TheRPGSite

QuoteAs a default, we can just embrace the cleric's healing with the understanding that most groups have rolled with that in the past without any real issues.

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130218

Thank god.

I fully expect the usual suspects to flip their shit at the notion that 30+ years of D&D wasn't fundamentally in need of fixing.

In fact TCO and others are already whining in the comments just moments after the the article was posted :D

It warms my little heart it does.

Quote from: Piestrio;629316http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130218

Thank god.

I fully expect the usual suspects to flip their shit at the notion that 30+ years of D&D wasn't fundamentally in need of fixing.

In fact TCO and others are already whining in the comments just moments after the the article was posted :D

It warms my little heart it does.

"In any case, nothing is set in stone. There are still discussions pending, and we all still have thinking and playing to do, but right now I'm leaning toward this as our best path forward."

This does seem to be a bit hedged, though.  

That being said, the traditional magical healing approach utterly dominates the idea of the healing surge, which disconnects fighting from any sort of injury at all in a lot of cases.

Quote from: Piestrio;629316http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130218

Thank god.

I fully expect the usual suspects to flip their shit at the notion that 30+ years of D&D wasn't fundamentally in need of fixing.

In fact TCO and others are already whining in the comments just moments after the the article was posted :D

It warms my little heart it does.

I think you need an alternate model for a more S&S or swashbuckler feel where you don't want a cleric in the party though.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629320I think you need an alternate model for a more S&S or swashbuckler feel where you don't want a cleric in the party though.

Sure, but if you want to play D&D you should just play D&D.

Quote from: Piestrio;629321Sure, but if you want to play D&D you should just play D&D.

I have always though one of D&D's strengths was that with a few tweaks it can be used to run a whole gamut of games. Which I guess is why the d20 boom saw so many different variants on the D&D frame.

Am I playing it wrong then?

Quote from: jibbajibba;629327I have always though one of D&D's strengths was that with a few tweaks it can be used to run a whole gamut of games. Which I guess is why the d20 boom saw so many different variants on the D&D frame.

Am I playing it wrong then?

No, but I view D&D quite differently.

When I want to play any given fantasy game I reach for GURPS.

When I want to play Rolemaster I reach for Rolemaster.

When I want to play Runequest I reach for Runequest.

When I want to play L5R I grab L5R.

And when I want to play D&D I reach for D&D.

I don't expect D&D to be rolemaster, or L5R or GURPS.

So when D&D loses healing clerics and vancian casting and the hundred other things that make D&D unique it becomes a product with no real draw, just an empty bucket.

I know it's passe nowadays but I LIKE D&D. I like all the little bits that make it different and unique, all the little bits that it's so fashionable to hate on; vancian casting, armor making you harder to hit, forever increasing hit points, classes, levels, arcane/divine magic, clerical healing, etc....

Without those there is no reason to play D&D. I'd rather play GURPS.

Heh, this reminds me of RPG.net discussion of people trying to figure out how to have an all Fighter party and healing in 2e.

In 2e natural healing was 1 HP a day if doing non-strenuous activity, like traveling (which by foot is still a brisk walk or moderate riding pace), and getting adequate food and rest. Full bed rest was 3 HP a day, with a CON bonus at the end of a week.

When you look at that core rule and think about it, that is a lot of healing for the first few levels. A bunch of fighters could merrily go about, heal while traveling, return, heal, and rapidly head back out again without healing spells. Fast enough to keep the adventures going, slow enough to make low HP actually a strategic as well as a tactical concern.

It is pretty awesome and overlooked, in my opinion.

Quote from: Piestrio;629330No, but I view D&D quite differently.

When I want to play any given fantasy game I reach for GURPS.

When I want to play Rolemaster I reach for Rolemaster.

When I want to play Runequest I reach for Runequest.

When I want to play L5R I grab L5R.

And when I want to play D&D I reach for D&D.

I don't expect D&D to be rolemaster, or L5R or GURPS.

So when D&D loses healing clerics and vancian casting and the hundred other things that make D&D unique it becomes a product with no real draw, just an empty bucket.

I know it's passe nowadays but I LIKE D&D. I like all the little bits that make it different and unique. Without those there is no reason to play D&D. I'd rather play GURPS.

Fair enough. Horses for courses and all that.
I just figure we all know the base D&D engine so well that tweaking it to make it better for musketeers, or pirates, or Newhon is far easier than going out and getting another system.
I really want the system to get out of the way most of the time. D&D suits me for that.
Wasn't that part of the D&D next idea Themes or whatever they were which were a set of rule tweaks you could apply to D&D to give it an alternate flavour? Or am I misremembering?

Cleric healing is fine as long as the amount of healing that a cleric can do as a percentage of total party HPs is pretty low (which CLW healing 1d6 damage and no healing spells at 2nd and 3rd level does jut fine IMHO) as it's relatively hard to recover spells in the field.

"Damn, I guess the game wasn't as fucked up as we advertised it to be in order to sell 4E...."

I was puzzling over similar when I was thinking of ranting about stuff over on Google+.  Mostly, I think it stems from the 'role playing rules as operating systems' mentality, but there is something else to it, I think.  3e and 4e players love to throw the 'nostalgia' accusation around, but I can't see anything but nostalgia in the fevered defense of using those same mechanics in the newer games.  Talk about fear of change, the game that essentially kicked off the OSR movement was primarily a d20 clone.

Perhaps there is a new sanity gripping the industry.  Maybe gamers will stop treating the new version as "D&D OS X".  Mearls might be catching on to the idea that they should be designing games that people want to play featuring mechanics that do what they are intended.

Quote from: Piestrio;629321Sure, but if you want to play D&D you should just play D&D.

I don't know, Piestrio. I've been forced to deal with people not wanting to play a cleric for nigh on thirty years. And there has been a lot of them. If there is anything that 4e did right, it was allowing those people mechanically equivalent but differently flavored options. This is a huge step backwards in my opinion.

Quote from: Raven;629358I don't know, Piestrio. I've been forced to deal with people not wanting to play a cleric for nigh on thirty years. And there has been a lot of them. If there is anything that 4e did right, it was allowing those people mechanically equivalent but differently flavored options. This is a huge step backwards in my opinion.

Then play something else?

I know it sounds harsh but I really don't understand the sentiment that D&D should be a sorta shitty generic fantasy RPG rather than a unique and enjoyable game.

It's not like anyone is forcing anyone to play D&D rather than a game more suited to their tastes.

Let D&D BE D&D. If someone doesn't like it they can find and play a whole world of other games.

I know the bed has already been shit, so to speak, and we can't go back to 1999 but that doesn't mean we have to pile mistake on mistake.

I'm tired of the unspoken assumption that TSR D&D was broken and in need of fixing. Magic needs to be fixed, fighters need to be fixes, healing needs to be fixed, magic items need to be fixed, thieves need to be fixed, classes, XP, monsters, treasure, etc, etc, etc...

fixfixifixfixfixfixfix

Fix it until it doesn't resemble D&D.

I'm just happy to see someone say, "Hey, you know what? Maybe TSR D&D wasn't this huge pile of shit that we thought it was for 13 years"

Quote from: jeff37923;629342"Damn, I guess the game wasn't as fucked up as we advertised it to be in order to sell 4E...."

They've been doing a lot of that lately, haven't they?

JG

Quote from: James Gillen;629366They've been doing a lot of that lately, haven't they?

JG

In a completely unrelated story, they are selling the previous lines in pdf again...

Things that make you go, "Hmmmm...".  :)

Quote from: StormBringer;629346I was puzzling over similar when I was thinking of ranting about stuff over on Google+.  Mostly, I think it stems from the 'role playing rules as operating systems' mentality, but there is something else to it, I think.  3e and 4e players love to throw the 'nostalgia' accusation around, but I can't see anything but nostalgia in the fevered defense of using those same mechanics in the newer games.  Talk about fear of change, the game that essentially kicked off the OSR movement was primarily a d20 clone.

Perhaps there is a new sanity gripping the industry.  Maybe gamers will stop treating the new version as "D&D OS X".  Mearls might be catching on to the idea that they should be designing games that people want to play featuring mechanics that do what they are intended.

Ironically, rediscovering old-school rules styles just drives home that even OSes aren't as automatically "better" as people assume.

Going back to basics and making a deliberately TSR-ish D&D-clone with Hulks and Horrors gave me the same feeling I got when I first discovered OS-9 and QNX and went "Why in fuck are we using this bloated shit, when we could use something faster, easier, and that fits on a floppy disk?!"

Quote from: J Arcane;629373Ironically, rediscovering old-school rules styles just drives home that even OSes aren't as automatically "better" as people assume.

Going back to basics and making a deliberately TSR-ish D&D-clone with Hulks and Horrors gave me the same feeling I got when I first discovered OS-9 and QNX and went "Why in fuck are we using this bloated shit, when we could use something faster, easier, and that fits on a floppy disk?!"

Exactly.  I recently moved from GNOME to xfce, and it's noticeably more responsive.  I don't stick with the the original TSR rules from nostalgia; they are faster, more responsive, and it frees me up to focus on everyone having fun instead of poring over countless splats to see what a feat or spell does.

Quote from: Piestrio;629321Sure, but if you want to play D&D you should just play D&D.

True up to a point, but with anything as complex as an RPG there's always going to be the "stone in my shoe" problem - "I like everything about this game except this one thing here". If someone wants to play D&D with no combat healing, or no magical healing at all - well, why not? It's no odder than playing, say, Dark Sun, and that was an official setting.

That being said - magical healing (and especially combat healing) was a much smaller deal in TSR D&D compared to 3e anyway.

If I was designing my own D&D Heartbreaker today, I would probably remove combat healing (and maybe even the Cleric class). But as long as D&D Next winds it back to more TSR-era levels (i.e. no more healing wands) I'll be happy.

For natural healing we always rule that you get your level back in hit points each day. Total rest gives you 1d4 more. In fact in our last game the DM ruled the same for Cleric healing spells.

Doesn't work so well if you've got 20-30 levels as an achievable aim. But works fine for 1-12th or 13th, which is about as far as we normally get in older editions.

Quote from: One Horse Town;629402For natural healing we always rule that you get your level back in hit points each day. Total rest gives you 1d4 more. In fact in our last game the DM ruled the same for Cleric healing spells.

Doesn't work so well if you've got 20-30 levels as an achievable aim. But works fine for 1-12th or 13th, which is about as far as we normally get in older editions.

Well don't forget that in the TSR editions you usually stop getting an extra hit dice per level around 10th level, and just get a couple of HPs at most from then on.

Quote from: Piestrio;629364Then play something else?

I know it sounds harsh but I really don't understand the sentiment that D&D should be a sorta shitty generic fantasy RPG rather than a unique and enjoyable game.

It's not like anyone is forcing anyone to play D&D rather than a game more suited to their tastes.

Let D&D BE D&D. If someone doesn't like it they can find and play a whole world of other games.

I know the bed has already been shit, so to speak, and we can't go back to 1999 but that doesn't mean we have to pile mistake on mistake.

I'm tired of the unspoken assumption that TSR D&D was broken and in need of fixing. Magic needs to be fixed, fighters need to be fixes, healing needs to be fixed, magic items need to be fixed, thieves need to be fixed, classes, XP, monsters, treasure, etc, etc, etc...

fixfixifixfixfixfixfix

Fix it until it doesn't resemble D&D.

I'm just happy to see someone say, "Hey, you know what? Maybe TSR D&D wasn't this huge pile of shit that we thought it was for 13 years"

+1. This is what I've been saying (http://osrandom.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/random-rant-55-in-series-of-8367-5e.html) for a while.

Quote from: Grymbok;629396True up to a point, but with anything as complex as an RPG there's always going to be the "stone in my shoe" problem - "I like everything about this game except this one thing here".

Yes, and those are exactly the sort of things Referees and players can change at their game table with houserules.

The cleric being a dud class that few people want to play has been a thing since I started playing back in the 80s.

The thing is, clerical healing is very easy to replicate using house rules. All you need is something (magical or not) that works more or less like Cure Light Wounds, and is a limited resource that can only be replenished occasionally.

We played one game where the entire party was composed of thieves and it worked just fine.

Quote from: Piestrio;629330I know it's passe nowadays but I LIKE D&D. I like all the little bits that make it different and unique, all the little bits that it's so fashionable to hate on; vancian casting, armor making you harder to hit, forever increasing hit points, classes, levels, arcane/divine magic, clerical healing, etc....

Surely that's one of the strengths of a class-based, highly modular, game system.

Like clerics as they are? Great, play one. Want a healing class that works in a different way? Okay, design and play one of those instead (And we'll assume, for the sake of argument, that you don't simply want to play "Cleric +1", because how boring is that as a design). Everybody can potentially get to play the type of class they want, without impinging on anyone else's choice of class.

Old school healing is fine.

New school play is what causes it to seem broken.

Fight, fight, fight, and fight again is a playstyle OPTION that requires lots of healing to maintain.

Don't want to play clerics? Find options to achieve your objectives that cause less bleeding.

Quote from: Piestrio;629316http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130218

Thank god.

I fully expect the usual suspects to flip their shit at the notion that 30+ years of D&D wasn't fundamentally in need of fixing.

In fact TCO and others are already whining in the comments just moments after the the article was posted :D

It warms my little heart it does.

This is a great article and to me shows they get it in a big way. Nit just in terms of satisfying those of us who believe cleric only healing isnt a problem, but because they recognize so much of the debate and infighting is centered around this question, that a truly modular approach would need to start with cleric heals but have options to accomodate those who find cleric only heals a serious problem.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629320I think you need an alternate model for a more S&S or swashbuckler feel where you don't want a cleric in the party though.

But that is what he is suggesing. He is only talking aboutnmaking the default cleric only heal, but looks like he plans to provide plenty of options you can add in. I am actually hoping instead of splats,mwe get thirty one flavors of D&D. Maybe they will be out a swashbuckling book (i would definitely play that). But I think the core book is going to have a lot of 2E style tags and method 1,2 and 3 tags.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;629428Old school healing is fine.

New school play is what causes it to seem broken.

Fight, fight, fight, and fight again is a playstyle OPTION that requires lots of healing to maintain.

Don't want to play clerics? Find options to achieve your objectives that cause less bleeding.

See I don;t want fight fight fight. I don't want magical healing because it doesn't fit the games i want to play. that includes wands and other nick nacks.

I want my games to feel like the books I read. None of those books from swords against Lankhmar, to Game of Thrones to The Blade Itself has magical healing. So I don't want it.
Now the problme swith doing that indside D&D is stuff has to shift about. For me the easiesr method was to look at the rules and see what HPs really were. If you do that then the fact that they can recover quite fast makes sense. In my games there are HP and wounds.  HPs recover fast, not 4e fast but 10% per hour. Wounds heal slower and have a death spiral.
Been playing what I call 'D&D' for 15 years like this and I like it.

I really like the idea that there are some templates you can apply to the D&D ruleset that makes into a game for different people. I don;t need the core game to be any different from AD&D to be honest but I like the idea that you can dial in separate bits and peices. You want musketeers use these variants you want Dark Sun use these you want Planescape use these what is wrong wioth that?

I seriously don't get it.  From the beginning, D&D has been about playing with what rules you wanted.  To see so many people absolutely throw a shit fit because they are saying, "You still get healing like hit dice if you want, but it's optional" is baffling.

Grow up people.  You still get what you want.  Crying that your particular tastes aren't core makes you come off as a spoiled entitled brat.  I don't like Hit Dice.  Guess what?  So I don't play with that rule.  It's literally that simple.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629443I seriously don't get it.  From the beginning, D&D has been about playing with what rules you wanted.  To see so many people absolutely throw a shit fit because they are saying, "You still get healing like hit dice if you want, but it's optional" is baffling.

Grow up people.  You still get what you want.  Crying that your particular tastes aren't core makes you come off as a spoiled entitled brat.  I don't like Hit Dice.  Guess what?  So I don't play with that rule.  It's literally that simple.

Yup.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629435See I don;t want fight fight fight. I don't want magical healing because it doesn't fit the games i want to play. that includes wands and other nick nacks.

I want my games to feel like the books I read. None of those books from swords against Lankhmar, to Game of Thrones to The Blade Itself has magical healing. So I don't want it.
Now the problme swith doing that indside D&D is stuff has to shift about. For me the easiesr method was to look at the rules and see what HPs really were. If you do that then the fact that they can recover quite fast makes sense. In my games there are HP and wounds.  HPs recover fast, not 4e fast but 10% per hour. Wounds heal slower and have a death spiral.
Been playing what I call 'D&D' for 15 years like this and I like it.

I really like the idea that there are some templates you can apply to the D&D ruleset that makes into a game for different people. I don;t need the core game to be any different from AD&D to be honest but I like the idea that you can dial in separate bits and peices. You want musketeers use these variants you want Dark Sun use these you want Planescape use these what is wrong wioth that?

I just want D&D to be D&D.

When I want a more S&S feel with low magic and no magical healing then I use GURPS. Skilled combat characters can use defenses to avoid getting wounded in the first place.

Its too much to ask the D&D core game to be everything to everyone.

The cleric was always sort of an odd man out because it's an archetype that doesn't really exist anywhere outside of D&D. There's no counterpart in the classic fantasy and S&S literature that early D&D took inspiration from.* And although the class vaguely references medieval Europe, there's no counterpart there either. The original cleric archetype is basically pure Gygax.

Thinking back, none of the parties in our long running campaigns back when included a cleric.

*The "evil priest" is a familiar character in S&S stories (Conan & etc.), but they don't resemble the early D&D cleric much at all.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;629446I just want D&D to be D&D.

When I want a more S&S feel with low magic and no magical healing then I use GURPS. Skilled combat characters can use defenses to avoid getting wounded in the first place.

Its too much to ask the D&D core game to be everything to everyone.

But you surely woundn't mind some optional rules to allow that style of play?
Or the 4e superhero style of play if that is what floats a group's boat?
An extra book with feats etc so it can play like 3.5 optimiser?
 I can't see why you would object to those things provided you can play yopur version?

The question I guess comes with what if your version, the OSR D&D if you will, is an option and not the core and you need to use some optional rules to make it run that way.

Quote from: Dimitrios;629447The cleric was always sort of an odd man out because it's an archetype that doesn't really exist anywhere outside of D&D. There's no counterpart in the classic fantasy and S&S literature that early D&D took inspiration from.* And although the class vaguely references medieval Europe, there's no counterpart there either. The original cleric archetype is basically pure Gygax.

Thinking back, none of the parties in our long running campaigns back when included a cleric.

*The "evil priest" is a familiar character in S&S stories (Conan & etc.), but they don't resemble the early D&D cleric much at all.

this is why I find it such an odd fit. Where divine characters do exist they are nothign liek the cleric so i think the 2e priest is a much more flexible archetype. I understand a Holy order of knights who might get some magic in certain settings but that magic needs to relate to their god. the only thing that might touch a D&D cleric is a hospitaler and that is such a narrow type its not even an archetype. It might well fit in some settings, but it's hardly a Warrior or a wizard or a rogue.

Quote from: Piestrio;629321Sure, but if you want to play D&D you should just play D&D.

So yes, if you want to play D&D, play D&D right. Translation, play D&D the way Piestro like to play.

Quote from: Piestrio;629330So when D&D loses healing clerics and vancian casting and the hundred other things that make D&D unique it becomes a product with no real draw, just an empty bucket.

As you say, there are hundreds of things that make it D&D losing one or two doesn't make it not D&D... maybe not to you.

Furthermore, your "go play something else" that's exactly what the people at Wizards are attempting to stop you from doing. They don't want you to play something else, they want you to play D&D

The Brand D&D, not what Piestro thinks D&D should be.

Quote from: VictorC;629454So yes, if you want to play D&D, play D&D right. Translation, play D&D the way Piestro like to play.

.

Seriously?


No, more like, "Play D&D the way it was played for 20+ years.  The way that made D&D what it was.  It's identity.  Not some mediocre product that tries to be better at all types of gaming than any other system."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629455Seriously?


No, more like, "Play D&D the way it was played for 20+ years.  The way that made D&D what it was.  It's identity.  Not some mediocre product that tries to be better at all types of gaming than any other system."

But if they put in some optional ruels and you use them and they work then its win win right?

Quote from: jibbajibba;629449But you surely woundn't mind some optional rules to allow that style of play?
Or the 4e superhero style of play if that is what floats a group's boat?
An extra book with feats etc so it can play like 3.5 optimiser?
 I can't see why you would object to those things provided you can play yopur version?

The question I guess comes with what if your version, the OSR D&D if you will, is an option and not the core and you need to use some optional rules to make it run that way.

WOTC can include whatever they want. If the core is too far off from classic D&D then it won't stop me from playing. I just won't be running it.

Quote from: VictorC;629454Furthermore, your "go play something else" that's exactly what the people at Wizards are attempting to stop you from doing. They don't want you to play something else, they want you to play D&D

The Brand D&D, not what Piestro thinks D&D should be.

If WOTC hasn't learned that "The Brand" means absolutely jack shit without the goods to back it up by now then there isn't any hope for them.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629456But if they put in some optional ruels and you use them and they work then its win win right?

The elephant in the room here is popularity, and I think the dichotomy Sacrosanct just displayed underscores it nicely.

On the one hand -

"Guess what? So I don't play with that rule. It's literally that simple."

On the other -

"Play D&D the way it was played for 20+ years. The way that made D&D what it was. It's identity."

So it is okay for an individual to change the rules, because that's 'house ruling' and is no threat to anything.  But as soon as a group - particularly a popular group - does it, it becomes a threat.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629456But if they put in some optional ruels and you use them and they work then its win win right?

Absolutely.  But again, this comes back to people wanting the core rules to have all these things.  D&D will never be the best system for all genres or styles of play.  That's impossible.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629459Absolutely.  But again, this comes back to people wanting the core rules to have all these things.  D&D will never be the best system for all genres or styles of play.  That's impossible.

so the releases seem to say core is like AD&D, next tep up adds 3e feats and powers stuff top end adds all teh bells and whistles.
Now d20 is a system that has been modded up the kazoo. They shoudl be able to take the best bits of that and use them as additioanl supliments for the core right?

Quote from: mcbobbo;629458The elephant in the room here is popularity, and I think the dichotomy Sacrosanct just displayed underscores it nicely.

On the one hand -

"Guess what? So I don't play with that rule. It's literally that simple."

On the other -

"Play D&D the way it was played for 20+ years. The way that made D&D what it was. It's identity."

So it is okay for an individual to change the rules, because that's 'house ruling' and is no threat to anything.  But as soon as a group - particularly a popular group - does it, it becomes a threat.

