Why is it that healing magic is always a divine thing rather than an arcane thing? Medical practitioners IRL have to put extensive bookschoollearnstudy in order to be competent at their craft. Why, then, is it so much more common for fantasy RPGs to give healing magic to a priest of some kind in the form of some kind of faith healing?
>>47999373
Because no one likes you, Craig.
>>47999373
because most instances of miraculous healing in western mythologies are portrayed as acts of god or otherwise divine spiritual gifts.
>>47999373
>Playing a game where there's a difference between a mage and a priest
>>47999373
Because priests have to put extensive bookschoollearnstudy in order to be competent at their craft?
>>47999373
Because D&D is based on pulp novels that did it that way and Final Fantasy is based on D&D.
>>47999601
Cloistered.
>>47999601
Yeah, but their magic does not necessarily stem from their study; it usually stems from their faith or their piety. On the other hand, arcane magic stems from esoteric study pretty much by definition.
>>47999639
Final Fantasy treats white magic as arcane. True, it's implied to be naturally more spiritual and religious than black magic, but white mages are still clearly wizards. They spend time in libraries and learn spells from books. The divide between white magic and black magic in Final Fantasy is based on, but not identical to the divide between divine magic and arcane magic in D&D.
>>47999373
Well, Biblically speaking Man was turned out of Eden so he would not eat from the fruit of the Tree of Life, and so become immortal.
Then mythically, alchemists sought immortality as well and never found results.
Life is the realm of gods, not men.
>>47999373
Because Medical Practicioners don't heal, they treat, and let the body heal. To directly heal someone with magic isn't an act of knowledge, it's channeling positive energy that just rights it all without you having to know shit.
Now I would like the idea of arcane spells based on actually messing with physiology to treat conditions, like closing wounds and setting bones and such. It would be more for stabilizing, but perhaps at high levels you could heal small amounts purely by messing with their physiology, but it shouldn't be equal to what divine casters do.
>>47999780
in case it's not clear, Divine magic does have the power of Life via God/the gods.
Arcane magic, the alchemists, never could seize it themselves.
>>47999373
Bards are arcane casters who can use healing magic.
In my setting, it's possible to heal with arcane magic, it's just more difficult: you're essentially performing mundane medicine augmented by magic. You can perform surgery with precise cutting spells and close wounds by cauterizing them with precise heat spells.
Divine healing magic, on the other hand, is more primal and more effective. You just lay on hands and say "Be healed." This is because, as >>47999780 says, gods can bestow life and therefore are able to manipulate its essence.
Basically, >>47999797.
>>47999797
And yet, we have Necromancers who can twist life and create undead or make themselves undead!
I suppose the actual question is why in D&D are healing spells conjuration instead of Necromancy where Necromancy is often described as understanding and controlling the forces of life and death?
>>47999852
In old editions, divine healing spells were considered "white necromancy".
>>47999373
Why is healing magic even in tabletop games? If the original answer was to prevent sacky shit, it sure isn't used that way. Healers are not only required, but naturally upset the entire balance of combat.
Combat, like entropy, trends toward an equilibrium and like real life observed entropy, that's almost always toward a "less usable" state of energy. What this means is that hit points go down, stamina goes down, magic uses go down. Players get less options and are forced into tighter situations. If they play it right, so is their enemy. Just like boxing, the end is going to be sluggish and a battle of grit and technique. Except for parties with fucking healers. Healers naturally reverse the equilibrium. You can fight like an insane maniac because hey, those 60 hit points you just lost will be returned in an instant!
Now, I'm not saying all healing is bad, though it presents a huge prisoner's dilemma (whichever side doesn't use a healer against one using a healer is at a huge disadvantage, thus both sides must have a healer to stand an equal chance); the problem is reactive healing.
Reactive healing means that you can guage the situation and minimize your cost and maximize the fighting effectiveness the healing grants at any time. The only "downside" is if something can combo or one-shot into an instant knockdown, which is a danger regardless of the presence of a healer. On the other hand, proactive healing (before a fight, overheal or a regen buff or a trigger buff that only heals X HP when Y condition is met in-fight) is far more fair and more of a strategy than a requirement. It still serves to reverse stupid sacky chance shit and forces the "healer" to contribute to the fight tactically or offensively. It also is relatively mid-impact, so teams aren't forced to have one, especially if the amount healed is dialed down below the damage a player could deal.
Healing is so massively flawed in games it ruins the fun.
>>47999882
Is this a copypasta, or do you actually have brain problems?
>>47999882
Stop playing Pathfinder.
>>47999882
>>47999910
I vote brain problems, personally.
>>47999910
I studied game theory, economics, game design and have designed several role-playing games. I've studied information theory and chaos theory. I don't have "brain problems", I've mathed this out. Reactive healing ruins the experience of games as the arrow of time makes combat trend one way and healing reverses this. Not only does this have bad game feel but it causes immense natural balancing issues. Not the least of which is the prisoner's dilemma of opposing teams playing healers, then there's the problem of being forced to target-pick them first which just allows damage classes to do the same to yours.
>>47999934
I don't play Pathfinder. This problem isn't limited to D&D.
>>47999972
>I can't be wrong, I'm behind 12 PhDs
Sure thing, kiddo.
>>47999882
I really have no words for this, look at pic to extrapolate my confusion
>>47999994
don't respond to bait
>>47999999
and for the love god don't waste GETs on bait
>>48000021
>>47999999
At least it was a cute pic.
>>47999882
>Why is healing magic even in tabletop games?
Because people want to be magic-users that can heal.
>>48000021
>If I disagree with it, it must be bait!
>>47999994
>If I don't understand, surely no one can!
>>47999882
Pretty well outlines these concerns:
https://rpgmaker.net/articles/176/
Basically cheap healing ruins the stakes in an RPG.
>>47999882
This is true. I see your economics terms and raise you a few homebrews to make healing more managable, i.e. making it only potions/brews that heal over time, or a mixture of science and technology that only provides a temporary fix that will need surgery later to stop the internal bleeding.
>Have you tried not playing D&D.jpg
I would think healing magic would be better if it wasn't just ," I put my hand on you and all your limbs grew back."
That should be some high level shit or some powerful spirit or god has turned you into a divine lightning rod and is channeling it's power through you at the risk of literally burning you out. Granted I think there should be a more meaningful way of expressing "miracles" and divine intervention but that's a debate for another topic.
Anyways, as priest often have the chance to be intellectualls and educated like wizards are it's not beyond the realm of possibility for a priest/cleric/whatever to be trained as a doctor except he can use some healing power to help when you can only do so much with a scalpel and some bandages.
>>47999373
I like Dark Souls' portrayal of faith magic. Some of the descriptions of the spells even state that the faith could come from an evil place.
>>47999373
>Why is it that healing magic is always a divine thing rather than an arcane thing?
It's not always that way, and that distinction doesn't always exist.
It usually is because of tradition. Also it's a way to define party roles.
