D&D 5E 2/25/2013 L&L: This Week in D&D

[Ratskinner]

Except that regeneration allowed creatures with it to regrow severed limbs and to regain hit points in a matter of seconds (or a minute), which leads me to believe that some are overinflating the issue.

Which was always something that I found weird, given a combat system that didn't actually generate any such wounds. Its like, you go through a bunch of combats with no dismemberments, then when you fight trolls, limbs fall like autumn leaves.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I haven't been impressed with his column for quite some time. Seems like everything is becoming more and more regressive toward previous editions. The basic game is not something I'm interested in, basically ever, and Standard isn't shaping up to be my cup of tea either. The 'Advanced' modules better be impressive, and they'd better be hot on the heels of the game's initial release, or I'm out.

It's too bad, because I know Mearls can do good work. I really liked what he brought to 4e.

I plan to play the basic game a lot with a lot of casual players or new players (trying to bring new folks to 4e was a nightmare) so personally I hope to have a really good and solid rule for healing since it sets the tone to the rest of the game and set new players expectations.

I can't speak to everyone's experience, but I've had a much easier time introducing new players to 4e than I ever had introducing players to 3.x. Essentials nearly brings it back to AD&D levels of ease.

 

[Ratskinner]

No, d&d was just simple and didnt get into wound penalties. Damage was never just a tiny fraction of what was going on.

Hunh?

HIT POINTS
It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain!....

....Consider a character who is a 10th level fighter with an 18 constitution. This character would have an average of 5% hit points per die, plus a constitution bonus of 4 hit points, per level, or 95 hit points! Each hit scored upon the character does only a small amount of actual physical harm - the sword thrust that would have run a 1st level fighter through the heart merely grazes the character due to the fighter's exceptional skill, luck, and sixth sense ability which caused movement to avoid the attack at just the right moment.

As an old-school character goes up in level, and gains more hp, an ever-decreasing fraction of the hp lost to each wound must represent physical harm. Its just simple math.

The real question, for me anyway, is why Gygax didn't let this simple rationale inform any other aspect of the game like the names or function of healing spells, falling damage, etc.

 

[Blackwarder]

Never really played Essentials and I agree that bringing new players to 3.x was also a chore...

Warder

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

And to add to my last post, I just found the tweet from Mearls that was quoted on ENWorld's front page:

"Some people asked about the warlord - the class deserves an L&L of its own, along with an update on classes in general. Long and short of it is that there should be a tactical/commander guy in the game, but it might not have healing and might be a type of ftr. And when I say healing, think of it in terms of use X to give back hit points. There are other ways to mitigate damage or keep PCs going."

Colour me unimpressed. I guess in a basic game with no healing surge/hit dice mechanic it makes sense not having warlord heals, but this sounds pretty final, and like they won't ever have the option, which as I and many others in the Warlord thread pointed out, is a potential dealbreaker. Optional or no sale.

 

[Ratskinner]

I haven't been impressed with his column for quite some time. Seems like everything is becoming more and more regressive toward previous editions. The basic game is not something I'm interested in, basically ever, and Standard isn't shaping up to be my cup of tea either. The 'Advanced' modules better be impressive, and they'd better be hot on the heels of the game's initial release, or I'm out.

It's too bad, because I know Mearls can do good work. I really liked what he brought to 4e.

Given that the current playtests are mishmashes of various subsystems from Standard and Advanced...I suspect they will come quickly, if not simultaneously. No idea, really, of course. I do wonder and hope that future playtests will include systems that will address what appear to be fairly prevalent complaints from 4e fans. (I do think there is still room for most of that.)

I can't speak to everyone's experience, but I've had a much easier time introducing new players to 4e than I ever had introducing players to 3.x. Essentials nearly brings it back to AD&D levels of ease.

I dunno 'bout Essentials. I found 4e and 3.x to both be much more trouble than they are usually worth with new players. I can have folks up to speed and playing with FATE in a matter of minutes. I hope that the Basic version of D&D allows the same thing.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Given that the current playtests are mishmashes of various subsystems from Standard and Advanced...I suspect they will come quickly, if not simultaneously. No idea, really, of course. I do wonder and hope that future playtests will include systems that will address what appear to be fairly prevalent complaints from 4e fans. (I do think there is still room for most of that.)

I'd like to see more playtests of 'advanced' materials, but so far nothing they've pulled out has pushed those buttons for me. At all. Nothing they've shown me does even half of what 4e does for my game.

