D&D 5E Clerics of Life: Broken, Bad Design, or Working as Intended?

[pming]

Hiya!

Isn't Jeremy WotC's go-to guy for RAI?

He may be...but that doesn't make him infallible.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Zardnaar]

Hiya!



I think Jeremy is incorrect. The way I read it, is that the Disciple of Life "adds...to a spell". The Goodberry spell creates up to 10 berries. Those berries heal you a point when you eat them. How DoL is written, it would not affect the Goodberry spell because the spell doesn't do any healing...it just creates berries. I would liken it to a "summon potion of healing" type spell; if that spell created/summoned 1d4 potions of healing, you wouldn't expect that a DoL cleric would get to add his bonuses to the amount of healing cured by the potions, would you? Of course not...the potions have been summoned by the spell...they weren't created by the spell.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

The rules say whenever you use a a spell to restore hit points to a creature.

It doesn't say when you cast a spell. RAW it works, RAI according to JC it also works.

 

[Kaychsea]

He may be...but that doesn't make him infallible.

Few of us are, but I'll go with the 5E guru on this one.

 

[DMZ2112]

Thanks for the feedback, everyone. Good discussion. It seems to me like the Cleric of Life is probably working as intended and no "multiplier" is necessary, but I'm definitely going to keep watching the class with interest.

That sounds like a fantastic battle!

As for deadly, maybe it would help to put it in perspective of a "normal" workday of 3,500xp for each level 5 PC. So a PC "should" (again, the guidelines speaking not me) go through that much difficulty 2 more times (or some other arrangement of encounters) to fill out the rest of the work day. Do you think they would be able to do it, or would they start dying through attrition?

No, I don't. Last night I put the same group up against an adult green and /that/ was the closest thing to a TPK I've ever seen that wasn't actually a TPK. XP per player: ~1,800. I had to deny the poor beast legendary actions and any more than a single breath weapon attack, and even then it killed two PCs and the Greataxe Champion Fighter was the last man standing with a single hit point when he brought the dragon down.

This campaign has been pretty good for memorable moments.

So 1,100 might not be "deadly" deadly, but a full 1,800 would be deadly deadly deadly and spam with a side of deadly. If I had to guess I'd say 1,500 is probably the practical upward limit of total survivability without a short rest, and even then I think the remaining 2,000 before a long rest would have to be sliced pretty thinly.

your party is getting off easy (even if its a "deadly" encounter).

I understand what you're saying, KM, but the official terminology makes that sentence pretty freaking stupid.

I have always disliked the whackamole aspect to Dnd with PCs hitting zero then bouncing back up next round. Which is probably exacerbated by a life cleric.

This is particularly bad in D&D5.

This is why we use the injury rules! Nearly any combat can have a lasting/meaningful effect. I should not I have changed the injury rules a little - any effect cured by "magical healing" requires restoriation, greater restoration or 6th level + magic. And I give death saves for lost limb etc - if they make the save, just fractured/broken limb, not lost.

I'm leaning in a similar direction, now that the DMG is out.

What I take from the quote in the OP is that Jester is replying to someone that thinks not having a Cleric of Life in a party dooms it to failure. Which obviously is not true.

Not quite. My assertion was that if a party is built around a Cleric of Life, and the Cleric of Life is removed mid-battle, that the party is doomed. I admit to some hyperbole, but for the sake of clarity I don't think you /need/ a Cleric of Life to play D&D5.

I think it was in 3e and later systems that the up-down, up-down in combat healing really changed encounter dynamics.

I distinctly remember clerics performing dynamic feats of movement in AD&D2 to get into touch range of failing allies during combat.

4E didn't really move away, it emphasised it as all healing was combat healing.

Between healing surges and second winds and total regeneration after a long rest, I have to disagree.

Any one who read the rules & did not want to deny one of the players one of his abilities?
It is pretty dumb though I agree.

It being pretty dumb is all the excuse any dungeon master needs. It fails the sniff test from a mile off. Gone are the days when "the book says" was justification for any crap the player wanted to pull.

Few of us are, but I'll go with the 5E guru on this one.

You should go with what you want to go with.

 

[pming]

Hiya!

The rules say whenever you use a a spell to restore hit points to a creature.

