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

[JamesonCourage]

Maybe it's just me and a few other people, but the main thing that would bring me back to a game isn't what I was playing, but who I was playing with. I mean, I might say "I was hoping to play something else" or "I'm not sure how I like the rules" if I'm new and I don't like the class or system (but don't know how to voice that yet), but if the group I'm playing with has a lot of chemistry, then I'll be back. And, honestly, I would assume this would be the case for most people, but maybe it's not how things work.

I can see not showing back up if you didn't get along with the group, or if things were "just okay", but if you loved the group, I have a feeling that most people will try to work it out, to one degree or another. And "the feel of the group" is just something you can't plan for. The best you can do is give "solid" advice that you hope resonates with the group, and hope everything goes well.

Also, I think that so few people will even start out playing at the Basic level that it won't be a problem (unless WotC does something I would consider stupid, and market it on its own). People -even new players- are going to be able to adapt to complex games. This generation is used to multitasking, to MMOs, to holding a conversation with passengers while driving while looking up where they're going on their phone/GPS or texting. I really doubt a game with only 16 pages is going to appeal to most new players, even. But hey, I can't know for sure. It's just my view. As always, play what you like

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am not going to play questions and answers with you because a single mechanic may seem fine on the surface, but if you are doing any of these things to eliminate the need for magical healing it has a huge impact on the game.

It was actually kind of an attempt to sort out the real point of contention, here. You don't seem to want a game that you could play without a cleric to be basic, but you also don't seem to have a problem with any of the proposals I've actually entertained for a way to do that. You've protested healing surges and warlords as stuff you don't want (and, FWIW, the basic game probably should be free of those, IMO), but you haven't protested any of my actual points as things you don't want. So I'm left a little befuddled about what those proposed ideas would take away from you that you value so much. I think I've been pretty clear about my reasons for thinking that mandating a cleric in the party at newbie-facing level of Basic doesn't sound like a great idea, but I don't yet entirely understand why it is necessary for others that required cleric healing be the default rule.

Most of the response I've heard is "We don't want healing surges or warlords in the basic game!" (Sure, but that's not what I was proposing), and "Grognards will hate it!" (Okay, but lets get specific on what they'd hate about it, and why it is mandated at the level of basic, then), with a background chorus of "WotC says it's not a problem!" (Fair enough, but that still sucks for the people that this is going to exclude).

And while I do get in general why someone would want that rule (it's a specific kind of feel they're shooting for, and it should totally get support), I don't know what specific elements of in-play activity are going to contribute to that. And I'm even less clear on why it MUST be a basic-level rule. I think I've been pretty clear on why I think a game that requires that at a basic level is going to be problematic for at least some players, due to the nature of what the basic game is: newbies will necessarily not want to change the game to suit their playstyle, but guys who've been playing for 35 years? I think I've also been pretty clear on what specific game elements might achieve that, while keeping cleric healing as something unique (ie: it is reactive rather than proactive, it is able to be used on allies instead of just on yourself, it is likely more potent in terms of raw points, etc.).

Trying to get at the core of the disagreement isn't a game I'm playing, it's an attempt to engage the conversation and understand the disagreement better. I certainly mean no offense by it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

But I am not simply talking about keeping cleric healing unique. I am also talking about preserving the need for regular magical heals or needing to rest to recover at a natural rate. If your proposals are not trying to work around that issue, then what are they for? You seem to be suggesting giving classes better defenses so they don't take damage in the first place. That is a fine preference but I do not see taking damage and needing magical healing for it as a problem: I see it as a feature of the game.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

In the original Basic (and Expert), one of the things that made the clerical-only healing work is that the cleric really didn't have that much of it--except maybe at odd points in the progression. (And at first level, the cleric had zero spells.) So it almost was, "no healing" but mundane rest--except the cleric had a few freebies in there to offset bad luck. Potions are thus relatively more valuable than they later become. Anyone can use them, you can stockpile them, etc. It didn't always seem this way because of hit points being so low at first, but up around 5th to 9th, it was really felt. Anyway, relative to his healing, and his total contribution to healing, the cleric hits hard, has a lot of armor, and gets to do stuff other than be the heal-bot.

There are a few things required to be able to make healing (or some subset of healing, such as repairing injuries) feel special:

1. Routine healing of hit points should typically be, total, some noticeable fraction of the total hit points you normally have. That means it has to be somewhat constrained or limited, whatever the source. Routinely, you don't heal more than 25% or 50% or so of your total.

