Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6358825" data-attributes="member: 996">Revivify?&nbsp; Bear's Endurance/Cat's Grace, maybe?&nbsp;HD may freak out 4e detractors almost as much as healing surges did, but, yeah, they're nothing like healing surges where it counts.&nbsp; They're a much smaller per-character healing resource, that's /much/ harder to trigger, and is in addition to, instead of a limiting factor on, other sorts of healing.&nbsp; For a game that's trying to be modular, a devolution of healing surges, not an evolution.&nbsp; If they were more like surges, HD would make a perfect 'touch point' for modules changing he nature of healing in the game or pacing of a campaign.&nbsp; But, no, healing stays tied to spells/day in 5e - very 3e-and-earlier.&nbsp;Short rests and full healing between combats were a 3e thing, just a possibly-unintended one, a consequence of cheap potions and WoCLW.5e sub-classes are very clearly an Essentials thing, yes, but they, in turn drew from AD&amp;D sub-classes, and, to a lesser extent 4e Builds (since sub-classes could have builds, too).&nbsp;&nbsp; Builds were a 4e formalization of a very real 3.x phenomenon.&nbsp; The idea that you have, for each class, a few viable/optimal builds is /very/ 3e.&nbsp; &nbsp;While you can find a lot of stuff from 4e in 5e, it's mostly stuff that was also in 3e in some form (really, 'd20 stuff'), if not something 4e brought back from AD&amp;D after 3e misplaced it.&nbsp; But, ultimately, if you look at the design philosophy of 5e, it's nothing like 4e, and not much like 3e, either.&nbsp; 3e had conscious rewards for system mastery and a lot of options and detail meant to empower players to build just the character they wanted - all rolled over to monsters so the DM could use the same plethora of tools, but not really /meant/ for that function.&nbsp; 4e was better balanced than D&amp;D had ever tried to be, and was built that way from the ground-up.&nbsp; 5e is neither of those things.&nbsp; It doesn't build classes with an eye to balance, nor to giving players a lot of mix-match build options.&nbsp; 5e is designed very much for the DM to 'make his own.'&nbsp; The rules are full of DM-decided options, the player doesn't know what he can use to build his character, nor what his build choices will ultimately mean in play.&nbsp; The DM decides what options are available, and interprets (or fixes) the rules in play.&nbsp; This philosophy - a problematic, DM-enforced, balance-of-imbalances for the classes; vague rules requiring DM adjudication to establish basic playability; different house rules at every table - is very much like that of AD&amp;D, where EGG advised DMs /not to let players learn the rules/.&nbsp; The implementation may look &amp; feel a lot like 3e or 2e, and their may be fragments of every edition mixed together, but in it's overall philosophy, 5e is aimed at emulating old-school AD&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6358825, member: 996"] Revivify? Bear's Endurance/Cat's Grace, maybe? HD may freak out 4e detractors almost as much as healing surges did, but, yeah, they're nothing like healing surges where it counts. They're a much smaller per-character healing resource, that's /much/ harder to trigger, and is in addition to, instead of a limiting factor on, other sorts of healing. For a game that's trying to be modular, a devolution of healing surges, not an evolution. If they were more like surges, HD would make a perfect 'touch point' for modules changing he nature of healing in the game or pacing of a campaign. But, no, healing stays tied to spells/day in 5e - very 3e-and-earlier. Short rests and full healing between combats were a 3e thing, just a possibly-unintended one, a consequence of cheap potions and WoCLW. 5e sub-classes are very clearly an Essentials thing, yes, but they, in turn drew from AD&D sub-classes, and, to a lesser extent 4e Builds (since sub-classes could have builds, too). Builds were a 4e formalization of a very real 3.x phenomenon. The idea that you have, for each class, a few viable/optimal builds is /very/ 3e. While you can find a lot of stuff from 4e in 5e, it's mostly stuff that was also in 3e in some form (really, 'd20 stuff'), if not something 4e brought back from AD&D after 3e misplaced it. But, ultimately, if you look at the design philosophy of 5e, it's nothing like 4e, and not much like 3e, either. 3e had conscious rewards for system mastery and a lot of options and detail meant to empower players to build just the character they wanted - all rolled over to monsters so the DM could use the same plethora of tools, but not really /meant/ for that function. 4e was better balanced than D&D had ever tried to be, and was built that way from the ground-up. 5e is neither of those things. It doesn't build classes with an eye to balance, nor to giving players a lot of mix-match build options. 5e is designed very much for the DM to 'make his own.' The rules are full of DM-decided options, the player doesn't know what he can use to build his character, nor what his build choices will ultimately mean in play. The DM decides what options are available, and interprets (or fixes) the rules in play. This philosophy - a problematic, DM-enforced, balance-of-imbalances for the classes; vague rules requiring DM adjudication to establish basic playability; different house rules at every table - is very much like that of AD&D, where EGG advised DMs /not to let players learn the rules/. The implementation may look & feel a lot like 3e or 2e, and their may be fragments of every edition mixed together, but in it's overall philosophy, 5e is aimed at emulating old-school AD&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification