Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition - Thread #2 [Archive]

Yora

2012-02-01, 08:21 AM

I think the plan for that is the attempt at modularity. If you want miniatures, add the rules for grid-based-combat. If you want skill points like in 3rd Edition, add the rules for Advanced Skills. Want to use a sabre instead of a medium sword, use the expanded equipment list.

My oppinion is, that everything Monte Cook says about what all is possible should be taken with an entire salt shaker worth of salt. So many times he makes claims about what they have planned and a few minutes later someone else elaborates on it by saying something that essentially means "it's not entirely wrong, but actually means something different than he made it sound like".

ClothedInVelvet

2012-02-01, 08:28 AM

Did anyone else notice that they seem to be splitting the cleric into a martial/healer side and a priest/spellcaster side? Feelings?

Yora

2012-02-01, 08:32 AM

I did.
Feeling: Finally!!!

The Combat Cleric is a viable concept for a class. But the exclusion of a spellcasting priest class always greatly annoyed me. To play one in D&D, you just played a cleric who did not wear the heavy armor he was perfectly capable of wearing.
Cloistered Cleric was a kind of fix, but I really welcome priests becomming its own class that will hopefully be in the PHB1.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 08:58 AM

Maybe not.

Str => Grapples and disarms
Dex => Rays and fireballs
Con => Poison and body alteration
Int => Illusions
Wis => Mental spells
Cha => Bluff and intimidate

I stand corrected.

This edition is starting to look up already!

There is allot of spells/ class abilities that can interact with those saves.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-01, 09:07 AM

So, classes offer ability boosts, eh?

How will this interact with multiclassing?

Wild melee dipping might be in style still.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 09:09 AM

So, classes offer ability boosts, eh?

I said this- CAN. Not will

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 09:24 AM

If you are interested in all the known facts about the new edition, Enworld has a very good summary of it here (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=dnd5e), which gets constantly updated.
...interesting.

I'm still not sure how they can do most of the things they're talking about (3E-style multiclassing and balanced classes? "Complex" and "Simple" options existing side-by-side but not competing for effectiveness?) but maybe they can pull them off.

Tiki Snakes

2012-02-01, 09:27 AM

Quite frankly, it sounds like it could end up being a really complex system. :smallconfused:

ClothedInVelvet

2012-02-01, 09:29 AM

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 09:32 AM

Quite frankly, it sounds like it could end up being a really complex system. :smallconfused:
Not just complex, but long - like GURPS long.

IMHO, they're building a kitchen-sink system in order to fix what they perceive to be their biggest problem -- Edition Warz. You want Vancian Casting? Bam, you got it! Fighters who can beat wizards? Bam! Wizards who beat fighters? Bam! Rules that say you're an ex-bouncer? Done. Being able to say you're an ex-bouncer without using rules? We can do that too.

If they sell these books in stores they'll need specially reinforced bookshelves to support the weight. Perhaps this will be an all-digital edition as a result :smalltongue:

ClothedInVelvet

2012-02-01, 09:35 AM

Not just complex, but long - like GURPS long.

IMHO, they're building a kitchen-sink system in order to fix what they perceive to be their biggest problem -- Edition Warz. You want Vancian Casting? Bam, you got it! Fighters who can beat wizards? Bam! Wizards who beat fighters? Bam! Rules that say you're an ex-bouncer? Done. Being able to say you're an ex-bouncer without using rules? We can do that too.

If they sell these books in stores they'll need specially reinforced bookshelves to support the weight. Perhaps this will be an all-digital edition as a result :smalltongue:

But they keep enforcing the modual-ness of it all. I'm betting it just comes in book after book. Good money for them, hopefully, good choices for us.

Yora

2012-02-01, 09:44 AM

My concern too. However, despite that we often find a lot of problems in WotC's stuff, they have done some amazing stuff. I'm optimistic.

I'm also worried about the ability boosts. If ability scores are especially important, and certain classes give a +1 boost, those classes might be mandatory dips. We'll see.

No, I think that every class gets a boost to its own primary stat. Probably easiest if those bonuses don't stack.

The effect would be, that you can get a good score in your primary stat while in the case of point buy not having to use as many points on it, which leaves more to put into other stats. Which might help avoid dump stats.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-01, 09:50 AM

No, I think that every class gets a boost to its own primary stat. Probably easiest if those bonuses don't stack.

The effect would be, that you can get a good score in your primary stat while in the case of point buy not having to use as many points on it, which leaves more to put into other stats. Which might help avoid dump stats.

That seems to be the case, yes...cleric's are confirmed to be wis, so assuming primary stat is logical.

Still, even if they don't stack, having boosts to multiple abilities is a very handy thing.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 09:51 AM

But they keep enforcing the modual-ness of it all. I'm betting it just comes in book after book. Good money for them, hopefully, good choices for us.
GURPS is also marketed as a "module system" -- it just had a lot of rules in the main book.
Nobody likes having to buy a lot of books to play a game. D&D Players have been conditioned to buying a minimum of 3 to play the game (i.e. PHB, DMG, MM) but most other systems require only 1 for good reason. One major complaint about 3.X was that Core had broken elements that were only fixed via expansion books (e.g. Paladins with Crusaders, Monks with Unarmed Swordsages) which acted like a bait & switch for the uninitiated. A truly modular system might end up being the same way thanks to "dip classes" and "feat powers" -- if your class doesn't work OK out of the box but with the addition of one feat from another sourcebook does, then you will feel compelled to buy that sourcebook. And, of course, Players who don't spend their time buying/memorizing dozens of sourcebooks are going to be at a disadvantage and feel at a disadvantage when their buddy shows up with a build cobbled together from a hundred sources that does things his "vanilla" build could never have dreamed about.
In short, optional modules can easily become mandatory if the Core rules are lacking. A system with so much "optional" material cannot, by necessity, have very much substance at its base; the more substantial the base the more likely that it will conflict with potential modules.

Or to put it another way: when everything is optional, nothing is :smallcool:

Eldan

2012-02-01, 09:51 AM

I'd probably assume a wording like "You only get a stat boost from your primary class". For some definition of primary class. Probably similar to only having HP from your first class maximized and only having skill points from your first class quadrupled in 3E.

Saph

2012-02-01, 09:56 AM

Have to say that I like the look of the information in that ENworld thread. Obviously it's too early to come to any conclusions, but so far it looks good!

The idea of having simple classes which can be made more complex is a good one, and it'll be very useful it they can get it to work. It's very handy for a system to have simple classes that you can give to a newbie and complicated classes that can hold the interest of veterans.

Myth

2012-02-01, 10:14 AM

My contact with AD&D comes trough Baldur's Gate I and II. Clerics could only use simple weapons, thus a mace or flail + shield made sense.

But forcing a cleric to go sword&board is stupid in light of things like 3.5's Power Attack and all the +BAB, +size, +Str etc. buffs they had.

Not sure if 4E has PA but if it does, then sword&board is still pretty weak as far as effective melee combat is concerned.

Forcing clerics to go mace and shield (and possibly the option to get their deity's favoured weapon) seems like a return to races as classes, no metal weapons for druids etc. which was a bit suffocating.

Acknowledging that being a healbot is "iconic" is also somewhat :smallfrown: for me.

They said they sat down and played everything from 1e to Essentials and wrote down the things that made DnD DnD. AC was mentioned as one of them, yet AC has never been balanced OR important up until 4E with which I have no experience. 3.5 particularly has this absolutely worthless compared to miss chances, polymorhping and going first. I doubt their trial run trough 3.5 was anything different than standard WOTC Tordeks wth Toughness and Healbots based on their lists. The only allusion to 3.5 for 5e is character sheet complexity in which they say "you can have your guy be more complex, detailed and customized but he won't be more powerful than the average Joe who is using a pre-rolled Tordek"

That they would say 3.5's main thing is just the complexity of the char design process means they are far from apt in their own system. I really hope they would grasp the customization, detail, the way a player with a high level of system mastery can make a finely tuned clockwork character that performs in a stellar way and the player may feel good about the way they've made their character achieve it.

Oh, and I am actually one who is looking forward to books in PDF format and olnine tools such as dungeon builders, online character sheets and character builders etc. since I only play PbP and that would make my life so much easier...

Tyndmyr

2012-02-01, 10:20 AM

Oh, and I am actually one who is looking forward to books in PDF format and olnine tools such as dungeon builders, online character sheets and character builders etc. since I only play PbP and that would make my life so much easier...

*shrug* I already have online char sheets at myth-weavers. Dungeon builders and such exist too. I'll grant that official tools are a handy thing, but unless they have a tool for actually playing in online, the rest of it mostly isn't the main bit I'm interested in.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 10:21 AM

I also believe that classes SHOULD have more fluffy limitations.

I LIKE Druids not getting metal weapons. It just fits thematically.

warmachine

2012-02-01, 10:25 AM

One thing that worries me is that ability scores have a major influence but the scores, by default, are still random. A character can steal more of the limelight by being lucky in character creation, much more than 3e. Attributes in GURPS are highly important but that's point buy.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 10:25 AM

I also believe that classes SHOULD have more fluffy limitations.

I LIKE Druids not getting metal weapons. It just fits thematically.
This becomes awkward with multiclassing.

It was already awkward in 2E ("My Fighter/Wizard/Cleric can wear armor to cast cleric spells, but not wizard spells, and has to use blunt weapons.") and 3E-style multiclassing will only make it worse. It will probably be better to follow the 4e route of leaving fluff decisions up to the DMs and keeping the rules as "mechanical" as possible.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 10:29 AM

This becomes awkward with multiclassing.

And it should be. And there always is the convenience of that metal-like wood.

If My druid decides it wants to join an army, then I doubt the forces of nature would be "OK" with that. While ore is a natural resource, metal represents the strangling of it.

By separating Fluff from The rules the result is something rather dull.

There are some things that simply work by dancing with the fluff.

This disconnect is why defiling in 4e dark sun SUCKS.

edit:

Removing things is easier then adding them.

If I want to add that fluff, then I also have to create spells, costs and other things around that fluff. By removing fluff you just need to remove.

Alexander1996

2012-02-01, 10:31 AM

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 10:37 AM

And it should be. And there always is the convenience of that metal-like wood.
...so now we're talking about "fluff restrictions that don't restrict" :smallconfused:

Listen, I'm all for fluff but fluff-enforced-by-rules does nothing but create another hurdle I need to clear while homebrewing worlds. Plus, leaving it to the DM lessens the strain on a system designed for multiclassing.

Also: If Druids aren't supposed to use refined metals in order to respect nature, then why was it OK for them to use big honkin' steel scimitars? :smalltongue:

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 10:43 AM

Plus, leaving it to the DM lessens the strain on a system designed for multiclassing.

Thing is if you want to play the mindless beat em up "break the system" game its incredibly easy. Just remove the fluff rule. Boom. Problem solved, a TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE difficult hurdle is overcome.

But If I want to add that fluff, I need to create the items, cost them, balance them, make spells around that. ect.

Its just easier to remove fluff then to add fluff.

Also: If Druids aren't supposed to use refined metals in order to respect nature, then why was it OK for them to use big honkin' steel scimitars? :smalltongue:

They don't. At least I don't allow them.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 10:51 AM

Thing is if you want to play the mindless beat em up "break the system" game its incredibly easy. Just remove the fluff rule. Boom. Problem solved, a TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE difficult hurdle is overcome.
This works less well when the rules forbid wizards from casting in armor or really any fluff that has more than a "mother may I" effect on the game. Additionally, what items? :smallconfused:

They don't. At least I don't allow them. Good thing you have those rules about fluff to follow then :smalltongue:

Loren

2012-02-01, 10:53 AM

As a general rule I like what I'm seeing. I'm really excited to see that all the classes from the previous PHB's are going to be in the new one.

As for the modualness of it I don't think that's surprising coming from the man behind Unearthed Arcana. If they want an edition that encompasses many different play styles they probably picked the right guy.

I'm a little concerned with the dropping of skills. Not that I personally care too much, but I think that some players will be weirded out by a return to something akin to the proficiencies system.

Doe anyone know what the "rarity vs commonness" of classes would mean in play?

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 11:08 AM

This works less well when the rules forbid wizards from casting in armor or really any fluff that has more than a "mother may I" effect on the game. Additionally, what items? :smallconfused:

Why? Why must fluff be pointless, tacked on and superfluous (If I didn't get the word- PM me). Its easier to remove fluff then it is to add it on.

I get some people are here for the combat, and min maxing and optimizing builds- But its easier to remove fluff then it is to add it.

If you make pointless fluff you get stuff like 4e defiling (Ugh).

I meant Darkwood. It would not exist (Forcing me- The GM to create the spell, balance it, create the item, ect) if the fluff didn't uphold it.

In your campain you can just say "Yes they can". Its as easy as that.

Good thing you have those rules about fluff to follow then :smalltongue:

Not sure whats this about.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 11:09 AM

Doe anyone know what the "rarity vs commonness" of classes would mean in play?
Probably nothing.

It just sounds like a rating system for play complexity -- the more confusing a class, the rarer. You could use it as an in-universe justification for why there are more Fighters than Wizards around but that's been tried before and seldom works: if System Mastery matters, you're going to have a party of Casters when you have experienced Players regardless of how "rare" they are supposed to be.

Coplantor

2012-02-01, 11:28 AM

I like the way this is going, I really liked the 2nd edition aproach to complexity where pretty much everything was optional. When I was 12 we barely used any rule and slowly incorporated them as our understanding of the game advanced.

Return of vancian casting, silver pieces as the norm, more importance to mundane equipment and different situations call for different stat bonus applied to the same skill are so far, what I'm liking the most.

Yora

2012-02-01, 11:59 AM

So that's what they meant with the silver standard? I wasn't really feeling like untangling that piece of info at that time. But silver pieces being the common type of money is good.

I heared that 4th Edition essentials had introduced character Themes in addition to Race and Class, which I assume is the inspiration for themes in 5th Edition. Can anyone tell me more about what these themes are? In other forums I saw some claims that its like a secondary class for all non-combat stuff, like noble, scholar, blacksmithm and so on, which you have in addition to your character class like wizard, fighter, or ranger.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-01, 12:15 PM

Can anyone tell me more about what these themes are? In other forums I saw some claims that its like a secondary class for all non-combat stuff
It's like a secondary class, but it's really not non-combat stuff. Most themes give you a combat encounter power at level 1, +2 to two different skills at level 5, and a minor combat bonus or resistance at level 10; plus they give you a combat utility power at levels 2, 6, and 10 that you can take instead of a class power. There are a few exceptions; for example, the scholar gains the ability to read all languages, and the noble gains the ability to demand food and lodging from other nobles.

The bottom line is, they're like paragon paths for heroic tier, because WOTC realized that the overwhelming majority of characters are in heroic tier, and wanted more customization for them (because the earlier designed "backgrounds" are too generic and aren't really noticeable during gameplay).

Incidentally, themes debuted in the Dark Sun book, not in 4.4. Here's a sample theme (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ex/20100723) from the Wizards website.

Yora

2012-02-01, 12:19 PM

I like that. Might turn out to be something I could use for my game to implement DA-style blood magic without any weird multiclassing.

Tengu_temp

2012-02-01, 12:19 PM

If you are interested in all the known facts about the new edition, Enworld has a very good summary of it here (http://www.enworld.org/index.php?page=dnd5e), which gets constantly updated.

Reading this stuff made me mostly feel positive about the new edition. Mostly, because this part worries me:

"So for example, if your fighter goes up a level and would normally get some bonus damage or a bonus to hit, or something simple, then maybe instead you could choose to replace that with an option or options that allow you to do some cool moves that allow you to push people around, or protect your allies a bit more, or control the battlefield a little more."
Having a fun character with many options in combat should not come at a price of power. Because in a game that expects you to specialize, like DND, the powerful but boring option will tend to be the one everyone expects you to take, while the other one will tend to be incredibly underpowered. I don't want to see the return of 3e monks again.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 12:39 PM

Having a fun character with many options in combat should not come at a price of power. Because in a game that expects you to specialize, like DND, the powerful but boring option will tend to be the one everyone expects you to take, while the other one will tend to be incredibly underpowered. I don't want to see the return of 3e monks again.
Likewise, I was disturbed by this quote:

Fighter was the hardest class to design. Druid second hardest. Monk easy.
Bolded for emphatic alarm :smalleek:

Tyndmyr

2012-02-01, 12:44 PM

Likewise, I was disturbed by this quote:

Bolded for emphatic alarm :smalleek:

That didn't actually bother me. I figure the designer was like "yeah, I googled it. Holy ****, there was like ten thousand monk threads. I kinda skimmed em, but they all said the same things. There was even a bunch of homebrew stuff to rip off. Easy day."

Fixing fighter is honestly harder than fixing monk. I mean, if you want it to remain similar in feel to fighter, and aren't just saying "hey, we renamed warblade".

Tengu_temp

2012-02-01, 12:52 PM

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 12:54 PM

If anything, I'd like to see a game where all the characters only have at-will and encounter powers/spells, no daily ones. I hope 5e will let me build such a party.

That will result in a game with no need for conservation or tactics (Thats what I think the word means). Its just going to be a room after a room.

Seerow

2012-02-01, 12:56 PM

That didn't actually bother me. I figure the designer was like "yeah, I googled it. Holy ****, there was like ten thousand monk threads. I kinda skimmed em, but they all said the same things. There was even a bunch of homebrew stuff to rip off. Easy day."

Fixing fighter is honestly harder than fixing monk. I mean, if you want it to remain similar in feel to fighter, and aren't just saying "hey, we renamed warblade".

The biggest problem with the Fighter is there is no real direction. The druid probably suffers from a similar problem, but on the opposite end of the power spectrum.

Basically the Fighter was supposed to model every mundane martial type out there simultaneously. The Druid was supposed to model every nature type character out there simultaneously. Yes, both have classes that fill niches in their roles that are more specific, but the Druid/Fighter are the fallbacks.

Basically fixing the Fighter/Druid is hard because you have to make the decision "What is a Fighter/Druid?" which nobody's bothered to do before. If you decide to make the druid focus on nature casting, and give wildshape to a new class, and the pet to the ranger, well now you have a bunch of people up in arms because their druid can't do everything anymore. Similarly, if you decide to make the Fighter focus on reach weapon style and an emphasis on controlling, with Heavy Armor, people who liked making a swashbuckling Fighter are going to be upset. Or those who wanted a Fighter to do straight up damage. Or those who wanted a Fighter who cool do ranged combat.

At the other end, if you try to continue to allow them to fill all niches simultaneously, this is very hard to balance. How do you design a fighter who can be any or all styles of fighting that doesn't absolutely suck, but isn't overpowered? How do you design a druid who does everything people like about druids without overshadowing everything else? These are tough questions to handle.

By comparison, the Monk has a set niche, a pretty wide variety of powers tht people are willing to accept can work with that niche. Making a functioning monk isn't too hard.

MukkTB

2012-02-01, 12:57 PM

I like what I'm hearing but I worry that what I'm hearing may not be internally consistent. It just seems that if you take their wild promises as design specs you end up with an almost impossible project.

It has weird implications. 'Fighter beats Wizard,' and 'Wizard beats Fighter' as given as a theoretical example earlier in this thread are incompatible in the same game. I guess the DM will have to choose between using the martial supremacy book or the magical supremacy book. A player who likes fighters is going to be frustrated he bought the martial supremacy book and the DM is using the other one.

How many books are we going to have to buy? I assume the big 3. But then it gets muddled. All of them to compete? I've never run into a problem where one player was using a bunch of splats and ruining my vanilla experience. I've just taken the feats and features I want from anywhere the DM allows. If that means borrowing a book so be it. If that means checking out an srd or prd so be it. Not personally owning the book hasn't stopped me from using specific content.

Buying a book for a single feat is not anything like buying the book to make use of its rules systems. I can't do without the rulebook I want to use. I physically cannot memorize or note down that much information.

