D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[Micah Sweet]

I did really enjoy 4e, though it had things it simply did not do well (exploration for example). But I'm not forwarding it as the shining exemplar of this concept- it definitely could be improved upon in a lot of ways.

The problem is, it becomes a new paradigm that people will reject because it's not what they are used to. History proved that. So you have to ease people into it. 5e actually does this, but not in a complete way. Fighters have resources (Second Wind, Action Surge) and some subclasses expand on this (the Battlemaster being the standout as a class that has limited use "special attacks").

And the Warlock's Pact Magic has what could be, "encounter magic", all that's required is a shorter short rest. You can see hints of this sort of thing in other spellcasting classes, like Arcane Recovery. The day may come when all of this is seen as so normal that you could put all classes on an encounter paradigm or close to it so we don't need to worry about needing X encounters per game day as a balancing point.

Of course, what's needed then is an absolute limit somewhere so that people who need that sort of thing in their games to simulate that feeling of characters being worn down have it. Hit points are of course the ultimate limit, but if you can heal forever that's only so useful- this is where healing surges once worked, but there are certainly other ways this could be done as well.

But this sort of evolution has to be a slow process, since there's always going to be people who want casters to have limited, but potent resources (even if the use of those resources tends to cause ample consternation, so that some champion that there must be a way to discourage or prevent their use) and non-casters to not be resource reliant. Mostly because nostalgia is a powerful force and those people feel that D&D must be this way, because it was that way for a very long time. I'm trying to choose my words carefully here- I don't mean to insult people who prefer this style of play. I cut my teeth on the same long ago and I still occasionally play AD&D (of the dreaded "Second Edition" variety).

D&D's current problem is really that it's trying to serve multiple masters, leading to a sort of cursed design where it's not fully supporting the play the PHB describes, nor fully supporting the play many fans of the game prefer- even though WotC clearly wants all groups to buy the shiny new product to keep the lights on!

Or, to quote an old song:

"I support the left, but you know I'm leaning leaning to the right!"

I see the idea of easing people into a new concept that they otherwise wouldn't accept as a form of manipulation and deception, personally. If you want to do something different, please say so plainly.

 

[James Gasik]

I see the idea of easing people into a new concept that they otherwise wouldn't accept as a form of manipulation and deception, personally. If you want to do something different, please say so plainly.

You're not wrong, but at the same time, manipulation is the cornerstone of capitalism. We're manipulated all the time into buying products, aren't we? Especially ones that aren't the best for us? How can we expect the mighty arm of Hasbro to be any different?

 

[jmartkdr2]

You're not wrong, but at the same time, manipulation is the cornerstone of capitalism. We're manipulated all the time into buying products, aren't we? Especially ones that aren't the best for us? How can we expect the mighty arm of Hasbro to be any different?

Manipulation is a key part of all human communication, including this entire forum.

 

[CreamCloud0]

I see the idea of easing people into a new concept that they otherwise wouldn't accept as a form of manipulation and deception, personally. If you want to do something different, please say so plainly.

i'd agree, at least with the latter part of your statement about stating things plainly if not for the fact of human behaviour, that people will reject things purely for being different rather than actually liking or disliking them, or because it was a good or bad change for the system.

for entirely unrelated reasons the scenario of a parent needing to finely chop up and mix vegetables into their kid's pasta sauce because they don't like the sight of a veg rather than the taste comes to mind, i wonder why...

 

[Micah Sweet]

You're not wrong, but at the same time, manipulation is the cornerstone of capitalism. We're manipulated all the time into buying products, aren't we? Especially ones that aren't the best for us? How can we expect the mighty arm of Hasbro to be any different?

I don't expect them to act differently (because corporations are incapable of feeling shame), but it's still wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

i'd agree, at least with the latter part of your statement about stating things plainly if not for the fact of human behaviour, that people will reject things purely for being different rather than actually liking or disliking them, or because it was a good or bad change for the system.

for entirely unrelated reasons the scenario of a parent needing to finely chop up and mix vegetables into their kid's pasta sauce comes to mind, i wonder why...

I refuse to assume people need corporations to treat them like children.

 

[Clint_L]

Rogue sneak attack damage provides a nice baseline when casters run out of spells and have to fall back onto plinking away with cantrips. Rogue sneak attack damage is utter garbage when compared to casters going nova.

Unless it's a big AoE situation, I don't find casters to be big damage dealers. When you break down Crit Role stats, martial characters are the dominant damage dealers, and that's what my games show, as well.

If it's a big AoE situation against mooks, casters can do very well. But if your games tend towards fewer fights but against higher quality opponents, casters are not there for DPR, they're there for control, creating opportunities, and countering stuff. The BBEG will barely flinch at a fireball, and shrugs off a lot of spells. I don't think going nova is much of a strength for casters except at very high levels.

Paladins, on the other hand...though that got nerfed for 2024, and rightly so IMO.

 

[Nefermandias]

Ah. Yes - This would cause definite problems.
Assuming a ~4 hour evening session, there is no way you can fit a balanced adventuring day in there. Unless your group are very efficient in decision-making and rolling during combat, you're not going to get nearly enough fights in , let alone non-combat encounters, general roleplay and shenanigans, and (especially) puzzles.

I fail to see why an adventuring day should necessarily align perfectly within a gaming session.

 

[Clint_L]

I fail to see why an adventuring day should necessarily align perfectly within a gaming session.

He gave some pretty good reasons why it doesn't work great for his group. Wit my home table, it's not a problem, but I absolutely get where he is coming up when it comes to my school groups and attendance can be less predictable.

 

[tetrasodium]

I fail to see why an adventuring day should necessarily align perfectly within a gaming session.

Sure, but the amount of stuff PCs are designed to handle during the expected adventuring day should absolutely bow deeply to the realities or actual gameplay. If it takes a month of weekly sessions to churn through it all while still making room for the other two pillars of gameplay the design failed because everyone forgot too much from the simple passage of time since the adventure started. Point four in the Hickman manifesto was a super important component of the whole. Six to eight medium to hard encounters with monsters built assuming lower level PCs equipped with starting gear fails so miserably that any effort to work around it just shifts around the problems needing to be fixed by the gm.

Crafting wands was a simple as having the feat and spending a few XP.

That's an oversimplification that masks the opportunity costs involved. Getting the relevant cure spell -or- the craft wands feat was pretty eazy for a lot of caster builds. Getting both tended to involve some meaningful opportunity costs that are into CharOp enough to meaningfully eat into the gains with an offset elsewhere.