2. Characters should have good ways of mitigating or avoiding damage by active actions (or at least active choices made in a timely fashion). A "block" or "dodge" mechanic is one that many games have used, which perhaps doesn't fit D&D very well but does fit the requirement as an example.

3. Some things should only be capable via ritual (or similar slow-acting means) that are easy to constrain via plot (or not, as the group chooses--which means that time should not be the only such constraint).

4. Then when some class (or item or whatever) wants to be special, it can exceed the normal limits without flat breaking them. That is, don't have the heal spell handle all damage instantly. It might cure half the damage (when normal magic can't do more than a quarter), or it might cure almost all the damage slowly.

This is just as true of Next hit dice, 4E healing, 3E healing, etc. Next hit dice would be automatically better--not perfect but considerably better--if they were smaller dice and/or less frequent, perhaps with healing kits being a bit more expensive and/or having less charges--and the math was balanced around that. Consider having a hit die for healing every odd level, and kits only having 3 or 5 charges, and then require one charge per die used. That's enough to carry on through rough patches, but not enough to really count on for the day.

Finally, design a system where "mundane" healing has a wider range of levels and power in which to work before magical healing totally takes over. Then not only does the system not depend on any one class or mechanic, but it also means that "healer" classes can have mechanics to use that mundane healing more efficiently without breaking the game. There's no room left, for example, to change the current Next hit dice/kits to give clerics and other healers something special to do with them.

 

[MoonSong]

It was actually kind of an attempt to sort out the real point of contention, here. You don't seem to want a game that you could play without a cleric to be basic, but you also don't seem to have a problem with any of the proposals I've actually entertained for a way to do that. You've protested healing surges and warlords as stuff you don't want (and, FWIW, the basic game probably should be free of those, IMO), but you haven't protested any of my actual points as things you don't want. So I'm left a little befuddled about what those proposed ideas would take away from you that you value so much. I think I've been pretty clear about my reasons for thinking that mandating a cleric in the party at newbie-facing level of Basic doesn't sound like a great idea, but I don't yet entirely understand why it is necessary for others that required cleric healing be the default rule.

Most of the response I've heard is "We don't want healing surges or warlords in the basic game!" (Sure, but that's not what I was proposing), and "Grognards will hate it!" (Okay, but lets get specific on what they'd hate about it, and why it is mandated at the level of basic, then), with a background chorus of "WotC says it's not a problem!" (Fair enough, but that still sucks for the people that this is going to exclude).

And while I do get in general why someone would want that rule (it's a specific kind of feel they're shooting for, and it should totally get support), I don't know what specific elements of in-play activity are going to contribute to that. And I'm even less clear on why it MUST be a basic-level rule. I think I've been pretty clear on why I think a game that requires that at a basic level is going to be problematic for at least some players, due to the nature of what the basic game is: newbies will necessarily not want to change the game to suit their playstyle, but guys who've been playing for 35 years? I think I've also been pretty clear on what specific game elements might achieve that, while keeping cleric healing as something unique (ie: it is reactive rather than proactive, it is able to be used on allies instead of just on yourself, it is likely more potent in terms of raw points, etc.).

Trying to get at the core of the disagreement isn't a game I'm playing, it's an attempt to engage the conversation and understand the disagreement better. I certainly mean no offense by it.

Well, really don't want to act mean, but weren't you opossed in principle to giving players the choice of their characters favored ability score isntead of being stuck with what's the default for class because "we should give out strong archetypes" and "basic game no choices", "if you want to deviate even a little then your game isn't basic anymore"? Well choice of an ability score is a way milder choice and it was a big no for you. Chosing to play without a cleric is a big deviation from the basic game (which If I'm not mistaken is trying to bring back ODD/Basic/Red Box dungeoncrawling flavor) and isn't the cleric of pelor, who heals and turns undead the archetypal cleric?. We'll very likely see that cleric in the basic game, and you see, at low level a cleric can only heal so much, and there is still the fact he/she has good weapon and armor proficiencies and a soemwhat decent hit table, even if all spells become heals, he/she will still be able to turn undead and combat, not to mention will also have one or two at will orisons to do combat (and I think those are too much, but we'll almost see them for sure), not a bad package by any measure.

 

[MoonSong]

In the original Basic (and Expert), one of the things that made the clerical-only healing work is that the cleric really didn't have that much of it--except maybe at odd points in the progression. (And at first level, the cleric had zero spells.) So it almost was, "no healing" but mundane rest--except the cleric had a few freebies in there to offset bad luck. Potions are thus relatively more valuable than they later become. Anyone can use them, you can stockpile them, etc. It didn't always seem this way because of hit points being so low at first, but up around 5th to 9th, it was really felt. Anyway, relative to his healing, and his total contribution to healing, the cleric hits hard, has a lot of armor, and gets to do stuff other than be the heal-bot.

