Dear Mike & Monte

[catsclaw227]

Look at the cover of the 1E DMG. Cartoony does not come into it. That's friggin' iconic!

I agree, but that is NOT the image I remember.

This was the first D&D book I ever got, back in 1978.

EDIT: Ok, Oldtimer, maybe it was 1979. It was over 30 years ago, so my memory is a bit fuzzy. All I know for sure is that I was in 7th grade.

 

[FireLance]

Please look at the thread "Why don't you like healing surges?" (or something like that). It went on for pages and pages and we probably don't need to repeat it here.

I participated in the thread. IMO, most of the criticisms about healing surges are more properly directed at healing powers. In particular:

1. Healing powers are too easy to activate. Leader role healing powers only require a minor action, and there are other powers that allow the user to attack in addition to healing an ally.

2. Healing powers can be used too often. All PCs can use their second wind once per encounter, and leader role healing powers (again) can be used twice per encounter, three times at higher levels. Characters can also gain access to other encounter powers that restore hit points.

You don't need healing surges to enable healing to scale with hit points. Previous editions did this by increasing the potency of the various cure X wound spells with the level of the spell. I just happen to think that the healing surge approach of fixing the basic healing effect at a set percentage of the character's total hit points is neater.

You don't need healing surges for characters to recover hit points after a fight. Previous editions did this through the various cure X wound spells, healing potions, and other magic items that restored hit points. I just happen to like the healing surge approach of making hit point restoration an individual, internal resource.

 

[Stormonu]

I agree that art goes a long way for helping to evoking the game.

I'd like to see the interior of the D&D books go back to mostly black & white illos, with a small section of color pages.

There are some newer images I like; grand fantasy landscapes wouldn't be bad, but I'd really like to see more artwork where there's a story unfolding in the picture. They make great adventure hooks.

I'd love a DMG with this cover:

<Edit: the cover of Pathfinder's Gamemastery guide seems to be hybrid of this picture and DL10 - Dragons of Dreams. But I'm just not quite fond of the style>

With interior art of the DMG/PHB/MM being along these lines:

(I had a hard time finding this, I seem to recall the revised 2E version was good as well)

and if someone can find the picture as we see (the back) of Regdar, Mialee and Lidda as they come over a rise to view the Caves of Chaos for the 1st time (I think it's in a late 3E book) - that picture is the definition of awe and wonder.

 

[Aldarc]

Make the game flexible and open enough for me to create a wide assortment of campaigns with various play-styles, flavors, and power levels. I should be able to make a few modifications to the game to switch between low and high magic games, or a non-European flavored setting, or remove divine/arcane magic or whatever and still be fine.

Don't let casters dominate the game. Keep the power level between the mundanes and the magical fairly even throughout the levels.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I participated in the thread. IMO, most of the criticisms about healing surges are more properly directed at healing powers. In particular:

1. Healing powers are too easy to activate. Leader role healing powers only require a minor action, and there are other powers that allow the user to attack in addition to healing an ally.

2. Healing powers can be used too often. All PCs can use their second wind once per encounter, and leader role healing powers (again) can be used twice per encounter, three times at higher levels. Characters can also gain access to other encounter powers that restore hit points.

You don't need healing surges to enable healing to scale with hit points. Previous editions did this by increasing the potency of the various cure X wound spells with the level of the spell. I just happen to think that the healing surge approach of fixing the basic healing effect at a set percentage of the character's total hit points is neater.

You don't need healing surges for characters to recover hit points after a fight. Previous editions did this through the various cure X wound spells, healing potions, and other magic items that restored hit points. I just happen to like the healing surge approach of making hit point restoration an individual, internal resource.

The thing to bear in mind is that a lot of folks don't prefer the healing surge approach, and in fact loathe the damned thing.

Waving your hand and saying that healing surges and healing spells are similar does not give them the same feel, nor even similar mechanics.

Like them or not, they are different mechanics. That thread had a few people trying to call them the same thing, and others yelling that no, they are not.

