D&D 5E [Warlords] Should D&D be tied to D&D Worlds?

[Dannyalcatraz]

The problem is still IME, WP/VP systems are too easy to utilize to bypass HP entirely, leading to certain classes and certain builds becoming excessively powerful.

In HERO, which has such a system, you can target Body (wound points) with certain kinds of attack...but most still do Stun (vitality points). They are balanced by the Killing attacks- the ones that target body- being @3x the cost of normal attacks.

Furthermore, defenses exist against both kinds of damage, which may be integrated or discrete. IOW, characters may be more vulnerable to one kind or another type of damage, depending on build.

They even heal at different rates.

Its not an insoluble issue.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would not claim that the concept is devoid of problems. However, having two parallel systems is precisely the point. Your stamina and skill need to be independent of the amount of physical damage you have. That way, there is no ambiguity as to what is or is not real wounds.

But skill and stamina AREN'T independent from physical(or mental) damage. More grevious injuries reduce combat effectiveness.

 

[Starfox]

Presume the item is properly balanced with other items and the action economy and whatever (ie, that it is a valid item): in what way would it not "work" conceptually?

This is an impossible item. If it really is balanced with other options, there is no way it could match a central ability of a healing class. Either that, or the Next class system would have to look VERY different than earlier class system, with much grater part of each characters power residing in optional abilities, such as feats.

In HERO, which has such a system, you can target Body (wound points) with certain kinds of attack...but most still do Stun (vitality points). They are balanced by the Killing attacks- the ones that target body- being @3x the cost of normal attacks.

And HERO had exactly the problems we are discussing here - killing attacks were generally much more efficient than normal attacks. So HERO has a solution, but it is not a good one in my experience.

 

[billd91]

And HERO had exactly the problems we are discussing here - killing attacks were generally much more efficient than normal attacks. So HERO has a solution, but it is not a good one in my experience.

I would disagree with that. Triple the cost seems to be a pretty effective balance point. Of course, an even more important one is having players buy in to the genre conventions of killing attacks not being particularly common among superheroes.

 

[Starfox]

The cost was not trippled, it was bought in different quantities. 1d6 killing damage cost the same as 3d6 Stun damage, that is true. But a killing attack ALSO did stun damage, by multiplying the killing damage inflicted with 1d6. And each die of stun damage inflicted 1 killing damage on average. So in the end, you inflicted about the same damage per point invested - except that killing damage was marginally better (both for lethal and stun damage) and MUCH swingier. And as I think most of understand, opponent's with swingy damage have a much better change of winning. And making their opponent's dead, too.

(Details are out of the top of my head - I might have missed some detail.)

I would not have minded this so much except for the genre conventions should have given a premium to stun damage. Rules should encourage genre-reinforcing behavior.

Ok, that should be enough of a HERO-threadcap. More should go in it's own thread.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Yeah, that 3x cost is NOT trivial.

Since the first version of the game came out in the mid-1980s, I can count on my fingers & toes the number of PCs I've seen that invested in significantly large killing attacks. And most of those were in Fantasy campaigns in which the killing attacks were actual weapons.

Most people wanted their attacks to do nifty things besides kill, so the expense of a killing attack meant you weren't customizing it with a bunch of power modifiers.

Re: Starfox's point:

Yes, you have the details substantially correct. But this ISN'T threadcrapping. Its showing that there are RPGs that handle HP splitting pretty well, and that professional designers with as much experience as the 5Ed team should be able to do as good or better than what has gone before, if they so chose to do.

As for its swinginess...

Well, I'd expect to feel worse from an attack that did 30 Stun that also blew a hole in my shoulder than one that did the same 30 Stun that gave me a little internal bleeding. The latter may need an ice pack later, the former probably requires a trip to the ER.

 

[I'm A Banana]

This is an impossible item. If it really is balanced with other options, there is no way it could match a central ability of a healing class. Either that, or the Next class system would have to look VERY different than earlier class system, with much grater part of each characters power residing in optional abilities, such as feats.

Well, you're not NC, but I'm game.

So, the conceit of the item is that it is balanced with other items and retains something effectively identical to the cleric's magical healing ability. That's the nature of the thought experiment: how does the nature of the location of the option change the dynamic of the mechanic? I don't agree that this item existing would necessarily change the class dynamics in NEXT, since this item existing doesn't speak at all to what may or may not be in a class system.

 

[Obryn]

The "with similar investment" is the key bit.
Yeah, if you're playing a warlord and you sink all your powers and feats into being a healer you'll be a better healer than a cleric who did not. However, if a cleric (or another class) does the same then you're right back to being a poor healer. You have to exclude feats and powers because they're neutral. Things have to be treated the same to compare. If you give the warlord a dozen feats to make them a better healer then you should give the shaman, bard, and artificer comparable feats. If the warlord is the best healer in the game because of its feat choices than it has the best healing feats in the game and we're suddenly comparing feats and not the class itself.

I still just am not getting this argument. In 3.x and 4e, available class-specific feats are part of a class's overall pool of competency. Much like your power options, it's how you choose to specialize. You can't just analyze a 4e Warlord in isolation of its feat options any more than you can evaluate it outside of its Exploit selections. (Which include, I might point out again, such amazing standouts as Stand the Fallen and Rousing Words.) Feat selections make Fighters stickier, Rogues deadlier, Wizards' spells more difficult to escape, and so on. They're additional class features picked from a list.

You want to analyze it in a vacuum to support your argument, but that vacuum never exists within the system as played.

EDIT: It's similar to races in 4e, too. You can't talk about dwarves without considering Dwarven Weapon Training (and maybe Dwarven Durability). You can't talk about Dragonborn absent their breath-weapon/dragonfear feats. And so on. Maybe this is just moreso in 4e than in 3.x; it certainly has more race/class-exclusive feats than 3.x did.

-O

 

[urLordy]

Aside to vitality/wound tracks, I'm curious why people aren't picking up on adventure design as at least a partial solution towards the healing dependency.

Fantasy stories adapt to protagonists' abilities. If the heroes can't get supernatural healing, the encounters are spaced out accordingly or the heroes pace themselves accordingly or the encounters are of appropriate challenge or there are medkits or potions lying around or teleport circles to a nearby town or a shaman companion or whatnot.

If you have only 3 PCs and the adventure is designed for 6 PCs, then the DM shouldn't hesitate to adjust the campaign accordingly or wait until the 3 PCs at a slightly higher level. If the party lacks a cleric or druid or shaman, and has access to some light healing from potions or rituals or healing kits, I think it's just fine to adjust the adventure. And if the party does pick up a cleric, just set the adventure to 'Hard' mode.

If the PCs all developed pairs of wings, there would be aerial enemies and dungeons in the sky. And it would all stop when the PCs lose their wings. This is what any RPG has always been about -- adapting to the PCs capabilities. Just bexause a party doesn't have lots of healing, it doesn't spell doom and gloom - it's all relative, isn't it?

 

[urLordy]

Also, the OP references low-magic campaigns like Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser...

Has it occured to anybody that if a healing priest from FR travelled through a magic portal and joined up them, that Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser would then be that much more heroic??

So perhaps Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser have always been operating at "significantly reduced capacity" in their low magic world and they've been doing just fine.