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

[TwoSix]

Spells are regained 1/24 hours. If you need to rest after 8 hours of adventuring, you're still not getting your spells back anytime soon.

Wait, what? What system is it where you take 24 hrs to get a spell back?

And yes, I role-play recovery. If you're sitting around for 8 hours, stuff's going to happen. The world keeps on turning.

So you're arguing for a de facto resource cost for time. I don't think that's a problem, but it's still very social contract-y, and anything social contract-y should be highlighted in the game rules. ("The game works best when you play it this way.")

 

[sheadunne]

Wait, what? What system is it where you take 24 hrs to get a spell back?


So you're arguing for a de facto resource cost for time. I don't think that's a problem, but it's still very social contract-y, and anything social contract-y should be highlighted in the game rules. ("The game works best when you play it this way.")

1/day means you wait 24 hours (or depending on your particular world, but let's assume earth) before you can gain new spells. You are also required to have a certain amount of rest (or meditation time) before you can memorize the spells. 24 hours between recharges.

I'm not arguing for anything. I'm simply pointing out that some people enjoy other ways to play and that "fixing" a perceived problem, creates another problem for another group of people. I think it would be nice to have roleplaying be a adjudicating force in the rules, especially when addressing time and other subjective elements of the game.

 

[KidSnide]

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.

That's almost right. The goal of the basic set is to capture the feel of BECMI while making the game as newbie-friendly and easy to adopt as possible. (So, for example, the d20 system with ascending AC is better than the BECMI rule because it's easier to understand.) BECMI is the aesthetic core of basic D&DN, but the aesthetics have to be balanced against the typical use of the product: introducing new players to the game.

I suspect that Mearls thinks the fast healing is (at least potentially) a good basic set rule because he believes the ability for PCs to get going again after losing hit points is a better default mode of play than requiring multiple days rest to restore hit points without magical healing. As such, he wants the simplest (and closest to BECMI) rule he can find that satisfies this objective.

For what it's worth, I mostly agree with Mearls. I don't like this healing rule for my game, since my aesthetic preferences are for serious wounds that are difficult to heal without gameworld-significant resources (that PCs are expected to have). But I think it's a good basic game rule. If I were a PC playing a B1-B12 module, I would want a rule like this so a brief retreat becomes a useful strategy.

-KS

 

[TwoSix]

I'm not arguing for anything. I'm simply pointing out that some people enjoy other ways to play and that "fixing" a perceived problem, creates another problem for another group of people. I think it would be nice to have roleplaying be a adjudicating force in the rules, especially when addressing time and other subjective elements of the game.

Could you give a concrete example of what "roleplaying as an adjudicating force" would look like? If you've discussed it before, I apologize for not seeing it.

 

[sheadunne]

Could you give a concrete example of what "roleplaying as an adjudicating force" would look like? If you've discussed it before, I apologize for not seeing it.

Any decision made at the table to better reflect the happenings than the rules would cover. A quick example may be because the players actively sought out comfortable lodging and rest they regain all their HP overnight. Another example might be they players chose not to bring along camping equipment and bedrooms and they ground was wet and uncomfortable so they don't recover any HP that night. Roleplaying is organic and evolves at the table it doesn't need to be reflected in the rules and is often ignored or changed when it is. Let the choices players make become the rules for that moment. All you need is a core set of rules and your imagination. It's the appeal of older editions, which didn't always provide the detailed ruleset that has evolved in the game.

Now like I said, I'm not arguing for this just simply stating that it's a valid play option within older editions (and even the last couple) and no more less valid because it has caused issues in some people's games, just as things like healing surges have. Sometimes no rules are more effective than hard coded rules.

I'm not sure if that answered your question or not. It really only applies to the core rules and not modules and additional components of the game. I much prefer Mike's last weeks comment that the only core healing would be magical. Again, we can disagree and I'm okay with that.

 

[Balesir]

Any decision made at the table to better reflect the happenings than the rules would cover. A quick example may be because the players actively sought out comfortable lodging and rest they regain all their HP overnight. Another example might be they players chose not to bring along camping equipment and bedrooms and they ground was wet and uncomfortable so they don't recover any HP that night. Roleplaying is organic and evolves at the table it doesn't need to be reflected in the rules and is often ignored or changed when it is. Let the choices players make become the rules for that moment. All you need is a core set of rules and your imagination. It's the appeal of older editions, which didn't always provide the detailed ruleset that has evolved in the game.

