D&D Next Podcast

From what I can tell instead of a Legends & Lore column, this week we are instead getting a podcast with Mike, Jeremy and Rodney talking about the latest packet and upcoming changes to a few classes.

I mentioned back when the packet was released that I feel like they are going out of their way to make sure that certain groups of people see that they are clearly marking races as unusual and “officially” cordoned off to a campaign setting. I guess to be fair gnomes and half-orcs are in the mix with warforged, though this should really be a campaign setting decision on the DM’s part.

I am baffled that playtesters seemed mostly happy with the druid, except when it came down to wildshape. Granted I have a lot of issues with wildshape, but what about the rigid, arbitrary class features? Everyone satisfied with the fact that no matter what you are just like every other druid until 3rd level, and that at 15th-level you can always take on the for some reason nonspecific appearance of another creature? What about spellcasting: do you actually think that slots and spell levels sufficiently evokes the flavor of someone calling on “the divine essence of nature itself”?

Okay, got that out of my system. Again. For now. As for details on the changes to wildshape the current proposal is to basically keep it the same as before, except that your animal form has a separate hit point pool, because it was apparently difficult to track hit points otherwise. So if you change into a bear you use the bear’s hit points, and if you run out or shift back to human form you just go back to what you had before. Oh and there will be more forms to choose from, which you can choose from at any time.

Strange, I would have thought it would be easier if a druid had to choose what forms she could shift into ahead of time, so that you could make cards with form stats. After all fighters have to choose their maneuvers when they get whatever class feature says that they get maneuvers. Personally I think it would make more sense for a druid to have to learn animal shapes, or at least restrict them to terrain types as in Dungeon World. It is okay to force spellcasters to have to choose.

The justification is that this will be simpler to manage, not that I think having to track up to two hit point pools is particularly complicated or difficult. It sounds like they are very interested in making this game as simple as possible at the sacrifice of good, interesting, and/or elegant rules. Who needs an evocative, engaging magic system when you can just nonsensically divide spells into levels and force everyone to use spell slots? Why give players choices when you can just force them down a preset track?

The justification for moving cunning action from the thief subclass to the rogue, because it was apparently incredibly popular, is a prime example of why I dislike their subclass model. You know what would have avoided the issue of shifting class features into arbitrary categories? Letting players pick the class features they want. There is absolutely no reason why a character should wait a few levels before having to choose a preset that possibly lets them evoke they concept that they wanted to from the start.

Except, I guess, because that is how it was done before.

D&D Podcast: Blood of Gruumsh & Warlords

I actually finished the podcast this time, so that is a plus. I also finally picked up a set of Blood of Gruumsh earlier this week, and agree that the minis, in particular the ogre, are pretty good. Though I have yet to play Dungeon Command, I am strongly considering snagging a second set just to round out my horde hoard. I do, however, disagree with Mearls’s regarding everything warlords and hit points.

The warlord is one of my favorite 4th Edition classes. It was interesting, fun, new (or fairly new if you count the marshall from 3rd Edition’s Miniature’s Handbook), played well with tieflings (one of my favorite races), and had an absolutely awesome level 29 daily exploit (Defy Death) that I never got a chance to use. It was also a fully viable replacement for a cleric, which is very important for me in a game where formerly the only simple and reliable solution was basically a sorcerer-ized cleric.

Despite a limited access to maneuvers–currently capping at all of five at 10th-level–I am actually okay with warlord exploits existing as fighter maneuvers. After all up until Martial Power 2, where you could pick an archer-type class feature, the warlord was primarily a melee warrior that could dole out benefits to her allies.

What I am not okay with is it losing out on healing because of Mearls’s oddly narrow interpretation of how hit points work, by essentially making the argument that William Wallace shouting at someone to heal them does in fact not make sense.

Frankly this statement sounds awfully like the kind of argument that 4th Edition haters used to try and levy against the game several years ago. It did not make sense then, and unless 5th Edition is going to have some sort of injury system as part of the core hit point rules, it does not make sense now. What makes his whole argument even more bizarre, is that it differs greatly from how he tried to explain hit points and healing surges several years ago (which starts around the 11:50 mark).

Obviously William Wallace could and should not be able to regenerate people’s limbs no matter how much he shouts or encourages them, but since when have hit points represented solely physical trauma? For that matter when have hit point damage ever resulted in grievous injuries in the first place?

In every edition of Dungeons & Dragons characters are, by default, perfectly fine until they are reduced to 0 or less, so can characters function just fine while carrying their guts? I guess it just fixes itself after a few days of rest, even without serious medical attention. Will healing potions allow you to regrow lost limbs, since it is magical healing?

A more accurate question would be if, in a game where hit points represent a variety of very abstract things, from physical punishment, exhaustion, luck, combat prowess, mental stress, and more, often on an attack-by-attack basis, would you expect a guy to be able to restore them through some form of inspiring presence?

YES.

There should be other classes that can feasibly substitute for the cleric, which by itself should not be mandatory for play. The warlord is an excellent class, and I want it to be able to buff the rest of the party, as well as be able to heal them if the player wants to emphasize that. Maybe not to the degree that a cleric could, but at an acceptable baseline.

Magical healing should also not be required, especially since hit points have never consistently represented physical trauma. If the most basic rules cannot accommodate a party of adventures without magical healing, then the design team needs to address the definition of hit points and how they work so that players can more freely play what they want, without having to worry about houserules, optional rules, or DM handouts.