>>48000109
Poster you replied to here, actually I completely agree with you. A middle point is a great solution. In my own game, potions can be mixed as a skill and one high level of that skill is heal-over-time potions. It also has a limited-use flask that can heal magic or HP, which funny enough Dark Souls 3 ended up doing too. The heal spells are like "Overheal" where if you're at full, you go X points over. And a regen buff that lasts for a fight.
Why have any variety in magic at all? Why can't anyone cast everything?
>>48000185
You can have both. Just have people specialize.
>oh I have 10 ranks in destruction, but only 2 in healing
>>47999999
Check'd
>>47999882
Except the enemies dont get worn down you twit. Your party just slogged through a dungeon and are low on supplies, stamina, spells, whatever. The boss at the end has had an enjoyable day of gourmet meals and viewing art pieces for his foyer. While your party was trying to figure a way past the traps he was getting some head from the princess before servants helped him into his armor. Your party stumbles into the room in time to see him wrapping up his warm-up calisthenics.
The party entropied. The enemies do not.
>Potions and other healing items can only heal over time and can be made by anyone with the skill
>They have a chance to become addictive or, if overconsumed can take on the effects of poison
>Direct magical healing still requires a sort of medicine skill so you don't mend someone's bones and flesh the wrong way
>>48000185
I'm not sure what you were trying to get at but in a sense you are kind of right. I would imagine certain spells would be the type that people go out and learn because they are readily available and handy (i.e. presdigitation) So it makes sense for these spells to have some means of being used often even if they are expensive in and of themselves.
>>47999999
Beautiful!
>>48000260
Except that this is the exact approach of Dark Souls. If your system is built to handle it by allowing players to have real tactical choices, instead of just meatsponge more than the other guy, then it works exactly like estus. Giving additional healing would be like Dark Souls II where there's never any real threat of death except one-shots and unstoppable bullshit. Your argument stance isn't flawed, it just shows the kind of games you tend to play.
>>47999999
Who got >>48000000?
>>47999872
Which went extra nice with the reversible mechanic.
>>47999373
Cuz Jesus.
There is no reason that a necromancer, the wizard of death and life, shouldnt be able to mend injuries. Healing is divine because healing magic gets seen as good magic, and good magic must come from a god.
>>47999373
Play Vampire 20th. Tzimisce's Vicissitude combined with excessive Medicine knowledge makes a pretty evil motherfucker that can "heal" people. Using blood.
>>47999972
You're a bad liar.
>opposing teams playing healers
Why are there "opposing teams" in a tabletop role-playing game?
>game theory
Does not mean what you're trying to imply it means.
>have designed several role-playing games
So has Monte Cook. Doesn't mean he's good at it.
>Reactive healing ruins the experience of games
"Ugh, I HATE that my character is still alive."
>it causes immense natural balancing issues
That's why all-Medic teams sweep in TF2.
>then there's the problem of being forced to target-pick them first which just allows damage classes to do the same to yours.
"Now their healer is dead and we've got more damage-dealers, but they're in better fighting shape because of the pre-mortem actions of the healer. Ugh! This is so unbalanced!"
>>48000368
But Monte Cook IS good at it, bad example, how about Modiphius?
>>48000302
>meatsponge more than the other guy
That only works if you have unlimited healing. Name on tabletop game where such is the case.
>>48000368
>>it causes immense natural balancing issues
>That's why all-Medic teams sweep in TF2.
This is how I know you're being obtuse. No one claims an all-healer party is a good idea, or that healing is inherently broken. The claim is that a healer will change the math behind combat trades and inherently give an advantage to the team with a healer. Therefore, both teams must have a healer to minimize their risk of loss.
It doesn't matter if one team [the adventurers] has been fighting through room after room, or if the team is freshly arrived [the monsters]. It's a matter of trades, and even a fresh fighter benefits when healed after taking damage.
This situation is near textbook Prisoner's Dilemma, which is game theory, by the way.
>>48000368
You have no idea what you're even talking about.
Opposing teams are the challenges set forth by the GM as opposed to the party. There needs to be stakes and drama. I've explained that easy access to reactive healing on the spot kills that dead.
Game Theory exactly means what I implied. It's strategic decision making and healing removes a lot of interesting decision making. The use of game theoretical terms was also correct. I've had to tutor on this subject before.
>So has Monte Cook. Doesn't mean he's good at it.
>"Ugh, I HATE that my character is still alive."
>That's why all-Medic teams sweep in TF2.
These aren't even arguments, just huge fallacies. Who cares about Monte Cook? There's no need to refute an argument of credibility by quality of work, which wasn't even made. Contradicting with sarcasm isn't helping your stance either. Making a ridiculous comparison to a real-time twitch shooter has nothing to do with tabletop imagination games in anything less than an obtuse sense.
>"Now their healer is dead and we've got more damage-dealers, but they're in better fighting shape because of the pre-mortem actions of the healer. Ugh! This is so unbalanced!"
Again, you can't just sweep straight past point A as though the effect of it is all that matters. Over time, it just becomes Attack, Heal, Repeat. Not about TTRPGs but it has relevant points: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/EricSchwarz/20121210/183199/DPS_and_the_Decline_of_Complexity_in_RPGs.php
>>48000452
Pathfinder. In my group, we had a fucking frogperson who could cling to ceilings and heal for just stupid amounts every turn seemingly without end. Not like it's a shining example of a good game but you said "name one".
>>48000390
Monte Cook is shit at making games.; His giant boner for wizards always unbalances everything he makes.
Robert Schwalb makes good games.
>>48000453
To add to what you said, in fact most monster parties including bosses are scaled such that a fresh party would flatten them because of the perception of wearing down. Healing only exacerbates this issue.
>>47999882
>>47999910
>>47999934
>>47999956
>>47999999
>>48000051
>>48000081
>>48000109
>>48000260
>>47999989
>>47999994
>>48000136
>>48000260
>>48000368
What's interesting to me is that you're actually kind of right. I don't think Healing should be removed, and it's only really a major difficulty for games like D&D, but this is a real problem in game design. In one game, I think Dragon Age 2 or Inquisition, they decided that healing magic wouldn't be a thing because it essentially required all battles either be resource draining slogs or they'd be too easy. When you have the ability to heal at will, you create a situation where here isn't a way to know when designing the game just how hard things can hit.
For a simple example: When you have zero healing and you know for a fact that the parameters of the game allow for a character to have between X and Y health, you know how much damage a monster can do to feel challenging but not impossible. When you add healing into the mix, that X becomes almost any number. This is one of the reasons CR in D&D and spin offs is so inaccurate and wild. Because it has to make so many assumptions about what the "average" party is like. You also create a situation where having a healer is necessary. If you don't have healing, that CR CL encounter is going to feel a lot tougher.
Personally, I don't think the answer is to remove healing or anything. It's just to change the way that it's handled.
>>48000452
There are plenty of games where the healing is effectively unlimited.
>>47999373
Faith healers.
>>47999733
>>47999639
Final Fantasy doesn't have an Arcane/Divine divide. It's magic users are varied. Sometimes its natural talent and sometimes it's studied (and sometimes it's equipping something).