No it isn't.  You're missing a key part of what I'm arguing.  The Core Rules.  I don't care if optional rules are in place that make D&D a completely different animal than it was for the first 20 some odd years.  But the Core shouldn't be.  D&D has an identity.  People play D&D because of that experience.  If you try to make it the best for all experiences in the Core, then it will fail miserably.

So you see, there's no contradiction at all.  The Core D&D should match with it's identity, and optional rules (rules that I can ignore) can be added to tailor to individual experiences.  But all these optional rules should not be part of the core game.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629460so the releases seem to say core is like AD&D, next tep up adds 3e feats and powers stuff top end adds all teh bells and whistles.
Now d20 is a system that has been modded up the kazoo. They shoudl be able to take the best bits of that and use them as additioanl supliments for the core right?

I suppose they could.  In fact, the Core rules would be more like B/X with a few AD&D elements.  Then they could have one expansion module that allows you to have more of a d20 experience.  And other module that allows you to have a 4e experience.  And another that gives you a 2e experience.  But each module is independent of the others.

So you've got your core D&D that matches what the D&D identity is, and for those folks who like the other flavors, can just bolt those on.

Oh my god that comments thread it's like these people have never heard of D&D.  

(http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff142/BLS_Knight/cry_some_more.jpg)

What I am not seeing is how they are going to reconcile D&D Next with 4e AND with the older editions. 4e is just too different to make a core game that also works for older D&D.

Even if they had an optional powers and detailed tactics module that you can tack on, I doubt the resulting game would feel or play anything like 4e.

One thing we do know that B/X style D&D was very good at introducing the game to novices and expansive enough to keep them coming back for more.

I think that having D&D Next as a B/X clone with some revised mechanics (like Ascending AC) along with some customization options is the way to go for the core. Bonus points if you can make the core classes a decent result of a pre-picked build from the "advanced" version.

I think some people here are confused about what rules go where and what the structure of Next so far would be. You have the basic rules, the standard rules, and the advanced rules.

When people say "hey playing without a cleric and making healing easier than potions and the like should be an option in there" I say yes, sure. That should be an option in the game for those that want that. As soon as you talk about "options" though, that just doesn't go into the basic rules. It's either "standard", or "advanced", depending on the particulars.

The basic game should have clerics and potions/magic items doing the healing. Period. Then you can add all the bells and whistles in the expanded rules (standard and advanced) everyone will be able to pick and choose from to build their own play experience.

Make no mistake: if the basic game isn't "D&D" and isn't recognizable as such through and through, this next iteration of the game is going to pepper out "meh" style the way 4e did in no time. And that's a fact people who don't like D&D, "not really," should come to terms with.

Quote from: estar;629469What I am not seeing is how they are going to reconcile D&D Next with 4e AND with the older editions. 4e is just too different to make a core game that also works for older D&D.

Even if they had an optional powers and detailed tactics module that you can tack on, I doubt the resulting game would feel or play anything like 4e.

One thing we do know that B/X style D&D was very good at introducing the game to novices and expansive enough to keep them coming back for more.

I think that having D&D Next as a B/X clone with some revised mechanics (like Ascending AC) along with some customization options is the way to go for the core. Bonus points if you can make the core classes a decent result of a pre-picked build from the "advanced" version.

although you couldn;t make a 4e replica i think you can make a tactics heavy power based game that still runs on the D&D engine. They will eliminate the HP / damage bloat of 4e perhaps so raging mega death attack at 10th level does 30 + 3d6 rather than 80+3d10 and the minotaur has 60 HP rather than 120 but that is just numbers the game could still feel like that I think.
the key isn't to make a series of expansions that play like clones of other editions.
the key is to capture the common essence of all the versions and enable the players to get that vibe based on a selection of features.
There is no point building clones because there are already clones enough.
It has to be the same but different in order to capture the sales.

Your point re can a basic player take their warrior and play them in an advabnced game with no modding is well made. I suspect the answer to that is no depending on how simple the core is. If its AD&D simple with classes with set feat trees aka class powers and the advanced version just replaces those set feats with other optiosn then it may work but i doubt it woudl be slick enough for the 3e fans and it might creeate too many compromises in teh core game.

Quote from: estar;629469What I am not seeing is how they are going to reconcile D&D Next with 4e AND with the older editions. 4e is just too different to make a core game that also works for older D&D.

Even if they had an optional powers and detailed tactics module that you can tack on, I doubt the resulting game would feel or play anything like 4e.

One thing we do know that B/X style D&D was very good at introducing the game to novices and expansive enough to keep them coming back for more.

I think that having D&D Next as a B/X clone with some revised mechanics (like Ascending AC) along with some customization options is the way to go for the core. Bonus points if you can make the core classes a decent result of a pre-picked build from the "advanced" version.

I think to get a 4E style game, you really need a seperate book. A non magical healing option that can be layered onto the core is something I could see as an option in the PHB, but anything involving martial powers or 4E style abilities, you really need a book devoted to that (and I think that is actually the fairest treatment of it for both sides). My expectation is the core book will be too simple for me and I am going to need to buy the advanced book to play the game I want. But I am getting a lot of mixed signals from them regarding the exact structure the line will take.

Where's Maw these days. He'd be fun in this thread.

Quote from: Dimitrios;629447The cleric was always sort of an odd man out because it's an archetype that doesn't really exist anywhere outside of D&D. There's no counterpart in the classic fantasy and S&S literature that early D&D took inspiration from.* And although the class vaguely references medieval Europe, there's no counterpart there either. The original cleric archetype is basically pure Gygax.

Thinking back, none of the parties in our long running campaigns back when included a cleric.

*The "evil priest" is a familiar character in S&S stories (Conan & etc.), but they don't resemble the early D&D cleric much at all.

My personal theory is that the "lose all of your powers if you break the code of conduct" piece likely went a long way towards causing problems.  With a little bit of poorly designed antagonism, it leads to the class being very unpopular.  

It is also a shame that it wasn't framed as Abraham van Helsing in a box.  The driven scholar who understands the forces of darkness well enough to turn undead and heal would have linked into all sorts of archetypes.

Postquoting before reading:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;629428Old school healing is fine.

New school play is what causes it to seem broken.

Fight, fight, fight, and fight again is a playstyle OPTION that requires lots of healing to maintain.

Don't want to play clerics? Find options to achieve your objectives that cause less bleeding.

100x this.  Hell, even when I was running 3e, my guys just did without (main healer was a bard with "cure minor wounds" (1hp!) and potions for about 4 levels until they found a (as in "one single") cure light wounds wand.  (I cut treasure and xp to half in 3e, BTW.)  Worked fine, dudes just had to be careful.

Moreso in TSR editions (without d20 hp inflation) - if nobody wants to play the cleric, nobody plays the cleric, whatever.  (Especially Basic - clerics that don't even get healing at first level go a long way towards curing the "we need a cleric" syndrome.)

Quote from: Piestrio;629364Then play something else?

I know it sounds harsh but I really don't understand the sentiment that D&D should be a sorta shitty generic fantasy RPG rather than a unique and enjoyable game.

It's not like anyone is forcing anyone to play D&D rather than a game more suited to their tastes.

Let D&D BE D&D. If someone doesn't like it they can find and play a whole world of other games.

I know the bed has already been shit, so to speak, and we can't go back to 1999 but that doesn't mean we have to pile mistake on mistake.

I'm tired of the unspoken assumption that TSR D&D was broken and in need of fixing. Magic needs to be fixed, fighters need to be fixes, healing needs to be fixed, magic items need to be fixed, thieves need to be fixed, classes, XP, monsters, treasure, etc, etc, etc...

fixfixifixfixfixfixfix

Fix it until it doesn't resemble D&D.

I'm just happy to see someone say, "Hey, you know what? Maybe TSR D&D wasn't this huge pile of shit that we thought it was for 13 years"

+1

Played 2e all my life.

Never added a single house rule.

Never felt the need.

Games runs fine as is.

Quote from: 1989;629492+1

Played 2e all my life.

Never added a single house rule.

Never felt the need.

Games runs fine as is.

While I agree with this, I think we also live in a different moment and people are not just going to play the game because its D&D. You basically have two to three camps that are all prepared to walk if it doesn't do what they want it to. So while I strongly oppose having HD or similiar healing mechanics as the default, I really don't see an issue putting it in there as an optional rule (and to be fair, 2E had tons and tons of optional rules). In the long term, I believe the approach of core basic book, advanced book and a 4e style book will be successful. I doubt they can construct a core game at this stage which will attract all the different groups that have emerged in the last twenty years. But if putting a few optional rules in the core book gets some of those folks to the table to buy the second and third book, then WOTC might as well do it (particularly if it is a genuine optional rule I can ignore).

I really don't envy Mearls and co. Basically everything he does, is going to get one side angry. I thought this last article was great, because it shows he definitely sees where I am coming from, but if the rumblings elsewhere are any indication, there are a lot of unhappy people PMing him right now that he has "ruined D&D".

Quote from: VictorC;629454So yes, if you want to play D&D, play D&D right. Translation, play D&D the way Piestro like to play.



As you say, there are hundreds of things that make it D&D losing one or two doesn't make it not D&D... maybe not to you.

Furthermore, your "go play something else" that's exactly what the people at Wizards are attempting to stop you from doing. They don't want you to play something else, they want you to play D&D

The Brand D&D, not what Piestro thinks D&D should be.

This is really fucking rich.

The longest running D&D game I've ever been in used an entirely different magic system.

I've run games with radically different HP and damage rules, different combat procedures, different classes, races, etc...

The time I've spent playing D&D as D&D is dwarfed by the amount of time I've spent playing my own altered versions of D&D .

So the "D&D the way Piestrio likes to play" is pretty fucking different from what I've described.

The difference is I'm not a self centered twit who thinks just because I like something in my D&D that it's OBJECTIVELY BETTER and everyone should buy a game with that at the center.

It's about knowing that your preferences are preferences and not privileged simply because they are yours.

It's about recognizing that value exists in things even if you don't particularly like them.

OMG the level of butthurt over at TBP is amazing.

5e regressing?  Well, when 4e was a self-admitted failure, and the previous edition is arguably still the most popular version of an RPG out there, what do you expect?

And this:

Quote from: KaiWhat solution? I mean, in general I would agree with this sentiment but I'm pretty sure the D&D Next team doesn't give a shit what people on RPGnet have to say about what they're doing.

One can only hope so.  You guys are sounding like a bunch of crybabies who fail to acknowledge that your precious version failed.  And color me jack shit lack of surprised that that particular mod is essentially saying edition warring is perfectly OK as long as it's not against 4e.

Oh, and when Mearls says, "Feedback showed that most people never thought it was a problem." that means exactly what it says.  Not "Most people never complained because it was their only option."  Most people in fact didn't think of it as a big problem, regardless of # of options.

Just one more example of them spinning it into something that justifies their complaints, factual or not.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629497Oh, and when Mearls says, "Feedback showed that most people never thought it was a problem." that means exactly what it says.  Not "Most people never complained because it was their only option."  Most people in fact didn't think of it as a big problem, regardless of # of options.

Just one more example of them spinning it into something that justifies their complaints, factual or not.

I think this is the most significant thing if his information is accurate. I have always felt it wasn't a problem at all, but I assumed, judging by the comments I see on forums, that it was at least a problem lots of players felt was genuine. Now I think this may be one of those things where the impression online just didn't match the reality of what was going on at peoples' tables (not that there weren't people unhappy with healing, just that it wasn't this widespread problem posters made it out to be).

Quote from: 1989;629492+1

Played 2e all my life.

Never added a single house rule.

Never felt the need.

Games runs fine as is.

It's funny. My appreciation for "by the book" TSRD&D is a somewhat new development for me.

When I was playing it during it's lifetime I was a house-ruling machine.

But it never occurred to me that just because I liked a proficiency based magic system that EVERYONE should like one and that TSR should redesign the game to cater to my tastes.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629497OMG the level of butthurt over at TBP is amazing.

Lamentations of the RPGNet princesses? Not surprising; doesn't this occur with every L&L post?

I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

I *liked* healing people in combat.  I liked being able to fight, clunking around in plate armor, dishing out some damage (though not as well as the fighter).  I liked making sure everyone stayed on their feet.  I liked having to move between allies, having specialization against undead, having unusual weapons that other players never used, having special knowledge of religions that others did not, and having some unique spells that in the right circumstances could result in miracles.

And I liked the role playing opportunities a cleric presents as well.  Every town seemed to have some difficult conflicts and challenges surrounding religion and religious competition, and the cleric was always in the thick of those intrigues.  Many a farm and rural encounter needed disease curing, or food or water creation, or healing, or the removal of a curse.  And almost every dungeon seemed to have an evil religion involved, and I enjoyed being on the front line in the clash between my religious views and theirs.  I liked having a built-in philosophical driver for my character in my deity's views, and I liked the potential to struggle with conflict between my character's history and evolution and changes and the static nature of his religion.

I get that many don't like Clerics.  But dammit, I do.  Long live the Cleric!

Quote from: Mistwell;629527I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

I *liked* healing people in combat.  I liked being able to fight, clunking around in plate armor, dishing out some damage (though not as well as the fighter).  I liked making sure everyone stayed on their feet.  I liked having to move between allies, having specialization against undead, having unusual weapons that other players never used, having special knowledge of religions that others did not, and having some unique spells that in the right circumstances could result in miracles.

And I liked the role playing opportunities a cleric presents as well.  Every town seemed to have some difficult conflicts and challenges surrounding religion and religious competition, and the cleric was always in the thick of those intrigues.  Many a farm and rural encounter needed disease curing, or food or water creation, or healing, or the removal of a curse.  And almost every dungeon seemed to have an evil religion involved, and I enjoyed being on the front line in the clash between my religious views and theirs.  I liked having a built-in philosophical driver for my character in my deity's views, and I liked the potential to struggle with conflict between my character's history and evolution and changes and the static nature of his religion.

I get that many don't like Clerics.  But dammit, I do.  Long live the Cleric!

I am with you. Clerics are fun, they are also pretty easy to play without a lot of prep because there is the built in motivation of serving your god.

Quote from: Mistwell;629527I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

Nah you're not odd. I'm in the same boat, and the Cleric's never been an "underplayed" character at my tables. I'd say it's actually a pretty popular class in my corner of the woods, in fact.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;629499I think this is the most significant thing if his information is accurate. I have always felt it wasn't a problem at all, but I assumed, judging by the comments I see on forums, that it was at least a problem lots of players felt was genuine. Now I think this may be one of those things where the impression online just didn't match the reality of what was going on at peoples' tables (not that there weren't people unhappy with healing, just that it wasn't this widespread problem posters made it out to be).

I think i've run into it once where a player wasn't pleased with what he said was "having to play a Cleric because we haven't got one." Of course, everyone told him to play what he wanted.

That's once in 30 years.

Having said that, of course having a Cleric with healing powers is important. Without him, your combat-endurance is reduced.

This is not really any different than not having one of the other 3 main classes represented. Don't have an MU? Well, your versatility is reduced. Don't have a Thief, that's potentially your treasure/xp gathering reduced. No Fighters? Well, that's your front-line protection and melee capability reduced.

yet, i never hear people complaining that those classes are 'mandatory.'

For whatever reason, there's a sub-set of players who seem to ignore the fact that the Cleric is a passable combatant, has turning, not to mention other utility spells. No, he's a heal-bot and that's interfering with my snowflake-ism.

Quote from: One Horse Town;629534For whatever reason, there's a sub-set of players who seem to ignore the fact that the Cleric is a passable combatant, has turning, not to mention other utility spells. No, he's a heal-bot and that's interfering with my snowflake-ism.

It is the same sub-set that proclaims that the Bard is useless.

Quote from: Benoist;629533Nah you're not odd. I'm in the same boat, and the Cleric's never been an "underplayed" character at my tables. I'd say it's actually a pretty popular class in my corner of the woods, in fact.

I can honestly say the "Nobody wants to play the cleric" meme is one I've only ever encountered online and in jokes.

That's gaming in various cities across three continents.

Not claiming to be an expert but I suspect the magnitude of this "problem" is greatly magnified by the internet.

Quote from: Mistwell;629527I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

I *liked* healing people in combat.  I liked being able to fight, clunking around in plate armor, dishing out some damage (though not as well as the fighter).  I liked making sure everyone stayed on their feet.  I liked having to move between allies, having specialization against undead, having unusual weapons that other players never used, having special knowledge of religions that others did not, and having some unique spells that in the right circumstances could result in miracles.

And I liked the role playing opportunities a cleric presents as well.  Every town seemed to have some difficult conflicts and challenges surrounding religion and religious competition, and the cleric was always in the thick of those intrigues.  Many a farm and rural encounter needed disease curing, or food or water creation, or healing, or the removal of a curse.  And almost every dungeon seemed to have an evil religion involved, and I enjoyed being on the front line in the clash between my religious views and theirs.  I liked having a built-in philosophical driver for my character in my deity's views, and I liked the potential to struggle with conflict between my character's history and evolution and changes and the static nature of his religion.

I get that many don't like Clerics.  But dammit, I do.  Long live the Cleric!

Fucking word, dude.

Clerics rock.  My favorite D&D class, hands down.

I can't remember who said it earlier, but it's a point worth repeating.  If your healing options are limited, that's only an issue if you spend all your time fighting everything you come across.

I think that illustrates a big difference between 4e and previous editions.  It seems that 4e players spend the vast majority of gameplay combat.  A tactical boardgame if you will.  Of course having multiple healing options are going to be important there.

But they need to realize that D&D, heck RPGs general, are a lot more than moving game pieces in combat.  Just look at the difference:

AD&D
DM: You peer around the corner and see a half dozen bugbears at a table, enjoying a feast of some sort of meat and engaging in crude banter.  There is an exit at the far end of the room where you need to go.
Thief: Ok.  Ragnar and Illustran, you go around the corner down the passage to the east.  I'll lure them out and go to the west, and hide and let them pass.  We'll then go into the room while they're gone.
--scenario is quickly played out, hopefully with a successful HiS check ;)

4e:
DM: You peer around the corner, and this is what you see. (spends 3 minutes placing tiles of a battlemap and then placing the bugbear minis.  How are you guys situated?
Players: spends 2 minutes placing their minis on the battlemap
Thief: Ok.  Ragnar and Illustran, you go around the corner down the passage to the east.  I'll lure them out and go to the west, and hide and let them pass.  We'll then go into the room while they're gone.
Round 1: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 2: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 3: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate, thief is now around the corner and says he will try to hide in shadows
Round 4: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate.  DM rolls check to see of bugbears see thief.  They do not
Round 5-10: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate. repeat
---a brief moment of silence---
Player B: Well, that was sort of boring and time consuming.  Next time we fight!
DM:  Yeah, I had all the proper minis and everything.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;6295394e:
DM: You peer around the corner, and this is what you see. (spends 3 minutes placing tiles of a battlemap and then placing the bugbear minis.  How are you guys situated?
Players: spends 2 minutes placing their minis on the battlemap
Thief: Ok.  Ragnar and Illustran, you go around the corner down the passage to the east.  I'll lure them out and go to the west, and hide and let them pass.  We'll then go into the room while they're gone.
Round 1: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 2: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 3: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate, thief is now around the corner and says he will try to hide in shadows
Round 4: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate.  DM rolls check to see of bugbears see thief.  They do not
Round 5-10: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate. repeat
---a brief moment of silence---
Player B: Well, that was sort of boring and time consuming.  Next time we fight!
DM:  Yeah, I had all the proper minis and everything.

To be fair, that's how 3e usually played out as well.  Heck, when the DM had the right lead figures, that's sometimes how 1e played out for us too (though usually not our Basic and Expert games).  I don't see any of that as unique to 4e.

See, I remember being in Middle and High School in the 80's and we would watch televangelists and then mock them using our clerics in game.

Healing would involve a slap for 1-2 points of subdual damage while proclaiming "Odin the All-Father heals you for *rolls dice* 8 points of damage!" and then the rest of the group would chorus "Praise Odin!"

"If I don't come back with at least a thousand gold, then Odin will kill me!" was usually said while walking into a dungeon.

I can't remember anyone ever complaining about playing a cleric.

Quote from: Mistwell;629542To be fair, that's how 3e usually played out as well.  Heck, when the DM had the right lead figures, that's sometimes how 1e played out for us too (though usually not our Basic and Expert games).  I don't see any of that as unique to 4e.

Because 4e (and to an extent 3e as well) makes having minis as a sort of a requirement to play.  99% of my usage of minis in AD&D was just for general location representation and who's attacking who.  5' movement squares and such were never part of the game, and not required to play the game.  4e has the core ruleset dependent on them.  So the same scenario that takes 1 minute to resolve in AD&D takes several minutes using 4e/3e.  Resulting in more of your gameplay spent in an "combat mode" rather than doing other things, like exploration or interaction.

I do remember people complaining about playing a cleric - which is how I ended up first playing clerics.  I didn't know I'd enjoy it, until I did it.  I think that's perhaps the greatest weakness of the cleric - it does not have the instant easy marketing that "Slash things with big sword" or "Blast things with fireball" or "Backstab things and steal their stuff" does.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629546Because 4e (and to an extent 3e as well) makes having minis as a sort of a requirement to play.  99% of my usage of minis in AD&D was just for general location representation and who's attacking who.  5' movement squares and such were never part of the game, and not required to play the game.  4e has the core ruleset dependent on them.  So the same scenario that takes 1 minute to resolve in AD&D takes several minutes using 4e/3e.  Resulting in more of your gameplay spent in an "combat mode" rather than doing other things, like exploration or interaction.

3e did as well, just as much as 4e.  4e combats took longer to resolve on average, but they always had that high detail of grid-type combat.  I played a lot more 3e than 4e, and I never once saw it played without detailed movement and range rules that slowed things down just like described above.

I saw plenty of AD&D miniature/battle grid combat as well.  As DMs got more cool miniatures, they wanted to use them more.  As more interesting magic items with ranges or movement were involved, the battle grid came out more often as well.  

I think it's shortsighted to say that D&D is historically a verbal-only game when it came to combat.  It's not.  It could be done that way, but I'd say a majority of the games ever played of D&D involved some sort of battle grid and miniatures or other tokens to represent the players and their foes and movement and range.  Miniatures were an important sales point for TSR from early on, and other companies that supported D&D.  The game was based on a wargame to begin with.  The rules frequently supported such type of play, and as more supplements came out over time that focus increased rather than decreasing.  They wanted you to use that carrion crawler miniature.  They wanted you to use that baggage-carrying follower.  They even wanted you to start using set pieces like chests of gold. TSR, from the early days, wanted players using miniatures in combat.

