TheRPGSite

Here is the latest legends and lore:

L&L (http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130225)


I am a bit mystified by the healing proposal. It seems like it doesnt satisfy anyone (the people who like 4E style healing seem to like proportionate heals, and this tosses that, the people like me who want slow natural healing get a form of regeneration). Maybe I am missing something here. It isn't a dealbreaker for me, because it looks like they are setting it up so you can adjust the rates, but this design choice really has me scratching my head.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;631602Here is the latest legends and lore:

L&L (http://wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130225)


I am a bit mystified by the healing proposal. It seems like it doesnt satisfy anyone (the people who like 4E style healing seem to like proportionate heals, and this tosses that, the people like me who want slow natural healing get a form of regeneration). Maybe I am missing something here. It isn't a dealbreaker for me, because it looks like they are setting it up so you can adjust the rates, but this design choice really has me scratching my head.

Brendan, I think its 1hp/level/hour so it is proportional. Also you can change that to /4hours or /8hours of rest.

But a healing rate of Level HP per hour is a ridiculous idea ..... how can you track the bookkeeping, how can you possibly plan adventures its crazy ..... :D

The 1 hp per level per hour is there so that no matter the level, characters are healing the same proportion of hp (roughly) regardless of level.  But it seems as if it's not much different than get back to full hp after every long rest.  I say that because what's going to happen is that players are just going to figure out how many hours they need to get back to full hp.  That's one knock I have against per hour healing.  I'd much prefer per day.

Quote from: jibbajibba;631606Brendan, I think its 1hp/level/hour so it is proportional. Also you can change that to /4hours or /8hours of rest.

But a healing rate of Level HP per hour is a ridiculous idea ..... how can you track the bookkeeping, how can you possibly plan adventures its crazy ..... :D

You are right, i completely missed that.

For me this isnt a bookeeping issue. I can handle tracking hp recovery at an hourly rate. But if its 1 hp per level per hour, that presents serious believability issues form. Shifting it to 8 hour periods isnt so bad though. Still, if he is thinking of doing this, then it makes me wonder why all the hooplah about clerics last L&L. If you can heal you level per hour, there isnt nearly the need for clerical healing. I guess he may have been speaking more about in combat healing or something. To me this is baically giving pcs regeneration.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;631610You are right, i completely missed that.

For me this isnt a bookeeping issue. I can handle tracking hp recovery at an hourly rate. But if its 1 hp per level per hour, that presents serious believability issues form. Shifting it to 8 hour periods isnt so bad though. Still, if he is thinking of doing this, then it makes me wonder why all the hooplah about clerics last L&L. If you can heal you level per hour, there isnt nearly the need for clerical healing. I guess he may have been speaking more about in combat healing or something. To me this is baically giving pcs regeneration.

It also means wounded is not a state you can simulate unless PCs have a ton of hit points.  Waiting a day should regenerate any reasonable amount of hit points from any current edition.  Even more freaky, low hit point characters heal faster than high hit point characters.  

It's an odd system.

A houserule would have to be in place for high hp classes vs low hp classes though.  It doesn't make sense that a fighter would take four times as long to heal from the same severity of hp loss as the magic user.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;631609The 1 hp per level per hour is there so that no matter the level, characters are healing the same proportion of hp (roughly) regardless of level.  But it seems as if it's not much different than get back to full hp after every long rest.

I tried something like this back in the late 1970s when I first converted from the standard D&D hit point system to the hit point/body point system (where HP represented fatigue and BP represented severe injuries) I've used pretty much ever since.

Both myself and all of my players found tracking fatigue recovery on a per turn basis was way too much bookkeeping. We then tried a per hour HP recovery rate, it was still far more bookkeeping that either myself or most of my players were interested in. Going to all HP recover after a night's sleep worked much better -- no need for constantly have to keep track of how much time has passed and how many HP recovered during active play.  Recovering HP only once per day also helped prevent spellcasters from becoming too powerful (HP is used as spell points in my system).

Quote from: Votan;631612It also means wounded is not a state you can simulate unless PCs have a ton of hit points.  Waiting a day should regenerate any reasonable amount of hit points from any current edition.  Even more freaky, low hit point characters heal faster than high hit point characters.  

It's an odd system.

I agree that hp cant be physical damage if they do this. At least not unless you houserule it to a daily recovery rate.

Regeneration has always been a supernatural/magical effect in the game.

If PCs can do this on an hourly basis it is kind of not that special anymore. Trolls are big and nasty and they can regeneate. Well fuck them, so can we!

Rings of regeneration will now get tossed into the disenchant pile to be turned into magical poop.

While they're at it, all PCs should just be able to fly too just because. :rolleyes:

Like I said in the cleric healing thread when I posted exactly this as an alternative option it's not a lot of bookkeeping.
The players rest for a couple of hours they get back some HPs becuase it has to berest you are not doing it on a turn by turn basis unless you want that degree of granularity.
Doing as a overnight is just the 3e heal rate ie level HP per days rest as 8 hours is a night's sleep/rest.

