In praise of the Healer Theme

[NotAYakk]

I'd be happier with "roll twice, and take the better result" on healing that the character boosts. However, that does take extra time.

You could allow each die to be rerolled separately (and only once), which amusingly actually is faster than requiring every die to be rerolled.

Another idea would be "any die that lands on less than half die size, is boosted to die size". Another idea would be "any die that lands on 1 is boosted to the max value for the die", or "any die that lands on 1 can be rerolled, indefinitely".

Power of the above options:
Reroll once per die =~ 25% boost
Less than half boosted to half =~ 25% boost (bit less)
Any die that lands on 1 boosted to max =~ 1 point per die boost, getting closer to 1 with larger die sizes (dN gets +(N-1)/N average boost)
Any die that lands on 1 rerolled, recursively = 0.5 point per die boost.

 

[underfoot007ct]

"For themes, you can pick one and advance in it, mix a couple, or build your own by selecting feats a la carte. I also hope that DMs see them as a tool to create custom themes for their campaigns." - Mike Mearls, livechat 5/29/2012

The DM arbitrarily limiting Player feat selection is not the purpose of introducing themes.

- Marty Lund

I heard the live chat, yet I NEVER heard Merals say, "a DM MUST allow" any theme or other creation a player invents. This is "a tool" to create new unique elements in to your game.

Dms allowing or NOT allowing anything they choose is what a DM does. It is not arbitrary nor random. In any game, the DM is the final word of what is or isn't allowed, theme of other.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Given their comments about inflating hit points for the initial play test because monsters are unpolished, and other remarks about preferring to ramp something up initially, then tone it down once tested--I suspect that even the designers think the theme is currently a bit much. Of course, that is what testing is for.

Yuppers. I don't think it's any coincidence that the wizard who already has four cantrips has the theme to grant two more, or that the cleric who already has a lot of healing has the theme which makes it even more powerful.

The best way to check balance during testing is to make the most "optimized" combos and see what happens when you do. If it's too much, you pull back. If the best combo seems pretty okay... then you know you're in good shape.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I heard the live chat, yet I NEVER heard Mearls say, "a DM MUST allow" any theme or other creation a player invents. This is "a tool" to create new unique elements in to your game.

Dms allowing or NOT allowing anything they choose is what a DM does. It is not arbitrary nor random. In any game, the DM is the final word of what is or isn't allowed, theme of other.

Or it could be like our group, with group decison, DM enforcement. The group decides that Theme X can only be taking in certain circumstance. They give the DM the power to make it so. Which is more or less the same thing as what you said, only more explicit, since a DM that tries to enforce something the majority of the group hates, will have trouble anyway.

The only place it runs into friction is when one or two players want to use the rulebook as a stick to push the rest of the group around. Of course, a group with that dynamic is going to have trouble no matter what.

 

[underfoot007ct]

Or it could be like our group, with group decison, DM enforcement. The group decides that Theme X can only be taking in certain circumstance. They give the DM the power to make it so. Which is more or less the same thing as what you said, only more explicit, since a DM that tries to enforce something the majority of the group hates, will have trouble anyway.

The only place it runs into friction is when one or two players want to use the rulebook as a stick to push the rest of the group around. Of course, a group with that dynamic is going to have trouble no matter what.

That sounds like an excellent system. If D&D Next has loads of optional rules, the each group will have to decide which rules they wish to include. From ALL to a very limited number of these options.

 

[mlund]

I heard the live chat, yet I NEVER heard Merals say, "a DM MUST allow" any theme or other creation a player invents. This is "a tool" to create new unique elements in to your game.

There's no game rule prohibiting DMs from capriciously deeming characters dead out of spite or randomly banning core materials. It's the basic social contract that makes such things a bad idea.

Dms allowing or NOT allowing anything they choose is what a DM does. It is not arbitrary nor random. In any game, the DM is the final word of what is or isn't allowed, theme of other.

Um ... going by the dictionary that's actually the definition of arbitrary. Seriously, look it up.

The DM is one person. His capacity as arbiter comes completely from the consent of the players at his table - nothing more and nothing less. Hypothetical Cpt. Control Issues can't yank the PHB out of players' hands unless the players want him to. Likewise the players can't force the DM to show up and run for them - if it comes to that someone else has to step up and assume the work-load.

