Quote from: jibbajibba;631624I remembered that too which i why I thought they would go with HD per hour (or per day or per turn or whatever you like)  as a standard.
Maybe HD will only be for healing spells and effects like potions.

Seems a bit stupid to have a perfectly serviceable healing mechanic and only use it for one aspect of healing.

I thought the idea was it was going to be simple.

Here you go...

Natural healing - 1 hit dice per hour/8 hours/day/whatever you want. This does not come from your daily HD total.

Heroic Self-Healing - Spend your daily HD allowance to regain hit-points.

Healing spells - Gives the target HD back in order for them to spend later. CLW gives you 1 hd back, CMW gives you 2 hd back, CSW 3, CCW 4, heal gives you all of them back.

Quote from: jibbajibba;631620Like I said in the cleric healing thread when I posted exactly this as an alternative option it's not a lot of bookkeeping.

My experience with it says otherwise (see my post above). Of course, I have always had mainly causal players with little interest in tracking (or learning) fiddly mechanics. Perhaps it really would not be a lot bookkeeping for players more into "fiddly mechanics".

Quote from: jibbajibba;631623but there is a dial you can set to every 24 hours so .... meh

We knew that D&D New was going to have some core mechanics that were going to be variable it was the only way it could appeal to the range of player they hope to.

As the DM you can under this rule set healing rates to whatever you like for your world.
What is there not to like?

I will be amused at attempts to publish adventures for the basic game if everything in core basic has switches and dials. Under which assumptions will scenarios be written?

Just variable healing rates alone is a huge difference in toughness for PCs of equal level. If everything is variable then there is no core baseline game. Without that all adventures are going to need to be effectively systemless to be viable for the whole ruleset.

This will be a clusterfuck. I see the value in wanting to appeal to everyone but the way to do that is multiple product lines.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;631627I think you're making this more complicated than it has to be.  Also, your response raised my eyebrows a bit.  Haven't we been saying all this time that all the more complex rules we don't like should be optional?  Couldn't the 4e proponents then use your exact same argument against you that you're using here?  I.e., if the "core" game is designed with stricter healing, and they want to play with healing surges and whatnot, will they have to houserule the whole module?

In my mind you could have core modules and standard modules, each designed around different assumptions, which would use a different baseline for their design. But as it is, what I'm seeing really is that it's the same "encountardized" game with a "rules-lite" polish versus the full blown "Unearthed Arcana'd d20 game" when I read this.

This goes back to my argument in that other thread: you build simple rules. For healing, you can go with (1) an approach reminiscent of the original game with cleric healing and stuff, or (2) you can do something else (mundane healing whatnot). One of these approaches makes a lot more sense than the other, because (A) if the core game doesn't feel like D&D, you're screwed, and (B) it's simpler with the core rules to ADD stuff with standard, advanced, or at the game table, rather than take them away.

Visibly, Wizards think approach (2) is A-okay and will fly.

Basically, he and you are right: I can house rule this. But that means that neither the base game nor the standard game and certainly not the advanced twinks will be my cup of tea so... why should I bother buying this game again? Because there's a D&D sticker on it and WotC wants me to care about it?

No, sorry. That boat has sailed back in 2007.

Quote from: RandallS;631629My experience with it says otherwise (see my post above). Of course, I have always had mainly causal players with little interest in tracking (or learning) fiddly mechanics. Perhaps it really would not be a lot bookkeeping for players more into "fiddly mechanics".

Really if it needs rest its not really fiddly...
We rest for 2 hours. Frank you are on guard, Dave you break out the rations Rognash the Zaquiwart of Mur you divvy up the spoils.

that is all it takes "we rest for x hours"
Now I am not a big fan of crunch but I reckon I could handle that....

Now if you want to roll wandering monsters you can say after 30 minutes Frank roll a spot hidden.....

Quote from: One Horse Town;631621I might have imagined it - or put it forward as something i would welcome, but i thought that the hit dice mechanic was already looking after natural healing?

The Hit Dice mechanic is currently dead and buried.

Quote from: jadrax;631637The Hit Dice mechanic is currently dead and buried.

It's about the only thing that could have unified all aspects of healing.

Oh well.

