Quote from: Saplatt;632750I've never really run into the problem of high-level fighters healing at a disproportionately slow rate.  Usually, by the time a fighter reaches level 9 or 10th level, the party has so much magical healing going for it that everyone's hit points are rapidly restored anyway.  The biggest factor is how fast the healer types get back their spells.

Also, if a party has to pull out for an extended rest / recuperation period, I'm not sure, from the vantage point of most of us amateur DMs, whether it really makes that much difference if they are out for a day, three days, a week or whatever.  If they have to withdraw, they are going to lose initiative and surprise and the opposition will be tougher the next time around.

I'm hoping they keep the default (basic) rules as simple as possible.

My argument is about removing magical healing as one of many play style options.

Quote from: jibbajibba;632759My argument is about removing magical healing as one of many play style options.

The issue is there are two basic approaches to this and they would probably need to satisfy both as options. Some people might want to take out magic healing but replace it with something else (mundane healing or accelerated natural healing) to keep the same pace as a campaign with divine healing. But when I have stripped out healing from my game, it has been to make it more gritty, and in that case I would probably want long heal times. And for this there are still two major approaches: hp system or a wound system (and the later may include hp). For D&D i prefer HP. They just feel right for the game for me. So For gritty I would rather have the option of slow healing HP for that (for some reason the star wars saga method---believe it was saga---basically combining wounds and hp just didnt appeal to me on a purey mechanical level). I might go for a straight wound system sans hp as well as an option for gritty.

But this is all advanced options stuff, nothing I expect to see in the first core book. I dont see any reason why they couldn't have a bunch of different options available that would satisfy a number of different approaches.

My hope is, instead of class splat books we get a bunch of campaign option books. That would really sell me on this edition regardless of what the core game looks like. If they had everything from the gritty historical tome to cinematic fantasy and Horror, I think that would be a pretty cool range of options to draw on (and each one could be a seperate supplement).

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;632762The issue is there are two basic approaches to this and they would probably need to satisfy both as options. Some people might want to take out magic healing but replace it with something else (mundane healing or accelerated natural healing) to keep the same pace as a campaign with divine healing. But when I have stripped out healing from my game, it has been to make it more gritty, and in that case I would probably want long heal times. And for this there are still two major approaches: hp system or a wound system (and the later may include hp). For D&D i prefer HP. They just feel right for the game for me. So For gritty I would rather have the option of slow healing HP for that (for some reason the star wars saga method---believe it was saga---basically combining wounds and hp just didnt appeal to me on a purey mechanical level). I might go for a straight wound system sans hp as well as an option for gritty.

But this is all advanced options stuff, nothing I expect to see in the first core book. I dont see any reason why they couldn't have a bunch of different options available that would satisfy a number of different approaches.

My hope is, instead of class splat books we get a bunch of campaign option books. That would really sell me on this edition regardless of what the core game looks like. If they had everything from the gritty historical tome to cinematic fantasy and Horror, I think that would be a pretty cool range of options to draw on (and each one could be a seperate supplement).

I think in the suggested healing rules they provide they are indeed offering a simple option from heal level HP per turn to heal Level hp per day (or week or whatever you like) that allows most play styles to flourish.

I agree campaign books that take a theme like OSR or Swashbucklers or S&S and give you variant rules to emulate that sort of playstyle, are a great idea and would be a nice alternate to the standard splat treadmill

Quote from: jibbajibba;632764I think in the suggested healing rules they provide they are indeed offering a simple option from heal level HP per turn to heal Level hp per day (or week or whatever you like) that allows most play styles to flourish.

I agree campaign books that take a theme like OSR or Swashbucklers or S&S and give you variant rules to emulate that sort of playstyle, are a great idea and would be a nice alternate to the standard splat treadmill

I think provided the rules are indeed scalable (so you can change per hour to per day or even week) I would agree. If they present difficulty in this respect, and I do not believe they will, then I would say they are not open to a number of playstyles. But based on what I have seen so far, yes I think you are correct here and this is why this is not at all a dealbreaker for me (i was just a bit puzzled by this column on the heels of the previous one).

