D&D 5E Additive versus subtractive modularity

[Umbran]

I don't get why my statement is trollish? I'm honestly asking if the circle that includes simple fighter lovers but does not include martial healing haters is of any size worth mentioning. I don't think so in my opinion. Why is that trollish?

Did I make a personal attack on you?

Basically, Emerikol, your supposed astonishment comes across... like you're looking at a plate of brussels sprouts, holding your nose, and saying, "Who'd they make *that* for? Who likes that crap?" Never mind that the vegetable continues to be served in restaurants because some people *do* like it...

Your hyperbolic overstatement for effect comes across as actively hostile to others who might like it. Are you really such an expert that, if you don't like it, it can only be that the *single digits* of people could possibly like it? Really, you're *that* good? It comes off as "Emerikol doesn't like it, so it is badwrongfun, and should be pursued to the ends of the Earth. Never mind that it's already off to the printers, so no change is forthcoming at the moment! We'll aggressively badmouth it anyway!"

So, I kind of have to agree - your overstatement does come off as kind of either arrogant and/or trollish. You seem to have no room in your heart for, "this makes something that works in play for some folks, and maybe I can let it go for them".

The thing you seem to completely miss is encapsulated in the idea that this must be for people who *love* plain fighters and *love* martial healing. Perhaps you have mistakenly internalized the idea that most of the gaming world polarizes over everything? That everything is *love* or *hate!* I don't expect that's so.

I expect there is a wide audience of folks who like the game, but aren't so gosh-darned picky about the fluff of mechanics. They are a means to an end. Non-magic healing? Does it get them a character they like to play? Yes? Then excellent! It gets them results they like, and that's enough to justify its existence. A fighter that's kinda badass even if there's no party cleric? Yeah, some folks can dig that, I expect. They see Bruce Willis in Die Hard get along without medical attention, and they get the idea and just move on.

 

[MichaelSomething]

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.

It really shouldn't be hard to give PCs easy access to cheap and efficient healing items so that can can recover all their HPs in less then a day and possibly fight a dozen of battles in a day if they decide to make a relatively small investment.

 

[BryonD]

It really shouldn't be hard to give PCs easy access to cheap and efficient healing items so that can can recover all their HPs in less then a day and possibly fight a dozen of battles in a day if they decide to make a relatively small investment.

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

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I have a theory. (I have many theories, but this is my theory about the new edition of D&D.) I think a part of the disconnect we're seeing this month is that some people are hoping for subtractive modularity ("I don't like X - how do I remove it?") whereas WotC seems to be focusing on additive modularity ("I would really like Y to be in D&D. How can I add it?"). Take character classes, for instance - lots of people hate them, but we are not getting a module to remove them. (As far as I know - certainly haven't heard the developers mention it.) We are seeing modules for more character customization, including designing one's own subclasses.

And that's why some people are getting frustrated - they're basically speaking a different language from the developers. They're asking, for example, "Will there be a module that gets rid of second wind/martial healing/damage on a miss", and the developers are saying no, because that's not what the modules are designed to do. That doesn't mean we won't see a module or five which produce lingering wounds that can't be healed by resting overnight or a good pep talk or humming "Eye of the Tiger", but the modules will achieve that goal by adding to the system rather than merely banning character abilities.

When I clicked on this thread, I didn't expect your reasoning to be so sound (and brief!)

Thank you. I think you nailed it.

 

[Emerikol]

Basically, Emerikol, your supposed astonishment comes across... like you're looking at a plate of brussels sprouts, holding your nose, and saying, "Who'd they make *that* for? Who likes that crap?" Never mind that the vegetable continues to be served in restaurants because some people *do* like it...

If you read my post I was distinctly referring to people who both liked a simple fighter and martial healing. I was not saying that no one at all would like martial healing so your analogy doesn't hold up.

Your hyperbolic overstatement for effect comes across as actively hostile to others who might like it. Are you really such an expert that, if you don't like it, it can only be that the *single digits* of people could possibly like it? Really, you're *that* good? It comes off as "Emerikol doesn't like it, so it is badwrongfun, and should be pursued to the ends of the Earth. Never mind that it's already off to the printers, so no change is forthcoming at the moment! We'll aggressively badmouth it anyway!"

There are hundreds of things I like and dislike. I am not disillusioned as to the fact that many in some cases do not share my opinion. I do not though for a second believe that martial healing is widely popular. So coincidentally that is something I am against that I'm not alone on.

So, I kind of have to agree - your overstatement does come off as kind of either arrogant and/or trollish. You seem to have no room in your heart for, "this makes something that works in play for some folks, and maybe I can let it go for them".

I was not trying to be hyperbolic or at least not in any significant way. I do not believe that mechanical choices are completely unconnected. While maybe ten is dramatic I do believe the overlap is very small.

The thing you seem to completely miss is encapsulated in the idea that this must be for people who *love* plain fighters and *love* martial healing. Perhaps you have mistakenly internalized the idea that most of the gaming world polarizes over everything? That everything is *love* or *hate!* I don't expect that's so.

There may be a lot of moderates out there playing. They don't decide what their group is playing. The passionate people decide and they tag along. I can guarantee that not a single member of my group would have bought a single 4e book if I had not introduced them to the game. If I had said we were play 3e instead we would have. The same will likely hold true for 5e.

