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

[Garthanos]

*I really prefer thief to rogue.

A thief is too narrow of concept for one the main 4... they need to be archetypal and cover many characters.

 

[Garthanos]

This is where your idea here comes into the picture:

I have few illusions as to the likelihood of my ideas reaching fruition.

 

[pemerton]

The thing to realize here is that the core D&D gameplay for a lot of people is "Risk character death for XP and treasure."

If a cleric alone prevents character death, then it affects that risk that is central to the gameplay

True. But natural healing by way of resting is another way to avoid character death.

XP is, furthermore, a measure of how a character gets toward achieving their goals. If the party has 1000 XP until they gain the next level, the party that covers 500 XP between recharges is going to be performing better than the party that covers 450 XP.

I am really not following this. What is the link between "XP/levels gained" and "recharging"? Does D&Dnext have a rule somewhere that I've missed saying you lose a certain amount of XP every time you recharge? If it does, then I agree that this could well make clerical healing overpowered.

in the above Party A hasn't faced less of a challenge - they have faced 20 combats just as Party B has faced 20 combats (assuming combats that don't specifically hinge on something like being able to turn undead). Party A has risked the same amount of death as Party B. Party A have made the same number of die rolls in those 20 combats as Party B.

Presumably those combats took the same amount of real time to play out. They may have taken less in "in game" time to do it, but they don't gain levels faster in player time. They are only more efficient in "in game" time - and like other posters have said, why exactly is that important?

Right. 100% this. (And [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] is saying something similar upthread, including emphasising the difference between in-combat capabilities - where the cleric needs to be kept on a tight leash - and between-encounter recovery.)

Looking at the 4/5 encounters between rests with these assumptions it starts to get more extreme. With the "5 fight" party you get 4 encounters and then head home - but the 4 encounter party gets only 3. Add in the (fairly common) idea that the monsters reorganise and reinforce when you are away for a long rest, and the "4 fight" party can end up with a very substantially harder time completing the adventure.

This is the beginning of an argument that all adventures are time-sensitive. But it's just the beginning of one.

And on the XP-treasure nexus: it's true that if XP are for treasure rather than fights, it is a bigger purge to have to fight wanderers heading to and from the dungeon. But it's also true that if XP are for treasure than fights, than hit points are less of an all-purpose resources, and the ability of clerics to replenish them is as a consequence of less overall significance.

 

[Garthanos]

This is the beginning of an argument that all adventures are time-sensitive. But it's just the beginning of one.

I think many adventures really are intentionally so but there is also a gut feeling that they are safer and you get more bang for your buck if you are quick about it , blitzkrieg.

 

[pemerton]

I think many adventures really are intentionally so but there is also a gut feeling that they are safer and you get more bang for your buck if you are quick about it , blitzkrieg.

That's a good observation.

My worry about is that I'm not sure it will prove robust under the strains of actual play.

For instance, recall that a lot of the playtesting of 3E (at least as I see it discussed here) approached the game in essentially AD&D fashion. But then, when the game was set loose on the world, people discovered that it could be played in other ways, and - as a result - that wizards, clerics and druids were (at many tables, at least) overpowered in ways that they hadn't been in AD&D.

My worry here is that balancing the game around an "adventuring day" that is defined and enforced not by mechanics (as it is in 4e, to the extent that it exists) but by "vibe" will break down once players realise that the game can be still be played while leaving the vibe behind. I'm very much from the school of "mechanics should create the vibe, not presuppose it".

 

[Garthanos]

Yes gut response isn't totally useful but for me it sometimes gives a direction to explore. In real life its surprise factor that allows surgical strikes to be more effective it gives the adversary less time to adjust after they become aware of your plan/path of attack. Hmmm far from unniversally applicable and its really just another case of the situation getting worse the longer the adventure takes.

 

[JamesonCourage]

The thing to realize here is that the core D&D gameplay for a lot of people is "Risk character death for XP and treasure."

If a cleric alone prevents character death, then it affects that risk that is central to the gameplay -- it fundamentally alters the challenge level of the game, simply with one class. So that class becomes something that someone who plays D&D in this way is going to need, if they want to get the most bang for their buck. Or, put another way, playing without it is deliberately sacrificing party efficiency.

True. Much like people that don't have that as their primary goal, and have a different goal, are losing out with a Rogue (or Thief), right? Or a Ranger (or Druid)? Or a Bard?

The disconnect seems to be that a good chunk of groups never really played D&D that way, and so affecting character death didn't really add or subtract anything. But we can't assume that newbies will play D&D this way. Because they may play it as "risk character death for XP and GP," too, I feel that we need to make the basic game such that if they have this playstyle, that they aren't pressured into taking a cleric, since a cleric lowers that risk.

