D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[Emerikol]

It has been expressly said that a slow-healing module will be in the DMG. So, unless Mearls actually told a bald-faced lie we know that part of Emerikol's want options will be addressed. As for alternate options for second wind and survivor, we can't know until we see the DMG or until someone in the know directly comments on it.

I am only acting on what Mike Mearls said. He said Second Wind would have no replacement. If he is lying or in error or unclear on that point and there is a replacement for Second Wind then I've said I would revise my stance.

I am not though going to buy a game no matter how easy it is for me to houserule it myself that does not offer any support for my playstyle. A lot of games are easy to houserule. I can start with a lot of different base systems and build my houserules on top of those. It would be nice though to know the guy(s) I'm giving the money to for their game don't oppose even the existance of my approach to gaming.

 

[MerricB]

For me, the biggest thing the basic D&D game should give is a good play experience for newcomers.

For us experienced types, I want the DMG to give the options to tweak the game how we like it.

However, I don't want the core game to be compromised by this ability because of a theory that additive is better than subtractive modularity.

Cheers!

 

[Emerikol]

Really? Every review? Every criticism? You don't thing that maybe, just maybe, there might be a bit of confirmation bias there?

Because AFAIK, healing surges, while an issue, were never really a big one. It was used as an example of the problem - namely the whole "dissociated mechanics" schtick, and Heisenburg HP - but it was pretty much always as an example rather than the problem itself.

Since HD so far haven't been decried as dissociated, since it's pretty easy to link them to the narrative, and since they got rid of martial healing, pretty much all the major criticisms have disappeared. So, what's left? Healing rate (extremely easily changed) and Second Wind, which hasn't actually been all that criticised. Most people seen to have no major issues with Second Wind, barring what appears to be a pretty small subset of gamers.

I mean, even on the poll about HP, those that were fine with fighters healing outnumbered those that didn't by two to one. Seems like it's a pretty niche issue.

But what percentage of the people would have to violently hate a mechanic to get them to offer another option that would take them all of half an hour to write?

They actually did change Second Wind to temp hit points. Then after the INTERNAL playtesters said they liked normal better they switched it back. So the surveys were complaining about Second Wind already that they felt motivated to try a different approach.

The devs are likely just clueless when it comes to understanding the real issue. They've demonstrated on other issues like dissociative mechanics that they can take two out and put two in in the same motion. They just don't understand it fully.

Any healing that is not of magical origin that results in a recovery rate faster than normal sleeping (which is either 1hp/day or maybe level/day for "liberals on the issue" like myself) is problematic.

They actually got rid of the Warlord supposedly as a response to this feeling on hit points. Give me a clean fighter with at least an option for my playstyle and I'd be happy if there were twenty warlord variants. I would ban them all in my game but the overall game is not lacking even a simple core 4 fighter and rogue with options for my approach. To be honest, I never need more than the core 4. Other than Paladin, I doubt I've seen many classes played at all in my campaign besides the core 4.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am only acting on what Mike Mearls said. He said Second Wind would have no replacement. If he is lying or in error or unclear on that point and there is a replacement for Second Wind then I've said I would revise my stance.

Given how often Mearls is unclear about what people are asking/saying, I'd actually be very unsurprised if there was an optional rule in the DMG which interacted with Second Wind in such a way as to make it less objectionable to you, even if that rules wasn't explicitly concerned with Second Wind in particular.

I am not though going to buy a game no matter how easy it is for me to houserule it myself that does not offer any support for my playstyle. A lot of games are easy to houserule. I can start with a lot of different base systems and build my houserules on top of those. It would be nice though to know the guy(s) I'm giving the money to for their game don't oppose even the existance of my approach to gaming.

Well, 5E seems to be being sold explicitly on the principle that it is easy-to-houserule. Several posters on these boards had problems with 4E in that they felt it was too hard to houserule because of it's really wired-together math-rules structure, and 5E is clearly going for a looser approach. So if you don't like 5E for that, then that's fair, but it's one of the things it appears to be selling on (further evidence in the form of the "Living Game" deal, where it appeared to be implied that if lots of groups houserule'd something to their satisfaction, WotC probably wouldn't overwrite that with a rules change).

