D&D 5E 2/25/2013 L&L: This Week in D&D

[pemerton]

Just looking at Rope Trick in the D&Dnext spell list. It is available at third level and lasts for one hour. Assuming a party of 4 PCs, that is 12 hp worth of healing (distributed across the party). The 2nd level Cure spell heals 2d8+4, or 13 hp worth (but on a single target).

This is an example of ingame time mattering as a resource - the more you scale the heal rate up or down, the better or worse Rope Trick becomes in comparison to clerical healing. (Assuming that the duration of Rope Trick is held constant.)

 

[FireLance]

Just looking at Rope Trick in the D&Dnext spell list. It is available at third level and lasts for one hour. Assuming a party of 4 PCs, that is 12 hp worth of healing (distributed across the party). The 2nd level Cure spell heals 2d8+4, or 13 hp worth (but on a single target).

Mind you, that's at 3rd level. At 5th level, that's 5 hp per PC, or 20 hp for a party of 4 PCs.

Then again, rope trick is only useful if the party can't find a safe place to rest for an hour in the first place. If they can, they can recover 1 hp per level each, no magic necessary.

 

[Ratskinner]

That can work - I use a version of it in my 4e game, for instance - but it helps to be explicit about it, so GMs know what they have to do to make the game work!

In their defense, we aren't actually viewing the DMG text on the subject, just whatever rules they want us to playtest at the moment.

Which is what I keep telling myself about any number of things.

 

[pemerton]

Mind you, that's at 3rd level. At 5th level, that's 5 hp per PC, or 20 hp for a party of 4 PCs.

Quadratic wizard for the win!

 

[Li Shenron]

I would like [MENTION=697]mearls[/MENTION] to explain why he favors such an incredibly fast healing rate. They must have some reason for this to keep pushing for it in the face of all the people who want much slower healing. Just explain what it is and maybe you will sell us on it.

I think Mearls is looking for a fast healing option for Basic, which needs it as simple as possible, and this proposal is close enough to the simplest possibility.

At the same time, it's a super-easy drop-in rule: want fast healing? use this simple rule; want slow healing? don't use this rule.

Generally speaking 5e absolutely needs as many drop-in rules as possible. Every rule that isn't easy to drop in the game or otherwise ignore, because it has dependencies to other rules for instance, it's an obstacle to the modularity principle.

 

[Balesir]

I'm not a fan of any of these approaches because they're not traditionally the way D&D has handled it. These are only solutions if you think there is a need for balance at all, which I do not. I'm not looking for a fixed "recharge" schedule that's not directly tied to ingame time, whether or not ingame time has any other effect. I don't use XP in my games, haven't for decades. It's a poor way to measure progress in a game.

So, healing should be done X way because that's how it was "traditionally" done, but "traditional" XP we can get rid of because you think it's a "poor way to measure progress". Got it. I think

The tension created between continue or rest I find enjoyable in games. Do we rest because the Wiz is out of spells? Do we rest because the Cleric can't heal anymore today and the fighter is down HP? Do we rest because half the party is out of resources? These conflicts add to the dynamics of the game and make the game interesting for me. If everyone is on the same schedule it becomes boring. I want discussion and planning at the table. I want resource management to matter and I want it to matter to players in different ways reflected by classes and how players play those classes.

What tension? If in-game-time is not a resource that means anything, then there is no tension. The logical apporach becomes "rest up whenever you have any resources to regain at all", because (re)gaining one resource for no resource cost is a bargain!

Some people have a problem with it and resolve the issue with a 15 minute adventuring day. Those players/groups are a different type of player than myself, who has never experienced the 15 minutes adventuring day. It isn't logical to rest when everyone's perfectly healthy and ready to go, just because a few characters are out of spells. Just be more careful and plan. That's fun. That's exciting. That's why I play D&D instead of other games where it's not an issue.