The Auld Grump

 

[FireLance]

The thing to bear in mind is that a lot of folks don't prefer the healing surge approach, and in fact loathe the damned thing.

Waving your hand and saying that healing surges and healing spells are similar does not give them the same feel, nor even similar mechanics.

Like them or not, they are different mechanics. That thread had a few people trying to call them the same thing, and others yelling that no, they are not.

Oh, agreed - the flavor and mechanics of healing surges and scaling healing spells are different. I also understand that some gamers dislike healing surges with a far, far greater intensity than I dislike - well, I would say scaling healing spells, except that I don't actually dislike scaling healing spells. What I (still) don't really understand is why the complaints tend to focus on healing surges rather than healing powers. If you don't mind repeating yourself, maybe you could list your reasons why 5e shouldn't have healing surges - just in case MM or MC should read this thread, of course.

 

[JamesonCourage]

How do any of these (or how have any of these) negatively impacted your gaming experience?

They may or may not. Let's take a look at it!

1. All characters should have options beyond making a basic attack.

I agree. "Powers" don't need to be the solution, though. My game uses a martial stance and maneuver system I created, Conan uses combat maneuvers as you qualify for them, etc.

Powers aren't necessarily bad, but it's requesting a specific solution to your question, above.

2. There should be powers that characters cannot use all the time, but which can be regained after resting for a short while (less than a day).

My problem is the "encounter" or "scene" terminology. As a player, when encounters become hazy, I have to wonder if this is a new encounter. If I'm sneaking into a place, get into a quick but quiet fight and use an encounter power, and then spend the next hour real-time sneaking around accomplishing things before getting into a fight fifteen minutes later in-game, is it a new encounter? To some groups yes, and to some no.

The problem for me is questioning it, and the reasoning why. Is there a reason why I can only do it once per encounter? If so, cool. Maybe it takes a bit to recharge? If so, why? Refocuses my ki, refilling my arcane pool? What about thieves and warriors? Diplomats? Craftsmen? If it fatigues them, why aren't they literally fatigued (as the condition)?

So, it has a recharge. How long, though? Five minutes? If I'm fighting someone, and we fight for two rounds and I use my encounter power, and then we talk for five minutes in-game while in a tense standoff, can I use my encounter power again? Many groups would consider this the same encounter. If I can use it again, why isn't it a five-minute recharge, not an "encounter" recharge? And, if it's five minutes, why that period of time?

It makes me ask questions about how the mechanics interact with the game world, and usually leaves me coming up dry. I'm okay with this for certain supernatural forces (they're obviously given more leeway), but if I'm spending time figuring out why I can't use something right now (because there's no explanation that works for me), it pulls me out of immersion.

I don't like mechanics that seem purely for game balance but basically ignore me when I question why they work the way they do in-game. I want to be immersed. I don't want to leave "actor stance", basically.

Tastes differ, obviously, but you asked how this could negatively affect my game. There you go. I'm more okay with "you need five minutes to refill your inner arcane pool" than I am "you can use this ability once per encounter." YMMV.

3. Healing should scale with character hit points. Characters should have some ability to recover hit points so that they are able to take on more than one encounter a day, while preserving the threat that they could be dropped even in the first encounter of the day.

Why not just have healing effects scale? You have healing effects have a Magnitude of 1, 2, 3, or 4 (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Cure Light Wounds is a M:1 cure spell, while Heal is a M:4 cure spell. You don't need healing surges to accomplish this.

Healing surges would be fine with me if they could only be activated magically or supernaturally, or if they only refilled your "other" HP pool (fate, luck, fatigue, etc.). Otherwise, you get people questioning why someone can take a blow from an ogre that might kill him (but we don't know until those death saving throws are done!), but he can get up and "nevermind, he wasn't almost dying!" when someone yells at him.

Again, it leads back to my preference for immersion and "actor stance". Healing surges, in their current implementation, trample on that to a significant degree, and thus negatively affect my game.