Who really is going to get to decide which optional rulebooks are used? If its all up to the DM then players are much less motivated to buy beyond core. It would be the DMs responsibility to buy the modules he wants to use. That's bad business for Wizards but it also leaves the players with much less power. However a DM probably doesn't want players to have the ability to demand certain rules be included. They could entirely contradict the campaign he designed.

It seems like it could easily be a mess.

Yora

2012-02-01, 12:57 PM

Vancian was confirmed for wizard and cleric, though apparently not in the classic way of 1st to 3rd Editions. For one thing, there was talk about low-level fire at will spells and keeping the high-power spells ready until you really need them. Also there was talk about something like augmentation in 3.5e psionics, as the basic damage of fireball is 5d6 and gets increased by using higher level slots.

Sorcerers and other classes are supposed to use something very different, to make them clearly separate from wizards. I really hope that also goes for priests and maybe a druid themed class as well.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 12:59 PM

I think flurry of blows was tying the monk down. The monk comes off as a "Kund fu jump with a single powerfull kick" kind of guy. Flurry of blows slows him down considerably except he cannot take a punch.

Dusk Eclipse

2012-02-01, 01:10 PM

I like what I read, the only thing that saddens me is that Forgotten Realms will be the first setting to be supported, don't misunderstand me I like the forgotten realms (the little what I have read/played); but I feel that Greyhawk should be the first to be supported, as from my understanding it is the assumed generic world.

I will also be on the edge of my seat waiting for news about Eberron...

Kurald Galain

2012-02-01, 01:14 PM

Also, I hope Vancian casting will be an option, not a requirement. It's a clunky and outdated concept that does little but force the DM to put in a mandatory number of plot-unimportant encounters in order for the casters not to easily nova the plot bad guys into oblivion.

Funnily enough, 4E wizards are Vancian (albeit with a very low limit on spells known and spells-per-day).

And yes, any kind of daily power is a potential cause for the 15-minute adventuring day problem. Then again, omitting daily powers entirely potentially causes all combats to work the same for the PCs. Nobody said game design was easy :smallamused:

Yora

2012-02-01, 01:22 PM

The only good sloution for the 15 minute adventure days is DMs coming up with plots in which bad things happen when the PCs take too long.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 01:29 PM

The only good sloution for the 15 minute adventure days is DMs coming up with plots in which bad things happen when the PCs take too long.

Realistically Dms should discourage that with Logic.

If there is no REASON not to go nova you WILL go Nova.

Yora

2012-02-01, 01:35 PM

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 01:40 PM

So it has to be the DMs job to come up with reasons why you don't spend 97% of the adventure resting.

Which to be honest- Is realistic.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-01, 01:43 PM

So it has to be the DMs job to come up with reasons why you don't spend 97% of the adventure resting.

If I were the sort of person who didn't hold down a real job, but instead tried to scrounge up stuff to sell out of abandoned old dangerous places now and then, I too would basically spend most of my time resting.

Hobos seem to be a sleepy lot.

deuterio12

2012-02-01, 02:00 PM

If all spells are at will, wizards would be at nova level all the time. Also really not a nice thought.

Indeed, it just doesn't feel right that the players return to full combat power with just a few minutes of rest. Some things should take a good bit of time to recover from.

So it has to be the DMs job to come up with reasons why you don't spend 97% of the adventure resting.

Pfft, what kind of villain doesn't send minions and assassins against the party now and then? If the players don't go to the ecounter, the ecounter can go to them! :smallbiggrin:

And in the case of rope trick and the like, just camp the entrance and wait patiently.:smalltongue:

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 02:01 PM

Pretty much. Or just pour acid into the hole.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 02:13 PM

If all spells are at will, wizards would be at nova level all the time. Also really not a nice thought.
Solution to that would be to make all spells very weak, which also doesn't please anyone.
No, that doesn't follow at all.

"Going Nova" exists because WotC believes that things which are usable less often need to be made more powerful in order to remain attractive. The problem is that campaigns are not structured with the optimal number of "use cycles" in mind: ideally, a Daily Power would be used less frequently than an At-Will Power but in practice the difference is often too small to matter. Needless to say, getting this balance right has been difficult for WotC to manage.

If all powers are At-Will Powers, then they could all be At-Will strength: you could not overwhelm an Encounter with them in the sense that "going nova" implies. They would only be seen as "weak" in comparison to hypothetical Daily Powers that do not exist in the system; in practice nobody would notice anything was missing.

If you accept that power & usage need to be related then the easiest solution is At-Will and Encounter Powers -- some things you can use once per combat, some things you can use as often as you like in that combat. Unlike Daily Powers, the usage gap between the two can be pretty well measured across DMs. The only problem is if you give characters enough Encounter Powers that they never use At-Wills (a problem in 4e) but, again, this is something you can easily fix.

Yora

2012-02-01, 02:17 PM

Pfft, what kind of villain doesn't send minions and assassins against the party now and then? If the players don't go to the ecounter, the ecounter can go to them! :smallbiggrin:
Just have the players stumble into the last cavern of the caves where they find an abandoned ogre camp and the princesses dress next to a pile of human bones. that should teach them. :smallamused:

Treblain

2012-02-01, 02:35 PM

I'm concerned about the idea of varying complexities of classes. It seems to me that they can't possibly playtest the complex options properly, and we'll end up with the same problems as 3.5.

When they do open playtests, learning to generate and play the complex classes will take too long for casual playtesters, so the designers will reserve them for more controlled playtesting in a smaller group. They'll get stuck in their own assumptions based on their personal experiences about how things should work. It would ruin the whole plan if the design team is unable to see how the more advanced mechanics function in unexpected situations.

Clawhound

2012-02-01, 02:46 PM

Druid splits into:
- Spellcaster
- Animal Handler
- Shapechanging Melee Warrior

Animal Handler fits better with the Ranger. Shapechanging warrior is essentially a martial class. That leaves us with a spellcaster for the druid.

Fighter splits into:
- Guy with a special magic weapon (martial + gish)
- Hack 'n Slasher
- Shapechanging warrior
- Destined Hero

Fighter also has a number of ideas which should really go across all variants, but are effectively niche tactics:
- Bare Knuckles/Wrestling
- Mounted combat

Kurald Galain

2012-02-01, 02:48 PM

It would ruin the whole plan if the design team is unable to see how the more advanced mechanics function in unexpected situations.
Not necessarily - it has worked fine for 3E, 4E, and PF. Sure, there's a lot of complaining on internet forums about how many obvious grave errors there are in those systems, but in practice they have millions of people enjoying them.

Charop is a niche, not a viable target audience.

Tengu_temp

2012-02-01, 03:40 PM

That will result in a game with no need for conservation or tactics (Thats what I think the word means). Its just going to be a room after a room.

Have you played any RPG with no or very little daily resources, like Mutants and Masterminds or Weapons of the Gods? They still offer you a lot of tactical challenge, in many cases more than DND. Heck, you get the same effect by playing 3e without classes with daily powers/spells (healing is so cheap that above the first few levels you can safely assume that you never run out of it between fights). I'd say a game where everyone has a ToB class is more tactical than one where everyone is a full caster, not less.

Funnily enough, 4E wizards are Vancian (albeit with a very low limit on spells known and spells-per-day).

Coincidentally, daily powers are one of my least favorite aspects of 4e.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 03:49 PM

kyoryu

2012-02-01, 04:01 PM

I disagree. If it 5e had no daily effects I would dump it right now.

There is this thrill of going through the Liches tomb, conserving what you can (Because otherwise as a GM I WILL NOT LET YOU OUT ALIVE...Unless your smart)

Im not sure how reducing resource management and giving characters infinite resources (Like a videogame) is giving them more tactical choices.

I don't understand why you dislike daily powers.

If its the 15 min adventuring day thats just because of bad GMing.

Daily resources make sense in a game where time itself is a resource. This is certainly true of old-school D&D, where time (or other supplies - food, etc.) were a critical resource being consumed that would determine whether or not you made it to the big bad guy/huge pile of stuff at the bottom of the dungeon.

I guess another way of saying it is that in more old-school games, "days" are resources themselves.

In a more modern style, "setup encounter," hard plot game, where things move at "the speed of plot," and things like food are considered trivial and not worth checking, daily abilities make much less sense. This is also where we start to see the 15-minute day occur. If a day isn't a valuable resource, there's no reason whatsoever not to regain valuable resources (daily abilities) at the cost of a resource with no value (days).

In the first style of game, the '15 minute day' is a somewhat counter-productive strategy as it reduces your limited resources, increasing the chance of overall failure.

The latter is not necessarily "bad GMing", but it's certainly a different style of play where daily resources make less sense.

TL;DR: The 15-minute day will end when either we get rid of daily resources, or when days become valuable resources in and of themselves.

deuterio12

2012-02-01, 04:05 PM

Have you played any RPG with no or very little daily resources, like Mutants and Masterminds or Weapons of the Gods?

Then by all means go ahead and play those. Daily resources has always been one of the most basic staple of D&D (and a zillion other games out there), and if D&D 5e plans to encopass all the previous editions, you can damn bet daily resources will be one of the core characteristics.

M&M, ToB and... and whatever that "Weapons of the Gods" is are the exception, not the rule. And heck, even the crusader has some /day ability, as well as the swordsage's ultimate, not to mention some of the prcs and feats.

Tengu_temp

2012-02-01, 04:26 PM

@deuterio12
Actually, I can't think of any other modern RPG other than DND that still has such prominent prominent daily powers. So if anything, it's DND that's the exception.

And yeah, there is a reason I tend to play other games and not DND. But just as other people want different stuff to be in 5e, so can I. It's supposed to be a very modular game where you can play each class in several different ways, no? I sure would like to see ways that appeal to me.

I don't understand why you dislike daily powers.

I have several reasons:
1. They're a pain to keep track of. If you're a high level DND caster, you need a whole sheet just for your prepared spells!
2. They put limitations on the number of daily encounters you can have - both upper and lower. Too many encounters, and the party will run out of steam. Too few encounters, and they will steamroll them. I want to have as many encounters a day as I want, without having to make them weaker or harder to compensate for their number.
3. Without daily powers, it's easier to balance encounters and make them as strong or weak as you want - because the unpredictable aspect of "how many daily powers they still have left?" goes away.
4. I'm just not interested in the whole conservation aspect of the game. I don't find it tactically challenging, it's just being an accountant. Tactics for me are about how to beat the enemy in front of you with the resources at your disposal, not about saving those resources.

If its the 15 min adventuring day thats just because of bad GMing.

Yeah, if my party wanted to do that, I'd tell them "you're not tired yet. Keep adventuring". So it's not an issue.

randomhero00

2012-02-01, 04:39 PM

Hopefully DnD 5e will be as differerent as 4e was to 3e.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-01, 04:46 PM

words
I have several reasons:
1. They're a pain to keep track of. If you're a high level DND caster, you need a whole sheet just for your prepared spells!
2. They put limitations on the number of daily encounters you can have - both upper and lower. Too many encounters, and the party will run out of steam. Too few encounters, and they will steamroll them. I want to have as many encounters a day as I want, without having to make them weaker or harder to compensate for their number.
3. Without daily powers, it's easier to balance encounters and make them as strong or weak as you want - because the unpredictable aspect of "how many daily powers they still have left?" goes away.
4. I'm just not interested in the whole conservation aspect of the game. I don't find it tactically challenging, it's just being an accountant. Tactics for me are about how to beat the enemy in front of you with the resources at your disposal, not about saving those resources.

Without countering with my own wall of text, these things is what I like in DD and what I don't want gone.

Its what makes it interesting for me as a GM and as a player.

These things are PART of DD history (A pretty big part). If you don't like em, play a game without them.

Yeah, if my party wanted to do that, I'd tell them "you're not tired yet. Keep adventuring". So it's not an issue.

I go "If you do this there is a 50% chance you get attacked by wolves at night. No XP"

or

"You loose because you didn't stop the Lich from draining all his powers back"

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 04:49 PM

Yeah, if my party wanted to do that, I'd tell them "you're not tired yet. Keep adventuring". So it's not an issue.
Does that work for you :smallconfused:

If some DM said that to me then I'd say "ok, we wait around until we are tired, and then rest." If the PCs don't want to go do something, it's not exactly kosher for the DM to demand that they do it -- we're in "very specific level of tired" (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=615) territory otherwise.

RedWarlock

2012-02-01, 05:01 PM

Tengu_temp

2012-02-01, 05:03 PM

Without countering with my own wall of text, these things is what I like in DD and what I don't want gone.

Its what makes it interesting for me as a GM and as a player.

These things are PART of DD history (A pretty big part). If you don't like em, play a game without them.

And that's what is one of the best things I see about 5e: that it's a very modular game where every class can be played in several different variants. So in addition to the already announced Vancian wizards and clerics, I'd also like to see variants that don't use daily spells but something else instead.

Does that work for you :smallconfused:

If some DM said that to me then I'd say "ok, we wait around until we are tired, and then rest." If the PCs don't want to go do something, it's not exactly kosher for the DM to demand that they do it -- we're in "very specific level of tired" (http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?p=615) territory otherwise.

Well, I'm pretty sure that the intention was that casters regain their spells only once per day, because WotC didn't predict the possibility of people resting the moment they run out of spells... But if they are stubborn about it, fine. But they have to bear in mind that the world doesn't just freeze for 8 hours when they go to sleep - the nearby enemies might, and probably will, find out about their presence, with various consequences ranging from escaping to calling reinforcements to outward causing their quest to fail. Bonus points if the PCs are on a mission with a time limit - do they really think that the cultists will wait 8 hours to sacrifice the captured princess, without moving from the sacrificial chamber the entire time?

Alejandro

2012-02-01, 05:03 PM

As someone who was there and played it, I want to chime in as much as the NDA will let me:

- It was a very early alpha and this was stressed to us heavily. Virtually nothing you see or hear of it is guaranteed, other than the base idea of D&D (hit points, spells, you get the idea.)

- One table of testers may have had a totally different experience from other testers, based on what they chose to do ingame.

deuterio12

2012-02-01, 05:10 PM

@deuterio12
Actually, I can't think of any other modern RPG other than DND that still has such prominent prominent daily powers. So if anything, it's DND that's the exception.

O'rrly?

-Pathfinder (current top TT RPG point)
-Black Crusade
-Rogue Trader
-Dark Heresy
-Skyrim (all the rage across the net)

I have several reasons:
1. They're a pain to keep track of. If you're a high level DND caster, you need a whole sheet just for your prepared spells!
2. They put limitations on the number of daily encounters you can have - both upper and lower. Too many encounters, and the party will run out of steam. Too few encounters, and they will steamroll them. I want to have as many encounters a day as I want, without having to make them weaker or harder to compensate for their number.
3. Without daily powers, it's easier to balance encounters and make them as strong or weak as you want - because the unpredictable aspect of "how many daily powers they still have left?" goes away.
4. I'm just not interested in the whole conservation aspect of the game. I don't find it tactically challenging, it's just being an accountant. Tactics for me are about how to beat the enemy in front of you with the resources at your disposal, not about saving those resources.

1. True enough, but that's an extreme example.
2. That's absurd from a storytelling view. It makes no sense whatsoever that the adventurers have as much trouble with a single bandit than endless waves of goblins. Actualy if the players hear there's coming a hundred goblins, they should either start running or preparations, not go all "what do we care? it's not like we can run out of anything".
3.It also makes the game duller because the players never need to worry about what's next.
4.Completely false. Whitout limited resources, the player "tactics" are reduced to throwing their best nukes at the start at every battle. Which, honestly, it's what happens with M&M and ToB. Just unleash your uber combination on the enemy, no other thinking needed.

Tengu_temp

2012-02-01, 05:22 PM

O'rrly?

-Pathfinder (current top TT RPG point)
-Black Crusade
-Rogue Trader
-Dark Heresy
-Skyrim (all the rage across the net)

- DND under a different name.
- Three different WH40K RPGs - counts as one game for me.
- A video game. Also, it has mana regenerating in real time.

So yeah. Tabletop RPGs with prominent daily resources are still the exception, not the rule. It's just that one of them happens to also be the biggest RPG on the market.

2. That's absurd from a storytelling view. It makes no sense whatsoever that the adventurers have as much trouble with a single bandit than endless waves of goblins. Actualy if the players hear there's coming a hundred goblins, they should either start running or preparations, not go all "what do we care? it's not like we can run out of anything".

Yeah, that would be pretty absurd, but fortunately that's not the point I was making.

3.It also makes the game duller because the players never need to worry about what's next.
4.Completely false. Whitout limited resources, the player "tactics" are reduced to throwing their best nukes at the start at every battle. Which, honestly, it's what happens with M&M and ToB. Just unleash your uber combination on the enemy, no other thinking needed.

If that's what happened to you, then you haven't played with a DM who can challenge the players within a single encounter, not just by whittling them down by slowly stripping them of daily resources during several encounters. When I intend a M&M fight to be tough, the players have to do more than just jump in and nuke blindly.

Timberboar

2012-02-01, 05:39 PM

Not to be pedantic, but making good use of limited resources is probably better referred to as "logistics" instead of "tactics."

And to be on topic: I think 5E will need to find a balance between too much and too little.

Too much can lead to accounting sessions cunningly disguised as gaming sessions.

Too little hampers tension by reducing the sense of urgency usually heightened by coming to the very edge of your limits.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 05:48 PM

Well, I'm pretty sure that the intention was that casters regain their spells only once per day, because WotC didn't predict the possibility of people resting the moment they run out of spells... But if they are stubborn about it, fine. But they have to bear in mind that the world doesn't just freeze for 8 hours when they go to sleep - the nearby enemies might, and probably will, find out about their presence, with various consequences ranging from escaping to calling reinforcements to outward causing their quest to fail. Bonus points if the PCs are on a mission with a time limit - do they really think that the cultists will wait 8 hours to sacrifice the captured princess, without moving from the sacrificial chamber the entire time?
That's very different from "no, you're not sleepy. Keep adventuring."

The real problem is that it can be very tiring to have every mission be on such a strict time limit that missing a day causes the mission to fail.
Delays happen in games for legitimate reasons all the time -- the PCs miss a clue and spend hours chasing their own tail, the PCs decide to solve a problem inefficiently, or they even just have a bad encounter and actually need to rest or they'll die in the next one. If the PCs fail every time they take longer than the DM decided initially, they'll get frustrated.

Likewise, the DM "punishing" Players for acting reasonably (i.e. being at full power before risking their lives) is going to breed Player resentment and raise cries of railroading. "How is it that wolves only attack us when we call for a rest, and not when you do?" An even-handed DM is simply going to waste more time on Random Encounters which do nothing to advance the plot (by definition) and require an already-fatigued party to rest even longer.
The short of it is that Players can waste time for legitimate reasons so it is risky setting up many adventures (let alone campaigns!) that fall apart if the PCs are 8 hours off schedule. Additionally, Players don't like having their characters arbitrarily punished for making reasonable choices simply because the DM doesn't like them -- and only scheduling Night Ambushes in response to 15 minute workdays is transparently such a case. Worst of all, these sort of punishments only exacerbate the problem since the party will be even lower on resources after dealing with the attack than before, so they will rest even longer.

Tengu_temp

2012-02-01, 05:58 PM

Well, good I don't have to deal with this issue by playing games where the 15-minute adventure day is pointless, right?

Speaking of which, I hope 5e deals with this issue. Also...

"When you think of classic D&D what elements spring to mind?" -- "Alignment, Races, Classes, Monsters".
Mike Mearls.

Come on. Just get rid of it already.

kyoryu

2012-02-01, 06:12 PM

The real problem is that it can be very tiring to have every mission be on such a strict time limit that missing a day causes the mission to fail.
[spoiler]Delays happen in games for legitimate reasons all the time -- the PCs miss a clue and spend hours chasing their own tail, the PCs decide to solve a problem inefficiently, or they even just have a bad encounter and actually need to rest or they'll die in the next one. If the PCs fail every time they take longer than the DM decided initially, they'll get frustrated.