There are a few things required to be able to make healing (or some subset of healing, such as repairing injuries) feel special:

1. Routine healing of hit points should typically be, total, some noticeable fraction of the total hit points you normally have. That means it has to be somewhat constrained or limited, whatever the source. Routinely, you don't heal more than 25% or 50% or so of your total.

2. Characters should have good ways of mitigating or avoiding damage by active actions (or at least active choices made in a timely fashion). A "block" or "dodge" mechanic is one that many games have used, which perhaps doesn't fit D&D very well but does fit the requirement as an example.

3. Some things should only be capable via ritual (or similar slow-acting means) that are easy to constrain via plot (or not, as the group chooses--which means that time should not be the only such constraint).

4. Then when some class (or item or whatever) wants to be special, it can exceed the normal limits without flat breaking them. That is, don't have the heal spell handle all damage instantly. It might cure half the damage (when normal magic can't do more than a quarter), or it might cure almost all the damage slowly.

This is just as true of Next hit dice, 4E healing, 3E healing, etc. Next hit dice would be automatically better--not perfect but considerably better--if they were smaller dice and/or less frequent, perhaps with healing kits being a bit more expensive and/or having less charges--and the math was balanced around that. Consider having a hit die for healing every odd level, and kits only having 3 or 5 charges, and then require one charge per die used. That's enough to carry on through rough patches, but not enough to really count on for the day.

Finally, design a system where "mundane" healing has a wider range of levels and power in which to work before magical healing totally takes over. Then not only does the system not depend on any one class or mechanic, but it also means that "healer" classes can have mechanics to use that mundane healing more efficiently without breaking the game. There's no room left, for example, to change the current Next hit dice/kits to give clerics and other healers something special to do with them.

Well I just want to say

1) I wouldn't mind it
2) It is borderline, but could work
3 & 4) No way. If my dedicated healer cannot heal someone from the brink of death because he has "been healed so many times today already" I'm not interested, my super healing focussed character should be able to send allies from "mostly death" to full health in less than a minute regardless (or specially) if it costs him/her a lot of class resources or even involve a high personal cost (like dying/mostly dying), if it is going to cost money, time or any other party resource and the rest of the party chanting/holding hands for an hour and fail if we are interrupted by even a second, and only partially work anyway (half health) and in the best cases which is only under certain circumstances (special place under a blue moon in the midst of an eclipse while the north star is aligned with the sun) and be limited by how much the subject of healing has been healed today/this week/this year, and anybody with a scroll could take the palce of my character, then no, my character doesn't get to feel special under those circumstances. Sounds potentially cool for a one shot, or for groups centered on very low magic settings, but not for a baseline.

 

[Iosue]

In the original Basic (and Expert), one of the things that made the clerical-only healing work is that the cleric really didn't have that much of it--except maybe at odd points in the progression. (And at first level, the cleric had zero spells.) So it almost was, "no healing" but mundane rest--except the cleric had a few freebies in there to offset bad luck. Potions are thus relatively more valuable than they later become. Anyone can use them, you can stockpile them, etc. It didn't always seem this way because of hit points being so low at first, but up around 5th to 9th, it was really felt. Anyway, relative to his healing, and his total contribution to healing, the cleric hits hard, has a lot of armor, and gets to do stuff other than be the heal-bot.

That's a very astute take, and something I wish I'd thought of when looking at the classes in my Moldvay Basic thread.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I've had a lot of dislike for 4E for a variety of reasons, but even though I abhorred the actual implementation I thought that removing healing from being a clerical burden was a smart and LONG-needed change. It was something 4E at least tried to take in the right direction. It had long been my own experience that players disliked and avoided playing clerics overwhelmingly because they did not want the in-game and meta-game social obligation of devoting their spells to healing. Healing is of course something of a necessity. It's important and highly desired - but it was un-fun to be curing hit points so that OTHER characters could go back out and kill monsters, and do other exciting things. When clerics reserved more of their healing for themselves they were chided for it: healing was better spent upon the fighters who could make best use of it, and clerics who put themselves too willingly into harms way were treated as "not knowing their place" by interfering with the amount of healing that other players/characters had understandably come to expect.

