D&D 5E 2/18/13 L&L column

[I'm A Banana]

I think I might be twigging to one of the big differences, here...lets see...

Effective at what though? This is my disconnect. If you value party stamina, play a Cleric. If you want to be effective in other areas, play a class that enhances the party in that area.

The thing to realize here is that the core D&D gameplay for a lot of people is "Risk character death for XP and treasure."

If a cleric alone prevents character death, then it affects that risk that is central to the gameplay -- it fundamentally alters the challenge level of the game, simply with one class. So that class becomes something that someone who plays D&D in this way is going to need, if they want to get the most bang for their buck. Or, put another way, playing without it is deliberately sacrificing party efficiency.

The disconnect seems to be that a good chunk of groups never really played D&D that way, and so affecting character death didn't really add or subtract anything. But we can't assume that newbies will play D&D this way. Because they may play it as "risk character death for XP and GP," too, I feel that we need to make the basic game such that if they have this playstyle, that they aren't pressured into taking a cleric, since a cleric lowers that risk.

XP is, furthermore, a measure of how a character gets toward achieving their goals. If the party has 1000 XP until they gain the next level, the party that covers 500 XP between recharges is going to be performing better than the party that covers 450 XP. Regardless of a character's other goals, XP is a constant goal, and it is used to measure other goals (in an old-school XP = GP game, it's a measure of the haul you bring back; in a narrative XP = awarded for time game, it's a measure of how long your character has been around and how much "screen time" they've recieved; in a 3e/4e XP = Monsters game, it's a measure of how many beasts you've slain).

That is, the group with the cleric can go through 5 combats, and then rest. The group without one can go through 4, rest naturally (skip time), and get into another 1.

This is an issue, because Party A earned more XP between their rests than Party B, and so accomplished more of their goals. If the adventure involves about 20 combats, Party A is going to finish it in four recharges, while Party B is going to need 5. Party A is thus better at finishing adventures than Party B. They face less of a challenge. They gain levels faster. They require fewer die rolls in between their rewards. In a game that is played as "risk character death for XP and treasure," they've become obviously better, risking less death and being awarded more XP and treasure.

 

[Abraxas]

This is an issue, because Party A earned more XP between their rests than Party B, and so accomplished more of their goals. If the adventure involves about 20 combats, Party A is going to finish it in four recharges, while Party B is going to need 5. Party A is thus better at finishing adventures than Party B. They face less of a challenge. They gain levels faster. They require fewer die rolls in between their rewards. In a game that is played as "risk character death for XP and treasure," they've become obviously better, risking less death and being awarded more XP and treasure.

in the above Party A hasn't faced less of a challenge - they have faced 20 combats just as Party B has faced 20 combats (assuming combats that don't specifically hinge on something like being able to turn undead). Party A has risked the same amount of death as Party B. Party A have made the same number of die rolls in those 20 combats as Party B.

Presumably those combats took the same amount of real time to play out. They may have taken less in "in game" time to do it, but they don't gain levels faster in player time. They are only more efficient in "in game" time - and like other posters have said, why exactly is that important?

I've brought many new players into the game over the years (all editions) and I think the pressure to play a specific class is primarily caused by the attitudes of the person who is helping the new player get started. When I start new players I always let them tell me what they want to do with their character and then we find a class that lets them do that. In those instances there is no pressure to play any one class and the DM just rolls with it. However, I have seen new players brought in by other experienced players who get the "we need W, X, Y and Z classes covered and W, Y and Z have already been chosen" spiel. Those players are pressured into playing class X.

I don't think "will we have 4 combats between recharges or 5" is as great a pressure to play a specific class as you seem to believe.

 

[Balesir]

And that's not bad design, it's the process Apple uses in all their design decisions (and also why sometimes they fail mechanically and achieve successfully). Continuing with that line of thinking, in the 1980s everyone thought that Jobs' refusal to license the Mac OS was a horrible idea (after all Microsoft was doing it and dominating the market) and yet, ten years later when Jobs returned to Apple, using the same closed system mentality, showed that the idea worked and now it's in the top three companies of all time.

