D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[theliel]

I think my problems with it are immersion and feel. A game has a certain feel based upon the rules you use. I really don't want any fast healing that does not come from a spell caster using magic. I'm not tied specifically to a cleric though. Bards, Rangers, Paladins, etc... can all heal but they call upon magic to do the healing. I just don't go for non-magical healing. It disrupts the narrative and breaks my suspension of disbelief. I realize that you think because a dragon is in the game that I should be able to suspend my belief completely on any other thing. I guess we just differ. There are many fantasy movies full of all kinds of exotic creatures that succeed at the suspension of disbelief test and there are others with the same qualities that fail that test. So I can only guess that acceptance of those things is okay and other things is not okay.

One point maybe is that I want the normal human mundane part to be non-magical. Not because I can't conceive otherwise but because that's just the type of game I like.

Why do some people like apple pie and some like cherry pie and some like both? It's taste. It's hard to argue with a person that their distaste for one or the other is illogical. In my games, I've never played with non-magical healing and I never imagined the damage being done could possibly be healed by non-magical means. My narratives all have to change to fit this new paradigm. I'd rather change games than change my narrative.

To be honest on the rate of recovery of hit points, I'm probably a moderate. At low levels I definitely see it as a scarce resource that is not necessarily topped off every night. As levels advance though I see it becoming less scarce. So my preference really isn't about scarcity though the solutions may intersect. I take issue with HD overnight recover not because it's too fast but because the original of the healing doesn't fit my narrative.

Ok. So what I hear you saying is that you don't object to matches, but you object to strike anywhere matches and lighters are jake.

That's not a playstyle. That's a specific preference which is "I don't like non-magical healing" - It doesn't change the amount of HP regeneration available, only who has to provide it.

This is the same as someone stating they are part of a political movement. What is their entire platform? "Strike anywhere matches need to go."

That's a single issue. That makes you just like the single issue voter - unable to be supported in general because no compromise will ever be available. Unless the solution is tailored to your exact specifications you will be upset.

You don't have a platform - you have a very specific requirement.
Again - the person who "Doesn't like Matches. Or lighters" is someone you can have a conversation with. Maybe they've had their house burned down by a fire started by someone with matches. Perhaps they just think the danger is too great. But you can talk about fire reduction, safe zones, where matches might be appropriate and whether lighters need to go. Maybe they just want fires to only be in specific places. These are things that can be crafted towards and worked around.

You just don't like strike anywhere matches. Matches are fine, as long as you bring the box. Because the box is required.

You don't like non-magical healing. Not that there's too much healing in general, only "Non-magical". Cure light wounds potions and wands are OK as well - as long as it's 'magical' healing. That's...the unintended 3.x paradigm in a nutshell. And it has the same issues that people often accuse 4E of having - the party can trivially get back to full health between encounters. The outcome is 'healing is on tap' - having issues with specifics is what houseruling is for. Just don't expect it to be officially supported because the play-style "Full HP between encounters" is supported. I mean...if it is that's great for you but I would expect WotC's answer to be along the lines of "You get the outcome with this dial. You get another outcome with the default dial. If specific details are important for you Rulings not Rules and DM Empowerment."

That's not something a major company is going to be able to accommodate again unless there is a very large number of people that feel the same way and then they'd need to build the game out of it.

And yes - you very well may wish to swtich games - HP isn't conductive to representing actual wounds very well. No amount of 'modularity' is going to get around a core statement of the system (HP is an abstract countdown timer until 'dying' that doesn't represent in any way individual wounds or specific injuries just a gross symbolic abstraction of how 'close' a character is to not being able to carry on). At best the dials can adjust how much or how little HP is regained and when but not make HP something that they aren't.

 

[Umbran]

OK. I am addressing the issue WotC raised.

I know. But just up thread, you said, "Well, the difference is that WotC stated they were going to support the play styles specific to prior editions and that is all I'm asking for."

