Quote from: LordVreeg;542807so we should take one adventure written with a certain rule set in mind, and wonder why it would not do as well with a different ruleset?

Well, dipshit, since this playtest is all the information we have to go on - then this is what we must extrapolate from, isn't it?

Quote from: LordVreeg;54280799% of my games the PCs do not finish an adventure in the first pass.  But my adventures are written for my rules.  
Derp, de derp, what a surprise, they work fine.

Thank you for neatly killing your own rebuttal by pointing out that your adventures work fine with your homebrew rules. No shit.

How would they change with the DnD Next playtest rules?

I hate to point this out, but the OP is technically in violation of the playtest agreement.  Posting derivative rules is pretty plainly forbidden.

It's also a sterling example of people yet again not bothering to actually read the damn rules for what they say.

The split described in the OP is already present in the rules.  Try again.

Quote from: jeff37923;542808Well, dipshit, since this playtest is all the information we have to go on - then this is what we must extrapolate from, isn't it?




Thank you for neatly killing your own rebuttal by pointing out that your adventures work fine with your homebrew rules. No shit.

How would they change with the DnD Next playtest rules?

um.  Jeff?  Hello?  That is my point.

This is a thread where someone is positing a homebrew/deriviative rule.   You dismissed the alternative rule solely with the logic that it did not work with playtest written for a different rule.  
My exact point was that you were saying that this rule would not work well...with an adventure written for a different rule set.  That being the playtest in question.
So...no, my logic actually held throughout.  
Dipshit.

Quote from: LordVreeg;542813um.  Jeff?  Hello?  That is my point.

This is a thread where someone is positing a homebrew/deriviative rule.   You dismissed the alternative rule solely with the logic that it did not work with playtest written for a different rule.  
My exact point was that you were saying that this rule would not work well...with an adventure written for a different rule set.  That being the playtest in question.
So...no, my logic actually held throughout.  
Dipshit.

Whatever you want to believe, cupcake.

You really need to read closer next time....

Quote from: Sacrosanct;542483Yeah, in fact I VIVIDLY recall the numerous fights when 2e came out and there were no monks or assassins, and the art was toned down to rated G.

No monks or assassins seems such a small thing these days.

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;542817No monks or assassins seems such a small thing these days.

Well, the rules were largely the same, and hardly anything to really get pissy over re: the minor changes.  It was the removal of two core classes (and 1/2 orc) and the shift to be more politically correct that caused the most drama, if I recall.

D&D Next Healing Fix

• You recover your "hit dice" (healing dice?) after a night's rest.
• You do not get fully healed.

There, it has been fixed. We've got good old attrition back in the game. Now go forth and do good with it.

Quote from: J Arcane;542809I hate to point this out, but the OP is technically in violation of the playtest agreement.  Posting derivative rules is pretty plainly forbidden.

It's also a sterling example of people yet again not bothering to actually read the damn rules for what they say.

The split described in the OP is already present in the rules.  Try again.

So I lose 60 Hps, then finally reach zero, and start dying.  I stabilize at -19.  2d6 hours later I gain 1 hp, which puts me at 1hp, not -18.  A Long Rest after that and I'm full as if it never happened, all of it potentially within less then 24 hours, none of it with any kind of magic.  Boy, I'm glad you came around to point out how different HPs are between above and below zero, otherwise I would have thought someone could heal back to full in one night after being mortally wounded.  Oh wait...

Quote from: Melan;542835D&D Next Healing Fix

• You recover your "hit dice" (healing dice?) after a night's rest.
• You do not get fully healed.

There, it has been fixed. We've got good old attrition back in the game. Now go forth and do good with it.

Yeah, we went over that one in the other thread (shhh don't tell Batman), it drops healing out of Wolverine mode, maybe into Capt America mode.

In the 30+ years I've been playing D&D, the ring of regeneration was one of the most highly prized items.

I guess with 5e, it doesn't really matter any more.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542864Yeah, we went over that one in the other thread (shhh don't tell Batman), it drops healing out of Wolverine mode, maybe into Capt America mode.

If you think that's too fast, it's pretty easy to take it down a notch.  Just recover 1HD per extrended rest.

Quote from: CRKrueger;542861So I lose 60 Hps, then finally reach zero, and start dying.  I stabilize at -19.  2d6 hours later I gain 1 hp, which puts me at 1hp, not -18.  A Long Rest after that and I'm full as if it never happened, all of it potentially within less then 24 hours, none of it with any kind of magic.  Boy, I'm glad you came around to point out how different HPs are between above and below zero, otherwise I would have thought someone could heal back to full in one night after being mortally wounded.  Oh wait...

Actually, you're right.  I had missed the line about the 2d6 hour recovery, or at least its consequences.  It does seem to suggest that you'd immediately be at 1hp after no more than 12 hours, when paired with the "any healing makes you at 1hp" rule, which is problematic.  I'm not sure if this is deliberate or not, it reads like something that might not've been intended. IOW, it could be read as intending you to heal back up past 0 1hp at a time every 2d6 hours, or it could be read as meaning how you read it, thanks to the "instant 1hp" rule.  