Yeah, which is why that would be poor game design. A better way of doing it would be to assume a moderate efficiency for players. If you've got 15 encounters planned, and players can do 4 a day at high efficiency, give them 5 days rather than four. Now they can screw around (or up) a little, but the time pressure is still sufficient that they just can't do a full day of rest after every encounter.

Likewise, the DM "punishing" Players for acting reasonably (i.e. being at full power before risking their lives) is going to breed Player resentment and raise cries of railroading. "How is it that wolves only attack us when we call for a rest, and not when you do?" An even-handed DM is simply going to waste more time on Random Encounters which do nothing to advance the plot (by definition) and require an already-fatigued party to rest even longer.

Again, we get to "plot," which is why, as I've mentioned before, daily resources don't work well in plot-based games. Random encounters shouldn't be "meaningless," they're a cost for travel through certain areas. If you've already got a predetermined outcome in mind, then yeah, managing resources is kind of irrelevant.

The short of it is that Players can waste time for legitimate reasons so it is risky setting up many adventures (let alone campaigns!) that fall apart if the PCs are 8 hours off schedule. Additionally, Players don't like having their characters arbitrarily punished for making reasonable choices simply because the DM doesn't like them -- and only scheduling Night Ambushes in response to 15 minute workdays is transparently such a case. Worst of all, these sort of punishments only exacerbate the problem since the party will be even lower on resources after dealing with the attack than before, so they will rest even longer.

... unless there's an overall time goal which allows time for sufficient rest/flexibility, but not so much time to allow for 15 minute days. An 8-hour time frame is too close for a month's worth of adventuring - but a 5-7 day window is probably reasonable.

And at any rate, it should be okay for players to fail. That just means the game takes one of two paths.

Dsurion

2012-02-01, 07:09 PM

@deuterio12
Actually, I can't think of any other modern RPG other than DND that still has such prominent prominent daily powers. So if anything, it's DND that's the exception.

And yeah, there is a reason I tend to play other games and not DND. But just as other people want different stuff to be in 5e, so can I. It's supposed to be a very modular game where you can play each class in several different ways, no? I sure would like to see ways that appeal to me.

I have several reasons:
1. They're a pain to keep track of. If you're a high level DND caster, you need a whole sheet just for your prepared spells!
2. They put limitations on the number of daily encounters you can have - both upper and lower. Too many encounters, and the party will run out of steam. Too few encounters, and they will steamroll them. I want to have as many encounters a day as I want, without having to make them weaker or harder to compensate for their number.
3. Without daily powers, it's easier to balance encounters and make them as strong or weak as you want - because the unpredictable aspect of "how many daily powers they still have left?" goes away.
4. I'm just not interested in the whole conservation aspect of the game. I don't find it tactically challenging, it's just being an accountant. Tactics for me are about how to beat the enemy in front of you with the resources at your disposal, not about saving those resources.

Yeah, if my party wanted to do that, I'd tell them "you're not tired yet. Keep adventuring". So it's not an issue.This post. I agree with everything said in it.

jaybird

2012-02-01, 09:00 PM

-Pathfinder (current top TT RPG point)
-Black Crusade
-Rogue Trader
-Dark Heresy
-Skyrim (all the rage across the net)

Wait, what? Since when does Dark Heresy have daily powers? The only thing I can think of are Fate Points, and those aren't so much "daily" as they are "when GM says so".

Crow

2012-02-01, 09:14 PM

Tengu_temp

2012-02-01, 09:42 PM

Crow

2012-02-01, 10:06 PM

Do note that in DND 3e, if you're not a caster or another class with X/day abilities, then you only lose HP between encounters. And out of combat healing is so cheap and easy that after a few levels it doesn't really matter as attrition anymore.

3e isn't quite my cup of tea aside from it being so ubiquitous as to always be able to find material/games for it. I prefer the 1e/2e style of D&D, but that puts me squarely in the minority.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-01, 10:16 PM

I just hope that there is some form of attrition throughout the adventuring day. Maybe daily powers aren't the answer. Either way, anybody who thinks someone should feel just as ready for action facing their 1000th orc of the day as they did facing their first is playing a game that I have no interest in.
I think Healing Surges were a step in the right direction but -- most of the time -- they don't matter. Like Daily Powers, you need a long adventuring day to make losing them meaningful, or a variety of effects that drain them.

Some sort of metric tied to survival is nice because it makes the Players care about it more. AP in 4e became a "spend it when you have it" commodity because an unspent AP loses value after 2 Encounters and the situations where it would be clutch are comparatively rare. If you had to use Surges for AP, for example, every one you spent might be worth 1/4 of your total HP at some later date.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 01:45 AM

Ive just never had any problems with limited resources. I guess this is kinda cheep but realism goes first in my games, followed by rule of cool.

If the characters have no realistic way of stopping the monster Im not going to create that encounter. At the same time, if they can pull off something cool Im not going to penalize them for that.

For example- a lich will regain his powers in 3 months time. The characters just need to stop him before it happens. Yes I am going to change the things in between a bit so it fits better but generally they would need to hurry.

PS: Because I don't use XP-every day has a 50% chance of having a random encounter (I give away more loot too).

ClothedInVelvet

2012-02-02, 06:46 AM

I must say, I'm getting excited for this new version. I know it's a way off, but I'm ready. My excitement level just passed my excitement level for DDR4 RAM. And that's pretty high on the list.

Zombimode

2012-02-02, 07:03 AM

@deuterio12
Actually, I can't think of any other modern RPG other than DND that still has such prominent prominent daily powers. So if anything, it's DND that's the exception.

Mechwarrior 4th edition
Shadowrun 4th edition
The Dark Eye 4th edition

Do note that in DND 3e, if you're not a caster or another class with X/day abilities, then you only lose HP between encounters. And out of combat healing is so cheap and easy that after a few levels it doesn't really matter as attrition anymore.

Only if you play with unconditional WBL and magic mart. You dont HAVE to do this, you know.
(But judeging from this forum many people do, so you may have a point).

Edit: ah, scratch that, I forgot about the reserve feat. I forgot it because I banned it for my current campaign.

Earthwalker

2012-02-02, 07:28 AM

Shadowrun 4th edition

What daily power is in Shadowrun 4th ? Has things changed so much from 3rd.

I have to put myself in the anti daily camp. I don't object to having the ability to go nova, I just prefer a different system. If you get

At-wills
per encounter and
per chapter (for want of a better word)

If the GM get to decide when a chapter is finished, then the 15 min working day stops. The chapter closes when the dungeon is clear. Or object X is met.

Clawhound

2012-02-02, 09:25 AM

I'm concerned about the idea of varying complexities of classes. It seems to me that they can't possibly playtest the complex options properly, and we'll end up with the same problems as 3.5.

I can see them doing static classes with few choices (like monk in 3rd), classes with power choices from a finite list (like 4th), and mix-n-match (for the expert players).Players will always hand-roll their own classes, so you may as well put it in as an option. In most games, the first two options will predominate, and that should make design easier. Mix-n-match will give them headaches, but that is guaranteed. They will need to put a disclaimer onto that system.

Seerow

2012-02-02, 09:36 AM

What daily power is in Shadowrun 4th ? Has things changed so much from 3rd.

There aren't any. The closest thing is Edge, which refreshes by "Whenever the GM wants", not a real daily resource.

I'm inclined to think he's just throwing RPG names out there and hoping nobody will think to call him on them.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-02, 09:58 AM

Daily powers aren't the only way to have strategic options, it could be a matter of choice of encounter power. Like if you only get one 'strong' power per encounter, so you better make the more strategic decision. Not all fights are wars of attrition.

Encounter powers get blown at the beginning of the fight. It contributes to the nova problem.

Note additionally that the occasional rest is generally wise. If you take on a fight when you're too low on resources, you end up a whopping one fight further ahead, and then may have to rest multiple days to get back to full strength anyhow(natural healing being slow, and healing spells being a finite resource too...the cleric being completely dry on daily spells also hurts). Now, if you need to get someone rezzed...that's a delay and a monetary setback.

No, sometimes the 15 min adventuring day makes sense. Hell, nobody complains that modern SWAT teams operate on basically the same model.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 09:58 AM

Seerow

2012-02-02, 10:05 AM

Weapons, ammunition, HP.

Those are all limited resources.

Once they begin to run short the party must flee. Especialy casters that need HP to cast spells.

So goes for Gurps 4e.

I don't get people suggestions. If they suggest To have insta regenerating HP, no need for arrows, items of any sort then Im heavily against this.

Wait you're calling HP a daily resource in Shadowrun? A limited resource sure, but it sure isn't daily. Going and resting for 8 hours won't let you come back at full strength a lot of the time.

Unless of course you have a great medic and mage with heal, in which case you can bounce back from near death to full health given just a couple of minutes of rest, any number of times per day.

Also Mages generally don't take physical damage for their spells. Drain is usually Stun (only a very foolhardy mage gets himself hurt physically by it), and even then the most common spells you sling (such as stunbolt) have a low enough drain value that you can easily expect to never take any drain at all from it.

And Ammunition as a limited resource? Please. Anyone who cares about guns is carrying hundreds of bullets with them at any time they can get their gun in. Ammo may sometimes matter in combat as you need to reload after so many shots, but as an overall 'what can I do today?' limiter, not a chance. Not unless you're playing at a VERY low street level campaign where every clip is precious... in which case you should just be playing a mage anyway, because anyone mundane is even more screwed than normal.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 10:10 AM

Tyndmyr

2012-02-02, 10:19 AM

I just realy don't get people complaining about daily resources.

It essentialy boils down too "It messes up my campain"...Thats fine, but I like giving my players actual freedom then a railroad. If they fail, they fail. There is a level of cinematism in the game but If it became like Gamma world 4e id be angry.

Its just such a mindless game. Blow your encounter powers then devolve into at wills. Woopedy doo.

Heh...have you played D&D 4e yet? If not, I suspect you're not going to like it. Combat almost invariably looks like that(with daily's blown first on any fight that promises to be one of the bigger ones).

Seerow

2012-02-02, 10:26 AM

Heh...have you played D&D 4e yet? If not, I suspect you're not going to like it. Combat almost invariably looks like that(with daily's blown first on any fight that promises to be one of the bigger ones).

Honestly this becomes a problem mostly because you have a set of dailies/encounters that are strictly better than each other in every way. I mean you get your 1 7th level power, 1 3th level power, 1 1st level power. Hrm which one should I use first?!

4e tried to take the 3e vancian system and turn it into an encounter system. This made for an overall pretty boring and simple system. For an encounter based system to work, the decision making process needs to be slightly more interesting than "What is my highest level power available?". And while basic free attacks should probably exist, the vast majority of encounters should be able to be completed before you run dry on resources so you don't have slogs of "I hit it. I hit it. I hit it" with no decisions being made. That's the sort of thing that leads to 4e feeling like a padded sumo slogfest.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 10:31 AM

Tyndmyr

2012-02-02, 10:32 AM

Honestly this becomes a problem mostly because you have a set of dailies/encounters that are strictly better than each other in every way. I mean you get your 1 7th level power, 1 3th level power, 1 1st level power. Hrm which one should I use first?!

Right. There's usually a very clear "this is obviously better. Nova with this" option. And later game, you stop using things like your lower level at-wills at all, because there's always something better.

For all the talk of tactical combat in 4e, actual in-combat decision making very rarely involves resources(positioning is a great deal more important, for instance). And that seems like a traditionally important element of D&D.

4e tried to take the 3e vancian system and turn it into an encounter system. This made for an overall pretty boring and simple system. For an encounter based system to work, the decision making process needs to be slightly more interesting than "What is my highest level power available?". And while basic free attacks should probably exist, the vast majority of encounters should be able to be completed before you run dry on resources so you don't have slogs of "I hit it. I hit it. I hit it" with no decisions being made. That's the sort of thing that leads to 4e feeling like a padded sumo slogfest.

Technically, free basic attacks other than at-wills do exist in 4e. They're just ridiculous because everyone has at-wills, and thus, ignores them all the time.

And yeah, slogs of "I hit it again" are bad. Unoptimized fighters in 3.5 tend to have the same issue. D&D is fairly combat centric, so combat needs to be interesting, and a source of challenges.

Saph

2012-02-02, 10:41 AM

Healing surges are also bad in the reverse angle. They hardwire the adventuring day.

Eh, in practice you pretty much never run out of healing surges in 4e. It's getting daily powers back that's the real incentive to stop and rest.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 10:43 AM

True. But eh, lets hope that 5e can satisfy us all.

Seerow

2012-02-02, 10:45 AM

Right. There's usually a very clear "this is obviously better. Nova with this" option. And later game, you stop using things like your lower level at-wills at all, because there's always something better.

For all the talk of tactical combat in 4e, actual in-combat decision making very rarely involves resources(positioning is a great deal more important, for instance). And that seems like a traditionally important element of D&D.

I disagree with the term nova as it applies to encounter based combat. In 4e "Hey that's a solo mob, it's probably a boss, let's drop our dailies" is a nova, but "Okay let's start using encounter powers and not stop until I run out or they die" I don't consider a nova, because that's actually what you're expected to do. With an encounter based system, as long as the resource is managed properly you should always have an option. This can either be done by recharging a la ToB, or by having cheaper more efficient (ie weaker, but better over a long encounter as it prevents you from running out of resources altogether) options that people can choose to use.

But in either situation the key point is that 3-4 powers is not enough. Especially when you allow for swift and immediate action powers. There should be more options available to a character at any given time, chosen from among the same group of powers. The choice of what to use should be in the hands of the player, not just a question of "What's my highest level ability"

Technically, free basic attacks other than at-wills do exist in 4e. They're just ridiculous because everyone has at-wills, and thus, ignores them all the time.

I'm aware. I was actually referring to at-will powers as the "basic free attacks", because I do think that there should be a power to fall back . This may not be needed for some classes, but a wizard falling back to a crossbow rather than casting magic missile or the like is something I really don't like.

And yeah, slogs of "I hit it again" are bad. Unoptimized fighters in 3.5 tend to have the same issue. D&D is fairly combat centric, so combat needs to be interesting, and a source of challenges.

Even optimized fighters in 3.5 tend to be "I trip it again, I take my free hit." But yes, the degree of boringness of the 3.5 classes who lack any resource system at all (or a very simplistic one like Barbarian rages) is pretty lame.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 10:52 AM

[QUOTE=Seerow;12646880]I disagree with the term nova as it applies to encounter based combat. In 4e "Hey that's a solo mob, it's probably a boss, let's drop our dailies" is a nova, but "Okay let's start using encounter powers and not stop until I run out or they die" I don't consider a nova, because that's actually what you're expected to do. With an encounter based system, as long as the resource is managed properly you should always have an option. This can either be done by recharging a la ToB, or by having cheaper more efficient (ie weaker, but better over a long encounter as it prevents you from running out of resources altogether) options that people can choose to use.

So you replace "Bash Daily powers" with "Bash encounter powers"

This is equally as dull.

I'm aware. I was actually referring to at-will powers as the "basic free attacks", because I do think that there should be a power to fall back . This may not be needed for some classes, but a wizard falling back to a crossbow rather than casting magic missile or the like is something I really don't like.
I agree. A Wizard with a crossbow just sounds wrong.

Seerow

2012-02-02, 10:54 AM

Thing is in order to make an encounter system (I hate encounter systems- They feel fake, out of place and only work in certain areas) you would need to remove powerful effects. Like some items in 3e use daily charges. In order to make it encounter-wise you severely weaken its effects, lessening customization and specialness.

Healing surges are also bad in the reverse angle. They hardwire the adventuring day.

Sorry, missed this post.

Personally for my games, I convert all of those 3/day do this item effects into 1/encounter. It works out to about the same on average. Honestly there are very few effects that can't fit into an encounter based system with a little modification.

As for healing surges, I like them but I would go for Healing Surges working similarly to action points in 4e. ie start with a much lower number, but you gain 1 after every encounter, or gain 3 with every 2 encounters. Something along those lines. This leads to the party getting gradually worn down, but with smart management of damage flow and healing powers, the party can last a long time. (I know even without this a group I ran with once made it through about 8 encounters in one day on default healing surges, much more than the typical norm. And they were all on level encounters. I once ran a game using a variant along these lines and the party lasted about 13 encounters before running dry and being desperate to find a stopping point)

So you replace "Bash Daily powers" with "Bash encounter powers"

This is equally as dull.

It all comes down to the options. With encounter powers the idea of novaing doesn't really exist. It's not so much "bash these high powered attacks to win", it's more "Choose the most effective power for the situation out of this pool of powers". In 4e you have 3-4 encounter powers and 3-4 daily powers. I'd personally aim for something like 10-15 encounter powers. I'd also probably group the powers by tier (so instead of having a few 1st level, a few 2nd level, and a few 3rd level, spells/abilities, you'd have 10-15 heroic tier abilities).

Kurald Galain

2012-02-02, 10:57 AM

For all the talk of tactical combat in 4e, actual in-combat decision making very rarely involves resources(positioning is a great deal more important, for instance). And that seems like a traditionally important element of D&D.
Yes. This is a problem with the design of encounter powers: in almost all combats, characters will open with a daily (optionally), then use all their encounter powers from highest to lowest, and by then the combat is generally decided. The exception are characters that have an optimized at-will, who (obviously) use that at-will every single round.

The bottom line is that combat takes too few rounds to be decided (and conversely, that these rounds take too much real time to play out). In an ten-round combat, when you use your three encounter powers may make a difference; in a four-round combat, you simply use all of them as soon as possible.

Eh, in practice you pretty much never run out of healing surges in 4e. It's getting daily powers back that's the real incentive to stop and rest.
Yes, that too.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 10:57 AM

Either way I hate encounter systems.

I prefer the thrills of equipment management and smart characters rather then "I go to room I kill- I leave"

Seerow

2012-02-02, 11:02 AM

Either way I hate encounter systems.

I prefer the thrills of equipment management and smart characters rather then "I go to room I kill- I leave"

But you still haven't proven that all encounter based systems are going to boil down to that. You are taking dislike for the 4e implementation and applying it to anything that is remotely similar to it, while looking through rose colored glasses at the good ol days.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 11:05 AM

But you still haven't proven that all encounter based systems are going to boil down to that. You are taking dislike for the 4e implementation and applying it to anything that is remotely similar to it, while looking through rose colored glasses at the good ol days.

My first edition was 4e. I got incredibly bored and upset with it and left for pathfinder, Gurps, and Shadowrun.

I just don't get how a completely resourcless- encounter based game can work in the type of games I run.

Yora

2012-02-02, 11:06 AM

Games are not encounter based. All games have encounters, that's something different than once per encounter abilities.

Alejandro

2012-02-02, 11:07 AM

Our group never has a problem with running out of healing surges. But it might be because we only have one defender, who sometimes is not present, and at least one.... 'special' player.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 11:08 AM

Games are not encounter based. All games have encounters, that's something different than once per encounter abilities.

Yes. Sorry. I meant that.

Seerow

2012-02-02, 11:10 AM

My first edition was 4e. I got incredibly bored and upset with it and left for pathfinder, Gurps, and Shadowrun.

I just don't get how a completely resourcless- encounter based game can work in the type of games I run.

That's because you are equivocating an encounter based system to completely resourceless. Which is demonstrably not true.

Also pointing out once again that Shadowrun has even fewer meaningful resources than 4e does. I've probably spent more time playing SR4 than I have playing D&D4, but with Shadowrun it was always more about the plotting/planning and sometimes the story. Actual combat was generally pretty boring. Anyone who's not a mage says "I hit it" and even the mage typically says "I hit it" in combat (his other tricks are generally more useful out of combat.)

Games are not encounter based. All games have encounters, that's something different than once per encounter abilities.

When I say Encounter Based Game, I mean a game where your resource system for combat is defined primarily in encounter terms, as opposed to daily resource systems. This can be once per encounter abilities, but is not strictly limited to that.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-02, 11:15 AM

Shadowrun is MADE for that type of play though. And it works very well.

I just don't like the idea of "Walk into room- Kill everything there" No consequences and no changes "Walk into next room" Though it does make for kickass video games (Legend of Zelda).