Quote from: Benoist;631632In my mind you could have core modules and standard modules, each designed around different assumptions, which would use a different baseline for their design. But as it is, what I'm seeing really is that it's the same "encountardized" game with a "rules-lite" polish versus the full blown "Unearthed Arcana'd d20 game" when I read this.

This goes back to my argument in that other thread: you build simple rules. For healing, you can go with (1) an approach reminiscent of the original game with cleric healing and stuff, or (2) you can do something else (mundane healing whatnot). One of these approaches makes a lot more sense than the other, because (A) if the core game doesn't feel like D&D, you're screwed, and (B) it's simpler with the standard rules to ADD stuff rather than take them away.

Visibly, Wizards think approach (2) is A-okay and will fly.

Basically, he and you are right: I can house rule this. But that means that neither the base game nor the standard game and certainly not the advanced twinks will be my cup of tea so... why should I bother buying this game again? Because there's a D&D sticker on it D&D wants me to care about?

No, sorry. That boat has sailed back in 2007.

If its an optional rule in the book is it a house rule?

But you are right if you are getting your gamign kick from OD&D or an OSR clone or 1e original or reprint then why would you buy D&D next anyway?
I mean they have just reprinted the version of the game you like the best and chances are they will print every iteration ever published before they are done so its not like they aren't catering to you.

I wouldn't have touched D&D next if I was in the UK. My mates and I have a D&d we liek that we have played for years. why would we buy somethign new we we can create just about whatever we want anyway?
Now I am in Singapore though and I am looking for new players (or discussing what to play with a new group of players i just found) D&D Next might well fit the bill. Likewise my daughter is coming up to 9 in a few months a basic D&D with pixar like characters might be the think I need to distract her (although here its almost impossible to get her out of the swimming pool...)

Quote from: Exploderwizard;631631I will be amused at attempts to publish adventures for the basic game if everything in core basic has switches and dials. Under which assumptions will scenarios be written?

Just variable healing rates alone is a huge difference in toughness for PCs of equal level. If everything is variable then there is no core baseline game. Without that all adventures are going to need to be effectively systemless to be viable for the whole ruleset.

This will be a clusterfuck. I see the value in wanting to appeal to everyone but the way to do that is multiple product lines.

Weren't they talkign about themes for a while? Baaiclly a list of setting for all those dials to recreate a certain type of play.
So a module say Castle Huff comes with the 'OSR' theme. the front sheet says this module is designed to be used with the OSR theme this is  - HP recover 1hp/day, Spells use basic spell slots, no feats, etc etc
You can play Castle Huff with other themes but its been designed with the OSR theme in mind so you will need to make some adjustments.

Then you can have the City of Demons - to ple played with the S&S theme ...etc etc

Since your argument is that modules will only suit one set of ideas (aka theme) this means they just need to make modules in accordnace to one of their themes so its not a big deal is it as separate lines focusing on different styles of play woudl have needed separate modules anyway right?

In additon if the dials really are setable then you can probably just pick up one of their 1e reprints and play that ....

The real problem I have with this is that is that it takes away layers of choice in the game.

The D&D game is based around player generated choices as they explore the unknown, to me. Are they going to push on if they're low on spells and hit points, or do they go back to town and let days or weeks pass by in the dungeon, possibly coming back to a situation that'll be worse for them?

That's one of the most fundamental choices you face when you are playing Dungeons & Dragons. And that choice is being replaced by a pre-formatted game experience the designers "think is best": the encounter format. The idea that the whole experience of the game is contained within the thrill of the encounter, and if the players are not in the thick of it, and if a direct (stupid) tactical approach isn't available, then the designers assume the game isn't fun for the players.

Basically, these guys are doing the thinking for us players at the game table by designing the game around a specific game experience they think is most enjoyable because "fun fun fun, got to get back to the fun!"

And that is fucking wrong, from my standpoint. That is really bad game design for a role playing game to begin with, as far as I'm concerned, but it is especially offensive to me when we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons, a game that really thrives on these kinds of choices.

All these aspects: the at-will stuff, the HP regeneration, the revision of the rust monster, the axing of level drains, all these elements play into the same picture that says "resource attrition is bad. Players OBVIOUSLY hate to make those kinds of choices in the game. We should make it easier so that this one cornerstone of our pre-formatted design (the encounter) is back in play as quickly as possible!"