4. There should be a system which DMs could use to structure more complex non-combat challenges.

Again, like powers and healing surges, this does not have to mean that you need to use skill challenges. I'm okay with specific uses of skill challenges (as effectively extended skill checks, a la WoD), but I strongly dislike the current implementation.

I dislike having the number of successes necessary to succeed determined before anyone tries to solve the damn problem. That's really what screams "don't use me!" to my group or play style. For extended skill checks it works, because you know only one skill or method will be used. For their current uses, you don't know who is going to try what, and which skills will be used, and yet you've already decided "you need 6 successes."

You want more open skill challenges. I'd like them radically altered and reigned in. How does it affect my game? It feels forced, clunky, and poor. Obviously people disagree, which is fine, but it makes for a gaming experience that is significantly dampened for the duration of their use.



I would like to say, however, that I'm really open to more options than basic attacks (even powers as part of that resolution), bursts of power on a "short" recharge time (not encounter powers), scaling healing (healing surges work, but not in their current implementation), and complex non-combat challenges (not skill challenges in anything near their current form).

The goals are not inherently objectionable, but the solutions might be to many people. I can only speak for myself and my group, though. Not saying you're wrong to ask for it, but when you ask how these things can negatively affect my gaming experience, I want to say how they can. As always, play what you like

 

[Tallifer]

I've been advocating a "4E Revised edition", with at least a re-formatted, errata-ed, improved PHB. But that's already half way to 5E.

All of your suggestions are really good ones, but why not fold them into a 5E that is still loosely compatible with 4E in a similar way that 2E was with 1E?

One way to do 5E would be to ask the question, "If we were to re-do 4E with all that we've learned in the last four and a half years, what would we do?" They'd fix a bunch of stuff, tighten things up--along the lines of your suggestions. But then they'd ask, "And what is 4E Revised missing that we want to put in or change?" Do they wait another few years to do that or do they kill two birds with one stone and publish a new edition?

I say go for the new edition, but make it relatively backwards-compatible with 4E or, better yet, with a simple core/modular options approach that would be able to create a 4E-esque experience or a 3.5E-esque experience, or even an "Old School" experience.

I could really get behind a 4.5 done like 3.5, where the same system is simply improved in its details (revamping any weak feats, powers, items and powers to make them as equally appealing as the other good ones). Call it 5th edition, but keep ALL the good stuff from 4th edition.

I would not make it compatible with other older editions however, since those are already amply and well supported by other companies. I suppose chasing those customers could work in a Pepsi versus Cola kind of way, but I would hate to see Wizards and Paizo scrapping over the exact same market share: better to let each do what they do best and serve everyone that way.

 

[FireLance]

They may or may not. Let's take a look at it!

Sure!

I agree. "Powers" don't need to be the solution, though. My game uses a martial stance and maneuver system I created, Conan uses combat maneuvers as you qualify for them, etc.

I think "power" is another one of those 4e terms that have acquired negative connotations (in some circles) beyond what they actually mean. To me, anything that the character (or player) needs to actively decide to use is a power. Even conditional and situational abilities can be described by "Trigger:" or "Requirement:" lines. So, it seems to me that it's just a matter of terminology here. What you call stances and maneuvers, I would probably just call "powers".

My problem is the "encounter" or "scene" terminology. As a player, when encounters become hazy, I have to wonder if this is a new encounter. If I'm sneaking into a place, get into a quick but quiet fight and use an encounter power, and then spend the next hour real-time sneaking around accomplishing things before getting into a fight fifteen minutes later in-game, is it a new encounter? To some groups yes, and to some no.

There shouldn't be any confusion. Just as you get "daily" powers back after you take an extended rest, you get "encounter" powers back after you take a short rest. So the question ought to boil down to: did you decide to take a short (usually five minute) rest before sneaking around?