If my characters run into a goblin stronghold- They die. The Goblins call backup and they storm the characters. If they want to storm someplace bring backup, or use stealth.

Z3ro

2012-02-02, 11:18 AM

What daily power is in Shadowrun 4th ? Has things changed so much from 3rd.

The only daily power I can think of in SR4 is edge, which is basically like action points in Eberron (though they do a few more things). Edge is certainly not central to the game, and I definetely wouldn't include it on a list of games that feature daily powers prominently.

Edit: Way ninja'd

Zombimode

2012-02-02, 01:32 PM

Wait you're calling HP a daily resource in Shadowrun? A limited resource sure, but it sure isn't daily. Going and resting for 8 hours won't let you come back at full strength a lot of the time.

Well, thanks for proving my point. "Daily" is a bit of a misnomer here, of course. But yes, HP in SR ARE a ressource that is not refreshed after each encounter. Same goes for things like rockets, grenades and similar.

Those add a level of ressource managment to the game that exceed that of a single encounter.

Likewise with Mechwarrior: HP and munition.

In The Dark Eye you have at least mana points (in addition to not easily cured HP).

So please get your facts straight before making accusations.

Seerow

2012-02-02, 01:44 PM

Well, thanks for proving my point. "Daily" is a bit of a misnomer here, of course. But yes, HP in SR ARE a ressource that is not refreshed after each encounter. Same goes for things like rockets, grenades and similar.

Those add a level of ressource managment to the game that exceed that of a single encounter.

Likewise with Mechwarrior: HP and munition.

In The Dark Eye you have at least mana points (in addition to not easily cured HP).

So please get your facts straight before making accusations.

I'd like to point out the whole argument with bringing up games with daily powers, started with this statement:

Actually, I can't think of any other modern RPG other than DND that still has such prominent prominent daily powers. So if anything, it's DND that's the exception.

Keyword being prominent and daily powers.

You have tried to move the goalpost to make that include any resource at all, including HP (which can be recovered via at will powers nearly instantly. Though you ignored that and strawmanned out the statement about how it takes longer than a day without any healing), and ammunition (which is so cheap you can typically have as much as you want), is irrelevant.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-02, 02:00 PM

I agree. A Wizard with a crossbow just sounds wrong.

*shrug* I have no issue with the idea of casters packing backup weaponry. I almost invariably do. In fact, I've played multiple casters who wield weapons all the time. Threatening area is almost never a bad thing.

In some systems, such as 7th Sea, a casters is expected to pack a blade or the like. It works just fine. Wizard with a crossbow is aright.

But you still haven't proven that all encounter based systems are going to boil down to that. You are taking dislike for the 4e implementation and applying it to anything that is remotely similar to it, while looking through rose colored glasses at the good ol days.

I hate encounter based systems. I like narratively based systems. These may seem somewhat similar, but they have some major differences.

Consider 7th Sea. You've got the scene, the story arc...etc. Some powers, but very few, are based on these. However, while a scene may include a combat encounter, it might well not. Different story arcs may have wildly different contents. Resource management is, again, tied immensely to the story, and optimization consists of a lot of "what makes sense with what we expect". Works great for that kind of game. For D&D? None of that holds true.

Seerow

2012-02-02, 02:21 PM

I hate encounter based systems. I like narratively based systems. These may seem somewhat similar, but they have some major differences.

Consider 7th Sea. You've got the scene, the story arc...etc. Some powers, but very few, are based on these. However, while a scene may include a combat encounter, it might well not. Different story arcs may have wildly different contents. Resource management is, again, tied immensely to the story, and optimization consists of a lot of "what makes sense with what we expect". Works great for that kind of game. For D&D? None of that holds true.

The problem I have with narratively based systems is that they are largely inconsistent and will vary wildly from DM to DM. With an encounter or even daily system, you know when your resources will refresh and be available again. With a narrative system it's whenever the DM says so. If you misjudge the DM's pacing, you can easily run yourself out of resources long before intended, even without doing any crazy novaing.

It's also really hard to reconcile with any sort of in game logic. "So last week I was able to recover all my powers just 15 minutes after I used them because that's how long the scene lasted. However in the week since I haven't been able to use any of them again, because this scene just keeps dragging on... I'm not quite sure why"

That's an extreme and simplified example, but that sort of thing does happen. It's kind of okay when it's supposed to be things like luck (a la edge in shadowrun), but when it's something like a Wizard's spell, or a Fighter's endurance, the explanations for why those abilities haven't refreshed aren't just convoluted, they're non-existent.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-02, 02:33 PM

The problem I have with narratively based systems is that they are largely inconsistent and will vary wildly from DM to DM. With an encounter or even daily system, you know when your resources will refresh and be available again. With a narrative system it's whenever the DM says so. If you misjudge the DM's pacing, you can easily run yourself out of resources long before intended, even without doing any crazy novaing.

I do wish such systems had more DM guidance...it's a typical weakness in such systems. Now, a good DM will run a reliable pace, and you can judge that quite well, but too many narrative systems rely far too heavily on having a good DM.

It's also really hard to reconcile with any sort of in game logic. "So last week I was able to recover all my powers just 15 minutes after I used them because that's how long the scene lasted. However in the week since I haven't been able to use any of them again, because this scene just keeps dragging on... I'm not quite sure why"

It is typically x/period of time where x is not 1. So, things like drama dice or fate dice are given out in a set number, but are refreshed after a given indefinite period...but to add to that, both of those have mechanics allowing other things to change the number of them available(awards and compels). This makes it much less clear, and much less likely to run into that type of incongruity.

Additionally, there's often incentives to not blow through all resources asap. In both examples, running out of them early on is not usually considered wise.

That's an extreme and simplified example, but that sort of thing does happen. It's kind of okay when it's supposed to be things like luck (a la edge in shadowrun), but when it's something like a Wizard's spell, or a Fighter's endurance, the explanations for why those abilities haven't refreshed aren't just convoluted, they're non-existent.

I agree. In the narrative theme, these abilities are almost always more flexible luck-based things than definite abilities and maneuvers that have no logical reason to be unusable. 4e does not fit such a model well.

Kansaschaser

2012-02-02, 05:25 PM

Seerow

2012-02-02, 06:10 PM

navar100

2012-02-02, 07:41 PM

[QUOTE]
I agree. A Wizard with a crossbow just sounds wrong.

If only I could convince some members of my group of that instead of them figuratively yelling at me for wanting to cast Benign Transposition for tactical reasons because I'm "wasting" spell slots that may be needed later.

kaomera

2012-02-02, 09:37 PM

So, I know I'm a few days behind the times, but I've been going over Monte Cook's latest offering (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120130), and I'm just not convinced that we're all ''part of the fold'' as D&D players, and the edition wars should never have started. The fact is that it's human nature to subdivide a large group (like: ''D&D players''), and it's also typical (ingrained) to do so by establishing a negative border. Being a D&D player wouldn't mean much if there wasn't a group of people who do not play D&D to compare oneself to.

This sort of thing has been going on since long before there were any editions to war about - and it doesn't have to be a negative thing (in more than a mathematical way). But it does sometimes end up that way (and I'd say that I think the internet can be a contributing factor, if not actually to blame per se). And beyond that I'm not convinced (especially from my experiences with 3e and 4e) that the majority of D&D players actually want to ''play in the style that they like, rather than a style that a game designer or game company wants them to like''. Most players seem to value having the system as a consistent foundation, rather than taking the responsibility to decide what they want to do, especially if that's going to require some compromise. And they generally aren't even too keen on having anyone else at the table making those decisions, either.

So I'm not exactly sure how well this new set-up is liable to work at the table.IDK, they may be able to pull it off somehow, but it seems to me that they're trying to address player- / social-issues with system stuff.

navar100

2012-02-02, 11:29 PM

The 2E to 3E transition had its share of animosity since 3E did change the game mechanics in significant ways. However, 3E had the advantage of finally bringing something new to the game since TSR was gone. Plus it was by the folks who gave us the popular Magic The Gathering. 3E still had some similarities to 2E in iconic stuff. The 2E vs 3E wars died down soon enough.

The 3E vs 4E hooplah is simmered but flare ups do happen from time to time. I won't give my opinion as to why since it's possible it would flare up because of it. However, the main point is the animosity is still there. That 4E fans are not up in arms in the announcement of 5E is a hope of no 4E vs 5E wars. We shall see if 5E is an earnest attempt to bring back the 3E fans, granted it's not going to be 3E with the three crossed out replaced with a five.

As for 2E, 1E, and Basic fans, they've chosen long ago to stay there. (Nothing wrong with that.) Maybe they'll peek in.

Reverent-One

2012-02-02, 11:39 PM

The 3E vs 4E hooplah is simmered but flare ups do happen from time to time. I won't give my opinion as to why since it's possible it would flare up because of it. However, the main point is the animosity is still there. That 4E fans are not up in arms in the announcement of 5E is a hope of no 4E vs 5E wars.

Oops, you're right, I have been failing in my duties as a proponent of the latest edition. I'm supposed to complain about how they're dumbing D&D down and making it all video-gamey, right?

:smallwink:

Yora

2012-02-03, 06:03 AM

Craft (Cheese)

2012-02-03, 06:21 AM

When 4th edition first came out, I thought healing surges were a great novel concept.

Once I started playing 4th edition, I realized they were a terrible idea.

DM: You're almost dead. You only have 5 hit points left.
Player: Well, I may be out of healing surges, but thankfully I had the forethought to bring along some healing potions.
DM: Sorry, but the healing potion only allows you to spend a healing surge. Since you don't have any left, it has no effect.
Player: So, what are they good for then?
DM: Well, I suppose if you had enough of them you could drown yourself with them.
Player: This game is stupid... *grumbles*

When I first read about healing surges I thought they were a design constraint to help the DM plan reasonable encounters, by limiting the total amount of healing a player can receive during a single day, in order to make the level of player resources more predictable. Then I read that 4E was balanced around having lots of pointless random encounters between every extended rest and threw that theory out the window.

Honestly, though, I haven't seen much of anything about their design goals for 5e that doesn't sound like a bunch of empty marketing nonsense. Appeal to everyone, all places, all ages, all styles, all times? Right. Honestly what it sounds like is they're trying to make several games at once and sell them all under the same trademark.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-03, 06:45 AM

Does he ever really make sense? Some people just shouldn't be allowed to make public announcements.

It feels like his head is just a D100 that spews out random things.

Well, it could be worse. Their not actively insulting other editions. Thier saying every play-style is valid. Thats nice.

Also generalizations that are not stupid.

So its 1third wierd and 2rds nice.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-03, 07:55 AM

The 3E vs 4E hooplah is simmered but flare ups do happen from time to time. I won't give my opinion as to why since it's possible it would flare up because of it. However, the main point is the animosity is still there.
I think this is because a large part of 4E's product identity is "that RPG that is not 3E". I find that often when people bring up a flaw in 4E, the response is "well, 3E has a worse problem!"

That 4E fans are not up in arms in the announcement of 5E
Oh, but they are. Just look at the WOTC forums.

When I first read about healing surges I thought they were a design constraint to help the DM plan reasonable encounters, by limiting the total amount of healing a player can receive during a single day,
As I recall they're designed to do the exact opposite: to allow adventuring parties to continue longer, since running out of hit points doesn't mean you have to stop and rest now. Of course, since that was never a big issue in the first place, they clearly did not fulfill their stated design goal.

nocker

2012-02-03, 07:55 AM

It feels like his head is just a D100 that spews out random things.

Well, it could be worse. Their not actively insulting other editions. Thier saying every play-style is valid. Thats nice.

This only shows they don't want to repeat the Tiefling video fiasco.

hewhosaysfish

2012-02-03, 07:59 AM

Honestly, though, I haven't seen much of anything about their design goals for 5e that doesn't sound like a bunch of empty marketing nonsense. Appeal to everyone, all places, all ages, all styles, all times? Right. Honestly what it sounds like is they're trying to make several games at once and sell them all under the same trademark.

I'm beginning to half-suspect that WotC might just bind the core rulebooks of all previous editions together into one volume (about 4 feet thick) that they will try to sell to people as 5th Edition "D&D Next". It will cost £250 but each copy will come with a free trolley to carry it on.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-03, 08:38 AM

Honestly the only thing that sucked about healing potions was how they gave a set value of HP rather than heal for healing surge value. Why would you expect a cheap consumable to let you ignore healing limitations?

Why would I expect a healing potion to heal me?

Why WOULDNT I?

Yora

2012-02-03, 08:53 AM

Why would I except there to be healing limitations?

Reverent-One

2012-02-03, 09:18 AM

Why would I except there to be healing limitations?

Because you read the rules, maybe?

Kansaschaser

2012-02-03, 10:19 AM

Because you read the rules, maybe?

That's the rule I was making fun of since it's a silly rule.

In a world where there is magical healing, it seems odd that it would stop working once you run out of "healing surges".

Player: So, I'm gulping down healing potions and it's not doing anything.
DM: Right, because you ran out of healing surges for the day.
Player: Then I have to wait till the next day before these potion will do anything?
DM: Yep.
Player: But, I thought it was past midnight. Don't I get my healing surges back by now? Why arn't the potions working?
DM: Well, I decided that all abilities, spells, and powers reset at 6:00am, once everyone wakes up from a full nights rest.
Player: Argh!:smallfurious:

Reverent-One

2012-02-03, 10:29 AM

That's the rule I was making fun of since it's a silly rule.

In a world where there is magical healing, it seems odd that it would stop working once you run out of "healing surges".

It's not really odd, it just depends on the power level of the magical healing. In 4e's case, most magical healing isn't powerful enough to completely ignore your body's limits.

Player: So, I'm gulping down healing potions and it's not doing anything.
DM: Right, because you ran out of healing surges for the day.
Player: Then I have to wait till the next day before these potion will do anything?
DM: Yep.
Player: But, I thought it was past midnight. Don't I get my healing surges back by now? Why arn't the potions working?
DM: Well, I decided that all abilities, spells, and powers reset at 6:00am, once everyone wakes up from a full nights rest.
Player: Argh!:smallfurious:

Well, the DM's sort of right. You get healing surges/daily powers/ect back after taking an extended rest. It doesn't have to be at 6am, but it does take 8 hours of rest (and you can't take multiple extended rests within a 24 hour period).

Kansaschaser

2012-02-03, 10:39 AM

Another problem I had with 4th edition is the magic items.

DM: Okay, you've come upon locked door.
Player: Alright, I pull out my Wand of Knock and use it on the door.
DM: Congratulations, the door swings open. You are now in another corridor. At the end of the corridor is another locked door.
Player: Okay, then I use my Wand of Knock again.
DM: Sorry, the Wand of Knock only works once per day.
Player: Oh, I forgot to tell you that I pulled out my other Wand of Knock. I bought three of them so I can use Knock three times per day.
DM: Nope. It doesn't work that way. The other Wands of Knock you bought don't seem to work even though you haven't used them.
Player: Um, so each wand can be used once per day, but I can't seem to get the other ones to work?
DM: That's right. The other Wands of Knock seem to "know" that you've already used one of their brothers for the day.
Player: What?! :smallfurious: This game is stupid!

TheHarshax

2012-02-03, 10:52 AM

I have pretty positive feelings about what I've read on enworld and in the blagosphere. There is very certainly an Old School feeling to most of what has been revealed, such as:

1. Less bonus bloat. (eg: Fighters get BAB bonuses slower)
2. Ability Checks.
3. No definitive Skill List (eg: pick a 'theme') - this is probably my favorite idea. While not original, Simon Washbourne's recent award winning Lords of Lemuria game utilizes the Career concept extensively to give depth to characters.
4. Magic Treasure is not a factor for determining level balance.
5. Advice for not rolling dice if character attributes are X or higher (Hello Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay!)

Being a fan of d20/3.x, I'm not seeing a lot of details regarding those elements being added to 5e. I hear mention of feats, but little else. Am I missing something?

The only negative thing I see about 5e so far, is the hype about player and DM level of participation. Specifically the idea that Players and DM's could be playing different games at the same table.

In my experience, there has always been players that have character sheets the size of index cards, and players with portfolios of details. One satisfied with a handful of attributes, the other with minutia about how to get the most mechanical advantage out of the game system. That divide between these player types has only increased as the game has provided more details, especially when those details focused on exception-based mechanics like 3X.

Regardless how a player comes to the table, the most important factor, in my opinion, is the DM's ability to handle that player's character, since its hir job to interpret the rules. So, I'm more curious about what tools the designers have built into 5e for the DM who intends to run a looser rules style, but has minutia-minded players at the table. 3X was impossible (for me) to run this way. When I started to collapse under the weight of building an interesting CR11 encounter, my players were just hitting their stride with figuring out which feats and magic items offered them the most advantage.

Seems to me that they should be less focused on how two players with different gameplay styles can be at the same table, and more focused on how 5E helps a DM who wants those headaches at the same table. That will be the bigger selling point for me, as I find myself on the lonely side of the GM screen more often than not.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-03, 12:02 PM

Actually, the real problem is in 4E's wealth-by-level standards. Because wealth is so quickly exponential (you quintuple your wealth every five levels), this means that low level items are essentially free. WOTC believes that low-level items are pointless for a high level party, but this is simply false. And this causes issues.

Healing potions are one of them; the whole limit on how many "magical item dailies" you can use per day (regardless of how many items you have) is another; the "golf bag effect" is another. The is no reason why every high-level adventurer needs to possess enough wealth to simply buy a kingdom or two.

Kerrin

2012-02-03, 01:36 PM

If they really try to design a D&D system that is "everything for everyone" they'll most likely end up with a system that isn't particularly good at anything.

On the other hand, it doesn't mean they have to ignore folks either the way they seemed to do with 4th edition.

I hope they really do pull in the best parts of each D&D version, polish them and fit them together as needed, and add some new sauce as well to round things out and make it all a cohesive game.

TheHarshax

2012-02-03, 01:49 PM

I hope they really do pull in the best parts of each D&D version, polish them and fit them together as needed, and add some new sauce as well to round things out and make it all a cohesive game.

... emphasis mine.

Because if they don't add anything new, then how is this any different than what the OSR\OGL Community is already doing every week, for free?

DrBurr

2012-02-04, 01:43 PM

So I just finished reading the Enworld transcript on skills and ability scores and I felt very meh about D&D Next, and this isn't because I'm refusing to except anything that isn't in my current collection, overall I just felt the basic ability scores for skills was to simplistic and I know I could probably add a module to make skills more complex but then why buy this game at all when I could play either of the editions I already have?

I guess it will all boil down to combat, and whether or not the modules I want are in the core book or not, though I have a feeling I'm going to have to buy four books over the 3 core to get all the stuff I'd want.

lesser_minion

2012-02-04, 08:30 PM

snipped

I really don't think it aids discussion to declare something to be 'stupid' or 'nonsensical' according to your own interpretation of it, especially when there are invariably other ways to see it.

The game leaves the question of why you can only activate one magic item per day open to interpretation, but this is the first time I've seen it complained about.

Is there something inherently wrong with the concept of magic items that take something from their user in order to work?

If not, what's wrong with healing potions and wands of knock being such items?

navar100

2012-02-04, 09:43 PM

I really don't think it aids discussion to declare something to be 'stupid' or 'nonsensical' according to your own interpretation of it, especially when there are invariably other ways to see it.

The game leaves the question of why you can only activate one magic item per day open to interpretation, but this is the first time I've seen it complained about.

Is there something inherently wrong with the concept of magic items that take something from their user in order to work?

If not, what's wrong with healing potions and wands of knock being such items?

From a cynical point of you, the rule punishes you for the audacity of having magic items. No toys for you!

Seerow

2012-02-05, 01:17 AM

From a cynical point of you, the rule punishes you for the audacity of having magic items. No toys for you!

