D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[BryonD]

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.

Two different things here.
First, you have to appeal to "enough". Nothing will ever appeal to everyone. It is the causal disregard for other tastes I find repetitive here.

Second, if a prior edition of D&D was close enough for E, then it will be fine.
If no prior edition of D&D did it, then all bets are off. They didn't say "anything anyone can imagine", they said "all prior editions styles". (the quotations are paraphrased)
It would still be good to appeal to as many as possible, but they won't be failing to keep their word.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

I'm actually familiar with that adage as I'm a programmer by trade myself.

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.

No arguments with this part.

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!

No argument here either.

I think though it's not accurate to paint this complaint with that brush if that is what you are doing. There is a desire for a game without non-magical healing that includes a playerbase that is not tiny. Let's not debate the exact size. I realize this then requires a magic using caster to cover the healing needs of the group and that is something we are willing to accept as the price of our style.

Like I mentioned above, if they present a HD system that achieves the effect that I do not feel that any martial healing is occuring then I will consider that a genuine and valid effort. Even if I still houseruled it down to the original system I'd still feel like they supported my playstyle with that effort.

I do feel though that once someone activates a power of non-magical origin that causes hit points to be restored then that is categorically unacceptable to people with my view of hit points. It would be like telling someone who wants a total on their report that they are getting an average instead. In some cases what the customer wants is clear.

So while I like your examples and agree with the principle behind them I do not believe they apply here for the most part. I have said that any workable solution provided by wotc that covers a non-magical recovery playstyle will meet my need for inclusion in the game. At that point if it needs tweaking I'll meet them half way for sure. The non-existance of anything support that approach though would be interpreted as an exclusionary attitude and not one of inclusiveness.

 

[BryonD]

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.

This particular car DOES need a particular engine.
Again, it is clear that "3E playstyle" includes certain mandatory elements.

You don't have to say you agree with that. A poll of a reasonable independent people would overwhelmingly find it obvious.

 

[Emerikol]

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.

The example I have was intended to show an alternate system that achieved the same effect. The whole reason for that example was to help you understand how I see hit points in the current system. My approach worked just fine from OD&D all the way to 3e. I admit in 3e there may have been some late releases that conflicted but I can ignore splat books just fine. I'm not saying my model is the only possible one. I am saying it is a model that fits the rules. Specifically 1e as that was where the model came from.

Please though don't pretend like you didn't get that I was presenting a thought experiment about the nature of hit points. You are using a very big strawman if you claim I was saying that was the system used. I was just showing how the math in both systems produced the same end result. My thought experiment was there to help you understand how I see the different parts of hit points. All that matters is the rules themselves and my system (not the one above but my real take on hit points) fit the rules in 1e like a glove. The reason? The system was built with that express purpose in mind. Make 1e hit points make sense.

 

[theliel]

This particular car DOES need a particular engine.
Again, it is clear that "3E playstyle" includes certain mandatory elements.

You don't have to say you agree with that. A poll of a reasonable independent people would overwhelmingly find it obvious.

And I'm betting to WotC's mind that's not a playstyle, that's a single minute issue.
If I had to hazard a guess what they would look for in a 3.x playstyle is a list of things that 3.x intentionally encourages - System mastery, purpose built characters and careful resource allocation between designed encounters that are designed to drain a specific amount of resources.
What it did in play - Spells and item charges being the primary resource spent during encounters
And then What to Avoid - HP Damage is the worst form of damage.

"Non-magical Healing" not existing isn't because the game says Only Magic Can Heal it's because the designers didn't put it in when building it. That's it. Only Magic Can Heal isn't furthering the design goals of the edition so WotC very well may disregard it.

It's possible that they even know people find it contentions - they very well may decide that what they have designed achieves the playstyle goals anyway.

Will this matter to 'single issue players' like yourself and Emerikol? Nope. You'll be upset - but that doesn't mean that they are not supporting your playstyle. It means they are supporting your playstyle in a way that you don't like - at least in regards to 3.x

"Cure x Wounds being the only source of healing" isn't a playstyle. It is a workflow requirement that has more in common with "Only Leads can modify comments." What if there are no Leads? What if Supervisors need to modify comments? "Only Leads can modify comments."
As a programmer you would know that what actually should occur is that 'can modify comments is a permissions' and the client can name it whatever they want. You would not hardcode 'Lead' as a profile role unless you were purpose building the program to only ever be used by that client - and that client's current business organization at that.

Since WotC has built a general framework they therefore are going to look at things like 'HP Recovery'. It's clear that they are not differentiating by source.

So as a playstyle you can object to the fast healing (100% after a long rest) and HD (able to heal vast amounts during a short rest) and I would agree - That is a significant portion of a playstyle.
But it's difficult for me to look at "I don't care how much healing there is as long as it's only Magic" because that's not really a core focus of any of the Edition Playstyles.