>>48000507
>Is shit, no supporting evidence
He was one of the lead designers for the most played RPG in the world. He was a major influence on 5e DnD, he makes fantastic adventure modules, he has made millions on his new RPGs which have extremely solid design decisions.
Robert Schwalb made the Warhammer Fantasy RPG.
Your move.
>>48000526
>When you have the ability to heal at will, you create a situation where here isn't a way to know when designing the game just how hard things can hit.
For RPGs it's ironically the opposite argument than for modern shitty FPS games. Where in modern FPS, you have fast HP regen because developers want to design their linear corridor of railroad rooms such that they have exact knowledge of player HP (but they choose full since it's the only amount they can guarantee no matter the skill of the player). In an RPG, Bioware chooses no healing at all since it means they can scale the encounters to accomodate the "average" damage and evasion made by a competent party. This means everything is a damage and skill check and if you fail, you're probably at fault. Think Dark Souls.
>>48000526
>Personally, I don't think the answer is to remove healing or anything. It's just to change the way that it's handled.
Neither do I. Which I said as much. Changing it to be a resource-consuming thing that's rare and over time really makes it a precious thing to players who won't want to squander it. This creates an interesting risk drama. Do I push my luck and see if I can out-tactics this combat without healing while it's down to the wire, saving my heal for the big fight? Or do I heal now, not risking it and potentially having to turn back for today and miss the big fight?
>>47999882
>>47999972
You make a very good point. I personally believe that combat healing is almost always a worse option than inflicting damage, because K.O.ing foes is almost always better than restoring health to an ally. An enemy that is incapacitated can't inflict damage on your party, thus killing even a grunt or two on the first round can result in significant 'pseudo-healing' for your side. Aggression tends to be far more effective, and it also speeds up combat to a small degree which is laudible.
At the same time, removing reactive healing can step on a lot of character concepts and playstyles. I personally enjoy playing support-style characters in games, and having the ability to heal up a fallen ally is both powerful and makes me feel appreciated. Thus, assuming that you're playing something like D&D, you can compromise and meld reactive and proactive healing together in one simple way:
Temporary Hit Points.
In 5E, THP is lost before standard HP if damage is suffered, and it also goes away when the character takes a short or long rest (or after 5 minutes in-game pass). THP also does not stack; if you already have some, and you'd gain more, you set your new THP value to the higher number instead of adding them together.
If you changed it so that every single healing spell in 5E granted THP instead of HP, healers would be encourage to apply it pre-fight rather than mid-fight, since HP could only be regained through rest and spending Hit Dice. Assuming gaining THP doesn't stop you from Dying and making Death Saves, that's a pretty significant change. It would also mean that any excess 'healing' applied to a character (that is, remaining THP after a fight ends) would be wasted, thus (again) encouraging spells being cast in advance.
>>48000578
Monte Cook is someone who mostly made shitty 3.5 OGL games that didn't have any business being under D20, like World of Darkness or Call of Cthulhu.
I'm honestly surprised that Cypher System isn't bad.
Arguing that D&D is good just because it's the most played is also kind of spurious. Not saying Cook is the Devil or anything (like I would have said four years ago), but "He was involved in D&D!" is a bad argument. After all, Twilight was beloved.
>>48000646
>I personally believe that combat healing is almost always a worse option than inflicting damage
That's the opposite of what he said, though. He said the problem is that healing is so good. If your enemy heals, it's much harder to KO them. If you heal, it's much harder to KO you. And since the games where this is a problem are all games like D&D where you have strict party roles, you'll have one person healing and others doing damage.
Also, I'm not really a D&D person, but you know what made healing more interesting than simply regaining meatpoints?4e's healing surges
>>48000578
Monte Cook is almost the sole reason why wizards are overpowered in any system he's made. The dude has a massive boner for quadratic magic.
But hey, let's pretend that D&D is good. You obviously know nothing of Schwalb seeing as the man has worked on 3 different editions of D&D, a Song of Ice and Fire RPG, and made Shadow of the Demon Lord.
>>48000646
>At the same time, removing reactive healing can step on a lot of character concepts and playstyles. I personally enjoy playing support-style characters in games, and having the ability to heal up a fallen ally is both powerful and makes me feel appreciated. Thus, assuming that you're playing something like D&D, you can compromise and meld reactive and proactive healing together in one simple way:
I think support roles can be robust and satisfying without resorting to reactive healing of any kind. THP are a step in the right direction but there are bigger strides in the form of heal-over-time (HoT) and very limited resources. Being forced, for example, to decide before a bout starts how much you want to use (almost like a bid versus your confidence) really throws in some sexy game theory atomic games.
In one of my games, support is a very easy and common role with satisfying rewards. Essentially, you can make ridiculously poweful potion effects, turning your into a god of different styles, or doing the same for your party. Additionally, you can be an enchanter and make the party's weapons and armor ridiculous or even make tons of specific-cases to give them tactical edges. Not to mention each of the four schools of magic have lots of unique support skills (with one buff per person, weapon, shield each, plus general buffs). Then there's area control stuff similar to the Force spell in Dark Souls.
>>48000551
But it's originally based on Dungeons & Dragons 2e. It's branched out since then, but since it's never totally ditched its roots it still provides its basis.
I haven't played every Final Fantasy, but in IV the job "white mage" is treated more like a priest than it is a scholar; in both IX and X the healing characters get at least some of their power from summons; and in the DS version of III they at minimum wear hooded robes based on a medieval monk's. VI is in progress.Oh god I think I have a problem please help me.
>>48000646
Continuing on, further discouragement of reactive healing could be achieved through several means, including:
>Penalties when characters are below certain HP thresholds (and THP would not remove these penalties)
>Conversely, bonuses for being ABOVE certain HP thresholds, to avoid a 'death spiral' if playing a more Bright game
>Adding a 'cooldown' or explicit limited uses per fight to combat healing, to prevent spamming in dangerous fights
>Draining a highly limited resource from the healed party member when used (ala Healing Surges in 4E D&D)
>Increased casting time in combat, perhaps easily interrupted by enemy attacks
>Increasing the resources required to use reactive healing spells instead of proactive healing (for example, 1 spell slot out of combat, 2 spell slots in combat)
Honestly, there are many ways to discourage reactive healing, not necessarily because it's overpowered (it's not), but because it's not conducive to a dynamic, action-packed combat experience.
>>48000710
Reactive healing is only good if the hit points restored through it are greater than the hit points you'd effectively heal by just killing the enemy immediately (or faster). A healing spell that heals 10 hit points, and an attack that kills an enemy one round earlier and denies him an attack that would have done 10 damage, are both roughly equivalent. If the spell heals 50 and the enemy would deal 10, the spell is better. If the spell heals 10 and the enemy would deal 50, killing the enemy is better. So it's mostly just a matter of the internal mathematics of the game.
My main problem is that, honestly, ending combat one round earlier just saves everyone time, which is generally better.
As for healing surges, I like them. 13th Age handles them well in my opinion. I like systems where healers are useful, but not required in your party, just like you don't NEED a warrior, rogue, or mage. A party with four different kinds of barbarians should be both playable and fun.