It doesn't punish you for having them. It just discourages you from hording and stockpiling tons of random magic items, or stacking multiples of a good daily use item to use it more often. 4e expects you to operate on a minimal number of magic items, and to keep having more than that low amount becoming necessary, they put pretty strict limitations on the powers. They probably went a bit overboard, but the driving idea of "We don't want people carrying around 3 belts of battle for multiple extra standard actions every encounter" wasn't a bad one.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-05, 02:13 AM

It doesn't punish you for having them. It just discourages you from hording and stockpiling tons of random magic items, or stacking multiples of a good daily use item to use it more often. 4e expects you to operate on a minimal number of magic items, and to keep having more than that low amount becoming necessary, they put pretty strict limitations on the powers. They probably went a bit overboard, but the driving idea of "We don't want people carrying around 3 belts of battle for multiple extra standard actions every encounter" wasn't a bad one.
Well, that was the intent anyways.

But, as Kurald Galain pointed out this all was rendered moot by the usefulness of non-Daily Magic Item powers which meant that people carried around a bunch of always-on, At-Will, and Encounter Items which weren't affected by the limitation. It's unfortunate that the only real way to fix this in 4e would be for a global rebalance of magic items (i.e. making Daily powers stronger and Always-On, At-Will, and Encounter powers weaker) but hey, you learn through making errors.

With luck WotC will have learned to pay more attention to the whole Time-Strength calculus for 5e. IMHO, it would probably be better to ditch the calculus as a construct and instead make a greater use of effects -- Daily powers have better effects than Encounter Powers while At-Wills only have a minor effect in addition to damage (e.g. Shift 1 after hitting with the attack). When all your powers do 1[W] you will probably save the "target can't make OAs" Encounter power for when you need it, not just to open the fight. Also, some sort of "warm-up" regime for Dailies would be a good idea to discourage nova-ing (or at least make using them more interesting).

Kurald Galain

2012-02-05, 03:40 AM

Is there something inherently wrong with the concept of magic items that take something from their user in order to work?
No, but items don't consistently work that way. If all activated items required a surge to activate, then there wouldn't be a problem. It's just weird that activating your Wand of Knock means you can no longer use your Boots of Teleporting (and vice versa) but neither prevents you from activating your Sword of Flaminess all day, and you can drink a total of nine healing potions per day regardless of how many boots, wands, and swords you use.

Somebloke

2012-02-05, 08:32 AM

My own thoughts-

(okay, let me make this clear- these are my own insane ramblings, and are opinions only. I am not after a edition flame war).

I am cautiously hopeful, but less interested in this edition than I was for 4 (mostly due to my exploring other game systems).

Editions 1-3 all had issues built into the systems that I felt detracted from the game, at least how I played it. These included:

a) Class imbalance
b) Swingy combats
c) Not many tactical options (or other options, for that matter) for many classes
d) Defensive abilities (AC) dependent almost entirely on item advancement (and a pet hate of mine for many years)
e) Progression means you go from common man to godlike killing machine in a matter of months, if not weeks.
f) Unintuitive skill system
g) (For 3e) overly complex monster design.

Each edition attempted to resolve these issues to some degree; 3e was by far the best at dealing with these "problems" (as I saw them).

4e seems to have been written specifically to deal with a lot of the "issues" built into dungeons and dragons up to this point- and to be honest, it dealt with them. However, the huge leaps in terms of directions and flow of the game (and class design) created new issues (as perceived by me and my group), such as:

a) A perceived paradigm break between the tactical gameplay-based combat and the theatre of the mind roleplaying elements of the game.
b) A degree of sameness in character design
c) Combat drag, (despite elements of game design intended to streamline the system, such as single attacks) due to excessive hp and 'choice paralysis', especially once the first half of combat was over and combat felt like an extended 'mopping up' operation.
d) 'Choice Paralysis' for character design.
e) A disconnect in terms of gameplay and feel to earlier editions.

These were concerns that built up over 10 levels of gameplay, to the point where the characters were discinclided to play 4e once they reached paragon tier.

5e, from what I have heard, is an attempt to resolve the issues of editions 1-3 while still keeping within the framework of earlier editions- a sort of a half-step back to the earlier framework, while retaining the valuable lessons about what was done right (slower character progression, availability of at-will options, simplified monster stats, simplified yet intuitive skills). So far I am cautiously optimistic about the end result.

Although to be honest, the day they combine 4e with saga edition in a fantasy framework, I will completely sold.

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-05, 11:44 AM

No, but items don't consistently work that way. If all activated items required a surge to activate, then there wouldn't be a problem. It's just weird that activating your Wand of Knock means you can no longer use your Boots of Teleporting (and vice versa) but neither prevents you from activating your Sword of Flaminess all day, and you can drink a total of nine healing potions per day regardless of how many boots, wands, and swords you use.
I think that's another matter of taste. After all, nobody thought it weird that powerful spells in 3.x required more than expending a spell-slot to cast while weaker ones did not. You can even visualize Magic Item Uses ("MIU") as an extra stat -- Mana -- which is expended in conjunction with the item's innate magic to work.

That said, MIU worked poorly for its intended purpose. But that wasn't because the fluff was bad or weird; it was because it was circumvented by other mechanical consideration.

navar100

2012-02-05, 02:28 PM

Slipperychicken

2012-02-05, 02:43 PM

I hope that Alignment ceases to matter mechanically in 5e, or at that they give us a variant which allows us to ignore it. It's irritating to hear someone say "But you're X alignment! An X would never do that!", or live in constant fear of pinging wrong on the Alignment-radar. I also find alignment-restrictions on classes to be annoying, as they seem to say "You can't have a strong personal code if you want to be good at opening locks, striking vitals, and doing detective-work"(Rogues can't be Lawful).

In short, I want this statement to be true:
"It [Alignment] is not a straitjacket for restricting your character."

Kurald Galain

2012-02-05, 02:44 PM

If that's a problem, that's for the DM to solve by not having so many belts of battle appear in treasure hoards and control what items can be bought if they can be bought.

Well, yes, but both PHB1 and DMG1 give rules on how much gold PCs should have (which is a lot), and explicitly say that they can buy every magical item within that price range (or create it, which works exactly the same). They also say that players should make wishlists, and the DM should hand out treasure based on these.

Of course that's easy to houserule away, but the point is that the design intent of the 4.0 designers was that PCs do indeed have access to precisely the items they want, all the time (within their level range). Also, many people play LFR, where you can't houserule anything away.

4.4 does change this, and instead suggests that you can only buy "common" items (which 99% of printed items are not), and that the DM should roll randomly for what magical items the players get from treasure hoards.

Eldan

2012-02-05, 02:51 PM

I'd prefer if alingment stayed. I'd just also hope that they make the description more distinct and explained the role a bit more. I certainly agree on never wanting to hear "but you are alignment X!" ever again. The way it should work, is that you just play and use the alignment of a description of how you acted. Not the other way round.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-05, 04:52 PM

Clawhound

2012-02-06, 12:59 PM

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-02-06, 01:26 PM

Maybe keep alignment around as a feat? If you don't take an alignment, then you are neutral and don't get any of the whiz-bang advantages, but if you do want alignment, then you get access to holy swords and such. That has problems, as you now need to support the feat, but opting in is so much easier to manage than opting out.

For example: You are lawful good, pick one additional benefit of being lawful good: protection from evil, smite, detect evil. If at any time you significantly wander from your alignment, the DM will suspend these benefits until you make amends with the powers of good.

Like I say, not perfect, but you toss the complexities to the people who want that sort of play, and leave everyone else in the shady middle. You also get the benefit of a fallen paladin without hosing over a character. For that matter, you can also get a fallen cleric and a fallen barbarian.

Another possible way to handle it is to only have mechanical alignment effects work on/against the 5e equivalent of outsiders with alignment descriptors by default. Smite Evil works on Outsiders (Evil), so you can still have the paladin smiting demons and devils, but the greedy merchant or town thug wouldn't necessarily ping on a paladin's evil-dar because they just aren't evil enough for the forces of capital-G Good to think they're worth smiting. Class options and feats and such might expand this (I could easily see a 5e Blackguard, for instance, with the ability to detect even lowercase-g good people and smite them because, hey, he's a jerk like that) but otherwise you'd only have to deal with mechanical alignment as much as you deal with outsiders, so the DM can vary how much of an impact it has according to preference.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-06, 01:53 PM

Or maybe just abysmaly evil peopel as well.

A greedy thief? No.

But Lord Trandolton, the Tyrant of Modlaria?

Most likely.

huttj509

2012-02-06, 03:34 PM

No, but items don't consistently work that way. If all activated items required a surge to activate, then there wouldn't be a problem. It's just weird that activating your Wand of Knock means you can no longer use your Boots of Teleporting (and vice versa) but neither prevents you from activating your Sword of Flaminess all day, and you can drink a total of nine healing potions per day regardless of how many boots, wands, and swords you use.

As a parallel...

You ever been a bit draggy, down an energy drink, and get that burst of goin strong? That's like the healing potion. You might not be able to pull yourself back up easily (second wind), but it can give you a boost.

Now, you ever been chaining energy drinks, or so exhausted that even your favorite red dew surge combination doesn't do much, or even "overloads" you and causes you to shut down a bit (in college I'd drink a caffinated soda before bed to help me sleep...it was not good)? You simply don't have it in you, you need to rest.

Healing potions help you draw on your inner reserves to keep going. If you got nuttin left, they have nothing to work with.

Kansaschaser

2012-02-06, 03:42 PM

Healing potions help you draw on your inner reserves to keep going. If you got nuttin left, they have nothing to work with.

I never saw in any magical descriptor for Healing Potions or Scrolls of Healing that they draw on your own strength for healing. I always thought of them as "magical". So you get healed through external means without having to use up your internal energy.

Saying that you need to use your own internal energy is more like a Psion having to use Power Points to heal him/herself.

I mean, it's freakin magic for Chthullu's sake!

Now if you handed my character a bunch of "Potions of Red Bull" or "Potions of 5-hour Energy" in game, then after about 4-5 of them, they probably wouldn't have any effect. In fact, too much of any stimulant can kill you. It would take about 4,000 cups of hot chocolate to overdose on caffeine.

eepop

2012-02-06, 03:43 PM

I think Alignment can have a place, but I think it would be much better served as a modular ruleset introduced later.

Alignment in the core books can rarely make anyone happy. The people that dislike alignment at all get told its core and they have to use it, so they are unhappy. The people that want alignment, get only a sliver of what they want due to page count concerns.

I think you could totally make a full size book on alignment.

Take the good parts of BoED and BoVD, add in some talk on the chaos axis, and thats probably decent enough to print.

Or kick it to eleven and decouple the components of good/evil/law/chaos from each other and replace them with scales for more in depth alignment description. Instead of having 9 alignments, have positive/neutral/negative for 10 traits that describe how people deal with situations.
For example some traits might be
---Loyal/Neutral/Disloyal
---Charitable/Neutral/Miserly
---Tolerant/Neutral/Wrathful
etc

What you might consider a good priest and a good paladin may for instance be similar on several traits, but the priest is Tolerant while the paladin is wrathful.

Give each trait spectrum a chapter where the subject is discussed, and what it means to be each instead of the "good people do this, and bad people do this other thing" that BoED/BoVD did. Include examples of how both traditionally "good" and "evil" characters might have a certain trait. The zealous paladin who will not suffer evil to live, and the chaotic barbarian that is the essence of destruction are both Wrathful. The kindly priest that does his best to harm no one, and the scheming evil sorcerer planning to take over the world by using everyone can both be Tolerant.

I've become pretty disenfranchised with Alignment, and most likely I am going to advocate in my group we ignore what they put on the 2 pages in the PHB. But make a book like I describe above, and I will shell out upwards of $60 for it, and use the crap out of it.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-06, 03:48 PM

You ever been a bit draggy, down an energy drink, and get that burst of goin strong? That's like the healing potion. You might not be able to pull yourself back up easily (second wind), but it can give you a boost.

I don't think that works. First, if I cut myself in the arm with a knife, then drinking an energy drink won't cure that - but a healing potion will. Second, it's not true that the first seven energy drinks will have the full effect on you, whereas the eighth will have zero effect (rather, once you've gotten into the habit of drinking them, the first 2-3 won't do anything, and you may get withdrawal symptoms). So your metaphor doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

Hey, I'm paying a farmer's year salary for that potion, so I want it to actually do something.

Rathyr

2012-02-06, 04:37 PM

Kansaschaser

2012-02-06, 05:09 PM

:smallconfused:
You took his energy drink example that literally?

He was making the point that, despite being "magical", healing potions seem to be more grounded in reality in 4e, and have some sort of physical requirement. They might require some sort of untapped stamina, or are simply more alchemical in nature, or just speed up natural healing. Fluff aside, they require something from the user. Which may not be what you prefer, but it certainly isn't wrong.

I, for one, get annoyed by the "it's magic, what do you mean it doesn't work all the time?" train of thought. Magic still has rules. These rules can change between editions.

Then don't hand me a watered-down magical healing potion. Give me the one that doesn't have physical limitations. I don't care if I have to pay more for it.

They tried to make D&D work more like an on-line video game. Even in online games like Diablo, World of Warcraft, Everquest, and other fantasy games, there is no limit to the number of healing potions you can gulp down in one day. Granted that some of these games I mentioned have "cooldowns" between uses, but at least they are always fully effective when used.

Since they wanted to make D&D more like an on-line video game, why didn't they make healing potions work more like they do in the above mentioned games? In fact, cooldowns are more feasable than "only useable if you have healing surges left".

Tyndmyr

2012-02-06, 05:11 PM

:smallconfused:
You took his energy drink example that literally?

It's an example. It doesn't hold up to what it's being used for. That makes it...not a terribly great example.

He was making the point that, despite being "magical", healing potions seem to be more grounded in reality in 4e, and have some sort of physical requirement. They might require some sort of untapped stamina, or are simply more alchemical in nature, or just speed up natural healing. Fluff aside, they require something from the user. Which may not be what you prefer, but it certainly isn't wrong.

I, for one, get annoyed by the "it's magic, what do you mean it doesn't work all the time?" train of thought. Magic still has rules. These rules can change between editions.

They don't function like natural healing at all...and there is little in the way of biology or the like to support a healing surge model. It is a pretty arbitrary way to limit healing overall per day. I understand exactly why it's in there from a gameplay perspective...but from a realism perspective, everything is ad-hoc justifications.

And yes, magic DOES have rules. They should be consistent, logical rules. Do x, y happens. There's no good way to explain healing surges without falling back on metagame language.

Reverent-One

2012-02-06, 05:32 PM

They don't function like natural healing at all...and there is little in the way of biology or the like to support a healing surge model. It is a pretty arbitrary way to limit healing overall per day. I understand exactly why it's in there from a gameplay perspective...but from a realism perspective, everything is ad-hoc justifications.

And yes, magic DOES have rules. They should be consistent, logical rules. Do x, y happens. There's no good way to explain healing surges without falling back on metagame language.

Sure there is, by explaining healing surges as how far your body can push itself.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-06, 05:38 PM

And yes, magic DOES have rules. They should be consistent, logical rules. Do x, y happens. There's no good way to explain healing surges without falling back on metagame language.

Indeed. It's a disassociated mechanic (a topic which seems to come up frequently recently).

Of note: many players (in particular, most 4E players) don't mind disassociated mechanics at all, many other players (frequently people who tried and didn't like 4E) dislike them. However, and this is important, pretty much nobody prefers their mechanics to be disassociated.

So from a game designer's point of view, they're a net negative (and, from what we've seen of 5E so far, the designers seem to be trying to avoid them).

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-06, 05:47 PM

Sure there is, by explaining healing surges as how far your body can push itself.

So its how much your body can push itself to be repaired by divine magic?

Or by arcane magic, or by some guy yelling "freedom!".

Those things don't match. Especially since it dissociates the HP (worse then it already is) and you need to make up a bunch of plot patches to make it work (Poorlyier)

Reverent-One

2012-02-06, 06:49 PM

So its how much your body can push itself to be repaired by divine magic?

Or by arcane magic, or by some guy yelling "freedom!".

Generally no, those abilities don't repair how much your body can push itself (ie increase or replenish your surges), they let you tap into your reserves and keep yourself on your feet, since they let you expend healing surges to replenish your hit points.

Rathyr

2012-02-06, 06:56 PM

Then don't hand me a watered-down magical healing potion. Give me the one that doesn't have physical limitations. I don't care if I have to pay more for it.

They tried to make D&D work more like an on-line video game. Even in online games like Diablo, World of Warcraft, Everquest, and other fantasy games, there is no limit to the number of healing potions you can gulp down in one day. Granted that some of these games I mentioned have "cooldowns" between uses, but at least they are always fully effective when used.

Since they wanted to make D&D more like an on-line video game, why didn't they make healing potions work more like they do in the above mentioned games? In fact, cooldowns are more feasable than "only useable if you have healing surges left".

Designers felt that Healing Potions weren't that powerful in 4e. It still has uses, it just can't be used to chain chug and avoid what they wanted on an adventuring day. Don't like the healing surge mechanic? Don't use it. Up the price, cross that line out and heal your 10/20/30. 4e gives players many other ways to heal besides Healing Potions and Clerics from previous editions, so I frankly don't see the issue beyond people's personal preference about how "realistic" their "magic water" is. Realistic D&D is not.

Mechanically, Healing Potions are balanced in 4e. And there have been plenty examples of how the fluff works for them. Sorry your view doesn't fit with 4e's. I disagree with other elements from 4e, and many elements other editions, but as long as they are functional, I deal with it.

4e D&D as a video game... :smallsigh: Baiting?

Balanced classes, explicit powers and clear combat rules do not make a video game. The same opportunities for roleplay and high adventure exist in every edition of D&D.

erikun

2012-02-06, 07:05 PM

One thing that worries me is the statement "a universal rules system that takes from the best of every edition". I'm seen enough RPGs to be skeptical of any proposed 'universal' rules systems. What's more, some versions of D&D are complete opposites of others - AD&D had very resource-deprivation focused encounters, while 4e had more cinematic all-out combats. You can't have encounters that both rely on characters expending all their resources and at the same time treat that encounter as a means of wearing down the resources of the party! Or at least, I don't have much confidence that WotC can do so very well.

As for daily resources, I'm fine with them but prefer them not to be manditory. Consider a game with HP that recovers after a short, 5-minute rest. Healing magic would be much less important, even as a daily resource, but it would become moreso in a difficult fight. With this, a party could take on as many moderate battles as they choose each day, even without a healer, and have no problem with every battle being difficult and exciting. Or the party could take on only a handful of much stronger combats, relying on a healer to keep them going in combat, and be limited to their daily resources.

Don't like daily resources? Ban the daily-resource classes and stick with the moderate encounters. Find only at-will attacks to be tactically boring? Stick with the daily classes, and use the stronger encounters.

And I am not a fan of healing surges. Too often in 4e, I've been in a party that has been progressing through a dungeon/location and been forced to rest for no reason other than the game system decided that we'd played enough for that particular day. It wasn't the players deciding to 45-minute workday, and it wasn't the DM deciding we'd had enough encounters either. It was the system basically saying, "You have used up your four scheduled encounters for the day. Please camp out and play again tomorrow."

It didn't matter that we all still had dailies, unused items, and healing supplies. It didn't matter that we were in the very middle of an active base that we had just alerted to our presence, and were planning on attacking the head honcho next. No healing surges for the rogue! I guess that means we need to barracade up and sleep or just leave the rogue behind.

It's also really hard to reconcile with any sort of in game logic. "So last week I was able to recover all my powers just 15 minutes after I used them because that's how long the scene lasted. However in the week since I haven't been able to use any of them again, because this scene just keeps dragging on... I'm not quite sure why"
On this topic, I don't see a conflict of logic. If you have an "encounter trick" that involves surprising an opponent by drawing out a wrist-knife from a hidden sheathe, then struggling to re-hide it and attempt to surprise someone with it again is just silly. It doesn't matter much if the fight lasted ten minutes or ten hours; running around popping knives out of your wrists is only surprising so many times in succession.

This is how I'd envision an "encounter power" or something similar working. Needless to say, it's a fair bit different than how 4e handled it.

