D&D 5E Dungeons and Dragons at Origins

[sidonunspa]

To the best of my recollection (which may not be accurate) I thought Paizo mentioned they had for the most part pulled out of Origins years ago due to some issues they had with that convention. Are you sure you were not seeing stuff put up by fans, and not Paizo itself? I think Paizo also said they refuse to submit things to their awards ceremony as well (but again, could be wrong on that).

seeing I was hanging out with half of the Piazo staff at bb2, I can confirm they where their...

WOTC had said they had pulled out of Origins several years ago as well. It's not Paizo or WOTC, it's that convention that caused them to withdraw their support - I guess there were some issues. Apparently it is now under new management and people were testing the waters again lightly to see if it is worth supporting again.

there was no "lightly" when it came to pathfinder, they had a booth in the common play room and two rooms of RPG tables..

 

[Cybit]

This has been, and will remain, my main actual "dealbreaker"-type concern about 5E. I'm hoping this is just a factor of Clerics being the only real "healing class" in the pregens, and that in practice, any "healing class" will do as well (or close enough as makes no difference). If we're back to 2E levels of "needing a Cleric", though, gosh, that's not going to fly with any of the groups I play with.

So, fingers crossed that Bards, Druids, maybe even Warlocks or the like can do a "good enough" job.

In a 6-7 person group; no cleric from levels 1-7, healing (from the bard) has worked out ranger has kept the party up A-OK. Clerics are good at healing if they take the right domains, but not necessary at all.

 

[DDNFan]

This has been, and will remain, my main actual "dealbreaker"-type concern about 5E. I'm hoping this is just a factor of Clerics being the only real "healing class" in the pregens, and that in practice, any "healing class" will do as well (or close enough as makes no difference). If we're back to 2E levels of "needing a Cleric", though, gosh, that's not going to fly with any of the groups I play with..

If fighters can "heal" in the final product, in any way similar to the ability of a cleric, even in the same ballpark, that will be a dealbreaker for me. Different classes should have their niche. There is no fighter in history or in fantasy who, while having no magical powers, is as good as a modern surgeon, in the midst of the battlefield. This requires magic to be plausible. That sounds funny at first, but it isn't, because without magic healing wounds instantly is impossible, and when a character drops to 0 HP they have received a wound or injury serious enough to knock them unconscious and probably bleeding profusely on the ground, a life-threatening injury. Read the rules, that's how HP are defined, and that's how the game is played, and that's how the game is narrated.

Since it appears that for you, it's a dealbreaker for the game rules to ensure a consistent narrative between various definitions and the result of dice rolls, I have to simply say, I hope your wishes remain unanswered, and if it's a question of your happiness or mine which are at polar odds with each other, I will chose mine.

There is no middle ground here, no compromise. Either non-magical subclasses of fighter are non-magical and therefore do not have access to Cure Wounds or something exactly like it with a different name, or they do, and the game narrative makes no sense, and there is no actual difference between might and magic in D&D. I want there to be a difference, because there in fact is, even in fiction. Certain events and occurrences are logically or physically impossible (stuff that requires retconning events, for instance, like altering the way you narrated a sword chop depending on whether it was a warlord who healed you or a cleric), without magic or the hand of god intervening.

We'll see shortly, I think warlords do not exist in 5e, and can't actually heal others or even themselves. Second Wind was altered to Temp HP, which is really the only inspirational or adrenalin-type HP you need in the game, since it evaporates quickly and doesn't actually heal any prior wounds when you receive them. It only acts as a buffer to prevent incoming damage, which is consistent with the narrative and doesn't require any retconning whatsoever.

I count five classes so far with access to Cure Wounds. That's about half. Isn't that enough? Cure Wounds cures, wounds. That's the source of easy healing in D&D. 5 classes having it is quite easy access. Not all classes should have access to all other classes' powers and magical abilities. That is terri-bad game design in my book.

 

[Mistwell]

There is no middle ground here, no compromise.

Only because you tossed out a strawman as a replacement for what Ruin Explorer said.

Either non-magical subclasses of fighter are non-magical and therefore do not have access to Cure Wounds or something exactly like it with a different name, or they do,

Or he could have said, "in practice, any "healing class" will do as well". IE he doesn't want it to be just clerics that can heal, he wants some other healing classes, like druids. He didn't say a word about fighters, or about all classes healing.

so far with access to Cure Wounds. That's about half. Isn't that enough?

Yes, that's about exactly what he said. What would have been awesome is if you'd read what you were responding to instead of an uncalled-for multi-paragraph rant in his direction.

 

[Boarstorm]

There is no fighter in history or in fantasy who, while having no magical powers, is as good as a modern surgeon, in the midst of the battlefield. This requires magic to be plausible.

I dunno. Kaladin from the Stormlight Archive is pretty close. Pre-magic, of course.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I dunno. Kaladin from the Stormlight Archive is pretty close. Pre-magic, of course.

