D&D 5E Starter Set Character Sheet Revealed!

[Cybit]

Can you link a quote on the self-described board game thing?

Not screaming, dude. Just pointing out that Basic D&D was supposed to be the game without all the fiddly bits. Advanced (the PHB and DMG) were supposed to have those. I plan on using the starter set to introduce noobs to D&D (and RPGs in general). But don't like the idea of a dozen extra, unnecessary, 3/4e bits and pieces, nor do I want to cross them off of the pre-gen character sheet or just create my own.

VS

Certainly

Didn't mean to pick on you with the screaming, but there are a lot of people jumping to somewhat extreme conclusions. For instance...there are a grand total of two things on that character sheet (Action Surge & Second Wind) that are from 3E, and generally speaking, assuming they are not biased against those effects from other sources / reasons, I think you will find people who are brand new to D&D and RPGs as a whole tend to like those types of effects.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/art...-Dungeons-Dragons-With-Designer-Mike-Mearls.2

Relevant passage, emphasis mine:

Bolding: So do you see that being where the Starter Set comes in?
Mearls: Yeah, exactly, because the difference between basic D&D and the starter set is that basic goes from levels 1-5, and it's almost like a board game. You read a few rules, pass out the characters, and you start playing. You think of a game like Settlers [of Catan] or Ticket to Ride: You open it up and within an hour you could be playing it. There's also an element there too with the characters, the pre-gens, a guide into the story of the adventure. Your flaws, your bonds, your traits, are all tied into the story of the adventure. We built those characters so that they have ties that link into the adventure. So there's one character whose backstory is that they were refugees from this town that was overrun by monsters and now they want to go back and reclaim it, and that's a town that shows up in the adventure as a place you go explore. So when the DM says here's this NPC the characters can say "Oh, I know that person" or that's an enemy, or a friend, or an old mentor, to really get people moving with the adventure. So when the players sit down they really have their roles in mind. It shows players it's not just about learning the rules or fighting monsters and stuff, there's the whole roleplaying element of it.

The idea would be that they play the game, and then they see if they like it on a general level. Very few brand new to RPGs as a whole folks are going to care about mechanics like that, because those are very small parts of a much bigger game they're getting their arms around for the first time. If they play it, and they like it, but that part bugs them, then that's where the customization aspect of the game comes into play.

 

[Thaumaturge]

We did it. All. The. Time.

It was actually quite fun. I am thinking of running a 5e game that will require someone to map. We also had a treasurer (kept track of treasure for party and treasure splitting), and note-taker (when needed).

I don't understand.

Everyone keeps using past tense.

Thaumaturge.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I am happy to play a heroic game in which such injuries don't occur to the PCs - like Conan or Aragorn, for instance, they never suffer these severe injuries. And a hit point system is a good way of achieving this. But to project it onto the gameworld as a whole - so that, for instance, when armies of NPCs clash no one ever suffers a debilitating but non-fatal wound - turns the gameworld from something I can recognise and make sense of to something too removed from reality to be worth engaging with.

I guess that's the crux of the disagreement, then, because I consider anything that treats PCs differently from NPCs to be too far removed from reality to be worth engaging with. And not just our reality, but any sort of objective internally-consistent reality must treat PCs and NPCs by the same rules.

That's actually why I would favor bundling all of the specific wounds in with abstract hit points. If an NPC can break a leg, then a PC must also be able to break a leg. That's non-negotiable for me. Yet, an accurate model of that would be a major pain in the bookkeeping, and lead to death spirals, so one possibility is to abstract all broken bones into hit point damage that brings you closer to death rather than reducing your movement speed or giving penalties to your ability checks.

The remaining alternative is a world where pretty much nobody every suffers a serious injury except for rare circumstances - with appropriate penalties when they do show up. And sure, that might also strain belief at times, but it may offend certain sensibilities less so than the previous option.

 

[Mistwell]

The trouble with your suggestion is that it encourages getting into pointless one-sided combats just to get to use this, or acting like the dude from Crank... which would be completely hilarious, I admit, but do we really want people acting like the dude from Crank? I mean, HE sure knew how to get an adrenaline rush...

If that's an actual, serious concern for your table...find another group to play with.

Life is too short to have to deal with powergamers that are that silly about using loopholes in the game to play the system.

