D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[Chaosmancer]

In certain sense you were changing the rules as you were changing what the meaning of the rule is. But this is besides the point. We all know we can change things, be it fluff or rule or whatever they print in the books. I don't get why you keep repeating this Oberoni stuff. That I can change the thing doesn't mean my original criticism of the thing was invalid.

Was I changing the meaning of the rules? Greek Myth setting is Theros, 1920's Steampunk is Eberron, Mythical Europe is Forgotten Realms Sword Coast. All three of those are official DnD settings. How am I changing the rules of DnD by playing in official settings?

Sure, the Post-apocalyptic stuff was a homebrew setting, but that didn't require me to rewrite a single rule anymore than it required me to rewrite rules when my group made the Continent of Neydrig, or when you made whatever setting you play in.

And your "original criticism" is that the ability doesn't fit the narrative. But it can fit the narrative. "The Narrative" isn't something that is locked in solid stone in DnD. It is a multiverse with nearly a dozen official settings, dozens of 3PP settings, and likely thousands of unofficial settings. All using the same rules. It isn't the Oberoni fallacy to say that, in a game where we constantly make up new narratives, the problem of "this ability isn't in the narrative" can be solved by changing the narrative you are defaulting to.

Oh, and I did not ban luck feat because it is meta, I banned it because it is OP and boring.

Good for you. Being OP (in your opinion) and boring (in your opinion) does not mean it must by its very nature be a meta-narrative construct that could never be worked into the narrative in the way you desire.

 

[Chaosmancer]

The difference is how you feel about it, and how it affects your immersion and how real the setting feels to you. I am more than willing to make changes to any rule set to make that happen.

Right, so... change the narrative of your game to be a thing that feels good to you. No need to go and demand anyone else alter their rulebooks to match your feelings on your narrative. Or declare that other people should feel any particular way about it.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

And your "original criticism" is that the ability doesn't fit the narrative.

Indeed. And the rule comes with this narrative.

It isn't the Oberoni fallacy to say that, in a game where we constantly make up new narratives, the problem of "this ability isn't in the narrative" can be solved by changing the narrative you are defaulting to.

Yes it is. Like to make an example of a far more serious issue, the racist language regarding orcs in Volo's didn't stop being a problem just because I could change the narrative of orcs in my own game (and obviously did.)

Good for you. Being OP (in your opinion) and boring (in your opinion) does not mean it must by its very nature be a meta-narrative construct that could never be worked into the narrative in the way you desire.

Sure. It being so or not had nothing to do with the banning.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And that the player can arbitrarily decide the when and where to invoke these meta-bennies is the crux of the debate.

Further, there's three types of meta-bennies:

1. those that obviate a die not yet rolled by forcing a success
2. those that add a bonus or benefit to a die not already rolled
3. those that do something to change or negate the results of a die that has already been rolled, or force a re-roll.

Of those, 2 is by far the least objectionable. 1 is fairly uncommon but bad in that it can trash an otherwise exciting will-it-or-won't-it moment.

And 3, IMO, simply should not exist. Once a die is rolled, it's rolled, and you shouldn't get to see the results before deciding whether or not to make changes to that roll. It's baked-in player-side fudging with lipstick on.

I think it was Yogi Berra who once said regarding baseball something like "You're gonna win 1/3 of the games no matter what you do. You're gonna lose 1/3 of the games no matter what you do. It's what you do with the other 1/3 that makes you a good or bad team."

The same holds true in D&D design. A certain amount of rules are going to be dissociated/unrealistic/etc. no matter what you do. A certain amount are going to be realistic no matter what you do. It's what you do with those rules where you have a choice that makes the end-result difference....

...and here's a good example of where there is a choice. A fire spell could be ruled to potentially ignite flammable objects in its AoE (which is realistic) or not (which is unrealistic). For my part, in these cases I say go with the realistic option whenever you can.

I think the rules have focused far too much on balance (which is a fool's errand at the micro level and fairly easy to achieve at the macro level) and character uptime, and in so doing have done something of a disservice to actual roleplay and immersion.

The other issue underlying all this is one of pacing. 4e-5e design wants the characters to be going like little energizer bunnies from one long rest to the next, with (in 5e) a few shorts in there to prop up some classes. This paradigm is why healing has been dialled to eleven, and is also utterly unrealistic.

Realism, however, suggests the characters (if at all wise) are going to want to be considerably more cautious and long-rest whenever they can; a more realistic game design would assume and embrace the idea of the 5-minute workday in the knowledge that, given the choice, that's what the characters would try to do.

Realism also suggests that a character who is close to death (i.e. making death saves) shouldn't be up-'n'-at-'em after just one cure and right as rain the next morning. In other words, realism calls for a much slower pace where getting hurt is a bad thing and where curing hit points before someone is down (or just not taking the damage in the first place!) is far preferble to waiting until after someone is down.

And yes, natural recovery in 1e as written is unrealistic the other way: it's too slow.

You know, despite your own personal preferences, I've never wanted to play the child of giants, chosen to be the fount of eternal flame, and wielding a greataxe large enough to cut a horse in half, because I want to experience "realism"

And no, just because "realism" isn't a number 1 priority doesn't mean we play pants on head crazy times where nothing matters. I bawled my eyes out like a small child over an animated ship, whose spirit spoke to her crew, who sailed herself on one last journey to save them through a tidal wave larger than mountains. That isn't "realistic". Realistically no ship can speak or hold spirits. No ship can sail itself. No heavily damaged ship could survive a city-destroying storm to sail itself into the middle of an island. And even if it could do that, realistically, it would never arrive at the correct time to save the lives of its crew.