Quote from: Mistwell;629553but I'd say a majority of the games ever played of D&D involved some sort of battle grid and miniatures or other tokens to represent the players and their foes and movement and range.  

I disagree.  I know this is only anecdotal, but I'd say 95% of everyone I gamed with since 1981 to today (still playing AD&D) never used minis any more than rough representations of marching order and to keep track of where and how many monsters there were.  Seeing as how I spent 6 years in the military where new gamers came and went like clockwork, my sample size includes hundreds of gamers.

I know that's anecdotal, but still.  Hell, I have hundreds of minis, but have them because I like them and I like to paint them.  Not because I use them for in-depth tactical movement rules like in 3e and 4e.  If fact, several months ago on this very forum I mentioned how our group played 3e for the first time, and we ignored most of those rules and didn't play with minis at all.

Quote from: Mistwell;629527I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

I *liked* healing people in combat.  I liked being able to fight, clunking around in plate armor, dishing out some damage (though not as well as the fighter).  I liked making sure everyone stayed on their feet.  I liked having to move between allies, having specialization against undead, having unusual weapons that other players never used, having special knowledge of religions that others did not, and having some unique spells that in the right circumstances could result in miracles.

And I liked the role playing opportunities a cleric presents as well.  Every town seemed to have some difficult conflicts and challenges surrounding religion and religious competition, and the cleric was always in the thick of those intrigues.  Many a farm and rural encounter needed disease curing, or food or water creation, or healing, or the removal of a curse.  And almost every dungeon seemed to have an evil religion involved, and I enjoyed being on the front line in the clash between my religious views and theirs.  I liked having a built-in philosophical driver for my character in my deity's views, and I liked the potential to struggle with conflict between my character's history and evolution and changes and the static nature of his religion.

I get that many don't like Clerics.  But dammit, I do.  Long live the Cleric!

Preach it brother! Cleric is one of my favorite classes.

Quote from: One Horse Town;629534I think i've run into it once where a player wasn't pleased with what he said was "having to play a Cleric because we haven't got one." Of course, everyone told him to play what he wanted.

That's once in 30 years.

Having said that, of course having a Cleric with healing powers is important. Without him, your combat-endurance is reduced.

This is not really any different than not having one of the other 3 main classes represented. Don't have an MU? Well, your versatility is reduced. Don't have a Thief, that's potentially your treasure/xp gathering reduced. No Fighters? Well, that's your front-line protection and melee capability reduced.

yet, i never hear people complaining that those classes are 'mandatory.'

For whatever reason, there's a sub-set of players who seem to ignore the fact that the Cleric is a passable combatant, has turning, not to mention other utility spells. No, he's a heal-bot and that's interfering with my snowflake-ism.

I think there is nothing wrong with needing a cleric to get regular healing like that. And I say that as someone who has enjoyed all fighter or all wizard games. Half the point of such a campaign, is you are missing a crucial resource, and you need to work around it somehow. To me, when you insert a mechanic specifically to get around a perceived pacing issue or class limitation issue, it really feels forced and artificial to me.

Quote from: Piestrio;629536I can honestly say the "Nobody wants to play the cleric" meme is one I've only ever encountered online and in jokes.

That's gaming in various cities across three continents.

Not claiming to be an expert but I suspect the magnitude of this "problem" is greatly magnified by the internet.

I think the internet is a huge part of it.

One thing we ought to keep in mind, while there is a lot of support for what mearls is saying here, looking around the other forums it is getting quite an intense backlash from many of the modern design proponents. I definitely think if you like them going in this direction, make a point of sending wizards a message so they know how you feel. If all they see is backlash, they might not realize how many people are cool with this change.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629558I disagree.  I know this is only anecdotal, but I'd say 95% of everyone I gamed with since 1981 to today (still playing AD&D) never used minis any more than rough representations of marching order and to keep track of where and how many monsters there were.  Seeing as how I spent 6 years in the military where new gamers came and went like clockwork, my sample size includes hundreds of gamers.

I know that's anecdotal, but still.  Hell, I have hundreds of minis, but have them because I like them and I like to paint them.  Not because I use them for in-depth tactical movement rules like in 3e and 4e.  If fact, several months ago on this very forum I mentioned how our group played 3e for the first time, and we ignored most of those rules and didn't play with minis at all.

OD&D of course was a miniatures game, using Chainmail miniatures rules for combat.

Then from Basic edition:

QuoteMINIATURE FIGURES: D&D adventures are more interesting to play when figures are used. Metal miniatures (about 15 to 25 millimeters high) are often used, for they can be easily painted to look like real dungeon adventurers. Many excellent figures are designed specially for fantasy role playing games. These are available from TSR or from local hobby stores. If metal miniatures cost more than the players want to spend, many companies make inexpensive packs of plastic figures. These are not specifically made for fantasy role playing, but can easily be adapted for it. Inexpensive plastic monsters of many sizes are also available in local stores. (page B61)

FIGURES: If miniature figures are used to represent the characters, the players should choose figures which look like their characters, and should make sure that the DM knows which miniatures represent which characters. The miniature figures should be lined up in the same order as the marching order. When special situations occur, the players should change the position of their figures as they desire. File cards with names on them, pawns, and other markers may be used instead of miniatures, or the marching order may simply be written on a piece of paper. (page B19)

USING FIGURES: Miniature figures are useful during combat for both the DM and the players, so that they may "see" what is happening. If miniatures are not being used, the DM should draw on a piece of paper, or use something (dice work nicely) to represent the characters in place of miniature figures. (page B26)

SCALE MOVEMENT: If miniature figures are used, the actual movement of the characters can be represented at the scale of one inch equals ten feet. A movement rate of 60' per turn would mean that a miniature figure would move 6 inches in that turn. Scale movement is useful for moving the figures on a playing surface (such as a table). (page B19)

PLAYING SURFACE: Combats are easy to keep track of when large sheets of graph paper, covered with plexiglass or transparent adhesive plastic (contact paper) are used to put the figures on. The best sheets for this use have 1" squares, and the scale of 1" = 5' should be used when moving the figures. With water-based markers or grease pencils, an entire room or battle can be drawn in just a few seconds. When the battle is over, the board may be wiped off, leaving it ready for the next combat. Dominoes or plastic building blocks can also be used to outline walls and corridors. When using figures, the DM should make sure that a solid table top is used, so the figures won't fall over when the table is bumped. (page B61)

And from the AD&D DMG:

QuoteThe special figures cast for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons add color to play and make refereeing far easier. Each player might be required to furnish painted figures representing his or her player character and all henchmen and/or hirelings included in the game session. Such distinctively painted figures enable you to immediately recognize each individual involved. Figures can be placed so as to show their order of march, i.e., which characters are in the lead, which are in the middle, and which are bringing up the rear. Furthermore, players are more readily able to visualize their array and plan actions while seeing the reason for your restrictions on their actions. Monster figures are likewise most helpful, as many things become instantly apparent when a party is arrayed and their monster opponent(s) placed.

Be very careful to purchase castings which are in scale! ... As a rule of thumb, HO scale is 25mm = 1 actual inch = 6' in scale height or length or breadth. ... Figure bases are necessarily broad in order to assure that the figures will stand in the proper position and not constantly be falling over. Because of this, it is usually necessary to use a ground scale twice that of the actual scale for HO, and squares of about 1 actual inch per side are suggested. Each ground scale inch can then be used to equal 3 1/3 linear feet, so a 10' wide scale corridor is 3 actual inches in width and shown as 3 separate squares. ... Be certain to remember that ground scale differs from figure scale, and when dealing with length, two man-sized figures per square is quite possible, as the space is actually 6 scale feet with respect to length. This is meaningful when attacking a snake, dragon, etc., if characters are able to attack the creature's body length. With respect to basically bipedal, erect opponents, scale will not be a factor.

I would actually say that the emphasis on the use of miniatures decreased with 2e.  And then of course it was quite increased with 3e.

Sorry, but quoting a passage out of the AD&D hardly means that's how most people played it.  Especially around minis and movement rules.  You are aware that most players didn't play with half the rules out of AD&D, right?  And especially not with the emphasis that 3e and 4e had upon them.

Quote from: Mistwell;629566OD&D of course was a miniatures game, using Chainmail miniatures rules for combat.

Then from Basic edition:



And from the AD&D DMG:



I would actually say that the emphasis on the use of miniatures decreased with 2e.  And then of course it was quite increased with 3e.

We could all cherry pick passages all day long and it wouldn't tell us much.

More valuable is actually looking in the rules.

Do they reference minis?

Are there diagrams with grids?

Are the examples presented in a way that uses minis? ("John moves his figure 5 inches")

The answer is no. The rules don't presume minis in any version of the game.

Support them? To various degrees yes. Encourage them? Sometimes.

But until 3e we never saw a little grid in a core D&D book to explain movement.

Mistwelling, a verb from the Circvus Maximvs Wiki. (http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/wiki/index.php/Mistwelling)

Quote from: Mistwelling on the Circvus Maximvs WikiFrom The Library of Alexandria
Jump to: navigation, search

Mistwelling a thread is a form of thread derailment not unlike Spoonying a thread or Torming a thread. Where the preferred mechanism of those two was to make a thread all about themselves by in Spoony's case talking about himself and in Torm's case drawing attacks upon himself, Mistwell's chosen approach involves staking out ludicrous White Knight defences of people or positions rightly taking a beating. By presenting a living breathing local target, he provides a distraction of sorts for the subject who has no clue they're being ripped on some silly messageboard somewhere. What he feels he accomplishes by this is unclear, though he does clearly take enjoyment from the conflicts he stirs up.

The more contrarian, wrong-headed or stupid the defence, the more Mistwell likes it, and the more it's guaranteed to atom-bomb a thread. He's become a master at white knighting anything at any time, unfortunately for him he's become so predictable in the role that you see him coming a mile away, and some people have even taken to predicting how and when he's going to charge in on his trusty steed.

Mistwell was first tagged with this post: [1]

"Hey look, Mistwell Mistwells another thread.

That's right, you're now a verb because you've supplanted Spoony and Torm as our resident thread-destroying black-hole of inevitability."

It's everyone's responsibility to help threads avoid Mistwell's event horizon of stupidity. Don't bite on his hasty defences - or if you do, keep it to a simple "you're an idiot" and move on.

Mistwell will white knight almost anything: the Jester seems immune to his, er, proclivities.

Mistwell Flow Chart [2]

Retrieved from "http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/wiki/index.php/Mistwelling"

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629558I'd say 95% of everyone I gamed with since 1981 to today (still playing AD&D) never used minis any more than rough representations of marching order and to keep track of where and how many monsters there were.

That's definitely how we used them back in the day.

As for clerics, I kind of warmed up to them in 2e because the specialty priest format made it easier to make characters that resembled someone from a Robert E. Howard short story.

Quote from: One Horse Town;629534For whatever reason, there's a sub-set of players who seem to ignore the fact that the Cleric is a passable combatant, has turning, not to mention other utility spells. No, he's a heal-bot and that's interfering with my snowflake-ism.

I can definitely see it - when a Cleric is needed to do his iconic thing (Healing), it's making up for someone else's mistake, and the turn is spent not actively doing something fun for yourself.

It's not a mindset I share, though. My favourite MUD character had, as her main ability, making magic healing tea. This is not a terribly exciting ability, but it's useful because otherwise your friends will be dead. And then you don't get any more fun at all.

There are always posters on forums with contrarian tendancies. I would rather judge mistwell based on his posts here than what some guys at circus maximus think of him (i am generally pretty wary of new verbs and fallacies people create on gaming message boards).

That said, my experience of D&D was a big shift toward miniatures with 3E, which greatly intensified with 3.5 and 4E. It certainly did grow out of a miniature game, but from the 70s on it felt like an evolution away from its tactical roots. Wen I started in the 80s we would use miniatures for things like marching order or to help us count who was still up on the battlefield (without worrying about actual positions). In 2E I pretty much never used them, then in 3E we started using them a lot. I do think though there were always groups who used miniatures and grids. And in any game where you had an epic battle the grid and the miniatures were usually brought out.

Quote from: Piestrio;629364Then play something else?

All I meant was I don't think dropping non-magical healing is such a hot idea. I never said anything was fucking broken. Holy shit.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629539I can't remember who said it earlier, but it's a point worth repeating.  If your healing options are limited, that's only an issue if you spend all your time fighting everything you come across.

I think that illustrates a big difference between 4e and previous editions.  It seems that 4e players spend the vast majority of gameplay combat.  A tactical boardgame if you will.  Of course having multiple healing options are going to be important there.

But they need to realize that D&D, heck RPGs general, are a lot more than moving game pieces in combat.  Just look at the difference:

AD&D
DM: You peer around the corner and see a half dozen bugbears at a table, enjoying a feast of some sort of meat and engaging in crude banter.  There is an exit at the far end of the room where you need to go.
Thief: Ok.  Ragnar and Illustran, you go around the corner down the passage to the east.  I'll lure them out and go to the west, and hide and let them pass.  We'll then go into the room while they're gone.
--scenario is quickly played out, hopefully with a successful HiS check ;)

4e:
DM: You peer around the corner, and this is what you see. (spends 3 minutes placing tiles of a battlemap and then placing the bugbear minis.  How are you guys situated?
Players: spends 2 minutes placing their minis on the battlemap
Thief: Ok.  Ragnar and Illustran, you go around the corner down the passage to the east.  I'll lure them out and go to the west, and hide and let them pass.  We'll then go into the room while they're gone.
Round 1: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 2: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 3: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate, thief is now around the corner and says he will try to hide in shadows
Round 4: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate.  DM rolls check to see of bugbears see thief.  They do not
Round 5-10: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate. repeat
---a brief moment of silence---
Player B: Well, that was sort of boring and time consuming.  Next time we fight!
DM:  Yeah, I had all the proper minis and everything.

That isn't how it would work in 4e. You wouldn't switch to square-counting mode unless/until initiative is rolled.

Quote from: Raven;629584All I meant was I don't think dropping non-magical healing is such a hot idea. I never said anything was fucking broken. Holy shit.

I don't see any compelling reason why it and other 11th hour additions to the game should be kept around.

"But I like it!" Doesn't cut it no more than the fact that I like skill based magic means next should have a skill based magic system.

We have a template for successful D&D and it sure as shit doesn't involve warlords and healing bards.

Quote from: jeff37923;629535It is the same sub-set that proclaims that the Bard is useless.

It's the same sub-set that wants thieves to be COMBAT GHODZ because otherwise waaah.

Quote from: Mistwell;629566I would actually say that the emphasis on the use of miniatures decreased with 2e.  And then of course it was quite increased with 3e.

...which is funny because as 2e started to hit its stride, TSR opened their own miniatures foundry.

Quote from: Piestrio;629614We have a template for successful D&D and it sure as shit doesn't involve warlords and healing bards.

I'm aware. I own several slightly different versions already. Doesn't mean I want to continue rebuying them.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629570Sorry, but quoting a passage out of the AD&D hardly means that's how most people played it.  Especially around minis and movement rules.  You are aware that most players didn't play with half the rules out of AD&D, right?  And especially not with the emphasis that 3e and 4e had upon them.

It's a fuck of a lot more persuasive than your personal experiences being claimed as representative of anything other than your personal experiences.

Quote from: Piestrio;629571We could all cherry pick passages all day long and it wouldn't tell us much.

More valuable is actually looking in the rules.

Passages are rules.

QuoteDo they reference minis?

Yes, repeatedly, in detail.  I just quoted some.  Did you even read it?

QuoteAre there diagrams with grids?

Grids are mentioned, with instructions on how to build multiple use grids for use.  Explained in what I quoted.  Which you apparently did not read.

QuoteAre the examples presented in a way that uses minis? ("John moves his figure 5 inches")

Yes.  In the rules I quoted, with a quote almost exactly like your fictional one (but without the name of the character).  Again, which apparently you did not read.

QuoteThe answer is no.

Maybe in an alternative universe where kangaroos have no tales and fall over from lack of support.  Kind of like your answer right there.  

Seriously, why the fuck didn't you read what was posted before responding to it?

QuoteBut until 3e we never saw a little grid in a core D&D book to explain movement.

Wait, so SEEING the grid as opposed to describing exactly how to make the grid and use it is the critical issue for you?

Quote from: jeff37923;629573Mistwelling, a verb from the Circvus Maximvs Wiki. (http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/wiki/index.php/Mistwelling)

And Jeff, I know you have memory problems, so I will just remind you again that *I* wrote that entry, about myself, as an inside joke at CM, one which you do not comprehend because you're not a regular poster there. And, you have a dead link there by the way. In fact, shit, is my entry gone?

Quote from: Dimitrios;629447The cleric was always sort of an odd man out because it's an archetype that doesn't really exist anywhere outside of D&D.

And that's fine.

It's okay for D&D to have things that scream 'I'm D&D, motherfuckers!' in it.

Quote from: Mistwell;629651Blah blah blah

OD&D

" It is relative- ly simple to set up a fantasy campaign, and better still, it will cost almost nothing. In fact you will not even need miniature figures,"

"RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT: DungeonsandDragons(youhaveit!)
Outdoor Survival (available from your hobby dealer or directly from Avalon Hill 2Company,4517HarfordRoad,BaltimoreMD214)
Dice — the following different kinds of dice are available from TSR 1 pair 4-sided dice 1 pair 20-sided dice
1 pair 8-sided dice 1 pair 12-sided dice
4to20pairs6-sidedice
Chainmail miniature rules, latest edition (available from your hobby dealer or directlyfromTSRHobies,POB756,LakeGeneva,Wi.53147)
1 3-Ring Notebook (referee and each player) Graph Paper (6 lines per inch is best)
ShetProtectors(heaviestposible)
3-RingLinedPaper
DraftingEquipmentandColoredPencils
Scratch Paper and Pencils Imagination
1PatientRefere
Players"

Where does Basic talk about minis?

Oh yeah, page 61.

You know... in the back, mentioned as an option.

*sigh*

In AD&D?

The introduction, as an option, after which they aren't mentioned again.

Miniatures were ALWAYS presented as optional in TSR D&D. The presumption was that you would not use them, they are never called out as required equipment.

This is a fact.

Yes, people have been using minis forever and yes nearly every version says that they can be cool to use and provides a few guidelines. Absolutely.

3e changed this up a little bit in that while it still presented them as optional it was presumed that you would use them (especially 3.5)

4e of course doesn't every acknowledge that you can play without them, they are presented as required.

A few paragraphs pulled form introductions and afterwards about how minis can be cool to use does not prove what you think it does.

Quote from: Ladybird;629426

Quote from: Piestrio;629330I know it's passe nowadays but I LIKE D&D. I like all the little bits that make it different and unique, all the little bits that it's so fashionable to hate on; vancian casting, armor making you harder to hit, forever increasing hit points, classes, levels, arcane/divine magic, clerical healing, etc....

Surely that's one of the strengths of a class-based, highly modular, game system.

Like clerics as they are? Great, play one. Want a healing class that works in a different way? Okay, design and play one of those instead (And we'll assume, for the sake of argument, that you don't simply want to play "Cleric +1", because how boring is that as a design). Everybody can potentially get to play the type of class they want, without impinging on anyone else's choice of class.

As far as hit points go, Dave Arneson's Blackmoor campaign in some respects anticipated games such as RuneQuest, while Dave Hargrave's Arduin campaign was in some ways like 4E. There were also differences from Gary Gygax's Greyhawk campaign in treatments of magic, experience points, and other matters.

Not D&D, eh? You might as well say variable damage by weapon, thieves, rangers, illusionists, etc., are not D&D! Heck, the AD&D 'standard' system of rolling to hit was the Alternate Combat System in the original set.

Lighten up, Piestrio. Back in the 1970s-80s, when a variety of approaches flourished, so did the game.

Quote from: Piestrio;629659OD&D

" It is relative- ly simple to set up a fantasy campaign, and better still, it will cost almost nothing. In fact you will not even need miniature figures,"

"RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT: DungeonsandDragons(youhaveit!)
Outdoor Survival (available from your hobby dealer or directly from Avalon Hill 2Company,4517HarfordRoad,BaltimoreMD214)
Dice — the following different kinds of dice are available from TSR 1 pair 4-sided dice 1 pair 20-sided dice
1 pair 8-sided dice 1 pair 12-sided dice
4to20pairs6-sidedice
Chainmail miniature rules, latest edition (available from your hobby dealer or directlyfromTSRHobies,POB756,LakeGeneva,Wi.53147)
1 3-Ring Notebook (referee and each player) Graph Paper (6 lines per inch is best)
ShetProtectors(heaviestposible)
3-RingLinedPaper
DraftingEquipmentandColoredPencils
Scratch Paper and Pencils Imagination
1PatientRefere
Players"

Where does Basic talk about minis?

Oh yeah, page 61.

You know... in the back.

*sigh*

First, for OD&D, you don't need miniatures, but they recommend using something to represent the characters in place of miniatures if you happen to not be using them, and those rules are found in Chainmail, which is required for OD&D.  I never said miniatures were required, I said they were uses more often than not (or something to replace them, like dice, or cheetos, or chits, or whatever), and are found in the rules up until 2e, which de-emphasized them (and then 3e re-emphasized them).  The argument here is not "miniatures" it's "representing combat in a visual way, using miniatures or something else, so people can see things like position, range and movement".

As for Basic, you know, you could read the quote I posted, and see it's on many pages.  Like 19 (not in the back) and 26 (not in the back) in addition to 61.  I'd actually say page 26 is the more direct "you should use miniatures, or something to represent them" rule, more than page 61.  And I am not sure why "in the back" is somehow a negative thing.  Is there some unwritten rule that rules mentioned towards the back of the book are not important, and what's the unwritten rule on unwritten rule importance?