Rathyr

2012-02-06, 07:11 PM

It's an example. It doesn't hold up to what it's being used for. That makes it...not a terribly great example.

He was using energy drinks as a very rough example of a RL item that stops functioning as normal the more you use it. You broke it down to a rather silly level of detail. "if I cut myself in the arm with a knife, then drinking an energy drink won't cure that"? Seriously? Why not bring up the fact that energy drinks are stored in metal cans and not glass potion bottles as well?

Completely not relevant to the comparison.

They don't function like natural healing at all...and there is little in the way of biology or the like to support a healing surge model. It is a pretty arbitrary way to limit healing overall per day. I understand exactly why it's in there from a gameplay perspective...but from a realism perspective, everything is ad-hoc justifications.

And yes, magic DOES have rules. They should be consistent, logical rules. Do x, y happens. There's no good way to explain healing surges without falling back on metagame language.

Healing Surges represent more than just biology. Exhaustion, morale, luck, divine guidance, mental stamina. Healing Surges represent that absolute limit your mind/body/soul can take in the course of an adventure. To me, there is nothing gamey about it. At last, nothing more gamey than stats and HPs. Why would Strength adding to your carry limit be any less gamey than Constitution allowing you to fight longer during a day?

"Realism" and "Logical rules" in a game of high fantasy? Obviously, everyone's view of realistic and logical rules is going to differ. I think the surge system is great in 4e. I also think that reversing it into a "wound system" is also a great way to keep the game "logical" and "realistic" (no preference, really). I enjoy the idea of adventures needing to be aware of the long term, and that they can't fight for 16 hours straight, chugging energy drinks like its nothing.

Rathyr

2012-02-06, 07:19 PM

@erikun

There is a ritual in 4e that allows the sharing of Healing Surges. You have to spend a surge to initiate the ritual, but I found it was a great way to help the party keep moving. Can't do it too often, but still handy for that final push.

Also, the rogue running out of surges first could mean he simply wasn't playing roguish enough, or did not invest in defenses. A glass cannon. My DM forced us to keep going, or suffer the penalty for breaking early. This meant the rogue got more and more cautious the less surges he had.

Hardly unrealistic. He eventually got tired of hanging back all the time and took some defensive feats.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-06, 07:31 PM

Mechanically, Healing Potions are balanced in 4e.
They're not balanced: they're weak in terms of action economy, unusable for dual wield classes, and the higher level versions are vastly overpriced.

And there have been plenty examples of how the fluff works for them.
But none that actually match the crunch involved. That's the point.

erikun

2012-02-06, 07:39 PM

@erikun

There is a ritual in 4e that allows the sharing of Healing Surges. You have to spend a surge to initiate the ritual, but I found it was a great way to help the party keep moving. Can't do it too often, but still handy for that final push.
Yeah, we found that one eventually. It allowed my (defensive, ranged, high CON) Druid to hand off surges to the rogue so that we could go another encounter. It didn't seem to help much beyond that single additional fight, though.

Also, the rogue running out of surges first could mean he simply wasn't playing roguish enough, or did not invest in defenses. A glass cannon. My DM forced us to keep going, or suffer the penalty for breaking early. This meant the rogue got more and more cautious the less surges he had.

Hardly unrealistic. He eventually got tired of hanging back all the time and took some defensive feats.
My biggest problem was that it worked off the one resource you have little option in managing. Everyone takes HP damage, and while your group may have been different, I remember running into enough large groups and ranged attackers that the barbarian up front didn't automatically attract all the fire.

That, and it seemed to work counter to all our other resources. If we were worried about running out of items, we would use less items. If we were worried about running out of dailies, we would use less dailies. If we were worried about the rogue taking more damage, we would spend more resources on the rogue than on the other party members... but this just made the ENTIRE SITUATION WORSE, because conserving resources and spending them where needed just meant that they ran out faster.

Hence, the annoyance. It's not a resource that can be treated like a resources. Its an in-game daily encounter limiter, unless you have a party with unusually high defenses or highly mobile ranged attackers (or both) to reduce HP loss.

Reverent-One

2012-02-06, 07:46 PM

That, and it seemed to work counter to all our other resources. If we were worried about running out of items, we would use less items. If we were worried about running out of dailies, we would use less dailies. If we were worried about the rogue taking more damage, we would spend more resources on the rogue than on the other party members... but this just made the ENTIRE SITUATION WORSE, because conserving resources and spending them where needed just meant that they ran out faster.

That's not a problem with healing surges though. If there weren't healing surges, you'd just have to expend more healing spells and consumable items to keep the rogue healed, which would still drain resources and force you to stop, they'd just be a different set of resources. If you're worried about the rogue taking more damage, expending more healing resources doesn't solve the problem, it just treats the symptoms (the damage).

kyoryu

2012-02-06, 07:57 PM

My biggest problem was that it worked off the one resource you have little option in managing. Everyone takes HP damage, and while your group may have been different, I remember running into enough large groups and ranged attackers that the barbarian up front didn't automatically attract all the fire.

Big groups of ranged attackers, no cover? Ew. Sounds like kinda bad encounter design.

Also, firing on the Barbarian? No Defender?

That, and it seemed to work counter to all our other resources. If we were worried about running out of items, we would use less items. If we were worried about running out of dailies, we would use less dailies. If we were worried about the rogue taking more damage, we would spend more resources on the rogue than on the other party members... but this just made the ENTIRE SITUATION WORSE, because conserving resources and spending them where needed just meant that they ran out faster.

It takes X resources to get past an encounter. That come come in terms of daily abilities, surges, APs, etc. Spending more dailies means you'll get through the combat quicker, and thus take less damage, and conserve HP.

Also, you could have the rogue only attack when he could get a flank with a Defender, lowering the total damage he (should) receive. That means he'll do less damage overall, true - meaning that the other characters will take more damage, spreading the healing surge use around more.

Ideally, in a resource management scenario like this, you want all of your resources to run out at the same time. That's good resource management. Efficiency is a slightly different question (how much can we do before we run out?)

erikun

2012-02-06, 07:58 PM

Reverent-One

2012-02-06, 08:08 PM

Not really, no. If the rogue is taking too much damage, we could get more healing items. We could learn more healing spells. Heck, we could even get another healer in the party.

However, these just aren't choices when it comes to healing surges. Even if everyone else was a cleric focused on providing HP, and even if the rogue was given a bagful of healing potions, it would make little difference in how many encounters the party can get through. This is because you don't get the choice in conserving surges (HP damage is an inevitable fact, due to 4e combat) and you cannot conserve, save, or expend anything else to replace them.

Just to make the point, in any other system, if one character is taking too much damage, you can add another healer to the group to increase how long the group will last. With healing surges, this does nothing.

Or you could expend resources to help the rogue take less damage in the first place. He could take improve his defenses, increase his healing surges (EDIT: Wait, this doesn't reduce the damage, though it does do what you want), you could add more meatshields to defend him, you could add more strikers to kill the enemies faster, you could add more controllers to lock down the enemies so they can't hurt the rogue, you could be less stingy with dailies to make the fight end more quickly, the rogue could be more careful in his tactics. Even adding more healers or buying more consumables, you're still going to run out of spells and money eventually.

Also note that this has nothing to do with how realistic or associated the mechanic is (since that is everyone's favorite word now). The point is that healing surges are a mechanical way to force the end of the day, as opposed to the story or the characters deciding when to stop. The game system shouldn't be telling the players when they're done.

As long as you have daily resources (vancian casting, power points, hit points without unlimited healing, ect), the game system is still going tell them that.

erikun

2012-02-06, 08:26 PM

Big groups of ranged attackers, no cover? Ew. Sounds like kinda bad encounter design.

Also, firing on the Barbarian? No Defender?
Yes, there was a paladin. It didn't seem to matter all that much, as they could only mark one person at a time. And the encounters tended to be mixed up a bit, so some fights were ranged with cover, others with lots of targets, and others with burst powers.

And while we were a pretty inexperienced group, there are only so many times that the day can end with the rogue out of surges and everyone else with around half remaining before it just seems like there is something wrong with the whole situation.

It takes X resources to get past an encounter. That come come in terms of daily abilities, surges, APs, etc. Spending more dailies means you'll get through the combat quicker, and thus take less damage, and conserve HP.

Also, you could have the rogue only attack when he could get a flank with a Defender, lowering the total damage he (should) receive. That means he'll do less damage overall, true - meaning that the other characters will take more damage, spreading the healing surge use around more.

Ideally, in a resource management scenario like this, you want all of your resources to run out at the same time. That's good resource management. Efficiency is a slightly different question (how much can we do before we run out?)
I haven't seen many fights that could be ended easily without HP loss without dumping a good number of daily powers to do so. Generally in the 3+ range, although perhaps that isn't so many at higher levels.

Most creatures I saw were perfectly capable of dumping their own "daily" powers at the beginning of the fight if desired, and would reasonably do so if hammered to half HP before their first action. Reducing the duration of a fight by a couple of rounds didn't reduce HP loss much; only completely locking down or killing the dangerous targets before they could attack did so.

Or you could expend resources to help the rogue take less damage in the first place. He could take improve his defenses, increase his healing surges (EDIT: Wait, this doesn't reduce the damage, though it does do what you want), you could add more meatshields to defend him, you could add more strikers to kill the enemies faster, you could add more controllers to lock down the enemies so they can't hurt the rogue, you could be less stingy with dailies to make the fight end more quickly, the rogue could be more careful in his tactics. Even adding more healers or buying more consumables, you're still going to run out of spells and money eventually.
As mentioned above, dailies and strikers didn't seem to help that much unless we're talking about enough to slaughter the encounter before it could do much of anything. And in that case, we were going through a significant number of dailies... and that just meant other combats were just lasting longer and doing more damage.

We didn't try more controllers or defenders, so perhaps that could have worked - although I'm not sure that marking a single additional target a turn (or two; enemies didn't clump together much) would make that much more of a difference.

I suppose better defenses could have helped, as I didn't take a look at the rogue's character sheet, but they seemed to be pretty decent for the group.

erikun

2012-02-06, 08:43 PM

As long as you have daily resources (vancian casting, power points, hit points without unlimited healing, ect), the game system is still going tell them that.
I wanted to take a bit to think about this before responding.

HP isn't a resource; it's a tax. A resource can be conserved, used, not used, or expended as you choose. However, you lose HP from encounters, period. There is no way (or almost no reasonable way) to prevent it from happening.

If 4e was a game where ambuses or stealth did what it reasonably should do - end or bypass encounters with no or minimal lost to the character - then arguing that HP is a resource might work. However, nothing short of 100% lockdown and tearing all opponents apart will prevent them from dealing damage back.

The problem with a tax is that a character does not get to choose how it is spent. A wizard can choose not to cast their spells, saving them for a later fight or obstacle. A cleric can choose not to expend healing, although it is generally less desirable to do so. Any character can choose not to use expendable items, either by chancing their luck with another potential fight or by returning to town to rest. Nobody gets to choose not to lose their HP in a fight, and when it's out, they don't get to choose what to do. Even a wizard with no spells, or a fighter with no equipment, can still choose what they want to do.

So no, I don't agree that the system is telling me how many encounters I can fight by giving me limited daily resources. I can still choose to run through spell slots slowly, burn them all quickly, or not use them at all. But I don't get a choice to not use up my HP, and in a system that pretty much guarantees actual combat in every encounter (as 4e does) I don't get a choice in how many encounters I can run through before it taps dry.

Reverent-One

2012-02-06, 09:04 PM

While it's true that it's pretty much impossible to not take any damage in any fight that's not a pushover, that doesn't mean you can't control how much damage you take at all. A wizard holding back spells is going to make the fight take longer and cost more hp, which requires spending more resources to heal. A fight in 4e where no one uses anything other than at-wills is going to drain notably more health resources than one in which they use encounters and even dailies. Tactics are also important, two groups expending the same amount of resources could have very different end results depending on how those resources are used. This is why I can't see a practical difference between those different resources.

I can't say exactly what's going on with the rogue that seems to consistently runs out of healing surges before the rest of the party since I wasn't there, but in the almost 4 years since 4e has out, rogues and other squishy classes haven't been consistently labeled burdens on the party because they're too fragile. This implies that the issues the rogue was having aren't system trends, but the results of an individual circumstances.

Rathyr

2012-02-07, 12:41 AM

They're not balanced: they're weak in terms of action economy, unusable for dual wield classes, and the higher level versions are vastly overpriced.

But none that actually match the crunch involved. That's the point.

I should have said "they are not a broken crutch that can replace healing". Lower and mid level potions are still useful in a pinch. My group plays pretty light on the item juggling side of things, but if you were playing hardcore RAW item management, then *any* consumable becomes much more difficult to deal with, not just Healing Potions.

Fluff doesn't match the crunch? The fluff is its magic water that heals you. The crunch is it requires a healing surge to heal you. Not seeing the disconnect.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-07, 01:49 AM

For example:

Apparently in order for the Warlord to work your not actually receiving damage. Just getting tired of dodging.

Aside from being kinda dumb (You can get more tired from dodging a big guys sword then a giant fireball) it also has a contradiction with healing potions too:

So its magic water that regenerates your energy...Except theres a limit on how many times you apparently can regenerate your energy...

So its stuff that gives you energy whilst simultaneously draining you of energy (And this isn't like a "Drain you life force" kinda thing. This stuff regenerates).

Rathyr

2012-02-07, 02:06 AM

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-07, 02:09 AM

:smallconfused:

Come again? I understood next to none of that.

HP (damage taken) and healing surges (some sort of stamina meter, reserves) are different.

The common explanation for second wind and warlord healing is "Your not actually taking damage. Just loosing energy".

If my potion is regenerating my tissue I have no idea how its limited by my stamina. Sos the same with magic. If its regenerating my energy (Which seems more likely for 4e) then its both regenerating your energy and draining you of it.

huttj509

2012-02-07, 02:45 AM

Hit Points have always been a bit of a dissociated mechanic. HP as straight physical injury requires some sort of scaling down (is the 10th level fighter getting his arm torn off repeatedly, or is the 1st level fighter half dead because of a literal papercut?)

So, the general design interpretation of HP was that they were a combination of luck, stamina, and yes, physical wounds.

When you vieew HP in that sense, the Second Wind abilities, martial healing powers, and yes, even healing potions, make a lot more sense.

Think Princess Bride (my name is Inigo Montoya), Pro Wrestling (Hulk Hogan's an explicitly called out example in the wizards podcasts), almost any movie featuring the voice of R. Lee Ermey (the stereotypical drill sergeant) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._Lee_Ermey).

Now, you may not think of HP as anything other than strictly physical wounds, but the developers did (of course, then poison comes into play and complicates things again).

And this is not strictly a 4E issue, though 4E addressed it with the mechanics (since they also wanted to get away from the idea of needing a divine caster in every party to be a healing source). DnD has always had a handwavey relationship with HP, especially when it comes to item HP.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-07, 02:54 AM

It does, but that doesn't make Healing surges make more sense.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-07, 05:59 AM

Just to make the point, in any other system, if one character is taking too much damage, you can add another healer to the group to increase how long the group will last. With healing surges, this does nothing.
Yes. Ironic, isn't it? Healing surges were created to enable adventuring parties to go through more encounters before taking an extended rest, but they end up forcing parties to go through less.

My group plays pretty light on the item juggling side of things, but if you were playing hardcore RAW item management, then *any* consumable becomes much more difficult to deal with, not just Healing Potions.
Well, yes. There is a clear problem with those item management rules, and that's one of the reasons the majority of consumables in 4E are pointless.

Fluff doesn't match the crunch? The fluff is its magic water that heals you. The crunch is it requires a healing surge to heal you.
The crunch is that it's magic water that sometimes heals you and sometimes doesn't.

Hit Points have always been a bit of a dissociated mechanic.
Sure, but healing surges are worse. Hit points do have the sense to act consistently with physical wounds most of the time, in a heroic game where the barbarian hero does take twenty swords to the face and is still standing. Not a realistic approach, but a cinematic one.

Leolo

2012-02-07, 06:59 AM

Yes. Ironic, isn't it? Healing surges were created to enable adventuring parties to go through more encounters before taking an extended rest, but they end up forcing parties to go through less.

I always hated the wands of cure light wounds groups tend to pull out. It makes much more sense that healing is limited and you can not simple heal yourself and be fresh again infinite.

Sure, but healing surges are worse. Hit points do have the sense to act consistently with physical wounds most of the time, in a heroic game where the barbarian hero does take twenty swords to the face and is still standing. Not a realistic approach, but a cinematic one.

Healing surges makes a difference between: "How much can i take in a short period of time?" and "How much can i take at all?"

And i do think it is a good idea to make this difference important, because it is logical that a short rest should help the characters. In fact "no, if you do not rest 8 hours you gain no benefit" sounds a lot less realistic than "Yes, resting a short period will help you, but resting for some hours and get some sleep would be better"

Especially when HP loss is not only physical wounds.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-07, 07:02 AM

Using magic will cure your wounds VS

Using sleep/ five minutes of rest to insta cure your soul drain, burns and brain damage.

Which one makes more sense?

Kurald Galain

2012-02-07, 07:30 AM

Using magic will cure your wounds VS

Using sleep/ five minutes of rest to insta cure your soul drain, burns and brain damage.

Which one makes more sense?

Oh, it's even funnier. If your sword got eaten by a rust monster, five minutes of rest will somehow un-eat the sword. That's something the 4.0 designers publically admitted being proud of adding.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-07, 07:34 AM

Its actually a good idea but their design philosophy was take a good idea and fudge it up.

Their idea would make the monster scary but remove save or die effects.

But they also decided that lasting consequences are BAD.

For example:

flesh to stone:

Take 5+ level Dexterity drain

This drain can only be cured through stone to flesh and ect.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-07, 08:37 AM

While it's true that it's pretty much impossible to not take any damage in any fight that's not a pushover, that doesn't mean you can't control how much damage you take at all. A wizard holding back spells is going to make the fight take longer and cost more hp, which requires spending more resources to heal. A fight in 4e where no one uses anything other than at-wills is going to drain notably more health resources than one in which they use encounters and even dailies.

I've never seen a notable 4e encounter in which everyone chose to use only at-wills. Encounter powers tend to get used early and often, starting with the highest level one available and working down.

So, yeah, this is true in theory, but the correct choice is remarkably obvious, and everyone does it. You could, in theory, take even more damage by choosing to not attack at all, but that's not really a plausible choice.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-07, 09:30 AM

Reverent-One

2012-02-07, 09:32 AM

I've never seen a notable 4e encounter in which everyone chose to use only at-wills. Encounter powers tend to get used early and often, starting with the highest level one available and working down.

So, yeah, this is true in theory, but the correct choice is remarkably obvious, and everyone does it. You could, in theory, take even more damage by choosing to not attack at all, but that's not really a plausible choice.

You're missing the point. I'm not saying there are actually parties that use only at-wills in encounters, but giving an obvious theoretical example of how the damage can vary in a fight and your choices can affect that amount as erikun seemed to consider the damage you take in a fight to be something of a constant. That specific example is an extreme one, but is no less true because of that.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-07, 09:44 AM

My persona favourite stupid power in 4e is "Hurl through hell".

You hurl your oponent through hell! Then you just poof him back....What.

Reverent-One

2012-02-07, 09:46 AM

My persona favourite stupid power in 4e is "Hurl through hell".

You hurl your oponent through hell! Then you just poof him back....What.

Do you have anything more to contribe than random rants about stuff you don't like in 4e?

Rathyr

2012-02-07, 09:53 AM

Using magic will cure your wounds VS

Using sleep/ five minutes of rest to insta cure your soul drain, burns and brain damage.

Which one makes more sense?

Resting 8 hours or a 5 minute nap? Did you really put those side by side? Could you stop making such outrageous comparisons? They really don't strengthen your argument.

Short rest (5 mins) and extended rest (8 hours) in 4e do different things. Short rest allows you to spend healing surges to regain HP, representing quick fixes. A breather, if you will. Extended rest restores both HP and surges to full, representing completely recovering from your exertions during the day.

