D&D 5E We have a Legends and Lore this week

[pemerton]

I don't really like the rules defining what does or does not constitute a "safe place" outside of specific adventures or campaigns.

But they don't have to tell us what a safe place is in order to be built around the idea of "to regain hit points you need to be resting in a safe place".

For the past several five or so levels the PCs in my 4e game have been in the Underdark. They can only take an extended rest in a "safe place". What sort of place counts as safe is flexible, and has been worked out in play: so far a Hallowed Temple (created by ritual), a duergar stronghold and a drow barracks have all been used.

The main problem I see is what about monster HP. A group of orcs take an ancient fortress out in the wilderness. They are not in posh comfortable living conditions so now they have 1/2 HP. In fact most monsters have 1/2 HP now, only those that must be repaired or regenerate is some way or living in comfortable civilized conditions get full HP.

I am very much hoping that the game won't be built around an assumption that recovery rules for monsters - to the extent that they are needed at all - are the same as recovery rules for PCs. That's an optional approach to play, obviously, but it should't be built in as a rigid assumption. And those who are using it will probably not be using a "havens" rule - they'll use something more simulationist, perhaps like [MENTION=882]Chris_Nightwing[/MENTION]'s idea upthread.

an encounter with 4 ogres is probably easier than 4 encounters each with 1 ogre (because the wizard can usually affect more than one with his fireball but probably doesn't have four fireballs to throw around).

In 4e the opposite is definitely true - that dealing with 4 ogres together is harder than dealing with four lots of one ogre - because the ability to optimise area damage is not as important as the ability to optimise action economy.

If D&Dnext is trending the other way - that wizard AoE damage is more important than overall party action economy - then it's moving away from my own preferred destination.

 

[Sunseeker]

But they don't have to tell us what a safe place is in order to be built around the idea of "to regain hit points you need to be resting in a safe place".

For the past several five or so levels the PCs in my 4e game have been in the Underdark. They can only take an extended rest in a "safe place". What sort of place counts as safe is flexible, and has been worked out in play: so far a Hallowed Temple (created by ritual), a duergar stronghold and a drow barracks have all been used.

I think it needs to be clear that player effort can turn an otherwise unsafe location into a safe one.

 

[pemerton]

I think it needs to be clear that player effort can turn an otherwise unsafe location into a safe one.

Sure, but that generalises more broadly doesn't it - eg player effort can also turn hard skill/ability checks into easy ones?

In the Underdark scenario I talked about, Hallowed Temple results from player effort - ie the PC invoker uses a ritual. And friendly strongholds and barracks result from player effort to - the PCs befriend the duergar in one case, the drow master-at-arms in the other case.

Conversely, to the extent that some groups prefer all this sort of stuff to be in the GM's hands, and dislike that sort of player control over the narrative, then they would take the same view about safe havens.

TL;DR: I'm agreeing with you as far as my own preferences go, but also saying that the issue of player power over the narrative is a more general one, on which different people have different preferences, and there is nothing special about healing that makes it a bigger deal than anywhere else in the game.

 

[Sadrik]

I am very much hoping that the game won't be built around an assumption that recovery rules for monsters are the same as recovery rules for PCs. That's an optional approach to play, obviously, but it should't be built in as a rigid assumption.

Lol, yeah if monsters never recover, that will be an interesting world you have created. Perhaps monsters represent card board stand ins for the slaughter and mean nothing outside of just a speed bump in the gamist world. Your dragons may not fly in and attack and then vear off only to come back and attack again after recovering. Monsters need to recover just like pcs.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps monsters represent card board stand ins for the slaughter and mean nothing outside of just a speed bump in the gamist world. Your dragons may not fly in and attack and then vear off only to come back and attack again after recovering. Monsters need to recover just like pcs.

It's good to have even greater clarity on your preferences and your disdain for those who prefer other gaming styles.

But that doesn't change my view that the rules will be better if they do not just take it for granted that monster recovery is handled in the same way as PC recovery.

