D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[BryonD]

I get that. But my question still stands.

You realize how subjective the term "support" is, right? It isn't like there's an industry-standard for the term, or anything.

I'm not going to agree that there is enough wiggle room in "support" to ignore the distinction within the healing debates.
If 1E style HP are not there then the claim was either directly misleading or WotC made a promise and failed to deliver. ( again, big "if")

 

[Emerikol]

Actually... both Emerikol and ByronD were strongly supported in 3e (as long as they disallowed non-core 4 classes)... and they obviously like 3e...

So you can see why they are crying foul. At least I can.

However since that "playstyle" is very, very, very, likely included in the 5e rules (probably DMG optional mod) I'm not sure why they keep on as though the sky were falling.

And if it isn't... seriously how hard is it to just say: No to those handful of small corner case abilities?

At this point, the best bet is to wait on the DMG and see what is available. Maybe Mike Mearls is saying something that we are misinterpreting. It won't be the first time. It seemed to me to be clear but again we will have to wait and see for sure.


Just to elaborate. I admit that I feel the core 4 are more important than a class like the Barbarian. I feel that Mike Mearls or whoever designed the class did so just to irritate me. With one hand they recognized the need for a simple fighter and on the other they put a bunch of stuff on it that I believe *most* people wanting that archetype won't like. If you want to say *many* instead thats fine. They've demonstrated via fighting styles that they understand how to make a certain category contain many options. Even though I did hate DoaM, I was never claiming it was a deal breaker. I thought calling it GWF was a bad decision. I believe they've fixed that now. The reason is that there are other fighting styles.

It would seem to me that more things on the fighter should have been modularized. It would have been pretty easy to provide a "recovery" slot that let you pick from several options at least one of which was not objectionable.

It's popular to claim that amongst the chaos there are too many variables to make everyone happy. I think that is false. I'd be surprised if there are five major issues and those issues can be applied almost universally to every mechanic in the system (where they apply of course). If you were aware of these major mega themes you could easily provide a modular game.

1. Martial healing / Playable game without a healing class (just to express it in terms of both sides)
2. Dissociative/NMU mechanics (NMU is bigger than dissociative and encompasses it for the most part).
3. Active multiple choices round to round for each class archetype.
4. Good optional rules for various minor mechanical flavors like static defenses and minions.

I'm sure someone on the other side can help with #5. There really aren't that many majors though but the philosophy can affect the game all over the place.

 

[Umbran]

I'm not going to agree that there is enough wiggle room in "support" to ignore the distinction within the healing debates.
If 1E style HP are not there then the claim was either directly misleading or WotC made a promise and failed to deliver. ( again, big "if")

Again, not really addressing the issue I'm raising.

Healing, in and of itself, does not define a "playstyle".

 

[BryonD]

Again, not really addressing the issue I'm raising.

Healing, in and of itself, does not define a "playstyle".

OK. I am addressing the issue WotC raised.

 

[theliel]

I'm not going to agree that there is enough wiggle room in "support" to ignore the distinction within the healing debates.
If 1E style HP are not there then the claim was either directly misleading or WotC made a promise and failed to deliver. ( again, big "if")

What, exactly, is 1E style HP? It's not Meat Points, Gygax makes that abundantly clear in his writing of what HP are - and they are not meat points. IIRC the exact quote comes down to "A higher level character now has as many HP as a griffon but obviously cannot sustain the same wounds as a horse sized monster." and goes on to talk about HP being a combination of luck, divine favor and eventually raw grit. When you run out you sustain a 'fatal wound' but not until then.

Is it 1hp/day unless you have a heal bot or potions? And that's your entire playstyle? I gotta say..that's not very specific. Doesn't tell me what you are doing with the game, how you are playing or allow me to think about rules that you might like other than "NO HEALING FOR YOU!"

When I think of the AD&D 'feel' I think "Resource Management/Logistics" game. HP recovery is limited just like weight and time and the object of the game is to get as many 'things of value' (for any given defanition of Value) for the least resource cost (HP/Time/Spells/Lives/Etc.) AD&D and Basic are games of leverage, plotting and hope along with bad dice rolls and dungeons that might contain dragons. Retainers, reaction rolls, morale. Fighting smarter not harder because fighting harder is a suckers game. But that's not because of the low healing rate - it's an emergent property of the entire rules set. Based on that description people can suggest rules tweaks and outright new modules to bolt on to 5E that I may or may not enjoy and if I do not like them I can articulate clear goals to tell them why they don't work for me.

What is your AD&D playstyle? Is it simply 'no one can heal but the cleric'? Because that's....oddly specific and doesn't help anyone determine what you want form the game.

 

[Emerikol]

I realize that healing alone does not constitute an entire playstyle but certain approaches are necessary for some playstyles. Does that make sense?

Maybe an example would help...
Let's suppose that Wotc is enamored with HD and the module they provided in the DMG for my playstyle used HD. Something like 1 HD per day healing or some such. Let's just suppose they deal in some way with Second Wind for the purposes of this discussion.

If they did the above that would indicate that they are striving to provide an option for my playstyle. It would be viewed by me as a gesture of good will. I might then still houserule it to exactly what I want which would be no HD at all but I wouldn't feel like they were evicting my playstyle from the game. Do you see the distinction? It's not about the work to houserule I assure you.