This is McDonald's game design. Welcome to the machine.

Quote from: jibbajibba;631620the physical damage thing in D&D is already so abstracted that its hard to counter a new healing paradigm with a but wounds shouldn;t heal that fast. After all the 1e system that meant that a 15th level fighter on 1% of their HP was totally unaffected by their wounds but took 31 days to heal , whilst a 2 hp wizard who was on deaths door was back at full health by thursday morning.

.

I have to disagree strongly. While i think it wont bother everyone, this is a fair criticism for those who it does bother. While it is true the system was always quirky, not all quirks are the same. Non proportionate healing was an issue, but less of an issue than just giving pcs regeneration. I can gloss over the problem that a low hp character recovers too fast, while a high level character takes longer to reach full (plus the solution of ealing yournlevel a day does get around this). But I cant gloss over you were just destroyed by an axe, down to zero, but you are good as new in six hours. One problem you tend to notice immediately, the other tends to be less obvious.

Quote from: Benoist;631646The real problem I have with this is that is that it takes away layers of choice in the game.

The D&D game is based around player generated choices as they explore the unknown, to me. Are they going to push on if they're low on spells and hit points, or do they go back to town and let days or weeks pass by in the dungeon, possibly coming back to a situation that'll be worse for them?

That's one of the most fundamental choices you face when you are playing Dungeons & Dragons. And that choice is being replaced by a pre-formatted game experience the designers "think is best": the encounter format. The idea that the whole experience of the game is contained within the thrill of the encounter, and if the players are not in the thick of it, and if a direct (stupid) tactical approach isn't available, then the designers assume the game isn't fun for the players.

Basically, these guys are doing the thinking for us players at the game table by designing the game around a specific game experience they think is most enjoyable because "fun fun fun, got to get back to the fun!"

And that is fucking wrong, from my standpoint. That is really bad game design for a role playing game to begin with, as far as I'm concerned, but it is especially offensive to me when we are talking about Dungeons & Dragons, a game that really strives on these kinds of choices.

All these aspects: the at-will stuff, the HP regeneration, all these elements play into the same picture that says "resource attrition is bad. Players OBVIOUSLY hate to make those kinds of choices in the game. We should make it easier so that this one cornerstone of our design (the encounter) is back in play as quickly as possible!"

This is McDonald's game design. Welcome to the machine.

Hmmm... again I think we disagree. The designers introduce more choice you can set heal rates to anything from level hp per turn to level hp per day and your acusation is they are taking away choices....
Seems an incongruous position to me Ben.

You can set healing in your 5e game to whatever rate fits your play style and the offical rules will support it.

Now I can see that you think a table running with Level /hour might be restricting in game decision making , I don't really agree but I can see its an arguable position but what that table choose to do is irrelevant to you right?

the rule will it seems allow you to set the healing dial to whatever level you want so surly that gives players more choices not less?

Quote from: jibbajibba;631649Hmmm... again I think we disagree.

Well, what do you know? Why am I not surprised? :rolleyes:

Quote from: Exploderwizard;631618While they're at it, all PCs should just be able to fly too just because.

Well, how else is a fighter supposed to battle a dragon without mother-may-I? It's just a magical tea party if they can't.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;631648I have to disagree strongly. While i think it wont bother everyone, this is a fair criticism for those who it does bother. While it is true the system was always quirky, not all quirks are the same. Non proportionate healing was an issue, but less of an issue than just giving pcs regeneration. I can gloss over the problem that a low hp character recovers too fast, while a high level character takes longer to reach full (plus the solution of ealing yournlevel a day does get around this). But I cant gloss over you were just destroyed by an axe, down to zero, but you are good as new in six hours. One problem you tend to notice immediately, the other tends to be less obvious.

but you were never nearly chopped in half by an axe were you. Your movement rate didn't decrease, your attack wasn't affected, you could still bench press 300lbs and carry 150 unencumbered, you could still swim, climb, jump...

Like I said I didn't like that so I added a wound system under hit points.

But HP as written really can't be physical can they unless we start to introduce a death spiral based on % of HP lost (10% -1 to al rolls etc etc )
Even then a 10HP blow with an axe is the same to a 5th level guy with 50 hp as a 1 hp blow with an axe to a 1st level guy with 5 hp, so its not like it nearly had his arm off.....