I have been running a variant of this where you heal 10% of your HP every hour for 15+ years. Really its not a big deal but it changes the paradigm a lot.

Now I did it not becuase i wanted my PCs to be super heroes , in fact quite the oposite I wanted there to be less magic and a more mundane world, so I paired it with a wound system where each PC had 4 wounds + con bonus. in parallel  to their HP.
As D&D next has been discussed I have decided to change this to 1d6 HP at 0 level and that sits under your HP and acts as wounds that heal at 1 per week and give you -2 (-10%) each on all rolls.
A cure light by the way (if you can find a priest to heal you which is v rare) heals a wound or 8 hp. and so on.
In my system you could only absorb 30% of your HP from any one physical blow. So a guy with 50hp could take the first 15 hits of any damage off his HP the rest went to wounds.

Now that is too complex for anything but an advanced option. I think that the d6 at 0 level that act differently once the rest of the HP are gone or just using the 0to -10hp as Wounded might be workable .

the 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.

Neither system is perfect both have logical anomolies so its really about play style and here Mearls has a core rule with an optional 'dial' that lets you play a rapid heal or slow heal game. A good compromise if you ask me.

I 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?

That way, wizards heal slower on average than fighters (MU with d4 hd and fighters with d10 hd).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;631618Regeneration has always been a supernatural/magical effect in the game.

If PCs can do this on an hourly basis it is kind of not that special anymore. Trolls are big and nasty and they can regeneate. Well fuck them, so can we!

Rings of regeneration will now get tossed into the disenchant pile to be turned into magical poop.

While they're at it, all PCs should just be able to fly too just because. :rolleyes:

but 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?

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?

That way, wizards heal slower on average than fighters (MU with d4 hd and fighters with d10 hd).

I 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.

Quote from: Mike MearlsMy preference is simply to allow a small amount of healing: 1 hit point per level per hour of complete rest. An 8-hour rest would restore most characters' hit points.

*sigh*

Quote from: Mike MearlsThe nice thing about this rule is that it is very easy to change it to match your campaign. You can simply speed up or slow down healing. If your group lacks a cleric and you prefer lots of combat, you can allow healing at 5-minute intervals. For a more lethal campaign, change the healing rate to 4 or 8 hours. By changing one factor, you can make a significant change to the tone and feel of your game.

"If you don't like it, you can house rule it."

True.

How about the modules which will use this baseline of healing and will assume there's a recuperation of all the party's HPs after an 8 hour rest? I'm going to have to house rule them too? Oh, you mean to tell me you are going to use the same encounter format you did before, with fight fight fight regen fight fight fight as the basis of design?

Hm.

And what about all the twink that's sure to follow in other rules supplements that your designers will build based on that baseline of the core rules? Oh, I can house rule that too... right. My mistake.

Hm.

Quote from: Benoist;631625*sigh*


"If you don't like it, you can house rule it."

True.

How about the modules which will use this baseline of healing and will assume there's a recuperation of all the party's HPs after an 8 hour rest? I'm going to have to house rule them? Oh, you mean to tell me you are going to use the same encounter format you did before, with fight fight fight regen fight fight fight as the basis of design? And what about all the twink that's sure to follow in other rules supplements that your designers will build based on that baseline of the core rules? Oh, I can house rule that too... right. My mistake.

I 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?

Personally I don't think it will be that big of a deal.  I mean, back in the day, modules were built around the assumption that you'd have at least one cleric and plenty of healing potions, but we were able to play just fine without them with little modification.  You just adjusted your play style to that which is more cautious.

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.....

Quote from: jibbajibba;631654but 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.

I always approached it as you were seriously wounded. This certainly is a simplification, but hp are simple and D&D just doesnt have stuff like wound penalties.

QuoteBut 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.....

Sure they can, the system is just simple and glosses over the effects of being harmed like that. But hp have always included physical damage, and a lot of groups leaned more heavily on the physical side of damage than the mojo side. For me, this regeneration of hp presents all the same issues (more in fact) as healing surges and second wind in terms of believability. I get that for you this isnt a problem as you dont see hp as wounds, but believe me when i say manyof us do see them as being on the physical side and fast mundane heals are a big believability issue for us (true hp has other believability issues, but those were tolerable for the sake of simplicity).

Quote from: Black Vulmea;631653Well, 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.

Use the 4E approach. When in combat, the dragon can't really fly, merely hop. It can fly overland but if it tries to chew gum at the same time it crashes.

So much for the iconic dragon strafing an entire village in fiery death.

Looks like WOTC getting its head of outs own ass regarding D&D was a pipe dream. Reprints all the way!!

Quote from: Exploderwizard;631657Use the 4E approach. When in combat, the dragon can't really fly, merely hop.

There is no way this can be true.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;631658There is no way this can be true.

The rules got updated in the Compendium, don't know what changes were made but the initial flight rules required a creature to land at the end of its movement each turn unless it was in overland flight.