>>48000769
>I haven't played every Final Fantasy, but in IV the job "white mage" is treated more like a priest than it is a scholar
What makes you say this? True, Rosa does have a "pray" ability, but there are libraries for both black mages and white mages in Baron castle. In Mysidia, black mages and white mages live side by side, equally close to the tower of prayer.
>>48000578
D&D 3.5 was the most-played because it was hastily pumped out at an opportune moment in the gaming industry then became the option which was most readily available because it had the capital to out-compete other RPGs. It's the most-played RPG for the same reason Wal-mart is the largest chain.
>>48000823
Not every setting needs priests and witches to hate each other.
>>48000823
Mostly because of the whole "white magic as a form of service" thing. And Cecil learns white magic when he abandons the power of evil.
>>48000756
Heal over Time abilities are both generally complicated (especially for new players) and are essentially just reactive healing with a delayed effect. I'm not a big fan of them, or many forms of ongoing effect to be honest. Juggling a bunch of modifiers and status effects with various bonuses and penalties is what turned me off of 3E and PF, and what made me lose interest in 4E as well. There's something to be said for simple, straightforward mechanics that don't require a lot of book-keeping or tracking.
>Being forced, for example, to decide before a bout starts how much you want to use (almost like a bid versus your confidence) really throws in some sexy game theory atomic games.
Assuming your game revolves around multiple encounters per rest, you could have each character spend a portion of their healing resource (like Hit Dice or Healing Surges) at the start of the fight and gain that much THP. Underbid and they might risk dying, but overbid and they're wasting hit points. That could be quite interesting. Call it a 'surge of adrenaline' or something.
>In one of my games, support is a very easy and common role with satisfying rewards.
Sounds interesting and very complicated. Honestly, dealing with reactive healing is important, but establishing a fun game feel that enables various playstyles can be just as important. If a player wants to be a healer who can slap an ally on the back and mend their wounds in moments, removing that option can turn off a lot of prospective players. You're free to design your game however you like, according to your vision, but if that vision can't accommodate some kinds of players, you lose them as consumers of your product. Assuming you intend your game to be published, if it is not already.
>>48000769
I'm not saying it's not. I'm just saying that it's not "Divine/Arcane", it's "White/Black" (and later you'd get Blue, Red, Summoning, etcetera). White Mages are more like priests and clerics and Divine classes, but it's not the same kind of division. Black Magic can even come from the Gods in FF.
>>48000822
Like I said, healing works and healers are a necessity because healing is a patch on your boat to stop the leaks. You can patch wherever you need, and all you need to do is keep the patches on.
If the fighter gets hit for 10 damage and you can heal him for 10, that's all you need when you've got three guys wailing on one guy. You just need to keep everyone alive long enough to do their job. Unless healing is *drastically* underwhelming, it's generally going to be better than equivalent amounts of damage.
>>48000883
He didn't mean they hate each other, he meant they're both going to church. "Living side by side" wasn't the point; "equally close to the tower of prayer" was.
>>47999373
I play RuneQuest, I can cast healing spells with most magic systems.
>>48001017
>If a player wants to be a healer who can slap an ally on the back and mend their wounds in moments, removing that option can turn off a lot of prospective players.
Well, that argument can be made of any equally popular play choice. For example, I could omit summoning or the act of calling demons to do one's bidding (I have). If I do, I'm omitting a play style as common as healing. However, the sacrifice to the game's balance is immense. Honestly when I sat down to try to balance it, I thought "How in the hell do designers do this?" and then I did a lot of reading, then more reading, then finally more reading. I found that most designers either don't balance it or just bullshit a guess. There's almost no real reliable and sufficiently mathed resource for how to handle reactive healing. Essentially, they're a flawed product of the design past. I'm sad for players who have taken a liking to it (on the rise due to the way MMOs have led gamers) but I can't let myself get caught up in that.
I would also disagree that you need to always and forever use straightforward mechanics just to save a bit of tracking, especially if that mechanic has some serious flaws. If your system by and large is streamlined and has good game feel, players typically don't mind one part that has some quirks; nay they welcome the challenge.
>>48001173
>How do designers do it?
By making healers fragile and thus a liability outside of their ability to improve longevity.
Or by making the healer have less total output in terms of other important mechanics (such as damage or out-of-combat utility) so that their healing instead serves the purpose of effectively extending the usability of those features by means of extending the lives of the characters who provide them, in roughly equal measure to the addition of another damage-based or utility-based character to the party.
Or by factoring in healing no matter what and making the advantage of healing characters that they can provide it more easily, so it doesn't muddle with their rough HP approximations.
Or by making healing force the player to give up a resource that's pooled with other, equally-useful non-healing abilities.
>>48001020
>If the fighter gets hit for 10 damage and you can heal him for 10, that's all you need when you've got three guys wailing on one guy.
You're assuming that you're fighting 4 on 1 there, and that one character's healing output is equivalent to the 'boss' enemy's entire damage output per round. If we're also assuming that the healer in question can keep spending enough resources to maintain this level of healing for the entire battle, then healing is indeed overpowered. But that's a HELL of a lot of 'ifs', heck I'm not even listing most of them.
>>48001173
Several games have, in fact, balancing summoning magic in the past. Just because doing so is difficult and requires testing does not mean that it should not be done at all. Oftentimes the mechanics that take the most testing and work to get right are the best ones. I think that if you discount reactive healing along with these other 'problematic' abilities, you will only serve to narrow the scope of your game's possibilities and thus your audience. Don't give up because it's hard to get right, work to include it because it's so hard to get right. >>48001319 also makes some great points.
>>47999910
>>47999958
>>47999956
>>48000260
The guy's point is perfectly sound and then there's you guys, acting like a mob of angry children spilling out of the short bus and realizing that they weren't going to disneyland after all. You don't make the slightest move to refute his points and think it's going to work to just act like it's too stupid for words. The problem is... THAT NEVER WORKS. Perhaps it's offended you that he has an unconventional criticism for the system, perhaps it's upsetting to you that he's attacking something that's long been the status quo. We, as humans, are flawed, and we can't help but be emotional sometimes. Just keep it to your dumb fuckin self and stop spamming the board with shitty "omg wat lol" reactions.
>>48001352
No, you missed my point. Balancing summoners is not hard. It's just an example of an equally popular play style not included. The point being that not all play styles must be included.
>>48001319
That...has no bearing on anything. In fact that person mentioned the concept of targeting healers first, probably because they're A. a ridiculous unit and B. easy to wipe out.
Again, all of these things you mention just assume the forced presence of a healer, which was a problem to begin with. It's taking the conclusion of your argument as the premise, which is just Begging the Question.
>>48001352
Adding to this: typically, dead enemies can't deal damage. So by having a healer rather than another heavy hitter, you're simultaneously letting the enemies live longer and deal more damage. Reactive healing is exactly what makes that trade-off worthwhile.
>>48001562
I'm pointing out exactly why a party with no healer is as viable as a party with a healer in most games. Because the healer has drawbacks. How does that "have no bearing"? How does that "assume the forced presence of a healer"?