 

[Hussar]

Lol, yeah if monsters never recover, that will be an interesting world you have created. Perhaps monsters represent card board stand ins for the slaughter and mean nothing outside of just a speed bump in the gamist world. Your dragons may not fly in and attack and then vear off only to come back and attack again after recovering. Monsters need to recover just like pcs.

Why?

Game mechanics =/= the way the world works. They never, ever have. Game mechanics are not there to tell you that the world works in such and such a way. Game mechanics are there to facilitate play.

There is nothing wrong with rules for PC's and rules for everyone else. It worked for 4 out of 5 editions, so, it's not like it won't work now.

 

[I'm A Banana]

The main problem I see is what about monster HP. A group of orcs take an ancient fortress out in the wilderness. They are not in posh comfortable living conditions so now they have 1/2 HP. In fact most monsters have 1/2 HP now, only those that must be repaired or regenerate is some way or living in comfortable civilized conditions get full HP.

Why isn't an orc stronghold "comfortable living conditions" (for an orc)?

I mean, aside from [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] 's solid point, I think if it's going to be a consideration, it's a pretty safe assumption that the "lair" for a monster is basically what it considers a place that it can regain full HP at.

....which gives an interesting kind of flow to a fight with an orc band in the wilderness (or whatever). We now have a mechanical reason for them to "run away and lick their wounds." You fight a dragon outside of its lair or a demon away from the Abyss, and it runs away...maybe you can find where it ran off to, and slay it for good.

Could also be interesting with PC's needing different locales. Maybe the druid can't rest unless he's in a sacred grove, but the rest of the party is fine with a town. This means the druid won't get full rest in a town. Or perhaps a cleric needs access to a temple of their god -- a city of pagans isn't somewhere the cleric can ever get a full rest at. And that Orc PC, maybe he can rest at the orc lair, even though the rest of the party can't...

What a monster needs to rest probably isn't what a PC needs to rest. PC's might even need different things. It's another rules fob to play with!

 

[The Choice]

But that doesn't change my view that the rules will be better if they do not just take it for granted that monster recovery is handled in the same way as PC recovery.

I figure that's a given considering that the ways PCs' hitpoints scale and monsters' hitpoints scale seem to be different.

Heck, I hope they leave it as "NPCs, adversaries, and monsters recover hitpoints at a pace set by the DMs." That way I won't be troubled and be kept up all night having to calculate how many hitpoints that random orc who fled the battle two sessions ago has recovered.

 

[pemerton]

I hope they leave it as "NPCs, adversaries, and monsters recover hitpoints at a pace set by the DMs."

That would work for me too. But others will want something different, I'm sure.

I think there need to be options here too, and solid discussion of the signficance, for play, of choosing those different options.

Also, [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION], your suggestions of linking the fantasy geography to recovery in more intricate ways is interesting. With this sort of option, I would be looking for advice and tools to help make it work with party-based play - so the druid can go to the grove, the MU to the tower and the cleric to the non-pagan town, without the game breaking down in the way that it sometimes can if the party splits up.

 

[Ichneumon]

Lol, yeah if monsters never recover, that will be an interesting world you have created. Perhaps monsters represent card board stand ins for the slaughter and mean nothing outside of just a speed bump in the gamist world. Your dragons may not fly in and attack and then vear off only to come back and attack again after recovering. Monsters need to recover just like pcs.

A simple rule can be used to handle this situation. Monsters gain full recovery when in their homes.

So while an orcs' lair might not be posh by human standards, a badly wounded orc chieftain can recover there. A dragon which almost gets taken down by an adventuring group will get better if it can return to its cave. If such a rule is implemented, it also gives PCs ways to challenge particularly tough monsters. They might find and burn down a lich's dwelling while the lich is away, rendering that monster vulnerable until it acquires a new home. It would also provide a reason why creatures from other planes are reluctant to stay in the world too long.