Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="theliel" data-source="post: 6325510" data-attributes="member: 6711006">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 encountersAnd 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.</blockquote>

Verification