So, it has a recharge. How long, though? Five minutes? If I'm fighting someone, and we fight for two rounds and I use my encounter power, and then we talk for five minutes in-game while in a tense standoff, can I use my encounter power again? Many groups would consider this the same encounter. If I can use it again, why isn't it a five-minute recharge, not an "encounter" recharge? And, if it's five minutes, why that period of time?

I usually would rule no, if you are talking with a potentially hostile enemy for five minutes, you are likely to be alert and not actually resting. If some PCs decide to actually ignore the situation and rest while another PC handles the negotiations, I would allow them to regain their encounter powers if hostilities did not actually break out during those five minutes. And if they did, I'd rule that they are unable to act and grant combat advantage in the first round of combat. So, the individual players will have to decide whether or not they want to risk resting during a tense standoff. You don't get your encounter powers back at the start of the next "encounter" or after a five minutes have elapsed, no matter what happens in the interim (it's not like a video game recharge, you know). You need to rest for five minutes first, and this normally takes place after an encounter has ended. As for why five minutes, I don't think there's any particular scientific reason.

I'm more okay with "you need five minutes to refill your inner arcane pool" than I am "you can use this ability once per encounter." YMMV.

4e encounter powers are actually closer to the former than the latter. That they are closer to the latter than the former is a misconception (which sometimes, in my more cynical moments, I think is deliberately spread by those who want to make 4e look less realistic than it actually is).

Why not just have healing effects scale? You have healing effects have a Magnitude of 1, 2, 3, or 4 (25%, 50%, 75%, 100%). Cure Light Wounds is a M:1 cure spell, while Heal is a M:4 cure spell. You don't need healing surges to accomplish this.

Such an approach would mean that healing abilities must be entirely daily, unless you are fine with the idea that characters can just keep regaining hit points (because they can keep resting five minutes and regaining their encounter healing powers). And frankly, seven daily uses of a M:1 healing ability works pretty much like seven healing surges, IMO.

Healing surges would be fine with me if they could only be activated magically or supernaturally, or if they only refilled your "other" HP pool (fate, luck, fatigue, etc.). Otherwise, you get people questioning why someone can take a blow from an ogre that might kill him (but we don't know until those death saving throws are done!), but he can get up and "nevermind, he wasn't almost dying!" when someone yells at him.

It seems to me that the issue is more with non-magical healing than with healing surges per se.

I dislike having the number of successes necessary to succeed determined before anyone tries to solve the damn problem. That's really what screams "don't use me!" to my group or play style. For extended skill checks it works, because you know only one skill or method will be used. For their current uses, you don't know who is going to try what, and which skills will be used, and yet you've already decided "you need 6 successes."

Eh, the way I see it, if someone comes up with a good idea that the DM thinks would resolve the situation, he should be free to declare "problem solved", and move on. In a way, it's related to the "grind" issue in 4e combats. The minute there's a foregone conclusion and rolling dice stops being interesting, just delcare that the PCs have won.

Edit to add: And IMO, the DM shouldn't be plucking the number of successes out of the air. He actually ought to have some idea beforehand of the obstacles that need to be overcome and how difficult overcoming each ought to be. To me, that's the strength of the skill challenge system: encouraging the DM to consider at least one potential solution beforehand. And if the players find a solution that resolves the issue in a simpler, quicker way, well, they deserve to be rewarded!

I would like to say, however, that I'm really open to more options than basic attacks (even powers as part of that resolution), bursts of power on a "short" recharge time (not encounter powers), scaling healing (healing surges work, but not in their current implementation), and complex non-combat challenges (not skill challenges in anything near their current form).

The goals are not inherently objectionable, but the solutions might be to many people. I can only speak for myself and my group, though. Not saying you're wrong to ask for it, but when you ask how these things can negatively affect my gaming experience, I want to say how they can. As always, play what you like

Good to know!

 

[Hassassin]

I'd like to see a minimal playable set of rules on one page, plus maybe one more page for each class/archetype. Those should be enough for at least ten levels of play. In fact, I'd like to see the basic players' rulebook be just a handout you get with a DM's guide.