Fortunately, I doubt that's a real concern. Punpun and the bag of rats was never really used at people's tables, and I doubt this would be either. It's covered by the common sense rule.

 

[Bawylie]

We did it. All. The. Time.

It was actually quite fun. I am thinking of running a 5e game that will require someone to map. We also had a treasurer (kept track of treasure for party and treasure splitting), and note-taker (when needed).

I was our group's chronicler back in 99/00.

 

[Tony Semana]

If that's an actual, serious concern for your table...find another group to play with.

Life is too short to have to deal with powergamers that are that silly about using loopholes in the game to play the system.

Fortunately, I doubt that's a real concern. Punpun and the bag of rats was never really used at people's tables, and I doubt this would be either. It's covered by the common sense rule.

+1, I neglected to bold common sense in my reply but apparently it is even less common on the interwebs. So there is it again.

 

[Obryn]

I guess that's the crux of the disagreement, then, because I consider anything that treats PCs differently from NPCs to be too far removed from reality to be worth engaging with. And not just our reality, but any sort of objective internally-consistent reality must treat PCs and NPCs by the same rules.

Why?

Game mechanics are just the means through which the in game narrative is constructed. They tell you if the party beat up the orcs, if the fighter jumped a pit, and if the wizard's sleep spell was effective. They don't and can't cover every conceivable fictional event that happens in the game world.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't understand.

Everyone keeps using past tense.

Thaumaturge.

Well my games have been reduced to online recently, because my players either 1) moved, or 2) are lazy gits and don't want to drive. The online games using Roll20 are awesome, but we're using actual DM maps and digital miniatures for it.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Too bad there's, like, eighty hojillion "rabble rabble, Fighters should heal 1 HP per day!" posts here and on the WotC forums that prove you wrong.

Oh, what's that?



Emphasis added, but really the whole post, right from this thread, makes my point for me: nerds need to be special, and that means jocks need to be boring. Geek narrative is rife with Randian philosophy, so this isn't really something I'm pulling out of nowhere. A lot of people have noticed that there's an awful lot of Galt's Gulch around these here parts.

Martial healing, Healing Surges, and the Warlord class along with all of it, was one of the best things to happen to the game, dramatically expanding the scope of what a support character could be within the game mechanics and ludonarrative — expanding the scope of the type of games a DM could run without worrying about party composition making that style impossible — and yet we routinely see histrionic posters going into hysterics over the idea that Fighters might (cue pearl clutching) heal themselves.

Because, most assuredly, this is not a debate about the mechanical balance of Second Wind or Action Surge, despite what Sword of Spirit and others claim, because those same posters will argue in the same breath that Cleric and Wizard spells/day are totally balanced just A-O-K because the DM can just put the pressure on to prevent the party for chain-resting to milk the more powerful abilities. S***ily balanced 3rd level spells like Haste 3-4 times per day? That's fine. 1-4d10+con self-generated healing? PREORDER CANCELED!

I mean, dear god, what if the Fighter rests more than once in a row and gets 2D10 hit points back without a Cleric's help!? The earth will crack open and pour out a tide of ducks!

It is absolutely 100% a projection of personal insecurities that dammit, normal people should be indebted to the special people.

See also: Katana arguments, DM Supremacy Complex, and pretty much every attempted justification of 3rd Edition Wizards/Clerics ever.

Since you specifically mentioned me, I'll take the opportunity to address your assumptions.

First, I don't want natural healing to be 1 hp per day. Far from it. I'm okay with characters healing from zero to full in about 4 or 5 days. I think there are a lot of people that are okay with healing to full in something around a week or two. I'd even venture a guess that that includes the majority of those who dislike inspirational healing. What we dislike is healing zero to full overnight, or within a couple of hours.

Second, I'm not concerned about the mechanical balance of Second Wind, except as it relates to optional modules that might slow healing. If they don't address this specific class feature, then slowing healing creates a very weird lopsidedness, since it won't affect fighters the same way as it will affect other classes. I'm sure the designers will do their best on the healing modules, but I'm not sure they will take into account specific class features like this. Hence my concern.

I actually like Action Surge. I don't feel that it is overpowered. I also like the combat maneuvers of the Battlemaster fighter. It might run contrary to your assumptions, but I like fighters to have "cool things" as the phrase goes.

