|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 12:36PM
#551
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2009
|
"So lets go with separate healing systems and the warlord can be part of your universe"
I must have missed a post. Why can't we have one healing system and the DMs who don't like the Warlord can ban that class, rather than having to screw with the rules structure?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 12:53PM
#552
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
"So lets go with separate healing systems and the warlord can be part of your universe"
I must have missed a post. Why can't we have one healing system and the DMs who don't like the Warlord can ban that class, rather than having to screw with the rules structure?
If a class is likely to get banned then why include it in the core?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:20PM
#553
|
Date Joined:
Feb 19, 2009
|
If a class is likely to get banned then why include it in the core?
Good question: here's how I see it.
1) The IDEAL is to have a class that is iconic and that everyone, regardless of what edition they favour, pretty much likes as is.
2) The next best thing is to have a class that needs some tinkering by the design team to make it palatable all around, but everyone finds some common ground and gets behind the new version.
3) The next best thing to that is a class that some people will hate and ban, but the significant majority feel is iconic and useful.
4) The acceptable bottom limit is a class that the fanbase is deeply divided over including at all, that is included as a clearly optional module.
5) The worst possible solution is a failed attempt to build a compromise that winds up pleasing no one.
I am actually still optimistic that the warlord can be fit into option 2. The question for the designers is, do you TRY for option 2 and wind up with option 5 if you fail? Or do you play it safe and go straight to option 3 or 4?
Modules are great, but everything that can successfully find common ground between editions makes 5E a little stronger for everyone. So it's worth trying to do.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 1:38PM
#554
|
Date Joined:
Apr 23, 2009
|
"So lets go with separate healing systems and the warlord can be part of your universe"
I must have missed a post. Why can't we have one healing system and the DMs who don't like the Warlord can ban that class, rather than having to screw with the rules structure?
There are other issues with healing that will almost certainly necessitate separate modules. The rate of recovery is just one. I'm figuring that they will provide multiple modules that support the various styles. Those who choose the module I like probably don't care a wit about the Warlord as a class. Those who choose the one Garthanos likes might as well get the warlord that really pleases them. I've said this before and I'll say it again. A mushing mediocre compromise is not always the best solution.
It's not always wrong and I'm not saying that but we need to guard against going too far down that road. A game full of nothing but compromise after compromise probably won't sell well to anyone.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 3:22PM
#555
|
|
|
I've worked in EMS, and I am also a combat veteran.
Could we please get away from specific examples about what is and is not realistic.
I have seen someone get shot, and be out of the fight, and get up and return to the fight just becuase someone told them they were going to be fine. I have seen someone who has been stabbed 8 times, and barring infection, would've survived just fine without any treatment. I have also seen someone who was stabbed just once with a small knife die from what appeared to be a minor cut.
I regularly pull people out of an apparently unconscious condition by yelling loudly or administering a sternal rub.
That's just stuff I've seen personally, I won't even get into the stuff that is well documented like surviving multiple gunshot wounds or dying from a simple trip and fall.
The vast and varied history of real medical marvels consist of so many bizarre cases, that on its face, it can appear even less realistic than D&D, which is saying a lot.
So far the "responses" to this have ranged from "it's too rare" to "I don't care".
Neither of which is really a very good response.
The point here is that EXACTLY the kind of things we want to include in a fantastic game of heroes and monsters where outright magic gets a disbelief pass really happen in the real world.
So they ARE "realistic".
Still... the argument for an optional module to support a popular houserule based on HP as purely physical? THAT is a good argument.
One which I support.
You lot let us keep the HP system which has existed in every edition of D&D intact and play with a "pure HP only" module which doesn't allow Warlords, Hit Dice, fast healing or anything else which breaks the suspension of disbelief in such a setting and I'll be behing you 100%.
I WANT that module.
If only so you will all stop bitching about the things which are important to ME being included in the game.
You have my support, IF it will mean you all shut the hell up about Warlords, Hit Dice (hopefully soon to be upgraded back to the better Healing Surge system), healing on rests and all the other things which your module will fix.
Or are you all so petty and selfish that D&D has to be your way and your way only... screw everyone else AND screw WotC if they want a profit?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 3:23PM
#556
|
|
|
Oh, and there's just no response to someone who not only hadn't actually READ the 2nd Ed and 3.5 PHBs but ALSO hadn't looked at their DMGs with regard to what HP are.