It's only "an issue" if stopping to rest and recover resources actually has any cost. If in-game-time is not a resource, then there is no cost and the "5 minute adventuring day" becomes a logical thing to do. That was always exactly its problem - it's the (only) rational approach as long as in-game-time has no value as a resource. You can pretend that in-game-time matters as much as you like, but as long as resting is "free" it's an irrational way to play the characters. Ask me, IRL, whether I'll take a risk and push on with a hazardous task while tired, hungry and sick or take a rest and recover somewhat, if resting is an available option and there's no real hurry, I'm going to rest every single time. To do otherwise would be irrational (and not at all sensible! ).

It isn't poor design, it's a deliberate conflict of priorities and it's a wonderful thing in an RPG. Which is also why I favor classes using different an unique mechanics. I'm all for an AEDU designed class to adventure alongside a daily recharging caster and an swing the sword endless fighter. As long as the conflict of priorities exist to create tension within the story, I'm good with it. Balancing is the issue across classes but not using a single fixed mechanic that affects all classes.

But there is no conflict of priorities, class balance or no class balance, unless recharging is actually something that has a cost. Otherwise the fighter should be fine with resting whenever the wizard is down a spell, and the wizard will rationally be fine with resting whenever the fighter is down a few hps.

As soon as resting has a cost, all of that changes. THEN it becomes a matter of hard choices, conflicting priorities and carefully judged decisions. THAT's why I want it made clear what role and value in-game-time is supposed to have - balance or no balance.

 

[sheadunne]

So, healing should be done X way because that's how it was "traditionally" done, but "traditional" XP we can get rid of because you think it's a "poor way to measure progress". Got it. I think

I don't believe I said to get rid of XP. I said I don't use it and why. I'm perfectly fine with XP I just don't think the game should make decisions about it other than when you level.

What tension? If in-game-time is not a resource that means anything, then there is no tension. The logical apporach becomes "rest up whenever you have any resources to regain at all", because (re)gaining one resource for no resource cost is a bargain!

It's only "an issue" if stopping to rest and recover resources actually has any cost. If in-game-time is not a resource, then there is no cost and the "5 minute adventuring day" becomes a logical thing to do. That was always exactly its problem - it's the (only) rational approach as long as in-game-time has no value as a resource. You can pretend that in-game-time matters as much as you like, but as long as resting is "free" it's an irrational way to play the characters. Ask me, IRL, whether I'll take a risk and push on with a hazardous task while tired, hungry and sick or take a rest and recover somewhat, if resting is an available option and there's no real hurry, I'm going to rest every single time. To do otherwise would be irrational (and not at all sensible! ).

But there is no conflict of priorities, class balance or no class balance, unless recharging is actually something that has a cost. Otherwise the fighter should be fine with resting whenever the wizard is down a spell, and the wizard will rationally be fine with resting whenever the fighter is down a few hps.

As soon as resting has a cost, all of that changes. THEN it becomes a matter of hard choices, conflicting priorities and carefully judged decisions. THAT's why I want it made clear what role and value in-game-time is supposed to have - balance or no balance.

I keep hearing this, but don't buy it. Perhaps because I've never experienced it. The cost of recharging traditionally has been time. You have to wait. Yes wait. Not hand waved time, but actual roleplaying time. Spells are regained 1/24 hours. If you need to rest after 8 hours of adventuring, you're still not getting your spells back anytime soon. And yes, I role-play recovery. If you're sitting around for 8 hours, stuff's going to happen. The world keeps on turning.

I enjoy having RP as a cost for G. I guess we'll just have to disagree. And that's okay.

 

[erf_beto]

For me, it wouldn't take much to address this whole healing issue.

"Unless severely wounded, PCs recover a percentage of their total Hit Points over a period of time stipulated by the Dungeon Master. For instance: 10% for each 8 hours of rest. Severe wounds reduce your maximum HP until treated with an appropriate skill, item or spell."

 

[Balesir]

I keep hearing this, but don't buy it. Perhaps because I've never experienced it. The cost of recharging traditionally has been time. You have to wait. Yes wait. Not hand waved time, but actual roleplaying time.

You roleplay resting for 8 hours?? Wow. That's one way to add a cost, I suppose!

 

[sheadunne]

You roleplay resting for 8 hours?? Wow. That's one way to add a cost, I suppose!

Yep! And they're not allowed to go home until their characters are finished resting! No bathroom breaks either! haha