D&DNext: Playtest Review

[hogarth]

Mearls thinks maybe we really ought to go back to the days of 'every group must have at least one cleric healing their asses to do anything'.
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20130218

In the absence of a brand new healing system that they are sure that most people will be happy with, I agree with Mr. Mearls that it makes sense to go with the lowest common denominator among different editions D&D core rules: there's one core class that is the best at healing, and if you don't want to use that class then you have to work around it.

I don't think they can afford to turn off fans of previous editions by trying something radically different when it comes to healing.

[rasmuswagner]

But the healing system is NOT an afterthought you can monkey around with. It's the single most important subsystem of the entire enchilada. Healing dictates pacing.

[shadzar]

But the healing system is NOT an afterthought you can monkey around with. It's the single most important subsystem of the entire enchilada. Healing dictates pacing.

no, it doesn't. that is the problem surges and "everyone is a healer" proved.

healing really is an afterthought, but people fear being without ability to heal on the go. people played and the game popularity rose when there wasnt a healer. to get healed you returned to town and sought a healer.

it still works that way if people jsut learn to play it that way and stop throwing caution to the wind and bitch about dying all the time and death meaningless because of rezz/raise.

play better, not lazier.

[hogarth]

But the healing system is NOT an afterthought you can monkey around with.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying his suggestion of sticking with the same kind of healing system as just about every other version of D&D is "monkeying around"? Isn't that the opposite of "monkeying around"?

[Red_Rob]

Well, for starters you kind of need to decide what healing system you're going with early so that you can design the rest of the system with that knowledge in place. Mearls seems to be saying that because their focus testing didn't give one clear favourite system, they are providing 'options' to make healing 'rarer or more plentiful'.

In particular he suggests that nonmagical healing (i.e. surges) can be implemented or not depending on the DM. Given how much that changes the underlying assumptions of the game you would think that would impact the rest of the system significantly.

[Juton]

There is actually something good about the healing surge mechanics. Not the actual surges them self necessarily, but didn't they let Cure Light Wounds scale so that it was always curing 1/4 of a characters total health? That makes CLW a lot more useful and makes CMW on up a lot less wasteful in combat. I'd like to see that kept in some form than going back to Xd8 + level.

[Lago PARANOIA]

There is actually something good about the healing surge mechanics. Not the actual surges them self necessarily, but didn't they let Cure Light Wounds scale so that it was always curing 1/4 of a characters total health? That makes CLW a lot more useful and makes CMW on up a lot less wasteful in combat. I'd like to see that kept in some form than going back to Xd8 + level.

Unless they're putting a strict limit on the total number of spell charges AND monster damage scales like crazy then this is one of the biggest padded sumo fuckups I've ever heard.

[Username17]

But the healing system is NOT an afterthought you can monkey around with.

I'm not sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying his suggestion of sticking with the same kind of healing system as just about every other version of D&D is "monkeying around"? Isn't that the opposite of "monkeying around"?

What the fuck are you talking about? Healing is massively different through the editions. In 3e, Healing is done largely through cheap and purchasable Healing Sticks that can be used by 5 of 11 starting character classes automatically (and at higher levels, by UMD). In AD&D, not only are you not allowed to buy healing wands, but you can't spontaneously cast Healing spells, and Paladins are rare. In AD&D you're basically expected to take a day off and have the Cleric felate everyone to wellness when people get a lot of injuries. And in 4th edition, you have healing surges which can allow anyone to revert to full health a certain number of times per day, and "Leader" classes increase the number of times per day you can Loony Tunes away all your injuries.

There is no "default" Healing system. Healing defines pacing, and it is unrecogniazably different in the different editions (which perhaps unsurprisingly have completely different pacing).

-Username17

[Juton]

Unless they're putting a strict limit on the total number of spell charges AND monster damage scales like crazy then this is one of the biggest padded sumo fuckups I've ever heard.

Say you change the cure spells in 3.5 to do 1/4 HP for CLW, 1/2 CMW etc. Clerics will still have better things to do with their spells and actions then playing Bandaid. Most encounters don't have a healer on team monster, so no change there. If your BBEG is a divine caster than they have better things to do than keep themselves afloat with cure spells.

From what I see it only makes a difference in three areas. Out of combat healing gets a bit more efficient. Emergency, in battle healing like drinking a potion isn't a waste of effort. Encounters with divine casters may go a bit longer if they decide their DCs are too low to bother the PCs.

[OgreBattle]

This is never going to happen, but it would be pretty bold for D&D to completely abandon the current HP system and just go with "you have 10 hitpoints" and the amount of damage you deal is based on your attack power subtracted by defense.

Healing Surges are like a fiddly compromise between the two. D&D4e goes 30% of the way there with everyone having a Surge Value then X amount of surges.

