D&D 5E 2/18/13 L&L column

[DonAdam]

My preferred approach is for the game mechanics to give the players, as a group, a reasonable capacity to control whose resources get whittled away, so they can play towards equalisation if that's what they want.

But that's a pretty abstract statement of a design goal, and I don't have any sense of how close D&Dnext gets to it.

Nor do I have that sense. I was only trying to point out that it's the asymmetry of depletion that makes a heal-bot seem so necessary. It's not a simple problem of damage mitigation vs. damage dealing.

It is abstract. And it's not very easy to solve in a way that intuitively links mechanics with fiction: in fantasy fiction, we often do see characters temporarily incapacitated that have to be "looked out for" by other members of a group. But that's just no fun when you only control one character.

 

[pemerton]

in fantasy fiction, we often do see characters temporarily incapacitated that have to be "looked out for" by other members of a group. But that's just no fun when you only control one character.

I have a reasonable sense of how 4e handles this - at least with my group, there is a fair bit of tactical capacity to "shift the pressure" so that PCs who are weakened/depleted don't have to carry the same load. But there is no doubt that in-combat healing is one of the techniques for managing this, though not the only one and sometimes not the most important one.

Thinking about the problem abstractly: we need a way for the "shepherding" PC to create a mechanical asset that the "depleted" PC can then use as a crutch. In the fiction, the depleted PC is able to handle the situation only because of the help of and protection from the shepherding PC; in the gameplay, the player of the depleted PC still gets to do stuff, but the player of the shepherding PC gets to point out that s/he is making a major contribution.

What sort of "assist"/"support" mechanics does D&Dnext have, other than healing?

 

[Falling Icicle]

So let's say we have a game in which (on average) 4-6 characters go adventuring and, over the course of the day, their resources are whittled down.

Sometimes (actually quite often) those resources are asymmetrically depleted for one character. This creates a strong incentive for the group as a whole to stop and replenish, decreasing their chances of failing any given challenge and--more importantly--keeping the player of said character engaged rather than on the sidelines.

How do you solve that problem for all groups in a way that doesn't make any one type of character obligatory?

Different characters have different resources. Barbarians have daily rages. Wizards and Clerics have daily spells. The thing is, those resources are specific to those classes, and don't largely affect the group as a whole. The key to making sure that those don't become a problem is giving every class at-will abilities to fall back on so that they're still competent and able to contribute even when their limited resources have run out. They've already done this.

Then, there are resources, like hit points, that everyone has. The difference there is that even though every character has hit points and needs to get them back when they're lost, only certain classes, such as the cleric, are given the ability to replenish them. Wizards are self-sufficient when it comes to their spells. The same goes for barbarians and rages, fighters and surges, etc. They don't depend on someone else to get those back, they just rest, and they can continue to adventure even after those resources have run out. The same is not true of hit points. When those run out, your character is out of play (either dead or unconscious) and you don't get all of your hit points back by resting, they recover very slowly. When a barbarian runs out of rages or a wizard out of spells, the game doesn't come to a screeching halt. When someone's hit points run out, the game does come to a screeching halt. To avoid this, people load up on magical healing.

4e solved these problems by giving everyone self-healing and by having hit points recover completely with rest. The alternative is either forcing someone to play a healer, or stocking up on wands of cure light wounds and healing completely after every battle anyway. I don't know about everyone else, but I'd rather just dispense with the wands and let people heal completely with a long rest. If we really wanted to be realistic about it, people would needs days, even weeks of rest after suffering injuries in battle. Do you really want your game to be THAT realistic? Do you really want to have your character be hospitalized after every battle if no magical healing is available? I don't!

 

[Bluenose]

Between the last L&L "Fighters can't have nice things - just roleplay!" and this one "let's just make every party have a cleric for healing!" I'm starting to wonder if WotC isn't trolling us.

It wasn't L&L for "Fighters can't have nice things". It was the Q&A column, I think.

Personally I think they're reacting to the loudest complaints about the last edition in making Next. "Shouting wounds closed hurts my brain", so they get rid of non-magical healing except as an option which they can then ignore in everything else published because not everyone uses optional rules. "All classes are the same", so they make sure to make every class has different mechanics (with nearly identical results). And incidentally shaft the Fighter, because "Fighter used to be a simple class" and apparently anyone playing one is incapable of anything more complicated than adding up some numbers - though they're also capable of making a contribution to two main spheres through their Roleplaying ability.

 

[FireLance]

So let's say we have a game in which (on average) 4-6 characters go adventuring and, over the course of the day, their resources are whittled down.