As far as spellcasters and campaign management to prevent 5 MWD issues I can understand if your preference is not for my style, but it works quite well for my group in creating a setting that feels right to us. Giving classes like fighter Action Surge and other powerful resources they won't have to ration or plan ahead for based on short rests makes them powerhouses with constant effectiveness. I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Have you familiarized yourself with game style theories, such as the distinctions between narrativism and simulationism?

My preferences for D&D are primarily simulationist. This is actually contrary to a lot of my other role-playing, where I tend to prefer a more simulationist/narrativist hybrid.

I don't want to pre-judge your frame of reference, but it sounds as if you are coming from a perspective that fails to recognize the validity of various playstyles, and most importantly the reason for those playstyles. I'm not sure why you feel that simulationism is rooted in some sort of nerd wish-fulfillment, given that many of the people (including myself) to whom you would attribute that mindframe also enjoy playing martial characters with interesting special abilities.

I wouldn't bet on it. Second Wind, and presumably Inspirational Healing if it's in, are major examples of the issues people had with 4th edition. They are mechanics that force you into one very specific playstyle that runs counter to the way a sizeable number of people play.

Yes, this is the issue. If a module can take care of it, that's fine. I'm just concerned that, as a core fighter class option, it will be more or less immune to a simple healing module that doesn't do brain surgery on classes on an individual basis.

It's more a matter of personal preference, but I've found that such things only changed the possible narratives without actually expanding them. After all, fast natural healing plays to a very specific interpretation of hit points - one without a significant physical component - making any narrative that would include such things entirely inappropriate.

Yes.

What issues are you talking about? This is D&D, not Mutants and Masterminds. NPCs and PCs don't use the same rules because the game isn't designed around the same assumptions.

I believe it's been addressed by others, but that isn't necessarily the case. 3e explicitly made that assumption, and I believe it is one of the best things that ever happened to D&D, just like others believe the overt difference in 4e is one of the best things ever to happen to it. I'm not really sure what is being argued about here. The record is pretty clear. It's just a matter of preference, which seems rather a wasted argument.

Huh?

It's OK for mages and clerics to deal damage at range (eg Ray of Frost, Sacred Flame) without this being a "middle finger" to the role of fighters and rangers in the game (as the game's pre-eminent archers). But it's not OK for fighters to have a modest amount of healing?

You may or may not like martial hit point recovery, but niche protection isn't a very strong argument against it, at least in my view.

Whatever techniques will be used to stop players of daily-powered casters from spamming extended rests can presumably be deployed to stop players of fighters from spamming short rests.

The need for such techniques seems a pretty natural consequence of decoupling different PC builds from a uniform recovery cycle.

I'd be fine with a number of ways of handling the issue. The simplest for me would be a rule limiting characters to benefiting from a set number of short rests in a day. Such a rule would allow for a more uniform treatment of short rest based abilities across the classes, and would work well with modules that simply changed or removed that limit, and/or changed the length of time needed for a short rest. Second Wind would still be a bit over the top for me, but I wouldn't have a serious problem with it.

I don't know if Second Wind is an issue if you interpret what a short rest to mean "1 or more hours", not "1 hour multiple times for multiple recharges.

When the argument of 'multiple short rests in a row' came up early in the thread I expected an quick quote of the short rest definition from the playtest rules (pg 23 - How to Play). Instead it took 299 posts (30 pages) before someone actually did, and was ignored by subsequent responses. So I think it's worth reposting jbear:



For questions about what delineates one short rest from another. Well, There are 3 'pillars' of the game; exploration, combat, and interaction. If you haven't done any of those between rests then you haven't stopped resting.

As for the short-rest-second-wind-short-rest-second-wind idea, Second Wind's description specifically cites it's use as a bonus action which, as per one of Mearl's or Rodney's articles, is a specific key-word onto actions (like the rogue's cunning action or two-weapon fighting's second attack) to avoid stacking actions. If you apply that to the reading of Second Wind's description, then it can only be done while in combat.

The problem with this is it destroys our verisimilitude for those who share my desire not to distinguish combat time from non-combat time (a very narrativist concept).

 

[RotGrub]

WHAT? Fighters can now auto heal without magic? That's funny.

I thought 5e was going to be different than 4e.

The first few packages looked very promising. oh well.