Legends & Lore: This Week in D&D (2/25/2013)

358 posts / 0 new
Last post
Legends & Lore:
This Week in D&D
Mike Mearls
2013 02/25



This past week saw the internal release of the next packet. Before we send things out to the public, we pass materials through internal groups and a select group of external testers. The newest packet included the druid, among other classes, and provoked some discussion of roles and classes in the office.








Talk about this article here.
Druids, yay!
By the wording of the article, do Druids(and Paladins!) have to specialize to be decent at healing, or is it going to be CoDzilla all over again?

I posted this in the article comments:
 


Wizard as a ranged weapon user starts out bad and progresses into "don't even bother" using the current rules. Nice to see the lead designer not knowing how the game works.



On healing, I see we're going back to Wizards healing faster than Fighters thanks to the lack of proportional healing. Also, the proposed system does nothing to address what adjusting the rate of healing does to the challenge level of the adventuring day or individual encounters.



To sum up, balance and good design continuing to not be priorities for D&DNext.


...whatever
So a Druid focused on healing will equal a Cleric focused on healing in terms of capability. Nice!

Danny

By the wording of the article, do Druids(and Paladins!) have to specialize to be decent at healing, or is it going to be CoDzilla all over again?

It sounded to me like specializing was implied, but (if not) it would be kind of funny to see the other healer classes mentioned (here, and in Mearls' recent tweet) joining forces Power Ranger/Voltron-style to create CoDoBoPzilla.

Danny

By the wording of the article, do Druids(and Paladins!) have to specialize to be decent at healing, or is it going to be CoDzilla all over again?

It sounded to me like specializing was implied, but (if not) it would be kind of funny to see the other healer classes mentioned (here, and in Mearls' recent tweet) joining forces Power Ranger/Voltron-style to create CoDoBoPzilla.




"Thus, a cleric and a druid are on equal terms here. The same would apply to a paladin with a specific focus on healing."

Emphasis mine, of course.
From this, I gather that for a Druid or Paladin to be equal in healing power to a cleric, they would have to be specifically built for that purpose. I see no problem with this. It puts the decision solely at the feet of the players, instead of cramming it down their throats.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
CoDoBoPzilla.



I read that as "Cod Bop" Zilla.

Bopping Cods is nothing I want to have happen at my table O_O
Or in other news, 8 Str characters knocking down stout, iron-bound doors 15% of the time and 16 Str characters knocking them down only 30% of the time continues to be an example of the exceptional representation of realism and versimilitude of D&DNext.
By the wording of the article, do Druids(and Paladins!) have to specialize to be decent at healing, or is it going to be CoDzilla all over again?

It sounded to me like specializing was implied, but (if not) it would be kind of funny to see the other healer classes mentioned (here, and in Mearls' recent tweet) joining forces Power Ranger/Voltron-style to create CoDoBoPzilla.




"Thus, a cleric and a druid are on equal terms here. The same would apply to a paladin with a specific focus on healing."

Emphasis mine, of course.
From this, I gather that for a Druid or Paladin to be equal in healing power to a cleric, they would have to be specifically built for that purpose. I see no problem with this. It puts the decision solely at the feet of the players, instead of cramming it down their throats.

I do not see how you think the druid and the paladin will have to specialize in healing to match a cleric.  He's very clear about that they're put on par - if you focus on healing, you'll be "good" at healing, no matter what class you are.

D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
Or in other news, 8 Str characters knocking down stout, iron-bound doors 15% of the time and 16 Str characters knocking them down only 30% of the time continues to be an example of the exceptional representation of realism and versimilitude of D&DNext.




whats up with the shot at older editions. if you dont like it play another version. but it seems the reason your playing what you are is due to older editions so show some respect
By the wording of the article, do Druids(and Paladins!) have to specialize to be decent at healing, or is it going to be CoDzilla all over again?

It sounded to me like specializing was implied, but (if not) it would be kind of funny to see the other healer classes mentioned (here, and in Mearls' recent tweet) joining forces Power Ranger/Voltron-style to create CoDoBoPzilla.




"Thus, a cleric and a druid are on equal terms here. The same would apply to a paladin with a specific focus on healing."

