D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[Thaumaturge]

If they just had 1hp / day healing right now, I'd be happy with it. I might houserule it to level per day but I'd still feel like the non-inspiration camp was getting some love.

I'm asking for clarification:

If they have a sentence in the DMG that says "For a more old school flavor, have characters heal at a rate of 1hp/day", you'll be happy with 5e?

Thaumaturge.

 

[Emerikol]

As noted, that last one is trivial. "Magical" is not a rules-issue. Change the fluff on any healing so that it has some supernatural component, and you're done.

If I had a clean fighter and rogue, I would do the rest of the classes that way. The monk and barbarian are not staples of my world. In fact I've never had a single barbarian ever played and only one monk ever. I have never failed to have a fighter and more often than not I've had two. Fighters are the bread and butter npc of my world. The guards at the gate are fighters. I'm a believer strongly in the class system applies to the world in general. So if I change second wind into a magical power, then I essentially have a large swath of the populace suddenly magical. Again, if second wind were on the battle master and not the warrior all would be well. I could make any subclass with second wind into a magical subclass. I could even come up with some elaborate reason for how these fighters get their magic. I need a basic fighter though and I need a basic rogue too.

But, let us take it for the moment that you don't accept that you should have to re-fluff, that the printed descriptions out of the box must match your requirements. That makes this list pretty specific and restrictive, difficult to meet in a game of magical fantasy adventure with one of the three pillars of the game being "combat". You may be specifying yourself out of a game.

I think given the size of the anti-martial camp that they should have offered alternate powers that you could select in the same way you choose a fighting style. Almost every power on the fighter right now is also dissociative. That is another big issue in the 3e to 4e changeover. By offering a few options, maybe always seeing that one passive choice is available (since they can't seem to discern what is and isn't dissociative in some cases) they could have included a whole set of players that otherwise might love 5e. I know 5e has a lot going for it. I understand why the 4e extremists hate it. It's not 4e. It is a 2e style game. So targeting my playstyle perfectly and then sprinkling in things so obviously objectionable to that playstyle (or at least many in that playstyle) seems insane to me. It wouldn't have taken more than a few hours to add in the options and completely eliminate all the hubbub.

How many times must we say this?

What we have now is *BASIC* D&D. You realize that "Basic" means, "without lots of bells and whistles and choices" right?

And, to be honest, multiple options for each and every baseline power is asking too much, perhaps even in the full game, much less in *BASIC*.

I only reacted because Mike Mearls said there would not be a replacement for Second Wind at all. If the DMG proves him wrong and to be realistic it might as Mike is well known for misspeaking then I'll gladly use the available options.

I'm not demanding everything be perfect. There are major issues in the 3e/4e divide that burned very hot. Martial healing was one. DS mechanics another. When fixing those kinds of things is tremendously easy then it makes you wonder when they don't.

My working theory of the moment is that their entire balancing scheme was predicated upon the party fully healing up every day. They were married to it philosophically and were willing to toss overboard any concerns because it was perhaps too hard in their eyes to do it differently. I'd have been happy if they'd have just provided a warning page and gave us some options anyway. Perhaps just state: we expect parties to fully recover overnight so if you do not embrace that approach (either through extra magic items or our HD approach) then you will have to adjust the difficulty for your groups. They don't even have to do it for me.

 

[Lalato]

I'm asking for clarification:

If they have a sentence in the DMG that says "For a more old school flavor, have characters heal at a rate of 1hp/day", you'll be happy with 5e?

Thaumaturge.

Based on his more longwinded response the answer appears to be... No. At this point, it's really not worth continuing this discussion with him. I appreciate his passion, but I'll never grok where he's coming from.

My guess is that a lot of other people will never grok it either. And it's not that he isn't being clear about what he wants. He's written volumes on it. My brain just works differently... and that's OK. Play what you like... and he obviously likes what he plays. I suggest that people stop trying to convince him of the error of his ways. He's not budging... so let's all talk about something else.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm asking for clarification:

If they have a sentence in the DMG that says "For a more old school flavor, have characters heal at a rate of 1hp/day", you'll be happy with 5e?

Thaumaturge.

Perhaps a paragraph like this....

For more of an old school approach try the following...
1. Ignore hit dice and restore 1hp/day for each long rest.
2. Instead of Second Wind just give the fighter a flat 9 extra hit points. (I've thought about the toughness feat but it's too weak at low level and too strong at high level).
3. If any non-magical class has a non-magical healing power provide a magical explanation or an alternative.


