point is, if you can't use healers, why can you hire them?

[acrandal]

point is, if you can't use healers, why can you hire them?

That's a good question, one that I had not pondered.  How about this: if you get sick because a region has no food, the healer works then?  Or if you get stabbed by someone tired of your preaching?  Beat up by a mob?  Trip on a rock?

It would be cool if you could bring healers along with you and they were useful to the people around you, but I wonder about the benefits at large (plus coding effort vs. game usefulness).

[Bael]

point is, if you can't use healers, why can you hire them?

They can also hire scouts. As you know, BM is under constant work. So there are rough areas, where the devs expect you to use your common sense 

[Fleugs]

Be careful not to compare medieval healers with modern healers. A great leap forward was made in the late 15th, early 16th century (like knowledge about anatomy). The traditional medieval method was, now bluntly generalizing, reproducing knowledge from the Greek & Roman period (the so called auctoritas - meaning "authorities"; this is recurrent in pretty much all of the medieval "science"). The question then is, what do we expect that our healers can do? While today it is evident that a broken leg will not kill you, it might have killed you easily a 1000 years ago due to infections, which (European) mankind was not properly able to treat.

I think it's already nice we have some healers, including those that tend to you when you are wounded. Expecting them to miraculously heal them faster every time again is asking for too much, and the randomness that determines how long it takes for wounds to get healed in game perfectly fit into that picture. Next to that, think about the other side. I am frankly very happy if an enemy noble is wounded for a rather long time, and would be rather upset if he heals quickly.

[Stue (DC)]

i would always make difference between random wounding in battle, which is mostly unfun, and political assassinations, that are consequence of very specific infiltrator actions, which bear much risk for those who conduct that, and which can also cause much of political drama.

infiltrator-caused wounding should not be related so much with target's health, on contrary to random wounding.

[vonGenf]

i would always make difference between random wounding in battle, which is mostly unfun, and political assassinations, that are consequence of very specific infiltrator actions, which bear much risk for those who conduct that, and which can also cause much of political drama.

Woundings in battle is not always random. The agressiveness level of your troops and of your enemies troops will affect it. I've never been wounded when on rearguard/defensive.