And my reply is - a healing system alone does not comprise a playstyle. Saying the healing system isn't there is not the same as saying the overall playstyle is not supported. The healing is in the context of a lot of other mechanics, adventure design, and other factors.

So, if what you really need is a specific style of healing, that's fine. But let's just be clear of what we are asking for. Identify the results in play we want to see before we worry about specifics of mechanics.

I realize that healing alone does not constitute an entire playstyle but certain approaches are necessary for some playstyles. Does that make sense?

The adage, "There's more than one way to skin a cat," comes to mind. I think we are strongly tempted to think that a specific mechanic is required, but I am not at all convinced this is the case as often as we think it is.

In software (and, I presume, other places where something must be designed), there's a well known phenomenon. When you ask a customer what their problem is, they don't identify the problem. They instead identify their preferred solution. Sometimes their preferred solution will work. Sometimes it won't. Even more often, something other than their preferred solution will fill the actual need, more quickly and easily. Everyone thinks they know what they need, but empirically, this is not the case.

We are also prone to making Perfect the enemy of Good. We make this huge list of requirements, each of which is absolutely required, without which we Cannot Be Happy. And we rapidly find we have pre-specified ourselves out of a game!

 

[theliel]

The adage, "There's more than one way to skin a cat," comes to mind. I think we are strongly tempted to think that a specific mechanic is required, but I am not at all convinced this is the case as often as we think it is.

In software (and, I presume, other places where something must be designed), there's a well known phenomenon. When you ask a customer what their problem is, they don't identify the problem. They instead identify their preferred solution. Sometimes their preferred solution will work. Sometimes it won't. Even more often, something other than their preferred solution will fill the actual need, more quickly and easily. Everyone thinks they know what they need, but empirically, this is not the case.

We are also prone to making Perfect the enemy of Good. We make this huge list of requirements, each of which is absolutely required, without which we Cannot Be Happy. And we rapidly find we have pre-specified ourselves out of a game!

..or I could let Umbran deliver a more succinct answer making the same points.

 

[Emerikol]

That's not something a major company is going to be able to accommodate again unless there is a very large number of people that feel the same way and then they'd need to build the game out of it.

The playstyle would be those that include the proportional hit point definition. Every hit is a hit and does some meat damage even if it's a fraction of a hit point. The rest is the characters ability to mitigate the greater damage that was possible. At 1st level he couldn't keep that 20 hit point attack from killing him but at 20th level it's not a problem. Still did some damage though.

I believe enough people, very large is probably appropriate, feel like I do about hit points. I'm not saying it's the majority though. Well enough to allow for an option. I think the devs have gotten those wanting slow recovery for gritty reasons with those not wanting non-magical healing on principle. I mean there is overlap of course but not in all cases. I know people who basically have wands of cure light wounds and heal up after every single battle let along every single night. They don't want martial healing either though. The reason is how it forces them to see hit points. They don't see them in a way that allows for martial healing. For the sake of avoiding a long argument, I'd just say take it on faith they feel that way and aren't going to change their view.


Here is a thought experiment.
1. Assume you get exactly the number of hit points you get at 1st level multiplied by 10.
2. Enemies get all of their damage multiplied by 10.

So at first level essentially nothing has changed. Now as we level up add this rule.
3. Divide all incoming damage by your level.

So if a ogre normally does 2d8 then he now does 2d8 * 10 / level. Your hit points would then never change. At that point your hit points would be viewed as 100% meat. All of the extra hit points would be removed and become part of that dividing factor that mitigates incoming damage.

So if you do take an injury, it of course requires real medical healing because the hit points are all meat. You multiply the healing spell outcome by 10 as well.

The above system models hit points in the same way that the hit point systems of D&D did in the past (except for the nod to proportional healing there at the end which is my own innovation). The system is different but the modeled results are the same. I believe it's easier to use the existing hit point system and interpret it proportionally than to use the divide by level system.