Emphasis mine, of course.
From this, I gather that for a Druid or Paladin to be equal in healing power to a cleric, they would have to be specifically built for that purpose. I see no problem with this. It puts the decision solely at the feet of the players, instead of cramming it down their throats.

I do not see how you think the druid and the paladin will have to specialize in healing to match a cleric.  He's very clear about that they're put on par - if you focus on healing, you'll be "good" at healing, no matter what class you are.




Perhaps my reading comprehension has lapsed in recent years but I read the italicized quote as (paraphrased) "Clerics and Druids are on equal terms healing, a Paladin can reach that level by specializing as a healer." Therefore, the Druid's healing will be built in, not specced for (to use the 'dreaded MMO' term).
Or in other news, 8 Str characters knocking down stout, iron-bound doors 15% of the time and 16 Str characters knocking them down only 30% of the time continues to be an example of the exceptional representation of realism and versimilitude of D&DNext.




whats up with the shot at older editions. if you dont like it play another version. but it seems the reason your playing what you are is due to older editions so show some respect


....

I'm not clear on how you this is a reference to any edition, let alone older ones, let alone a "shot" at older ones.

Edition wars are bad enough without spoiling for a fight.  Don't do it.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
By the wording of the article, do Druids(and Paladins!) have to specialize to be decent at healing, or is it going to be CoDzilla all over again?

It sounded to me like specializing was implied, but (if not) it would be kind of funny to see the other healer classes mentioned (here, and in Mearls' recent tweet) joining forces Power Ranger/Voltron-style to create CoDoBoPzilla.




"Thus, a cleric and a druid are on equal terms here. The same would apply to a paladin with a specific focus on healing."

Emphasis mine, of course.
From this, I gather that for a Druid or Paladin to be equal in healing power to a cleric, they would have to be specifically built for that purpose. I see no problem with this. It puts the decision solely at the feet of the players, instead of cramming it down their throats.

I do not see how you think the druid and the paladin will have to specialize in healing to match a cleric.  He's very clear about that they're put on par - if you focus on healing, you'll be "good" at healing, no matter what class you are.




Correct.
If you focus on healing.
If you do not, then your class will not be (as) good at it.
That is what I was talking about. If you do not choose to focus your Druid or Paladin on healing, they will not be (as) good at it. I never said "specialize". I said "specifically built for that purpose", AKA "focus".
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
Or in other news, 8 Str characters knocking down stout, iron-bound doors 15% of the time and 16 Str characters knocking them down only 30% of the time continues to be an example of the exceptional representation of realism and versimilitude of D&DNext.



whats up with the shot at older editions. if you dont like it play another version. but it seems the reason your playing what you are is due to older editions so show some respect



That was sarcasm...

I'm not knocking older editions at all. I'm knocking D&DNext for lacking versimilitude compared to older editions, even though that was the specific example listed by R&D as why D&DNext had more versimilitude than older editions.
I still want to see arcane healers. I don't care if it's limited to a specific tradition, and/or you can't take damage spells. I'm tired of healing being the sole purview of divine casters.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
Druid... 
Not sure if interested.

Roles...
Be careful, mention that too often (read: at all) and you'll be accused of video gaming and worse. 

Non-Proportional healing...
Either option will be contentious. I personally consider it punishment for having high max hp if you require more time/magic to heal. However, I am of the school of thought that says 1 Hp is a subjective value based on who's Hp it is.
I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
I still want to see arcane healers. I don't care if it's limited to a specific tradition, and/or you can't take damage spells. I'm tired of healing being the sole purview of divine casters.


Similarly, a Fighter who chooses healing features, is moreorless a Warlord, and make attack-granting a “fighting style”.

A Rogue who chooses healing features, is moreorless an Herbalist. Note, flavorwise, the same herbal knowledge that heals is also the same herbal knowledge that creates poisons.

I still want to see arcane healers. I don't care if it's limited to a specific tradition, and/or you can't take damage spells. I'm tired of healing being the sole purview of divine casters.



I'd like to see martial healing remain as well as arcane healing.
...whatever
I still want to see arcane healers. I don't care if it's limited to a specific tradition, and/or you can't take damage spells. I'm tired of healing being the sole purview of divine casters.


Similarly, a Fighter who chooses healing features, is moreorless a Warlord, and make attack-granting a “fighting style”.

