D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[Uchawi]

I believe regardless of what healing is available for any edition, that there should be the ability to change how healing impacts the game, just for the simple fact that some players enjoy a gritty game, others like standard fantasy and others may like "no holds barred" healing. So I hope in the big picture, that WOTC has some secret formula for the potential healing of any class, what is it based on, and how it may be modified. The same applies to class ability in general.

 

[Emerikol]

My notion of natural recovery for purposes of a game is about 1 hp per level per day.

When I talk about non-magical healing, I mean primarily healing that is obviously not meat recovery. A 1d3 healing skill once per day to represent bandaging of wounds is still allowing me to view hit points in that way.

I do agree that the 4hp/level/day is too fast for me but the game is clearly viewing it as medical attention resulting in faster recovery. I do think the rate is way too fast though in my opinion so I'd houserule it for sure. It's not a skill anyone ever took in my games so it didn't become an issue. It is though natural recovery. No one is shouting back hit points. So my dispute with the authors of that rule would not be a martial healing dispute but rather a rate of natural healing dispute.

There are a ton of things the monk does that are far beyond anything we'd call natural. From his high movement speed, quivering palm, immunity to poison, and on and on. The class is rife with supernatural things. So I just lump the healing in with all of that. Many monk powers are considered supernatural even by the 3e system. To be honest, again I never had a 3e monk ever get played.


From the SRD
[h=5]Wholeness of Body (Su)[/h]At 7th level or higher, a monk can heal her own wounds. She can heal a number of hit points of damage equal to twice her current monk level each day, and she can spread this healing out among several uses.

Note the SU. That means supernatural.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm not trying to make a case, really; just lobbing in some info.

I guess I define magic a bit more narrowly, then:

- if "Detect Magic" will pull it, it's magic.
- if an arcane or divine spell or ritual is involved in generating the effect, it's magic.

Supernatural, or fantastic, is a whole other thing; of which magic is but a subset. Psionics are supernatural but are not magic. Ditto troll regeneration, Bardic song, and a whole bunch of other things.

And some classes have built-in access to magic (Clerics, Wizards), some to the supernatural (Bards, Monks, Paladins), and some largely to neither (Fighters, Thieves). Seems simple enough from here.

Lanefan

Clearly given the confusion I should have clarified what I meant by magic. I lump everything a D&D world possesses that a cinematic version of my world does not as magic.

I lump the classes into the same general categories you do.

My point is that the explanation for martial healing is not a supernatural one. It's a defining of hit points in a certain way. Since apparently all through the history of D&D half of us have been playing hit points one way and half another, it behooves us to realize that the sort of martial healing rules put forth by 4e are problematic for a lot of people.

Now. I do firmly believe that non-magical (non-supernatural per our discussion) healing was not a part of the core game prior to 4e. I can't speak for the infinity of splat books in 3e of course. But if you are of the opinion otherwise, then realize that a vast number of people felt as I did about the rules in those days and experienced a definite shock when 4e unleashed martial healing. Part of the revolt that saw half the playerbase abandon 4e was the notion that martial healing was unacceptable.

The interesting part is that this battle is almost entirely waged over the fighter and rogue. It's not like they have to worry about all the other classes all that much. Most people like me can happily play the game with the core 4. The only other class that got regular play in my campaigns over the years is the Paladin. Since they have subclasses, all they'd have to do is get one simple subclass right on the fighter and the rogue and they are home free. They can stop worrying about that group of people with the martial healing issue. It seems so simple to make so many happy.

 

[BryonD]

Correct me if I'm wrong. You want slow non-magical healing right? 3e never had that.

You are wrong. I want exactly 3E healing. I have not said otherwise.
It is "slow" compared to 4E and 5E. But I've repeatedly praised that fact that it takes some real time to heal but remains far faster than reality.

 

[Umbran]

I think though it's not accurate to paint this complaint with that brush if that is what you are doing.

I am raising a point for consideration.

There is a desire for a game without non-magical healing that includes a playerbase that is not tiny.

With the long thread, and multiple posters, it can be difficult to keep the positions of individual straight. I have read about many different desires, and I'm not sure they've all been entirely consistent, and I get the impression that the statements of desires is often incomplete. Sometimes there is talk about "playstyle". Sometimes, there's talk about specific mechanics. Sometimes there's talk about specific fluff. None of these are equivalent.

If you work in software, you'd see this as a customer who seems to ramble a bit about what they want - their thoughts aren't as focused as the designer needs them to be, and often times, that lack of focus is indicative of a lack of understanding of what, ultimately is *needed*, and what is only nice-to-have. Of course, it doesnt' help that we have multiple customers....

"No non-magical healing", by itself, is *trivial* to produce. Overall, "magic" is merely an in-game description of the results of mechanics. Take whatever mechanic you've got, fluff it with some supernatural explanation, and you are done. Is that really *all* you want?