I think the other great thing about campaign books is they represent an opportunity to win over non D&D players. For example I know players who prefer something like savage worlds and really dont have much interest in a d&d campaign. But if there were a swashbuckling campaign book (that was more than just a superficial nod to the genre) I could easily get two different groups ofplayers to the same table (D&D players and Savage Worlds players). Just having those as optional books is going to draw people in who might not otherwise seriously consider D&D.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;632765I think provided the rules are indeed scalable (so you can change per hour to per day or even week) I would agree. If they present difficulty in this respect, and I do not believe they will, then I would say they are not open to a number of playstyles. But based on what I have seen so far, yes I think you are correct here and this is why this is not at all a dealbreaker for me (i was just a bit puzzled by this column on the heels of the previous one).

I think the other great thing about campaign books is they represent an opportunity to win over non D&D players. For example I know players who prefer something like savage worlds and really dont have much interest in a d&d campaign. But if there were a swashbuckling campaign book (that was more than just a superficial nod to the genre) I could easily get two different groups ofplayers to the same table (D&D players and Savage Worlds players). Just having those as optional books is going to draw people in who might not otherwise seriously consider D&D.

I think the argue pro-cleric was more about them not having healing surges (and possible the HD mechanic)  and the classes that did 'shouty-healing' from 4e as part of the basic game.
So I really do think that they never considered Level HP per hour as a 'regeneration' mechanic. Again I suspect as a interpretation of what HPs represent to the current design team (ie not physical damage)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;632762...

My hope is, instead of class splat books we get a bunch of campaign option books. That would really sell me on this edition regardless of what the core game looks like. If they had everything from the gritty historical tome to cinematic fantasy and Horror, I think that would be a pretty cool range of options to draw on (and each one could be a seperate supplement).

I'd love this.  But I wouldn't be surprised to see them combine those things.  In other words, we might see a campaign book devoted to a set of "gritty" rules options, combined with a few new classes, skills or backgrounds that play off of those options.

For example, in a campaign setting where clerical healing is restricted or eliminated, we might have more elaborate rules for herbalists, surgeons, alchemists, medicines, prosthetics, etc. combined with different hit point conventions.

I'm not sure how viable it would be from a marketing standpoint, but I suppose they could even wrap all of that up into a setting book or box - along the lines of "late" 2e. The problem I'd have with that, as a consumer, is that I'm not sure I'd be willing to pay for all the "extras" of a setting book, just to get the "grit" rules or the "planar travel" rules, or the "horror" rules or "kingdom & mass combat" options, or whatever it was that I was after.  

Back in the days of 2e, I bought all of that stuff, but I don't know if I'd do it again.

Quote from: jibbajibba;632769I think the argue pro-cleric was more about them not having healing surges (and possible the HD mechanic)  and the classes that did 'shouty-healing' from 4e as part of the basic game.
So I really do think that they never considered Level HP per hour as a 'regeneration' mechanic. Again I suspect as a interpretation of what HPs represent to the current design team (ie not physical damage)

Sure, but arguments against shouty healing and surges are usually rooted in a rejection of HP as pure mojo, or mostly mojo. This heal rate would seem to indicate a more mojo style Hp closer to the 4E understanding.

To be honest jibbajabba, I haven't the foggiest what you are trying to say. Your setting assumptions just are not there in TSR D&D. There is further no requirement for X amount of encounters per day of Y level, with subsequent level appropriate regions for one's HP, either. You are shadow boxing, arguing with that which is not there.

All I am trying to do is take what YOU WANT and try to express it within D&D HP framework. Now either clarify what you want or continue on debating with yourself. If you find that you cannot deal with a D&D without wound tracking and hourly regeneration, that's nice, houserule that for your game or find a better accomodating game. But I do not see a real attempt to clearly express what you want, so there is no point trying to appease generic discontent.

Quote from: Opaopajr;632952To be honest jibbajabba, I haven't the foggiest what you are trying to say. Your setting assumptions just are not there in TSR D&D. There is further no requirement for X amount of encounters per day of Y level, with subsequent level appropriate regions for one's HP, either. You are shadow boxing, arguing with that which is not there.