A Rogue who chooses healing features, is moreorless an Herbalist. Note, flavorwise, the same herbal knowledge that heals is also the same herbal knowledge that creates poisons.





That's actually a really good idea. More character options are always fun. I don't want to start a flame war, but what's a Warlord (in NEXT terms) but a fighter who doesn't defend and grants attacks and heals. A fighting style could work really well here.
Wizard as a ranged weapon user starts out bad and progresses into "don't even bother" using the current rules.

I took that example to be representative of the new, internal packet. If they're toning down the martial damage enough, they may well return the wizard's dart to a place of relevance.

The metagame is not the game.
I'm so disapointed to see the direction that they are going with hit points.  I like surges (I do feel that there were too many though) and I like the idea of HD healing.  I really hope they at least offer a surge/HD module.

Things were looking so good too.
Or in other news, 8 Str characters knocking down stout, iron-bound doors 15% of the time and 16 Str characters knocking them down only 30% of the time continues to be an example of the exceptional representation of realism and versimilitude of D&DNext.

In all seriousness, actually doing anything about the fact that a d20 is too large compared to the modifiers that get added in to produce remotely satisfying probabilities of success for different characters is not something I expect to ever be on the table. Considering it at all would require way more willingness to examine some of the ways the game works than they've come even close to demonstrating, and doing anything about it - something that might involve adjusting some sacred-cow numbers - would spook the ever-loving hell out of way too many people, regardless of how well they explained what they're doing.

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I vastly prefer to think of HP damage as suffering cuts, wounds, bruises and breaks, and therefore prefer magic healing and a very slow resting heal game (and very minimal non-magical healing such as herbs, mundane bandaging, etc). I like the idea of magic being the big healer - respect! So i quite like the proposed healing mode (maybe add Con bonus).

Also - love the idea of lots of orcs being able to overrun a higher level PC given enough time, and mixing a big monster like a giant in with a bunch of lower level guys, and keeping things manageable. Yay for variety and not being stuck on the to hit treadmill, wooo!
So wait, a paladin presumably gets the same MDD/WD progression as a fighter or rogue - it'd be a D&D first for the paladin to be worse than the rogue at melee. And he can also heal as well as a cleric if he specializes in it? Wouldn't such a character be overpowered?
Overall, I like what I'm hearing.

I like Mearls' proposal for long rest healing. Seems like a simpler and smarter approach than hit die. And it would be easy to switch "long rest" to "short rest". Or even let the DM hand wave it on occassion.

It seems like martial healing will be, at best, an advanced module. Fine. If that's true, I'd also like to see an arcane healing module.
So wait, a paladin presumably gets the same MDD/WD progression as a fighter or rogue - it'd be a D&D first for the paladin to be worse than the rogue at melee. And he can also heal as well as a cleric if he specializes in it? Wouldn't such a character be overpowered?



Not exactly. A Paladin has the base progression as weapon using classes: note that the L&L mentioned "fighter, the monk, and the barbarian." However, my guess is that if the Paladin specialized to be as good a healer as the Cleric, that specialization would take place within their "unique mechanic." Which means that a healing-specialized Paladin is going to be doing the damage of a Barbarian without Rage or a Fighter without Maneuvers, but that a fighting-specialized Paladin would probably be up there with the martials but have very weak healing.
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.
But a melee-focused cleric still doesn't get top-tier MDD. A healing-focused paladin presumably would, along with more hp. If both are spending most of their spells/class benefits on heals, how is the paladin not going to be just better than the warpriest?
The thing that sticks out to me in this article is the plug for bounded accuracy that carefully avoided the term.
I didnt like what I read from this article. Paladins have always been secondary healers, and I dont think they should be on par with clerics. By the way being able too beat super difficult task at fisrt level in next and having a slim(almost nonexistance) chance to BB/LG are in no way similiar. Quit trying to start wars.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I'm with him on BA in this application though. I think people who say BA reduces your sense of progress as you level have it backwards - in previous editions, you rarely faced any monsters much higher or lower level, because there was no point. In Next, a party that could barely one or two orcs at level 1 can now have an engaging battle against a couple dozen of them at level 10.
I like BA, but I still think that they need adjustment.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.