 

[BryonD]

I know. But just up thread, you said, "Well, the difference is that WotC stated they were going to support the play styles specific to prior editions and that is all I'm asking for."

And my reply is - a healing system alone does not comprise a playstyle. Saying the healing system isn't there is not the same as saying the overall playstyle is not supported. The healing is in the context of a lot of other mechanics, adventure design, and other factors.

An engine isn't a car but you can't have a car without an engine.
The specific style of 3E was promised. 3E HP "alone" clearly don't define "3E style", but is is impossible to meet 3E style without inclusion of that element.

So I agree that simply providing the healing system will not keep the promise. But failing to provide the healing system will eliminate the possibility of providing the playstyle.

 

[BryonD]

What, exactly, is 1E style HP?

I've recently gone through a couple explanations of that. It is off-topic here to go through that yet again. The topic here is intent.

I'm sure you can easily find my recent posts through my profile.

 

[BryonD]

That's not something a major company is going to be able to accommodate again unless there is a very large number of people that feel the same way and then they'd need to build the game out of it.

This is the kind of comment I was laughing about a day or two ago.
We are seeing history repeat itself with declarations about how excluding certain groups can't possibly be a problem.

It can be.

Maybe this time there is enough appeal that it won't. I do think they have thrown a bigger net than last time. But they can still fail.

 

[theliel]

The above system models hit points in the same way that the hit point systems of D&D did in the past (except for the nod to proportional healing there at the end which is my own innovation). The system is different but the modeled results are the same. I believe it's easier to use the existing hit point system and interpret it proportionally than to use the divide by level system.

Please do not make me quote the AD&D Players guide because that is not, in any way, how the Hit Point system worked in the past. A orc did 1dx+x damage no matter your level. If you were a 10th level Fighter with 60HP you dodged slightly and were fine, just slightly closer to death - eventually a horde of low level enemies would wear you down and finish you just as Crom demands! If you were a first level rouge with 4 HP you were at serious risk of taking a blow, at the very least you were going to not going to be able to take another one of those.

The entire 3 paragraphs from Gygax himself literally call your method lunacy. Was Gary engaging in some BadWrongFun? Sure, but it was the 70's right - he prolly didn't even have the concept of dismissing another playstyle as a thing other than 'you aren't playing the game the way I wrote it'.

But what you describe has not existed in any edition of D&D to date. It's an interesting system and I'd be intruiged to see how it played out - especially since you would now need to modify the amount healed by level since everything is proportional and 8 HP to a 80 HP fighter is 10% while 8 HP to an 8 HP fighter is 100% healed but it might be one to look at.

 

[theliel]

This is the kind of comment I was laughing about a day or two ago.
We are seeing history repeat itself with declarations about how excluding certain groups can't possibly be a problem.

It can be.

Maybe this time there is enough appeal that it won't. I do think they have thrown a bigger net than last time. But they can still fail.

I will say that based on Emerikol's last post what he wants in terms of what HP are and how healing works isn't 'AD&D' or D&D as it has been ever written.

As to 'Appease all Playstyles' I'm pretty sure the consensus is that it was a sysaphian task to begin with - Failure is assured the only question is how noble the attempt.

 

[theliel]

An engine isn't a car but you can't have a car without an engine.
The specific style of 3E was promised. 3E HP "alone" clearly don't define "3E style", but is is impossible to meet 3E style without inclusion of that element.

So I agree that simply providing the healing system will not keep the promise. But failing to provide the healing system will eliminate the possibility of providing the playstyle.

That doesn't mean you need an Internal Combustion Engine in that car - you could go with Flywheel, you could go with Fuel Cell or Electric.

Is your target to have x miles of range or achieve a speed of x miles an hour? This is why requirements usually have Use Cases with them - What is feature Y supposed to do, exactly? Because in general there are usually three good answers, five marginal ones and an untold number of bad answers to pick from and sometimes you pick the marginal one that makes the other requirements workout.