All I am trying to do is take what YOU WANT and try to express it within D&D HP framework. Now either clarify what you want or continue on debating with yourself. If you find that you cannot deal with a D&D without wound tracking and hourly regeneration, that's nice, houserule that for your game or find a better accomodating game. But I do not see a real attempt to clearly express what you want, so there is no point trying to appease generic discontent.

Sorry I think you have misunderstood my intent.
I am not looking for a solution I have one of those and it works fine within a D&D framework.

I got involved in this discussion initially just because I though the rabid name calling of the 'whining 4vengers' was a little unnecesary when they were merely trying to defend their favoured play style. I did this in a way that deliberately set up the same sort of response from the OSR fans that the 4e fans had shown to 'clerical healing is all we need' ie a cry of how it would ruin the whole game and only someone who knew nothing could even suggest a more rapid healing mechanic than we see in 1e.

To develop my line of reasoning I proposed a couple of possible mechanics as simple as 1hp/day, one of which level HP per hour was ironically suggested by Mearls a couple of days later as the default healing rate in 5e basic, although with very flexible option rules around how that could be modifed to suit high combat 4e style games Level Hp per turn, down to OS play with Level HP per day.

Now none of that discussion was trying to drive the core 5e ruleset to adopt any particular position it was all to try and expose the hypocracy of folks saying "4e fans are scum/swine/degenerates because they want their healing mechanic to be the core and not just an option". The later L&L announcement of the new standard healing rate was hugely ironic because it invoked a massively negative response from 1e fans here that was at least as much about entitlement and their way had to be core and how making their play style one of many options was simply unacceptable.

I think that point has proven itself demonstrably from the threads.

Now I also posted some discussion about alternative HP systems I have either used myself or have considered using. This was really by way of simple discussion and I have no illusions that any vehement fan of 4e healing surges or 1e slow heal + lots of magical healing would ever actually change their mind, I don't think for one moment any but a tiny handful of people here ever change their mind about anything. Throughout those discussions I never postulated that these should be core rules or even 'offical options' merely that they were other ways I have considered looking at hit points and some of the rationale behind how I came to those positions.  

What I was hoping to do was to try and outline some other takes on HPs that worked in play and within the D&D framework and didn't create massive amounts of redesign or change the feel of the game to any great degree.
I have it must be said been suprised by the degree of anger that seems to accompany a discussion round tweaking rules, something that I thought we all did to make the game our own as a matter of course.

OK, so it is a thought experiment. So was 4e approach to HP, and a lot of people hated that and stopped supporting it en masse (along with many other reasons). It failed. People said it didn't feel like D&D. What would be the point of engaging this experiment again?

Yes, all design in RPGs is arbitrary. But all RPGs eventually develop their own tropes, as any product given to the public eventually belongs as much to the public and their use of it as it does to the creators. Accepted tropes matter socially, which also tends to override things philosophically, so pointing out the initial arbitrary nature in design is a non-starter. It literally adds nothing to the conversation.

4e fans do not like what has been D&D-style HP for 30 years. The rest of the D&D fans have their issues with HP, but found 4e's solution to feel so unlike what they expect as to be the wrong answer. There will be no common ground, and only one concept will continue as being the D&D HP trope -- and that won't be the failed four year old newcomer. 4e fans are just going to have to deal with that; WotC already is.

Quote from: Opaopajr;633151OK, so it is a thought experiment. So was 4e approach to HP, and a lot of people hated that and stopped supporting it en masse (along with many other reasons). It failed. People said it didn't feel like D&D. What would be the point of engaging this experiment again?

Yes, all design in RPGs is arbitrary. But all RPGs eventually develop their own tropes, as any product given to the public eventually belongs as much to the public and their use of it as it does to the creators. Accepted tropes matter socially, which also tends to override things philosophically, so pointing out the initial arbitrary nature in design is a non-starter. It literally adds nothing to the conversation.

4e fans do not like what has been D&D-style HP for 30 years. The rest of the D&D fans have their issues with HP, but found 4e's solution to feel so unlike what they expect as to be the wrong answer. There will be no common ground, and only one concept will continue as being the D&D HP trope -- and that won't be the failed four year old newcomer. 4e fans are just going to have to deal with that; WotC already is.

