D&D 5E Starter Set Character Sheet Revealed!

[Hussar]

Sorry, I don't follow what you're saying at all. The actual rule-set is very important, since it is always a reflection of the game-world's physics. Granted, it's an imperfect reflection, so sometimes you need to fill in the gaps for niche situations that aren't explicitly covered, but it's consistent for everyone in for the things that it does cover.

If you have different rules for PCs and NPCs, then that status is necessarily observable in-game, which would be ridiculous. That's why it's important that, whatever the rules for disability, they apply equally to PCs and NPCs. I like the idea of covering broken limbs with just hit point damage, since that gives PCs an easy out with an in-game explanation: PCs have easy access to healing magic, which is why they never suffer from broken limbs or blindness for any significant period of time. Limbs that are missing entirely would be horrific enough that I'm happy to have them not show up within my fantasy game, even among commoners.

Even in 3e this wasn't actually true. Explain to me how a base Harpy, a medium creature that is pretty much physically the same as a human, starts off with 7 HD. Explain to me, referencing the 3.5 edition rules, how a harpy is 17 times tougher than an average human.

 

[MartyW]

A couple observations...

1) You all are arguing over rules that you THINK you understand based upon inferences and assumptions on a pre-generated character sheet in a Starter Set.

This is ridiculous because, as an example, no one actually knows if you can use Second Wind an unlimited number of times in a day. The answer is actually PROBABLY NOT since the same mechanic is used in 4e and is limited to the number of healing surges a PC has. It is highly probably that 5e will also limit the number of Second Winds per day (such as through Hit Dice healing mechanics that appeared in some of the play test packets). So to argue "this rule is broken"​ is stupid and pontless because you don't actually know the rule yet.

2) D&D is a game, not a simulation. The rules are not modeling reality. Why does a PC not suffer broken bones or permanent injury from combat? Because it's a game, not a simulation. Might as well ask why a dog in Monopoly has to rent a hotel room on Park Place. The rules lawyers here would seem to argue that he's a dog and would not need to rent a room (or be able to communicate with the front desk, for that matter). That is how ridiculous this thread has gotten.

If you want a game that simulates gory combat, hit locations, death by a single sword or gun shot wound and permanent injury... Don't play D&D, because it's not a simulation.

By the way, a Dragon as depicted in D&D would never get off the ground because the wing size to weight ratio is mathematically impossible... So why do we accept this? Because D&D is a game, not a simulation.

 

[SavageCole]

Wow there is some serious foaming at the mouth going on. It was predictable that the 5e honeymoon would be over before the game shipped. It was probably over before the game was announced. So much possessive passion from people. I totally get it. Not a criticism.

Personally, I'm not a fan of Second Wind or the Action Surge, but I'm pretty sure these rules won't prevent me and my people from having fun at the table when 5e drops. I'm still stoked.

My heart sincerely goes out to those who feel betrayed by a game they want to love and who feel their gaming values are being ignored.

 

[Tony Semana]

The problem with this is it destroys our verisimilitude for those who share my desire not to distinguish combat time from non-combat time (a very narrativist concept).

Thank's Sword of Spirit, a reasonable response and I respect the concept. I think we're using the same argument but from different sides;

I think it's based on one's accepted definition of second wind in reality and through experience. If the actual naming of the feature is ignored and it's just 'fighter-based healing' then the point of the feature is likewise being missed. A second wind, IS a thing, it is a physical phenomena where physical exertion is happening at the time and a waning subject (losing hp) experiences a sudden surge of energy that allows them to return to top performance (regain hp). It happens DURING the physical activity, not after the activity, and certainly not after a rest.

So, speaking from a perspective of depicting reality through the interpretation of the provided game mechanics, verisimilitude is destroyed for me by positing that one can have a 'second wind' right after resting. Further, that resting 'multiple times in a row' can result in multiple 'second winds'. I would ask what, exactly, is the physical exertion being done to merit a second wind? Regaining hp after a rest already has an in-game mechanic of hit dice. Second wind for us will simulate a different but equally engaging phenomena observed in top conditioned individuals.