While in overland flight you can't do anything else useful or you will crash. So no flying around, staying aloft and attacking permitted. It would be unfun for ground bound melee characters who couldn't use thier best special powers vs fliers.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;631662The rules got updated in the Compendium, don't know what changes were made but the initial flight rules required a creature to land at the end of its movement each turn unless it was in overland flight.

While in overland flight you can't do anything else useful or you will crash. So no flying around, staying aloft and attacking permitted. It would be unfun for ground bound melee characters who couldn't use thier best special powers vs fliers.

This was my big beef with how they did things in 4E, the peceived needs of the game always took precedence over the demands of the setting and the flavor. I think you do need to make some concessions to the game but it was just too much in 4E, and for me this rule for healing seems quite similar to that design approach (i.e. it is no fun to wait to heal, so everyone is better after 8 hours of rest).

Quote from: Exploderwizard;631662The rules got updated in the Compendium, don't know what changes were made but the initial flight rules required a creature to land at the end of its movement each turn unless it was in overland flight.

While in overland flight you can't do anything else useful or you will crash. So no flying around, staying aloft and attacking permitted. It would be unfun for ground bound melee characters who couldn't use thier best special powers vs fliers.

How incredibly stupid.  That just screams, "boardgame mechanics more important over role-play."

It's an interesting observation to see people here bitching that the healing rate is way too fast, while seeing people at TBP bitching that there's not enough healing and Mearls is actively trying to screw all 4e fans.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;631667It's an interesting observation to see people here bitching that the healing rate is way too fast, while seeing people at TBP bitching that there's not enough healing and Mearls is actively trying to screw all 4e fans.

I am seeing the same thing. But I do think level per hour is way too fast for a baseline. Granted i can change it. But 1 hp per level/hour is a significant change to the pace of natural healing if you played up through 3E. So it shouldn't be a surprise the 3E/pathfinder/Ad&d crowd are not on board with it.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;631667It's an interesting observation to see people here bitching that the healing rate is way too fast, while seeing people at TBP bitching that there's not enough healing and Mearls is actively trying to screw all 4e fans.

This is why trying to gather such extremely different groups under the same ruleset, regardless of variable rule switches isn't really going to work.

Old school D&D and 4E are just very different games that happen to share a brand name.

I would post the 'bat slap' meme, with Robin saying: "I heal 100 hitpoints, then onto the next encounter!", before being slapped by Batman saying: "You're not fucking Wolverine! You're a D&D THIEF!" but, I won't.

Quote from: elfandghost;631693I would post the 'bat slap' meme, with Robin saying: "I heal 100 hitpoints, then onto the next encounter!", before being slapped by Batman saying: "You're not fucking Wolverine! You're a D&D THIEF!" but, I won't.

probably a good idea.  I brought the bat slap meme to these shores and awoke a great and terrible evil.

Quote from: elfandghost;631693I would post the 'bat slap' meme, with Robin saying: "I heal 100 hitpoints, then onto the next encounter!", before being slapped by Batman saying: "You're not fucking Wolverine! You're a D&D THIEF!" but, I won't.

It is, after all, the thought that counts.

D&D Next: Because those healing tents in Final Fantasy are such a great idea for a tabletop RPG!

Guys they have put in a rule that lets you set heal times to whatever you want for your game.
That is the rule.

You heal level HP per

So I get that the OSR crowd don't like per hour so that's fine right becuase they don't have to use it then can use per day which is 3e healing or they can house rule. Now the last step is a house rule but Level HP/Day is one of the core options and just as valid as Level HP/hour.

Effectively people seems to be saying that their play style must be the default play style. I bet even if the whole healing rule isn't written as

PCs heal Level HP/Hour
Option : You can modify per hour to per 4 hours, 8 hours or 24 hours to suit your play style

but is written as

The DM sets the heal rate for their game it can vary from level per turn for very fast high combat games to level per day for a more traditional style play.

The OSR crew will still complain because individual DMs and players might be playing a flavour of the game that they don't agree with.
WTF!!

Quote from: jibbajibba;631634that 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....

Unfortunately, that only works if you rest after everything. My groups generally do not. Say they are traveling through dangerous wilderness. That's two random encounter checks, one in the morning, one in the afternoon. With per day healing, I don't need any more time info that this.

With per hour healing, if there are two encounters that day, I have to know exactly what time in the morning and in the afternoon the encounters take place and each character has to take up play time figuring how much they have healed since the morning encounter. I have to do this for any NPCs traveling with the group at the same time I should be setting up the "monsters" from this random encounter. Oh and all the hirelings need to have their HP recalculated too.  No thanks. Far too much bookwork for too little gain, especially given my sandbox/random encounters style of play.

Quote from: RandallS;631819Unfortunately, that only works if you rest after everything. My groups generally do not. Say they are traveling through dangerous wilderness. That's two random encounter checks, one in the morning, one in the afternoon. With per day healing, I don't need any more time info that this.

With per hour healing, if there are two encounters that day, I have to know exactly what time in the morning and in the afternoon the encounters take place and each character has to take up play time figuring how much they have healed since the morning encounter. I have to do this for any NPCs traveling with the group at the same time I should be setting up the "monsters" from this random encounter. Oh and all the hirelings need to have their HP recalculated too.  No thanks. Far too much bookwork for too little gain, especially given my sandbox/random encounters style of play.