Good call, he's a recent example and clearly a Fighter in D&D terms. There are others, too, even though I can't remember them. They're not going to cast Cure Light Wounds on you, but out-of-combat, they will certainly bandage you up so well that in D&D terms you'd regain a bunch of HP.

Only because you tossed out a strawman as a replacement for what Ruin Explorer said.

Thank you.

Or he could have said, "in practice, any "healing class" will do as well". IE he doesn't want it to be just clerics that can heal, he wants some other healing classes, like druids. He didn't say a word about fighters, or about all classes healing.

Indeed. I don't want Fighters with CLW or Mass Heal or similar insta-heals. That's cool but it doesn't fit 5E well. A Fighter sub-class who is much better at bandaging and getting people back together than anyone else, to the point where he's close, overall, to the performance you'd get from a healer healing out-of-combat? (He'd work differently) That'd be nice. Temp HP for in-combat maybe, but I'm not in love with THP, could go without.

Yes, that's about exactly what he said. What would have been awesome is if you'd read what you were responding to instead of an uncalled-for multi-paragraph rant in his direction.

Correct. 5E looks solid as is. I do hope they have some further optional options in the DMG (which I may or may not use in practice), and that we can have our Kaladin-esque Fighter (really, minus magic, he's perfect for a Warlord-as-a-Fighter-subclass - he leads people, he saves people, he opens enemies up for others, and he is an amazing battlefield medic, whilst still being very much a front-line combatant), but even without that, it's looking better than any non-4E edition and close to 4E (in a non-controversial way).

 

[technoextreme]

If fighters can "heal" in the final product, in any way similar to the ability of a cleric, even in the same ballpark, that will be a dealbreaker for me. Different classes should have their niche. There is no fighter in history or in fantasy who, while having no magical powers, is as good as a modern surgeon, in the midst of the battlefield. This requires magic to be plausible. That sounds funny at first, but it isn't, because without magic healing wounds instantly is impossible, and when a character drops to 0 HP they have received a wound or injury serious enough to knock them unconscious and probably bleeding profusely on the ground, a life-threatening injury. Read the rules, that's how HP are defined, and that's how the game is played, and that's how the game is narrated.

So what you are saying is that the perfectly mundane king in Henry V was a wizard?

 

[exile]

Dealbreakers! Man, you guys are harsh. The only dealbreaker for me is when my wife doesn't let me slip off to play at all (note: she has been very good about giving me lots of freedom to play of late).

As for my gaming future, I see something akin to the status quo. I will continue to play a lot of PFS where it is available and with the friends who like it. I will seek out D&D5E organized play opportunities (which sound like they may be harder to get to than I would like). I'll play 4E on the rare times that I get together with my friends from Toledo. I'll keep rotating through different games with my pals in Lexington.

I guess I'm fond of both Pathfinder's rules mastery and D&D's promised simplicity. One area from the recent playtest where I think simplicity may go too far (for my personal tastes-- but is still by no means a dealbreaker) is poison damage. I liek poison to be dangerous. I like for it to do ability score damage or to, at least, do damage over time. In the Origins playtest, my ranger played at being a rogue (after the rogue had to leave prematurely) and got himself poisoned. This did 6 HPs of damage. It was easily cured by our cleric. I personally would have liked for it to have been more dangerous. I am anxious to see if the DMG features any optional rules for poison.

 

[Snapdragyn]

Dealbreakers! Man, you guys are harsh. The only dealbreaker for me is when my wife doesn't let me slip off to play at all (note: she has been very good about giving me lots of freedom to play of late).

As for my gaming future, I see something akin to the status quo. I will continue to play a lot of PFS where it is available and with the friends who like it. I will seek out D&D5E organized play opportunities (which sound like they may be harder to get to than I would like). I'll play 4E on the rare times that I get together with my friends from Toledo. I'll keep rotating through different games with my pals in Lexington.

I guess I'm fond of both Pathfinder's rules mastery and D&D's promised simplicity. One area from the recent playtest where I think simplicity may go too far (for my personal tastes-- but is still by no means a dealbreaker) is poison damage. I liek poison to be dangerous. I like for it to do ability score damage or to, at least, do damage over time. In the Origins playtest, my ranger played at being a rogue (after the rogue had to leave prematurely) and got himself poisoned. This did 6 HPs of damage. It was easily cured by our cleric. I personally would have liked for it to have been more dangerous. I am anxious to see if the DMG features any optional rules for poison.

Poison is just a wound?

DEALBREAKER!!!

 

[Sir Hawk]

This has been, and will remain, my main actual "dealbreaker"-type concern about 5E. I'm hoping this is just a factor of Clerics being the only real "healing class" in the pregens, and that in practice, any "healing class" will do as well (or close enough as makes no difference). If we're back to 2E levels of "needing a Cleric", though, gosh, that's not going to fly with any of the groups I play with.

I never understood this train of thought.... I don't know how many games I've played in that didn't have a cleric or anyone with healing powers. We always just carried healing potions, or simply ran away from the fight if we started getting trounced. Worst case scenario, someone dies and you just drag them back to town for a resurrection.