[Username17]

If you made Cure Serious Wounds into something that cured 3/4 of a character's base hit points, it would basically invalidate monster damage as a thing anyone gave a fuck about at level 5 or so.

-Username17

[Koumei]

This is never going to happen, but it would be pretty bold for D&D to completely abandon the current HP system and just go with "you have 10 hitpoints" and the amount of damage you deal is based on your attack power subtracted by defense.

So basically similar to the Shadowrun/After Sundown approach? Except, being D&D, using a d20 + mods with it being fully possible to go off the RNG so that if a rat rolls a maximum of 20 + 1 = 21 then your high level character goes "My defence is 30" and takes zero damage, but the troll captain then manages to roll a 35 and half-kills them?

[OgreBattle]

This is never going to happen, but it would be pretty bold for D&D to completely abandon the current HP system and just go with "you have 10 hitpoints" and the amount of damage you deal is based on your attack power subtracted by defense.

So basically similar to the Shadowrun/After Sundown approach? Except, being D&D, using a d20 + mods with it being fully possible to go off the RNG so that if a rat rolls a maximum of 20 + 1 = 21 then your high level character goes "My defence is 30" and takes zero damage, but the troll captain then manages to roll a 35 and half-kills them?

Yeah.

Though maybe to keep a bit of D&Dism it can vary from 6 (wizard) to 12 (big strong barbarian man) and that will be the legacy of hitdice.

AC becomes damage reduction
REF becomes your 'touch AC'

...this old thread about a "4 stat system" seems like a good core

http://tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?t=39645

4. If you roll a good attack roll, you inflict extra damage.
For every two points your attack roll exceeds the number you needed to hit, you inflict 1 extra damage.
5. When damage is inflicted upon you, you get a roll to resist that damage. This is called a soak roll. If your soak equals the damage, you suffer no injury.
If you fail that roll by one or more, you suffer a wound. For every two additional points you fail by, you suffer another wound.
Remember that 10 wounds is incapacitating.

though this has damage scale... what's the word, 'triangularly'? Is that something you must do when you have a "10hit boxes" system, or would plain ol' D&D linear damage be fine?

[tussock]

3e without the gp->hp trade works alright. Half the classes can heal in a way that roughly scales with level, and little fights that scratch characters up are a real problem for the party.

The main thing the healing stick or lots of surges changes is all the fights have to be almost dangerous enough to kill everyone or it's like nothing happened. Wandering damage used to be a valid thing to keep people moving (especially with XP mostly from monsters).

[hogarth]

What the fuck are you talking about? Healing is massively different through the editions. In 3e, Healing is done largely through cheap and purchasable Healing Sticks that can be used by 5 of 11 starting character classes automatically (and at higher levels, by UMD).

And I've played in AD&D games where healing was done largely through Healing Potions that could be used by 100% of starting character classes automatically. And I've played in 3E games where wands of CLW weren't used at all. That shit depends on your GM, not on the rules.

[Lago PARANOIA]

Say you change the cure spells in 3.5 to do 1/4 HP for CLW, 1/2 CMW etc. Clerics will still have better things to do with their spells and actions then playing Bandaid. Most encounters don't have a healer on team monster, so no change there. If your BBEG is a divine caster than they have better things to do than keep themselves afloat with cure spells.

From what I see it only makes a difference in three areas. Out of combat healing gets a bit more efficient. Emergency, in battle healing like drinking a potion isn't a waste of effort. Encounters with divine casters may go a bit longer if they decide their DCs are too low to bother the PCs.

I fail to see how that does not lead to one of:
[*] The PCs effortlessly grind fights way above their weight class.
[*] The PCs take on someway way way above their weight class who can survive getting pounded on despite CMWs being thrown out once or twice.
[*] The PCs get turbonuked from full health by one or more monsters able to bring that much damage to the table (unlikely from what we've seen from the 5E playtest).
[*] The PCs get taken out by save-or-dies.

In other words, it works exactly like those stupid-ass jRPGs where people are able to do low-level runs not from strategy or engine exploits but because they can stock up 99 Phoenix Downs and 99 potions and spend an hour on one boss fight.

[OgreBattle]

Cure Serious Wounds only exists because hit points keep on going up. If everyone had 10hp and stayed, then it would just be called "Cure Wounds"

... why isn't it called "heal wounds" ??

[Juton]

I fail to see how that does not lead to one of:
[*] The PCs effortlessly grind fights way above their weight class.
[*] The PCs take on someway way way above their weight class who can survive getting pounded on despite CMWs being thrown out once or twice.
[*] The PCs get turbonuked from full health by one or more monsters able to bring that much damage to the table (unlikely from what we've seen from the 5E playtest).
[*] The PCs get taken out by save-or-dies.