Moderated by
ORC_Arjac
on Oct 04, 2012 - 04:41PM
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 3:43PM
#557
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Still... the argument for an optional module to support a popular houserule based on HP as purely physical? THAT is a good argument.
It's not a houserule. It's not even a rule. It's just an explanation for why the existing rules work in the manner they do. It's fluff. It has no impact on anything, except some people will get mad if you try to change the actual rules in such a manner as to make that explanation invalid.
By not including one specific feature of one specific class that has only been around for one edition, you allow everyone to narrate the game in the manner they want. You can avoid the entire controvery with a single sentence within the variable healing module to mention that, if you're using the slower healing setting to represent physical wounds then you need to label the warlord's inspiration as magical or not use that class or make it grant temporary hit points.
The only reason to force everyone into accepting the warlord and martial healing, as-is and with no caveats or explanation, is if you're trying to offend this sizeable portion of the player-base. (The other excuse - that you were unaware how strongly people feel about this point - is no longer valid.)
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 3:59PM
#558
|
|
|
Ive given my suggestions about martial healing iokiare (temp hps/combat medic or the military bard reflavor) between various posts of dooooom and heresy!
Being positive about something that helps other people keep their fun without affecting yours is not a crime though.
If you cannot be positive, not posting at all is not a crime either.
I also suggested several ways the all physical crowd could reflavor the existing martial healing mechanic to fit in an all physical world and get shot down every time. It takes both sides to come to an understanding...
What's wrong with those of us who like physical hit points just passing on the warlord? Is it really that great a loss? I mean we played three editions (or more) without that class. I think the class is so tied conceptually to 4e that most who dislike it probably are soured on it anyway. So lets go with separate healing systems and the warlord can be part of your universe.
Actually the Warlord was introduced in 3.xE as the Marshal, though I'm not sure whether they had a martial healing mechanic.
What's wrong with refluffing encouraging word as an order to patch themselves up and get back in the fight? That's purely physical. I even offered that its tied to hit dice and divine healing is not tied to it. So that it takes a physical resource to do it. I feel like we are trying to bend over backward to accommodate the all physical crowd, and we are just getting our faces spit on...
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 4:05PM
#559
|
|
|
"So lets go with separate healing systems and the warlord can be part of your universe"
I must have missed a post. Why can't we have one healing system and the DMs who don't like the Warlord can ban that class, rather than having to screw with the rules structure?
There are other issues with healing that will almost certainly necessitate separate modules. The rate of recovery is just one. I'm figuring that they will provide multiple modules that support the various styles. Those who choose the module I like probably don't care a wit about the Warlord as a class. Those who choose the one Garthanos likes might as well get the warlord that really pleases them. I've said this before and I'll say it again. A mushing mediocre compromise is not always the best solution.
It's not always wrong and I'm not saying that but we need to guard against going too far down that road. A game full of nothing but compromise after compromise probably won't sell well to anyone.
The key to negotiation is to understand exactly what each party wants. If they are fighting over land, they may not just want more space, one group might want to secure water sources and others might want it for farming.
The way I see the two groups is one wants a believable healing system based on their idea that everything is physical. The other group wants the inspirational nature of the Warlord from 4E for non-physical hit points.
What I'm not seeing is we offer believable solutions for martial healing ("go bandage yourself and get back in there", and tying it to hit dice so its a physical resource) and we still get told "no way"...
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Oct 04, 2012 - 4:07PM
#560
|
|
|
Still... the argument for an optional module to support a popular houserule based on HP as purely physical? THAT is a good argument.
It's not a houserule. It's not even a rule. It's just an explanation for why the existing rules work in the manner they do. It's fluff. It has no impact on anything, except some people will get mad if you try to change the actual rules in such a manner as to make that explanation invalid.
By not including one specific feature of one specific class that has only been around for one edition, you allow everyone to narrate the game in the manner they want. You can avoid the entire controvery with a single sentence within the variable healing module to mention that, if you're using the slower healing setting to represent physical wounds then you need to label the warlord's inspiration as magical or not use that class or make it grant temporary hit points.
The only reason to force everyone into accepting the warlord and martial healing, as-is and with no caveats or explanation, is if you're trying to offend this sizeable portion of the player-base. (The other excuse - that you were unaware how strongly people feel about this point - is no longer valid.)
We've quoted the relevant passages several times now. That it is a house rule is indisputable, whether it should be in 5E can be disputed.
|
|
|