No if they don't rest they don't heal. Done.

Quote from: jibbajibba;631820No if they don't rest they don't heal. Done.

What's resting? If they are riding on horseback or in a wagon, is it rest? Do they have to be asleep? Even if it requires sleep, all you will have happen with many players is a 1 encounter "day" followed by rest until everyone is back at full HP. No interested in this either nor am I interested in constantly coming up with reasons the party can't rest until healed every time they get injured.

Quote from: RandallS;631821What's resting? If they are riding on horseback or in a wagon, is it rest? Do they have to be asleep? Even if it requires sleep, all you will have happen with many players is a 1 encounter "day" followed by rest until everyone is back at full HP. No interested in this either nor am I interested in constantly coming up with reasons the party can't rest until healed every time they get injured.

Okay obviously a major issue for you so fair enough.

Luckliy the rules let you change it to once a day so no biggie.

Quote from: RandallS;631819Unfortunately, that only works if you rest after everything. My groups generally do not. Say they are traveling through dangerous wilderness. That's two random encounter checks, one in the morning, one in the afternoon. With per day healing, I don't need any more time info that this.

With per hour healing, if there are two encounters that day, I have to know exactly what time in the morning and in the afternoon the encounters take place and each character has to take up play time figuring how much they have healed since the morning encounter. I have to do this for any NPCs traveling with the group at the same time I should be setting up the "monsters" from this random encounter. Oh and all the hirelings need to have their HP recalculated too.  No thanks. Far too much bookwork for too little gain, especially given my sandbox/random encounters style of play.

I knew I was not the only one who has tried universal continuous regeneration as a D&D houserule. It sounded like a good idea when I joined the table, but boy was that an experience of "beware of what you wish for, you might just get it." To hear experience from the GM side of the screen is enlightening, but cements my view.

The sad thing is I think the "X per day, Y per full rest day" chassis is remarkably simple and adaptable for strategic HP management, while also leaving HP poolsize as tactical HP management. I hated HP structure when I was younger, but it took time to appreciate what it was attempting. If people want to adapt HP to a new playstyle it is remarkably transparent on where to fix things for what you want.

If you want to change tactical flexibility, look at changing HP poolsize. To let tables engage more encounters per day, increase the HP per level roll, either by larger HD or breaking HD into smaller dice. e.g. Change a Wizard from d4 to either d6 or 2d2. If you want more strategic flexibility, look at changing HP per day/full rest day. To cover farther travel distances, increase HP per day while traveling; to cover dungeon delving, increase base camp full day rest.

Creating a new paradigm feels unnecessary when all they have to do is explain why the original paradigm was there in the first place. Once you lay that bare, and how to adjust it to accomodate your table, you keep the D&Disms while also supporting customization. Fighting the paradigm with glommed on patches reads like they do not know what the original design was attempting in the first place.

:rolleyes: in regard to the regeneration, of course.
Other than that in this article, I liked Mearls' explanation of what he was aiming at with the big monsters vs. lots of little guys, although so far to me looks like although the limited scaling in attack and AC and stuff sound like it'll support that, there may be too many dice going everywhere from Advantage or weapon powers or whatever for me to want to do mass combat in it.
Didn't like the thing about Roles, either (classes with any healing having 'sufficient' healing). Too much like 4E where all 'Leader' classes come with standardized, re-fluffed abilities that particularly suit the class (artificers blowing magic powder at people).

Quote from: Opaopajr;631843Fighting the paradigm with glommed on patches reads like they do not know what the original design was attempting in the first place.

The original design was Arneson swiping some rules from a battleship game on his shelf to stop his players continually bitching about the fact that they died.

Not to comment either way on the matter, but I find it fascinating that we have had a non stop shitstorm over hit points and healing since the first article on it over a week ago on various forums.

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;632048Not to comment either way on the matter, but I find it fascinating that we have had a non stop shitstorm over hit points and healing since the first article on it over a week ago on various forums.

Of course you'd find it "fascinating", you're on forums FOR the storm, dude. (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=330631&postcount=568)

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;632048Not to comment either way on the matter, but I find it fascinating that we have had a non stop shitstorm over hit points and healing since the first article on it over a week ago on various forums.

Heh, in my games you max out at 10 or 12 HP, usually less, and it can take months to recover naturally. If you go into negative hit points it's disabilities time.

Yes, if you get shot with an assault rifle you may die quickly or spend a long time healing, what makes anyone think getting a belt from a five foot length of razor sharp metal is any different.

Why is this even a debate?

Quote from: The Traveller;632056Heh, in my games you max out at 10 or 12 HP, usually less, and it can take months to recover naturally. If you go into negative hit points it's disabilities time.

Yes, if you get shot with an assault rifle you may die quickly or spend a long time healing, what makes anyone think getting a belt from a five foot length of razor sharp metal is any different.