Here, I will re-post it:

QuoteMINIATURE FIGURES: D&D adventures are more interesting to play when figures are used. Metal miniatures (about 15 to 25 millimeters high) are often used, for they can be easily painted to look like real dungeon adventurers. Many excellent figures are designed specially for fantasy role playing games. These are available from TSR or from local hobby stores. If metal miniatures cost more than the players want to spend, many companies make inexpensive packs of plastic figures. These are not specifically made for fantasy role playing, but can easily be adapted for it. Inexpensive plastic monsters of many sizes are also available in local stores. (page B61)

FIGURES: If miniature figures are used to represent the characters, the players should choose figures which look like their characters, and should make sure that the DM knows which miniatures represent which characters. The miniature figures should be lined up in the same order as the marching order. When special situations occur, the players should change the position of their figures as they desire. File cards with names on them, pawns, and other markers may be used instead of miniatures, or the marching order may simply be written on a piece of paper. (page B19)

USING FIGURES: Miniature figures are useful during combat for both the DM and the players, so that they may "see" what is happening. If miniatures are not being used, the DM should draw on a piece of paper, or use something (dice work nicely) to represent the characters in place of miniature figures. (page B26)

SCALE MOVEMENT: If miniature figures are used, the actual movement of the characters can be represented at the scale of one inch equals ten feet. A movement rate of 60' per turn would mean that a miniature figure would move 6 inches in that turn. Scale movement is useful for moving the figures on a playing surface (such as a table). (page B19)

PLAYING SURFACE: Combats are easy to keep track of when large sheets of graph paper, covered with plexiglass or transparent adhesive plastic (contact paper) are used to put the figures on. The best sheets for this use have 1" squares, and the scale of 1" = 5' should be used when moving the figures. With water-based markers or grease pencils, an entire room or battle can be drawn in just a few seconds. When the battle is over, the board may be wiped off, leaving it ready for the next combat. Dominoes or plastic building blocks can also be used to outline walls and corridors. When using figures, the DM should make sure that a solid table top is used, so the figures won't fall over when the table is bumped. (page B61)

You do know that "Miniatures rules" are not miniatures right?

Like... you're aware of that yes?

Especially since the preceding paragraph says you don't need them right?

Quote from: Mistwell;629661You know, or you could read the quote I posted, and see it's on many pages.  Like 19 (not in the back) and 26 (not in the back).

Here, I will re-post it, since folks seem to have trouble seeing it:

Here, I'll highlight the appropriate words for you since you seen to be having trouble:

QuoteMINIATURE FIGURES: D&D adventures are more interesting to play when figures are used. Metal miniatures (about 15 to 25 millimeters high) are often used, for they can be easily painted to look like real dungeon adventurers. Many excellent figures are designed specially for fantasy role playing games. These are available from TSR or from local hobby stores. If metal miniatures cost more than the players want to spend, many companies make inexpensive packs of plastic figures. These are not specifically made for fantasy role playing, but can easily be adapted for it. Inexpensive plastic monsters of many sizes are also available in local stores. (page B61)

FIGURES: If miniature figures are used to represent the characters, the players should choose figures which look like their characters, and should make sure that the DM knows which miniatures represent which characters. The miniature figures should be lined up in the same order as the marching order. When special situations occur, the players should change the position of their figures as they desire. File cards with names on them, pawns, and other markers may be used instead of miniatures, or the marching order may simply be written on a piece of paper. (page B19)

USING FIGURES: Miniature figures are useful during combat for both the DM and the players, so that they may "see" what is happening. If miniatures are not being used, the DM should draw on a piece of paper, or use something (dice work nicely) to represent the characters in place of miniature figures. (page B26)

SCALE MOVEMENT: If miniature figures are used, the actual movement of the characters can be represented at the scale of one inch equals ten feet. A movement rate of 60' per turn would mean that a miniature figure would move 6 inches in that turn. Scale movement is useful for moving the figures on a playing surface (such as a table). (page B19)

PLAYING SURFACE: Combats are easy to keep track of when large sheets of graph paper, covered with plexiglass or transparent adhesive plastic (contact paper) are used to put the figures on. The best sheets for this use have 1" squares, and the scale of 1" = 5' should be used when moving the figures. With water-based markers or grease pencils, an entire room or battle can be drawn in just a few seconds. When the battle is over, the board may be wiped off, leaving it ready for the next combat. Dominoes or plastic building blocks can also be used to outline walls and corridors. When using figures, the DM should make sure that a solid table top is used, so the figures won't fall over when the table is bumped. (page B61)

If... when... may

These are not difficult words.

Quote from: Dimitrios;629447The cleric was always sort of an odd man out because it's an archetype that doesn't really exist anywhere outside of D&D. ... The original cleric archetype is basically pure Gygax.

That's historically wrong.

The original cleric archetype is basically pure Hammer Film Productions. See for instance The Devil Rides Out (based on a 1934 novel by Dennis Wheatley). "Turning undead" is a staple of the Hammer Dracula pictures.

It was a vampire character in the seminal Blackmoor campaign -- not in Gygax's later Greyhawk campaign -- that gave rise to the cleric type as a counter-balance.

EDIT: The powers of clerics are mostly based on Biblical models, too.

Quote from: Piestrio;629663You do know that "Miniatures rules" are not miniatures right?

You do know we're not talking about miniatures themselves, but visual representations of things like position, movement, and range, using a grid or something similar, right?  Or did you lose track of what we were discussing and get caught up on the little lead symbol?  I'll repeat the page 26 quote from Basic: "If miniatures are not being used, the DM should draw on a piece of paper, or use something (dice work nicely) to represent the characters in place of miniature figures."

QuoteLike... you're aware of that yes?

Much more aware of it than you were of the multiple entries in Basic edition which you erroneously described as just being at the back of the book despite having the page numbers right in front of your face.  See how that works, smart ass?

QuoteEspecially since the preceding paragraph says you don't need them right?

Right, because you think we're talking about just using lead figures, and not the thing we're actually discussing.

QuoteHere, I'll highlight the appropriate words for you since you seen to be having trouble:



If... when... may

These are not difficult words.

First, I like how you completely ignore having been proven absolutely wrong on Basic edition.  You made a clearly erroneous statement of fact about it being just in the back of the book, and when proven wrong multiple times you just pretended none of that happened.  Nice, intellectually honest argumentation mang!

Second, "I never said they are required" are also not difficult words, but you seem to be having trouble with the concept.  

You really seem to have lost the thread a while back.  You seem to be suffering from two misapprehensions: 1) that I claim miniatures were required to play (that's not the argument), 2) that I claimed that it's actual miniatures (that's not the argument), as opposed to either miniatures or a substitute like a die, a poker chip, or whatever physical tangible symbol is used on a grid or other surface to show position, range, and movement.

In OD&D, and Basic, and Advanced, they all recommend miniatures OR SOME PHYSICAL REPLACEMENT FOR MINIATURES.  And that's how the majority of people played those games, using SOMETHING physical, often on a grid or hex map (like the one explained with instructions in Basic edition), to represent position, range, and movement.  You could obviously play without any of that other than your words, but I think a majority of people used something physical (often miniatures if they had them).

In all my years playing D&D, I've never once played in a group where anyone wanted to be a Cleric. They were just the dudes in temples that you dragged your wounded to after an adventure and paid coin (or agreed to undertake another adventure for the clerics) to get healed.

Ok, this is my stance on the matter:

- Clerics are the most D&Dish thing in D&D
- I don't like them much, personally
- the general way TSR D&D handles healing, in that adventures consist of attrition of hit points & healing spells over a series of encounters instead of everybody counting on starting everything with a full tank, is one of the greatest advantages of those versions of the game vs. 3e & later
- while I don't like clerics much and would prefer that there are other, non-divine classes that can handle healing, it's fine if those classes show up later at some point – I don't care if it's "core" or give a shit about the "core" concept even

So if I catch up witht eh overnight posts ...

Piestrio has gone from "if you play D&D you should play D&D notsome other game with its core values like Clerical healing removed" to .... "I hardly ever played by the RAW and used all these sorts of variations". - Dude I merely suggested that they put in an optional healing HP model that would let people play S&S and swashbukler type games without the cleric as a core class. You then told me to go and play GURPs ... wtf :)

I never said the cleric wasn't a popular class I said the Cleric was a class that only appears in D&D and therefore for my games where I am interested in more genre emulation of fantasy fiction and less about genre emulation of D&D it's a poor fit. There will always be people that want to play the cleric its arguably the most powerful basic class from levels 1 - 10 or so. My problem is merely how in integrates and that can be traced to its origins which are far more fuzzy than the other 3 core classes and the HP/heal model which in D&D relies on magical healing of some sort especially in 1e & 2e.

What's all this crap about miniatures? Who gives a crap and why is it in a thread about healing in D&D next?

My position would be :
Most reasonable people would be very comfortable with a core basic rule book where you recover level HP per day. Most of those same people would be pretty happy if there was an optional basic rule that allowed you to recover an optional HD of HP if you totally rested. This introduces the HD idea into the basic game but doesn't impinge on anyone's FUN. Most people would be reasonably happy if there was another optional rule in the basic book that allowed recovery of a HD of wounds after some elapsed time an hour, 3 turns , or whatever or after a meal ..etc
This becomes a simple half page option box that presents 2 slight variations on the basic healing paradigm and in so doing reaches out to a wider number of players. Not rocket science and hardly controversial

Oh and by the way cleric healing should restore HD rather than 1d8,2d8 etc. So Cure Light wounds restores 1HD. This makes sense from a design perspective as it incorporates the HD concept and it works from a 'logic' perspective as wounds and damage need to be though of as % of total HP for them to make anything like sense and total HP are linked to the size of your HD so a warrior regains d10 a Wizard d4 (well I would actually remove d4s as I hate them and their feet harming pointyness).

Fighters d10 - a few might have d12
Rogues/Clerics - d8
Wizards - d6

Death to the D4!!!!!

Quote from: Piestrio;629536I can honestly say the "Nobody wants to play the cleric" meme is one I've only ever encountered online and in jokes.

That's gaming in various cities across three continents.

Not claiming to be an expert but I suspect the magnitude of this "problem" is greatly magnified by the internet.

Back in the 90s, my group would never play a cleric. I guess they didn't see the idea of healing as manly.

Quote from: estar;629469What I am not seeing is how they are going to reconcile D&D Next with 4e AND with the older editions. 4e is just too different to make a core game that also works for older D&D.

I think it would take a whole supplement to do 4E justice. Unlike earlier editions, it's not just a cobbling together of 'patches'; it's a pretty comprehensive and carefully integrated re-design.

Even the necessities for keeping it reasonably compatible with material for more mainstream versions of D&D might be too much for some 4E enthusiasts. Look for instance at the use of "levels" and how often the 4E Monster Manual seems odd in that regard.

Jargon that seems peculiar to 4E often points to design features that are likewise peculiar enough to make translation difficult.

That said, a partial implementation that does not satisfy some confirmed 4E fans might nonetheless offer options pleasing to many players.

Quote from: Phillip;629666That's historically wrong.

The original cleric archetype is basically pure Hammer Film Productions. See for instance The Devil Rides Out (based on a 1934 novel by Dennis Wheatley). "Turning undead" is a staple of the Hammer Dracula pictures.

It was a vampire character in the seminal Blackmoor campaign -- not in Gygax's later Greyhawk campaign -- that gave rise to the cleric type as a counter-balance.

EDIT: The powers of clerics are mostly based on Biblical models, too.

Certainly the various aspects of the cleric have sources. I've just never seen that particular oddball hybrid of Friar tuck and Knight Hospitaller anywhere outside of early D&D.

Although if there's an example of one in a Hammer picture, I definitely need to netflix that sucker.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629675Oh and by the way cleric healing should restore HD rather than 1d8,2d8 etc. So Cure Light wounds restores 1HD. This makes sense from a design perspective as it incorporates the HD concept and it works from a 'logic' perspective as wounds and damage need to be though of as % of total HP for them to make anything like sense and total HP are linked to the size of your HD so a warrior regains d10 a Wizard d4 (well I would actually remove d4s as I hate them and their feet harming pointyness).

Fighters d10 - a few might have d12
Rogues/Clerics - d8
Wizards - d6

Death to the D4!!!!!

That's how I do it with the Drag%n system I'm working on presently.  Healing spells, natural healing, as well as a few other things are all tied into a "core die" type.  If your character has a d10 for a CD, then when he gets healed, it's the d10 you're rolling, regardless of what the CD is for the person actually healing you.

Just how hard is it to use "campaign" traits like Fantasy Craft? It isn't damn it! Mearls acts the obvious is esoteric string theory when it's basic addition and subtraction.

Quote from: Mistwell;629553I think it's shortsighted to say that D&D is historically a verbal-only game when it came to combat.  It's not.  It could be done that way, but I'd say a majority of the games ever played of D&D involved some sort of battle grid and miniatures or other tokens to represent the players and their foes and movement and range.  Miniatures were an important sales point for TSR from early on, and other companies that supported D&D.  The game was based on a wargame to begin with.  The rules frequently supported such type of play . . .

From the first time I played D&D, we used minis.

Quote from: Piestrio;629536I can honestly say the "Nobody wants to play the cleric" meme is one I've only ever encountered online and in jokes.

That's gaming in various cities across three continents.

Not claiming to be an expert but I suspect the magnitude of this "problem" is greatly magnified by the internet.

I agree. I've never found a group in which clerics were shunned, or heard about such a group.

Quote from: Mistwell;629652And Jeff, I know you have memory problems, so I will just remind you again that *I* wrote that entry, about myself, as an inside joke at CM, one which you do not comprehend because you're not a regular poster there. And, you have a dead link there by the way. In fact, shit, is my entry gone?

That is OK, I still have this:

Quote from: Mistwelling on the Circvus Maximvs WikiFrom The Library of Alexandria
Jump to: navigation, search

Mistwelling a thread is a form of thread derailment not unlike Spoonying a thread or Torming a thread. Where the preferred mechanism of those two was to make a thread all about themselves by in Spoony's case talking about himself and in Torm's case drawing attacks upon himself, Mistwell's chosen approach involves staking out ludicrous White Knight defences of people or positions rightly taking a beating. By presenting a living breathing local target, he provides a distraction of sorts for the subject who has no clue they're being ripped on some silly messageboard somewhere. What he feels he accomplishes by this is unclear, though he does clearly take enjoyment from the conflicts he stirs up.

The more contrarian, wrong-headed or stupid the defence, the more Mistwell likes it, and the more it's guaranteed to atom-bomb a thread. He's become a master at white knighting anything at any time, unfortunately for him he's become so predictable in the role that you see him coming a mile away, and some people have even taken to predicting how and when he's going to charge in on his trusty steed.

Mistwell was first tagged with this post: [1]

"Hey look, Mistwell Mistwells another thread.

That's right, you're now a verb because you've supplanted Spoony and Torm as our resident thread-destroying black-hole of inevitability."

It's everyone's responsibility to help threads avoid Mistwell's event horizon of stupidity. Don't bite on his hasty defences - or if you do, keep it to a simple "you're an idiot" and move on.

Mistwell will white knight almost anything: the Jester seems immune to his, er, proclivities.

Mistwell Flow Chart [2]

Retrieved from "http://www.circvsmaximvs.com/wiki/index.php/Mistwelling"

Quote from: Imperator;629805I agree. I've never found a group in which clerics were shunned, or heard about such a group.

Yeah the last AD&D session I played with Piestrio we had three clerics, a fighter and a rogue show up IIRC. Maybe a monk too? Forget...

Quote from: jibbajibba;629320I think you need an alternate model for a more S&S or swashbuckler feel where you don't want a cleric in the party though.

4E dropped the ball with healing surges in my opinion.

That being said, 4E almost got the 'non magic healing' right. almost.

As in, if Warlords bestowed Temporary HP instead of actual HP, that might have worked.


So, regardless of the version of dnd, I propose that a non magic healer could work using temp. hp.


There is something about non magic actual healing that I dislike...you can't 'Walk it off' from a sword through your belly.

Quote from: Bill;6298814E dropped the ball with healing surges in my opinion.

That being said, 4E almost got the 'non magic healing' right. almost.

As in, if Warlords bestowed Temporary HP instead of actual HP, that might have worked.


So, regardless of the version of dnd, I propose that a non magic healer could work using temp. hp.


There is something about non magic actual healing that I dislike...you can't 'Walk it off' from a sword through your belly.

Its all about what are hit points though right so ..... whole heap of debate on that one :)

Quote from: Black Vulmea;629687From the first time I played D&D, we used minis.

When I started basic we used graph paper for mapping, and rulers to measure distance with the counters of minis we had from any source.

I did not use minis all the time, but they were there from day one.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629882Its all about what are hit points though right so ..... whole heap of debate on that one :)

Well, I like some degree of realism with my HP.

Key word is some; I don't expect it to be perfect.

Oldschool dnd HP work fine for me; its more the flavor of a Cleric using Divine healing being equal to a Warlord screaming at you to 'rub some dirt on it!' that I have issues with.

Quote from: Bill;629884Well, I like some degree of realism with my HP.

Key word is some; I don't expect it to be perfect.

Oldschool dnd HP work fine for me; its more the flavor of a Cleric using Divine healing being equal to a Warlord screaming at you to 'rub some dirt on it!' that I have issues with.

To get my head round HP I have to think of them as % so a fighter with 50 hP isn't made of wood or the size of a horse. A wound that does 20% of a 50 HPs guy's hits is the same as a wound that does 1hp to a 5 HP guy.
So healing should work roughly like that.
I don't like a guy shouting to give you extra HP but I think a break especially one with a meal or a real rest shoudl restore something

My games go astep further based on HP being your skill energy etc and an underlying wound mechanic. HPs cure quick after all they aren't real injuries wounds are real injuries. They heal 1 per week. you generally have 4 or 6

Quote from: Mistwell;629668You do know we're not talking about miniatures themselves, but visual representations of things like position, movement, and range, using a grid or something similar, right?  Or did you lose track of what we were discussing and get caught up on the little lead symbol?  I'll repeat the page 26 quote from Basic: "If miniatures are not being used, the DM should draw on a piece of paper, or use something (dice work nicely) to represent the characters in place of miniature figures."
*blah blah snipped*

Mistwell, your quoted examples are not making the points you think they are making.  (Nor do they trump the simple historical fact that minis were always optional, never assumed, and that D&D's big break from chainmail and squad-based minis was just that - that it dispensed with the need for minis.)  I used'em from almost as soon as I started playing, too, and there's no doubt that TSR the company would have preferred I do so - which proves absolutely nothing about the intent of the game designers.  (But, then, you already know all this, and you're trolling.)

I remember, as a teenager, finding it very hard to use minatures for much as the rules assumed a level of wargaming movement proficiency we all lacked.  So we mostly used them for marching order.

There are good and bad things about D&D 4E.  Done as a boardgame it has some really interesting aspects.  The main problem I have with it is that it is painfully slow to play through combat.  Axis and Allies is made by the same company and they had a perfectly fine combat system that balanced risk and reward quite well.  These designers should have talked.  

I remember clerics being very hard to recruit.  Mostly because of the "lose all your powers" rules.  Locally we had the same problem as paladin.  My metric that this was not an isolated problem is the number of queries we saw in Dragaon magazine about letting wizards cast cure spells.  That being said, I completely believe people who say that it was different in different location.  Pre-internet there was a lot more place to place diversity

Quote from: Votan;629997Pre-internet there was a lot more place to place diversity

I think it has always been there and still is. The internet just allows us to know about how things are done in various games and places and converse/argue about it in real time.

Quote from: Piestrio;629364I'm tired of the unspoken assumption that TSR D&D was broken and in need of fixing. Magic needs to be fixed, fighters need to be fixes, healing needs to be fixed, magic items need to be fixed, thieves need to be fixed, classes, XP, monsters, treasure, etc, etc, etc...

fixfixifixfixfixfixfix

Fix it until it doesn't resemble D&D.

I'm just happy to see someone say, "Hey, you know what? Maybe TSR D&D wasn't this huge pile of shit that we thought it was for 13 years"

I thought all those gamers who house-ruled the shit out of D&D back in the 70s and 80s were demonstrating the true spirit of the game.

WotC has already reprinted TSR D&D. What, exactly, do you expect them to do with 5E - keep TSR mechanics and revamp the layout? Maybe design a new cover?

I houseruled my own D&D game so extensively that I had to sit down and try to re-write it from scratch. Recently, I discovered that Dragon Age nailed my wants and preferences, so I didn't need to do all that work after all. Do I call Dragon Age 'D&D'? No. But I can easily run a game with it that plays almost exactly like my group plays D&D. In fact, I suspect my group (who aren't hung up on names and branding and edition wars) will end up calling our Dragon Age game D&D anyway.

Quote from: Haffrung;630049I thought all those gamers who house-ruled the shit out of D&D back in the 70s and 80s were demonstrating the true spirit of the game.

WotC has already reprinted TSR D&D. What, exactly, do you expect them to do with 5E - keep TSR mechanics and revamp the layout? Maybe design a new cover?

I houseruled my own D&D game so extensively that I had to sit down and try to re-write it from scratch. Recently, I discovered that Dragon Age nailed my wants and preferences, so I didn't need to do all that work after all. Do I call Dragon Age 'D&D'? No. But I can easily run a game with it that plays almost exactly like my group plays D&D. In fact, I suspect my group (who aren't hung up on names and branding and edition wars) will end up calling our Dragon Age game D&D anyway.

There is a WORLD of difference between house ruling a game to suit your group and a publisher making changes (to someone else's game BTW) because they personally think they know better.

TSR D&D has value.

When WOTC makes changes to the game, even if you personally like them, something is lost. Something of value.

This is precisely why WOTC and it's fans constantly shit all over TSR D&D (although WOTC has pulled it's head out of it's ass recently). They need to devalue TSR D&D to justify what they did.

As to what I expect them to do?

Well I DON'T expect them to publish actual D&D, they already fucked the game up twice so they obviously kind of suck at it. I am willing to give their new game a shot though.

Really all I want is what Mearls came close to doing and that is to say, "Hey, it sucks that we killed you're favorite game and replaced it with a game we like instead" To acknowledge that TSR D&D is and was fine the way it was. That the game was changed radically not because it was "broken" or "outdated" or "needed" changing but simply because they wanted to change it.  

WOTC is getting there and I really appreciate the re-prints etc...

Quote from: Bill;629881As in, if Warlords bestowed Temporary HP instead of actual HP, that might have worked.

This is why my favourite Warlord is a Pathfinder one:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/tos---warlord

Quote from: Caesar Slaad;629489Where's Maw these days. He'd be fun in this thread.

He probably threw himself off a bridge when wotc betrayed his beloved 4e.

Quote from: mhensley;630067He probably threw himself off a bridge when wotc betrayed his beloved 4e.

yes.  Ah, the amount of threads where so many were chastised for their slavish devotion to the 'old ways', or anything that was not the glory of the new, shiny, Fourth Edition!!!!  Never to be replaced, the culmination of gaming!
I enjoyed that way too much.

Quote from: Bill;6298814E dropped the ball with healing surges in my opinion.

That being said, 4E almost got the 'non magic healing' right. almost.

As in, if Warlords bestowed Temporary HP instead of actual HP, that might have worked.


So, regardless of the version of dnd, I propose that a non magic healer could work using temp. hp.


There is something about non magic actual healing that I dislike...you can't 'Walk it off' from a sword through your belly.