So yea, I take the "8 hours of food, bedrest, meditation and (possibly magical) medical care" over "My magic stick let me do it" for what makes sense to me.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-07, 09:56 AM

Do you have anything more to contribe than random rants about stuff you don't like in 4e?

I just said that their idea of removing save or die effects was a good one. They just messed up on it. So was their idea of moral neutrality (Messed up on that) and so was their idea of simplified monster thingies (and again)

Short rest (5 mins) and extended rest (8 hours) in 4e do different things. Short rest allows you to spend healing surges to regain HP, representing quick fixes.

FULL fixes mind you. Including damage to the soul, Phsychic brain damage, being poisoned, burns and cuts. IN FIVE MINUTES. Screw regeneration! These characters can survive all that on the first level in five minutes!

You just don't restore Healing surges (WTF are they anyway?)

A breather, if you will. Extended rest restores both HP and surges to full, representing completely recovering from your exertions during the day.

Points to above. 3e allowed you to recover at a rather phenomenal rate too, but it was still much realistically slower.

8 hours of food, bedrest, meditation and (possibly magical) medical care

To completly and utterly heal my:

Burn wounds
Cuts
Soul drain
Poison

Making a post that soley says "You know what specific thing I don't like/is stupid about 4e? It's <X>." is just ranting and irrelevant to the purpose of the thread.

You got me there

Reverent-One

2012-02-07, 09:59 AM

I just said that their idea of removing save or die effects was a good one. They just messed up on it. So was their idea of moral neutrality (Messed up on that) and so was their idea of simplified monster thingies (and again)

Making a post that soley says "You know what specific thing I don't like/is stupid about 4e? It's <X>." is just ranting and irrelevant to the purpose of the thread.

Leolo

2012-02-07, 10:02 AM

Using magic will cure your wounds VS

Using sleep/ five minutes of rest to insta cure your soul drain, burns and brain damage.

Which one makes more sense?

the point is: you don't actually have this damage, or at least it wasn't enough damage to stop you. Your leg is not broken, your soul is not drained, and the fire has not burned your skin. No one has eaten your brain. You'd be dead if this would be the case.

But your leg has been kicked, your soul was touched by necromantic energy and you have barely escaped the fire with some short pain as the armor that protected you could not spare you the heat. And the ilithid was already scratching your skin.

Rathyr

2012-02-07, 10:04 AM

Well, yes. There is a clear problem with those item management rules, and that's one of the reasons the majority of consumables in 4E are pointless.

The crunch is that it's magic water that sometimes heals you and sometimes doesn't.

Item micromanagement is not a lot of fun, at least to my group. I hope they simplify it in 5e.

I don't see the problem with this. It's not just healing potions, it's healing surges healing in general. Clearly there are camps of people that think that "magic healing" should bypass all physical restrictions, all the time. There are some heals like that (clerics, in general, have the most "surgeless healing in 4e, which is very powerful), but most follow the surge mechanic.

So yes, I don't see a problem with magic healing not healing ALL the time, if the person getting healed is a completely exhausted, battered wreck that has nothing left to give. We won't see eye to eye on this issue, because you don't agree with the healing surge mechanic.

NinjaStylerobot

2012-02-07, 10:09 AM

But your leg has been kicked, your soul was touched by necromantic energy and you have barely escaped the fire with some short pain as the armor that protected you could not spare you the heat. And the ilithid was already scratching your skin.

So why is your HP going down? Why do stronger attacks drain MORE HP? If you literally have been poisoned that makes no sense. What about those psychic attacks? That hurt your head? What about when you are grappled by a devourer and have your soul eaten by him.

3e goes under the same principle as you said (Sorta) but it depends on magical healing for quick fixes.

I can get reduced to 1 HP and then go back up to 100 in 5 minutes.

Reverent-One

2012-02-07, 10:15 AM

So why is your HP going down? Why do stronger attacks drain MORE HP? If you literally have been poisoned that makes no sense. What about those psychic attacks? That hurt your head?

Because you're not escaping entirely untouched and you're getting tired out in the process. Thus it's getting harder to keep going and it'll take less to take you out permanently.

What about when you are grappled by a devourer and have your soul eaten by him.

Well, if your soul is eaten, you're dead.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-07, 10:15 AM

Clearly there are camps of people that think that "magic healing" should bypass all physical restrictions, all the time.
No, it's not that. The people disagreeing with you are looking for restrictions that make sense in-character.

It is fine to claim that potions mess up your metabolism and that as a result you can only benefit from a number of potions per day that equals your constitution modifier. Note that this would apply to all potions, not just healing. Or there could be a rule that drinking several potions could result in side effects (a rule from 1E, with accompanying side effect table). Or, if potions are abused, make them expensive or hard to get.
Divine healing? Perhaps, if you're not devout enough, the gods may be reluctant to heal you. We can use wisdom for devotion, so you can benefit from a number of healing spells per day equal to your wisdom mod, and you can increase this limit for a month by spending X gold pieces in tribute to the local temple.

The problem is with 4E's approach of making potions cheap and available everywhere, and stopping abuse with an arbitrary mechanical reason that doesn't work in-character.

My persona favourite stupid power in 4e is "Hurl through hell".

You hurl your oponent through hell! Then you just poof him back....What.
Yeah, that's pretty funny. We should make a thread of silliest effects in roleplaying games (no reason to limit that to 4E, although it does have a lot of them).

Oracle_Hunter

2012-02-07, 10:16 AM

So why is your HP going down? Why do stronger attacks drain MORE HP? If you literally have been poisoned that makes no sense. What about those psychic attacks? That hurt your head? What about when you are grappled by a devourer and have your soul eaten by him.

3e goes under the same principle as you said (Sorta) but it depends on magical healing for quick fixes.

I can get reduced to 1 HP and then go back up to 100 in 5 minutes.
Buddy, HP was never about the physical damage you took. If they were, then pretty much everyone should die after falling off a 50' cliff or taking a dagger to the face.

HP is one of the many "abstracted" mechanics in D&D that have been around for a long time. I put "abstracted" in quotes because apparently some abstracted mechanics that haven't been around long enough are called "disassociated" and I wouldn't want anyone to get confused :smalltongue:

Reverent-One

2012-02-07, 10:19 AM

The problem is with 4E's approach of making potions cheap and available everywhere, and stopping abuse with an arbitrary mechanical reason that doesn't work in-character.

It makes fine sense in character. You are simply drained at that point, your body lacking any internal reserves of energy for the potion to use.

Kansaschaser

2012-02-07, 10:29 AM

Rathyr

2012-02-07, 11:37 AM

No, it's not that. The people disagreeing with you are looking for restrictions that make sense in-character.

The healing surge restriction makes a great deal of sense to many people. Many have posted what the healing surge represents. You don't like the idea of a universal stamina pool. I get that. But it is perfectly in-character for me.

It is fine to claim that potions mess up your metabolism and that as a result you can only benefit from a number of potions per day that equals your constitution modifier. Note that this would apply to all potions, not just healing. Or there could be a rule that drinking several potions could result in side effects (a rule from 1E, with accompanying side effect table). Or, if potions are abused, make them expensive or hard to get.
Divine healing? Perhaps, if you're not devout enough, the gods may be reluctant to heal you. We can use wisdom for devotion, so you can benefit from a number of healing spells per day equal to your wisdom mod, and you can increase this limit for a month by spending X gold pieces in tribute to the local temple.

Overly specific details and pointless book keeping, in my eyes. I want a blanket mechanic that can address different types characters day-long stamina. The rules need to concise enough to play in a timely fashion, and having different stats used for different types of healing is not concise. Each class that has a different power source using a different type of healing? Pass. Way to bogged down in trying to make an unrealistic game mechanic more "real".

A cleric not being able to heal as much as a high Con class is a great example of "The faith is strong, but the body is weak". Wisdom helping Clerics heal is represented somewhere else in their character, at least in 4e (surgeless healing for one, +Wis when they heal others, etc).

The problem is with 4E's approach of making potions cheap and available everywhere, and stopping abuse with an arbitrary mechanical reason that doesn't work in-character.

4e potions could definitely be improved (to be honest, I have yet to like any item system in any edition of D&D)... but the mechanic does work in-character for many people, as it follows the pre-established rule for healing surges. You just don't agree with it.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-07, 11:45 AM

The healing surge restriction makes a great deal of sense to many people. Many have posted what the healing surge represents.
If by "many" you mean "two or three", then yes. Also, once again, what they've posted is not consistent with what the surges actually do.

You don't like the idea of a universal stamina pool. I get that.
No, you don't. Don't put words in my mouth.

Reverent-One

2012-02-07, 11:59 AM

If by "many" you mean "two or three", then yes. Also, once again, what they've posted is not consistent with what the surges actually do.

Sorry, but just claiming that it's not consistent with what they do doesn't make it true, no matter how much you repeat it. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to actually address the opposing points, not just keep insisting you're right without giving reasons why.

PairO'Dice Lost

2012-02-07, 12:16 PM

I personally have no problem with the general idea of the healing surge mechanic or similar recharge-yourself-throughout-the-day mechanics, I just have an issue with the fact that they work with precisely the same effectiveness X times and then not at all on the [X+1]th and subsequent times. If healing potions and warlord healing and such are supposed to represent drawing on your own stamina, which becomes less effective over the day, it would make more sense for them to apply a gradually decreasing amount of healing than to have a purely binary effect. Whether it's a certain amount of healing with a gradually increasing penalty (say, start at HP = surge value, minus Con mod every time, and throw in "a short rest reduces the penalty by your Con mod" for giggles), or whether healing is dependent on the healer's attributes somehow and every use of healing penalizes that (e.g. 1/2 level * key stat, -1 effective CL per previous use) for easier math, or even something like reserve points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/reservePoints.htm), I'd prefer that to the current system. You wouldn't even need to uncap the number of surges you get--as long as there's a noticeable dip in effectiveness each time, I can justify why you run out of surges, as opposed to "fine, fine, fine, fine, fine, nothing."

My group actually tried something like this the last time someone ran a 4e one-shot, and it worked out well enough. Healing potions weren't all that abusable because you're not going to pull one out if it's only going to heal single-digit HP at paragon tier, the cleric got to use the line "the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" a few times, after a particularly long and heavy battle the fighter was breathing heavily and telling the warlord "I don't care...how much you yell, Sarge...I ain't moving from this spot...til I take a little breather....", and the whole thing made healing potions seem a lot more like Red Bull and a lot less like randomly-functional HP-regenerating machines.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-07, 12:22 PM

Buddy, HP was never about the physical damage you took. If they were, then pretty much everyone should die after falling off a 50' cliff or taking a dagger to the face.

That entirely depends on the level of realism you care to play at.

A completely hp = damage viewpoint is quite consistent in 3.5 if you don't mind tougher martial chars surviving a dip in lava or freefalling from the sky.

Clawhound

2012-02-07, 12:24 PM

Suggestion for 5th Edition: Don't give Deity's stats. As it's been proven in the past, "Anything with stats can be killed." You can give them portfollios, domains, and ranks if you want, but just don't give them stats.

Question: Should there be level caps like there was in 2.0? We already know that when characters reach level 40+(possibly even 20+), they can break the action economy and the worlds financial economy. Should there be caps put on characters levels? Or possibly class levels?

In video games where there is a level cap, once you hit that cap, you can still increase in power by aquiring better items, spells, or abilities. Would that be possible in 5th edition, or should they remove level caps and adjust the rules for epic level characters so they don't break the world into a thousand pieces?

Common pieces of magic should have a price (or price range). Anything uncommon or rare should have no price.

If characters can hit all the numbers that they should, we can avoid the whole "wealth by level" fiasco. That will help us avoid the whole wealth fiasco in general.

We can add additional "wealths" into the game as well. The Sword of Moe gives you +1 martial prestige, while the Grail of Duff's gives you +1 divine prestige. You use prestige to buy social advantages. Or maybe you can use that +1 martial prestige to trade for a +1 weapon, while that +1 divine prestige trades for a magic holy symbol. That would help the feel of a barter economy.

We can also do abstract wealth.

Reverent-One

2012-02-07, 12:27 PM

I personally have no problem with the general idea of the healing surge mechanic or similar recharge-yourself-throughout-the-day mechanics, I just have an issue with the fact that they work with precisely the same effectiveness X times and then not at all on the [X+1]th and subsequent times. If healing potions and warlord healing and such are supposed to represent drawing on your own stamina, which becomes less effective over the day, it would make more sense for them to apply a gradually decreasing amount of healing than to have a purely binary effect. Whether it's a certain amount of healing with a gradually increasing penalty (say, start at HP = surge value, minus Con mod every time, and throw in "a short rest reduces the penalty by your Con mod" for giggles), or whether healing is dependent on the healer's attributes somehow and every use of healing penalizes that (e.g. 1/2 level * key stat, -1 effective CL per previous use) for easier math, or even something like reserve points (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adventuring/reservePoints.htm), I'd prefer that to the current system. You wouldn't even need to uncap the number of surges you get--as long as there's a noticeable dip in effectiveness each time, I can justify why you run out of surges, as opposed to "fine, fine, fine, fine, fine, nothing."

I can understand the arugment to have a diminishing amount of healing from each healing surge, but by that same logic your combat effectiveness should go down as you lose hit points instead of it merely determining the binary state of A) perfectly combat capable or B) unconsious. And if they're not handling hit points that way, why apply that extra detail to healing surges? It's inconsistent then, perhaps unimportantly inconsistent, but still.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-07, 12:44 PM

Common pieces of magic should have a price (or price range). Anything uncommon or rare should have no price.

If characters can hit all the numbers that they should, we can avoid the whole "wealth by level" fiasco. That will help us avoid the whole wealth fiasco in general.

We can add additional "wealths" into the game as well. The Sword of Moe gives you +1 martial prestige, while the Grail of Duff's gives you +1 divine prestige. You use prestige to buy social advantages. Or maybe you can use that +1 martial prestige to trade for a +1 weapon, while that +1 divine prestige trades for a magic holy symbol. That would help the feel of a barter economy.

We can also do abstract wealth.

Well, here's the thing...what happens when you want to sell that uncommon or rare magical thing? There needs to be a price. There's a difference between something having a price and assuming that a given item is always available if you have the funds.

Also, I hate wealth systems so much. Barter systems lead to lots of arguing and bargaining, and wealth systems are prone to exploitation. Consider D20 Modern's wealth system...it's horrific.

I can understand the arugment to have a diminishing amount of healing from each healing surge, but by that same logic your combat effectiveness should go down as you lose hit points instead of it merely determining the binary state of A) perfectly combat capable or B) unconsious. And if they're not handling hit points that way, why apply that extra detail to healing surges? It's inconsistent then, perhaps unimportantly inconsistent, but still.

We really should have an in-between stage, if we want 4e to be consistent. Let's call it...say...bloodied. Let's put it at half hit points. Bam, we no longer have a binary state.

Rathyr

2012-02-07, 12:44 PM

If by "many" you mean "two or three", then yes. Also, once again, what they've posted is not consistent with what the surges actually do.

Please. Two or three on this thread, perhaps. I can go find you explanations far better than mine detailing the many ways to interpret healing surges, on other threads or forums. It's hardly a topic that hasn't been debated in the past.

As Reverent-One said, you need to explain how surges are not consistent with what they are meant to do, instead of just repeating that they don't work in-character. Otherwise, we are both wasting our time with this conversation.

No, you don't. Don't put words in my mouth.

Your idea of having different types of stamina pools for different types of healing seemed to suggest you did not like the "all healing draws from this one source, regardless of flavor". Apologies if that is not the case.

Seerow

2012-02-07, 12:50 PM

erikun

2012-02-07, 01:08 PM

You're missing the point. I'm not saying there are actually parties that use only at-wills in encounters, but giving an obvious theoretical example of how the damage can vary in a fight and your choices can affect that amount as erikun seemed to consider the damage you take in a fight to be something of a constant. That specific example is an extreme one, but is no less true because of that.
Not constant, but rather continuous. Sure, you could dump several dailies into an encounter to end it in half the time, but it doing so the opponents would throw out their most damaging attacks in response. You'd prevent the damage from several rounds of at-will attacks, but that isn't where the majority of the damage comes from.

Older editions had ways of actually not taking damage, though. In pre-3e, ambushes actually meant something and had a good chance of killing of or seriously injuring most opponents. Pre-4e had magical healing items, such as potions or Pearls of Power, that could be bought at used when the party wanted to keep going. The only thing that 4e offers in that regard, though, is the mentioned ritual that allows swapping healing surges between characters - nice if one character has problems, but not if the whole party is worn down.

Perhaps games heavily focused on minions or much higher level play differently, but my games ranging between first level and fifteenth have been the above. The insistence on cinematic combat (with still limited resources) and the inability to spend any other resource to keep the party going have pretty much taken away my options on when to stop adventuring for the day.

(And to whoever recommended buying more armor, the exponentially increasing price prevent that from being an option.)

I don't see the problem with this. It's not just healing potions, it's healing surges healing in general. Clearly there are camps of people that think that "magic healing" should bypass all physical restrictions, all the time. There are some heals like that (clerics, in general, have the most "surgeless healing in 4e, which is very powerful), but most follow the surge mechanic.
I'm fine with the concept of healing surges, representing stored resilience or whatever and that magic cannot help someone who has been extended beyond their limit. Heck, such logic appears in fantasy literature from time to time as well.

The problem is that it isn't a very good game mechanic. It stops the game and tells the players that they're done playing, at least with the rest of the system insisting on large combats with every encounter.

Rathyr

2012-02-07, 01:25 PM

I'm fine with the concept of healing surges, representing stored resilience or whatever and that magic cannot help someone who has been extended beyond their limit. Heck, such logic appears in fantasy literature from time to time as well.

The problem is that it isn't a very good game mechanic. It stops the game and tells the players that they're done playing, at least with the rest of the system insisting on large combats with every encounter.

I'm failing to see how running out of surges in 4e is any different than running out of healing spells/potions/wands of previous editions. You've expended your resources, and didn't make it as far as you planned to. To me, complaining about running out of healing surges is like complaining when a monster reduces you to zero HPs. It's a limit on your character, and you need to be aware of it.

No game mechanic is perfect. I'd love to see more things along the lines of the ritual that allow the party to push on for another fight or two... but you also have to keep in mind, what is the point of having a resource limitation if you simply allow the party to bypass it anytime it becomes a problem? Would you allow a Wizard to recharge all of his spells because he spent them too quickly?

kyoryu

2012-02-07, 01:38 PM

The common explanation for second wind and warlord healing is "Your not actually taking damage. Just loosing energy".

If my potion is regenerating my tissue I have no idea how its limited by my stamina. Sos the same with magic. If its regenerating my energy (Which seems more likely for 4e) then its both regenerating your energy and draining you of it.

Sort of. I view healing surges as your overall health, fitness, ability to keep going, etc. Hit points is more like the trauma you've recently taken.

The boxing analogy is the one I like the best - a boxer can get beat up badly in a round, to the point of almost dropping (hit point loss), then rest for a minute, and go and do it again (short rest/healing surges). At some point, though, he'll reach his reserves of endurance and can't do it (easy knockout at the beginning of the round).

And I've always viewed warlord healing as more of a "grit your teeth and bear it" thing. The wounds are there, but you press on regardless. D&D has always been pretty bad about actually representing wounds, anyway.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-07, 01:46 PM

Crow

2012-02-07, 01:49 PM

kyoryu

2012-02-07, 02:00 PM

Tyndmyr

2012-02-07, 02:19 PM

Your character decides how much the item is worth to him, and then you try to find someone else who wants it and is willing to pay. Then you negotiate when what he thinks it's worth doesn't match with what you think it's worth.

Come to an agreement, and it's sold.

How does this process work, mechanically?

Tiki Snakes

2012-02-07, 02:44 PM

I've never had a problem with healing surges as representing the total amount of healing that can be imposed upon a person. I'm sure I'd read in several books similar concepts, where magical healing in particular can only do so much before it actually starts to be unhelpful or even outright dangerous for the target. I quite like the concept, infact. It's rare that I've ever seen a player run out anyway.

