|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 5:55AM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Jun 22, 2010
|
so great no healing needed from clerics to adventure why not give every pc regeneration 100/second and get it over with. if you are creating a game called dnd that is susposed to make fans of every editon happy then why remove one of the major components of the game for over 30 years it dosent make historical sense at all. you could do a system where you lose stamina points then get into your hit points and im fine with that but seperate them then and that still wouldnt remove a healer from the picture. ill miss you dnd they are ripping you apart and losing pieces each day
With hit dice as the basic mechanic for all healing, then you can have the standard feel of D&D by cleric using a healing spell to restore hit dice, to characters may use their hit dice after every short rest. The important part is the healing mechanic supports all styles of play. I am attempting to bring us all together versus stating extreme examples to divide us further apart.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 5:59AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Aug 22, 2007
|
(copiedd from comments) I am beyond confused by this article. Cleric healing cannot be the other base assumption for healing as there still is resting. So the base game has to include both cleric spells and Resting.
1) Divine magic (core)
2) Resting (core)
3) Herbalism and HD (optional?)
4) Medicine and Surgery (optional?)
5) Morale and Refocusing (optional?)
There are benefits and flaws to this line of design. The main benefit is it is simpler and easier to plug in the other healing aspects of the game. The main flaw is assumed aspects are heavy on the telling of settings. By once again assuming the clerics and divine characters do the healing, you limit what stories can be told without extreme work or aid and how modules and variants are handled and prioritized in later products.
...
My point is by removing nonmagical healing from the core, you make a core that goes from:
"Most adventurer parties use healing kits, filled with bandages and salves, to heal themselves."
to
"Most adventurer parties contain a cleric, who prepares healing magic, to heal them of injury."
It is very altering to the baseline assumption of the game. True, groups can change the game to match their preference. But more settings jump of the baseline of "A world with bandages and ointments" than a "A world with religious folk who cast divine spells".
At least keep healing kits in core. PLEASE!
Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds.
Constitution Based Class for Next!
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 6:02AM
#13
|
|
|
[Space reserved for a Holy Grail that can coordinate conflictive desires about healing in the game]
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 6:03AM
#14
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2003
|
I've addressed the issue by making my own "Lingering Wounds" module to handle the blood-and-gore side of combat while leaving the morale side (luck, fatigue, scratches, etc) to traditional cleric spells and warlord inspirations.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 6:09AM
#15
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
"I think that we started off with a few assumptions too many in terms of what people want out of the core, treating an element that should be an option—nonmagical healing—as a key part of the game."
If this means that non-magical healing will be an option in D&D Next then I'm very happy.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 6:10AM
#16
|
|
|
They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins.
Excuse me while I go vomit.
...whatever
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 6:20AM
#17
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2008
|
I, for once, agree with Mearls. Non-magical healing is best used as an Advanced rule (probably a Module). It would be harder to remove non-magical healing with an Advanced rule than to add it. Hopefully, the Module will includes various layers of options for non-magical healing, from HD to Warlord Healing. If that is the case, then I suspect that most groups will include at least some of said Module.
My question for this is how it will work for Organized Play. I think that a large percentage of players would not like to attend a convention game to find out their Warlord is not playable. Given the nature of Organized Play, I suspect that non-magical healing will be used for most events.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 6:28AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
Aug 31, 2007
|
We have had a few interesting talks about healing in R&D lately. I'm wondering if we might be thinking too much about healing. Our goal has been to remove cleric healing as a necessary element of adventuring. Does that approach make sense given our modular design?
Yes. Perpetuating the flaws of older editions because it is simple and traditional isn't good.
Healing can't just be a simple option, it effects too much of the game. If you change the healing system/rate for the party then the party's power level has been massively changed unless HP is adjusted to match. Changing HP effects all kinds of things across the game. Spells that have HP targets become more or less effective, flat healing becomes more or less valuable and so on. It will change which feats are even available. A feat that grants an extra HD per day makes no sense if you don't have HP, a feat that lets you heal more for a nights rest doesn't work without lingering wounds. HP simply effects too much of the game to be an easily swappable module.
Right now the balance is off, at higher levels characters get so much healing through HD that clerics are secondary and that is a problem for somebody who wants to make a medic character. However, going back to the design that every party had to have a healer just to function is simply bad game design.
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 6:29AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
so great no healing needed from clerics to adventure why not give every pc regeneration 100/second and get it over with. if you are creating a game called dnd that is susposed to make fans of every editon happy then why remove one of the major components of the game for over 30 years it dosent make historical sense at all. you could do a system where you lose stamina points then get into your hit points and im fine with that but seperate them then and that still wouldnt remove a healer from the picture. ill miss you dnd they are ripping you apart and losing pieces each day
There's a middle ground.
Any class can justify ways to prevent damage during combat, and recover from fatigue or renew determination outside combat.
And support class can be better at it, do it for the others, or improving the other's abilities.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
4 months ago ::
Feb 18, 2013 - 6:43AM
#20
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
One thing to do to remove pressure on the Cleric is to ensure more classes have healing capabilities early on through magic; ex . the Druid, Ranger, Bard, Paladin etc...
And more off-class healing capabilities like the Herbalism, Healing Initiate and Magic Rejuvenation Feats that give easier access to Potion of Healing and Cure Wounds spells.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