This isn't meant to argue a more correct approach, this is just the way it's going to work for our gaming group, but I appreciate the response and seek to share another viewpoint. In the end, to each their own levers that will allow them the suspension of disbelief.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Even in 3e this wasn't actually true. Explain to me how a base Harpy, a medium creature that is pretty much physically the same as a human, starts off with 7 HD. Explain to me, referencing the 3.5 edition rules, how a harpy is 17 times tougher than an average human.

Harpies are monstrous creatures that have no parallel in the real world, and "average" humans - if you assert that the average human is a level 1 commoner - are kind of chumps. The games rules don't actually go into specifics, but you could either play it that harpies are much tougher than they appear, or that the average adult harpy you encounter in the wild is likely to be a fairly skilled combatant.

It's not as though a harpy is just born (hatched?) and automatically has 7 hit dice and proficiency with all simple weapons.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Where you're losing me is an assertion that a world where the PCs are observably different is somehow more ridiculous than a world where soldiers can swing swords at each other all day, not lose even a finger and never suffer from their injuries unless they're dead.

Well, the lack of dismemberment is at least partially explained with Gygax's assumption that anyone capable of surviving a direct hit from a sword is wearing armor at all times (or, in the case of wizards and monks, they're magic). And, while that's not always literally true, it's true enough to cover the vast majority of situations that arise during gameplay.

If you want to write in complicated dismemberment rules to more accurately model the effects of swords and axes against unarmored targets, then that's left as a personal exercise.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Thank's Sword of Spirit, a reasonable response and I respect the concept. I think we're using the same argument but from different sides;

I think it's based on one's accepted definition of second wind in reality and through experience. If the actual naming of the feature is ignored and it's just 'fighter-based healing' then the point of the feature is likewise being missed. A second wind, IS a thing, it is a physical phenomena where physical exertion is happening at the time and a waning subject (losing hp) experiences a sudden surge of energy that allows them to return to top performance (regain hp). It happens DURING the physical activity, not after the activity, and certainly not after a rest.

So, speaking from a perspective of depicting reality through the interpretation of the provided game mechanics, verisimilitude is destroyed for me by positing that one can have a 'second wind' right after resting. Further, that resting 'multiple times in a row' can result in multiple 'second winds'. I would ask what, exactly, is the physical exertion being done to merit a second wind? Regaining hp after a rest already has an in-game mechanic of hit dice. Second wind for us will simulate a different but equally engaging phenomena observed in top conditioned individuals.

This isn't meant to argue a more correct approach, this is just the way it's going to work for our gaming group, but I appreciate the response and seek to share another viewpoint. In the end, to each their own levers that will allow them the suspension of disbelief.

I think that's a perfectly valid approach. There are two reasons it's not something that would work for my style. The first is that a fighter could have 20 hp, then get into a battle, and come out of that battle with 30 hp, and then after the next battle have 40 hp, etc, until he reaches max hp. My verisimilitude has an issue with that. The second is a gamist concern (not my primary focus, but occasionally it crops up). If the only control on how often it can be used is that you have to have a real fight, two PCs could start a battle with each other (or find other ways to pick fights and get the initiative rolling) for the express intent of kicking on the Second Wind. Obviously no one wants that, but if the mechanic is there, it is a primarily narrativist approach to not do what the mechanic encourages the gamist to do, and where the heck is my simulationism now?

Thanks for the reply. I'm not really concerned about people playing D&D differently, but I am concerned about people dismissing other people's concerns through lack of understanding. (Which you are not doing, so thank you.)

 

[The Crimson Binome]

See, this isn't true in AD&D (both psionic attacks and illusions such as phantasmal killer can deal hp damage). This may have influenced my perspective.

The psionic powers that cause hp damage in AD&D are things that physically set you on fire, or disintegrate you. Damage just isn't a thing that comes from psionic powers in AD&D, at least from what I've seen. (I can't speak for illusions, because damaging illusions never came up in the games I played.)

The thing is, that's not a broken leg. Something that brings you closer to death in the immediate term, but doesn't impede your performance and can be shrugged off with a few days' rest, is not a broken leg. It's more like exhaustion and/or resignation.

