D&D (2024) The Problem with Healing Powercreep

[Micah Sweet]

It is generally amusing to see a bunch of people discussing a "problem" with healing in the game, when I am also aware of how few of those who "have" this problem actually play with the 2024 rules.

Is the new healing in 2024 too much? Short answer: No.

Longer answer?

I just recently finished the halfway point of a campaign where I was playing a 2024 Trickery Cleric from the playtest. That meant that from level 3 I could project a perfect illusion (which absorbed many attacks) and I was using the new healing spells. In most of the fights we were in, despite the DM feeling like we had no chance of losing, I had usually spent most turns barely keeping one or more characters alive and in the fight. Our final fight ended with my character dead (revived with a plot item) after every single party member but one making multiple death saves, AFTER we used the Stronghold powers to have even more abilities (and I had even more healing) AND we had gotten more magical gear.

And, while it might shock you to consider, despite being players of the newest version of DnD, our group did not rip open our armor, beat our chests while screaming the name of The Great Leroy Jenkins, and charge with butter knives bared at the enemy. In fact, one of our missions went so well in terms of the tactics that not only did we win with no injuries (maybe one if I'm misremembering) but we had also manuevered in such a way that the DM declared the freed prisoners backed with us would overwhelm the completely unprepared fort we had infiltrated and take them out with minimal issues. And that was not the only stealth mission we engaged in.

So, the next thing that will get leveled against point declaration that, no, there isn't a problem here, would be that the DM MUST have done something untoward, because if he had followed the rules in the books then this would have never happened. Except, I asked him. He rarely homebrewed. He did use some 3PP materials, but I have the same materials, and I use those same materials, and they really aren't much more dangerous than the 2014 rules. Oh right. And the 2024 monsters have not been fully revealed, even as we do know from the DMG that the XP budgets are significantly bigger than they used to be.

Now, yes, if you want 5e24 to play exactly like 2e, using game mechanics and tones that haven't been in the game for 25 years or more... it doesn't do that. But that isn't a problem, any more than Dr. Pepper not tasting like Orange Fanta is a problem. And if you feel like you as the DM have to put in a little bit of work, to get the effect YOU desire (because, I do notice that I've never seen a single person get on these boards and say "as a player I feel like the game is to easy when my DM runs it, so the rules should be changed") then.... yeah. Maybe you do. But I'm not really incentivized to remove a great change to the game to appease a group of people who have no interest in actually playing the game unless it was designed to be exactly like the game they are already running, so they don't have to do any work.

This is a little aggressive. No one expects the game to change; it's already been published. I'm struggling to see who you're angry with and why.

 

[Lanefan]

I genuinely don't understand how that is possible. You want to evince what that character's personality, knowledge, values, etc. would produce. You chose that personality. Doing so IS choosing what story you want to tell!

Doing so is choosing where and how you might fit in to the story the campaign is going to eventually tell; with the great unknown being how long that character will remain a participant in said story.

Suggesting it's choosing what story you specifically want to tell seems a bit dodgy unless you're the only player in the game.

 

[Lanefan]

Those good, estabilished characters emerge naturally through game play, over the course of several sessions. That's why I don't let my players bring me huge backstories. I much rather leave things fuzzy at the beginning and let the characters be born and take shape of their own.

Agreed.

That said, in my experience the "that's my character would do" crowd are the least immersive, most disruptive ones. They tend to look more like forced caricatures than actual people.

Guess I'm in trouble, then; as I see "It's what the character would do" as being the guiding principle (and maybe the only principle) of roleplay.

That and, disruptive or not, those who truly follow "it's what my character would do" are actually the most immersive ones, as they aren't letting gamist or out-of-character concerns influence what their characters do in the fiction.

 

[Lanefan]

Malice has nothing to do with it and there is a line where being "frank" crosses into being rude offensive or just being a jerk. When a player feels the need to say "It'sWhatMyCharacterWouldDo", it's almost always because the person saying it just chose to do something everyone knows is unreasonable behavior. The phrase shifts the criticism from the fact that Bob is being a jerk over to if Bob's character would do it & why not with the burden of proof shifted from bob to those calling it out.

It cuts the other way too. I might have my character suicide itself on a death trap to allow the rest of the party to escape because it's what my character would do, even if by so doing I've just roleplayed myself (as player) out of the rest of the adventure.