I quite like this and it works perfectly for inspirational archetypes like Bards and Warlords.

Quote from: Marleycat;630081I quite like this and it works perfectly for inspirational archetypes like Bards and Warlords.

I think temp hit points would have been a much better way to go for this. It definitely captures the feel of summoning the heart and drive to keep going more that an actual heal.

The problem with temporary hit points is that they add a layer of delayed book keeping that is very, very easy to forget at a crucial moment (or after that crucial moment has passed). Choosing between the two, I would go with a straight "heal" rather than temporary hit points.

If you define hit points as a character's ability to avoid a fatal blow (aka the killing blow), which then can be interpreted in oh-so-many-different-ways for personal game tables to house rule the shit out of it however they see fit, then this type of healing (as a source of bolstering vigor, a will to go on that affects your moves and reflexes, etc) might actually make sense as an option (i.e. for the standard and/or advanced rules).

Don't see one logical reason it couldn't be an official option or a simple houserule.  It's the very definition of a Fantasy Craft campaign trait that I use all time in my FC campaigns depending on what I am trying to achieve for game style.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;630083I think temp hit points would have been a much better way to go for this. It definitely captures the feel of summoning the heart and drive to keep going more that an actual heal.

When I run Dragonlance I add some oomph to natural healing.

I generally double the effectiveness of the healing NWP, allow some HP to be regained post combat (to represent catching your breath, patching up, etc...).

Next time I think I'll add some sort of morale bonus to post-combat healing. That could make Bards, with all their morale boosting abilities really valuable.

Well, we don't have The Gape in this thread, but here's someone who sounds almost like him:

Quoteat the moment the edition as a whole seems like a giant "fuck you" to 4E fans.

...to which I say:

(http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff142/BLS_Knight/cry_some_more.jpg)

Quote from: Benoist;630086The problem with temporary hit points is that they add a layer of delayed book keeping that is very, very easy to forget at a crucial moment (or after that crucial moment has passed). Choosing between the two, I would go with a straight "heal" rather than temporary hit points.

If you define hit points as a character's ability to avoid a fatal blow (aka the killing blow), which then can be interpreted in oh-so-many-different-ways for personal game tables to house rule the shit out of it however they see fit, then this type of healing (as a source of bolstering vigor, a will to go on that affects your moves and reflexes, etc) might actually make sense as an option (i.e. for the standard and/or advanced rules).

I have a number of spells that do this, some that heal x to x, then give a portion as temp hp.

Quote from: LordVreeg;630090I have a number of spells that do this, some that heal x to x, then give a portion as temp hp.

I'm not saying this isn't possible to do or that it doesn't already exist in some form or another. It is, and it does (the AS&SH berserker benefiting from temporary hit points while raging comes to mind). I'm just saying that if I were designing these types of effects, given a choice between temporary hit points and a full "healing"/reinvigorating effects, I'd choose the latter, almost certainly, for actual play book-keeping reasons.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;630089Well, we don't have The Gape in this thread, but here's someone who sounds almost like him:



...to which I say:

(http://i240.photobucket.com/albums/ff142/BLS_Knight/cry_some_more.jpg)

I saw that post at TBP and it warmed my black heart.  The bigger fuck you to 4e that 5e is the more likely I buy it and the happier I get.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;630089Well, we don't have The Gape in this thread, but here's someone who sounds almost like him:
...to which I say:

It's really weird that people find Anonymous J. Poster threatening because he likes a different game than them. I find it's to my advantage to concentrate on the games I enjoy, rather than shitting on the ones I don't.

But hey. Internet!

Quote from: Frey;630066This is why my favourite Warlord is a Pathfinder one:

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/tos---warlord

Not bad.

JG

Quote from: Benoist;630093I'm just saying that if I were designing these types of effects, given a choice between temporary hit points and a full "healing"/reinvigorating effects, I'd choose the latter, almost certainly, for actual play book-keeping reasons.

Yeah, book-keeping sucks, especially when 'alive or dead' hangs in the balance.  Mistakes are going to be make someone unhappy, and at a bad time most of the time.  Cheating is also an issue, unless the tracking is itself a chore.  Minimizing it is probably a good thing.

So yeah, if there's to be an 'everyone can heal' game, it probably should be 'once and done' type healing.

Quote from: Benoist;630086The problem with temporary hit points is that they add a layer of delayed book keeping that is very, very easy to forget at a crucial moment (or after that crucial moment has passed). Choosing between the two, I would go with a straight "heal" rather than temporary hit points.

If you define hit points as a character's ability to avoid a fatal blow (aka the killing blow), which then can be interpreted in oh-so-many-different-ways for personal game tables to house rule the shit out of it however they see fit, then this type of healing (as a source of bolstering vigor, a will to go on that affects your moves and reflexes, etc) might actually make sense as an option (i.e. for the standard and/or advanced rules).

They do add something to keep track of, a bit like non lethal damage does. The way I would do it is have a seperate column for it in the hp box where you count up, so it is like reserve hp you only worry about when you reach zero, and have them last a very short time like a couple of minutes. So if you get seven temp hp, you right seven next to your hp total.

Still, i think you are right that it is another thing to add, and i dont know how necessary such things are to the core game as a default rule (i was thinking more as an option). This is supposed to be the basic version of the game. My issue with just doing a straight heal is then you basically have a healing surge or HD mechanic in the game. If its just an option, i am fine with either, but i really like that they seem to be contemplating taking out the HD rule.

Over at Enworld and elsewhere this latest L&L article is getting a huge backlash from people, so i am guessing they will feel the need to put in ome kind of option for them (though honestly when I have suggested it, people are even strongly against non cleric healing as an option (even of it is in the core phb), so not sure how this will play out.

Quote from: Benoist;630093I'm not saying this isn't possible to do or that it doesn't already exist in some form or another. It is, and it does (the AS&SH berserker benefiting from temporary hit points while raging comes to mind). I'm just saying that if I were designing these types of effects, given a choice between temporary hit points and a full "healing"/reinvigorating effects, I'd choose the latter, almost certainly, for actual play book-keeping reasons.

I have so many variations.
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955296/Apprentice%20Aid
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955298/Apprentice%20Fortification
http://celtricia.pbworks.com/w/page/14955299/Apprentice%20Heal
 ETC...

and I must be a glutton for book keeping, but I think we already knew that,

Clerics: Only one guy in our group ever wanted to run one. If we had a campaign where Steve wasn't playing, the first question would be "who's going to run the cure bank?" Typically, I'd have to make an NPC.

Fight-Fight: Despite what the revisionists say, old-school D&D had shit-loads of fighting. How many combat encounters are in Keep on the Borderlands? 40? Sure, there was evasion and sneaking and stuff. But when the dust settled, those Caves of Chaos were cleared out (except for maybe the owl bear and gray ooze). That's a lot of hacking, and dozens of cure light wounds cast.

Healing: If a typical old-school session has 5-8 combat encounters (and judging by the suggested number of sessions to complete modules like the A and C series, that's a reasonable pace), and the PCs are fighting suitably challenging monsters and traps, there's going to be lots and lots of healing needed - probably 2-4 cures per PC, per session. For a party of 6 PCs, that puts a big burden on Clerics to use most of their spell lots for healing, and for groups to take at least one, often two rest and re-study breaks per session.

When I showed my group the healing rules in Dragon Age (5 HP + CON bonus + LVL after a 10 minute rest following combat; 10 HP + CON bonus + LVL for night's rest), their instant reaction was they understood why the system didn't require clerics now. Made sense to them. These are guys who have played D&D for 34 years, barely played 3E, and never played 4E (or even knew it existed).

So these sorts of rules around healing and clerics, whether optional or core, are addressing real issues flagged by long-time D&D players, not just the WotC edition fans.

Now if only D&D Next would come up with workable wound rules, instead of the traditional good... good... good... good... dead progression of damage.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;630193Over at Enworld and elsewhere this latest L&L article is getting a huge backlash from people, so i am guessing they will feel the need to put in ome kind of option for them (though honestly when I have suggested it, people are even strongly against non cleric healing as an option (even of it is in the core phb), so not sure how this will play out.

The problem is that people are being stupid. If you have the cleric in its traditional role in the basic game and that you have other forms of healing included in the standard and/or advanced rules, everything's fine. Everyone can be happy.

But noooo. Not for these guys. If it's not in the basic game, it's a tragedy, apparently.

I'm not a big fan of what they think of doing with action dice for the fighter (or whatever they're called by now) and the like, but if they are part of the basic game as a core mechanic that just needs to be there for the other rules, standard and advanced, to build on that simple mechanic later on, so be it. I won't have a tantrum over those.

Quote from: Benoist;630219The problem is that people are being stupid. If you have the cleric in its traditional role in the basic game and that you have other forms of healing included in the standard and/or advanced rules, everything's fine. Everyone can be happy.

But noooo. Not for these guys. If it's not in the basic game, it's a tragedy, apparently.

I'm not a big fan of what they think of doing with action dice for the fighter (or whatever they're called by now) and the like, but if they are part of the basic game as a core mechanic that just needs to be there for the other rules, standard and advanced, to build on that simple mechanic later on, so be it. I won't have a tantrum over those.

Actually Ben I think that is why they need to have the HD healing mechanic in the basic game as an optional rule. I think they need to have it introduced at that level so if they want to build on it later they can.
Like I said up post some wheres I woudl do this with
i) Base clerical healing used HD not a set dice, so a Warrior gets a d10 from a cure light.
ii) optional rule on overnight rest from Level HP to Level HP + HD
iii) optional rule for HD healing after set rest time maybe 1 hour and I suggest after a meal to encourage that behaviour.

This is light aside from i) its optional and  it introduces the HD mechanism so they can mess the game up with it later in Standard with feats and so on and in Advanced so they can have healing sureges and all that stuff if they want.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630223Actually Ben I think that is why they need to have the HD healing mechanic in the basic game as an optional rule.

As soon as you think "option", it should be either in the standard, or advanced rules. Not the basic game. That's why they're "options". Now the concept itself may be included in one of the basic rules, like say, Clerics healing hit dice with cure spells, and then later, in the standard and advanced rules, the designers are able to use that concept of hit dice in other ways fulfilling different needs at a game table.

I really think that people re-reading the way Mearls laid out the Basic, Standard and Advanced rules formats would avoid a lot of grief in these discussions. Seriously.

Quote from: Benoist;630225As soon as you think "option", it should be either in the standard, or advanced rules. Not the basic game. That's why they're "options". Now the concept itself may be included in one of the basic rules, like say, Clerics healing hit dice with cure spells, and then later, in the standard and advanced rules, the designers are able to use that concept of hit dice in other ways fulfilling different needs at a game table.

Nah I wouldn't go that far as I think you need basic to appeal to sell standard and advanced.

If you have a totally optionless basic game then there isn't enough flex to satisfy enough fans. A basic game needs to appeal not just to grognards but to the starting player and the kids and I think you need a few options in there and this one is simple and can be explained in 1/2 a page.
I would put another option round XP with the base 1xp per gp and points for monsters and then and option to use awards for skill use, quest based awards etc. Again something you can do in 1/2 a page.
Part of the reason for this is to show new players that the rule system is a flexible thing and is open to variation.

Quote from: Benoist;630225As soon as you think "option", it should be either in the standard, or advanced rules. Not the basic game. That's why they're "options". Now the concept itself may be included in one of the basic rules, like say, Clerics healing hit dice with cure spells, and then later, in the standard and advanced rules, the designers are able to use that concept of hit dice in other ways fulfilling different needs at a game table.

I really think that people re-reading the way Mearls laid out the Basic, Standard and Advanced rules formats would avoid a lot of grief in these discussions. Seriously.

yes, any 'optionals' are advanced , almost by definition.

Quote from: DestroyYouAlot;629989Mistwell, your quoted examples are not making the points you think they are making.  (Nor do they trump the simple historical fact that minis were always optional, never assumed, and that D&D's big break from chainmail and squad-based minis was just that - that it dispensed with the need for minis.)  I used'em from almost as soon as I started playing, too, and there's no doubt that TSR the company would have preferred I do so - which proves absolutely nothing about the intent of the game designers.  (But, then, you already know all this, and you're trolling.)

I'm not trolling, and you're not understanding my point, and seem to think I am trying to make a different point to the one I am making.  As I've made it three times now, and most others get it, I don't see the point in trying to make it again.

Needless to say, I again never ever claimed that minis were anything other than optional, and you're really not getting it.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630229If you have a totally optionless basic game then there isn't enough flex to satisfy enough fans. (...)
Part of the reason for this is to show new players that the rule system is a flexible thing and is open to variation.

You don't need to load up the basic game with options to have a flexible framework. Actually, I'd think that the more options you include, the more likely it becomes rigid and encased in closed choices "either this, or that" instead of open ones "here's a sample of what you can do, now go nuts!" An open framework with emergent complexity (for instance showcasing a few magic items and then giving you advice on how to come up with your own) is much more flexible than a closed one that has optional, spelled out, codified choices throughout.

Quote from: Benoist;630234You don't need to load up the basic game with options to have a flexible framework. Actually, I'd think that the more options you include, the more likely it becomes rigid and encased in closed choices "either this, or that" instead of open ones "here's a sample of what you can, now go nuts!" An open framework with emergent complexity (for instance showcasing a few magic items and then giving you advice on how to come up with your own) is much more flexible than a closed one that has optional, spelled out, codified choices throughout.

I am not happy with a lot of places D&D has gone, nor withe some things that they are talking of doing now.

'open-framework/toolbox' vs 'rules' needs to be emphasized.  But I totally agree with a real stand-alone, basic ruleset, with 2 levels of optional/building rules.  It was what I advised from the start, and I think it will capture a new audience as well as bring back some people. the basic stuff has to be a complete 'lingua franca', while the advanced stuff has to be more along the idea of optional rules a group agrees upon before starting a campaign to better serve the setting/game they want to play.

You don't build your core model of a car with all of the options, and just tell the driver to ignore all those he or she doesn't want.  Why would you do that with anything else, including a game?

Quote from: Benoist;630219The problem is that people are being stupid. If you have the cleric in its traditional role in the basic game and that you have other forms of healing included in the standard and/or advanced rules, everything's fine. Everyone can be happy.

But noooo. Not for these guys. If it's not in the basic game, it's a tragedy, apparently.

I am in complete agreement having discussed this at another forum where posters are pretty unhappy with the article. To me this is a totally reasonable proposal. I am fine with having "(optional)" mundane healing mechanics right there in the basic book if it will bring more people to the table but even that is generating a rather hostile response. I really don't see the issue, if the game incudes things that lets thedo what they want, why they get so upset. Part of it may just be the surprise of the article. I have to admit, mearls statements, even though i agree with them, took me off guard.

QuoteI'm not a big fan of what they think of doing with action dice for the fighter (or whatever they're called by now) and the like, but if they are part of the basic game as a core mechanic that just needs to be there for the other rules, standard and advanced, to build on that simple mechanic later on, so be it. I won't have a tantrum over those.

I feel the same.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630229Nah I wouldn't go that far as I think you need basic to appeal to sell standard and advanced.

If you have a totally optionless basic game then there isn't enough flex to satisfy enough fans. A basic game needs to appeal not just to grognards but to the starting player and the kids and I think you need a few options in there and this one is simple and can be explained in 1/2 a page.
I would put another option round XP with the base 1xp per gp and points for monsters and then and option to use awards for skill use, quest based awards etc. Again something you can do in 1/2 a page.
Part of the reason for this is to show new players that the rule system is a flexible thing and is open to variation.

I think it is a matter of presentation and what expectations they build. I can totally see a 2E style opion filled pproach orking just fine, but that doesnt look like the structure they are going for. It looks like they want a cleaner break between the modules with a basic book, adanced, etc. i think this can work too, and is probably going to be less confusing for new players who just start on the basic. What they need to convey to old schoolers, 4E fans and 3E fans is you pretty much need to couple the other books with basic to get the game you want (unless you are going for a basic D&D feel). That really isnt so bad given they already have a three core book model, and were even selling multiple volumes of the PHB during 4E. I do think these books need to be tight and clearly defined for this to work.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630255You don't build your core model of a car with all of the options, and just tell the driver to ignore all those he or she doesn't want.  Why would you do that with anything else, including a game?

Because.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;630260I am in complete agreement having discussed this at another forum where posters are pretty unhappy with the article. To me this is a totally reasonable proposal. I am fine with having "(optional)" mundane healing mechanics right there in the basic book if it will bring more people to the table but even that is generating a rather hostile response. I really don't see the issue, if the game incudes things that lets thedo what they want, why they get so upset. Part of it may just be the surprise of the article. I have to admit, mearls statements, even though i agree with them, took me off guard.

This is because whiny entitled assholes are not happy merely getting what they want, it MUST come with the caveat that no one else can have what they want.

Any current version of D&D MUST have all the required bells & whistles baked into the core game or else the unthinkable might happen.

Thier GM might want to try running a game without all that crap and holy fuck!! It just might be official D&D that way and that is intolerable.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;630271This is because whiny entitled assholes are not happy merely getting what they want, it MUST come with the caveat that no one else can have what they want.

Any current version of D&D MUST have all the required bells & whistles baked into the core game or else the unthinkable might happen.

Thier GM might want to try running a game without all that crap and holy fuck!! It just might be official D&D that way and that is intolerable.

So you're saying you're a whiny entitled asshole who is not happy getting what you want.  You also need to make sure the other whiny entitled assholes don't get what they want.

At least someone is honest.

Quote from: Sommerjon;630273So you're saying you're a whiny entitled asshole who is not happy getting what you want.  You also need to make sure the other whiny entitled assholes don't get what they want.

At least someone is honest.

:rotfl:

I don't really care if the D&D that I play is "official" or not. The next version of the game can feature whatever healing WOTC feels will fit best and I will continue playing whatever version of the game suits my needs best.

Quote from: Sommerjon;630273So you're saying you're a whiny entitled asshole who is not happy getting what you want.  You also need to make sure the other whiny entitled assholes don't get what they want.

Oh Joy.  You're here now with your stellar contribution as normal.

QuoteAt least someone is honest.

And it's not you.  I'm not sure how many more times people need to explain this very important difference to you, but I'll give it a go one more time.

Proponents of a basic version of Next (such as myself) are NOT saying that the game must not have all these bells and whistles. In fact, we've pointed out several times that those bells and whistles should be available to those who want it.  The difference, and pay close attention here, is that the butthurt folks over at TPB want the core game to include all the bells and whistles from the get go.

Can you see the difference there?  We are not saying anyone else shouldn't get what they want.  Give them what they want.  But don't make it mandatory for everyone else.

I swear to God, has WoTC put out an article yet that Lizard hasn't immediately bitched about?  At this point I'd treat this like I do with my kids.  If you have nothing to say but put downs all this time from the very start, then go do something else.  If you hate every single thing about this, why are you wasting your time?

I called out Lizard specifically, but that's more of a general response.  At what point do you stop chiming in just to bitch?  It's been going on for what?  A year now already?  Give it a rest people.

TBP has become a little ridiculous wrt 5e. Although to be fair, it seems like the endless "The sky is falling!" threads that spring up after each new announcement from wotc are basically populated by the same 10 posters who have been complaining from day one.

I don't think that group is very representative even of 4e fans, let alone the larger D&D community.

Well, that thread is really... ...something, all right.

It's interesting observing this going down as someone who doesn't have a horse in the race and will just keep running OD&D.75, but is fairly happy with what 5E is looking like.

Don't worry 4E fans, you guys can just keep running and playing 4E the same way I just ran and played OD&D. Seriously, the sky isn't falling, you can still have fun.

Everything will be just fine guys.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630302And it's not you.  I'm not sure how many more times people need to explain this very important difference to you, but I'll give it a go one more time.

Proponents of a basic version of Next (such as myself) are NOT saying that the game must not have all these bells and whistles. In fact, we've pointed out several times that those bells and whistles should be available to those who want it.  The difference, and pay close attention here, is that the butthurt folks over at TPB want the core game to include all the bells and whistles from the get go.

Can you see the difference there?  We are not saying anyone else shouldn't get what they want.  Give them what they want.  But don't make it mandatory for everyone else.

Its absolutely fact at this point that basically everyone is willing to compromise and come together EXCEPT the hard-core online 4e fans.

Nobody is demanding that 5e be just like AD&D or 3.x the way they whine and toss out insults whenever anything isn't just like it was in 4e.

Quote from: Dimitrios;630318TBP has become a little ridiculous wrt 5e. Although to be fair, it seems like the endless "The sky is falling!" threads that spring up after each new announcement from wotc are basically populated by the same 10 posters who have been complaining from day one.

I don't think that group is very representative even of 4e fans, let alone the larger D&D community.

My lazy, and quick way to determine if D&D Next is doing things rights is to quickly see the crying threads at TBP (and official forums) and then to estimate the floods of tears. This then equals (directly) to how good D&D Next actually is; amazing but true!

Back to the thread, when I play I always play Cleric if I can and I'm quite happy being the healer. When I GM, there is always the NPC Cleric to be the healer if needed. D&D has classes for a reason, otherwise it wouldn't be D&D. I don't understand the problem. Every f-ing edition before 4E worked this way, so indeed 'cry some more'.

Quote from: Piestrio;630332Its absolutely fact at this point that basically everyone is willing to compromise and come together EXCEPT the hard-core online 4e fans.

Nobody is demanding that 5e be just like AD&D or 3.x the way they whine and toss out insults whenever anything isn't just like it was in 4e.

Everybody knows where I stand, and I don't mind a thing I've seen in 5e so far - insofar as some things were beta and therefore not going to make the final cut (Javelin of Fire and long rest versus short rest versus oh god just stop it already with "Rest" as a mechanic).

The Goons and BTP folks are honestly the only screechers I've seen thus far.

Quote from: Planet Algol;630330Well, that thread is really... ...something, all right.

It's interesting observing this going down as someone who doesn't have a horse in the race and will just keep running OD&D.75, but is fairly happy with what 5E is looking like.

Don't worry 4E fans, you guys can just keep running and playing 4E the same way I just ran and played OD&D. Seriously, the sky isn't falling, you can still have fun.

Everything will be just fine guys.

Word.  My little alternate reality B/X that I have built with Hulks and Horrors is all I really need.  The H&H engine will probably power my next game as well.

I just don't need 5e.  It'd be nice if it's a game I like, because it might be easier to find games of, but most people seem pretty enthusiastic about Hulks and Horrors too, so meh. I don't foresee many problems.