Why is this even a debate?

Because apparently large numbers of people disagree with your sentiment.

Quote from: The Traveller;632056Heh, in my games you max out at 10 or 12 HP, usually less, and it can take months to recover naturally. If you go into negative hit points it's disabilities time.

Yes, if you get shot with an assault rifle you may die quickly or spend a long time healing, what makes anyone think getting a belt from a five foot length of razor sharp metal is any different.

Why is this even a debate?

Some people want to simulate modern action movies, and treat injuries as something heroes can shrug off until the climax (Commando, Die Hard, Rambo and so forth).

Quote from: Votan;632066Some people want to simulate modern action movies, and treat injuries as something heroes can shrug off until the climax (Commando, Die Hard, Rambo and so forth).

Thats fine and dandy. Find a game that is designed to simulate such things and have at it.

Why does every story/action movie wanker feel the need to co-opt D&D and then whine like bitch when it proves unsuitable for the desired game instead of selecting one of the many games out there that handle cinematics much better.

Let D&D BE D&D for fucks sake.

Quote from: Votan;632066Some people want to simulate modern action movies, and treat injuries as something heroes can shrug off until the climax (Commando, Die Hard, Rambo and so forth).

Oh you can sort of do that too, but you need to be really skilled and it only works against certain forms of attack. A broadsword does 4 damage, but if you roll high over your opponent you can get that to 5, 6, 8, 10, or whatever.

So if you're really good at dodging or really good with deflecting, you can evade most damage. That doesn't mean a knife can't end you though, or you can't be hit with a molotov cocktail or a dead drop trap, this concept of having 65 HP and a sword doing 1d6 damage is a safety blanket, virtual immunity to most injuries.

I get the simulation argument, it's just not how I choose to game really. Tactically this means you are going to think and plan fights carefully, no charging into hordes of enemies, the peasant mob with pitchforks are actually dangerous. In my opinion it makes for a much more affecting experience, it's alive.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;632073Thats fine and dandy. Find a game that is designed to simulate such things and have at it.

Why does every story/action movie wanker feel the need to co-opt D&D and then whine like bitch when it proves unsuitable for the desired game instead of selecting one of the many games out there that handle cinematics much better.

Let D&D BE D&D for fucks sake.

See, I would argue that Gygax got there first with Hit Points simulating action and adventure movies. It is the people who make Hit Points = real damage who are not letting D&D be D&D.

Would it not be easier (and to keep everyone happy) to divide Hit Points into Hit Points and Wounds as core.

HP being metaphysical, wounds being 'real' - when they've gone you are dead, when HP run out you are into your Wounds. For those that want more realism ditch HP or reduce them. Anyone could recover HP; in an instant if you like because they aren't real! HP are also there to separate the PCs, NPCs and unique monsters and creatures against everyone else. Wounds on the other hand can only be magically healed (by a Cleric) or regained after a significant amount of time, most folk only have Wounds - they don't have HP. Is that too simple?

Quote from: jadrax;632096See, I would argue that Gygax got there first with Hit Points simulating action and adventure movies. It is the people who make Hit Points = real damage who are not letting D&D be D&D.

Of course hit points are cinematic. Thats how a high level fighter gets "hit" 6 times with a heavy broadsword and keeps on coming.

Magic exists to instantly fix these things. Having the effects just vanish overnight sans magic is beyond cinematic. That is a cartoon universe.

Quote from: elfandghost;632099Would it not be easier (and to keep everyone happy) to divide Hit Points into Hit Points and Wounds as core.

HP being metaphysical, wounds being 'real' - when they've gone you are dead, when HP run out you are into your Wounds. For those that want more realism ditch HP or reduce them. Anyone could recover HP; in an instant if you like because they aren't real! HP are also there to separate the PCs, NPCs and unique monsters and creatures against everyone else. Wounds on the other hand can only be magically healed (by a Cleric) or regained after a significant amount of time, most folk only have Wounds - they don't have HP. Is that too simple?

Then wounds would become the new HP and bitching would erupt if there wasn't a way to non-magically just recover those too.

Whiny bitches aint gonna be happy with anything that just might mean that the adventuring day could start without a PC being topped off in HP, wounds, or whatever you care to measure. They want all vitality as a per-day tactical resource.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;632104Then wounds would become the new HP and bitching would erupt if there wasn't a way to non-magically just recover those too.

Whiny bitches aint gonna be happy with anything that just might mean that the adventuring day could start without a PC being topped off in HP, wounds, or whatever you care to measure. They want all vitality as a per-day tactical resource.

You are right, but that game aint the D&D I remember. Maybe that's the problem? There is the D&D anime superhero game where everyone has cellular regeneration and D&D the medieval fantasy game of dark dungeons, deadly traps and the chance of death. You can't make those two camps happy.

Quote from: elfandghost;632099Would it not be easier (and to keep everyone happy) to divide Hit Points into Hit Points and Wounds as core.