I expect there is a wide audience of folks who like the game, but aren't so gosh-darned picky about the fluff of mechanics. They are a means to an end. Non-magic healing? Does it get them a character they like to play? Yes? Then excellent! It gets them results they like, and that's enough to justify its existence. A fighter that's kinda badass even if there's no party cleric? Yeah, some folks can dig that, I expect. They see Bruce Willis in Die Hard get along without medical attention, and they get the idea and just move on.

I guess my response to this is in my previous response.

I can see that your personal preferences run counter to mine, shocker.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Second wind may be a very narrow rule, but it steps into the waters of a very contentious idea that has been debated in depth for the entire play test, i.e. hit points, damage and healing. Furthermore, you see a similar ability appear under the rogue. To be fair we are viewing these types of mechanics in a stripped down version of the game, but it does not speak well if the statement Mike is making is true in reference to having no option to replace it. At least with 4E healing was isolated with a universal mechanic that could be played around with and have a universal impact on the game. I will be surprised if 5E did not learn anything from that, even if they do not use the exact model of 4E healing.

I thought hit dice were the ticket, because you can implement multiple styles for healing based on their use, for example healing surges are 1/4 the full hit dice of any class, or you can reduce the hit dice gained, make it a flat recovery rate or remove them. It has a universal impact.

So I hope 5E is following a theme of isolation of rules or mechanics that created a lot of debate so they may be presented as a spell, maneuver, feat, class or something similar that can be removed or replaced. Or there is a default formula for rules like healing recovery rates and mechanics that may be adjusted.

Having seen second wind, and uncanny dodge, I am concerned that it will not be easy to get rid of plentiful healing effects. Also, monsters will be built around the default rules, which will throw things out a little when we change things to slow healing or make it less plentiful. Second wind I can deal with by no chaining short rests, also preserve life. But uncanny dodge can't be easily fixed without a blatant housetule. I just get the feeling its not going to work out well in the end, too difficult. I'm really banking on the lingering wounds module. It better be good.

 

[Herobizkit]

3.x started to get dull for me until they released the Unearthed Arcana.

We need an Unearthed Arcana for 5e.

Folks who like to stick to rules enjoy books like the Unearthed Arcana because their additive/substitution factor of rules that have been proven to work make people who like to fiddle with the dials and switches very, very happy.

Folks who have been playing D&D for 20+ years already know what they want out of the new "engine" - why not give them a workshop to do their tinkering?

 

[Zardnaar]

I'll try to offer some support to Emerikol. He is basically opposed to rapid non magical healing and tends towasrds the hit points= meat arguement. I do not care what hit points are myself but fall into the no fast healing without magic camp.

This is how D&D was played in 5/6 editions od D&D. By choosing the 4E option in terms of fast healing they are excluding the play style laid down by ) D&D,1st,2nd, 3rd and 4E. They baked in 2nd wind as a class feature for example on all fighters. Neither myself or Emerikol would have cared if it was only on one subclass of fighters.

Now Pathfinder has rapid healing as well in the forms of wands of CLW which I am not a fan of but.
1. It is still magical healing and
2. It is not baked in as such. It is easily banned.

Now one could ban second wind I suppose but it is a major fighter feature, it would be like banning a major class feature of Rogues (sneak attack) or a level of spells for a spell caster. Some have suggest toughness as another option but it is actually a lot weaker than 2nd wind.

What we also know is Pathfinder is the biggest RPG on the block right now. I am sure in the short term D&D will displace it but people who do not like 4Eisms liike fast natural healing have plenty of other options. We already know 4E tanked because the player base bailed en masse to Pathfinder and bailed on 4E.

If you go over to Paizos forums they are about as active as ENworld and the WoTC forums put together. If they do not win over a large % of those players or replace them with new players D&DN is screwed and will follow 4th eds tracks. Regardless of ones preference though I think D&DN has 2 things going for it.

1. The D&D name.
2. 3.5 was only 5 years old in 2008. Maybe enough of those players are ready to move on now it has been 11 years since 3.5 came out IDK.

I am convinced the majority who participated in the surveys prefer fast non magical healing. I'm not convinced they asked the right questions or if the online users represent the majority of people who will throw down money and buy D&D. D&DN is more or less ignored on the Paizo forums for example despite having a section set aside for 4E and beyond. After all they told 80 000 odd DDI subscribers about D&DN, that alone could account for around half the respondents on the surveys.

One way or another we should know by 2016 or so in regards to D&DNs reception once the initial bubble dies down. If they have 2 editions of "new" D&D tank in a row they should be able to figure it out.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Ever notice when anybody says
"I know I speak for a lot of people" they want us to think they are saying
"I speak for a majority of people" but all they are really saying is
"I speak for myself."

Speak for yourself!

 

[Agamon]

Now one could ban second wind I suppose but it is a major fighter feature, it would be like banning a major class feature of Rogues (sneak attack) or a level of spells for a spell caster. Some have suggest toughness as another option but it is actually a lot weaker than 2nd wind.

I think replacing it with a feat is fine. Another thing older editions of D&D didn't worry about was absolute perfect balance between different classes. A fighter's ability to his job isn't directly affected by the loss of second wind, and adding a feat (say a feat of the player's choice instead of just toughness) actually could.