Fantasy heroes aren't impeded by broken limbs, at least in the short term. Nobody's ever failed to save the day because of a pre-existing wound. Granted the semi-fast healing is a concession to game playability rather than verisimilitude (or even genre consistency), and this is normally a level of abstraction - on par with using Disadvantage to model a disarm maneuver - that would make me uncomfortable. On the other hand, all of the alternatives are worse.

In AD&D, at least, Cure Blindness is a 3rd level spell, hence not available until a cleric reaches 5th level.

And by your own measure of adequacy, what you say doesn't seem right, because according to the rules the PCs would heal from that blindness in 4 weeks even without magic. And in the meantime they suffer no penalties to their vision.

I'm happy with rules for my fantasy games that don't include anyone living through their severed limbs and completely destroyed eyes. I'm happy with a called shot to the face (or whatever ad hoc situation is causing this blindness) merely resulting in temporary blindness that heals after a week or two.

There is nothing inconsistent about broken legs happening only as a result of non-dice-rolling narration.

That's pretty much the definition of inconsistent, from an in-game perspective. You have different things happening within the game world, without any in-game explanation for why it happens.

 

[Psikerlord#]

It's only a problem when the f/m can go rest right after. (15 min workday)

The pure mage still has his three 3rd level spells. The f/m has only 2nd level ones. The pure mage can still release three more fireballs (1 per round, naturally) while our f/m is scorching raying. Even if they short rest, the F/m can't recover both 3rd level spells.

Again, this is fine if you are doing one fight and then rest, but since next is balanced over the adventure and not the encounter, the f/m isn't going through his spells twice as fast for only minimal advantage. He burns brighter, but 1/2 as long. Five rooms in, he's a half-ass fighter.

I'm sorry, but burning two 3rd level spells and an encounter power to get 6 damage over a single 4th level spell is a waste of resources. I remain unworried.

Forum maths is about as reliable as my guesstimations based on 20 yrs playing experience, there are too many variables to take into account, and working by averages or medians ignores potential max damage, which is also important. These kinds of math examples are at best a very rough guidepost (and at worst completely misleading, depending on what is being discussed).

I guarantee the char op builds will all be using action surge, either straight fighter or MC fighter - there is no getting around that adding a double action to a combat is going to be one of the biggest bonuses to damage the game offers. It will dwarf any kind of item static bonus, weapon dice bonus, etc because it picks up and multiplies all these things by however many attacks you have.

Your example is clouded by using dailies, the FM could use at will damage spells and still reap the bonus action surge gives. Anyways... I am weary of arguing about it, if you dont agree there is a problem, then we dont agree. Come December when the main 3 books have released, perhaps there will be a fix for it, or perhaps the char op boards will find worse OP talents to use, who knows?

In any case, i am still optimistic overall for 5e... there is lots to like overall.

 

[pemerton]

The psionic powers that cause hp damage in AD&D are things that physically set you on fire, or disintegrate you. Damage just isn't a thing that comes from psionic powers in AD&D, at least from what I've seen.

This is not correct. In the 1st ed AD&D psionic rules, when a character runs out of psionic points, damage that would normally deplete those points is instead suffered as hit point damage.

I'm happy with a called shot to the face (or whatever ad hoc situation is causing this blindness) merely resulting in temporary blindness that heals after a week or two.

This is weird in itself. In real-life fighting, people get injured in the face all the time without anyone deliberately aiming to poke an eye out. I don't understand what is so different about the world of D&D that this never happens.

Fantasy heroes aren't impeded by broken limbs, at least in the short term. Nobody's ever failed to save the day because of a pre-existing wound. Granted the semi-fast healing is a concession to game playability rather than verisimilitude (or even genre consistency)

So why do farmers, blacksmiths, seamstresses etc get the benefit of fantasy hero genre conventions? Similar to [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION]'s remarks upthread, this suggests a gameworld which seems pretty ridiculous to me.

There is nothing inconsistent about broken legs happening only as a result of non-dice-rolling narration.

That's pretty much the definition of inconsistent, from an in-game perspective. You have different things happening within the game world, without any in-game explanation for why it happens.

But there is an explanation - the PCs are lucky and skilled and never get their legs chopped off.

Within the gameworld, after all, there is no difference between events narrated following dice rolls, and events narrated without dice rolls. The difference in methods for determining what happens in the gameworld is a feature of the real world. It's not part of the fiction.