• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E 2/18/13 L&L column

DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
Look, here's the issue...

The Dungeons & Dragons 5E game that practically every single one of us is going to be playing will be a STANDARD game. Why? Because one table will include a ranger (which ain't Basic). One will include a half-orc (which ain't Basic). One will include skills (which doesn't look like it'll be Basic). One will include overnight healing to full HP (which doesn't look like it'll be Basic). One will include artifacts (which ain't Basic.) One will include dual-wielding (which doesn't look like it'll be Basic).

For all of us that want any or all of these things... we will be playing the Standard game. We will buy the three books that will include all of these rules, we will read the very first section of the Player's Handbook that will spend probably 15 pages explaining the "Basic" version of the rules... and then once we read the rest of the book we're going to start cherry-picking bits and pieces to ADD or REPLACE the rules in the Basic section. Then the game is good to go.

That's what's going to happen for 95% of us.

The only time that's NOT going to happen is two reason: 1) if there's a 5E "Red Box" product that ONLY has the Basic rules in it. Or 2) if a table of experienced players decide they want to play a Basic game SPECIFICALLY because it's trying to emulate a BECMI type of experience.

As far as #2 is concerned... they WON'T CARE that the only healing available to a party is either natural healing overnight (however much that ends up being), Potions of Healing, or a Cleric casting a Cure spell. Because that's what D&D had back in the 70s, and that's what they are trying to get back to.

For Group #1... the whole point of having a BASIC game is that you open it, you read the short bit of rules, and you play it. You aren't required to DESIGN the game by selecting various rules options to use when you play. The rules are the rules. You use them, you play them, you enjoy them (hopefully). And thus you want a SINGLE HEALING PARADIGM for the Basic rules. Because for new players trying to learn the game, having a SINGLE RULE is easier to play and easier to understand.

The question then becomes... for this Basic game with only ONE healing style... which way do you go? Do you use Hit Dice? Do you use Wound/Vitality? Do you use "hit points return completely following every rest"? Or do you use the same rules (as close as you can get) that existed in the original D&D game... which (I believe) is meant to be slow natural recovery, the occasional Potion, and a couple Cleric spells?

WotC has chosen to go with the latter it appears for the time being.

Now the other issue is everyone grasping at what Mike said about clerics being required and getting all worked up. But as is the case every time any of the designers and developers mention ANYTHING about the game... people take isolated sentences and then blow things out of proportion, never wondering for just a moment that perhaps they were just speaking off the cuff and thus weren't not going into COMPLETE DETAIL about what their turn of phrase was actually a part of.

Is a cleric required in a Basic game? That depends entirely on what Mike actually meant. Perhaps he meant that yes, to play Basic D&D the ONLY way you are allowed to play it is if every table has one fighter, one rogue, one wizard, and one cleric. Or did he mean that a cleric is required because the way combat works, if you don't have a cleric to heal people, all characters WILL DIE no ifs-ands-or-buts. Or did he mean that a cleric is required *if* you wanted characters to regain hit points FASTER than through normal overnight recovery?

Which one is it? We don't know, do we? No, I don't think we do.

And THAT'S the issue. We're all rewriting rules to counter a problem that we might not actually understand or even exists in the first place.

And until Mike comes out and says specifically what the ACTUAL rule is... trying to blow up the Basic game into another Standard game is incredibly pre-mature. ESPECIALLY considering it doesn't sound like they've actually even DECIDED on what the Basic healing rule is going to be!
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
Couple of things.[.quote]

Shoot.

1. That's the 4e method. In my opinion it worked pretty well, but WotC must have access to some data we don't, because they seem fairly adamant against including such methods. That's what it looks like for me anyway.

Dunno. Just saying what I see as a simple way to put it in...whether WotC does or not is not particularly relevant.

2. Please don't take this the wrong way, but if you had actually read the material you would know that the houserule you propose is... well, garbage. Sorry.

No worries. There seems to be no way for me to take that the wrong way. ;)

There are no less than 5 different Cure X Wounds spells (not counting Mass versions) and the Heal spell cures a flat 50 hp, clearly meaning it's not intended to fully cure high-level characters.