>>47999373
Because before the 19th century, people didn't really understand medical science/how the body works well enough for it to really be reliable, so no matter how much bookschoollearnstudy you put into it medical treatment was still a crapshoot at best and healing was generally considered to pretty much be in God's hands.
In a fantasy setting, you gotta realize a fair few things are going to be based on antiquated modes of thinking. You can't just go dragging modern paradigms into it all willy-nilly.
>>48001592
>>48001352
The difference is that most enemies that will require you to heal against ARE heavy hitters that won't go down in one blow. I mean, most bosses in a Pathfinder premade scenario are going to have a few minions that go down quickly, but for the most part it's the big guy that will knock you on your ass and have your healer scrambling to keep the party boat afloat.
>>48001319
>>48001616
But it's not as viable. If you don't have a healer and you go up against the average "this is for your level" challenge in a typical RPG that has healers (D&D et al) you're going to die.
>>48001694
I've both played and run 4e and 5e games both with and without a healer. It's no more essential than a defender or a skill monkey.
>>48001616
The problem, though is that healers remove player triangularity. Triangularity is what happens when a player has N choices where each of them has a different payoff structure, commensurate with their risk. So for example, choice A could have a risk of failing 13% of the time, but a payoff of 100. Giving an expected value of 87, which is swingier than choice B which has a failure chance of 3% and a payoff of 70. Giving an expected value of, 67, which is a whole 20 points lower but also a fifth as likely to fail. Adding this simple risk-reward system into a game adds depth, meaning and most importantly: stakes.
Your proposed method of healer is going to lower the risk while keeping the payoff the same. All for the cost of a "fragile" (read: party-protected) slot in the party.
>>48001774
I've played a lot of 4e and 5e too. Healers were necessary.
See how anecdotal evidence doesn't work since other people can have contradictory experiences?
>>48001866
It can when someone says "X is impossible" and another person says "I've observed X". Or in this case "X is inevitable" vs. "I've observed ¬X".
>>48001918
You're just making pseudointellectual points then. People don't speak in true absolutes even when they appear to, so calm the fuck down. "Winning" the letter of an argument is never an accomplishment. Take a step back and address the actual points being made. Also I'd like to continue to point out that your anecdote still doesn't count as evidence since it's an experience personal to you, not a controlled experiment under rigorous conditions.
>>48001866
Nah, your anecdote isn't that convincing. Maybe what you meant to say was "the campaign was challenging and without such a practical asset as healers, we wouldn't have done as well"
Just about everyone in 5e has means of self-heal and everyone heals on a short or long rest, and you can always buy health potions so long as it isn't an eccentrically low-wealth, low-magic setting. Healers are NOT necessary. In fact, technically speaking, no particular kind of class is "necessary". It's not a video game, you can get away with a part of all wizards if you want to and it'll be fine.
>>48001970
>Nah, your anecdote isn't that convincing
Oh look, I found the point where the meta-arguments started to appear and make the whole thread lose meaning and purpose.
>>48001504
Sure, man, include whatever subsystems you want in your game. I'm just saying, if you don't include some popular elements of fantasy roleplaying, you're probably going to lose out on potential players. If this is your homebrew for your D&D group then that doesn't matter, but if it's something you want to publish it absolutely does.
>>48001592
I did mention that in a previous post. You have to weigh the net healing of, say, a Cure spell against killing an enemy with, for example, the Magic Missile spell. Same action, same resource, different effects with different net damage mitigation results. You have to weigh the benefits of one against the other.
>>48001694
>The difference is that most enemies that will require you to heal against ARE heavy hitters that won't go down in one blow.
It's not about killing an enemy in one blow, it's about reducing the number of rounds it gets to act in during that combat. If the cleric attacks (one or more times) and helps the party kill the 'boss' monster one round early, he's essentially preventing all the damage that enemy would have done on that 'voided' round.
>>48001918
I agree. The statement "If you don't have a healer and you go up against the average "this is for your level" challenge in a typical RPG that has healers (D&D et al) you're going to die." is provably false. In D&D Basic, the Red Box, Clerics didn't get spells until 2nd level. Therefore you could have a group of 1st level characters, in a game with healers, with NO HEALING MAGIC, and still survive. Encounters built for a group of level 1 characters, who could by nature have no access to healing magic, were not designed to kill them all. Therefore, saying that healers are required to overcome average level-appropriate encounters is untrue.
>>48002050
>I'm just saying, if you don't include some popular elements of fantasy roleplaying, you're probably going to lose out on potential players
And I'm telling you that an argument from consequence doesn't change the validity of the original point. Any decision made in a game is going to potentially attract or lose players. You hope as a designer that you can have integrity to your vision and still attract players. You don't compromise for the sake of memes, but instead provide attractive alternatives. You don't ignore them either; as I said, you provide attractive alternatives. Deconstruct what the flawed thing players want to do and redirect it into something positive for your game: such as a generalized support role—even expanding it into something much more robust than a tug-of-war over numbers.
>>48001486
Or maybe we just really think he's being fucking stupid. Just like you're being a bitch for whining about people calling him, probably you same fagging, a retard.
>>48002174
Sure is Dunning-Kruger in here, example-man.
>>48001941
The "actual points" you're making are entirely based on theory, not on observation of evidence. That's the definition of pseudoscience. And even if we ignore that they're still flimsy. Every time someone contradicts you in a practical sense you just say "nuh-uh."
>>48001694
>It can be balanced out by the fact that combat is extended with the absence of a damage-dealer
>Nuh-uh, it's still less viable because [muttering]
>Healers don't have to be able to heal all the damage characters take in a turn. That wouldn't even make sense, and is not representative of most games.
>Nuh-uh, because enemies can just kill you in one hit anyway. In this one game. Even though earlier in the thread I denied only playing this one game, but now suddenly it's the only example I can pull.
>>48002210
>The "actual points" you're making are entirely based on theory, not on observation of evidence.
First of all, you're an idiot. You'd know that you're an idiot if you understood that scientific observation is informed by theory. The second reason you're an idiot is that you conflate your personal experiences as rigorous evidence.
>>48002210
>Every time someone contradicts you in a practical sense you just say "nuh-uh."
Now who's just saying "nuh-uh"? Actually a lot of people have agreed with the heal-hater, at least partially and some in-full. Are you afraid to admit there are two camps giving arguments; thus trying to whiteout one side?
>>48002228
I conflate the experiences of tens of thousands of playtesters and players across dozens of systems with rigorous evidence, relative to the topic being discussed.
>>48002254
As far as I can tell, these are the posts that agreed with him:
>>48001486
>>48000646
>>48000109
What points do they make?
>>48002268
K. Making random generalized statements totally doesn't make evidence but ok.
>>48002333
The most intellectually dishonest person in this thread.
Try again friend.
>>48002354
I submit as evidence the fact that "my group played without a healer and was totally gimped" is not a common topic of discussion on /tg/ or elsewhere, nor has it been a common complaint that games who respond to their players have been forced to accommodate.
Just one guy in one thread.