HP being metaphysical, wounds being 'real' - when they've gone you are dead, when HP run out you are into your Wounds. For those that want more realism ditch HP or reduce them. Anyone could recover HP; in an instant if you like because they aren't real! HP are also there to separate the PCs, NPCs and unique monsters and creatures against everyone else. Wounds on the other hand can only be magically healed (by a Cleric) or regained after a significant amount of time, most folk only have Wounds - they don't have HP. Is that too simple?

Been doing it for years (see various posts) but the trouble is very people who want HP to heal slowly tend to not want too much complexity and don't like death spirals (ie wounds inflict penalties which in time lead to more wounds as you are less effective in combat etc.)

The balancing act is to have a system that has the ease of use in play of HP but makes some nod to simulation.

I based my HP paradigm on 1e Villains and Vigilantes where there was a power stat whcih you could use to absorb damage by 'rolling with the punches' . That to me meant I could see why a 10th level fighter had 3 times the Hit points of a large horse.

I don't see why it has to be so difficult.  We all agree that HP are abstract, right?  And they've been that way from the beginning, less so at low levels and more so at high levels.  Why not just keep it simple and say half hp loss is reflected by things like fatigue, and half from wounds.  That way when you do your long rest, you can never regain more than half of those lost.  No need for another category, algebraic calculation, or whatever.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;632277I don't see why it has to be so difficult.  We all agree that HP are abstract, right?  And they've been that way from the beginning, less so at low levels and more so at high levels.  Why not just keep it simple and say half hp loss is reflected by things like fatigue, and half from wounds.  That way when you do your long rest, you can never regain more than half of those lost.  No need for another category, algebraic calculation, or whatever.

That works fine except that algebra come sin when you are involved in many fights .

Say you have 32 HP.

You get into a fight and loose 10 HP.

Then you regain 5 HP resting

Then you get into another fight and loose 12 HP.
Now logically you can regain 6 of them but becuase now you have lost 17 HP overall but we are counting them in one pile of HP you can actually regain 9HP through resting (half the toal damage).
etc

So the only way to make your method work consistently is to either
i) track each wound - I tried that for a while but its a nightmare to manage
ii) Have 2 types of HP - Stamina and Physical - and take damage of the two stacks equally.

Which is why I went to HP & wounds which required you beign able to take 30% of your HP from any one blow. (so 32 HP means you can roll with upto 11 points of damage). But it is cumbersome sometimes and has other impacts to the wider system.
 
So what I have been looking at is adding a d6 at 0 level.

This is then your wounds the real physical damage.
HPs are the skill stuff.
Basically if you loose these last few HP then they are real wounds with minuses.
Imagine HP as a life bar and the last 6 squares are Red and if you get there then you are taking real damage and you coss out those points. They don't come back except slowly so you track them separately (maybe you lost 3 and then you rested and got back the rest of your HP) as the minus continue until they are healed.
The rest of the time HP act in just the same way as they always did.

Quote from: Exploderwizard;632104Then wounds would become the new HP and bitching would erupt if there wasn't a way to non-magically just recover those too.

Whiny bitches aint gonna be happy with anything that just might mean that the adventuring day could start without a PC being topped off in HP, wounds, or whatever you care to measure. They want all vitality as a per-day tactical resource.

Sure there are people like that but they can use the straight up system right, and its not whiny its more as you say They want all vitality as a per-day tactical resource.

Then thewre are people like me that actually want to sort HP out from a simulationist perspective we actually want to understand them and make them made some sense. Also from my perspective at least I want to have the option of removing magical healing and not have the game totally fall over.
I don't want a massive sword cut to the warrior to heal in a day but I don't want it to heal in a week either I want it to take a month, no matter if he is 1st level or 12th,  and I don't want him just chugging back 3 healing potions, available at all adventurer stores, to make the big cut go away and I don't want miraculous saints curing the lame and healing the sick at every small village chapple as it is was a totally mundane issue of no note and not have the existance of magical hospitals available to all have any impact on the worlds economy, population or lifestyle.

Well, I am going to ignore your setting assumptions (magic potion shop and healers casting CLW everywhere) as a universal issue and actually try to help you with your desire -- within the D&D HP chassis.

Sounds like you want more combat in your tactical HP usage, while at the same time taking time to recover fully from great damage. I assume this is your desire, clarify as necessary:

Given that we know higher HP pool in practice represents greater injury capacity, and therefore also allows greater tactical flexibility, this will let more encounters to be "violently" engaged.

So next, since altering all the weapons are a greater effort than altering Hit Die level rolls, you must figure out what level of HP pool cushion would accommodate your campaign's expected aggressiveness.

For simplicity's sake let's try double regular HD rolls. i.e. Warrior rolls 2d10 instead of 1d10. Overall it will add HP but not all that much. A possible rule of thumb for campaign design (not that I'd use, but for others) is one class HD per "expected encounters a day."

Since D&D doesn't do wound tracking and its death spiral (except as optional rules), the main advantage of high HP is access to attempt more danger before resting in safety. It also means that there is little advantage to having maxed HP at the start of every adventure day. The reason for 'always max HP' behavior was fear that low HP risked death and slowed down deeper exploration.