Other power fixes I would like but would probably do myself for the

Fighter
1. Indomitable --> Advantage/Disadvantage on all saves
2. Action Surge --> one use per encounter.
3. Survivor --> For each die of healing you receive you get to add your constitution bonus

Rogue
1. Stroke of Luck --> On any saving throw or attribute check when you roll a 5 or less, you reroll. A second failure requires you to use the original die roll as the result. If the second roll is successful then use it. This is automatic and not a player decision and thus is not dissociative.


I wish they understood the issues better and could provide alternatives that avoided the DS/martial healing issues. In some cases easily. Personally I think the fighter should save really really well anyway so if indomitable is stronger that is fine by me. Action Surge is too. Survivor is probably weaker so that is a counter balance. Course I hate fighters right?

 

[MechaPilot]

I wish they understood the issues better and could provide alternatives that avoided the DS/martial healing issues. In some cases easily. Personally I think the fighter should save really really well anyway so if indomitable is stronger that is fine by me. Action Surge is too. Survivor is probably weaker so that is a counter balance. Course I hate fighters right?

I am saying this without any malice behind it, but I think you mean your issues and not "the issues."

A lot of people have said a lot of things about what "the issues" are, and I think most of the things that have been said are way off the mark. Let's face it, we're the nerds who obsess about this stuff. Most people just don't care whether an ability is dissociative as long as they're having fun playing the game.

 

[Emerikol]

I am saying this without any malice behind it, but I think you mean your issues and not "the issues."

A lot of people have said a lot of things about what "the issues" are, and I think most of the things that have been said are way off the mark. Let's face it, we're the nerds who obsess about this stuff. Most people just don't care whether an ability is dissociative as long as they're having fun playing the game.

You are right in one thing Mecha. I do not have absolute proof that martial healing or DS mechanics are a big issue. My experience at home, at cons, on tons of places on the internet, and on and on give me a lot of confidence that I am not alone in my preferences. That fact that multiple DS mechanic articles got written totally independently of each other makes me think the concept is an issue. So sure I am not 100% sure. If God appeared and offered to give me the real answer and I could put some money on what that answer would be, I'd go straight to the bank to get the biggest loan they'd give me.

There are not just two ways to view things. I have absolute 100% blind study tested proof and I know nothing. There is a lot of space in between those two positions.

So I do believe martial healing and DS mechanics are "issues" that affect a lot of people. We can debate the precise percentage. I won't take anyone seriously who says it's below 10% of the people who care about it. We can argue 10% or 50% but the fact is the solutions are so darned easy it doesn't make sense to disregard even the 10% (if that is all it was) given the rest of the edition appears to be bullseye targeted right at those people.

I mean if wotc did a study of my preferences and then discovered I did not buy 5e I would have to think their marketing department would look for somebody to fire. I am the old school guy they appear to have created to game to attract. They aren't making TD and Tony Vargas and the radical 4e element happy. Those guys are a million miles away from what was done here. They can make me happy just move things a few inches.

 

[MechaPilot]

So I do believe martial healing and DS mechanics are "issues" that affect a lot of people. We can debate the precise percentage. I won't take anyone seriously who says it's below 10% of the people who care about it. We can argue 10% or 50% but the fact is the solutions are so darned easy it doesn't make sense to disregard even the 10% (if that is all it was) given the rest of the edition appears to be bullseye targeted right at those people.

You know, a lot of things have gotten some play as being cited as the reasons that old-school fans didn't adopt 4e, and are then thrown about as being necessary to avoid at all costs in DDN. In all honesty, I think that many of the claims are really only issues for a small part of the larger gaming audience. As I see it, the real issue is "does this allow and support what came before it?"

It's important that both "allow" and "support" are there, because (as I have had to point out to many different people) you could have easily had a vancian-only caster in 4e or an AEDU character in 3e without causing any real problems with the system the game runs off of; meaning that the system did allow those things. The hardest part about it was the lack of support for those concepts which were allowed.

And, it's worth noting that isn't a problem unique to 4e: AD&D 2e had this problem with respect to failing to support in full the very definition of HPs that it offered to its readers; 3e had this problem by failing to support 2e-style MC'ing. Only the breath of it was unique to 4e because of all the changes and innovations.

I mean if wotc did a study of my preferences and then discovered I did not buy 5e I would have to think their marketing department would look for somebody to fire. I am the old school guy they appear to have created to game to attract. They aren't making TD and Tony Vargas and the radical 4e element happy. Those guys are a million miles away from what was done here. They can make me happy just move things a few inches.

If they are within a few inches and if the DMG really will be a hacker's guide to D&D then I call that hitting the mark, especially since the game is supposed to be for fans from a cross-section of past editions. Unless I see certain options in the DMG, or the tools to help me craft certain options, I really can't say with any honesty that DDN is within inches for me. I consider you fortunate that it is within inches for you.