Personally then, I think there's your culprit. There's no sense overcomplicating HP to double-down on the split, you just need to make the split that is there work properly.  1hp to full, you're fine, it's essentially just stamina + cuts and scrapes as defined, 0HP or less you're officially seriously wounded enough to knock you out and you'll need serious care.  You could even get into adding an injury table for any time a player drops to 0 or below.  

You just need to get rid of the 2d6 recovery rule, and require either magical healing, or extend the time needed to something more reasonable.

Quote from: John Morrow;542630One of the biggest problem that a lot of people have with 4e are the disassociated mechanics, so things like healing surges and having characters naturally heal overnight would mean embracing exactly what many hate most about D&D 4e, which is exactly what they shouldn't be doing.

I find it very strange with people here who have this abnormal fascination with AD&D HP recovery.  Both 4e and 1e describe HP with nearly the same verbiage, yet 4e(and now 5e) is poopooed on and 1e is praised, when both are disassociated mechanics.
What is the justification that 4e is bad and 1e is 'gold standard'?
1e ignores the skill, luck and/or magical factors with hp recovery solely focusing on hp being physical damage.  4e ignores the physical damage part and focuses on skill, luck and resolve.

Verbiage for 1e
"A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained.  The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors"
I would also like to point out the last sentence in the first paragraph  "Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."

Verbiage for 4e
"Hit points represent more than physical endurance. They represent your character's skill, luck, and resolve—all the factors that combine to help you stay alive in a combat situation."

I do like how in 1e hp recovery in the phb is different from the dmg and from virtually everyone here
phb
"For each day of rest, 1 hit point of damage is restored. After 30 game days have passed, hit points accrue at the rate of 5 per day thereafter."
dmg
"For each day of rest a character will regain 1 hit point, up to and including 7 days....poor constitution must deduct weekly the penalty score from his or her days of healing,....bonus for high constitution add the bonus score to the number of hit points they recover due to resting....Regardless of the number of hit points a character has, 4 weeks of continuous rest will restore any character to full strength."

I have no idea why WotC has this fascination with 'padded sumo'.

Quote from: LordVreeg;542468I could say the same of the Monk and paladin and ranger, or for god's sake, of weapons doing different damages, or adding good and evil to the alignment system.

I think there is a difference, though.

Monks, paladins, rangers, rating weapons for different damage dice, adding a new axis to the alignment system... These are all new things which were added onto the same underlying chassis.

And if you look at D&D from 1974 to 2008, that remains basically true: You occasionally see an edition drop or revise something that a previous edition had added to the game, but all of the different versions of the game were basically different sets of add-ons to the original 1974 rules (barring a few minor tweaks to the numbers on a table, the exact categorization of saving throws, and that sort of thing).

Some of the stuff that 1989 bitches about (like advantages/disadvantages in D&DNext) are actually just more additions. Like 'em or not, they're not fundamentally altering the core chassis of the game. But CRKrueger's Stamina/Wounds mechanic or D&DNext's revision of Hit Dice are actually altering that chassis in fundamental ways.

Quote from: Sommerjon;542912I find it very strange with people here who have this abnormal fascination with AD&D HP recovery.  Both 4e and 1e describe HP with nearly the same verbiage, yet 4e(and now 5e) is poopooed on and 1e is praised, when both are disassociated mechanics.

The hit point system is more than just the definitional verbiage you quote.

In all editions of D&D prior to 4E, hit points consistently work like this. The mechanic is mostly associated with a few exceptions (notably in that cure spells don't scale, but there are other problems unique to various editions).

In 4E, the dissociated non-scaling of cure spells is corrected. But this is ironic, because the mechanic dissociates everywhere else that you look: Wounds from poison blades healing up because somebody shouted at you. Overnight healing of mortal wounds. Yada, yada, yada.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542936The hit point system is more than just the definitional verbiage you quote.

No it isn't.  You merely accept the way they defined how to do natural healing(whichever version you choose) even though it runs counter to how they describe HP.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542936In all editions of D&D prior to 4E, hit points consistently work like this. The mechanic is mostly associated with a few exceptions (notably in that cure spells don't scale, but there are other problems unique to various editions).

1e phb
"A certain amount of these hit points represent the actual physical punishment which can be sustained. The remainder, a significant portion of hit points at higher levels, stands for skill, luck, and/or magical factors"
I would also like to point out the last sentence in the first paragraph "Thus, the majority of hit points are symbolic of combat skill, luck (bestowed by supernatural powers), and magical forces."
Runs counter to your claims.  

Quote from: Justin Alexander;542936In 4E, the dissociated non-scaling of cure spells is corrected. But this is ironic, because the mechanic dissociates everywhere else that you look: Wounds from poison blades healing up because somebody shouted at you. Overnight healing of mortal wounds. Yada, yada, yada.

Not really, in 1e, like I said, focuses on 'real damage' when you heal naturally even though they fully acknowledge that HP is not merely physical representation.  This dissociation you fully accept, for what seems like no other reason but sacred cowness.  4e focuses on the other side, and this is wrong because...it isn't 1e.