D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I have declared no such thing.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Spellcasting in D&D is terribly designed.

I think we can all come together to agree on this.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Except the part of the fiction that pertains to emotions!

Not if it's mechanized, no. Not my preference.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Nor for @Crimson Longinus, judging from his posts upthread.

Have you played Rolemaster? Did it immerse you?

I have not. I read MERP back in the day, and was fascinated by it. It looked amazing.

 

[pemerton]

Casting a spell providing the preconditions are right, does guarantee success (at least in D&D fiction *of the spell cast itself and not necessarily the effect, ex: hold person can miss and do nothing), so modeling that by having the spell casting mechanic always be successful is diegetic (providing the preconditions are there).

A Fly spell or Web spell (two examples I gave) always succeeds. The character never sneezes, stutters, mucks up their gestures, etc.

Trying extra hard doesn't guarantee success

Why not? I mean, if D&D can have it that it's diegetic that, when you cast a spell, you never sneeze or muck it up, why can't trying hard be enough to make sure you succeed. I mean, what is the difference between the spell-casting example - I'm always disciplined enough to do it - and the "trying hard" example - whenever I try hard, I'm disciplined enough to do it?

Furthermore, how would this be any different from the 5e Rogue ability that guarantees a minimum of a roll of 10 on a stat/skill check? Which means that the rogue always succeeds on stuff that is DC rated within 10+ their bonus. Are you now saying that that is not diegetic either?

 

[pemerton]

There's lots of things you can do in the current model of D&D that doesn't require a die roll. You can jump a set amount based on your Strength, with an optional roll if the DM wishes to allow you to jump more.

You can climb or swim automatically, unless the DM rules there are few handholds or the water is especially rough. In most other systems, you'd have to roll to perform any of these feats.

Casting a spell doesn't require a roll in most cases (but sometimes it does), but neither does parrying via the Defensive Duelist Feat.

I could go on, but the absence or presence of a die roll doesn't mean something it trivially simple- it just means that the designers of the system felt that some things should be allowed to happen, to keep the game running smoothly.

All I would add is - why does gating the auto-success behind a resource expenditure suddenly make it not "diegetic"?

I mean, suppose that a character had an ability - let's call it Dig Deep! - that say) let them take a level of exhaustion in exchange for replacing a d20 roll with an auto-20; or maybe they have to spend a hit die for no other effect to get the benefit; or maybe they have to take hp damage equal to their level in order to get the benefit.

I don't see why that couldn't be diegetic.

Not if it's mechanized, no. Not my preference.

But I assume you use some form of barbarian rage in your game?

 

[Chaosmancer]

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.)

Actually, you do know. Because I posted the entirety of the 2024 rules text for you. Like I said in the part you just quoted. Twice.

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!

One problem is hateful content being printed in an official book.

The other problem is "I don't like the story". This is, kind of literally, claiming that racist content in the book is on any level equivalent to being upset that they called it a Scimitar instead of a Cutlass.

If you want scimitars to be Cutlasses, you can change that, and that sort of fixes the problem you had about the thing you didn't like. Racism is hate language directed at a group of people, and applies more broadly than your singular sensitivities about a narrative trope. "But I can ignore racism that isn't directed at me" is a singularly terrible thing that has historically been done to allow racism to continue. These are comparing apples and nuclear bombs just because both are made of matter.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Actually, you do know. Because I posted the entirety of the 2024 rules text for you. Like I said in the part you just quoted. Twice.

Has all the lore been stripped from all the feats? If so, that is very unfortunate.

One problem is hateful content being printed in an official book.

The other problem is "I don't like the story". This is, kind of literally, claiming that racist content in the book is on any level equivalent to being upset that they called it a Scimitar instead of a Cutlass.

If you want scimitars to be Cutlasses, you can change that, and that sort of fixes the problem you had about the thing you didn't like. Racism is hate language directed at a group of people, and applies more broadly than your singular sensitivities about a narrative trope. "But I can ignore racism that isn't directed at me" is a singularly terrible thing that has historically been done to allow racism to continue. These are comparing apples and nuclear bombs just because both are made of matter.

You are completely missing the point. In no way am I equating the magnitude of the problem, nor trying to obfuscate that one is pretty much objectively a problem whilst another is just subjectively a problem. But unifying thing here is that "you can change it" doesn't mean that it was not a problem in the first place! I merely used an example I would assume you would see as a problem as well to illustrate the issue with your approach. C'mon, this is not a hard concept!

 

[Chaosmancer]

Has all the lore been stripped from all the feats? If so, that is very unfortunate.

Is it unfortunate? Now you no longer have the problem with them that you had before. Now people can make these diegetic like they want, instead of it supposedly being forced the other way. They removed something you didn't like.

You are completely missing the point. In no way am I equating the magnitude of the problem, nor trying to obfuscate that one is pretty much objectively a problem whilst another is just subjectively a problem. But unifying thing here is that "you can change it" doesn't mean that it was not a problem in the first place! I merely used an example I would assume you would see as a problem as well to illustrate the issue with your approach. C'mon, this is not a hard concept!

The magnitude kind of makes a difference here. After all, you wouldn't forgive your best friend for murdering your wife and children, so you shouldn't forgive them for saying your cooking sucks. The unifying thing here is that they hurt you, so we should treat them as exactly identical things, right?

Obviously not. That's insane.

The issue here isn't hate speech or anything like that. The issue here is you don't like it when the narrative text doesn't explicitly state that luck points are a real thing the character is aware of. Or other such supposedly "meta" things. The issue is entirely down to your own personal preference for what kind of narratives should exist. I'm fine with unconscious spending of ineffable resources, because I think they add a fun mysticism to things. You aren't fine with it because you want them to be concrete things that the character is aware of. So... since you can trivially change the story, do that.

It is no different than deciding whether or not Magic Initiate is because you failed wizard school, were born with innate magic, or were taught by a celestial river dragon. You can change the story of how you got magic easily, so there is no reason to get bent out of shape over "but HOW do I know this magic"

 

[Lanefan]

Re: spellcasting in D&D is badly designed:

I think we can all come together to agree on this.

Indeed.

And then we'll all immediately start disagreeing over how to design it better.