And unless WotC has recieved feedback different from "I don't want non-magical healing" they are most likely not going to be inclined to deliver in an official product other than "Houserule it." because what they are most likely looking for is an outcome (Healing is rare and powerful) and not a process detail (source of healing). It feels like you're saying "Use Ints only. You can use Short, Long or regular Ints but no Floats. I don't like floats and I don't see the point." Most people are going to shrug, and use Floats when called for.

All WotC have access to are surveys and published materials. I'm going to go out on a limb and say when constructing the playstyle of the earlier editions they will take the playsessions they had, then the official and unofficial adventures and some fan feedback. None of that gaurentees that a specific method of achieving that playstyle will exist - the only thing that they can provide is a package that plays like the old game.

If you have binders full of house rules or very specific modes of play then unless you were personally interviewed by someone making the game and you have very specific ideas about what should or should not be included then I can safely say that you will most likely not feel like they addressed "X Edition" playstyle while WotC believes that they have, in fact, delivered.

To go back to the car analogy they most likely mean "Sports Car" or other specific type of vehicle when they say "Playstyle" and you mean something very, very specific "Ferrari 1986 Testerosa"

As for 'making sense of AD&D hitpoints' - PG 34 of the AD&D Player's Handbook sums it up nicely in the first paragraph. They're an intentional abstraction and not designed to make sense.

 

[Hussar]

3E was not W/VP. I want 3E style.

I'm not saying anyone *owes* me 3E style.
I'm saying I want it. And I'm saying WotC claimed they would offer it.

But, your 3e style wasn't actually supported by 3e either. It's idiosyncratic to a very specific interpretation of the rules that is actually countered a number of times by the rules themselves. IOW, it's something very specific to you and not the system. So, since W/VP actually specifically supports what you claim you want, then what's the problem?

 

[Emerikol]

Are you guys for real? You don't have to be so insulting about your opinion.

If the game could be played without non magical healing and let me assure you it could and enough people want it then its a perfectly valid approach. If you enforce one view of hit points then you will also force out that group of people.

I don't think it will sink wotc by any means. It could easily cost them a million dollars in sales. It seems amazing to me to reject a group of people that is ridiculously easy to make happy.

There are a ton of people who played D&D with my view of hit points. You can hate that fact but it is true.

 

[Hussar]

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.

How is this not a WP/VP system, just with the two rolled into a single number? And, no, this is most certainly not how HP were modelled in the past. Again, 2e allowed you to heal with a proficiency check - no magic at all, although, for some bizarre reason, you were only allowed to do it once per day, talk about dissociative. 1e had the same rule in the Wilderness Survival Guide. Never minding that HP as meat is specifically called out as untrue in 1e.

Please, please, stop trying to appeal to authority for credibility here. The claims you are making have been debunked numerous times. No, HP in D&D have never, ever worked this way. Moldvay Basic D&D defines HP as a purely metagame mechanic - it's not defined as physical damage at all. It's fine to claim that this is what you want. Groovy. But, to keep appealing to earlier editions as if things have changed radically over time in the definitions of HP just isn't true. HP have remained largely the same across editions. The only thing to have changed is how you heal and how fast. But the basic definition of HP hasn't largely changed.

 

[Hussar]

Are you guys for real? You don't have to be so insulting about your opinion.

If the game could be played without non magical healing and let me assure you it could and enough people want it then its a perfectly valid approach. If you enforce one view of hit points then you will also force out that group of people.

I don't think it will sink wotc by any means. It could easily cost them a million dollars in sales. It seems amazing to me to reject a group of people that is ridiculously easy to make happy.

There are a ton of people who played D&D with my view of hit points. You can hate that fact but it is true.

But the game has not had no non-magical healing since OD&D. AD&D had non-magical healing. 2e had non-magical healing. 3e has non-magical healing. 4e has non-magical healing. EVERY EDITION SINCE OD&D has had non-magical healing.

Why are you insisting that they specifically support a play style that has never been supported? They are making you happy. The Wp/Vp system specifically covers EXACTLY what you claim to want. Every single part of your criticism has been covered by a Wp/Vp system. What do you think a Wp/Vp system is?

If you insist on absolutely no non-magical healing, and you refuse to house rule, the only edition that actually supports what you want is OD&D. That's it. Every single edition has non-magical healing, IN CORE. I think that's why you are seeing such frustration from the other side of the fence. What you are asking for has never actually appeared in D&D but you are then claiming that it will "easily cost them a million dollars in sales". You are asking us to believe that a play style, that has never actually been supported in D&D, is so common that it will cost significant amounts of sales if the very, very specific solution (to a problem that has already been resolved, albeit in a different manner) isn't included.

Do you not see how unreasonable these claims are?

 

[Emerikol]

Hussar please list off the non magical healing rules for these games.

Ill address each in kind and show that my interpretation is completely valid.

Otherwise I tire of your ridiculous assertions.