• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

4th edition, The fantastic game that everyone hated.

Pacifist healer? Mr. "I won't shed blood myself, I will merely encourage and enable you to shed more blood than you otherwise would"? And who is only there because the rules are even more disruptive if you don't have a cleric? I've never seen them as other than disruptive.
Even though it's about D&D characters, I'm not sure if you realize how offensive that statement is. A healer roaming the battlefield without carrying a weapon is one of the noblest of pursuits. If anything, D&D doesn't have enough support for that.

Even ignoring the real world parallels, a basic common-sense interpretation of D&D alignments would suggest that many good clerics should meet that definition.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Even though it's about D&D characters, I'm not sure if you realize how offensive that statement is. A healer roaming the battlefield without carrying a weapon is one of the noblest of pursuits. If anything, D&D doesn't have enough support for that.

Even ignoring the real world parallels, a basic common-sense interpretation of D&D alignments would suggest that many good clerics should meet that definition.

And that is a completely false equivalence. A D&D pacifist cleric is not anything to do with a real world pacifist medic. The battlefield medics who don't fight are not responsible for the war being there in the first place. They didn't make the decision to go to war. And they don't enable the warriors or profit from their adventures.

A real world equivalent to a D&D 'Pacifist' adventurer would own an entire arms company and be using his political influence to vote for war while claiming to be a pacifist. Either that, or a closer match might be a surgeon in a company of commandos who only patches up his own side, and carries explosives for them to use and runs their logistics to make them as effective a group of killers as possible.
 

And that is a completely false equivalence.
Even without the equivalence, which is pretty clear, a pacifist healer in D&D is not inherently hypocritical nor disruptive to the game. And, to the original point, there is no reason that all D&D characters need to have any significant attack capability, as the focused healer is one of several perfectly reasonable character types that doesn't.
 

Again, the biggest problem is you can't just pull this off organically in 4e, you have to plan in advance, all quirks and deviations on the growth of the character specifically happening in the backstory, being carefully scripted or taking a painfull and nonsesically long time to pull off while compromising effectivity instead of emerging organically in the day to day play.

You mean 4e is a class-based game like OD&D, B/X, BECMI, AD&D, and 2e? Except it's a lot easier to develop organically in 4e than those other editions?

A second level 4e rogue who decides he wishes to change his life and reform to be a cleric has no way to stop learning and developping roguey abililities and dedicate all of his efforts to become a cleric, he still has to keep learning rogue things for eight levels before he can be an effective cleric, and even then he never stops learning to be a rogue, and the amount of resources he has dedicated to this will make him very suboptimal overall.

You mean that a rogue who decides to follow the path of a God doesn't mysteriously stop using and practicing his existing skills, instead using them to stay alive as over the course of quite a few levels they gain cleric abilities through feats. But they don't fundamentally stop being who they are. This is actually organic development in which they add abilities and keep using and practicing the abilities they already have. Because those are the best tools they have when the rubber meets the road.

In 2e he could just have dual classed the next time he earned a level

2e dual classing is possibly even more ridiculous. Possibly less so. Because to earn XP when you dual class you need to not use the abilities of your original class until your new class is dominant. That actually works to change your class - you are explicitely rejecting your old class and not using any of its abilities. It's not organic - it's sheer brute willpower.

4e assumes you keep doing what you do best under pressure and then add to it. You spend your feats on multiclass feats and power swap feats, then take a Paragon Path from the class you are shifting into. This is organic - steadily increasing growth in the new class even as you continue to do what you do best. AD&D assumes mind over matter and that you have sufficient discipline and willpower to not behave as you used to if you want to change classes. 3e - if you think as a rogue with a few spells and move as a rogue with a few spells and generally act as a rogue with a few spells and you so choose you gain a level in ... Cleric. Far from being organic, this is digital.

Weirdness aside from pretending there is a lasso that isn't there, this is actually pretty close, but I'm starting to notice that a good amount of PCs of diverse classes that I had on previous editions can only be expressed on 4ey play as a Lazy Warlord with ritual casting.

Bards are generally also pretty good for the tricksters - guiding strike and a whip, and coming with ritual casting would work well.
 

And that is a completely false equivalence. A D&D pacifist cleric is not anything to do with a real world pacifist medic. The battlefield medics who don't fight are not responsible for the war being there in the first place. They didn't make the decision to go to war. And they don't enable the warriors or profit from their adventures.

A real world equivalent to a D&D 'Pacifist' adventurer would own an entire arms company and be using his political influence to vote for war while claiming to be a pacifist. Either that, or a closer match might be a surgeon in a company of commandos who only patches up his own side, and carries explosives for them to use and runs their logistics to make them as effective a group of killers as possible.

I think this is an overly narrow view of pacifism and adventuring. One, the individual pacifist's reasons are very important here. He may believe in the cause of the adventurer 's. he may even believe in just war theory, but not be comfortable with acting violently himself. Two, going on an adventure does not equal going to war. An adventuring group could be traveling for all kinds of reasons, not necessarily with the express purpose of doing violence. The priest could be there as a guiding influence over the party, someone who doesn't believe in bloodshed but understands the realities of the world, so travels with his friends to give them wise council to alternatives to combat. But they are still his allies and heals them when combat does asrise.
 

Even though it's about D&D characters, I'm not sure if you realize how offensive that statement is. A healer roaming the battlefield without carrying a weapon is one of the noblest of pursuits. If anything, D&D doesn't have enough support for that.

Even ignoring the real world parallels, a basic common-sense interpretation of D&D alignments would suggest that many good clerics should meet that definition.

The real life noble healer heals the fallen of *both* sides!
 



So the real life noble healer is True Neutral? :)

No. It's the Chaotic Good that sees little difference between "us" and "them" regardless of the propaganda*

* Note this works less effectively when there is an obvious empirical difference like one side is humans defending the realm and the other side is demonic vampire spawn or other things found in RPG land
 

The real life noble healer heals the fallen of *both* sides!
So does the D&D healer. At least, the really devoted ones will heal enough to prevent opponents from dying and refuse to allow allies to coup de grace them (using Vow of Peace as a point of reference here).

So the real life noble healer is True Neutral? :)
Well, in real life, the battles aren't usually good vs evil.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top