At some point, we all need to recognize that we're all going to have to put in a little work if we want DDN to work for us.

 

[Emerikol]

You know, a lot of things have gotten some play as being cited as the reasons that old-school fans didn't adopt 4e, and are then thrown about as being necessary to avoid at all costs in DDN. In all honesty, I think that many of the claims are really only issues for a small part of the larger gaming audience. As I see it, the real issue is "does this allow and support what came before it?"

I agree that 4e hit a perfect storm in creating a whole slew of objectionable mechanics for somebody. I'm not saying that even totally ignoring me that 5e will do as poorly.

It's important that both "allow" and "support" are there, because (as I have had to point out to many different people) you could have easily had a vancian-only caster in 4e or an AEDU character in 3e without causing any real problems with the system the game runs off of; meaning that the system did allow those things. The hardest part about it was the lack of support for those concepts which were allowed.

I hope you know that I am talking about support and not eliminating the other side. For one, I can guarantee you that 4e people would be tons happier if I had been on the design team and tasked with providing a game for all editions. If I was the owner of D&D, I'm not saying I'd do that because I'm not sure two games wouldn't be easier and better for all parties. But if tasked to do that, my result would be far more favorable for 4e people and that is with me hating 4e. So I am very much pro-options for everyone. I get frustrated when they leave very low hanging fruit on the table like a warlord class but they insist on jamming up the fighter. I don't think 4e people are going to be terribly upset if one subclass of fighter and rogue is clean of DS mechanics and martial healing. If they have their own subclasses all will be good.

I would also fully embrace teaching all the ways you can play D&D and I'd have playstyle sections in the DMG written by proponents of those styles. Hey I'd even let Iserith's playstyle be presented.

And, it's worth noting that isn't a problem unique to 4e: AD&D 2e had this problem with respect to failing to support in full the very definition of HPs that it offered to its readers; 3e had this problem by failing to support 2e-style MC'ing. Only the breath of it was unique to 4e because of all the changes and innovations.

True. I totally agree with you. I never liked multiclassing post 2e. I think the 2e model where you choose your classes in advance and level them all up evenly is the best approach. I'll write you a good houserule once all the rules are out if you like. I think I can come up with something pretty good.

If they are within a few inches and if the DMG really will be a hacker's guide to D&D then I call that hitting the mark, especially since the game is supposed to be for fans from a cross-section of past editions. Unless I see certain options in the DMG, or the tools to help me craft certain options, I really can't say with any honesty that DDN is within inches for me. I consider you fortunate that it is within inches for you.

At some point, we all need to recognize that we're all going to have to put in a little work if we want DDN to work for us.

I think they failed to provide a game for all editions. I don't think the 4e people should be happy with 5e. I mean the true believers. Obviously many people just go with the flow and play the latest edition of D&D. That group is non-trivial in size is my guess.


I'm working on my own game but it's slow going. I can empathize with the devs on that point. From concept to book is a non-trivial task. The only advantage to finishing my own is that I'm done. If I ever do it, I'll have my game for life. I don't need to change games every four or five years. I do want to support 5e as at least a move in the right direction and if the healing looks good in the DMG I will at minimum buy the core 3. I won't do anything until November though for sure.

 

[MechaPilot]

I hope you know that I am talking about support and not eliminating the other side.

I get that you are not talking about elimination of other preferences. I believe that it's your and my commitment to options for a variety of playstyles that has enabled us to have as many civil and productive conversations as we've had.

I just want to clarify that the reason I emphasized that both allowance and support of what came before must be present is because I've seen allowance exist without support (I mentioned a couple examples of this), and allowance without support is frequently treated as if the allowance itself isn't possible (I recall at least one instance where a very pro-4e poster on the WotC forums attempted to argue that a daily-only class being introduced to 4e was for all intents and purposes impossible).

I get frustrated when they leave very low hanging fruit on the table like a warlord class but they insist on jamming up the fighter. I don't think 4e people are going to be terribly upset if one subclass of fighter and rogue is clean of DS mechanics and martial healing. If they have their own subclasses all will be good.

I would also fully embrace teaching all the ways you can play D&D and I'd have playstyle sections in the DMG written by proponents of those styles. Hey I'd even let Iserith's playstyle be presented.

I get frustrated by the low-hanging fruit too, recall how certain I was that a slow-healing module would be in the pdf.