That's an interesting observation. Something I have found hard to understand with the anti-4e arguments is that the opposers don't seem to know what sort of game they actually want in many cases; that makes some sense if what they want is an aesthetic feel instead of some identifiable game features. This fits, too, with the fact that I hardly touch any product by Apple. I mean, they're very pretty and all, but they insist on deliberately borking them to keep them a "closed system" - blegh! They won't even put a USB port in their tablets, FFS - give me my Asus (with click-on keyboard incorporating extra battery) with its SD card slot and USB port any day.

Maybe it's because I'm an engineer; I prefer proper standards, like screw threads that have standard pitches so you can find and use one anywhere, USB connections so you can plug your music into a stereo amplifier or your car and file formats so that you can read your files on any compatible doodad anywhere.

I guess my studies in economics just reinforce this. Apple wants to seal a monopoly; open standards mean open competition.

in the above Party A hasn't faced less of a challenge - they have faced 20 combats just as Party B has faced 20 combats (assuming combats that don't specifically hinge on something like being able to turn undead). Party A has risked the same amount of death as Party B. Party A have made the same number of die rolls in those 20 combats as Party B.

I think it depends on play tropes, to an extent. It certainly used to be a standard thing in our play that travelling to and from the dungeon took game time and risked an encounter both ways. On the way there, it's not a big deal, but on the way back can be deadly. This makes it advisable to leave one "spare encounter" that you have the resources to cope with as you head for home - just in case you get that random encounter on the way back.

Looking at the 4/5 encounters between rests with these assumptions it starts to get more extreme. With the "5 fight" party you get 4 encounters and then head home - but the 4 encounter party gets only 3. Add in the (fairly common) idea that the monsters reorganise and reinforce when you are away for a long rest, and the "4 fight" party can end up with a very substantially harder time completing the adventure.

 

[Abraxas]

Looking at the 4/5 encounters between rests with these assumptions it starts to get more extreme. With the "5 fight" party you get 4 encounters and then head home - but the 4 encounter party gets only 3. Add in the (fairly common) idea that the monsters reorganise and reinforce when you are away for a long rest, and the "4 fight" party can end up with a very substantially harder time completing the adventure.

They will also end up with more experience - if every rest period generates another encounter.

 

[Balesir]

They will also end up with more experience - if every rest period generates another encounter.

True - if experience relates to monsters defeated. If xp comes from treasure, as in AD&D, however, this advantage evaporates, leaving only a disadvantage.

 

[Abraxas]

True - if experience relates to monsters defeated. If xp comes from treasure, as in AD&D, however, this advantage evaporates, leaving only a disadvantage.

Only if the extra encounters have no treasure - which is unlikely IME.

 

[Balesir]

Only if the extra encounters have no treasure - which is unlikely IME.

For wandering monsters and reinforcements to the dungeon it would be rare for them to bring much in the way of extra treasure, IME, but I guess that may vary between GMs...

 

[Libramarian]

If a cleric alone prevents character death

They don't, though. They help to prevent death by attrition, but that's like the easiest way-to-die to otherwise prevent (keep an eye on everybody's HPs and rest more often).

It's very comparable to how if you don't have a *rogue with you to check for traps, then you need to be more paranoid about touching stuff. Or if you don't have a fighter, then you need to be more careful about getting into difficult encounters without proper preparation.

*I really prefer thief to rogue.

 

[Garthanos]

They don't, though. They help to prevent death by attrition, but that's like the easiest way-to-die to otherwise prevent (keep an eye on everybody's HPs and rest more often).

It's very comparable to how if you don't have a thief with you to check for traps, then you need to be more paranoid about touching stuff. Or if you don't have a fighter, then you need to be more careful about getting into difficult encounters without proper preparation.

Except I have a healer in the party and now the party potent enough to enable an additional fight per day... this also means the party can fight monsters twice as powerful.. because the party can take twice as long to take out the enemy hit points.

 

[Libramarian]

Except I have a healer in the party and now the party can fight monsters twice as powerful.. because the party can take twice as long to take out the enemy hit points.

This is where your idea here comes into the picture:

I have an idea cure spells should be of improved efficiency out of comat then there would be a trade of survivability peak performance vs stamina