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

[Libramarian]

From the way I read it they are seriously considering removing the HD mechanic from core.

Yup, this is right.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Requiring healing, I think, is something we want to get away from, even in the Basic game, for all the reasons laid out by other insightful posters here (ie: not forcing a particular class or item to be necessary for play). And it's possible, because healing is only one way you can represent character defenses, and is arguably not even the most interesting way.

But it sounds like what he is saying in the article is this assumption isn't born out by the data. They asked people whether requiring healing was a problem, and most of the responses were that it wasn't. Ultimately they need to do what they think will be most popular. I don't think the game needs to be made for me. But I do know what kind of game I like, and one where you have the classic healing dynamic is very appealing to me. The solutions being offered here and in editions like 4E, just don't have much interest for me as a player or GM. To me, there never was a problem that needed fixing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Also, the great thing about the approach he is proposing is the HD mechanic is still in there, it is just an optional mechanic for those who think healing requirements are an issue. For those of us who may have been disuaded from buying a game with a front loaded HD mechanic in it, it keeps us interested in the game. But it is still there if you want it.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But it sounds like what he is saying in the article is this assumption isn't born out by the data. They asked people whether requiring healing was a problem, and most of the responses were that it wasn't. Ultimately they need to do what they think will be most popular. I don't think the game needs to be made for me. But I do know what kind of game I like, and one where you have the classic healing dynamic is very appealing to me. The solutions being offered here and in editions like 4E, just don't have much interest for me as a player or GM. To me, there never was a problem that needed fixing.

Perhaps. They certainly have better data than I do. I just worry about forcing my newbie players to play a class they don't like just because the designers decided that someone must!, and that anyone not healing is automatically "not basic."

I personally don't want to see someone potentially interested in D&D put off just because the first time they played, someone made them play the healer (and they're not that into being the healer), because someone NEEDS to play the healer. Or things like Healing Kits becoming something that you can't easily get rid of in your games, because the party NEEDS healing. If WotC determines that this is a risk they can take (or that it's a much smaller risk than I'm thinking it is), then I'm certainly not in a place to contradict their extensive survey data. I do know it would suck for some of my new players, though.

 

[Obryn]

Also, the great thing about the approach he is proposing is the HD mechanic is still in there, it is just an optional mechanic for those who think healing requirements are an issue. For those of us who may have been disuaded from buying a game with a front loaded HD mechanic in it, it keeps us interested in the game. But it is still there if you want it.

But if that's not the crowd who cares about balanced encounters, there's a mismatch.

An absence of healing tends to make stuff harder. If your default is geared towards cleric-only, additional healing makes it easier than the baseline. So you're basing default challenge levels on exactly the wrong group.

-O

 

[Libramarian]

I think balanced parties should do better than unbalanced parties. So if you have three fighters, I think you should do better as a group if the fourth player plays a cleric rather than another fighter. But you can adjust things so the difference is within reasonable bounds.

It's all commensurable when it comes to a party's total staying power. If you heal some damage, then you take less damage to the next fight. If you do more damage, then the enemy dies faster and you take less damage to the next fight.

They claimed in one of the google videos that the math stuff is an afterthought because it's so easy for them to tweak, so they should be able to do this

edit:
I guess the complicating factor is the use of healing to spread out damage more evenly across the party, as was brought up by [MENTION=2446]DonAdam[/MENTION].

I think a party without a cleric should be a little less able to do that (I'm wary of perfect balance) but other classes can have the parry or parry-like ally-defending abilities to help pick up the slack on that.

They could bring back random determination of target in mass melee. That's how AD&D emulates a fighter defending their ally. Stick a fighter beside you and they take 50% of the attacks.

 

[TwoSix]

They claimed in one of the google videos that the math stuff is an afterthought because it's so easy for them to tweak, so they should be able to do this

Yea, math is way easier than writing class fluff. That's why the market is so soft for jobs in STEM fields, and the wages for English lit majors are so high.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Perhaps. They certainly have better data than I do. I just worry about forcing my newbie players to play a class they don't like just because the designers decided that someone must!, and that anyone not healing is automatically "not basic."