I don't know why this play style is being singled out. If that's the case, then the mechanics need to focus and enforce this style of play. If the rules won't enforce that, then I strongly, vehemently disagree with you.

XP is, furthermore, a measure of how a character gets toward achieving their goals. If the party has 1000 XP until they gain the next level, the party that covers 500 XP between recharges is going to be performing better than the party that covers 450 XP. Regardless of a character's other goals, XP is a constant goal, and it is used to measure other goals (in an old-school XP = GP game, it's a measure of the haul you bring back; in a narrative XP = awarded for time game, it's a measure of how long your character has been around and how much "screen time" they've recieved; in a 3e/4e XP = Monsters game, it's a measure of how many beasts you've slain).

I still don't see how "between rests" factors in at all here. There's no XP bonus for that.

This is an issue, because Party A earned more XP between their rests than Party B, and so accomplished more of their goals. If the adventure involves about 20 combats, Party A is going to finish it in four recharges, while Party B is going to need 5. Party A is thus better at finishing adventures than Party B. They face less of a challenge. They gain levels faster. They require fewer die rolls in between their rewards. In a game that is played as "risk character death for XP and treasure," they've become obviously better, risking less death and being awarded more XP and treasure.

Um, no, they gain no bonus XP. The table time is essentially the same between both groups. In-game, there's a difference, but there's no "this table gets more XP for having a Cleric" going on here.

And, Party A is better at finishing adventures more quickly, but is not better at it in general, necessarily. That depends on the actual healing numbers and action time a lot. The fact that they can heal instantly between fights with spells does not make them inherently gain more XP. There's not even necessarily "less of a challenge" going on. They gain levels faster, but only in-game. They even require about the same number of die rolls (more with magical healing rolls) as the other group. So, essentially, I still strongly disagree with your assessment.

I feel that this has been more than adequately covered by Abraxas and pemerton. As always, play what you like

 

[pemerton]

I still don't see how "between rests" factors in at all here. There's no XP bonus for that.

Right. This is the element of KM's anlaysis that I'm not following.

The table time is essentially the same between both groups. In-game, there's a difference

<snip>

Party A is better at finishing adventures more quickly, but is not better at it in general, necessarily. That depends on the actual healing numbers and action time a lot. The fact that they can heal instantly between fights with spells does not make them inherently gain more XP. There's not even necessarily "less of a challenge" going on. They gain levels faster, but only in-game. They even require about the same number of die rolls (more with magical healing rolls) as the other group.

That's a nice point: all that healing dice rolling actually slows down the real-time rate of XP gain! (Mabye that's part of the point of Next's hit dice - to stop natural healing getting a real-time benefit!)

 

[Balesir]

This is the beginning of an argument that all adventures are time-sensitive. But it's just the beginning of one.

And on the XP-treasure nexus: it's true that if XP are for treasure rather than fights, it is a bigger purge to have to fight wanderers heading to and from the dungeon. But it's also true that if XP are for treasure than fights, than hit points are less of an all-purpose resources, and the ability of clerics to replenish them is as a consequence of less overall significance.

When I wrote this I was actually trying to explain where sensitivities such as KM's might be coming from, rather than advance an argument, so it's not surprising the 'argument' is incomplete! I think my real point, though, boils down to what you put well, here:

My worry about is that I'm not sure it will prove robust under the strains of actual play.

For instance, recall that a lot of the playtesting of 3E (at least as I see it discussed here) approached the game in essentially AD&D fashion. But then, when the game was set loose on the world, people discovered that it could be played in other ways, and - as a result - that wizards, clerics and druids were (at many tables, at least) overpowered in ways that they hadn't been in AD&D.

My worry here is that balancing the game around an "adventuring day" that is defined and enforced not by mechanics (as it is in 4e, to the extent that it exists) but by "vibe" will break down once players realise that the game can be still be played while leaving the vibe behind. I'm very much from the school of "mechanics should create the vibe, not presuppose it".

All my example of past tropes and expectations really shows is that, whatever design is come up with, it will screw with some particular styles and assumptions of play. The past has proven that it's possible to work around such limitations, but frankly (a) that was when there was no other real choice and (b) a game without initial ties of emotion/nostalgia isn't going to get the 'passes' older games do in this respect.

In short, whatever game is designed is going inevitably to cripple some modes or styles of play. It would be much preferable if, instead of simply assuming a style of play that it supports, the game itself were to guide and channel play groups into a mode or modes that it supported at least adequately. I see no sign of this so far.

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=27160]Balesir[/MENTION], I agree with that. And I've also replied in agreement to your post in the new L&L thread.