In other words, it works exactly like those stupid-ass jRPGs where people are able to do low-level runs not from strategy or engine exploits but because they can stock up 99 Phoenix Downs and 99 potions and spend an hour on one boss fight.

In the context of 5e you could be right. I can't be bothered to check the current version of the rules.

As a kludge to 3.5? Points 3 and 4 happened pretty regularly at the games I played at the table. Anything way way above our paygrade could either drop a PC in one round or give us such a nasty status effect we where basically out of the fight anyways. Running away was a solution we had to use. In 3.5 if we where fighting anything merely way above our weight class habitually trading 1 action out of two or three for healing means your character or tactic was fundamentally flawed.

[CapnTthePirateG]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20130415

So this old idea is being trotted out as something new. As in, Monte Cook discussed this about a year ago, at least the trading out of feats.

I have no idea whether or not any of the 5e feats are worth taking, as I stopped following a long time ago.

[infected slut princess]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20130415

So this old idea is being trotted out as something new. As in, Monte Cook discussed this about a year ago, at least the trading out of feats.

I have no idea whether or not any of the 5e feats are worth taking, as I stopped following a long time ago.

The way they do Feats, last I saw, is really annoying. In the playtest before the latest one, Charge is seriously a feat. Really, you can't do a classic D&D charge attack unless you have the Feat for it. Fucking stupid. And it just lets you do the move thing, no bonus to attack / penalty to AC. Is that lame or what. Other Feats give you advantage on something or other. Advantage is so ubiquitous it's just annoying, and it completely loses significance. 5-Foot Step is also a Feat.

So yeah. This "new" Mearls idea. Oh my god. Getting +1 to an attribute instead of a Feat in the game is so bad. And obviously the problem is not that the Feats themselves are all that cool or good or anything. In fact, a lot of them are pretty lame or just give a fiddly dice thing which is not quite a real ability. But +1 to an attribute seriously sucks, and I can't believe this is being offered as anything remotely close to a good idea.

Is the premise here even valid? Are Feats really THAT complicated for players?

Yes, I suppose they would be complicated when you have huge lists of shitty Feats that have only a barely noticeable effect on bringing a character's concept mechanically into a game.

Of course, the obvious solution to this seems to NOT be "give shitty alternative to Feats" (Mearls' solution), but rather have a short list of Feats that are cool, interesting, thematic, and good. That 5e playtest had like 40 or 50 feats and going through them was torture -- you wouldn't want any of them, except maybe one or two (for spellcasters of course), because they are so lame. Is there any reason you couldn't just have like 20 Feats in the whole game and leave the rest to class features?

[Koumei]

Is there any reason you couldn't just have like 20 Feats in the whole game and leave the rest to class features?

Sure. The same reason you wave your hands around when doing a magic trick: sleight of hand to make it look better than it actually is. Have a lot of nothing going on and people confuse it for something.

[ishy]

# A feat can be used to gain +1 to an ability score, to a maximum of 20, or to gain a special ability that is equivalent in power to that ability bonus.
# Feats have level requirements, and higher-level feats are more potent than lower-level ones.

Isn't this a contradiction? +1 to an ability score feats seems like something that doesn't scale with level at all. So either they can't remain equivalent in power, or I'm missing something.

[Voss]

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx ... l/20130415

So this old idea is being trotted out as something new. As in, Monte Cook discussed this about a year ago, at least the trading out of feats.

I have no idea whether or not any of the 5e feats are worth taking, as I stopped following a long time ago.

Wow. For this to be remotely true they have to be redesigning the classes yet again and starting over from scratch.

And given how stat dependent the current system is, and how badly feats suck, unless feats start giving real ultimate power (they currently don't even vaguely), trading them in for attribute bonuses is a completely obvious thing to do, every time. The really big deal is it finally makes non-humans viable, as they can finally get stats above 17 in point buy

Its really fucking terrible for the game, especially if classes are gaining feats at different rates.


@ishy- yeah, you are: mearls is a terrible designer.
the system is inherently, intentionally fucked. Feats have different power levels intentionally, classes gain them at different rates and they are all equal to the same stat bonus. There is no way in the world this makes any sort of sense, by design. And mearls is so bad at this, he doesn't even notice how fucked it is when he lines up the contradictions next to each other in plain text.

[Previn]

Considering that if you have an even score when you take it, you get no benefit from the feat, I'm not sure why I'm expected to waste feats in such a manner?

[Seerow]

Worth noting: Mearls has confirmed on twitter they're removing the +1 to 2 stats every 4 levels in favor of these feat ability boosts. So this is actually yet another power down to characters (before you'd have a total +10 to your stats plus 4-7 feats. Now you get 6-12 feats that can alternatively be used for +6-12 to stats, still capped at 20).

What I want to know is if we'll be able to trade out the human +1 to all stats for 6 feats. Because seriously, even crap feats are better than +1 to a stat you don't care about.