I agree that baseline D&D hp and healing (something close to 3E or AD&D) is what I would like to see. But I also think the problem now is there are two streams of D&D. Yes 4E failed because it split the base, but it also did split the base and you can't ignore 4E players entirely. Without them, Next will fail as well. And that is the core problem here. If you look at other forums, the reaction from 4E fans to next is almost absolute rejection. This might just be internet noise, and maybe people are just exagerating their reaction in the hopes they get more of what they want in the final books, but I do think wotc cant dismiss that the way they dismissed our complaints leading up to 4E.

As much as I complain about some of the decisions wotc has made, it looks to me like they are trying hard to accomodate both camps here. Given that they seem to have restored vancian casting and made other key improvements, I can live with one hour heals that can be scaled to daily or weekly heals. incan also live with other compromises. Personally i think having options in the first book on contentious mechanics is the way to go because you need to get people in the gate with that first release. Whatever they do, they will clearly need to signal to people that the default approach to HP is somehow going to be adjustable.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;633160I agree that baseline D&D hp and healing (something close to 3E or AD&D) is what I would like to see. But I also think the problem now is there are two streams of D&D. Yes 4E failed because it split the base, but it also did split the base and you can't ignore 4E players entirely. Without them, Next will fail as well. And that is the core problem here. If you look at other forums, the reaction from 4E fans to next is almost absolute rejection. This might just be internet noise, and maybe people are just exagerating their reaction in the hopes they get more of what they want in the final books, but I do think wotc cant dismiss that the way they dismissed our complaints leading up to 4E.

As much as I complain about some of the decisions wotc has made, it looks to me like they are trying hard to accomodate both camps here. Given that they seem to have restored vancian casting and made other key improvements, I can live with one hour heals that can be scaled to daily or weekly heals. incan also live with other compromises. Personally i think having options in the first book on contentious mechanics is the way to go because you need to get people in the gate with that first release. Whatever they do, they will clearly need to signal to people that the default approach to HP is somehow going to be adjustable.

The real issue they have to contend with is why would anyone compromise on the game they really want when it already exists and they can just play it?

A couple of focused product lines seems to make more sense than a single one that asks players to compromise just for the sake of giving WOTC money.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;633160But I also think the problem now is there are two streams of D&D. Yes 4E failed because it split the base, but it also did split the base and you can't ignore 4E players entirely. Without them, Next will fail as well. And that is the core problem here.

I neither share your belief in how large recalcitrant 4e fans are as a segment of the D&D base, nor the completely separate idea that their lack of support will lead to Next failing.

However, I will add I have little to no faith in WotC and expect failure for other reasons, namely design by committee and their head-up-one's-ass business and marketing of RPGs.

I also do not care a whit what happens to all three parties (4e fans, WotC, and D&D's legacy and modern public exposure) as long as the reprints keep coming. It's just a game of pretend. D&DNext matters as much to me as its backward compatibility. If one of those editions is not like the other, and thus hopelessly complicates backwards compatibility, then that is the weakest link -- good-bye.

Quote from: Opaopajr;633168I neither share your belief in how large recalcitrant 4e fans are as a segment of the D&D base, nor the completely separate idea that their lack of support will lead to Next failing.

However, I will add I have little to no faith in WotC and expect failure for other reasons, namely design by committee and their head-up-one's-ass business and marketing of RPGs.

.

I think its a bit naive to think that 4E didn't appeal to somebody, or that it didn't appeal because it was 4E. It's also not just about 4E fans. 5E is inevitably going to have to deal with 4E holdouts, people who stick with Pathfinder, and people who stick with older editions of retroclones. When you add disgruntled 4E fans to others who end up sticking with what they have, the numbers for 5E don't add up anymore.

I agree with you on the second part, which will both contribute to and compound the holdout issue across all editions.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;633167The real issue they have to contend with is why would anyone compromise on the game they really want when it already exists and they can just play it?

 .

The only reason that leaps to mind is ease of recruiting players. Around here most people seem to play 3e or pathfinder so its a lot easier to get a game off the ground with those systems. So if lots of people adopt next, the draw might simply be the ease of getting a campaign off the ground. But i do tend to think the era of one game to rule them all might be at an end. The net makes it so easy to connect to people playing your preferred game.