It seems to me that with Next they're essentially trying to remake 3e but with a few more of the trappings of the TSR editions. So it's no wonder that a lot of 4e fans aren't happy with it, because to them 3e was a broken system and 4e was a solution. Fair enough 4e was a solution that many people didn't like, but rather than find new solutions to the problems of 3e, Next seems to just want to forget they ever were problems in the first place.

What I don't get is why fans of any edition are happy with Next. Compromise is bullshit if it means you get a crappier version of the game you already play. Fans of the TSR editions still have their old books, or a decent retroclone. Fans of 3e have Pathfinder and all their old books. Fans of 4e have their old books and (for the moment) DDI. Is it really that important to always have new books in the pipeline? Important enough to settle for a lukewarm imitation of the game you really want to play?

I wish WotC had decided to polish up a version of 1e/2e with new art and layout, maybe put in a couple of minor modern innovations like ascending AC and FRW saves, and called it a day. Let Pathfinder keep the 3e crowd, and maybe do some kind of rules cyclopedia compendium for 4e as a standalone product under the title of D&D Heroes & Tactics or something.

I can be a fan of AD&D (I am) and still want to play Next for a bunch of reasons, including but not limited to: easier to find a pick up group, Next has things I like that AD&D doesn't (like backgrounds and specialties), etc.


Seriously man, this attitude that "if Next isn't better than your current edition in every way, then why should you play it' needs to die in fire.  No edition is perfect, and believe it or not, people can enjoy playing more than one edition of role-playing game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630347Seriously man, this attitude that "if Next isn't better than your current edition in every way, then why should you play it' needs to die in fire.  No edition is perfect, and believe it or not, people can enjoy playing more than one edition of role-playing game.

A-effing-men!  QFTMFT.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630347I can be a fan of AD&D (I am) and still want to play Next for a bunch of reasons, including but not limited to: easier to find a pick up group, Next has things I like that AD&D doesn't (like backgrounds and specialties), etc.


Seriously man, this attitude that "if Next isn't better than your current edition in every way, then why should you play it' needs to die in fire.  No edition is perfect, and believe it or not, people can enjoy playing more than one edition of role-playing game.

This is what houserules and homebrew are for in my book.  Making the D&D you want, instead of what the D&D TSR/Wizards marketing and R&D departments decided a lucrative demographic average wants.  

My D&D will always be a better D&D for me than anything in print.

Quote from: Planet Algol;630330Well, that thread is really... ...something, all right.

I'm struck by how many of the posters in the thread didn't like D&D before 4e.

Quote from: soviet;630342It seems to me that with Next they're essentially trying to remake 3e but with a few more of the trappings of the TSR editions.

Uh, no.  Sounds like you're wearing 3e colored glasses and seeing it where it's not.  5e most closely resembles OD&D and AD&D.  I don't think there is much argument with that.  It's definitely not 3e-lite.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;630362I'm struck by how many of the posters in the thread didn't like D&D before 4e.

I too find this odd. When my group switched to 3.0 when it launched, we had been playing GURPS exclusively for nearly 10 years. Until 3.x, my only real experience with D&D was a brief few months in 1985 when I joined an AD&D1e game at my local library.

I really disliked 3.x and was upset we werent playing GURPS anymore. Through the entire time up to 4e launch, all we played was 3.x. 4e was the final straw and drove me away from current D&D and from there started looking at older editions of the game. Thats when my friend introduced me to B/X era D&D. Now, B/X is my favorite version, and I really enjoy it and especially the retro clones derived from it.

Quote from: Mistwell;630369Uh, no.  Sounds like you're wearing 3e colored glasses and seeing it where it's not.  5e most closely resembles OD&D and AD&D.  I don't think there is much argument with that.  It's definitely not 3e-lite.

What with all the advantage/disadvantage, backgrounds, specialties, skills, feats, martial dice, skill dice, "hit dice", etc...

Yup, just like AD&D.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;630362I'm struck by how many of the posters in the thread didn't like D&D before 4e.

There are a lot of striking things about the commentary in that thread. It's been somewhat illuminating.

I just don't see how a recognizable iteration of D&D can serve as a generic fantasy media emulator, for instance, but that seems to be important to a lot of folks in that thread.

Quote from: soviet;630342What I don't get is why fans of any edition are happy with Next. Compromise is bullshit if it means you get a crappier version of the game you already play. Fans of the TSR editions still have their old books, or a decent retroclone. Fans of 3e have Pathfinder and all their old books. Fans of 4e have their old books and (for the moment) DDI. Is it really that important to always have new books in the pipeline? Important enough to settle for a lukewarm imitation of the game you really want to play?

I for one actually have the vain hope of a compromise between AD&D and 3e! That's kinda what I want to see! You're assuming everybody who might be interested already has their platonic ideal of D&D out there. Presumably because that's how prolific forum posters usually work?

I don't know; you're always going to have die-hard fans of a particular edition of the game. You have to generate interest among new players, and old players who might be kinda bored of the same old thing (crazy, but it happens).

A couple of really good points in this thread got me thinking. I started with D&D in the mid 80's and as I grew more experienced with AD&D and 2e I started adding things to my games that made them not BECM nor 2e.

I eventually moved to 2e when all of my house rules made the game just a bit too bloated. And I played 2e and as the years went by, I added all sorts of house rules and kits and races and classes until it became a big bloated mess again.

Then 3e came along. Same thing.

And I was ready to go to 4e just like the two times before. But it just didn't do it for me. It was not an update for me like moving 2e and 3e were before. That is not necessarily my point though.

My first point is that my games seem to follow a similar life cycle to most of the previous editions. And I think for exactly the same reasons. I wanted to keep adding to what I already had, and each of the new editions did that for me, but they also cleaned them up. In a sense it gave me a chance to start over.

Now I am back to B/X with my books and PDFs. I am already adding things back in to it. such that I am now coming full circle. But this time much wiser.

Years ago I remember thinking, man isn't this race as class stuff BROKEN. Wouldn't it be better if everyone had a class and a RACE. Kits are the greatest thing EVAR! Feats, Fuck YEAH. Three saves that make SENSE. (I still dislike skills). Constantly innovating.

My second point is that none of the three primary games I had played in the past were BROKEN, but eventually they needed updating, cleaning up if you will. Innovation to keep them from getting stale.

That is really all I could hope for with 5e. Until then, I will happily replay Basic D&D. Now that I understand what you get with race as class and group initiative, I can appreciate the simplicity built into the game. I can spend more time playing than gaming.

Quote from: Piestrio;630380What with all the advantage/disadvantage, backgrounds, specialties, skills, feats, martial dice, skill dice, "hit dice", etc...

Yup, just like AD&D.

Nice strawman.  I didn't say "It's just like AD&D!". Because if it were "Just like AD&D!" it would be AD&D.  But there is no doubt that the prior game it's most similar to is the era of OD&D and AD&D.  That's the sources of inspiration and feel they are going for, not 3e.  

And what's funny is you think those things you listed are what makes 3e distinct.  Which shows you don't even understand the difference between the game you like (3e) and what came before it.  It's the change in perspective from DM-centric to player-centric that was the biggest shift between Oe/1E/2e and 3e ("Options not rules!").  And it's obvious, to anyone who has paid attention to the 5e articles, that 5e is returning to that DM-centric focus.

Quote from: Mistwell;630399Nice strawman.  I didn't say "It's just like AD&D!". Because if it were "Just like AD&D!" it would be AD&D.  But there is no doubt that the prior game it's most similar to is the era of OD&D and AD&D.  That's the sources of inspiration and feel they are going for, not 3e.  

And what's funny is you think those things you listed are what makes 3e distinct. Which shows you don't even understand the difference between the game you like (3e) and what came before it.  It's the change in perspective from DM-centric to player-centric that was the biggest shift between Oe/1E/2e and 3e ("Options not rules!").  And it's obvious, to anyone who has paid attention to the 5e articles, that 5e is returning to that DM-centric focus.

I didn't say that.

And I certainly don't like 3e.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;629687From the first time I played D&D, we used minis.

Pistols at dawn, then?

Quote from: jibbajibba;629889To get my head round HP I have to think of them as % so a fighter with 50 hP isn't made of wood or the size of a horse. A wound that does 20% of a 50 HPs guy's hits is the same as a wound that does 1hp to a 5 HP guy.
So healing should work roughly like that.
I don't like a guy shouting to give you extra HP but I think a break especially one with a meal or a real rest shoudl restore something

My games go astep further based on HP being your skill energy etc and an underlying wound mechanic. HPs cure quick after all they aren't real injuries wounds are real injuries. They heal 1 per week. you generally have 4 or 6

A separate track for fatigue and health has been done before, and quite successfully as I understand it, in d20 Star Wars.  I think we have discussed your implementation previously, and it seemed like the numbers worked out pretty well with the rest of the mechanics, if I recall correctly.  As difficult as it isn't, this should be a standard option in the core rules.

Quote from: StormBringer;630417A separate track for fatigue and health has been done before, and quite successfully as I understand it, in d20 Star Wars.  I think we have discussed your implementation previously, and it seemed like the numbers worked out pretty well with the rest of the mechanics, if I recall correctly.  As difficult as it isn't, this should be a standard option in the core rules.

No I agree it shouldn't be a standard.

I think overnight heal of Level HP and Cure spells with HD should be standard as they also point to wounds as % of total hits.

They can add a wound system as an option in Advanced.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630418No I agree it shouldn't be a standard.

I think overnight heal of Level HP and Cure spells with HD should be standard as they also point to wounds as % of total hits.

They can add a wound system as an option in Advanced.

I wrote all that before getting to the rest of the thread.  :)

If there is to be a 'basic' version, it should be pretty streamlined.  Alternate hit points or fatigue levels should be 'standard' in the advanced core rules, and not introduced a year later in some splat or throwaway Dragon article.

Quote from: StormBringer;630421I wrote all that before getting to the rest of the thread.  :)

If there is to be a 'basic' version, it should be pretty streamlined.  Alternate hit points or fatigue levels should be 'standard' in the advanced core rules, and not introduced a year later in some splat or throwaway Dragon article.

I still reckon there is space in the basic rules for some optional mundane healing and I don't think Basic needs to be option free but I shan't belabour the point :)

Quote from: jibbajibba;630436I still reckon there is space in the basic rules for some optional mundane healing and I don't think Basic needs to be option free but I shan't belabour the point :)

Sure, it doesn't need to be a trifold pamphlet, but options should be fairly minimal.  Perhaps even just suggestions to acclimate new players to the advanced game, such as "If that rate of healing is too slow, adding the Constitution bonus for hit points after a full day of complete rest in a non-hostile environment can help get the characters back on their feet more quickly."  And some advice about making sure the complete rest part is enforced so players don't take advantage of it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630302Oh Joy.  You're here now with your stellar contribution as normal.

I know you would rather have your group masturbatory love fest.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630302And it's not you.  I'm not sure how many more times people need to explain this very important difference to you, but I'll give it a go one more time.

Proponents of a basic version of Next (such as myself) are NOT saying that the game must not have all these bells and whistles. In fact, we've pointed out several times that those bells and whistles should be available to those who want it.  The difference, and pay close attention here, is that the butthurt folks over at TPB want the core game to include all the bells and whistles from the get go.

Can you see the difference there?  We are not saying anyone else shouldn't get what they want.  Give them what they want.  But don't make it mandatory for everyone else.

It seems that there is a number of opinions over there that want different things.
Oh, sorry you must be selectively targeting certain posters with your righteous indignation.

Of course this has nothing to do with the concept of keeping the core book pure of all that power gaming munchkinism.  If those dumb bastards want that bullshit put it into some other book.  Who the fuck do these munchkins think they are?   Do they not realize what D&D is?  Fucking twats.

Quote from: StormBringer;630415Pistols at dawn, then?

You put down your sword and I'll put down my rock, then we can kill each other as Gawd intended, sportsmanlike.

Quote from: Black Vulmea;630458You put down your sword and I'll put down my rock, then we can kill each other as Gawd intended, sportsmanlike.

Like civilized people.

Quote from: Opaopajr;629332Heh, this reminds me of RPG.net discussion of people trying to figure out how to have an all Fighter party and healing in 2e.

In 2e natural healing was 1 HP a day if doing non-strenuous activity, like traveling (which by foot is still a brisk walk or moderate riding pace), and getting adequate food and rest. Full bed rest was 3 HP a day, with a CON bonus at the end of a week.

When you look at that core rule and think about it, that is a lot of healing for the first few levels. A bunch of fighters could merrily go about, heal while traveling, return, heal, and rapidly head back out again without healing spells. Fast enough to keep the adventures going, slow enough to make low HP actually a strategic as well as a tactical concern.

It is pretty awesome and overlooked, in my opinion.

Most vaulauble post re: healing in D&D for the last four years on this board. I salute you!

Quote from: Settembrini;630473Most vaulauble post re: healing in D&D for the last four years on this board. I salute you!

Getting level hp per day makes more sense as it reflects damage as a % of the total

Quote from: jibbajibba;630483Getting level hp per day makes more sense as it reflects damage as a % of the total

Thats the one thing about old school healing that never quite felt right.

A 1st level n00b (unless killed outright) could never be more than a couple days of rest from being back at full effectiveness.

A 10th level lord could take weeks of bedrest to fully recover.

I could understand if were based on assumed age, since older folks take longer to heal but there was no direct link between age and level.

I think a floating % of total hp healed per day with the exact amount dependent on CON would be a workable solution. A guy with an 18 CON should recover more quickly than the sickly dude with a 6 CON.

Quote from: StormBringer;630461Like civilized people.

With our bare fists. :D

Quote from: Black Vulmea;630458You put down your sword and I'll put down my rock, then we can kill each other as Gawd intended, sportsmanlike.

I just watched that night before last.  Still an awesome movie.

Quote from: Sommerjon;630446It seems that there is a number of opinions over there that want different things.
Oh, sorry you must be selectively targeting certain posters with your righteous indignation.

Of course this has nothing to do with the concept of keeping the core book pure of all that power gaming munchkinism.  If those dumb bastards want that bullshit put it into some other book.  Who the fuck do these munchkins think they are?   Do they not realize what D&D is?  Fucking twats.

Holy Shit you are colossally stupid.  I'm sorry.  I don't know how much plainer I could have put it and you still don't get it.

Our side:  Keep the basic game just that: basic and streamlined.  Give everyone else their options in optional rules

Their side: Put everything we like about 4e in the core rules and don't make it optional, fuck everyone else who doesn't like 4e.

Maybe it's me.  Maybe how I explained the difference doesn't make any sense at all.  Everyone else, was I incomprehensible?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630498Holy Shit you are colossally stupid.  I'm sorry.  I don't know how much plainer I could have put it and you still don't get it.

Our side:  Keep the basic game just that: basic and streamlined.  Give everyone else their options in optional rules

Their side: Put everything we like about 4e in the core rules and don't make it optional, fuck everyone else who doesn't like 4e.

Maybe it's me.  Maybe the how I explained the difference doesn't make any sense at all.  Everyone else, was I incomprehensible?

No. I got what you were talking about and I agree.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630498Holy Shit you are colossally stupid.  I'm sorry.  I don't know how much plainer I could have put it and you still don't get it.

Our side:  Keep the basic game just that: basic and streamlined.  Give everyone else their options in optional rules

Their side: Put everything we like about 4e in the core rules and don't make it optional, fuck everyone else who doesn't like 4e.

Maybe it's me.  Maybe how I explained the difference doesn't make any sense at all.  Everyone else, was I incomprehensible?

To play Devil's advocate for a moment, after that is what he pays me for.
What if the core basic rule was HD recovery after a battle, after each hours rest and after eating or sleep and the optional rule was to remove that and limit it to level HP per day.

That is exactly the same a simple rule recover your HD hp back after each hour with an option to simulate a given play style. How would folks feel about it?

I say this because its easy to go with a proposed simple solution with options and to deride the ones that want 4e style rules when the core rules mimic ones own favoured play styles.

I would be happy with full on 4e healing surges so long as I have a clear optional rule to remove them. I still get to play a flavour of game of my own choosing I suspect there are people here who would reject it for the same reason that the 4e fans complain because they want their version of the game to be core.

Lets face it HD recovery is a simple rule. Really really simple it might not create a 1e style game but that isn't the point the point is simplicity. Recover Level HP overnight is simple too just creates a different game.

Reread your proposal.  You're suggesting that the basic version have rules that could be removed in a more advanced version?

That....doesn't make a lot of sense.  The way things have been proposed, my ideal version of 5e is probably going to be Basic with a lot from the Standard rules (like backgrounds and specialties).

I am perfectly OK with the basic version not having all the options I want because it's a basic version.

We've come to a point where people have such a need to whine and cry and lambast 4e that they are actively ignoring what the WoTC team is actually saying.  Go look at that LL article from 2/18 on TBP.

What Mearls said was that the basic version will be the most streamlined, clerics doing the bulk of healing did OK, , nothing is written in stone, and there will be options for non magical healing perhaps in the more advanced versions

The part in green?  That's what so many people are ignoring.  Folks have got their panties all in a wad because Next is refusing to have any sort of mundane healing, and it's just another way to say screw you to 4e fans.  It doesn't matter how many times you can point out, "No, there will be mundane healing options, didn't you read the rest of the sentence?"  Folks there ignore it AGAIN and keep repeating how Next won't put in mundane healing.

It's nuts man.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630508I am perfectly OK with the basic version not having all the options I want because it's a basic version.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630508Reread your proposal.  You're suggesting that the basic version have rules that could be removed in a more advanced version?

That....doesn't make a lot of sense.  The way things have been proposed, my ideal version of 5e is probably going to be Basic with a lot from the Standard rules (like backgrounds and specialties).

I am perfectly OK with the basic version not having all the options I want because it's a basic version.

We've come to a point where people have such a need to whine and cry and lambast 4e that they are actively ignoring what the WoTC team is actually saying.  Go look at that LL article from 2/18 on TBP.

What Mearls said was that the basic version will be the most streamlined, clerics doing the bulk of healing did OK, , nothing is written in stone, and there will be options for non magical healing perhaps in the more advanced versions

The part in green?  That's what so many people are ignoring.  Folks have got their panties all in a wad because Next is refusing to have any sort of mundane healing, and it's just another way to say screw you to 4e fans.  It doesn't matter how many times you can point out, "No, there will be mundane healing options, didn't you read the rest of the sentence?"  Folks there ignore it AGAIN and keep repeating how Next won't put in mundane healing.

It's nuts man.

First off I am not upset in any way.
Also I am not suggesting there is a healing mechanic you can remove I am suggesting 2 different healing mechanics

i) You recover 1HD after each encounter and 1 HD per hour.
ii) you recover Level HP per days rest.

they are both siimple and they do not overlap.
they provide entirely different gaming expereinces.

Now I am postulating this position simply because the argument here is 'the 4e fans are acting like dicks because their version of what they think is D&D healing should be will only be an option in the standard rule book". this is an easy position to take if your version of the healing rules is the one in the core book.

What Mearls said is irrelevant to my question. I was merely asking how people here would feel if the HD mechanic was core and the Level HP per day (or 1HP per day + con bonus or whatever) was the optional rule.

It seems from your post they would get quite upset and claim that any such idea was nuts studid, I didn't read the text I don;t understand the rules etc etc
And you are one of the more reasonable proponents of the go back to TSR healing suggestion.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630512they are both siimple and they do not overlap.
they provide entirely different gaming expereinces.

And that's actually a problem, because after you can't design modules for everyone who plays basic, or at least not in a way that builds meaningfully on the healing rates assumptions of the game, because you have these two completely different healing mechanics which then have a domino effect on how adventurers rest, when, whether they leave the area they are exploring regularly or not, etc etc. So you are either designing for one group of basic players, or the other, for no apparent reason, whereas there are the players of standard and advanced in which one these two subgroups could have been folded in the first place.

It'd be dumb to do that. Seriously.

Then we are back to what is the simplest expression of the game, and the fact that it is WAY easier to ADD options to a simple framework with the other advanced rules than to take them away. Which means you better start with Clerics healing normally, and then add options for "mundane healing" and whatnot, rather than include those from the get go to then provide 'options' to take them off the game.

It's basic logic man. Common sense.

Quote from: Benoist;630514And that's actually a problem, because after when you can't design modules for everyone who plays basic, or at least not in a way that builds meaningfully on the healing rates assumptions of the game, because you have these two completely different healing mechanics which then have a domino effect on how adventurer rest, when, whether they leave the area they are exploring regularly or not, etc etc.

It'd be dumb to do that. Seriously.

Then we are back to what is the simplest expression of the game, and the fact that it is WAY easier to ADD options to a simple framework with the other advanced rules than to take them away. Which means you better start with Clerics healing normally, and then add options for "mundane healing" and whatnot, rather than include those from the get go to then provide options to take them off the game.

It's basic logic man. Common sense.

No Ben its not logic.
The reason you prefer the cleric healing option is that is your prefered game style.
Both approaches affect how the game runs hugely but both are valid and logical approaches.
I agree that the two mechanics have a large influence on the game and the way modules are written and you can therefore see why 4e fans who loved 4e as much as you loved 1e might fight for their version of the game to be the basic core one that the modules are written for.
That is logic.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630517No Ben its not logic.
The reason you prefer the cleric healing option is that is your prefered game style.

No. That's not the problem.

It's a simple problem of logic, and now you're going for the bullshit non-argument intimating it's a matter of "game preference."

You're not actually answering the argument I laid out. So ... whatever.

Quote from: Benoist;630518No. That's not the problem.

It's a simple problem of logic, and now you're going for the bullshit non-argument intimating it's a matter of "game preference."

You're not actually answering my argument. So ... whatever.

Stop. think about how you are acting.

I propose a simple healing mechanism. I coudl explain the whole thing in what 2 or 3 sentences. It runs like the vast amjority of CRPGs that people play and it fits the assumption that HP are not just physical but are energy, skill blah blah.

It may not be the game you like but it is totally fine as a game mechanic. From a logic type perspective. Sure its a bit superheroish but no more so than you operate at 100% capacity until you are dead. Its a convenient gamist way of indicating wounds.

The only reason you reject it is because it creates a sort of game you don't want to play. the reasons you gave arround module design can all be made now by fans of 4e style play for why they don't want to go back to 1e healing and in that context they are equally as correct.

Now I am just trying to outline why the 4e fans are fighting so hard for their game style because they love their game style. Just like you love yours.
If Mearls had chosen a HD rapid recovery option you would be complaining just as hard as they are.

The pointis as you made yourself its a fundamentally important part of the game. As you said what ends up in Core is probably going to be what drives the engine for modules and all that, if they hope to present modules that can be played in basic, standard or advanced modes.