Side rant: I get frustrated by people a LOT. I'm a hopeful person at heart, and I've seen what we can be: the intelligence of Einstein and Hawking, the charity and compassion of Pope Francis and Mother Theresa, the righteous dignity of MLK and Nelson Mandela. Unfortunately, I also see what we are. It's given me a love-hate relationship with people in general, and it's probably at least partly responsible for my frequent bouts of depression (and my periodic contemplation of the sometimes seemingly inevitable ultimate relief of said depression).

True. I totally agree with you. I never liked multiclassing post 2e. I think the 2e model where you choose your classes in advance and level them all up evenly is the best approach. I'll write you a good houserule once all the rules are out if you like. I think I can come up with something pretty good.

I don't really know how much in the way of rules that you need. If you treat it like 2e multiclassing, then you just have all the profs of both (or all three) of your classes and all the appropriate abilities given your level. If you treat it that way, you really only need a rule for determining your HPs, and a rule for altering the xp budgets for encounters. I might start the attempt at xp budget rules by saying that an MC character is worth 1.5 characters (they have more abilities, but they only have so much action economy to use them with).

I think they failed to provide a game for all editions. I don't think the 4e people should be happy with 5e. I mean the true believers. Obviously many people just go with the flow and play the latest edition of D&D. That group is non-trivial in size is my guess.

For me, I think it's still to early to tell if they succeeded or not. It depends not just on the modules that are presented in the DMG but also on how good the advice and tools for hacking the game are. I said to another poster on the WotC forums that modules for what I want would be excellent, but tools that enable me to make the modules that I want could be just as good or better (depending on execution).

 

[Emerikol]

I get that you are not talking about elimination of other preferences. I believe that it's your and my commitment to options for a variety of playstyles that has enabled us to have as many civil and productive conversations as we've had.

I agree. I treasure people on the opposite side who I can have a civil conversation with because that is the best way to learn.

I just want to clarify that the reason I emphasized that both allowance and support of what came before must be present is because I've seen allowance exist without support (I mentioned a couple examples of this), and allowance without support is frequently treated as if the allowance itself isn't possible (I recall at least one instance where a very pro-4e poster on the WotC forums attempted to argue that a daily-only class being introduced to 4e was for all intents and purposes impossible).

Such a person is probably one of those who views the mix of powers as essential to balance. I'd say just don't play that daily only class if that is how you feel but not everyone feels that way.

I get frustrated by the low-hanging fruit too, recall how certain I was that a slow-healing module would be in the pdf.

Side rant: I get frustrated by people a LOT. I'm a hopeful person at heart, and I've seen what we can be: the intelligence of Einstein and Hawking, the charity and compassion of Pope Francis and Mother Theresa, the righteous dignity of MLK and Nelson Mandela. Unfortunately, I also see what we are. It's given me a love-hate relationship with people in general, and it's probably at least partly responsible for my frequent bouts of depression (and my periodic contemplation of the sometimes seemingly inevitable ultimate relief of said depression).

Depression is very dangerous. I've known a lot of people that have it. You definitely need to treat it early because it can lead to "brain damage" that is irreversible as you get older. The vitriol on these boards can also get you down so occasionally taking a break is good for the soul too.

I don't really know how much in the way of rules that you need. If you treat it like 2e multiclassing, then you just have all the profs of both (or all three) of your classes and all the appropriate abilities given your level. If you treat it that way, you really only need a rule for determining your HPs, and a rule for altering the xp budgets for encounters. I might start the attempt at xp budget rules by saying that an MC character is worth 1.5 characters (they have more abilities, but they only have so much action economy to use them with).

Yeah I probably was silly to even suggest it when you've said you already hack games a lot. I was treating you like someone who is inexperienced. Rast beat me to the punch anyway. I believe over on the D&D boards he presented a 2e multiclassing rules system that fits 5e perfectly. It's easy I know and it's what I would have produced myself almost exactly.

For me, I think it's still to early to tell if they succeeded or not. It depends not just on the modules that are presented in the DMG but also on how good the advice and tools for hacking the game are. I said to another poster on the WotC forums that modules for what I want would be excellent, but tools that enable me to make the modules that I want could be just as good or better (depending on execution).

They are going to make a lot of money. They are also going to declare success no matter what. At least until they get to 6e. The defenders will also declare success.

Personally, I'm not sure the kind of success they want is even possible. Pathfinder is not getting killed. Everyone playing Pathfinder used to play D&D. It's simple math. Now I realize overlap exists but it's not total overlap. I believe that D&D is trying for new players which by the way was 4e's stated goal too. I think both 4e and 5e will turn out to have brought in many new players. I think 3e did a lot too. My own personal belief is that the brand new DM and 5 brand new players is a myth from a marketing perspective. If you get them all or none, you wouldn't have much. Most players these days are brought in by other people which actually probably is the best approach.