>>48002096
>Any decision made in a game is going to potentially attract or lose players.
Not all decisions are made equal. Printing your book on yellow paper and in Comic Sans isn't a good decision, even if it's part of your artistic vision. Neither is removing a mechanic and 'power suite' that (I would wager) many potential players wish to see in their fantasy roleplaying games.
Being a good game designer involves knowing that people are going to want to do things you don't like with your system, either as a player or as a game master, and if you hard-code your system to not allow that to happen, they're not going to play it. Rules exist to expand and empower the player characters ad the world they inhabit, branching out from the core resolution mechanic(s) your game is built upon. When you make something flat-out impossible, you drive away every player who loves doing that particular thing. Enabling certain play-styles and character concepts, even if you don't like them, isn't a bad thing! Not by a long shot.
Your problem, sir, is that you believe you know better than your players, that you're excluding these rules for their own good, giving them 'attractive alternatives' out of a desire to wean them off these unhealthy mechanics and 'power suites' such as instant healing and summoning magic. Unfortunately, all you are doing is telling your customers how to use your product, what they can and can't do with it, and calling what they like 'bad/wrong fun'. Instead of saying "This kind of play-style always sucks, I'm not going to allow it!" you should be wondering "That kind of play-style is often done poorly, how can I make it work in my game?"
Your approach to game design strikes me as immature and deeply flawed. I wish you the best in improving your perspective, so that someday you might realize that creating a work that satisfies your players' wants and needs is more important than creating a work that suits your sensibilities. Good day.
>>48001774
That just means your ST was compensating. The actual Challenge Ratings tend to assume you'll have a healer.
>>48001941
>People don't speak in true absolutes even when they appear to, so calm the fuck down.
Man, I honestly wish more people would realize that. I'm constantly called out on "acting objective" when I'm clearly being fucking casual. People who honestly should know better jump on my ass just to jump on my ass about it, because I said something like "everyone" or "always".
>>48002050
>It's not about killing an enemy in one blow, it's about reducing the number of rounds it gets to act in during that combat. If the cleric attacks (one or more times) and helps the party kill the 'boss' monster one round early, he's essentially preventing all the damage that enemy would have done on that 'voided' round.
But if the enemy reduces the number of rounds your side gets to act (by killing one ofthem) then you lose.
The only point of HP that matters is the last.
>In D&D Basic, the Red Box, Clerics didn't get spells until 2nd level. Therefore you could have a group of 1st level characters, in a game with healers, with NO HEALING MAGIC, and still survive
That's not at all what we're talking about. Obviously a challenge for first level characters won't assume you have healing, since you can't have healing. not that D&D basic was balanced or anything in the first place.
>>48002210
Are you fucking stupid or something? You can't just act like everything I'm saying is "nuh-uh". These are things actual fucking designers have taken note of.
>>48002333
None of those posts are mine, so clearly there are more people who agree with the "heal-hater" (who doesn't hate healers,just the way it's used)
>>48002528
>Neither is removing a mechanic and 'power suite' that (I would wager) many potential players wish to see in their fantasy roleplaying games.
No one has even been talking about removing anything. People are just saying that the way that healing is used is not interesting or creative, and tends to lead to samey situations. In fact, I think a lot of people who do play healer would appreciate more options than "heal the person who took the most damage with your anti-damage power".
>>48002600
>None of those posts are mine, so clearly there are more people who agree with the "heal-hater" (who doesn't hate healers,just the way it's used)
That's exactly what I was saying. I replied to someone who said there were lots of people agreeing with you, so I went through and found all the posts I could of people agreeing with you but who did not appear to be you.
>>48002600
>That just means your ST was compensating.
Do you know what happens when you assume?
>These are things actual fucking designers have taken note of.
Then it seems like you should be able to explain why. You're not really doing that, though.
>But it's not as viable. If you don't have a healer and you go up against the average "this is for your level" challenge in a typical RPG that has healers (D&D et al) you're going to die. This is simply a fact that I don't need to qualify with reasons or examples that counteract your reasons or examples or demonstrate why your reasons or examples are incorrect in any game but one particularly poorly-designed one.
>>47999373
Some lore's have tried this. It went over like shit on a stick, people want flawed characters not uber gods. When merlin mcgees magical puppy dragon gets o e to many fireballs to the dick we dont want to just have merlin zap the fireballs gone. Its a way to keep a sense of danger and drama around while also letting there be wizards.
>>48002689
>I replied to someone who said there were lots of people agreeing with you
No, I mean that I'm not the original poster.
>Then it seems like you should be able to explain why. You're not really doing that, though.
The original person explained it, and I went into more detail here >>48000526
When determining the challenge rating of something, the general assumption is that the average party will have healing. That effectively increases their potential pool of health. You have to keep that in mind or you'll be unable to make decent challenges for the people who do.
An easy challenge for a group with healing is not an easy challenge for a group without, because the group without essentially has less health.
This is vidya, but valid:
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ChristopherGile/20141222/233078/Dragon_Age_Inquisition_and_the_removal_of_Heal.php
You can even find a ton of forum posts about how frustrating it is to plan encounters around healing.
>>48002784
What the fuck are you talking about? There are plenty of games with arcane magic that can heal.
>>47999639
Healing as divine in the game comes from Christianity. Read the Bible. Watch some old Cecil B. de Mille movies.
>>48001995
Not even a meta argument, in fact my argument was about the insignificance of the meta. It was YOU who said the words "Healers were necessary". That's a statement about a meta, whether it's system-wide or exclusive to your campaign. My point is that the guy you responded to is entirely right - the healer isn't "necessary" as some sort of role in the meta. Nothing is. The meta doesn't fucking matter.
>>48002837
It's not particularly relevant when it starts with
>When the player can heal themselves indefinitely
And a lot of the assumptions of the article are based on that.
>Assuming that neither die though you can still heal the other one back up to full heath. You didn't waste the heal, that health is still there on that other character.
But if healing's a limited resource, as it is in most TTRPGs, then it is wasted.
>>48003102
It's limited, but gets less and less limited the higher you get in level. When you're level 10 or 15, you have more than enough healing to get through an encounter.
>>48003212
And the cool stuff you could be doing with those resources becomes weightier and weightier to pass up. In 5e, as an example, you can Cure Wounds with a 1st-level slot, but that's a lot less meaningful at 10th or 15th level, even if you blow all four 1st-level slots you can have.
Mass Cure Wounds is a little more relevant (3d8+mod to a group) but it means passing up on Scrying or Insect Plague or Guardian of Faith.
And mid-battle, the most valuable resource you've got is time. An action spent healing is an action not spent killing. That doesn't change with level. Out of battle, there are Hit Dice. Healing classes are just insurance.
Take a step back, and if you're playing a cleric, then you're not getting to use any of those awesome wizard spells or playing as something resilient enough to not particularly need magical healing. Swap out the cleric for a wizard and you've got a ton of new options in combat. You can't heal, but you can have two players flying around avoiding hits, for example. Or your Vengeance paladin can isolate an enemy so they're not dealing damage to anyone else.