So step back and observe your reaction to the suggestion that hte core game should ahve rapid mundane healing and compare that to the 4e fans response to the fact that all parties will now need a cleric unless they are to be plagued but disjointed adventures and 15 minute adventuring days (and other stuff).

No you stop.

My actual argument is this:

(1) Designing a Dungeons & Dragons game with two radically different healing rates means that you won't be able to design modules and supplements for all the players of basic. You will be either designing modules for players using this assumption, OR that assumption, OR you will avoid the issue completely and pigeon-hole yourself out of the basic adventure format of the Dungeon & Dragons game where healing rates actually matter (e.g. the Dungeon/Wilderness exploration format) as far as the basic rules are concerned. This does not make ANY sense when the standard and advanced rules are designed around that notion: to cater to different people using different frameworks to play.

(2) From this point, you basically design a basic game with a single healing rate assumption. You basically have a choice between Clerics healing as in traditional D&D, adding mundane/higher healing rates in the standard/advanced rules, versus mundane healing in the basic game, adding Clerical healing in the standard/advanced rules. The former just makes more sense on a basic intuitive level, because (A) the Cleric is iconic of the D&D game, if the D&D basic game does not feel like D&D, you're fucked and recreate the 4e paradigm which landed WotC in the situation they're in right now, (B) it's way easier to have the Cleric, then add mundane/higher healing rates as option you can add to your game from the standard/advanced rules, rather than have mundane/higher healing rates in the basic game to then explain how you can SUBTRACT those from the basic rules and just keep the Cleric. Adding options is always easier than subtracting core rules from the basic framework.

That's it. Full stop. That's just logic. That's the actual line of argument you have not answered to, and keep evading. It's got fuck all to do with game preferences, unless you project your own when answering this.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630521Now I am just trying to outline why the 4e fans are fighting so hard for their game style because they love their game style. Just like you love yours.
If Mearls had chosen a HD rapid recovery option you would be complaining just as hard as they are.

I'm not quite sure that's true. The cult of Rules As Written is much stronger among the hardcore 4e fans than among any other segment of the D&D player base.

I don't like healing surges at all, but it wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me if they were in the core "basic" game, as long as options to get rid of them were included in the "complete" game.

Quote from: Benoist;630522No you stop.

My actual argument is this:

(1) Designing a Dungeons & Dragons game with two radically different healing rates means that you won't be able to design modules and supplements for all the players of basic. You will be either designing modules for players using this assumption, OR that assumption, OR you will avoid the issue completely and pigeon-hole yourself out of the basic adventure format of the Dungeon & Dragons game where healing rates actually matter (e.g. the Dungeon/Wilderness exploration format) as far as the basic rules are concerned. This does not make ANY sense when the standard and advanced rules are designed around that notion: to cater to different people using different frameworks to play.

(2) From this point, you basically design a basic game with a single healing rate assumption. You basically have a choice between Clerics healing as in traditional D&D, adding mundane/higher healing rates in the standard/advanced rules, versus mundane healing in the basic game, adding Clerical healing in the standard/advanced rules. The former just makes more sense on a basic intuitive level, because (A) the Cleric is iconic of the D&D game, if the D&D basic game does not feel like D&D, you're fucked and recreate the 4e paradigm which landed WotC in the situation they're in right now, (B) it's way easier to have the Cleric, then add mundane/higher healing rates as option you can add to your game from the standard/advanced rules, rather than have mundane/higher healing rates in the basic game to then explain how you can SUBTRACT those from the basic rules and just keep the Cleric. Adding options is always easier than subtracting core rules from the basic framework.

That's it. Full stop. That's just logic. That's the actual line of argument you have not answered to, and keep evading. It's got fuck all to do with game preferences, unless you project your own when answering this.

I bolded the bit where your logic breaks.
Your argument for using Clerics is that clerics are iconic and without them it doesn't feel like D&D
That is not logic that is gaming style.
You hopefully can see that someone who has been playing 4e might argue that that is not his gaming style.

Clerics don't need to be healers to be in the game and healing is still relevant because in combat healing is still useful etc.
Again I am not subtracting or adding anything. I am outlining 2 distinct healing paradigms.

I would aslo contend that rapid mundane healing was not the sole paradigm upon which  4e failed. You can not equate rapid mundane healing = 4e.
It ignore's so much more about 4e that was disliked.

Now again the purpose of my proposal was merely to show that some of the 4e fans at least are not operating out of malice but are in good faith trying to preserve one of the elements of play that they felt were improved in 4e. You may not agree but that does not make their position illogical.

Speaking from a purely personal choice position I am happy with daily heal rate with an option for more rapid mundane healing because that is the option I would use.
I don't want a game where I have to by a standard book full of Feats trees to get the 1 page on mundane healing.
I hate the healing wand, cheap ubiquitous healing potions solution to healing that blossomed in 3e far more than I hate a healing surge mechanic (though I dislike the 4e implentation). I dislike the successful party must have a cleric paradigm as well.
Its daft to me that you have such a heated debate between 2 styles of play because one style wants to allow each PC to heal X hp naturally through mundane means and the other group insists that you need to use magic to get the same effect but makes the magic so common that you can in effect always heal at nearly the same rate but at the same time magic in the setting is largely devalued because it is so common and in itself mundane.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630530I bolded the bit where your logic breaks.

That'd be great if (A) you weren't wrong about that, and (B) it was the only argument I made, which it obviously wasn't.

I think a big part of why 4E failed was the healing. Certainly there were 4E critics who agreed with the new approach, but one of the most common complaints about 4E i heard was healing. That and AEDU were the chief complaints.

Healing rates and availability is one of the basic assumptions of the game around which everything else that has to do with the traditional D&D game of exploration of the unknown turn around. It's one of these elements which has a domino effect throughout the game, spacing of threats in the game, numbers of fights a party can take before retreating, whether fighting is the prime tactical option of the game or not, whether you have to be cautious or not, the party behaviors thereof, etc etc etc, from which are derived the presentation formats and assumptions of the modules, etc etc.

Fuck around with this too much, and the game won't feel like "Dungeons & Dragons" to a lot of players out there. The basic game needs to feel like "D&D" to succeed. Then you can add all the bells and whistles anyone could wish for. That's it. Over. Kaput. Done.

It is really not rocket science.

PS: AEDU plays into another of those basic assumptions, which is the recuperation rate of powers and effects in the game, which in turn affects resource management, whether the focus of the game is the "encounter" tactical unit or something else entirely, etc. This is part of the same overall picture, and it affects the game play, presentation formats in a similar fashion.

Quote from: jibbajibba;630530I bolded the bit where your logic breaks.
Your argument for using Clerics is that clerics are iconic and without them it doesn't feel like D&D
That is not logic that is gaming style.
You hopefully can see that someone who has been playing 4e might argue that that is not his gaming style.

So, are you saying that Clerics are not an iconic feature of D&D? That because of the 4 years of 4e's existence, Clerics and Clerical healing are now just reduced to a footnote in the pages of D&D's history?

Your gaming style argument might make more sense if you weren't comparing the 4e paradigm/playstyle with all of the paradigms/playstyles of editions that have come before. Each differing game styles from 1974 to 2007. (And clearly OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x have all differed quite clearly but retained iconic aspects of what D&D is).

Quote from: jibbajibba;630512I was merely asking how people here would feel if the HD mechanic was core and the Level HP per day (or 1HP per day + con bonus or whatever) was the optional rule.

At first glance, I would think that WotC was focusing 5e at a super-heroic power level, akin to 4e. And, if that's what WotC wants to do, then fine. That's a strategy that they need to figure out. Because, clearly, these small decisions will shape the power level of the basic set, which will then determine the power level of sets to follow.

Rhetorical question: Will they start with a more humble basic core and then elevate with the later sets? Or will they start the basic core at a higher power level than editions that have come before and then turn the dial up higher (Or turn it lower than the core with optional rules? That approach doesn't make sense to me).

Quote from: Benoist;630535That'd be great if (A) you weren't wrong about that, and (B) it was the only argument I made, which it obviously wasn't.

You and Jibba are having two different conversations. Let me restate his side, perhaps more clearly:

"Everybody talks about how unreasonable 4e fans are for demanding be in the basic game. Think about it from your perspective, if your version of were omitted. Wouldn't you be as upset and 'unreasonable'?"

That's his entire point (for the last 2 or 3 pages).

You're arguing about which is more iconic or a better design. He's trying to make people see things from a 4e fans perspective.

I'm not taking sides, but I thought the discussion could use some clarity.

D&D Next, Turn it up to 11!

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;630583You're arguing about which is more iconic or a better design. He's trying to make people see things from a 4e fans perspective.

I'm not taking sides, but I thought the discussion could use some clarity.

Well it's very clear to me that jibba is not addressing my actual argument here, which has fuck all to do with game preferences, as he suggested more than once. Like. At all. So it'd be cool if he stopped playing Devil's advocate for 5 minutes (as compared to the last few years) and actually made a logical, cogent response to what people actually said for once. Maybe that's too much to ask. *shrug*

Quote from: K Peterson;630573So, are you saying that Clerics are not an iconic feature of D&D? That because of the 4 years of 4e's existence, Clerics and Clerical healing are now just reduced to a footnote in the pages of D&D's history?

Your gaming style argument might make more sense if you weren't comparing the 4e paradigm/playstyle with all of the paradigms/playstyles of editions that have come before. Each differing game styles from 1974 to 2007. (And clearly OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3.x have all differed quite clearly but retained iconic aspects of what D&D is).

Basically he's saying whatever he can to poke his dick in Ben's ear.  He does that a lot.  

The latest goad is constantly using the term Gamist when referring to core D&D mechanics as he's done in the last few threads.

I think Singapore must be kinda boring.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;630485Thats the one thing about old school healing that never quite felt right.

A 1st level n00b (unless killed outright) could never be more than a couple days of rest from being back at full effectiveness.

A 10th level lord could take weeks of bedrest to fully recover.

I could understand if were based on assumed age, since older folks take longer to heal but there was no direct link between age and level.

You are giving priority to having full HP before adventuring again.

A novice fighter can bounce back and adventure again at full, yes. But a veteran fighter has a greater range to explore before needing to return to town. And further, there is nothing stopping a veteran from returning to adventuring at the same low HP amount as a novice.

The advantage over novice full HP is, where the novice is full at like 10 HP or so, the veteran still keeps restoring HP with overland travel creating a buffer pool. Just like video games with overland walking regen, and the very obvious advantage of HP bloat, you can strategically get away with far less healing. Outside of a psychological feel-good of full HP, the veteran has complete advantage here.

The only issue is when the veteran takes on a greater challenge than a novice can so soon after. But then I ask if one is accounting for wilderness travel time and range of civilization (sphere of power). Why the hell is such a large threat so close in space and time? Greater perils so near and immediate to civilization usually provoke a full military action, with emergency magical healers working gratis, mustered armies, fleeing refugees, etc. Thus the assumptions of needing full HP for a veteran right out the gate of town - without everyone in town freaking out and working together furiously - is rather strange to me. Such a need would be an extreme situation, not status quo.

Edit: I also make the gross assumption that people are at town and not choosing full bed rest while at base camp. But then that again goes back to strategic management of HP. Novices would be at the bleeding edge of risk trying to pull base camp full bed rest, as one good base camp raid could mean casualties. Veterans have enough HP in strategic reserve to attempt such a strategy. The risks and advantages should be rather obvious among us here.

Quote from: CRKrueger;630618Basically he's saying whatever he can to poke his dick in Ben's ear.  He does that a lot.

Ah. Well, maybe I should back out of this discussion if it's just some kind of weird cockfight.

Quote from: Opaopajr;630622You are giving priority to having full HP before adventuring again.

A novice fighter can bounce back and adventure again at full, yes. But a veteran fighter has a greater range to explore before needing to return to town. And further, there is nothing stopping a veteran from returning to adventuring at the same low HP amount as a novice.

The advantage over novice full HP is, where the novice is full at like 10 HP or so, the veteran still keeps restoring HP with overland travel creating a buffer pool. Just like video games with overland walking regen, and the very obvious advantage of HP bloat, you can strategically get away with far less healing. Outside of a psychological feel-good of full HP, the veteran has complete advantage here.

The only issue is when the veteran takes on a greater challenge than a novice can so soon after. But then I ask if one is accounting for wilderness travel time and range of civilization (sphere of power). Why the hell is such a large threat so close in space and time? Greater perils so near and immediate to civilization usually provoke a full military action, with emergency magical healers working gratis, mustered armies, fleeing refugees, etc. Thus the assumptions of needing full HP for a veteran right out the gate of town - without everyone in town freaking out and working together furiously - is rather strange to me. Such a need would be an extreme situation, not status quo.

Now whoa whoa whoa right there spinach chin! :)

I didn't make any sort of reference to being able to undertake activity. Anyone with a positive hp to thier name can fully, actively adventure. The healing rates I was talking about don't have anything to do with the ability to be active.

I was pointing out that recovery time should coincide with general health and hardiness and that level shouldn't really be a factor. Sure a powerful lord should be able to march forth with 50% hit points and still cut through a swath of foes that would bring a fresh lesser warrior down.

I just happen to think that Joe the veteran with CON 10 is back at 100% faster than Bob the myrmidon with CON 18 is a bit silly.

Quote from: Opaopajr;630622You are giving priority to having full HP before adventuring again.

A novice fighter can bounce back and adventure again at full, yes. But a veteran fighter has a greater range to explore before needing to return to town. And further, there is nothing stopping a veteran from returning to adventuring at the same low HP amount as a novice.

The advantage over novice full HP is, where the novice is full at like 10 HP or so, the veteran still keeps restoring HP with overland travel creating a buffer pool. Just like video games with overland walking regen, and the very obvious advantage of HP bloat, you can strategically get away with far less healing. Outside of a psychological feel-good of full HP, the veteran has complete advantage here.

The only issue is when the veteran takes on a greater challenge than a novice can so soon after. But then I ask if one is accounting for wilderness travel time and range of civilization (sphere of power). Why the hell is such a large threat so close in space and time? Greater perils so near and immediate to civilization usually provoke a full military action, with emergency magical healers working gratis, mustered armies, fleeing refugees, etc. Thus the assumptions of needing full HP for a veteran right out the gate of town - without everyone in town freaking out and working together furiously - is rather strange to me. Such a need would be an extreme situation, not status quo.

Edit: I also make the gross assumption that people are at town and not choosing full bed rest while at base camp. But then that again goes back to strategic management of HP. Novices would be at the bleeding edge of risk trying to pull base camp full bed rest, as one good base camp raid could mean casualties. Veterans have enough HP in strategic reserve to attempt such a strategy. The risks and advantages should be rather obvious among us here.

There is nothing wrong with a level 10 fighter taking a while to heal to full.

The 'problem' is when a level 1 fighter with 8 hp only takes a week to recover from any injury, however severe.

Quote from: K Peterson;630630Ah. Well, maybe I should back out of this discussion if it's just some kind of weird cockfight.

It isn't, as far as I'm concerned. Jibba can wave is cock to my ear all he wants, I made some actual points, which he refused to acknowledge.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;630631Now whoa whoa whoa right there spinach chin! :)

I didn't make any sort of reference to being able to undertake activity. Anyone with a positive hp to thier name can fully, actively adventure. The healing rates I was talking about don't have anything to do with the ability to be active.

I was pointing out that recovery time should coincide with general health and hardiness and that level shouldn't really be a factor. Sure a powerful lord should be able to march forth with 50% hit points and still cut through a swath of foes that would bring a fresh lesser warrior down.

I just happen to think that Joe the veteran with CON 10 is back at 100% faster than Bob the myrmidon with CON 18 is a bit silly.

I haz spinach on chin? O_o   I will needz cat that like spinach.

In 2e that high Con effect is factored in by increased HP by Con HP adj. bonus per level, and Con HP adj. bonus per week of bed rest. So a Con 18 Fighter gets an extra 4 HP atop the 21 HP per week of bed rest (along with the extra 4 HP per 1st 10 levels). It is there, but for many people it may seem slow. However a lot of Con's effect seems front-loaded into HP totals instead of regeneration rate.

However, a week of chillaxing, waiting on repairing armor, and collecting town rumors at the dinner table is not all that uncommon in my games. Twenty-one HP a week though is quite a bit of HP while running downtime roleplay. If I changed it to Con HP bonus a day of full bed rest that'd change my play dynamics drastically. That is an extra 7 to 28 HP a week! A 28 to 49 HP recharge per week of downtime might be too fast for my campaign...

Thankfully the framework is there for others to figure out how to quickly tinker with Con factoring in HP amount and regeneration time. I don't see a pressing need to fix, but the chassis is laid bare for those who are interested.

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;630583You and Jibba are having two different conversations. Let me restate his side, perhaps more clearly:

"Everybody talks about how unreasonable 4e fans are for demanding be in the basic game. Think about it from your perspective, if your version of were omitted. Wouldn't you be as upset and 'unreasonable'?"

That's his entire point (for the last 2 or 3 pages).

You're arguing about which is more iconic or a better design. He's trying to make people see things from a 4e fans perspective.

I'm not taking sides, but I thought the discussion could use some clarity.

Exactly this.

Quote from: CRKrueger;630618Basically he's saying whatever he can to poke his dick in Ben's ear.  He does that a lot.  

The latest goad is constantly using the term Gamist when referring to core D&D mechanics as he's done in the last few threads.

I think Singapore must be kinda boring.

Actually now I raised it with Sacro. Ben just stepped in to defend the cleric healing paradigm.

I am using gamist to refer to all mechanics. They are the game part of the game. So I think feats are gamist because its really hard to relate them to the actual PC experience expecially if you can swift them round as you level. I would say Decending AC vs Ascending AC was a gamist preference etc etc

Singapore's great :) I ahve found a gaming group too we are just discussing what they want to play sadly the current opinion is 4e though I am trying to swing them to 2e, Mage, SW Sci Fi, traveller or something else.

One of my issues with the way this site is going is that we move towards a monoculture. I joined to discuss Amber and to run an online Amber game to recruit players. Later I joined the main boards but it seems a few years back we were far more open. Yes there was 4e hate and storygame hate but apart from that it was a pretty broad church. However the OSR meme has gotten to the point where its like reading the Daily Mail or Huffington Post online. No decent is tolerated.
Discussion becomes personal attacks. I love discussing RPGs, mechaics, different approaches. I don't see much benefit in discussion where discenting voices just get yelled at or bullied off the site.
Further more i fully embrace logic. 100% my play style shouldn't affect discussion of a mechanical rule etc  etc

Quote from: Bill;630632There is nothing wrong with a level 10 fighter taking a while to heal to full.

The 'problem' is when a level 1 fighter with 8 hp only takes a week to recover from any injury, however severe.

Level 1 fighters recover faster but die easier, so they have less strategic and tactical leeway. As a conceptual issue, I don't find it all that unbelievable.

A novice can barely take a hit, but what they can take isn't as grievously long to recoup from. Whereas a high level veteran can take mind-blowing amounts of punishment, but likewise will take longer to recoup. Sort of like Bruce Willis in all the Die Hards, and Justin Long in Live Free or Die Hard. One can take a shot and be borderline, the other can take multiple shots, and a few explosions too. Having a differing recoup time from being borderline does not strike me as odd.

To fix that discrepency will have to investigate the very purpose of what HP is designed to emulate at its core.

However, you fire my curiosity, so I shall waste our time cranking out those numbers! :)

Two Fighters with (one utterly) exceptional HP:

Fighter lvl 1, Con 18, Max HP roll. HP 10+4=14

Fighter lvl 10, Con 18, Max HP roll on all. HP 100+40=140

Both reduced to 1 HP. One took on an arrow or two. The other... a dragon breath or ballista or two? Or a quiverfull of arrows or two?

Both chillax at town for a while. Give each a week of full bed rest.

By day 5 the lvl 1 is healed up and spends the weekend carousing around. Or he can rest all week to no extra benefit.

By day 5 the lvl 10 can say that's enough and spend the weekend carousing around. Or she can rest all week to be at 25 HP. Either way she is still injured to her own standard, but healthy enough to keep up with anything the novice can do. Or she can rest up to five weeks and five days to heal up to her higher standard.

Think about how flexible that is.

I only see it becoming an aesthetics problem when you conceive that epic grievous wounds should be comparable to average grievous wounds and recover equivalently, which strays painfully along the 'always fighting orcs' effect. That's not an aesthetic I feel particularly emulates what I want to represent in my games. I like the discrepency; to flatten it out feels like a disservice.

Practically, the difference between 1d6/level + Con with rest, and having a cleric cast 1 heal light wounds per character at eveyr break in action is one version you have a character taking 4 cure light spells slots, and in the other case you don't. The pace of play doesn't change. In our games, once the PCs were beat up and low on HP, they'd rest 8 hours, the cleric(s) would take a full allotment of heal spells and cast them in the morning, and if the PCs were still low on HP, they'd rest and cast more.

Automatically granting a generous recovery of HP with rest simply replicates the HP distribution rate of a cleric, without a player feeling compelled to run a cleric and spend most of its spell slots on healing. This isn't some newfangled approach to playing. The 15 minute adventuring day was real and widespread issue in D&D. And 4E isn't the only fantasy-combat RPG to tackle that problem. Another common way to deal with fragile HP is simply give PCs a lot more HP at early levels. There's little reason to stick with 1d6 HP at 1st level and 1 HP recovery per day except for reactionary 'that's the way we did it when I was a kid, and I'll be fucked if I change my game' approach to the game.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630498Holy Shit you are colossally stupid.  I'm sorry.  I don't know how much plainer I could have put it and you still don't get it.

Our side:  Keep the basic game just that: basic and streamlined.  Give everyone else their options in optional rules

Yep like I said keeping the core book pure of all that power gaming munchkinism. If those dumb bastards want that bullshit put it into some other book. Who the fuck do these munchkins think they are? Do they not realize what D&D is? Fucking twats.

Your side is making a fundamental mistake, you think 1e is basic and streamlined.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630498Their side: Put everything we like about 4e in the core rules and don't make it optional, fuck everyone else who doesn't like 4e.

Whoa there Trigger.  Let me get this straight, we are on a board that has a decided lean towards 1e and you all are getting prune-faced from a forum thread on a board that has a decided lean towards 4e?

It's almost like you all need to troll that board looking for juicy bits to be all self righteous about.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630498Maybe it's me.  Maybe how I explained the difference doesn't make any sense at all.  Everyone else, was I incomprehensible?

An appeal to emotion?  Really?

This is why we can't have nice things.

Quote from: Benoist;630538Fuck around with this too much, and the game won't feel like "Dungeons & Dragons" to a lot of players out there.

...and if you fuck around with it just the right amount, it could be the best edition of D&D yet.