Or, do you want a weapon and armor combat specialist who does not regain hit points on his own at any appreciable rate (magical or otherwise)?

Or, do you want a specific overall general economy of hit points?

BryonD seems more concerned with the general economy of hit points. You say you're interested in the in-game explanation for the hit point gain.

So, again, I have to ask - they have said the system will be flexible, modifiable. How many of the desired modifications does WotC itself need to produce before it is seen to be satisfactory?

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.

Yes, well, I think that's putting the cart before the horse. How do you have a view of hit points outside the context of a specific rule set? Hit points do not exist except as defined by game rules. They are not a real-world thing, nor are they an element of the fiction that inspires the game. Characters do not know about hit points. In-game explanations of hit points are only necessary insofar as they help one make rulings when characters do things that aren't covered by the standard hit point rules. Then, it seems to me that "hit points as 100% meat" makes little sense without an accompanying fatigue mechanic to dump things that aren't really meat-damage onto.

But that's just me. I don't feel so strongly about this that I'll fail to buy/play a game over it.

non-existance of anything support that approach though would be interpreted as an exclusionary attitude and not one of inclusiveness.

Yeah, and that, to me, is where you go off into the hinterlands.

There are *tens of thousands* of potential customers. As a practical matter, it is not realistic to think they'll actively support all their desires right out of the gate. There are just too many things that too many people want - and they *all* claim thier segment is large enough to justify it! Failure to support your baby, no matter how big you think it is, does not alone equate to an exclusionary attitude. Do not ascribe to malice what can adequately explained by other limitations.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Thing is, there's nothing about a view of hps that allows for non-magical healing that prevents the game from being played /without/ non-magical healing. Nothing. Just omit the non-magical healing. Done. It's only if doing so somehow screws up the balance of the game that you have a problem...

The broader view of hps - one that allows for all manner of sources of hp damage, hp restoration, and temp hps - is what 5e will need to embrace in order to have a chance of fulfilling it's promised modularity and inclusiveness.

In fact, speaking of modularity, the original topic:

Modularity isn't just the ability to add or remove things. Human beings, or instance, are hardly modular, but you can remove a gall bladder or spleen without killing them if you really know what you're doing. You could always remove things you didn't want from D&D, or add things you did. There was just no guarantee the patient would survive the operation.

If 5e were to actually be modular, it would be designed from the ground up such that popping bits out of it or adding bits later wouldn't harm the 'health' of the system as a whole. That's actually kinda a tall order. One way to achieve it is to have clear 'touch points' where a 'module' would be slotted in.

For instance, if 5e is to allow for a variety of approaches to healing, without changing the way the game is balanced around so much combat per 'day' (per refresh of neo-Vancian) then the amount of healing available per day can't be varied too wildly. But, the source and nature of that healing could be varied quite a bit by modules. HD would make a good touch point. You have so many HD available per day. In some modules, you spend them whenever you have 5 minutes to take a breather, in another you might have to have them 'triggered' by something - a healing skill check or inspiration or an action on your part or a magical ability. Thus you could let healing be triggered by a variety of things, or only by magic, without disrupting the delicate balance of 'daily' and at-will abilities around the adventuring 'day' of 4 or 5 battles of 5 or 4 rounds each, or whatever it was they settled on.

Divorce recovery of resources from a 'day,' and you'd have even more room for modularity...

 

[Lanefan]

My point is that the explanation for martial healing is not a supernatural one. It's a defining of hit points in a certain way. Since apparently all through the history of D&D half of us have been playing hit points one way and half another, it behooves us to realize that the sort of martial healing rules put forth by 4e are problematic for a lot of people.

Now. I do firmly believe that non-magical (non-supernatural per our discussion) healing was not a part of the core game prior to 4e.

I won't go so far as to flat-out say it wasn't part of the game at all, but it was quite a minor part. A picky difference, to be sure, but relevant.

I can't speak for the infinity of splat books in 3e of course. But if you are of the opinion otherwise, then realize that a vast number of people felt as I did about the rules in those days and experienced a definite shock when 4e unleashed martial healing. Part of the revolt that saw half the playerbase abandon 4e was the notion that martial healing was unacceptable.

4e unleashed all sorts of things we hadn't seen before. Some worked out OK, others didn't; with a large problem being that different groups put different things (and different amounts of those things) into those two categories.

The interesting part is that this battle is almost entirely waged over the fighter and rogue.

Odd, but I've barely seen any reference to the Thief-Assassin-Rogue group at all in these discussions; just the Fighter.

Lanefan

 

[Emerikol]

I am raising a point for consideration.



With the long thread, and multiple posters, it can be difficult to keep the positions of individual straight. I have read about many different desires, and I'm not sure they've all been entirely consistent, and I get the impression that the statements of desires is often incomplete. Sometimes there is talk about "playstyle". Sometimes, there's talk about specific mechanics. Sometimes there's talk about specific fluff. None of these are equivalent.