New edition. New spell definitions.

Honestly, I've never quite understood the need for 5 different "Cure X Wounds" spells. Seems a bit overkill. But there's no reason a new edition couldn't say, this is what Cure Light does...this is what Cure serious does...Heal is now "auto-reboot to 100%" as opposed to "Heal up to almost, just short, but not quite..." Making it percentages means that a Cure Light is going to give the wizard with 20 HP the same proportionate benefit as the Fighter with 50.

It also ignores the fact that Clerics of the Lifebringer deity gain an increase in effectiveness with some of those spells which your house rule doesn't take into account.

If the system was beign built on the model I propose, a single sentence in the Lightbringer clerics entry that they gain 10% to any curative spell they cast. Doesn't seem a life-shattering problem.

The issue has more aspects and is more complicated than you give it credit.

Undoubtedly. I guess I'm not making myself clear...I don't care what is perceived to be "the issue". Scrap all of that. Forget about them.

Clean slate.

All of these "aspects" that have people up in arms about how complicated it is...and make/start with something simple and easily alterable.

I would strongly urge you to first read the rules and then tinker with them, not the other way around.

Appreciate the suggestion. I'll try not to take that the wrong way as well. ;P

3. There are many people who don't like houserules.

And...? If this is what the game offers/says. Then that's what the game offers/says. Like it. Don't like it. Houserule it. Don't houserule it. The game can't make you do anythnig. It's just a game. If it's not what you think you will like...[I know everyone hates when this comes up, but honestly,] play something else. The D&D secret police is not going to hold a gun to your head.

There are also people who don't want to go through the effort of needing to fix what shouldn't have been broken (in their opinions) to begin with. [./quote]

Then don't. That is not a shortcoming to the game system. [and I'd go so far as saying it is somewhat at the crux of the spirit of what is Dungeons & Dragons...but that's an entirely separate discussion.] Nor somehow constitute a mandate that the games [or particular "rules sets", i.e. "Healing"] MUST be what I, you, or anyone else wants or it is somehow "broken." It's not broken, it's what the game says it is. That's all.

Suggesting that people can just houserule all problems away is overlooking this, and doesn't really address the issue.

Not overlooking anything. I'm saying, X is what's in the book. Y is what the game says. You can make/add Z's and A's all you want. If you don't WANT to make Z's and A's to suit your taste, then that's not the game's fault. The game is not "punishing" or "broken". The game is the game. Play something that has Z's and A's already filled in for you if that's what you like.

Just all mho, of course...and obviously not a particularly well-liked one. hahaha.

As JamesonCourage is prone to saying, play what you like.
 



DEFCON 1

Legend
Supporter
I do wish @mearls would clarify that point. Though I think and hope he meant [/COLOR] with the option of mundane fast healing.

I don't expect he WILL clarify it any time soon, for the simple reason that it sounds like they just made this switch internally and thus they themselves aren't yet sure it's going to stick.

But I also don't think at this point the option for mundane fast healing will be listed in the Basic rules, as it sounds like they are really trying to avoid having "options" in the Basic rules. From what I've gathered, the Basic game is one base version of the rules. "Options" belong to the Standard game. That's the whole point of their classifications of rules between Basic, Standard and Advanced.
 

Dire Human

First Post
The question everyone is asking is, should the Core require Cleric healing? And I think that's what's causing all this strife, because we're all focusing on different parts of the question. So, without further ado, here's a quick survey so that we all know where we stand. Fill in the blanks.

1. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have a party of four non-healers survive an adventure long enough to get loot and go home?

2. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different classes (Warlords, Bards, etc) that also fulfill the required healing role?

3. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different types of abilities that work similar mathematically to healing (temporary hit points, parrying, dodging, etc) and one of those be required?

Hard Mode: answer these questions without mentioning Modules, House-Rules, or DM discretion. We're talking about hard-and-fast Core rules, not optional rules.
 

But I also don't think at this point the option for mundane fast healing will be listed in the Basic rules, as it sounds like they are really trying to avoid having "options" in the Basic rules. From what I've gathered, the Basic game is one base version of the rules. "Options" belong to the Standard game. That's the whole point of their classifications of rules between Basic, Standard and Advanced.