Though it wasn't strictly necessary to have a cleric in the party it surely altered the dynamics of the game NOT to have one, or to have one who DIDN'T willingly act as the hit point battery around which the rest of the party could center.

Divorcing hit point recovery from clerics with all that that entails opens up FAR more dynamic and interesting possibilities for them as a class. Most importantly it eliminates unneeded and unwanted pressure that ONE player must play a particular class whether he wants to or not. Without that character being present and being played in the way that OTHER players want it played the flow of the game becomes rather different. The DM has to provide alternative means of healing, the length and success of the so-called "adventuring day" is affected, the general attitudes among gamers at the table erodes if someone refuses to "play ball", etc.

It doesn't matter necessarily if the source of hit point recovery is magical or not. What IS important is that it not be so heavily burdensome to ONE CHARACTER in the party to be the all-important source of it. It ought to instead be spread around to as many potential sources as possible. Wizards should be able to cast arcane spells to repair bodies. Clerics could conduct daily rituals in which others could participate for the gods to lend them assistance. Fighters might have their own ability to simply come to grips with the pain or demonstrate that it just wasn't as bad a wound as it looked to be at first. Fantasy worlds should be full of all manner of herbs and minerals to heal this or that particular ill. Why not a freakin' rabbits foot or 4-leaf clover lucky charm that's good for x amount of hit points a day?

There are a dozen ways to "heal" physical damage. There are dozens more that can simply replenish hit points. Don't call it all HEALING. Call it what it once was - part luck, part divine favor, some skill, and of course fatigue. Aren't these still supposed to be indefinable but indivisible components of hit points? Are you really stuck on the idea that clerics have to still be the ones replacing everybody else's hit points? I say you're not trying very hard if you are.

 

[Garthanos]

I am looking for a fantasy source featuring these regular magical heals and just not finding it. I mean if it makes so much sense it ought to be a trope of legend and myth bunches of literature... I mean cant you picture Conan constantly out of action or carrying a cleric on his shoulder ... elrics herbs gave him better health it wasnt wound stitching

Now I have seen a news broadcast about a general awaking a man from a coma and had combat medics explain how you can tell a man hes gonna be alright and have him go from seemingly out of action to raring back towards the fight and similar things.

But the ultra common necessary healer .. just not seeing it.

OK yes I can find a few magical healers but its that combined with heavy armor and weaponry that just doesnt seem to be there, do MMOs count?

 

[I'm A Banana]

But I am not simply talking about keeping cleric healing unique. I am also talking about preserving the need for regular magical heals or needing to rest to recover at a natural rate. If your proposals are not trying to work around that issue, then what are they for? You seem to be suggesting giving classes better defenses so they don't take damage in the first place. That is a fine preference but I do not see taking damage and needing magical healing for it as a problem: I see it as a feature of the game.

My proposals aren't aimed at having a game where damage doesn't exist, they're aimed at having a game where clerics aren't strictly necessary to gameplay -- that is, as Mearls said in the article, so that the physicians can functionally "heal themselves" (or, in my examples, pre-empt damage...the same thing, ultimately, as far as the maths are concerned).

It might help if you think of it like this: a given party of 4 has, say, 40 HP's. Lets say the monsters do about 5 hp damage per round, meaning the typical party lasts 8 rounds against the monsters (2 rounds each). Now, they also have a cleric with a CLW spell, so they have, effectively, 41-48 HP's, giving them an extra round or two on the whole. So when you look to see how many monsters the party should fight in between periods of complete recovery, you include those extra 1d8 HP's in your calculations, because you want the party to be pushed to the limit.

That's when someone not wanting to play the cleric becomes a problem. The reason a cleric is "necessary" is because they're the only ones with real access to those extra HP's: without CLW, you don't have those 1d8 extra HP's. Because those 1d8 HP's are included in the calculations for the challenges you face, your party without a cleric is actually significantly weaker than the game is expecting. Thus, clerics are necessary.

My proposals are aimed at giving other classes ways to access that extra 1d8 HP. If the rogue gets an AC bonus that causes an extra attack to miss, or if the fighter can deflect an attack, or if the wizard gets a spell that ups AC like the rogue's, they've all done the equivalent of adding that additional round onto the party's total. Now, when nobody plays the cleric, it's not a big deal -- CLW doesn't have exclusive access to that extra HP, so the game can encompass it without an issue.

The actual numbers don't quite line up like this, of course (in actual play, healing often makes up about half or more of a party's ultimate HP total), but I hope that helps you see where my ideas are coming from a little more clearly.