I'm not sure what you mean about "oppose even the existence of my approach to gaming", though. That seems like a pretty extreme claim to make.

What is your approach to gaming, in this context?

 

[Thaumaturge]

So just as we did when we began "fixing" 3.0s ranger or got rid of druidic trial by combat, we tinker to made it perfect.

I hate to point out typos, but you, weirdly, mistyped "loved druidic trial by combat so much that we expanded it to every class and wrote large supporting documents for who each character had to kill to advance, we tinker to made it perfect."

Your fingers probably slipped.



Thaumaturge.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I hate to point out typos, but you, weirdly, mistyped "loved druidic trial by combat so much that we expanded it to every class and wrote large supporting documents for who each character had to kill to advance, we tinker to made it perfect."

Your fingers probably slipped.



Thaumaturge.

Did this actually happen? Do you have these rules somewhere? That sounds potentially amazing, albeit not in an "I would actually use these rules" way, but rather an "I would love to see these rules" way.

 

[Thaumaturge]

Did this actually happen? Do you have these rules somewhere? That sounds potentially amazing, albeit not in an "I would actually use these rules" way, but rather an "I would love to see these rules" way.

Yes and no?

I brought it up as an idea to my group in college. They were pretty opposed to it. For some reason. Mostly because they are lame people.

I haven't given it a thought in years. My current gaming group might be less lame. And I've learned about giving "choice" and "warning". Hmm.

Challenging for advancement can help make the number of higher level characters seem small, which is a feeling I like. I'd tie it to organizations and guilds instead of particular classes, and I wouldn't make it to the death. But the idea of the characters having mentors who help them at low levels, who they challenge at mid-levels, and who they then mentor once the PCs are high levels has an appeal to me.

Thaumaturge.

 

[Emerikol]

I'm not sure what you mean about "oppose even the existence of my approach to gaming", though. That seems like a pretty extreme claim to make.

What is your approach to gaming, in this context?

Obviously a playstyle involves a lot of things but the part I am in particular talking about is the ability to play given the rules with a particular viewpoint on hit points.

One key element of my healing playstyle is that non-magical healing is not rapid and not something you use whenever you like. It's bed rest and it's slow. Beyond that point, I have played with slow and fast overnight recovery rates. Usually at low level it's not as fast because magical healing is limited. At higher levels, it could be fast in some cases because there is enough magical healing. I can tweak that aspect of it to fit my campaign by controlling the accessing to magical healing.

I do hate dissociative mechanics too but I also know that Wotc doesn't really understand them so if I have to pick out a few I am thinking I would try to do that. I do not think they are actively avoiding support. They really just don't get the issue. There is a difference.

I have a hard time believing they just don't get the healing issue. I have to believe if that is the case that the devs are colossal idiots. I'm not willing to accept that as my working hypothesis. These guys have been in the industry for years. They appear to be intelligent. I've met them in person a few times and I don't get a really dumb vibe from them. So I have to believe they just don't want to support my playstyle fully for some reason.

 

[Umbran]

Ok, offer me a suggestion for how to make 5E play enough like 3E with regard to healing. It must be good enough that I don't just decide to play a better game.

First - this thread is not about Second Wind.

Second - "give me a suggestion, or I'll continue to threadcrap" is not a good plan. We are fellow gamers, not hostages.

Third - "...decide to play a game that is better for me." It is a simple change, but the difference in implications means a great deal. Embrace the explicit "...for me".

We understand that people are passionate about things. That's good for the hobby. But we expect them to be a bit discerning about where they place their gripes.

 

[BryonD]

Which "we" should they be thinking? Your "we" way, or someone else "we"? "We" the player base have multiple ways "we" are thinking of the modularity, and of many of the rules as well.

"We" in the same collective voice as the OP. The idea is that WotC plans to offer to all play styles. Thus the "we" has no one specific group, but should include all of them that are reflected in play style history.