I'm particularly happy that monsters like hill giants and a giant skeleton fit in with how I imagined the game playing out. The orcs recruited a hill giant as a walking battering ram. While he was able to lay waste to the castle defenders, he was felled in a few rounds by several, massive volleys of arrows and a tightly packed rank of spear-wielding warriors. The giant felt sufficiently threatening, but it also felt vulnerable to becoming overrun. That fit my conception of how such powerful monsters might operate in the world of D&D. They can turn the tide of a battle, but if left alone or isolated, the sheer weight of their enemies' numbers can overwhelm them.



I'm glad you are making a game for yourself, but what about the rest of us that think a hill giant shouldn't be taken down by a hundred pin pricks?

That same trend held out for the characters, too, with some of the most dangerous moments occurring when a lone character was surrounded by orcs or caught by a sudden counterattack. A lone hero can defeat many lesser foes, but there is still a significant element of risk in being heavily outnumbered.



This was true of any edition due to automatic hits and crit ranges. A character surrounded by 8 monsters has around a 5% chance to get hit every other round in every edition. If they take fire from ranged attackers they get hit once for every 20 attacks. In some editions that 2-3 hits every round.

Roles in a tabletop RPG are a little tricky, since the act of choosing roles says a lot about what your game is about. DMs and gaming groups like to set their own tone and focus for campaigns, making it quite likely that whatever roles the design team picks might not match what the players want to do in the game. That doesn't mean we don't pay attention to what the characters are most likely to do.



See listening to Mearls is like listening to a madman, he talks utter nonesense and when you are about ready to write him off, he goes and says something that makes sense.

Take combat as an example. Every class should have the potential to contribute to a fight, and our efforts to make attack bonuses fairly flat mean that most characters can make at least a nominal contribution through attacks. A wizard who avoids any attack spells whatsoever can still make ranged weapon attacks with half-decent competence.



Then he goes back to the nonsense. So the only way to contribute to combat is through physical melee or ranged attacks, whatever you say Mearls. What about those of us that don't want to Wizards to be good at anything but magic? Guess we just don't get anything in this edition.

Our approach to skills also plays into this. By limiting the maximum bonus you can gain through a skill system, we can keep most DCs in the 10 to 20 range. Even the highest DCs are still possible, though not likely, for characters without a bonus.



Yes and we have a problem with 20 commoners being able to do what a level 20 character can do. I mean I'd be ok if 20 commoners could accomplish what a level 5 character could do, but not 20 no.

Although that approach speaks to basic competency, what about more specialized abilities? For something like healing, any class that you'd expect to have robust healing abilities should be equivalent to similar classes. Thus, a cleric and a druid are on equal terms here. The same would apply to a paladin with a specific focus on healing.


We've also used a similar approach for weapon-using characters, like the fighter, the monk, and the barbarian. They all use the same core rate of advancement in basic fighting ability, with each class then adding a unique mechanic (maneuvers, ki, or rage) on top of that.



More lucidity even though we aren't seeing the second paragraph in actual usage. Our patient is going in and out of dementia it seems.


A Little More on Healing

Last week I wrote about healing, and I'd like to follow-up with a specific idea for our core healing rules. My preference is simply to allow a small amount of healing: 1 hit point per level per hour of complete rest. An 8-hour rest would restore most characters' hit points.


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



And more nonsense. Healing 1 hit point per level per hour means the Wizard and Rogue are full and the Fighter, Cleric, and Barbarian are at half hit points. Rather than all classes being at about the same percent. If we speed up or slow down healing we end up with the same problem. The tone and feel of the game is not changed at all.


Incomplete work, please try again...Smile

"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

I'm with him on BA in this application though. I think people who say BA reduces your sense of progress as you level have it backwards - in previous editions, you rarely faced any monsters much higher or lower level, because there was no point. In Next, a party that could barely one or two orcs at level 1 can now have an engaging battle against a couple dozen of them at level 10.

I agree with the principle of BA. I don't agree with this particular interpretation of it. I see this little plug as a sign that they're trying to bring people around after all by highlighting the principles of it without using their crappy name for it.

It's very telling.