Though, yeah, I can't see any real reason why Healing Potions wouldn't key off of your Surge value. I've only really seen them used in practice as a way of antisocial characters to avoid relying on the rest of the party (only really a one off occurrance) or more often as an in-case-of-emergency way to stop someone from failing death saving throws (incase of clerical/warlordy incompetance and/or unavailability).

Kurald Galain

2012-02-07, 03:17 PM

This article (http://critical-hits.com/2012/02/03/initial-impressions-of-the-new-dd/) gives some impression of the 5E mechanics (or at least, their prototype).

Tyndmyr

2012-02-07, 03:18 PM

Why would you be wanting to sell your amazing magic items? If the magic item is actually that valuable, it probably shouldn't be something you can sell to a merchant, even a really rich one. I've used the Shards from The Way of Kings as an example before, and I think they're a good one. People who acquire a shard generally won't give them up for anything. If someone gets extras somehow, they give them to close friends and allies. Wars are fought over the things, and VERY rarely they get used as bargaining chips between people with power. But outright selling one is unheard of.

Because money IS power. Can you think of a real life example of an item that has not been sold for power, or that nobody, anywhere would want to sell, yet was valuable?

Seerow

2012-02-07, 03:25 PM

Because money IS power. Can you think of a real life example of an item that has not been sold for power, or that nobody, anywhere would want to sell, yet was valuable?

Let me put it this way. Imagine in real life, today, someone invented a teleportation machine. He COULD sell it for an outrageous amount of money, or he could keep it for his own use and profit through using it. Or he could sell limited access to it and profit through the leasing. Either of the latter options would likely be far more valuable in the long run.

Adventurers are almost certainly going to be rich just based on their adventures. No need for selling magic items for wealth and power, they get those things as they actually do stuff, and chances are magic items are helping them accomplish that. Magic items shouldn't get to the point where they are prolific enough for a set market price to be established. The second you reach that point, you also reach the point where you can buy magic items with gold. And now you're back to 3.5 wealth by level. The only way to actually avoid a wealth by level scenario is to divorce the relationship between magic and gold, and making items valuable enough that players aren't looking for the nearest place to vend it.

Clawhound

2012-02-07, 03:35 PM

Well, here's the thing...what happens when you want to sell that uncommon or rare magical thing? There needs to be a price. There's a difference between something having a price and assuming that a given item is always available if you have the funds.

Also, I hate wealth systems so much. Barter systems lead to lots of arguing and bargaining, and wealth systems are prone to exploitation. Consider D20 Modern's wealth system...it's horrific.

This is why I propose something of an alternate-to-gold system.

You found a +1 flaming sword. They're rare enough. Nobody has enough money to buy it, but they do have other things to trade. You give it to the Duke, and the Duke grants you a title, a charter, land, or something else cool.

I did some experimentation with giving folks more abstract rewards. I would give them valueless things that others wanted, and they could pick the actual reward within a value range. For example, "The Scone of Stones", the most inedible scone ever produced, has fallen into the players' hands. The stumblingdrunk dwarves want it badly. The players trade it for a +2 shield of defending.

So you still buy and sell, and players still get what they want, you just avoid most of the gold counting.

In essence, a magic item becomes currency, trade-able for like currency in the same tier.

Another thing that I did was to give the players ingredients. When they got enough together, they could do a ritual to make a magic item. Once again, they got to decide what they made.

"Oh, a bag of fire gems. They are good for making fire-based magic items."

The worst way that I gave them wealth was to let them find things. Sometimes it worked, but most of the time folks were just unhappy. Having some utility beyond "we sell it" really did help the game.

Rathyr

2012-02-07, 03:36 PM

The difference is as follows:

3.5: I'm bleeding everywhere, out of potions, and Im trapped in the middle of the desert. Oh crap, this is going to be ugly.

4e: Well, I've got this giant pile of potions that I am sunbathing on, but they do nothing to me. Worked fine a minute ago, but now? I'm all alone in the desert, entirely unable to heal myself with potions of frigging HEALING. Hell, I'd complain about them not even quenching my thirst, but dehydration is not a thing, so I'll just bake in the sun for 24 hours, and BAM, potions start working again.

:smallconfused:

What DM worth his salt would let someone in the middle of the blazing desert (with no shelter/supplies) count as getting a extended rest? Needs to be uninterupted and... restful? If you cannot meet these basic requirements, you don't get your surges back.

Anyways, your comparison did nothing to illustrate how 1e/2e/3e limited healing mechanics (spells/potions/wands) differ in a meaningful, mechanical way from Healing Surges. Both serve as a limitation to an adventuring day, based off recovering lost HP. Once either pools are exhausted, you have your remaining hitpoints, and it is typically time to take a break.

Again, I don't care that the Potion has the word "Healing" in it. It heals you, under certain conditions. A Potion of Flight doesn't mean you can out race a rocket jet, or enter the upper atmosphere. It has a function WITHIN LIMITS.

Coming off pretty obviously as a 4e-hater, BTW. Undermines your argument if you can't paint an unbiased picture to make a point.

Tyndmyr

2012-02-07, 03:45 PM

Let me put it this way. Imagine in real life, today, someone invented a teleportation machine. He COULD sell it for an outrageous amount of money, or he could keep it for his own use and profit through using it. Or he could sell limited access to it and profit through the leasing. Either of the latter options would likely be far more valuable in the long run.

I, personally, would sell that in a heartbeat, because for a number of reasons, I view using a teleportation machine as equivalent to death. On the other hand, I like money, and have no qualms about others using it.

Even leaving such beliefs aside...many people routinely pick the "more money now" option over the good long term investment.

Adventurers are almost certainly going to be rich just based on their adventures. No need for selling magic items for wealth and power, they get those things as they actually do stuff, and chances are magic items are helping them accomplish that. Magic items shouldn't get to the point where they are prolific enough for a set market price to be established. The second you reach that point, you also reach the point where you can buy magic items with gold. And now you're back to 3.5 wealth by level. The only way to actually avoid a wealth by level scenario is to divorce the relationship between magic and gold, and making items valuable enough that players aren't looking for the nearest place to vend it.

There is no such thing as "rich enough".

Seerow

2012-02-07, 03:51 PM

I, personally, would sell that in a heartbeat, because for a number of reasons, I view using a teleportation machine as equivalent to death. On the other hand, I like money, and have no qualms about others using it.

Even leaving such beliefs aside...many people routinely pick the "more money now" option over the good long term investment.

And the people who do are rarely adventurers. If you want to sell all your magic items and go live in the lap of luxury forever, you can do that. And I'm sure that an adventurer would be able to find a king willing to trade some very rich lands with a steady income for a magic item, if a PC decided he wanted to go out that way.

But as long as the PC is still going out and doing things, chances are his magic items are something he will still want to be using as a part of doing things.

kyoryu

2012-02-07, 04:16 PM

This article (http://critical-hits.com/2012/02/03/initial-impressions-of-the-new-dd/) gives some impression of the 5E mechanics (or at least, their prototype).

Call me cautiously optimistic.

I like this quote:

Described by Monte Cook as the core mechanic of the game, the players told the DM what they wanted to do and the DM told them whether they succeeded or not.

Seerow

2012-02-07, 04:40 PM

Call me cautiously optimistic.

I like this quote:

It's magic tea party, the game!

Talakeal

2012-02-07, 04:46 PM

I view using a teleportation machine as equivalent to death.

Out of curiosity, are you saying that based on the Star Trek transporter which disintegrates you and makes a copy? Because not all teleporters need to work on that principal, a far more likely teleporter would simply create a temporary wormhole between two points, which shouldn't result in death (unless you forget to adjust the rotational velocity between the two ends).

kyoryu

2012-02-07, 04:54 PM

It's magic tea party, the game!

Huh?

I'm guessing your point is that you don't want the DM to have that much power, but rather to be a co-player bound by rules?

erikun

2012-02-07, 04:55 PM

I'm failing to see how running out of surges in 4e is any different than running out of healing spells/potions/wands of previous editions. You've expended your resources, and didn't make it as far as you planned to. To me, complaining about running out of healing surges is like complaining when a monster reduces you to zero HPs. It's a limit on your character, and you need to be aware of it.
Well, HP is a silly limiting tool that gets taxed through encounters and sets a limit to what a party can do as well. Anyone who's had a party without a cleric (or other healer, and minus 3e's magic recovery belts) will probably note the same. As such, comparing the silliness of surges to the silliness of HP isn't really an improvement.

Second, there is a very big difference between zero surges and zero HP. A character with zero surges is still up and about, making choices and still capable of fighting. A character with zero HP is a meatstick, being carried around until the party can find a convenient resurrection point (if lucky).

Third, the question is not the decision a character makes when at zero HP, but just before. A character at low HP has a lot of options available to them: They could get healing, or consume a healing item, or retreat. A character with low (generally meaning one) surges really only has one option: retreat. Well, I suppose they could continue onward and basically guarantee their death, but you are still removing options for the player.

Finally, players have choices on how to deal with characters losing HP. They can pick up consumable items. They could pick up wands for the cleric. They could pick up methods of regeneration or automatic healing. They could even choose to play with more cleric than usual, granting more survivability. Players don't have any way to deal with losing healing surges, though. There is no method, in game or out, to produce more surges for an adventuring party.

Seerow

2012-02-07, 05:01 PM

Huh?

I'm guessing your point is that you don't want the DM to have that much power, but rather to be a co-player bound by rules?

I don't mind a DM bending the rules when it's fitting. But calling that the central defining mechanic of the game is very discouraging.

If I wanted to play a game where I describe what I want to do, and ask the DM if it works, I wouldn't need a game at all. We can all sit around and free form RP doing exactly that. If I'm spending money on a game, I expect there to actually be a game, and not a bunch of text that boils down to "You can do what your DM says you can do".

kyoryu

2012-02-07, 05:23 PM

I don't mind a DM bending the rules when it's fitting. But calling that the central defining mechanic of the game is very discouraging.

If I wanted to play a game where I describe what I want to do, and ask the DM if it works, I wouldn't need a game at all. We can all sit around and free form RP doing exactly that. If I'm spending money on a game, I expect there to actually be a game, and not a bunch of text that boils down to "You can do what your DM says you can do".

Also known as first and second edition. The good part is that it allowed for extraordinary freedom, without requiring rules for every little thing.

The bad part is if that you got a bad DM, it was a terrible, terrible game.

Rathyr

2012-02-07, 05:30 PM

Well, HP is a silly limiting tool that gets taxed through encounters and sets a limit to what a party can do as well. Anyone who's had a party without a cleric (or other healer, and minus 3e's magic recovery belts) will probably note the same. As such, comparing the silliness of surges to the silliness of HP isn't really an improvement.

I don't think it is silly at all. All I am saying is anyone that can accept and visualize HP's in game should be able to deal with the concept of Healing Surges.

Second, there is a very big difference between zero surges and zero HP. A character with zero surges is still up and about, making choices and still capable of fighting. A character with zero HP is a meatstick, being carried around until the party can find a convenient resurrection point (if lucky).

Naturally. It is not the exact same type of limitation. A Wizard can keep adventuring after all his spells are gone as well.

Third, the question is not the decision a character makes when at zero HP, but just before. A character at low HP has a lot of options available to them: They could get healing, or consume a healing item, or retreat. A character with low (generally meaning one) surges really only has one option: retreat. Well, I suppose they could continue onward and basically guarantee their death, but you are still removing options for the player.

Incorrect. Players at low surges play very similarly to players with low HP. They play cautiously, letting other players, who are in better shape, take he brunt of the assualt. Sticking to your defender, using Stealth, switching to ranged and so on. Getting low on surges is a advance warning that you need to play it safe.

Finally, players have choices on how to deal with characters losing HP. They can pick up consumable items. They could pick up wands for the cleric. They could pick up methods of regeneration or automatic healing. They could even choose to play with more cleric than usual, granting more survivability. Players don't have any way to deal with losing healing surges, though. There is no method, in game or out, to produce more surges for an adventuring party.

Oh?
-There are surgeless healing items (typically dailies).
-Leaders can invest in surgeless healing powers (Clerics, but others as well).
-Artificers make a mockery of the surge mechanic, and are the most efficient surge healer (they are basically a walking form of the surge relocation ritual).
-There are *multiple* feats that increase how many surges you have.
-You can invest in Surge VALUE (not number of surges per day, but how much each surge heals) feats. There are Paragon Paths and items that let you add certain stats to surge value.
-Any feat that increase HP will increase surge value.
-You can increase your Con, which increases your HPs (and thus surge value) and number of surges.
-That fancy surge ritual lets you spread surges to those that ran dry early.

None of these are unlimited, "get of of surge free" cards, and thats a good thing. They all help the player deal with running out of surges too fast, but do not reduce the surge system to nothing.

Kansaschaser

2012-02-07, 05:38 PM

We are so stuck to the idea of hit points to begin with, have we even considered going the route of other role playing games? Wound levels like from the World of Darkness, Body Type Modifiers from Cyberpunk, or hit location (from a ton of different games). These systems don't typically deal with hit points.

The way healing worked from 3.5 to 4th edition was too much of a change for me. Some people liked it and some people don't. Why not take the third option of "no hit points period"?

Timberboar

2012-02-07, 05:41 PM

It makes fine sense in character. You are simply drained at that point, your body lacking any internal reserves of energy for the potion to use.

But... but I'm only down one HP! My "abstracted health meter" is almost maxed out, but my "OTHER abstracted health meter" says I can't eke out one single point of healing?

I have a hard time justifying that situation in my head.

Regardless, we're drifting awfully close to edition wars here. Can we refocus on Next instead of Past?

How does this process work, mechanically?

Why should that need mechanics? Here's the mechanics -- You erase the item from your sheet once the deal is made to the DM's approval, then add the associated amount of money. Done.

Pezmerga

2012-02-07, 05:42 PM

I haven't read all of this, so forgive me if something similar has been said.

I think it'd be neat if they did a subclass for each school for wizards. Instead of just having extra spell slots, maybe give them all cool abilities that work off of their respective school! Depending on what abilities you come up with you could even restrict them to having only spells of their school! Maybe too radical, but It'd be just an option anyway. I'd still wanna see the basic wizard we all know and love/hate.

Maybe make it like this...

Abjurer - Has Abjuration Spells, and class abilities based on Abjuration. They'd be very defensive, but could work.

Conjurer - Has Conjuration spells, and class abilities that enhance or work with conjuring things. I'd like to see summon monster of course, but maybe something to do with summoning good weapons too?

Enchanter - Enchantment spells, etc etc.

Evoker - Obviously the Direct Damager caster! Would have class abilities that deal with enhancing that aspect. You'd also have some other tricks too like Grasping Hand etc.

Illusionist - Yeah

Necromancer - The Undead serve you etc. etc.

Transmuter - Would be FUN. Wizards that turn into dragons and eat their bunny rabbit enemies!

Universalist - your basic wizard. would have less cool stuff, but would have more versatility.

You could even still do the 3.5 specialist too, he'd just not have the cool class abilities of the mored dedicated wizards, but would sitll have some versatility.

I left off Diviner. It just doesn't seem fun to base a class around. Might not be impossible though. The thing is it could either be too lackluster, or could take away the mystery of a game. It'd have to be done right.

Kurald Galain

2012-02-07, 05:47 PM

The bad part is if that you got a bad DM, it was a terrible, terrible game.

Ah, I find that with a bad DM, you're going to end up having a bad game regardless of system or edition.

The way healing worked from 3.5 to 4th edition was too much of a change for me. Some people liked it and some people don't. Why not take the third option of "no hit points period"?

Well, for one, hit points are easy to use, and everyone who's ever played a computer game (or Magic or several other kinds of game) instantly understands them. That's worth something, at least. I've never seen the discussion of whether hit points represent wounds, plot shield, or something else happen at the game table. On the other hand I have seen the discussion of "why doesn't the healing magic work on me" or "how on earth is the warlord doing that" happen a few times.

It strikes me that there are many more people who support hit points, than people who support healing surges. Regardless, 5E is supposed to be modular, so it's possible that we'll see a "hit locations" module, for example. I remember such houserules being common in 2E.

Kansaschaser

2012-02-07, 05:50 PM

I left off Diviner. It just doesn't seem fun to base a class around. Might not be impossible though.

Don't underestimate the power of Divination.

I was in a game where I played a wizard and I purchased tons of divination spells. There was a boss we needed to defeat. I offered to cast divination spells to let us know the bosses location, creature type, powers, weaknesses, and typical schedule. I spent several days casting divination spells to find out everything about this guy, including what all of his magic items did, and what he ate for breakfast.

The information I gathered allowed the rest of the party to create strategies based on the information I gleaned. We had the Sorcerer teleport us right to the boss at just the right time. We caught him off guard with no defenses and no minions. The boss was supposedly several CR's above us, but the fight seemed really easy.

We were given full experience for the fight. We asked the DM why it was so easy and he said, "Some people underestimate the power of Divination. You guys used it perfectly."

From then on, we almost always used Divination spells to help accomplish our goals. It made us feel like a special forces team. :smallbiggrin:

Reverent-One

2012-02-07, 05:51 PM

But... but I'm only down one HP! My "abstracted health meter" is almost maxed out, but my "OTHER abstracted health meter" says I can't eke out one single point of healing?

Sure, because you've loaded everything into your first "abstracted health meter" and have nothing left. You're on your last clip of ammo, no way to replenish it. You're left with the cash in your pocket, there's nothing in your bank account anymore. You've got...ok, I'll stop with the cheesy metaphors now.

EDIT:

Well, for one, hit points are easy to use, and everyone who's ever played a computer game (or Magic or several other kinds of game) instantly understands them. That's worth something, at least. I've never seen the discussion of whether hit points represent wounds, plot shield, or something else happen at the game table. On the other hand I have seen the discussion of "why doesn't the healing magic work on me" or "how on earth is the warlord doing that" happen a few times.

Wait, so you're saying new mechanics breed questions? Crazy!

kyoryu

2012-02-07, 05:59 PM

Ah, I find that with a bad DM, you're going to end up having a bad game regardless of system or edition.

Which is why the quote made me cautiously optimistic, rather than go "oh, no."

But... but I'm only down one HP! My "abstracted health meter" is almost maxed out, but my "OTHER abstracted health meter" says I can't eke out one single point of healing?

You're John McClane in Die Hard. You've taken a beating. You're battered, bruised, and bloodied. Every time you've come close to faltering, you're reminded of what you're fighting for - your ex-wife, the lives of all the people in this stupid tower. You've been knocked down time and again, and each time you could have given up, but you've somehow found the internal strength to keep on going. You're close to that jerk Gruber now, and that's good. Because even though you keep pulling yourself off of the floor, you don't know if you've got it in you to do it yet another time.

Timberboar

2012-02-07, 06:03 PM

Sure, because you've loaded everything into your first "abstracted health meter" and have nothing left. You're on your last clip of ammo, no way to replenish it. You're left with the cash in your pocket, there's nothing in your bank account anymore. You've got...ok, I'll stop with the cheesy metaphors now.

But... available ammunition isn't abstracted. Liquid currency isn't abstracted.

My problem is you have two resource pools for the exact same thing. You can claim they are different (and some have, in this very thread), but those claims feel hollow to me. They're like, and excuse my own cheesy metaphor here, looking at the head of a coin, and then at the tail of a coin, and declaring them to be two separate coins instead of merely two aspects of the same object.

If Healing Surges return in 5E, I hope they are modular so that those of us who find them logically inconsistent can choose not to use that particular module.

You're John McClane in Die Hard. You've taken a beating. You're battered, bruised, and bloodied. [...]

No I'm not. Full HP, remember? I won't be battered, bruised, and bloodied until I've taken 50% more damage. :smallwink:

So. Fifth ed. I for one am happy with the 'magic item progression is no longer core' idea. This is from someone who's spent a lot of time implementing non-magic item systems of reward in 4e.

Very much agreed!