It is possible to imagine a cleric that isn't a heal-bot, even in basic.  As others have said, you didn't even get CLW until level 2.  And then you got one (IIRC).  ONE spell.  You had this whole list to select from, but knew you had to prep CLW.  Except we didn't.

Quote from: Sommerjon;630883Yep like I said keeping the core book pure of all that power gaming munchkinism. If those dumb bastards want that bullshit put it into some other book. Who the fuck do these munchkins think they are? Do they not realize what D&D is? Fucking twats.

Your side is making a fundamental mistake, you think 1e is basic and streamlined.


Whoa there Trigger.  Let me get this straight, we are on a board that has a decided lean towards 1e and you all are getting prune-faced from a forum thread on a board that has a decided lean towards 4e?

It's almost like you all need to troll that board looking for juicy bits to be all self righteous about.

Once again, you don't actually respond to anything I've actually said, do you?

QuoteAn appeal to emotion?  Really?

Comprehension is not emotion.  Holy fuck.  And you wonder why you often get dogpiled here.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630905Once again, you don't actually respond to anything I've actually said, do you?



Comprehension is not emotion.  Holy fuck.  And you wonder why you often get dogpiled here.

To be fair, when he said "Your side is making a fundamental mistake, you think 1e is basic and streamlined," that was definitely responsive to what you said.  In fact, it goes to the heart of much or what you said.  Probably best to respond to it.

Quote from: Mistwell;630911To be fair, when he said "Your side is making a fundamental mistake, you think 1e is basic and streamlined," that was definitely responsive to what you said.  In fact, it goes to the heart of much or what you said.  Probably best to respond to it.

I actually typed out a response, then said "fuck it", because he wouldn't pay attention anyway.

But you know why you're not correct?  Because we were talking about BASIC (B/X or BECMI) being streamlined, not 1e.  As in, "We're OK with the BASIC version of the game being BASIC because that's what BASIC means, even if I personally prefer a little extra options.

WTF is up with the complete failure of reading comprehension around here?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630919WTF is up with the complete failure of reading comprehension around here?

It's the Internet?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630919WTF is up with the complete failure of reading comprehension around here?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig;630971It's the Internet?

No, it is just Sommerjon and Mistwell, 4rons to the core.

Quote from: Mistwell;630911To be fair, when he said "Your side is making a fundamental mistake, you think 1e is basic and streamlined," that was definitely responsive to what you said.  In fact, it goes to the heart of much or what you said.  Probably best to respond to it.

It's a dumb statement to the core, because to my knowledge, nobody's ever said that 1e is "basic and streamlined." Potentially easy on new players who wouldn't have to deal with the bulk of the rules IF the DM adjudicates behind the screen? Yes.

But "basic and streamlined" for the DM, especially the new DM? Fuck no.

Quick question here: did you guys see the mention of "Advanced" in big white letters on the cover? That's in the actual title of the game, I believe. Well. You need more explanation than that, or are you really that fundamentally dumb? The "basic" game of "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" is Holmes D&D, the blue box (and OD&D). And "Advanced" is not "streamlined", not in the way most modern gamers would think of the word, anyway. It's a toolbox, it's full of options and subsystems to pick and choose from and consider carefully before coming up with your own stuff for your own game as the referee.

It's "Advanced," for God's sakes.

And you call that kind of absolutely stupid misrepresentation something that "goes to the heart of much of what you said?" I mean, seriously? What the fuck is this? Seriously.

Quote from: mcbobbo;630895It is possible to imagine a cleric that isn't a heal-bot, even in basic.

Absolutely. The funny thing is, it exists. It's called "a cleric". I'm sure you've heard of those. Now if you make abstraction of the noise you hear on internet forums that keep calling the cleric "healbot", maybe you'll realize that's far from summarizing what actual clerics do in the game, by any stretch of the imagination, ever since the class existed in OD&D.

Quote from: jeff37923;630987No, it is just Sommerjon and Mistwell, 4rons to the core.

OK, that's hilarious.  You know 4e is not my preferred edition, right? Or, have you mistaken me for someone else?

Jeff, sometimes you're really fucking lazy.

Quote from: Benoist;630996It's a dumb statement to the core, because to my knowledge, nobody's ever said that 1e is "basic and streamlined." Potentially easy on new players who wouldn't have to deal with the bulk of the rules IF the DM adjudicates behind the screen? Yes.

But "basic and streamlined" for the DM, especially the new DM? Fuck no.

Quick question here: did you guys see the mention of "Advanced" in big white letters on the cover? That's in the actual title of the game, I believe. Well. You need more explanation than that, or are you really that fundamentally dumb? The "basic" game of "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" is Holmes D&D, the blue box (and OD&D). And "Advanced" is not "streamlined", not in the way most modern gamers would think of the word, anyway. It's a toolbox, it's full of options and subsystems to pick and choose from and consider carefully before coming up with your own stuff for your own game as the referee.

It's "Advanced," for God's sakes.

And you call that kind of absolutely stupid misrepresentation something that "goes to the heart of much of what you said?" I mean, seriously? What the fuck is this? Seriously.

Overreact much?

Benoist, I did not say I agreed with his retort, I said nobody had responded to it, and it was a response worth dealing with.

You can strawman me now for all you like.  Go ahead, pretend I have I side in this, and advocated for something, if it makes you feel better.  These kinds of threads, sadly, tend to bring out the worst in your personality.  When you get like this, everyone's an enemy who isn't 100% agreeing with what you say, and the nasty fucker that hides inside you comes out.

So yeah, go ahead, pound that table.  Maybe you should call me names now too, if that's what's necessary to get you to come down off the ledge again.

Quote from: Mistwell;631003Overreact much?

Look at this: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You see those exclamation points? It took me literally zero effort to type them, and I wasn't foaming at the mouth when I held the key. So please, don't overstate the quality of my reaction either. Thank you.

Quote from: Mistwell;631003Benoist, I did not say I agreed with his retort, I said nobody had responded to it, and it was a response worth dealing with.

You can strawman me now for all you like.  Go ahead, pretend I have I side in this, and advocated for something, if it makes you feel better.

Well you haven't pointed out whether you agreed or not. The only thing you said was that to you it seemed to "go to the heart of everything you said", and I'd say that's giving the original statement a lot more weight that it deserves. It was a stupid statement. A statement that's not even worth responding to. The fact you took it as "well, you got to answer it because it seems serious" just made me drop my jaw to the floor (it's a figure of speech now, don't be dumb). How can this statement look like anything serious to you? Seriously?

Quote from: Mistwell;631003When you get like this, everyone's an enemy who isn't 100% agreeing with what you say, and the nasty fucker that hides inside you comes out.

So yeah, go ahead, pound that table.  Maybe you should call me names now too, if that's what's necessary to get you to come down off the ledge again.

Aw stop it, drama queen. We ain't there yet.

Quote from: Benoist;631004Well you haven't pointed out whether you agreed or not. The only thing you said was that to you it seemed to "go to the heart of everything you said", and I'd say that's giving the original statement a lot more weight that it deserves. It was a stupid statement. A statement that's not even worth responding to.

It wasn't so much this as it was it had nothing to do with what I (we) were talking about.  

We were talking about B/X in comparison to Next's Basic version, and why it needed to be streamlined.  We weren't talking about 1e in that context, let alone did anyone claim that we thought 1e was streamlined.  Just another example of Sommerjon not actually responding to what people are saying.

Yeah, it's got fuck all to do with what we were talking about. So "goes to the heart of what you said" ... WTF?

Quote from: Sacrosanct;630498Maybe it's me.  Maybe how I explained the difference doesn't make any sense at all.  Everyone else, was I incomprehensible?

Quote from: Sommerjon;630883An appeal to emotion?  Really?

The one doesn't lead to the other.  ESL, stupidity, or just plain intentionally obtuse?  You make the call, folks.

Quote from: Mistwell;631002OK, that's hilarious.  You know 4e is not my preferred edition, right? Or, have you mistaken me for someone else?

Jeff, sometimes you're really fucking lazy.

Neither you nor Sommerjon require a whole lot of effort.

Fundamentally, any question of preference aside, it is easier to start with the more conservative rules, and then add more options to them; than it is to start with the more permissive rules and then try to modify the system backward into simplicity.
That's what its all about.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;631565Fundamentally, any question of preference aside, it is easier to start with the more conservative rules, and then add more options to them; than it is to start with the more permissive rules and then try to modify the system backward into simplicity.
That's what its all about.

RPGPundit

Yes but you would admit that there is no difference in simplicity between

i) gain level Hit points per day from healing
ii) gain level HP per hour from healing

The two rules are not divided by compexity versus simplicity they are divided by the difference they effect in play style.

So in this case it's an argument between play styles, and logic and simplicity are moot.

Now if you were to say we took a survey and more people want HP/day than HP/hour then it would be logical to support that play style as you get more customers. However, you would still expect people that wanted the other type to complain just as traditionalists complained throughout 4e because it is a playstyle/commercial decision. that is what I was trying to get at with my original post and I stated as much very clearly.

Interestingly once you opt to go to HP/day you actually have to introduce a lot more stuff to support actual play. Which is why you have clerical healing, healing potions, wands of healing etc etc in the first place.
For me as I noted one of my real gripes is the way a requirement for magical healing results in a lot more magic inherent in the system. So if I want to try and get to a S&S feel where magic is rare and dangerous and fantastic its much harder.

Dude, bullshit.

Timekeeping a day is far easier than timekeeping hours, especially in a game that runs off of rounds (anywhere from 1 minute to 6 seconds) and turns (10 minutes, a.k.a. the middling red-headed stepchild of time keeping). Keeping time outside of combat becomes an intense turn accounting affair in dungeons and generally nebulous during roleplay in peaceful areas. What you are asking is to default with another middle measure for intensive accounting continuously throughout play -- because with HP everyone has skin in the game, and they will want every last point --  and let people unwind that knot into something simpler if they cannot stand it.

That is needlessly convoluted for teaching and utter shite for KISS design. There is an obvious difference in simplicity.

The answer is, 'NO.'

What's next, fractions of an HP? These are games ran by people, ideally at a table, for relaxation, not games ran by microprocessors with nothing better to do. Leave to video games things they will always be best in.

Quote from: Opaopajr;631578Dude, bullshit.

Timekeeping a day is far easier than timekeeping hours, especially in a game that runs off of rounds (anywhere from 1 minute to 6 seconds) and turns (10 minutes, a.k.a. the middling red-headed stepchild of time keeping). Keeping time outside of combat becomes an intense turn accounting affair in dungeons and generally nebulous during roleplay in peaceful areas. What you are asking is to default with another middle measure for intensive accounting continuously throughout play -- because with HP everyone has skin in the game, and they will want every last point --  and let people unwind that knot into something simpler if they cannot stand it.

That is needlessly convoluted for teaching and utter shite for KISS design. There is an obvious difference in simplicity.

The answer is, 'NO.'

What's next, fractions of an HP? These are games ran by people, ideally at a table, for relaxation, not games ran by microprocessors with nothing better to do. Leave to video games things they will always be best in.

Okay so you want an Old school design paradigm where a caster needs to take 10 minutes per spell level per spell to memorise their spells where DMs are supposed to roll for wandering monsters on a per x turns basis, where various spells last for turns or rounds etc based on the spell description which are all non standardised where the turning effect of Clerics lasts for a set number of turns and where potions and other magical effects all have varied durations .... but you think its too much bookkeeping to regain HP on an hourly basis...okay.

Quote from: jibbajibba;631577Yes but you would admit that there is no difference in simplicity between

i) gain level Hit points per day from healing
ii) gain level HP per hour from healing

The two rules are not divided by compexity versus simplicity they are divided by the difference they effect in play style.

I think there are difference between hourly and daily healing that make hourly healing more 'complex' in use, if not in the complexity of the rules themselves.

The daily healing rate is so slow, which tends to punt it out of consideration during an adventure itself; it becomes part of the process of what happens between adventures. So you go back to town, heal up for a few days or weeks or whatever, and do some bits and pieces of business while you're in town. This makes it simple to use, as a player, as its pretty much something just going on it the background.

Hourly healing is more tactical and happens within the adventure itself, so it becomes much more part of the adventuring process itself. (As an aside, I think it's this tactical aspect that makes it more like clerical healing, which is more tactical in nature than natural healing in early versions of D&D.) This makes it harder to use for the players, as they need to make calculated choices about when and when not to heal.

Quote from: Glazer;631586I think there are difference between hourly and daily healing that make hourly healing more 'complex' in use, if not in the complexity of the rules themselves.

The daily healing rate is so slow, which tends to punt it out of consideration during an adventure itself; it becomes part of the process of what happens between adventures. So you go back to town, heal up for a few days or weeks or whatever, and do some bits and pieces of business while you're in town. This makes it simple to use, as a player, as its pretty much something just going on it the background.

Hourly healing is more tactical and happens within the adventure itself, so it becomes much more part of the adventuring process itself. (As an aside, I think it's this tactical aspect that makes it more like clerical healing, which is more tactical in nature than natural healing in early versions of D&D.) This makes it harder to use for the players, as they need to make calculated choices about when and when not to heal.

To be honest I agree with that interpretation to a point. I just think that in a world like TSR D&D where there are so many effects in play that arguing that it is a bookkeeping overhead is a little weak.

Now you can of course just say per day's rest per or hour's rest and then the party will just rest for a couple of hours after a big fight and they will say. "Okay we rest for a couple of hours and eat something and Dave will sort the treasure out into 4 piles."
DM them rolls for a wandering monster after each hour.
I know that is how it works because we have been playing D&D with hourly recovery (except its 10% of HP rather than level which I now see is unnecessarily complex) for about 15 years.

Quote from: jibbajibba;629327I have always though one of D&D's strengths was that with a few tweaks it can be used to run a whole gamut of games. Which I guess is why the d20 boom saw so many different variants on the D&D frame.

Am I playing it wrong then?

Of course not, if you enjoy it then it's right, it's all about game fun.

BUT for me, nah, D&D is a deeply mixed genre all on it's own with a mix of system and setting assumptions all rolled up into one.

It needs a lot of rebuilding to play many types of fantasy, and frankly I doubt if that's a good idea. As people have said, play D&D to play D&D.

Now, was 4e a better way to play D&D? I guess that's the essential edition war argument. So let's try another one, is Dungeon World a better way to play D&D?

Quote from: tzunder;631590Of course not, if you enjoy it then it's right, it's all about game fun.

BUT for me, nah, D&D is a deeply mixed genre all on it's own with a mix of system and setting assumptions all rolled up into one.

It needs a lot of rebuilding to play many types of fantasy, and frankly I doubt if that's a good idea. As people have said, play D&D to play D&D.

Now, was 4e a better way to play D&D? I guess that's the essential edition war argument. So let's try another one, is Dungeon World a better way to play D&D?

The other side of that coin of course is that D&D is a system that has always been houseruled up the kazoo.
No two bunches of players played 1e the same way. Everything from Encumberance, to spell slots, to racial level limits was changed on a regular basis.
If you sat at my table and played in a game of D&D with me you would recognise it as D&D straight away.
Yes there would be no clerics and you would be in a city fighting a spy master or whatever but the whole thing would feel like D&D to you no doubt about it.
That to me is the strength of D&D and its why it stayed the system of choice throughout from D&D through to 3.5.

Quote from: jibbajibba;631579Okay so you want an Old school design paradigm where a caster needs to take 10 minutes per spell level per spell to memorise their spells where DMs are supposed to roll for wandering monsters on a per x turns basis, where various spells last for turns or rounds etc based on the spell description which are all non standardised where the turning effect of Clerics lasts for a set number of turns and where potions and other magical effects all have varied durations .... but you think its too much bookkeeping to regain HP on an hourly basis...okay.

A lot of that was Magic User responsibility (choosing when to take watch actually mattered), which along with slots made the class more challenging to manage time. Not every class had to do so, and that's a good thing because not every player wanted it so. Further, such precise accounting was often waved away while peacefully role-playing in town.

But everyone has HP. And when it goes to zero, your character dies. And since damage can occur at any time in an RPG, every last bit will matter.

With hourly HP regeneration the stakes are higher and the mechanic is unavoidable. If you ignore it, you die sooner, therefore it matters all the time. This hourly regeneration idea and magic user time management are completely not. the. same.

Quote from: Opaopajr;631594A lot of that was Magic User responsibility (choosing when to take watch actually mattered), which along with slots made the class more challenging to manage time. Not every class had to do so, and that's a good thing because not every player wanted it so. Further, such precise accounting was often waved away while peacefully role-playing in town.

But everyone has HP. And when it goes to zero, your character dies. And since damage can occur at any time in an RPG, every last bit will matter.

With hourly HP regeneration the stakes are higher and the mechanic is unavoidable. If you ignore it, you die sooner, therefore it matters all the time. The issue between this hourly regeneration idea and magic user time management are completely not. the. same.

But the time your potion of Superheroism runs for or the duration of that Strength spell?
The DM is tracking time right for wandering monsters, for background world in motion type events and all that stuff. So they just say okay hour's up you can get back some HP, or like I said above, which is how we do it, you only recover when you are resting then it's simples.

Quote from: Benoist;630999Absolutely. The funny thing is, it exists. It's called "a cleric". I'm sure you've heard of those. Now if you make abstraction of the noise you hear on internet forums that keep calling the cleric "healbot", maybe you'll realize that's far from summarizing what actual clerics do in the game, by any stretch of the imagination, ever since the class existed in OD&D.

If you're going to take the position that it doesn't ever happen, then it would be pretty clear what position you'd take on preventing it.  It also limits your input in the conversation.

Quote from: jibbajibba;631577Yes but you would admit that there is no difference in simplicity between

i) gain level Hit points per day from healing
ii) gain level HP per hour from healing

The two rules are not divided by compexity versus simplicity they are divided by the difference they effect in play style.

So in this case it's an argument between play styles, and logic and simplicity are moot.

Now if you were to say we took a survey and more people want HP/day than HP/hour then it would be logical to support that play style as you get more customers. However, you would still expect people that wanted the other type to complain just as traditionalists complained throughout 4e because it is a playstyle/commercial decision. that is what I was trying to get at with my original post and I stated as much very clearly.

Interestingly once you opt to go to HP/day you actually have to introduce a lot more stuff to support actual play. Which is why you have clerical healing, healing potions, wands of healing etc etc in the first place.
For me as I noted one of my real gripes is the way a requirement for magical healing results in a lot more magic inherent in the system. So if I want to try and get to a S&S feel where magic is rare and dangerous and fantastic its much harder.

I think the simplicity is the same. I just dont understand why they would begin with one hour heal rates. That basically means hp are only exhaustion. They literally cannot represent physical damage of you are healing your level in hp an hour (a fifth level fighter with fifty hp gets mever takes more than a day to heal). I get some people find this a lot more convenient, but I find it highly disruptive to my suspension of disbelief. It basically either means no one really gets hurt or characters are super heroes with regeneration. For me that doesnt fit how I view D&D at all. That said, if I can easily shift it to level per day or level per week, then it isnt a huge issue for me. But this definitely feels like a gamey decision to me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;631615I think the simplicity is the same. I just dont understand why they would begin with one hour heal rates. That basically means hp are only exhaustion. They literally cannot represent physical damage of you are healing your level in hp an hour (a fifth level fighter with fifty hp gets mever takes more than a day to heal). I get some people find this a lot more convenient, but I find it highly disruptive to my suspension of disbelief. It basically either means no one really gets hurt or characters are super heroes with regeneration. For me that doesnt fit how I view D&D at all. That said, if I can easily shift it to level per day or level per week, then it isnt a huge issue for me. But this definitely feels like a gamey decision to me.

Add wounds, its easy :)
I have to say something though if you limit magical healing to ..well none at all. HP that heal quickly do not mean you never feel in touble quite the opposite.
After a big fight you are on say 20% of your hits you are really exposed. Your 5th level fighter is on 10hp and after 3 hours in game he is still on 25 even if he has just rested and nothing else came his way.
There is no heal wand, no quick Cure Serious to buff you up you really are on your own. Yes you can camp and try to survive the next few hours but Dms are mean so ...

Of course as you say you can bump it to L/day or week as you see fit.
The key i think is matching the heal rate to the availability of magical healing in your setting to get the game you want out of it.

Quote from: mcbobbo;631608If you're going to take the position that it doesn't ever happen, then it would be pretty clear what position you'd take on preventing it.  It also limits your input in the conversation.

I think the people who practice reductio ad absurdum as an art on the internet, as for instance they do when talking about the cleric solely as "the healbot" on D&D forums, is a rather limiting input to engender an actual, practical conversation in the first place.

So I see where you're coming from, in a way.

Quote from: jibbajibba;631630Add wounds, its easy :)
 

I do games i do like wounds. But i think D&D plays better without them. Obviously i can twek this to suit my taste, and I will. But to me it is just more of the same kind of stuff that bothered me so much about 4E. It is not a dealbreaker on its own however.

Everyone will have a personal preference, but I want somewhat realistic healing rates (slow...taked weeks to months to heal from fifty sword stabs)

Let magic healing be what heals you up at a fast rate.

Quote from: Glazer;631586I think there are difference between hourly and daily healing that make hourly healing more 'complex' in use, if not in the complexity of the rules themselves.

The daily healing rate is so slow, which tends to punt it out of consideration during an adventure itself; it becomes part of the process of what happens between adventures. So you go back to town, heal up for a few days or weeks or whatever, and do some bits and pieces of business while you're in town. This makes it simple to use, as a player, as its pretty much something just going on it the background.

Hourly healing is more tactical and happens within the adventure itself, so it becomes much more part of the adventuring process itself. (As an aside, I think it's this tactical aspect that makes it more like clerical healing, which is more tactical in nature than natural healing in early versions of D&D.) This makes it harder to use for the players, as they need to make calculated choices about when and when not to heal.

This is in fact a deliberate part of what makes 4E what it is.  If you want something that is even MORE tactical than Chainmail, that's all to the good.  But after years of doing things differently - and having other options in other games - it doesn't come off as "natural" to some of us.

JG

Quote from: jibbajibba;631577Yes but you would admit that there is no difference in simplicity between

i) gain level Hit points per day from healing
ii) gain level HP per hour from healing

No see,I think this is what you're missing: there's no difference in simplicity between either option IF you plan to use either one of them exclusively.

But if you want to have both, that is you want to produce an "old school" version of your game and a "4e version" of your game, then the answer is different.  Then it is in fact simpler to scale your game toward option 1, and ADD the mechanical changes necessary to accommodate option 2, then to try to do it the other way where instead of adding you'd have to subtract.

RPGPundit