If you work in software, you'd see this as a customer who seems to ramble a bit about what they want - their thoughts aren't as focused as the designer needs them to be, and often times, that lack of focus is indicative of a lack of understanding of what, ultimately is *needed*, and what is only nice-to-have. Of course, it doesnt' help that we have multiple customers....

"No non-magical healing", by itself, is *trivial* to produce. Overall, "magic" is merely an in-game description of the results of mechanics. Take whatever mechanic you've got, fluff it with some supernatural explanation, and you are done. Is that really *all* you want?

Or, do you want a weapon and armor combat specialist who does not regain hit points on his own at any appreciable rate (magical or otherwise)?

Or, do you want a specific overall general economy of hit points?

BryonD seems more concerned with the general economy of hit points. You say you're interested in the in-game explanation for the hit point gain.

So, again, I have to ask - they have said the system will be flexible, modifiable. How many of the desired modifications does WotC itself need to produce before it is seen to be satisfactory?




Yes, well, I think that's putting the cart before the horse. How do you have a view of hit points outside the context of a specific rule set? Hit points do not exist except as defined by game rules. They are not a real-world thing, nor are they an element of the fiction that inspires the game. Characters do not know about hit points. In-game explanations of hit points are only necessary insofar as they help one make rulings when characters do things that aren't covered by the standard hit point rules. Then, it seems to me that "hit points as 100% meat" makes little sense without an accompanying fatigue mechanic to dump things that aren't really meat-damage onto.

But that's just me. I don't feel so strongly about this that I'll fail to buy/play a game over it.



Yeah, and that, to me, is where you go off into the hinterlands.

There are *tens of thousands* of potential customers. As a practical matter, it is not realistic to think they'll actively support all their desires right out of the gate. There are just too many things that too many people want - and they *all* claim thier segment is large enough to justify it! Failure to support your baby, no matter how big you think it is, does not alone equate to an exclusionary attitude. Do not ascribe to malice what can adequately explained by other limitations.

I want a fighter and rogue that cannot heal themselves.
I want relatively slow natural healing maxing out at level per day.
I do not want any non magical ability that restores hit points in any significant way.

So the above is my configuration of preferences. I feel I got that with every edition except 4e and 5e. 5e is just "so far". The DMG could surprise.me. second wind violates the third requirement.

I did read the basic pdf and I'm really not sure I won't be better off house ruling another edition or a retro clone. I have a very bad case of nostalgia for the D&D brand. So far I'm resisting buying for just that reason. Basically the collector reason instead of the player reason.

If I were designing a D&D game, I'd have made sure to offer multiple options for each baseline fighter power and I'd have made extra sure to avoid martial healing and dissociative mechanics on the warrior subclass. In most cases I'd make sure both passive and active choices were available. I think those efforts alone would eliminate a vast number of individual issues that people have but don't know why.

 

[Savage Wombat]

So the above is my configuration of preferences. I feel I got that with every edition except 4e and 5e. 5e is just "so far". The DMG could surprise.me. second wind violates the third requirement.

So call it a magical power then. Problem gone!

 

[Hussar]

I want a fighter and rogue that cannot heal themselves.
I want relatively slow natural healing maxing out at level per day.
I do not want any non magical ability that restores hit points in any significant way.

So the above is my configuration of preferences. I feel I got that with every edition except 4e and 5e. 5e is just "so far". The DMG could surprise.me. second wind violates the third requirement.
/snip

But, right there. RIGHT THERE, from your own preferences, you have NEVER EVER gotten what you wanted.

3e did not cap natural healing at 1 hp/level/day. Even without skill checks, it was 2 hp/level/day for complete rest. 1 HP/level/day was for 8 hours of rest. A simple skill check doubled that again, to 4 hp/level/day. I mean, this is right there in 3e, so, that edition is out.

2e and 1e healed SLOWER than your stated preferences. You got 1 HP/day, flat.

Never mind that the only reason you can make those claims is because you have chosen to interpret things like monks as inherently magical which they weren't in AD&D. One wonders how you can so blithely ignore 3rd Edition barbarian's rage (which is non-magical, EX) which actually increases your physical stats for short periods of time. How can it be totally unbelievable to gain HP, but, base stats are fine?

Oh, that's right, in all your oft mentioned D&D experience, no one at your table has ever played a barbarian. Just like in earlier editions no one played a monk or used the Heal Non-weapon proficiency. One has to wonder just how you can claim that your play experience is so widespread when you have some pretty large gaps in what's been played at your table.

So, you can claim about how things have changed so much through editions, but, when your own stated preferences have never actually been supported in the rules, it makes it pretty hard to actually take your expectations seriously. No edition of D&D has ever done what you want. Why would you expect 5e to do it?