5e's just what I've got most handy. The same basic principle applies to pretty much every game.
>>48003681
An action spent healing is an action that furthers your sides ability to heal. That's one of the reasons that action economy is so important. The big bad bosses don't have the same action economy as you have, so they hit SO MUCH harder that you generally need healing or your side will die.
>>47999406
iunderstoodthatreference.gif
>>47999450
A few months ago in a dying thread there was a kerfuffle about how we all realized people named "Jim" are always great players/GMs, and people named "Craig" are always stupid, shitty, and/or That Guy
hella obscure though, if that is actually what he's referencing
>>48000304
curiously, this is the default way the spell list is set up in GURPS magic - healing spells are a precursor to many of the necromancy spells, which are a precursor to more conventional ressurection spells.
also 'arcane' magic is more or less the standard, and most mages will have a few points put into some of the healing spells since they're pretty useful (in particular, the one that lets you regain magical energy/fatigue faster, conventional healing isn't immediately useful since you take a penalty equal to how much damage you have to heal yourself)
>>48000469
>Who cares about Monte Cook? There's no need to refute an argument of credibility by quality of work, which wasn't even made.
he means to say that just because you 'make rpgs' doesn't mean you're automatically an absolute authority on it
which is proving pretty right because it looks like you're talking more about playing an RPG like vidya
>muh opposing teams
you also seem to vastly overestimate the ability of your average healer in a game
there's a reason 'healbotting' is commonly looked down upon in games like pathfinder (and it's not because it's 'massively unbalancing')
>>47999373
>Medical practitioners IRL have to put extensive bookschoollearnstudy in order to be competent at their craft.
That's the modern world, OP. In many ancient societies, religion was heavily tied to medicine, and priests were often healers.
>>48000578
Monte Cook is responsible for Dead Gods.
Dead Gods is the worst adventure of all time.
Therefore, Monte Cook a shit.
>>48004749
Was that the Planescape adventure with the bad guy trying to resurrect a dead god, or am I confusing it with something?
>>48000608
>Neither do I. Which I said as much. Changing it to be a resource-consuming thing that's rare and over time really makes it a precious thing to players who won't want to squander it.
Helloooo 4e healing surges. Close enough, anyway.
Arcanum steam works and magic obscura treats healing as a side of necromancy, while the brazilian 3d&t treats healing as a side of water elemental magic, because the human body is mostly water (we br r dumb).
>>48002528
>Your approach to game design strikes me as immature and deeply flawed.
Your approcah to argumentation strikes me as immature and deeply flawed. Since you obviously can't read that post mentioned other equally common RPG choices.
>>48002985
I don't think you know what "meta" meant in this context.
>>48005702
>Helloooo 4e healing surges. Close enough, anyway.
Healing surges are not rare. Everyone has them, and at least 5. You're an idiot and healing surges are a topic of huge debate among RPG gamers in their problematic nature.
>>48000710
Oh, Cypher is bad alright. >>47946771
>>48006986
They are a daily limited resource and they are just enough to edge out 4 combats.
The number of them doesn't matter, the HP they recharge being capped, and the cap on the number of times you can use them in combat does. They are only "rare" in the sense that unless you are a vampire you can not get more than your daily allotment I guess.
Compare to 3.PF where a CLW can pump you up from anything, and at low level the cleric can channel energy to rully restore the entire party 3 times a day easy.
Compare to 5e, where they are a limited resource, however, they do not act as a cap since you can get other heals as well without using them up, and they can't be used in combat anyway, so there's really no strategy in using/conserving them.
The only thing it's missing from >>48000608
is some benefit from conserving them; for example, if there was a universal short-rest heal, you could cut back on their numbers a bit, and they'd be a perfect fit for people who want to play the resource management game.
>>48007209
I saw that thread. It mostly just seemed like nitpicking and bitching. "Dex is a God-stat!" is something that comes up in so many games.
>>48006986
I think you missed the point. They're still limited.
"Healing in general" is a topic of huge debate among RPG gamers due to it's problematic nature, as evidenced by this thread and the fact that it comes up every few weeks. You can also google "RPG healing problems" or just "D&D Healing problems" and have plenty of discussion of it, same as this thread.
>>47999373
>Medical practitioners IRL have to put extensive bookschoollearnstudy in order to be competent at their craft.
it's the same in fantasy. no one said there aren't ordinary doctors, it just doesn't give them magical powers.
>>47999373
>Why is it that healing magic is always a divine thing rather than an arcane thing?
What is this joker even on about? Repair is a perfectly valid healing spell.
>I'm not a robot
Lying to captcha to be obnoxious.
>>48007521
Well no, if you'd read a bit more you'd find out that there's a hell of a lot of other problems too.
>>48000951
That just implies that white magic is associated with altruism and righteousness. White magic in FFIV has religious imagery associated with it: angels appear when Life1/Raise or Life2/Arise is cast; white mage Rosa has the "pray" ability; the Eidolon Asura, who is based on a type of god in Hindo-Buddhist mythology, casts a random white magic spell when summoned, etc.
When Cecil is anointed with the "Hallowed Light", he learns basic white magic. This all implies that white magic is a spiritual, religious thing. However, there is a library in Baron Castle where white mages study books to learn white magic spells, implying that it is also a scholarly thing. Rosa also wears equipment called the "sage's surplice" for a bit of academic imagery.
White magic is clearly both academic and spiritual in nature.
>>48000769
there's literally a class called scholar that heals
Damn, this thread is making me want to play some FFIII
>>47999831
Why DO bards get Arcane magic of all things? LIke, I get why they get magic, but if there's gonna be a divine/arcane split, why not an arcane/divine/dance magic split?
>>48009497
>tfw every attempt to make a pen and paper game that feels like Final Fantasy is ruined by cumbersome mechanics
>>48009913
They're just Sorcerers who use Arcane magic through dance instead of bloodlines.
>>48010400
>>tfw every attempt to make a pen and paper game that feels like Final Fantasy is ruined by cumbersome mechanics
Why don't we try our own hands at it then?
>>48011452
I have friends that keep asking me to DM an FFXI-inspired game for them, but they always talk about the things they'd want in it, and it's all over-complicated video game shit that you can't just 1:1 translate to tabletop. Whenever I mention how some things "could" be interpreted in tabletop, they get all pissy that it'd be different. I mean, at that point, why not just go play the video game?
>>48011452
I've thought about it. The problem with such things is that core mechanics are simple, everything else is time consuming and hard as fuck. Though honestly I think "reminiscent of SNES era jRPGs" is more conducive to a workable system than "accurately models Final Fantasy 2-6"
>>48011595
Examples?
>>48009913
bards were originally divine. they were quasi-druids, like ye olde skaldic types. dunno why they changed it.
>>48011780
One was a Corsair (he was everything, actually) and he wants Phantom Roll to function exactly the same. While the blackjack-with-dice mechanic is actually perfect for tabletop, he still wants gradual variants of things like Haste (improved attack speed) and Refresh (regenerating mana). I tried to tell him how this would have to be rebalanced and have less variation, like, maybe only 3 or 4 results, and he was confused why there couldn't be like...+5% Haste, +7% Haste, +9% Haste, etc.