To me second wind does stand out like a sore thumb, and if it went totally unmentioned in the DMG, that would be very puzzling to me. I'd wonder why they don't feel anyone might need an alternative. Now if they give a solid way to interpret Second Wind so that it fits the playstyle that is another thing but again I'm wondering what that could possibly be.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies my position. I want an option in the books for my playstyle even if it's not ideal. I'll houserule that. If no option exists at all then I feel they are ignoring my playstyle and that prompts me to avoid paying them money because they are breaking their promise to be inclusive.

 

[theliel]

I realize that healing alone does not constitute an entire playstyle but certain approaches are necessary for some playstyles. Does that make sense?

Maybe an example would help...
Let's suppose that Wotc is enamored with HD and the module they provided in the DMG for my playstyle used HD. Something like 1 HD per day healing or some such. Let's just suppose they deal in some way with Second Wind for the purposes of this discussion.

If they did the above that would indicate that they are striving to provide an option for my playstyle. It would be viewed by me as a gesture of good will. I might then still houserule it to exactly what I want which would be no HD at all but I wouldn't feel like they were evicting my playstyle from the game. Do you see the distinction? It's not about the work to houserule I assure you.

To me second wind does stand out like a sore thumb, and if it went totally unmentioned in the DMG, that would be very puzzling to me. I'd wonder why they don't feel anyone might need an alternative. Now if they give a solid way to interpret Second Wind so that it fits the playstyle that is another thing but again I'm wondering what that could possibly be.

Anyway, I hope this clarifies my position. I want an option in the books for my playstyle even if it's not ideal. I'll houserule that. If no option exists at all then I feel they are ignoring my playstyle and that prompts me to avoid paying them money because they are breaking their promise to be inclusive.

Ok. So what's the objection to second wind? The fighter fights on through sheer grit as they are the master of battle. Where others would fall they stand up. As noted 5E doesn't do 'source' - there's no 'martial' power source there's just stuff you can do in a world where gigantic non-aerodynamic talking lizards can fly, giant bugs don't suffocate and the dead can rise from the grave.

I'm having difficulty with what you want to achieve - is it the party is always low on HP? That seems like a fairly easy rule to implement - just remove non-rest healing entirely. If it's just you don't seem to feel like anyone but clerics should be able to heal people...that's not really a playstyle. That's just a weird preference.

A playstyle would be 'HP are a depleteable resource that should be scarce.' It's a great thing if you want the old school "GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER! We're all gonna DIE!" vibe. But "Magic healing is still on tap so HPs aren't limited (as long as you have a cleric)" doesn't seem to do generate a type of game or play experience other than 'so who's playing the cleric tonight?'

 

[Obryn]

As I've said, I completely understand and agree that slow healing should be modular.

I feel like this point - the mechanical impact - gets lost when people focus on abstract stuff like the definition of hit points. That's never going to be resolved because it's unresolvable.

 

[theliel]

As I've said, I completely understand and agree that slow healing should be modular.

I feel like this point - the mechanical impact - gets lost when people focus on abstract stuff like the definition of hit points. That's never going to be resolved because it's unresolvable.

That's fair but at this point I think we're going to have to take the Outcome Based approach to understanding Emerikol's objections. What are they looking for as an emergent outcome - because we've been going round and round about specifics enough that it might help to get the 5,000' view as they say instead of getting lost in the weeds.

 

[Emerikol]

Ok. So what's the objection to second wind? The fighter fights on through sheer grit as they are the master of battle. Where others would fall they stand up. As noted 5E doesn't do 'source' - there's no 'martial' power source there's just stuff you can do in a world where gigantic non-aerodynamic talking lizards can fly, giant bugs don't suffocate and the dead can rise from the grave.

I'm having difficulty with what you want to achieve - is it the party is always low on HP? That seems like a fairly easy rule to implement - just remove non-rest healing entirely. If it's just you don't seem to feel like anyone but clerics should be able to heal people...that's not really a playstyle. That's just a weird preference.

A playstyle would be 'HP are a depleteable resource that should be scarce.' It's a great thing if you want the old school "GAME OVER MAN! GAME OVER! We're all gonna DIE!" vibe. But "Magic healing is still on tap so HPs aren't limited (as long as you have a cleric)" doesn't seem to do generate a type of game or play experience other than 'so who's playing the cleric tonight?'

I think my problems with it are immersion and feel. A game has a certain feel based upon the rules you use. I really don't want any fast healing that does not come from a spell caster using magic. I'm not tied specifically to a cleric though. Bards, Rangers, Paladins, etc... can all heal but they call upon magic to do the healing. I just don't go for non-magical healing. It disrupts the narrative and breaks my suspension of disbelief. I realize that you think because a dragon is in the game that I should be able to suspend my belief completely on any other thing. I guess we just differ. There are many fantasy movies full of all kinds of exotic creatures that succeed at the suspension of disbelief test and there are others with the same qualities that fail that test. So I can only guess that acceptance of those things is okay and other things is not okay.

One point maybe is that I want the normal human mundane part to be non-magical. Not because I can't conceive otherwise but because that's just the type of game I like.

Why do some people like apple pie and some like cherry pie and some like both? It's taste. It's hard to argue with a person that their distaste for one or the other is illogical. In my games, I've never played with non-magical healing and I never imagined the damage being done could possibly be healed by non-magical means. My narratives all have to change to fit this new paradigm. I'd rather change games than change my narrative.

To be honest on the rate of recovery of hit points, I'm probably a moderate. At low levels I definitely see it as a scarce resource that is not necessarily topped off every night. As levels advance though I see it becoming less scarce. So my preference really isn't about scarcity though the solutions may intersect. I take issue with HD overnight recover not because it's too fast but because the original of the healing doesn't fit my narrative.