I dunno 'bout Essentials. I found 4e and 3.x to both be much more trouble than they are usually worth with new players. I can have folks up to speed and playing with FATE in a matter of minutes. I hope that the Basic version of D&D allows the same thing.

I agree. If you're going to introduce a noob to RPGs in general, D&D is not the way to go, unless you're going to use, say, basic.

Then again this can depend on the player; I'd have a much easier time introducing a 'gamer' to more advanced games than I would a noob. In fact, some of the folks I play with are hardcore M:tG players, and they found the Essentials material to not be complex enough for their tastes, despite being new to D&D, or even RPGs in general.

 

[D'karr]

The real question, for me anyway, is why Gygax didn't let this simple rationale inform any other aspect of the game like the names or function of healing spells, falling damage, etc.

I think that the answer to that is "pure genius", or "it didn't really matter." Since he had already "defined" HP in an abstract way there was nothing else to do. Obviously, this created many inconsistencies, but the simplicity of HP is undeniable - it just works. It's when you start trying to tie it down from it's abstractness into a more concrete model that the cracks appear. So in that sense the simplicity and functionality was pure genius.

I remember reading in the early 80's (possibly 81) an article from Don Turnbull, the TSR UK guy from Fiend Folio fame. In the article he wondered pretty much the same thing about HP, as the rising HP of a higher level fighter could not obviously be accounted for with an increase in the character's physical constitution. He postulated that a "Hit" and a "Miss" were not always an actual physical hit or miss. HP were after all not physical, but a measure of "capacity to live", and the "wounds" was just a decrease in "capacity to live". The only reason hit points were called "Hit" Points was for simplicity. Instead of Capacity to Live Points. It was an interesting read, and it's funny today, and 30+ years later we are having the same discussions/arguments. Even with the arguments HP as an abstract concept still just works right out of the gate.

 

[DEFCON 1]

AHAH!! Finally sir I find something the I disagree with you!

I plan to play the basic game a lot with a lot of casual players or new players (trying to bring new folks to 4e was a nightmare) so personally I hope to have a really good and solid rule for healing since it sets the tone to the rest of the game and set new players expectations.

I wouldn't mid it being either what Mike suggest in his latest article or being 1 hp per level per long rest, Personally it's one of the things I would like to have a section in the basic rules booklet that give the aspiring DM so nudges into changing the game to the group liking.

Warder

Nope. As mentioned in the other thread... I don't think the Basic game (and we're talking Red Box Basic-only... not "Basic rules printed in the first chapter of the Player's Handbook") should have ANY nudges to change the game. Basic rules are the Basic rules in the Red Box-- no options offered, no options available. Don't want to confuse the issue for new players. If you want options... don't buy the Red Box, buy the Player's Handbook. Then you can use as much of the Basic game as you want... and can bring in whatever alternate rules from further back in the book you feel like (like the different healing methods).

But you're right... there will be a few experienced people like yourself (and Ratskinner) who will play a straight Basic game perhaps. All my previous posts have always guesstimated 95% experience players will play Standard (and thus ipso facto 5% will play a straight Basic). But you 5% (as you yourself just mentioned) won't really care what the Basic game's rule ends up being. Because if you did... you'd just incorporate a different Standard rule into the game. And thus it doesn't really matter what the actual rule ends up being.

So for my money... the closer the rule is to what the rule was back in BECMI (so that the players of that game can feel more at home switching to 5E)... then that's the way to do it.

 

[Blackwarder]

Nope. As mentioned in the other thread... I don't think the Basic game (and we're talking Red Box Basic-only... not "Basic rules printed in the first chapter of the Player's Handbook") should have ANY nudges to change the game. Basic rules are the Basic rules in the Red Box-- no options offered, no options available. Don't want to confuse the issue for new players. If you want options... don't buy the Red Box, buy the Player's Handbook. Then you can use as much of the Basic game as you want... and can bring in whatever alternate rules from further back in the book you feel like (like the different healing methods).

But you're right... there will be a few experienced people like yourself (and Ratskinner) who will play a straight Basic game perhaps. All my previous posts have always guesstimated 95% experience players will play Standard (and thus ipso facto 5% will play a straight Basic). But you 5% (as you yourself just mentioned) won't really care what the Basic game's rule ends up being. Because if you did... you'd just incorporate a different Standard rule into the game. And thus it doesn't really matter what the actual rule ends up being.

So for my money... the closer the rule is to what the rule was back in BECMI (so that the players of that game can feel more at home switching to 5E)... then that's the way to do it.

Agreed.

Warder