Abilities and Hit Points: Thoughts

[Kinak]

Is this... a bad thing? Nearly every computer video game does this and it does seem to work for them?

I think you make a good point, but I'd still argue it's a bad thing.

Let's start by assuming everyone refreshes to full after each fight, 15 minute work day style. Then you can only challenge the party in the context of one fight.

With the long rest system in place, you can challenge the party with a time sensitive situation (or throwing an extra encounter during rest). I like being able to do that and think it adds a lot to the game.

But being able to convert gold to HP freely, you also need to control gold all the time to make that work properly. You can't just drop in a time sensitive situation and have it work, you also need to make sure the party hasn't stockpiled too many resources.

Which isn't to say I wouldn't restrict access to potions or gold in my home game, but it adds an unnecessary layer of difficulty to DMing. And, since there isn't an equivalent potion to regain spells, my restricting healing potion access is buffing spellcasters compared to your game.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Dausuul]

But juggling your gp resource is a long-term resource management aspect?

-YRUSirius

Only if the supply of gold is so low as to make it a binding constraint on hit point recovery. This is seldom the case, as evidenced by the widespread use of wands of cure light wounds in 3E.

Like I said, D&D is not a computer game. You can't assume tight cash limits in a world where the PCs can go anywhere and do anything. All it takes is one time where the PCs think of some ingenious scheme and score a big haul of loot, and your balanced constraint goes out the window.

 

[YRUSirius]

Only if the supply of gold is so low as to make it a binding constraint on hit point recovery. This is seldom the case, as evidenced by the widespread use of wands of cure light wounds in 3E.

Like I said, D&D is not a computer game. You can't assume tight cash limits in a world where the PCs can go anywhere and do anything. All it takes is one time where the PCs think of some ingenious scheme and score a big haul of loot, and your balanced constraint goes out the window.

You assume that the supply of gold will be a steady thing. This isn't 3E, this is a 'new' game, it's D&D Next.

In a world where PCs can go anywhere and do anything, the world itself can go anywhere and do anything. If the PCs think of some ingenious scheme and score loot the DM and his antagonist can think of some ingenious scheme to rob them. This isn't an argument against my proposition that gp long-term resource managment can be a viable component of a game. If it's tabletop or computer game does not matter. It's both game theory.

-YRUSirius

 

[B.T.]

And this is good. Advancement comes in choices and abilities, not simple numbers. This means that while it's easier to take on a horde of orcs at higher level because you have more special abilities and higher HP, you won't be completely immune to any non-crit like in previous editions. One orc will be no threat at high levels, but one hundred can both still be a threat, and still be defeatable thanks to your abilities.

I don't think it's good, myself. I don't like that characters don't get that much better as they level up, but I understand that's personal preference. I would like to have modest attack bonus and AC gains as characters level up.

 

[B.T.]

And this is good. Advancement comes in choices and abilities, not simple numbers. This means that while it's easier to take on a horde of orcs at higher level because you have more special abilities and higher HP, you won't be completely immune to any non-crit like in previous editions. One orc will be no threat at high levels, but one hundred can both still be a threat, and still be defeatable thanks to your abilities.

I don't think it's good, myself. I don't like that characters don't get that much better as they level up, but I understand that's personal preference. I would like to have modest attack bonus and AC gains as characters level up so that a high-level fighter can cut through a low-level guard in platemail with ease.

 

[TerraDave]

on healing potions: check out herbalism on the "radiant" cleric: that could be a problem. EDIT AND max healing at level 3, are you kidding?

on leveling: they get lots of stuff at higher levels, just not auto bonuses to checks.

 

[Dausuul]

You assume that the supply of gold will be a steady thing.

The steadiness or unsteadiness of the gold supply is not determined by the ruleset. If the players are clever at getting gold, there will be a steady supply of gold, no matter what edition you're playing.

In a world where PCs can go anywhere and do anything, the world itself can go anywhere and do anything. If the PCs think of some ingenious scheme and score loot the DM and his antagonist can think of some ingenious scheme to rob them.

In other words, you expect the DM to go to a lot of extra work, to deprive the PCs of the money they fairly won, purely in order to enforce game balance? Ick.

D&D has resources that are easily controlled by the DM, such as XP. Gold is not one of those resources, because it is part of the game world and subject to the game world's internal logic. There is an element of long-term management, you're correct as far as that goes, but the game cannot and should not assume that the money available to PCs is limited to a particular level. If the party has a stash of 10K gold, then 25 gold pieces for a healing potion is a trivial expense requiring little or no thought.

Again, look to 3E, where a wand of cure light wounds cost 750 gold pieces for 50 charges. In campaigns where you could buy such things off the rack, the long-term management aspect of hit points and injury evaporated as soon as the party could afford one. Then consider the consequences in the larger game world of such easy healing.

This is why I don't want gold to be a major adventuring resource in D&D. Gold should be the currency of interaction with the game world--used for bribes, for strongholds, for hirelings. Adventuring should be primarily about innate PC resources, such as spells and hit points.

 

[YRUSirius]

Again: This is not 3E, this is a NEW game. Don't extrapolate 3E expectations onto D&D Next.

If the PCs try to trick the DM's world into a scheme for lotsa gold (that they clearly fairly won) the DM's world CAN and WILL trick back to try to clearly and fairly get its money back. I mean... where does the money come from afterall?

As you like to pull expectations from earlier editions onto this new thing, how about this: DM were expected to control the flow of XP AND gold for many years. This is absolutely nothing new.

If you as a DM don't control the flow of the spice... er gold, then don't expect this to work, correct. But DMs in earlier editions have done this already.

-YRUSirius

 

[Kinak]

This is why I don't want gold to be a major adventuring resource in D&D. Gold should be the currency of interaction with the game world--used for bribes, for strongholds, for hirelings. Adventuring should be primarily about innate PC resources, such as spells and hit points.

I can't XP anyone right now, but consider this a high-five.

We already have the currency of killing stuff so you can kill bigger stuff. It's called XP. And if everyone can spend gold to make themselves stronger, why would they hire adventurers?

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[YRUSirius]

Cause you can still get killed?

-YRUSirius