 

[Lanefan]

There are diegetic parts of the game and non-diegetic parts. Characters aren't aware of their HP for example: HP is an element that's there for the players to tick off attacks until they 'lose' the encounters. Nor are characters actually aware of their class. Like people don't know that the little guy with a knife is doing the kind of damage a knife to the kidneys should do instead of a d4 because he went to Rogue school with a major in Thief.

How can a character possibly not be aware of its class, in terms of said class being how it makes its living? A Fighter knows she's a fighter. A Thief knows he's a thief. A Wizard knows she's a mage. And so on.

That's like saying a plumber isn't aware of being a plumber or a scientist isn't aware of being a scientist.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Doing so is choosing where and how you might fit in to the story the campaign is going to eventually tell; with the great unknown being how long that character will remain a participant in said story.

Suggesting it's choosing what story you specifically want to tell seems a bit dodgy unless you're the only player in the game.

The thing I bolded is what group storytelling is. Each participant fitting their part together with the whole. Just because it's collaborated and lacks a premade plot doesn't mean it isn't storytelling. It's just collaborative and serialized. Lots and lots of stories are collaborative and serialized.

It's not at all dodgy unless you insert the assumption (which I have pretty soundly rejected multiple times in this thread) that your contributions are irrefutable and absolute. Collaboration requires real dialogue, give-and-take, reciprocity. You're cooperating with others, not shouting commands at them.

Nobody can expect their stuff to be automatically irrefutable. But, by that same token, everyone should quite validly expect to have a hand in "the story the campaign is going to eventually tell." They're going to have something they're interested in seeing, and that something is what will drive their decisions like "would this character swallow their pride this time, or would it get the better of them yet again, despite what they've learned?" and "now that the rage and vengeance that drove this character is gone, what does drive them now?"

Those are questions characters cannot just "answer", even if we grant a much more robust idea of "independently existing" characters than I am normally willing to grant--because the whole point is that the character doesn't know. But those are questions worth answering, and the answers could very easily change as a result of play. That--that right there--the story of finding out how the group and the adventure and the world change this person, and how this person changes the group and the adventure and the world, IS the awesome story I'm talking about.

It's still a story. It's just a story that results from multiple people working together to find out what happens.

 

[FrogReaver]

This drives me honestly crazy sometimes. Its always players decisions, there is no independent character making decisions for their own.

The concept being referred to isn’t that the player isn’t making decisions for the character. The concept is related to how the player is making decisions for the character.

What is meant is that the player decides what the character will do solely based on the characterization of said character, some of which may be unrevealed to the group and so far only in the players head. Contrast this with making decisions about what the character will do for story reasons or because the player wants their character to have better gear, regardless of whether a character characterized thusly would do what is required to obtain said gear or really anything, like survivability.

"Its what my character would do!" is bollocks. You can give the same character to a different player, and they will play this character differently - it will still fit the characteristics, but it will essentially be a different character, although the backstory and character traits are the same.

Most of us would say that’s playing a different character. A character is more than revealed backstory and revealed characterization.

 

[Nefermandias]

I see "It's what the character would do" as being the guiding principle (and maybe the only principle) of roleplay.

I agree with your guiding principle for role-playing. My point is that good players almost never feel the need to say that infamous line out loud. They just keep in character and make decisions accordingly, without ever having to justify anything.

 

[Staffan]

Agreed.

Guess I'm in trouble, then; as I see "It's what the character would do" as being the guiding principle (and maybe the only principle) of roleplay.

That and, disruptive or not, those who truly follow "it's what my character would do" are actually the most immersive ones, as they aren't letting gamist or out-of-character concerns influence what their characters do in the fiction.

The issue with "That's what my character would do" is when people use it as an excuse for being an (bleep). You might be making character-appropriate choices, but you designed that character to be an (bleep), so your characters (bleep)-ness is your fault. Of course that doesn't mean your character has to integrate completely without friction into the party – some friction is fun! But any disruptiveness on part of your character is your responsibility.

 

[TwoSix]

A good established character has certain independent existence. They cannot do whatever and remain in-character.

But they're also not locked into one particular choice. I have an independent existence (probably, but that's a question for philosophers), and I can make a ton of choices.

No individual with emotions is going to make the same choices every time in the highly stressful situations PCs find themselves in.