Yes. I think most people will be buying basic + one other book to get the game they want. I am fine if i have to buy the basic + advanced book to get my options.
 

TwoSix

"Diegetics", by L. Ron Gygax
The question everyone is asking is, should the Core require Cleric healing? And I think that's what's causing all this strife, because we're all focusing on different parts of the question. So, without further ado, here's a quick survey so that we all know where we stand. Fill in the blanks.

1. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have a party of four non-healers survive an adventure long enough to get loot and go home?

2. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different classes (Warlords, Bards, etc) that also fulfill the required healing role?

3. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different types of abilities that work similar mathematically to healing (temporary hit points, parrying, dodging, etc) and one of those be required?

Hard Mode: answer these questions without mentioning Modules, House-Rules, or DM discretion. We're talking about hard-and-fast Core rules, not optional rules.
Great summary. There are too many issues getting mixed together in this discussion. My take:

1) Yes, 4 adventurers should be able to manage an adventure with no healing.

2) I'm personally OK either way. I'm fine with a basic game that only provides a Cleric option. I'm fine if the basic game says "Screw clerics, the 4th class is a non-healing bard." The basic game is actually immaterial to almost all of us, anyway.

3) Absolutely. I'd say for Basic, spread the mitigation around. Fighters parry, Rogues dodge, Wizards ... do something, Clerics heal. But I don't think any mitigation has to be REQUIRED in Basic.
 

steeldragons

Steeliest of the dragons
Epic
compute 20 percent of a wizards die rolled lowest hit points for me...

42...obviously. :p

Who's die of what now? Why are you rolling anything?

Wizard #1 has 15 hp. They get hurt down to 3. Cleric casts Cure Lights. 20% of 15 is...whatever it is...3. Wizard1 now has 6hp.

Wizard #2 has 45hp. They get hurt down to 3. Cleric casts Cure Lights (or quaffs a potion or takes a rest or whatever). 20% of 45...9(?)... Wizard2 now has 12hp.

Fighter #1 has 65hp. They get hurt down to 3. Cleric casts Cure Lights. 20% of 65... 13(?)...Fighter1 now has 16hp. That won't due as there are goblin reinforcements arriving...he quickly quaffs a potion of healing. 20% of 65...13...Fighter1 now has 29hp and charges into battle. Cleric of het Lightbringer...being so super cool...fires some ranged healing thing he does...gets 30% cuz he's a Lightbringer. Let's round up and say 20 (13 +7) more for the Fighter as he takes his first swing...Fighter1 is at 49hp and proceeds to kick butt against the goblins.

Everyone's getting proportionate healing...that's what you wanted isn't it?

I'm not trying to argue anything here...I just don't see where the complications are.
 

The question everyone is asking is, should the Core require Cleric healing? And I think that's what's causing all this strife, because we're all focusing on different parts of the question. So, without further ado, here's a quick survey so that we all know where we stand. Fill in the blanks.

i quibble with how some of these are famed, but I will give it a go.

1. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have a party of four non-healers survive an adventure long enough to get loot and go home?

if you want to heal quickly without rest, then you should need magical healing of some kind with clerics being the best and most reliable. It is okay for a party without a cleric to have to deal with the challenge not having one presents (needing rest, having to stop more often, hiring healers outside the party, etc).

2. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different classes (Warlords, Bards, etc) that also fulfill the required healing role?

I think bards, druids, paladins, rangers and wizards could have some lesser magical healing than clerics. I hope not to see the warlord as it was presented in 4E present in the new core.

3. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different types of abilities that work similar mathematically to healing (temporary hit points, parrying, dodging, etc) and one of those be required?

no, those things should not be in the core.

Hard Mode: answer these questions without mentioning Modules, House-Rules, or DM discretion. We're talking about hard-and-fast Core rules, not optional rules.

Since the game is modular by design and most of us will be using the various books nd options to get the game we want, this probably isnt a good lens to examine the issue from. The simple core will be comparable to basic duing AD&D.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top