D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

Another thing about 5e. There are not that many features that send me soaring.

While we differ on a great many things, I do share your sentiment of DDN not "sending you soaring;" I call it "waiting for the wow moment," but it's the same thing.

I do agree with you that the bigger feats and the ability to choose feats or stat bumps are neat. That, along with things like reduced number porn (a.k.a. bounded accuracy), advantage, decoupling skills from classes, and so on all make DDN seem like a really solid system.

At the moment, DDN feels to me like the safe, stable guy that you don't really think about until you get dumped by the hot guy or the bad boy.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I call it "waiting for the wow moment," but it's the same thing.

Do "wow moments" come from the mechanics themselves? Or do they come from stuff *in play*?

If you've been playtesting, and not been wowed, that's fine. But if not... well, maybe we are wired differently, but no *rule* ever gave me a "wow moment".
 


For whatever reason, it seems my exact approach is inconceivable to the devs as an option that many might want.

Or maybe a slightly different take - they can conceive that some may want it, but it seems that the *ABSOLUTE NEED* for the *exact* approach you describe does not seem to be there. They think some other approach - not your *exact* approach - will do for enough people.

Or maybe, they think that if someone is that hung up on a single feature, even if they fixed it, you'd likely find something else to be upset about, so that you wouldn't buy.

Or, maybe there's a plan for it further down the line.

Or, maybe...

There's enough possibilities that I don't think your narrow take on it is justified.
 

I think there is a widely held belief by some that people like myself are seeking a wound and vitality module. Perhaps some people would like that but I'm very much for the simplicity of hit points. Whether it was intended or not, we can debate that another time, I was able in older editions of D&D to play with my view of hit points. It worked well enough and the feel of the game was right. I really don't need or really want anything more in the healing department.

For whatever reason, it seems my exact approach is inconceivable to the devs as an option that many might want.

Another thing about 5e. There are not that many features that send me soaring. I do really like big feats and the option to opt out with a passive +2 to attribute. That is the one innovation I consider great. Most everything else is just okay. I could accept most of it but its not really better than the counterpart in 3e. I do like the emphasis on rulings not rules or DM empowerment but almost any old school game will give you that.

For me it's a rare case anyway where good things can overcome something really bad in a game. The entire philosophy of fast healing is like a poison pill in an otherwise decent game.

Note thats all my opinion value judgment wise and purely my own.

I'm sorry, but, good grief. How much hand holding do you expect? You admit that you had to make changes in earlier edition D&D to match your play style. You could do it fine, but, certainly not out of the box in any edition of the game. They are giving you a mechanical framework that SPECIFICALLY answers all of your play style goals - HP as % meat, slow healing, a way to use second wind mechanics that don't directly interact with wounds, and you're still saying that your point of view isn't supported?

Let me get this straight. You want bog standard HP, which you will then interpret as a % of meat, meaning that second wind cannot heal characters (since that wouldn't really make sense - the whole "wounds closing through grit" issue) and you insist that this MUST be a specific option in the game, no substitutions are possible, before you will play 5e. And because the devs are not providing your specific option, the dev's are the ones firing you as a customer. Is this accurate?

At this point, I'm done. There is absolutely no way that you will ever be satisfied. Because even if they did pick this one option and give you, word for word, what you claim you want, you'd simply pick something else to be bothered about. They are giving you mechanics that 100% support EXACTLY what you claim you want, but, because it's not done in the exact way that you want it, the devs are apparently clueless. Yeah, that's enough of that.
 

I bought every edition of D&D so far. I admit if I had a take back I'd unbuy 4e. I just didn't understand the game well enough.

I really don't understand why it's all that much to ask that martial healing mechanics have an alternate option. It would seem strange if they offered an alternative for some martial healing mechanics and not others. Could it be that martial healing is not on their radar at all and there are other reasons for those other alternate mechanics? It would seem at least possible that they have fully embraced martial healing to the exclusion of other playstyles.

The fighter has a lot of issues. The rogue a few too. So I already would be houseruling a good bit even with a different Second Wind. I just don't see there promise of support for all playstyles being true if there isn't even an option to avoid non magical healing.

Keep in mind here folks that I am not asking for my approach to be the default. Just an option.
 

Clearly here the problem is with the insistence of referring to "martial healing".

We're talking about one power here. So we ignore the problem. Second Wind is the fighter drawing on his quasi-magical "badassery" pool - much like the Ki pool monks have - and wiping away what was previously a bleeding wound as if it were nothing. The ranger looks on, awestruck, and says "I wish I were as badass as you" and the fighter says, "Well, that's what we fighters are best at - fighting." Just like we wanted.

Poof! Problem is gone! No more non-magical healing in the game!
 

I bought every edition of D&D so far. I admit if I had a take back I'd unbuy 4e. I just didn't understand the game well enough.

I really don't understand why it's all that much to ask that martial healing mechanics have an alternate option. It would seem strange if they offered an alternative for some martial healing mechanics and not others. Could it be that martial healing is not on their radar at all and there are other reasons for those other alternate mechanics? It would seem at least possible that they have fully embraced martial healing to the exclusion of other playstyles.

The fighter has a lot of issues. The rogue a few too. So I already would be houseruling a good bit even with a different Second Wind. I just don't see there promise of support for all playstyles being true if there isn't even an option to avoid non magical healing.

Keep in mind here folks that I am not asking for my approach to be the default. Just an option.

But, that's my point. They ARE offering options. They are offering an option that absolutely, 100% fits with your stated preferences - the ability to treat HP as meat and no martial healing. I would be astonished if the wounds/vitality system didn't work the way i'm predicting. Second wind simply restores vitality. As an added bonus, by varying the percentages, you can easily achieve any level of grit you like. The baseline is that HP=Vitality and thus second wind restores HP. In a wounds/vitality system, you simply split things up by whatever ration you want for the pacing of your game and you're good to go.

How are they not giving you what you are asking for?
 

Do "wow moments" come from the mechanics themselves? Or do they come from stuff *in play*?

If you've been playtesting, and not been wowed, that's fine. But if not... well, maybe we are wired differently, but no *rule* ever gave me a "wow moment".

I believe that "wow moments" can come from either mechanics or the play experience. Mechanically, there are some things that give me that moment because of the possibilities that they open up. Naturally, however, it is the experience in play that is the dominant factor. Regrettably, my lack of having a current gaming group has meant that my playtesting efforts have been solo efforts.
 

But they don't need it unless you remove the existing free healing. :)

Existing free healing from resting is slower compared to what magical healing can do for you.

If the PCs are under some time constraint, taking anywhere from a day to a week to rest up would simply be a bad idea.

If your talking about Clerics, that's fine but not every group is lucky enough to have people who enjoy playing the Cleric.
 

Remove ads

Top