It doesn't say when you cast a spell. RAW it works, RAI according to JC it also works.

Goodberry doesn't restore hit points in an of itself. It is not a "cure" spell. Find me one example of a magic item that creates "Goodberry" as a primary effect (hmmm...that gives me an idea for a druidic staff; the druid 'plants' the staff in the dirt, sticking straight up...by morning the staff has 'grown' some branches and leaves, and a certain number of Goodberries that can be picked ). Ahem, anyway, the spell does nothing more than creates berries that can restore hp and feed someone. It has a duration for how long the berries last...sort of (spells Duration is "instantaneous", but description says "effectiveness of berries lasts up to 24 hours"). So for me, RAW the Goodberry spell shouldn't count as a "healing spell"...because it isn't...just as summoning a creature that can heal by touch shouldn't benefit from a DoL cleric's "boosted healing abilities".

As for RAI, obviously JC and I differ, and I'm sure others differ from us; who's is the "better" interpretation? Well, mine, of course...for my campaign. His, for his campaign. And yours for your campaign. I (and other DM's) shouldn't "deffer" to some other DM simply because of some sense of "guru'ism", no questions asked. Other DM's interpretations are ALWAYS a good thing to hear about...but the ultimate authority for what is the "correct" interpretation for a rule in any campaign is the DM of that campaign. Period. I'm betting that JC would agree with my 100% on that.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Zardnaar]

Hiya!




Goodberry doesn't restore hit points in an of itself. It is not a "cure" spell. Find me one example of a magic item that creates "Goodberry" as a primary effect (hmmm...that gives me an idea for a druidic staff; the druid 'plants' the staff in the dirt, sticking straight up...by morning the staff has 'grown' some branches and leaves, and a certain number of Goodberries that can be picked ). Ahem, anyway, the spell does nothing more than creates berries that can restore hp and feed someone. It has a duration for how long the berries last...sort of (spells Duration is "instantaneous", but description says "effectiveness of berries lasts up to 24 hours"). So for me, RAW the Goodberry spell shouldn't count as a "healing spell"...because it isn't...just as summoning a creature that can heal by touch shouldn't benefit from a DoL cleric's "boosted healing abilities".

As for RAI, obviously JC and I differ, and I'm sure others differ from us; who's is the "better" interpretation? Well, mine, of course...for my campaign. His, for his campaign. And yours for your campaign. I (and other DM's) shouldn't "deffer" to some other DM simply because of some sense of "guru'ism", no questions asked. Other DM's interpretations are ALWAYS a good thing to hear about...but the ultimate authority for what is the "correct" interpretation for a rule in any campaign is the DM of that campaign. Period. I'm betting that JC would agree with my 100% on that.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Knock yourself out. RAW it seems fine by me and JC confirmed it. Do whatever you like in your home games.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I understand what you're saying, KM, but the official terminology makes that sentence pretty freaking stupid.

One way to think of it:

The encounter is deadly. The power of the Cleric of Life is such that, for a time, they can turn a deadly encounter into a less-than-deadly encounter, if they fire on all cylinders.

That is why the Cleric of Life is awesome: they mitigate death (which makes sense what with their story and all).

Of course, they can't do that all the time, all day long. Which is where the challenge comes in.

The same encounter as #5 or #6 in your day is certainly going to be a different story.

 

[Tormyr]

Note that the paladin aura in the DMG especially states, that you can only benefit from one aura at a time. I believe we will soon see an errata for stacking rules of those auras or magical effects in general.

Technically the Aura of Hate says that you can only benefit from this aura from one paladin at a time. It leaves open getting benefits from other paladin auras. This puts it in line with the Combining Magical Effects section in the PHB.

 

[Tormyr]

The rules say whenever you use a a spell to restore hit points to a creature.

It doesn't say when you cast a spell. RAW it works, RAI according to JC it also works.

So when the Life Cleric hits 6th level and casts Goodberry, does the cleric receive 2 + spell level hit points as well from Blessed Healer?

 

[Zardnaar]

So when the Life Cleric hits 6th level and casts Goodberry, does the cleric receive 2 + spell level hit points as well from Blessed Healer?

It would appear not as blessed healer specifically says when you cast a spell.