I personally don't want to see someone potentially interested in D&D put off just because the first time they played, someone made them play the healer (and they're not that into being the healer), because someone NEEDS to play the healer. Or things like Healing Kits becoming something that you can't easily get rid of in your games, because the party NEEDS healing. If WotC determines that this is a risk they can take (or that it's a much smaller risk than I'm thinking it is), then I'm certainly not in a place to contradict their extensive survey data. I do know it would suck for some of my new players, though.

If this was truly an issue for you, I would ask why you were playing Basic in the first place? Why aren't you playing Standard? Considering the very first time you add ANY optional rule to your Basic game it becomes a Standard game anyway... even just a single one... why don't you just add one of the other healing mechanics to your game at the beginning and start at Standard? Then you don't have to worry about them possibly "being stuck" as the Healer?

 

[howandwhy99]

So let's say we have a game in which (on average) 4-6 characters go adventuring and, over the course of the day, their resources are whittled down.

Sometimes (actually quite often) those resources are asymmetrically depleted for one character. This creates a strong incentive for the group as a whole to stop and replenish, decreasing their chances of failing any given challenge and--more importantly--keeping the player of said character engaged rather than on the sidelines.

How do you solve that problem for all groups in a way that doesn't make any one type of character obligatory?

This is an interesting question, so I though I'd give my answer to it.

Let's say there are 4 primary Classes that focus on 4 primary types of Class Challenges. Also, the Abilities for each of these Class are generally limited Per Rest. Some abilities take more or less time to replenish, some don't replenish, and some just decline with fatigue like swinging your axe continuously. These Rest periods are traditionally every 24 hours with penalties accruing if you don't take them. Characters could even potentially exhaust every bit of themselves, if they go without a rest long enough.

As long as the players can choose when to engage and when to avoid challenges, (or at least try to in either case) then they can adventure to their current abilities and resource strengths.

If some, but not all players chooses to use up all or almost all their replenishable resources, then the whole group can seek to avoid the Class Challenges those characters are suited for.

The group doesn't need to stop adventuring or seek a safe place to Rest. They only need to assess their current strengths and weaknesses and adventure as desired. Heck, they could even choose to continue to face challenges to which they aren't currently well suited for.

If there is more than one character of a given class, then the depleted character can serve as support in those Class Challenge - just like anyone else who isn't of the class for the current situation. This offers the opportunity to still shine for those players who saved their strengths from previous challenges.

There is a drop off point where the group as a whole is weak, but possibly one or a few characters are still relatively strong with daily resources. Seeking a place to Rest may be the group's decision, but it should also be possible for the strong characters to split off, if so desired, to seek their own ends. Without the whole team those folks will be significantly less capable, the whole being more than the sum of its parts, but they could still be effective enough to accomplish some goal or gain some treasure.

Lastly, if you play a group of characters where everyone is of the same Class, then the whole group has opted to focus on those particular Class challenges. That's great. That's all dessert all the time as the other food groups aren't what they're looking for. Of course, those challenges will still exist in the world and could be sought met or sought, but the current characters are ill-suited to them. It's not as if a creature of any Class could not partake in another class's challenges. It's just they aren't as adept with their own class's abilities to face these other kinds of challenges. Of course, when faced with unusual challenges folks tend to get creative with what abilities they have, which can lead to some interesting outcomes as well.

A band of halfling thieves is better off avoiding combat with a trio of trolls unless those thieves are seriously high level. However, they could set some traps, hide in tree branches, set off a loud distraction, sneak up and then steal the trolls treasure without too much fuss. If they're spotted, they are probably dinner, if the halflings decide to match up in melee. But they do stand a decent chance of getting away, if they focus on hiding and sneaking out of sight when pursued. If they get creative with their Thief abilities, they might even think of a way to trap the trolls and easily combat them from a safe distance.

 

[Warbringer]

Yea, math is way easier than writing class fluff. That's why the market is so soft for jobs in STEM fields, and the wages for English lit majors are so high.

Yeah, as a modeler who's career is building math simulation for complex problems that statement made me smile.

I think that basic needs to explicitly say..." In the basic game, all hit point damage is explicitly assumed to be wounds that require medial attention or healing. In the standard rules, this assumption is expanded to include morale, luck and inspiration and as such other classes also have access to healing, such as the bard, druid and warlord."

... Otherwise we know what will happen