OK, my own reasons for not preferring this style are as follows:

- In my experience (starting with OD&D from ~1975 and playing regularly up to ~1980), the nice "loosey goosey" feel lasts until the first time each "non-rule" is tested. After that, one of two things happens: either (a) whatever the DM decided becomes a new rule that the players will either evade or leverage, or (b) it doesn't become a rule, there is just as much uncertainty about the outcome next time as there was the first time. In this second case, persuing strategies or making plans becomes a waste of time; you have no basis on which to plan.

- My conclusion is that, in general, and excepting real corner cases, the "rule" that gets generated the first time a situation comes up would be better if it was covered in the rules from day 1. I therefore prefer games with clear and comprehensive rules.

- Note, however, that these rules do not need to be predicated on modelling the game world physics. They might be - but they might equally well define whose dictat is effective over what outcome at any specific time. There are a huge number of permutations by which this may be done in a way that will generate an interesting game - which is one reason there are many, many sets of RPG rules!

For me, though, the "there are no rules for this - make it up as you go along" method is just the rules writer telling me to make my own game in an ad hoc manner. I don't have time enough in life for that, any more, personally.

 

[sheadunne]

For me, a player's action at the table should only focus on the action, not the resolution. Too much has been lost to rules and I feel the story has suffered. Again, not a big deal since plenty of other fun is had, just a different type of fun. I'm burnt out on rules, both as a player and a DM. I am hoping Next would trim up some of the fat and maybe the core rules will. At least that's the hope. I get excited when things like mundane healing is not in the core rules is mentioned, but then the endless posts about how that's a bad thing creep up. Gotta be the voice for the rulings not rules crowd, which is actually quite humorous because I love the study of rules and find it fascinating. Sometimes it good to start back at the beginning and remember what it was like without all the rules.

 

[TwoSix]

Sometimes it good to start back at the beginning and remember what it was like without all the rules.

It is, because it reminds you how useful and important rules are.

 

[sheadunne]

It is, because it reminds you how useful and important rules are.

I can't argue with that except to say, good rules yes, bad rules no, and so far I'm not seeing consensus on either

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'm as guilty of that as anyone - I don't have any grasp of the technical notion of modularity.

All I know is that scaling rates of healing up and down, in a context in which the passage of time within the gameworld is not itself any sort of resource drain, (i) seems not very profound, and (ii) seems merely a change in colour.

Oh, I agree with your main point. I was piling on for one of the reasons why I don't think your point is even seen to be an issue, much less addressed.

After I posted, I realized the part that really chafes is the thought that somehow changing the rate or amount of healing is a useful dial. It's pretty much not, your reason being a prime piece of evidence, but not the technical reason.

Consider for a moment a "better" replacement for the stated rule. (It's better in that it illustrates technical modularity--not necessarily good as a raw rule. But then I came up with it over 10 minutes of idle musing. Also, I'm constrained by the necessary reverse engineering here.)

Let's say that for whatever reason, it was decided in the standard rules that healing works as follows: Every character gets to roll their hit die a number of times equal to their level, and they get to do this up to four times per day. Perhaps the default is every six hours--or after each of the three major meals plus once after six hours of rest. The roll is how many hit points you get back.

Now whatever it's other demerits, there are more dials, levers, and swappable points to play with there. Right in the base is proportional healing by level and class, but not as intrusive as tracking by the hour. You've got the same options to modify amounts and timing, but also easier ways to work in Con mods, modifiers (such as for bad or good conditions), magical aid, etc.

Personally, I think it is too much healing for a default, but that's a question of scaling. And the proposed 1 hit point per level per hour is a straight subset of that rule. All you have to do is decide that everyone gets a d6 for simplicity instead of their hit die, you give them max rolls to compensate for missing Con mods and bigger dice, and then parse those 24 points per level out by the hour.

So 1 hit point per level per hour is not in any way a "modular" rule. It's a particular niche setting on a more complex modular rule that might get used for simplicity--or in other words, as a way of effectively factoring the modularity out of the simple system.

Nearly always, when confronted with such, and wanting to change it, is is better to go back to the more rich original system and change it. Then once you change it, simplify to your own tastes.

A "basic" game of particular settings selected with care might be a really bang-up game. A "basic" game of a bunch of ill-considered and weakly designed rounded-off compromises is unlikely to offer much.