Or in other news, 8 Str characters knocking down stout, iron-bound doors 15% of the time and 16 Str characters knocking them down only 30% of the time continues to be an example of the exceptional representation of realism and versimilitude of D&DNext.




whats up with the shot at older editions. if you dont like it play another version. but it seems the reason your playing what you are is due to older editions so show some respect



Well if you really knew about previous editions you would know that the skill points of 3.xE and the wider range of ability modifiers in 2E and 1E meant that this is the most constrained edition so far. Bounded Accuracy working as intended. As others have pointed out its a huge problem when your characters are supposed to be heroes. So it leaves out several play styles...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Wizard as a ranged weapon user starts out bad and progresses into "don't even bother" using the current rules.

I took that example to be representative of the new, internal packet. If they're toning down the martial damage enough, they may well return the wizard's dart to a place of relevance.




Not unless they give Wizards MDD or WDD on their weapon attacks. Its just not going to happen...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
I vastly prefer to think of HP damage as suffering cuts, wounds, bruises and breaks, and therefore prefer magic healing and a very slow resting heal game (and very minimal non-magical healing such as herbs, mundane bandaging, etc). I like the idea of magic being the big healer - respect! So i quite like the proposed healing mode (maybe add Con bonus).

Also - love the idea of lots of orcs being able to overrun a higher level PC given enough time, and mixing a big monster like a giant in with a bunch of lower level guys, and keeping things manageable. Yay for variety and not being stuck on the to hit treadmill, wooo!



Well you could do like you've been doing for the past 4 editions and just house rule it in. Since hit points in every edition represented a combination of physical damage, stamina, luck, and fatigue and you were house ruling that away. So just house rule slow physical healing in like you house ruled before...Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.

I'm glad you are making a game for yourself, but what about the rest of us that think a hill giant shouldn't be taken down by a hundred pin pricks?

Yes and we have a problem with 20 commoners being able to do what a level 20 character can do. I mean I'd be ok if 20 commoners could accomplish what a level 5 character could do, but not 20 no.




How do said people rationalize the survival of NPC villages, cities, and countries in such a world? I like heroic PCs, even mythic PCs, as much as the next person, but this is verging on world of cardboard.



Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.

I'm glad you are making a game for yourself, but what about the rest of us that think a hill giant shouldn't be taken down by a hundred pin pricks?

Yes and we have a problem with 20 commoners being able to do what a level 20 character can do. I mean I'd be ok if 20 commoners could accomplish what a level 5 character could do, but not 20 no.




How do said people rationalize the survival of NPC villages, cities, and countries in such a world? I like heroic PCs, even mythic PCs, as much as the next person, but this is verging on world of cardboard.






They hire PCs.

These new forums are terrible.

I misspell words on purpose too draw out grammer nazis.


I'm glad you are making a game for yourself, but what about the rest of us that think a hill giant shouldn't be taken down by a hundred pin pricks?

Yes and we have a problem with 20 commoners being able to do what a level 20 character can do. I mean I'd be ok if 20 commoners could accomplish what a level 5 character could do, but not 20 no.




How do said people rationalize the survival of NPC villages, cities, and countries in such a world? I like heroic PCs, even mythic PCs, as much as the next person, but this is verging on world of cardboard.






They hire PCs.



So the choice is pay a few heroes to take out a dragon or pay a bunch of commoners to do it. Hmm, which one is cheaper? Smile
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Another week, another poor coms release.

From the incoherent, Wizards are ok with Weapons?
Really?
In what universe?

To the terribad, Fighters are punished by the healing system for having more HP?
Really?
Isn't being tougher usually a reason people heal FASTER not slower?

And the just plain odd, Giants taken down by unenhanced archers?
Really?
THIS is traditional D&D?

And the REALLY trippy, BA is producing more realistic results?
Really?
Have you ever looked at real world modeling and statistics, because that's just not true right now.

I agree.

What a mess.

The longer this goes on the less and less hope I have that I'll be a Next player or DM. 

How do said people rationalize the survival of NPC villages, cities, and countries in such a world? I like heroic PCs, even mythic PCs, as much as the next person, but this is verging on world of cardboard.



They hire PCs.



So...if there are tons of PCs, what's the difference between PC and non-PC? Why not organize the production of PCs? Or are we postulating some rather nasty elitist sentiment about true heroes being so much better than the common herd?

If there aren't, how does civilization exist in the face of existential threats posed by monsters? If it's impossible for NPCs to protect themselves from hill giants, how is it that cities exist in a world with dragons? 
Race for the Iron Throne - political and historical analysis of A Song of Ice and Fire.