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.