However you want injuries to take around a month or so to heal. That effect should likely still be present with the current rate. Retain current 1 HP day/ 3 HP full rest day to see if it already works well with this new higher HP pool. Double it if you need more heroic HP management.

(FYI, NWP Healing & Herbalism is said in PHB 2e that it "can also" help with healing, versus written as "can instead." Depending on GM judgment, since it is an optional system, that means another 1 HP day/ 2 or 3 HP full rest day for up to 6 people automatically. That tallies to 2 HP day / 5 or 6 HP full rest day for up to 6 in a party. And any class can cross-class NWP for one extra slot...)

I do find it interesting just a week ago the guys who were gloating and the guys who were in a panic were just about reversed...
RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;632681I do find it interesting just a week ago the guys who were gloating and the guys who were in a panic were just about reversed...
RPGpundit

Me too :)

Quote from: Opaopajr;632333Well, I am going to ignore your setting assumptions (magic potion shop and healers casting CLW everywhere) as a universal issue and actually try to help you with your desire -- within the D&D HP chassis.

Sounds like you want more combat in your tactical HP usage, while at the same time taking time to recover fully from great damage. I assume this is your desire, clarify as necessary:

Given that we know higher HP pool in practice represents greater injury capacity, and therefore also allows greater tactical flexibility, this will let more encounters to be "violently" engaged.

So next, since altering all the weapons are a greater effort than altering Hit Die level rolls, you must figure out what level of HP pool cushion would accommodate your campaign's expected aggressiveness.

For simplicity's sake let's try double regular HD rolls. i.e. Warrior rolls 2d10 instead of 1d10. Overall it will add HP but not all that much. A possible rule of thumb for campaign design (not that I'd use, but for others) is one class HD per "expected encounters a day."

Since D&D doesn't do wound tracking and its death spiral (except as optional rules), the main advantage of high HP is access to attempt more danger before resting in safety. It also means that there is little advantage to having maxed HP at the start of every adventure day. The reason for 'always max HP' behavior was fear that low HP risked death and slowed down deeper exploration.

However you want injuries to take around a month or so to heal. That effect should likely still be present with the current rate. Retain current 1 HP day/ 3 HP full rest day to see if it already works well with this new higher HP pool. Double it if you need more heroic HP management.

(FYI, NWP Healing & Herbalism is said in PHB 2e that it "can also" help with healing, versus written as "can instead." Depending on GM judgment, since it is an optional system, that means another 1 HP day/ 2 or 3 HP full rest day for up to 6 people automatically. That tallies to 2 HP day / 5 or 6 HP full rest day for up to 6 in a party. And any class can cross-class NWP for one extra slot...)

So here you have an issue with levels and the scaling nature of D&D combat.

Your argument which is basically HPs mean you can take on more challenge and survive works if the oponents stay constant. However in D&D oponents scale with level (always fighting orcs?)

If your 10th level fighter was indeed fighting orcs then the fact that his HP were higher would mean that he could indeed fight rest continue longer ents and be far more effective than the 1st level guy, obviously. However, he isn't he is fighting Hill Giants who deal far more damage and hit far more often. So in effect the risk has scaled with the experience.


A fight between a warrior say and a well matched opponent will see the warrior taken down to about 50% of hits typically. Now using the AD&D paradigm for 1hp per day that 10th level fighter isn't going to be back in a position where he can deal with similarly matched oponents for the full 31 days (remember in AD&D you heal 1hp per day or 2 with full bed rest but after a month you get all your remaining hp back in one go)

Now compare that to a 1st level figther who has fought an orc and will be fully recovered after 3 or 4 days.

If you increased HPs say to 2d10 per level you just make the numbers bigger.

What I want to do, and this is totally for my own use I don't want to force it on any one else and my explanations are simply that explanations for reference, I want to come up with a way where inside a recognisably D&D format I can have a fighter take on a giant and if he manages to avoid getting 'wounded' he can fight a giant again tomorrow but if he does get wounded he will have a broken leg or cracked ribs or whatever and will have to cope with that injury for a "realistic" length of time a week , a month or whatever.  

So for me to get my head round HP like I said I need to think of HPs as skill that stops you getting hit or the whole lot as a %. So either HP are skill and wounds are separate or HP are HP but you heal at a % rate so a cure light cures 10% of your total Hits and you regain hp through healing at a % rate say 5% HP per day or something.
In each case a sword swing that does 9 hp of damage to 1st level guy is toally diffeent to a 9 pnt wound to a 60hp point guy.
The % system still doesn;t deal with any effects of wounds but maybe that is okay in D&D terms.

Quote from: jibbajibba;632711Your argument which is basically HPs mean you can take on more challenge and survive works if the oponents stay constant. However in D&D oponents scale with level (always fighting orcs?)