But the point isn't realism. The point is the power of friendship and bonds. The strength that caring for others can give you, even if you are not a living thing, and how that power can deliver people from darkness. And that isn't realistic. Realistically, those of us in bad situations will continue to be in them, we will continue to suffer in them, probably for the rest of our lives, and our friends will likely never be aware of them. That's "realistic".

A game where I can magically seal wounds and keep my friends alive doesn't need to strive for realism for me to enjoy it. Because I don't need realism. And if you do? Great! Enjoy it. You don't play this game anyways. You didn't even play 5e to my knowledge.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If there's a Goddess of Luck then I could perhaps justify Her Clerics getting some sort of Luck ability (though not as written in 5.xe). But it wouldn't in any way be species-dependent.

And the Luck would cut both ways. There's bad luck as well as good luck, you know...

So you are just completely unaware of the Halfling origin myth?

Also, who cares if bad luck exists. Plenty of that in DnD worlds anyways, what with all the people dying to monsters they could never hope to face.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Where I read those same (or very similar) stories and think "Yeah, that's fine for this story but there's no way in hell I'd want to see that as a character power in D&D".

Good for you. But just because you don't want it as a character power in DnD doesn't mean I don't want it as a character power in DnD. Because I want to actually emulate the fiction I read. And sure, you do too. That's why you don't play 5e.

 

[Chaosmancer]

And to me the way that works is truly awful. Abilities like those should trigger only a) when attacked and b) when the target knows the attack is coming, all before the attack is resolved.

"When you take damage" is already too late as you're retconning something that has already happened.

Except you aren't.

Timing is an utterly bizarre thing when you are not living through it. How long does it take to think a thought? No time at all. How long does it take to tell someone you are thinking a thought? Quite a bit longer. How long does it take to read about a character thinking a thought? Even longer.

There is an entire short story written in the time it takes for a man to die from a gunshot, all the thoughts and feelings he expresses. I could write an entire short story about the exact process of how long it takes for a pain signal to run from my hand, to my brain, back down to my hand when I touch a hot stove. It would take a long time to read it, compared to how long it would take to jerk back your hand.

And so how do you represent a mechanical action, that you can take, that is an unconscious instantaneous reaction in the fiction? By having a timing that seems to happen after the fact, but in fact happens simultaneously, a thing you could not actually represent as happening at the same time in the game mechanics.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I don't treat them as meta. It is something the creature consciously does. I often describe them somehow shaking off the effect or something like that. This is to telegraph it to the players that the resistance has been used.

Also, recently the characters took from a slain troll hag an item that gave them a one use legendary resistance! This again, of course, is something the character needs to intentionally invoke.

So how does the new Mage Slayer feat work? They can choose to succeed on a save when they fail, no action taken. Just like the legendary resistance you are saying is conscious and not meta. And how is this in any way different from the new Lucky feat, that they can apply before making a roll, or when targeted by an attack?

 

[Chaosmancer]

Indeed. And the rule comes with this narrative.

No, it doesn't. Here is the full rules text:
You gain the following benefits.
Luck Points. You have a number of Luck Points equal to your Proficiency Bonus and can spend the points on the benefits below. You regain your expended Luck Points when you finish a Long Rest.
Advantage. When you roll a d20 for a D20 Test, you can spend 1 Luck Point to give yourself Advantage on the roll.
Disadvantage. When a creature rolls a d20 for an attack roll against you, you can spend 1 Luck Point to impose Disadvantage on that roll.

There is no narrative here, anymore than there is a narrative here for the Alert feat:
You gain the following benefits.
Initiative Proficiency. When you roll Initiative, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to the roll.
Initiative Swap. Immediately after you roll Initiative, you can swap your Initiative with the Initiative of one willing ally in the same combat. You can't make this swap if you or the ally has the Incapacitated condition.

Yes it is. Like to make an example of a far more serious issue, the racist language regarding orcs in Volo's didn't stop being a problem just because I could change the narrative of orcs in my own game (and obviously did.)

And you see NO DIFFERENCE between "there is racist language in these books" and "this thing doesn't match my preferred narrative tropes"? None at all. Nothing else that might make one of them a little harder to just change and make okay in the official books?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

No, it doesn't. Here is the full rules text:
You gain the following benefits.
Luck Points. You have a number of Luck Points equal to your Proficiency Bonus and can spend the points on the benefits below. You regain your expended Luck Points when you finish a Long Rest.
Advantage. When you roll a d20 for a D20 Test, you can spend 1 Luck Point to give yourself Advantage on the roll.
Disadvantage. When a creature rolls a d20 for an attack roll against you, you can spend 1 Luck Point to impose Disadvantage on that roll.

There is no narrative here, anymore than there is a narrative here for the Alert feat:
You gain the following benefits.
Initiative Proficiency. When you roll Initiative, you can add your Proficiency Bonus to the roll.
Initiative Swap. Immediately after you roll Initiative, you can swap your Initiative with the Initiative of one willing ally in the same combat. You can't make this swap if you or the ally has the Incapacitated condition.

At least the old (2014) version* says: "You have inexplicable luck that seems to kick in just at the right moment." So this to me says it is not a conscious decision. If they have changed this in the update, I don't know.

(*Alert has fluff as well.)

And you see NO DIFFERENCE between "there is racist language in these books" and "this thing doesn't match my preferred narrative tropes"? None at all. Nothing else that might make one of them a little harder to just change and make okay in the official books?

The other of course is far more serious issue and I said as much. But the same principle applies: that you can change it doesn't mean it wasn't a problem. In fact, that one has changed it pretty strongly implies that it was a problem for them!