Sometimes (actually quite often) those resources are asymmetrically depleted for one character. This creates a strong incentive for the group as a whole to stop and replenish, decreasing their chances of failing any given challenge and--more importantly--keeping the player of said character engaged rather than on the sidelines.

How do you solve that problem for all groups in a way that doesn't make any one type of character obligatory?

You let individual groups decide whether or not it is a problem for them. Some players are quite willing to accept that occasionally, the dice will turn against them and they need to be on the sidelines during parts of an adventure.

If it is a problem, you let them decide how they want to solve it: by the DM being more generous with healing magic items, by agreeing to adjust the dial so that everyone has a small amount of self-healing, or by just being resigned to the fact that their playstyle preferences and choices make it inevitable that someone has to play a cleric.

 

[Iosue]

Here's how it looks to me. They want to have certain balance to the damage math and the healing math. At the same time, they wanted both a Classical Cleric who heals, and the ability to go adventuring without a Cleric. Hence, Hit Dice and alternative rest mechanics. Now, they could they could set the damage so that a party is fine with a Cleric (and no non-magical healing), or with so that a party is fine with non-magical healing (and no Cleric). The problem comes when you have the Cleric and non-magical healing. Now the party's healing is outstripping damage, requiring adjustments.


Now, the happiest thing for everybody is that you have your Cleric (or Warlord, or what have you), and you have non-magical healing. People who like Leader types and don't like the non-magical healing can go with that. People who don't want to have to adventure with Leader types can go with that. And if people like both, the book can give advice and options for increasing the challenge, or adjusting healing (magical and non-). They can do this with the Standard Rules, which will have more inherent options. Thus Mearls says,

The nice thing about that solution is that it keeps things simple, since the Hit Die mechanic (along with the other options we've tried) becomes an optional rule for groups to use as they see fit. We can then also offer other options for DMs, either making healing rarer or more plentiful, along with options for lingering wounds, longer or shorter rates of natural healing, and so on.

But for the Basic game, that's too much fiddliness. Much easier, then, to just choose one option. Since the Basic game is aimed at at newbies as well as veterans who want a simple game similar to classic D&D, going with the Cleric as main source of healing is one perfectly good way of doing it. Those who don't want that ultra-streamlined game will have the Standard game with lots of options.

 

[Li Shenron]

The most important info in the column IMHO is the confirmation that feedback and surveys clearly point to the fact that there is no consensus whatsoever on healing in D&D.

This means that whatever they pick as the default, they're doom to fail because we will declare that they have failed, because the majority will always be against whatever default. And even default + a bunch of variants (as it is now), it's not enough because those variants cover different practical setups, but don't so much more fundamental deviations, and each variant again is going to be favourite by a minority at best.

What 5e could do at this point IMHO, is take a bold step and tell the community that "if we cannot serve you the game you want (with regard to healing), please serve yourself", and just deliver a small chapter of DIY rules for the DM to setup whatever combination of magical/mundane healing, short-term or long-term, lasting wounds or not, encounter-based, rest-based, whatever, and let the DM choose. For the beginner's DM, 3-4 examples with good explanations on the consequences of choice are enough.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Usually when there's a massive outcry against an L&L or Q&A, I feel sorry for the designers. They have to juggle a bunch of different priorities and their ability to put across their reasoning is often lacking.

This time though, I can't feel any sympathy. To say that there hasn't been a problem before, that groups have coped with clerics being neccessary, and thus they will get rid of non-magical healing, is just a terrible decision. Frankly, I think the idea of class-specific resources being the only way to heal other than long-term resting is a bad idea, even if those resources aren't just for the cleric.

As a baseline, they need a common or individual resource with which characters can heal. Hit dice worked fine for me in principle. I would prefer ritual healing, or skill-based healing, something that everyone can access without investment other than gold for components/knowledge of the ritual. On top of that, they need clerical and other class healing to be an option, but not one that is overpowering - preferably by limiting its scope or enhancing the existing healing system.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think all he is saying is cleric only healing will be the default assumption of play, but they will have optins on the core book for folks who want to have non cleric heals or for groups who need to work around clerics in a fighter only campaign. T me this is important because for those of us who never saw this as a problem,it means we can run the game without fiddling and taking out a new mechanic like HD, but for those who find it a real issue, there will be something like HD you can drop in. It is really just a presentation issue: does HD have an "(optional)" tag next to it or not.

 

[pemerton]

The problem comes when you have the Cleric and non-magical healing. Now the party's healing is outstripping damage, requiring adjustments.

Didn't 4e show how to solve this particular problem, via surge-dependent healing?