(See also: Dexter's Laboratory, Season 2, Episode 7: D&DD)

Beyond that, we have a reading comprehension problem looking at the Mearls comment. The first sentence addresses players - they are the ones that pick feats for the characters, not the DM. In the second sentence he drops the prior pronoun to address a new subject - the DM creating his custom themes. The game does not require players to play "mother may I" with the DM to pick their feats ala carte.

The default CORE is players pick feats for their characters - ala carte or by theme as a simplified mode. If the gamers at the table feel that is troublesome in some way they can certainly deign to permit the DM to silo or otherwise restrict feats as a House Rule - or even just agree among the players not to take such an option. If enough customers find it necessary or typical to have to ban, edit, or restrict feats in the Core PHB then the publisher has probably screwed something up.

- Marty Lund

 

[jadrax]

The default CORE is players pick feats for their characters

The default Core requires GM approval for all races, classes, backgrounds and themes (and all constituent parts therein). This approval may be done individually, or by use of their Common/Uncommon/Rare denominators.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

There's no game rule prohibiting DMs from capriciously deeming characters dead out of spite or randomly banning core materials. It's the basic social contract that makes such things a bad idea.

No, that might be YOUR social contract but other playstyles have different social contracts. "If it is in the core rules, the DM is a jerk for banning it," is a terrible, terrible idea for groups that like world-building and immersion. If I ban dragonborn PC's from my 4e game, it's not going to be random or capricious. If it is for campaign theme or balance reason it is NOT arbitrary.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The default CORE is players pick feats for their characters - ala carte or by theme as a simplified mode. If the gamers at the table feel that is troublesome in some way they can certainly deign to permit the DM to silo or otherwise restrict feats as a House Rule - or even just agree among the players not to take such an option. If enough customers find it necessary or typical to have to ban, edit, or restrict feats in the Core PHB then the publisher has probably screwed something up.

I disagree with your conclusion here, and I think you skipped a step in the logic of the thing.

If you've got something like BECMI/RC, and most of the customers find it necessary to ban the wizard (or any other single class you care to use as an example), then that is a problem. In those rules, excluding the wizard is excluding a huge chunk of the whole game. If lots of people feel compelled to do this, yeah, problem.

In a modular system, this should not hold. There should be all kinds of things available that most people won't use, but the minority which do use it finds it very useful. Let's say that you have a theme that heavily pushes the character into a steampunk or urban fantasy style. Assume it works well enough. There is nothing wrong with it--most people just don't care about it.

In the "Core," there will inevitably be things that some people don't care for--if only because they will be in the core to support certain playstyles or other modules. Turning these elements "off" is like the DM deciding not to use a particular monster in the MM--it's hardly "house rules" to opt out of using an option. Calling such decisions "house rules" is obscuring a useful distinction.

 

[mlund]

No, that might be YOUR social contract but other playstyles have different social contracts.

You seem to be missing the point: your social contract (whichever one you choose) exists. Everything that happens at the table is predicated on that. It's the Prime Rule, without which there can be no Rule 0.

"If it is in the core rules, the DM is a jerk for banning it," is a terrible, terrible idea for groups that like world-building and immersion.

"We can use all the core materials for this system unless there's a good reason we agree on to House Rule it otherwise," is a solid baseline for most groups that get together to play a game under a shared rules system. If the group sees a good reason for a House Rule, well, the House Rules, after all.

That good reason could be "We want a story and the DM says he can't work the story with X in the way." Another could be, "Combo X, Y, Z totally steals the spotlight from Steve's character so we shouldn't use it." Another could be, "The really screwed up this rule and it bogs down combat - let's ignore it."

But those rationale are all because the table wants it a particular way and consents to it, not "because the DM is the final arbiter."

If I ban dragonborn PC's from my 4e game, it's not going to be random or capricious. If it is for campaign theme or balance reason it is NOT arbitrary.

Been there and done that as a DM (not specifically Dragonborn, but you get the idea). I did not do it arbitrarily on my make-believe "authority" as a DM. I proposed it to my players and gave them my reasons. They gave my their ascent to it and life went on happily.

Running a good game for others that you enjoy enough to take the time to prep is usually an exercise in compromise - not authority.

- Marty Lund