I'm into D&D 5e now, so I suggested just fitting things into it - like I know someone on here keeps bringing up a Black Mage Sorcerous Origin - but whenever I mention something D&D-ish and not FF-ish, they lose interest.
I also explained how TTRPGs aren't just board games, so I'd like every mechanic to have actual explanations for how such things are possible. Like, Corsair's Roll increases EXP gained...I don't think it makes sense to have that in tabletop unless you reinterpret it as something else. He didn't like that.
However, that did inspire him to point out how hexaguns have six barrels, so obviously shoot six bullets at once even though they don't in-game, so he wants to roll six attacks every time he shoots. I've avoided the conversation ever since he suggested this.
>>48011936
>One was a Corsair (he was everything, actually) and he wants Phantom Roll to function exactly the same. While the blackjack-with-dice mechanic is actually perfect for tabletop, he still wants gradual variants of things like Haste (improved attack speed) and Refresh (regenerating mana). I tried to tell him how this would have to be rebalanced and have less variation, like, maybe only 3 or 4 results, and he was confused why there couldn't be like...+5% Haste, +7% Haste, +9% Haste, etc.
I don't understand any of this.
>I also explained how TTRPGs aren't just board games, so I'd like every mechanic to have actual explanations for how such things are possible. Like, Corsair's Roll increases EXP gained...I don't think it makes sense to have that in tabletop unless you reinterpret it as something else. He didn't like that.
I don't actually see a problem with this, other than the fact that I hate character-specific leveling systems, but I don't know what you mean about "have actual explanations". There are plenty of games that don't (like 5e).
>However, that did inspire him to point out how hexaguns have six barrels, so obviously shoot six bullets at once even though they don't in-game, so he wants to roll six attacks every time he shoots. I've avoided the conversation ever since he suggested this.
That would be 1 attack. More bullets doesn't mean it's a separate attack for each. That's why in (most systems at least) a shotgun isn't multiple attacks.
>>48011452
>>48011780
Would there be a non-cumbersome way to translate the ATB system to the tabletop? Here's what I'm thinking:
Maybe everybody has an initiative value, which is randomized at the start of a battle. To determine whose turn it is, everyone subtracts their initiative value from 20 and divide the result by their speed score, and whoever gets the lowest result gets to go. After their turn is over, their initiative value is set to 0 and everybody else adds their speed value times the quotient that the person who just went had. Decimals may be truncated for simplicity's sake.
Is that too bullshitty? It's too bullshitty isn't it. It didn't seem so complex in my head.
>>48012095
>Would there be a non-cumbersome way to translate the ATB system to the tabletop?
Define "non-cumbersome". Exalted's Tick and Speed system with some tweaks could work.
Your system involves a lot of math, and when you need to use a quotient (and I'm not even sure what you mean here) and decimals, that's not "non-cumbersome"
>>48012187
Sorry, "decimals may be truncated" means "just drop the decimals". "Quotient" means the result when you divide one number by another.
Let me explain what I have in mind here; from the name, "Exalted's Tick and Speed system" might be pretty similar to this one.
What I'm imagining here is that everyone has a speed score and a initiative value. Time is divided into "ticks" (I was using that exact word in my head). Each tick, every unit adds its speed score to its initiative value. Repeat until someone's initiative value exceeds 20, and then that unit takes its turn.
The "20 minus init value divided by speed" is a (relatively) simple calculation that will tell you how many ticks it will be before your turn. I thought we could just use this calculation to speed things up, because otherwise everybody would have to repeatedly and simultaneously add their speed scores to their init value.
>>48012095
Your speed stat is added to a counter every time anyone else takes a turn. when the counter is full you take a turn. If more than one character can take a turn at the same time, the one who's been the longest without a turn goes first. Alternatively, for possibly easier tracking, the one who has taken the least amount of turns this encounter.
This can all be kept track of using a spindown die.
>>48012457
What if you get to a point where nobody's counter is full? Everybody would have to add their speed again, and all at the same time, until someone's counter fills up. The idea behind the math was that you can skip that process and get straight to the action. If a little simple below-20 multiplication and division is too much for people, I can see how the former system might work better, but I think the calculation sounds more complex on paper than it would actual practice.
>>48012424
>Sorry, "decimals may be truncated" means "just drop the decimals". "Quotient" means the result when you divide one number by another.
I know what they mean, I'm just saying that getting into decimals is already going to be complicated. I'm also not sure what you're getting the quotient OF.
As for Exalted, file related, though I'm not sure how/if 3e changes it.
>>48012865
My point is that you're not getting into decimals at all. You're just performing integer division. You can keep the remainder for the purposes of tiebreakers (whoever has the higher remainder gets to go) but you don't have deal with decimals at all.
>I'm also not sure what you're getting the quotient OF.
You're getting the quotient of (20 - init) / speed, where init is your initiative score.
Everybody does that, with their own init value and their own speed score, each turn. Whoever gets the lowest quotient gets to go. After that player has gone, everybody takes the quotient that player got (i.e. the number of ticks that have elapsed since the last time they calculated), multiplies it by their speed, and adds it to their init value, to represent the time their characters spent getting ready to act in the meantime between the tick they calculated from and the tick that their opponent took their turn.
Then, after everyone who can go has gone, you do the calculation again and the next person takes their turn. Lather, rinse, repeat.
>>47999910
mutant post
>>48012865
>RPG.net
>"esteemed"
Good god man.
>>48014714
Who gives a shit. It's the first thing I grabbed from Google. Internet slapfights are dumb, especially considering how many people the sites people hate clearly have in common.Except 9gag. Fuck 9gag.
>>48005655
You're confusing it with something else, but that's also because Dead Gods is a fucking amazing adventure, not the worst adventure of all time.
Seriously, I ran it for a group and had a fucking blast.
>>48006986
A lot of RPG gamers are also a bunch of close minded braindead idiots who still dont even understand the concept of healing surges 8 years after they've been introduced.
Healing surges don't 'allow you to heal', spending one does.
If you have a problem with healing in 4E beeing too trivial/easy (which is a completely valid position to have), what you're actually having a problem with is the ways to spend healing surges. Which is, you know, an attribute of multiple elements of the system.
The actual point of having surges in the first place is a limit on healing.
And I don't think I've ever seen complaints that 4e was too limited in healing.
Any thoughts on healing out of combat. In combat healing for me is total cancer not even worth discussing. As for out of combat healing I think it is a must have cuz realistic healing is both boring and slow. On the other hand when you make it too easy people dont feel the stakes properly. I would like to find some balance between this but I dont know how.
>>48015075
>8 years after they've been introduced.
Jesus, time flies.
>>48015354
You mean specifically in D&D or just in general.
D&D is a really akward system because it's build upon the hp system instead of something like wounds/death spiral system like other rp's, but yet it has one of the most vocal fanbase about hp as meatpoints, which makes regaining hp just really...limited in narative scope. And sustained damage borderline broken in any narrative form.