Perhaps this is true in WOTC D&D (especially in 4e where it seems to be baked into the design), but it was far less true of TSR D&D (especially 0e, 1e, and B/X) where random encounters were normal and widely variable as to their "combat challenge level". Even in dungeons where the average encounter "power" was set by the dungeon level, you could get monsters well below or well above the party's level. In the Wilderness, the party's level had nothing to do with what was encountered, it was random based on what was common in the terrain. In TSR D&D, 10th level fighters did encounter goblins and 1st characters did encounter dragons.

I'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.

Quote from: RandallS;632747Perhaps this is true in WOTC D&D (especially in 4e where it seems to be baked into the design), but it was far less true of TSR D&D (especially 0e, 1e, and B/X) where random encounters were normal and widely variable as to their "combat challenge level". Even in dungeons where the average encounter "power" was set by the dungeon level, you could get monsters well below or well above the party's level. In the Wilderness, the party's level had nothing to do with what was encountered, it was random based on what was common in the terrain. In TSR D&D, 10th level fighters did encounter goblins and 1st characters did encounter dragons.

Quite true. TSR D&D was much more setting focused. The PCs were part of a fantasy world and not living in a bubble of "appropriate challenges".

Quote from: RandallS;632747Perhaps this is true in WOTC D&D (especially in 4e where it seems to be baked into the design), but it was far less true of TSR D&D (especially 0e, 1e, and B/X) where random encounters were normal and widely variable as to their "combat challenge level". Even in dungeons where the average encounter "power" was set by the dungeon level, you could get monsters well below or well above the party's level. In the Wilderness, the party's level had nothing to do with what was encountered, it was random based on what was common in the terrain. In TSR D&D, 10th level fighters did encounter goblins and 1st characters did encounter dragons.

Sorry I wasn't clear.
I wasn't talking about wandering monsters which are themselves tied tot eh 'level' of the dungeon which is typically tied to PC level, as you get more experienced you go deeper in search of richer rewards. Wilderness encounters are more random I agree, but again wandoering monsters are not the point i was making.  I was talking about the targeted challenges you face. If you play G1 - Steadying of the HIll Giant chief the main oppoents you face will be level appropriate to the party. TSR did not design modules for 10th lvel parties populated by orcs. to say they did is disengenuous.

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.

I still can't see why a rule that lets you set the rate of healing to whatever you like is a compromise for either 'side'
Seems like a really good flexible approach to me.
It seems like there is far too much importance about what is default compared to a standard option from both camps.

Quote from: jibbajibba;633212I still can't see why a rule that lets you set the rate of healing to whatever you like is a compromise for either 'side'
Seems like a really good flexible approach to me.
It seems like there is far too much importance about what is default compared to a standard option from both camps.

The current rules are a wishy-washy mush that doesn't really serve either combat as war or combat as sport very well. I also am less than confident that adjusting the rate of healing while keeping the rest of the game static is going to be a worthwhile solution for anyone.

Quote from: jibbajibba;633212It seems like there is far too much importance about what is default compared to a standard option from both camps.

Adventure modules. Since most adventure modules these days are sandbox settings but are plotted semi-railroads, if the adventure is designed around the "default" level healing per hour and I'm running level healing per day (or per week) chances are the published adventures will be far less useful to me.  

As I am unlikely to run D&D Next if WOTC wants much of my money, they need to be able to sell me adventures, settings, and the like. If these require a lot of redesign work because them assume PCs heal like regenerating trolls, then chances are the encounter pacing and the like would require a complete redesign to be useful to me.  Which makes it less likely I will spend my money on them. If they made them designed around 1 hit healing per day, they'd be very wrong for people doing level per day healing and those people would be less likely to buy adventures.

There is an easy way around this: only print sandbox adventures and/or plotted adventures carefully designed so that they will work whether PCs heal at 1 hp per week or recover all hp after a 5 minute rest. I have little confidence that WOTC would be able to do either well.

Quote from: jibbajibba;633212I still can't see why a rule that lets you set the rate of healing to whatever you like is a compromise for either 'side'
Seems like a really good flexible approach to me.
It seems like there is far too much importance about what is default compared to a standard option from both camps.

My impression from the 4E crowd is its a compromise to the because the healing is all out of combat and still linked to time. So they seem to be saying, it just doesn't address their issue which is the ability to have nonmagical heals dring combat (which I think a lot of them associate with cinematic and dramatic pacing). think I would regard it as a compromise because the default heal rate is quite fast (though like I said, if it is fully adjustable that isn't such a big deal).

Quote from: thecasualoblivion;633218The current rules are a wishy-washy mush that doesn't really serve either combat as war or combat as sport very well. .

I think a lot of gamers are not really conceptualizing it in those terms anyways. If it is genuinely in between then you can probably get more folks at the table. 4E is way too far into gamey territory for my tastes, and if they can pull that back a bit, I would likly be satisfied. I dont need the game firmly entrenched in a hyper focused gaming philosophy or style (imo that was the problem with 4E). Now for other games, hyper focused can be just fine. But D&D is very general and traditionally a game where people with different approaches come together and play because it is the old standard.

Actually, i am starting a new 3.5 wuxia campaign so I might as well try out this  heal your level per hour and see how it impacts play. For that genre it might actually be a good fit.