I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
I think I might be twigging to one of the big differences, here...lets see...
The thing to realize here is that the core D&D gameplay for a lot of people is "Risk character death for XP and treasure."
If a cleric alone prevents character death, then it affects that risk that is central to the gameplay -- it fundamentally alters the challenge level of the game, simply with one class. So that class becomes something that someone who plays D&D in this way is going to need, if they want to get the most bang for their buck. Or, put another way, playing without it is deliberately sacrificing party efficiency.
The disconnect seems to be that a good chunk of groups never really played D&D that way, and so affecting character death didn't really add or subtract anything. But we can't assume that newbies will play D&D this way. Because they may play it as "risk character death for XP and GP," too, I feel that we need to make the basic game such that if they have this playstyle, that they aren't pressured into taking a cleric, since a cleric lowers that risk.
XP is, furthermore, a measure of how a character gets toward achieving their goals. If the party has 1000 XP until they gain the next level, the party that covers 500 XP between recharges is going to be performing better than the party that covers 450 XP. Regardless of a character's other goals, XP is a constant goal, and it is used to measure other goals (in an old-school XP = GP game, it's a measure of the haul you bring back; in a narrative XP = awarded for time game, it's a measure of how long your character has been around and how much "screen time" they've recieved; in a 3e/4e XP = Monsters game, it's a measure of how many beasts you've slain).
This is an issue, because Party A earned more XP between their rests than Party B, and so accomplished more of their goals. If the adventure involves about 20 combats, Party A is going to finish it in four recharges, while Party B is going to need 5. Party A is thus better at finishing adventures than Party B. They face less of a challenge. They gain levels faster. They require fewer die rolls in between their rewards. In a game that is played as "risk character death for XP and treasure," they've become obviously better, risking less death and being awarded more XP and treasure.
JamesonCourage said:Effective at what though? This is my disconnect. If you value party stamina, play a Cleric. If you want to be effective in other areas, play a class that enhances the party in that area.
The thing to realize here is that the core D&D gameplay for a lot of people is "Risk character death for XP and treasure."
If a cleric alone prevents character death, then it affects that risk that is central to the gameplay -- it fundamentally alters the challenge level of the game, simply with one class. So that class becomes something that someone who plays D&D in this way is going to need, if they want to get the most bang for their buck. Or, put another way, playing without it is deliberately sacrificing party efficiency.
The disconnect seems to be that a good chunk of groups never really played D&D that way, and so affecting character death didn't really add or subtract anything. But we can't assume that newbies will play D&D this way. Because they may play it as "risk character death for XP and GP," too, I feel that we need to make the basic game such that if they have this playstyle, that they aren't pressured into taking a cleric, since a cleric lowers that risk.
XP is, furthermore, a measure of how a character gets toward achieving their goals. If the party has 1000 XP until they gain the next level, the party that covers 500 XP between recharges is going to be performing better than the party that covers 450 XP. Regardless of a character's other goals, XP is a constant goal, and it is used to measure other goals (in an old-school XP = GP game, it's a measure of the haul you bring back; in a narrative XP = awarded for time game, it's a measure of how long your character has been around and how much "screen time" they've recieved; in a 3e/4e XP = Monsters game, it's a measure of how many beasts you've slain).
JamesonCourage said:That is, the group with the cleric can go through 5 combats, and then rest. The group without one can go through 4, rest naturally (skip time), and get into another 1.
This is an issue, because Party A earned more XP between their rests than Party B, and so accomplished more of their goals. If the adventure involves about 20 combats, Party A is going to finish it in four recharges, while Party B is going to need 5. Party A is thus better at finishing adventures than Party B. They face less of a challenge. They gain levels faster. They require fewer die rolls in between their rewards. In a game that is played as "risk character death for XP and treasure," they've become obviously better, risking less death and being awarded more XP and treasure.