D&D 5E 2/18/13 L&L column

[DEFCON 1]

Ah, but a newbie to the game? Someone learning to play for the first time? Someone who is just playing a pick-up game? Rather than being able to explore any option they're interested in, they face the possibility of being told that they MUST play a certain character, in a certain way, or the game will suffer. That's not really the most fun way to learn to play a game whose arguably biggest awesome point is that you can do anything you want. Except, I guess, play a second fighter in a party without a cleric.

If a newbie has never played the game, he has NO IDEA that playing the Cleric is "being stuck playing the healer" at some tables. Unless... the person who is running the game TELLS him that "he's stuck playing the cleric and has to heal people"... at which point it's not the game's fault, but THE DM'S FAULT FOR BEING A DICK. If that DM thought it was going to be an issue, he should have inserted a Standard rule into his game.

If you've never played the game... choosing options for rules you have no knowledge of and have never actually played DOES NOT HELP.

 

[I'm A Banana]

If a newbie has never played the game, he has NO IDEA that playing the Cleric is "being stuck playing the healer" at some tables.

Sure he does. He can read the spell list and see the class description same as anyone. Clerics being healers isn't an emergent property of the class, it's part of what the class was MADE to do.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sure he does. He can read the spell list and see the class description same as anyone. Clerics being healers isn't an emergent property of the class, it's part of what the class was MADE to do.

Uh uh... the imperative word here is 'stuck'.

New players don't know yet that some experienced players think playing a class that heals is a negative. They've never played. Being a healer is not a positive OR a negative yet.

If they are playing a cleric in a Basic game, can they heal? Yup. Is that a problem? Not yet. They'll select spells as they like... maybe some heals, maybe all heals, maybe no heals. And until AN EXPERIENCED PLAYER tells the newbie that he should stock up on healing spells because it's his "job" to do so... the newbie and the other players will play the game none the wiser in whatever fashion they did.

But if that EXPERIENCED PLAYER is at the table with the newbie... and the EXPERIENCED PLAYER feels there should be more healing available in the game... they why isn't the experienced player recommending they add a Standard rule into their game? If he is choosing not to... and then FORCING the newbie playing the cleric to play the class as the experience player feels he should...

...then that experienced player is a dick. And we can't hold Mike and company responsible for expanding the Basic rules in such a way as to protect the newbie FROM THAT DICK PLAYER.

 

[Ratskinner]

Basically, yes. I know people have negotiated this for 40 years and for a lot of folks it's not really a problem. And, like I said upthread, I'm sure WotC has better data than me on how much this "problem" actually occurs. But looking at this from the perspective of someone who is going to be picking up their first weird polyhedral die, I'm not sure what you gain from requiring clerical healing as a gameplay element is worth losing out on someone who might otherwise find the game delightful.

It doesn't seem like a great idea from where I'm sitting.

I don't think I know of anyone who ever quit playing D&D from being "stuck with" the cleric. Maybe argue for a different class next time, but I've never seen anyone quit over it. While I know its not everybody's favorite class, I don't see the old-school cleric as the <hyperbolic metaphor for badness> that we make it out to be on these boards. I'm sure we'd both love to see WotC's data, though.

Still, just to repeat, it would be better if the game didn't require the traditional quartet just to work, IMO.

 

[Ratskinner]

...then that experienced player is a dick. And we can't hold Mike and company responsible for expanding the Basic rules in such a way as to protect the newbie FROM THAT DICK PLAYER.

...must spread.

...though I prefer "jerk".

 

[I'm A Banana]

New players don't know yet that some experienced players think playing a class that heals is a negative. They've never played. Being a healer is not a positive OR a negative yet.

Actually, it is. A clever newbie might already be able to identify it ("I always played rogues in WoW, I wanna deal damage!"). A less self-aware newbie probably still has an inkling
("I like the look of the Wizard!"). And it might not just be about healing ("Well, I'm an Atheist, so I don't think I'd play the role of a devout priest very well...but a self-reliant fighter sounds cool!" or "Oh! I'm gonna be like Pippin!").

And then the game comes along and says, "Sorry, those ideas sound cool, but someone must play this cleric."

And then they go back to playing WoW, reading Harry Potter, and watching the LotR movies, because the game decided to lay down an arbitrary barrier to entry.

I don't think I know of anyone who ever quit playing D&D from being "stuck with" the cleric.

People are rarely petulant about it. D&D requires a commitment of time and effort, and no one HAS to play. If the game doesn't give them more fun than their other hobbies and pleasures, why would they continue to show up? If they wanna be Harry Potter or King Arthur or Bilbo Baggins and the game makes them play a character they don't want to play, why would they keep coming to the game?

This isn't about it sucking to be the healer (that's pretty subjective). This is about some people not wanting to be a cleric, and the game saying, "BUT THOU MUST!" That doesn't seem smart to me. They clearly don't have to. They can go spend their time doing other things than playing this strangely intractable niche little game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Actually, it is. A clever newbie might already be able to identify it ("I always played rogues in WoW, I wanna deal damage!"). A less self-aware newbie probably still has an inkling
("I like the look of the Wizard!"). And it might not just be about healing ("Well, I'm an Atheist, so I don't think I'd play the role of a devout priest very well...but a self-reliant fighter sounds cool!" or "Oh! I'm gonna be like Pippin!").

And then the game comes along and says, "Sorry, those ideas sound cool, but someone must play this cleric."

And then they go back to playing WoW, reading Harry Potter, and watching the LotR movies, because the game decided to lay down an arbitrary barrier to entry.

i dont find this persuasive. It has never been an anything goes game where the player doesnt have some limitations. I.e "i want to be Zeus, why cant i be an all powerful god at first level?". I just dont see people walking away because the game assumesa cleric, especially if there is an optional rule that says "you dont like clerics? Then use this optional non-cleric healing abillity." I really do not see the problem here.

People are rarely petulant about it. D&D requires a commitment of time and effort, and no one HAS to play. If the game doesn't give them more fun than their other hobbies and pleasures, why would they continue to show up? If they wanna be Harry Potter or King Arthur or Bilbo Baggins and the game makes them play a character they don't want to play, why would they keep coming to the game?

This isn't about it sucking to be the healer (that's pretty subjective). This is about some people not wanting to be a cleric, and the game saying, "BUT THOU MUST!" That doesn't seem smart to me. They clearly don't have to. They can go spend their time doing other things than playing this strangely intractable niche little game.

But the problem is you are driving away lots of people who already play the game out of an unsubstantiated fear that a harry potter fan somewhere will freak because the group needs a cleric if it's to heal. People were never leaving D&D in droves because parties needed clerics (they were leaving over other things but not this). Let's keep in mind, they tried to spread the healing around last time and it generated an enormous backlash. Why not just include the option of non cleric healing, that way it is there if you need it but doesn't get in the wy if you prefer classic play.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This isn't about it sucking to be the healer (that's pretty subjective). This is about some people not wanting to be a cleric, and the game saying, "BUT THOU MUST!" That doesn't seem smart to me. They clearly don't have to. They can go spend their time doing other things than playing this strangely intractable niche little game.

And what about the Rogue? Even the Basic game's going to have traps in it. Thus... THOU MUST HAVE A ROGUE! Otherwise... the party's going to continually get caught in traps. Where's all the complaints that the Basic game is requiring a rogue?

There isn't any. And why? Because the "experience players" think playing the rogue is fun. And thus, no complaints about the Basic game requiring it. So again... it's the experienced players PROJECTING their feelings of playing an AD&D cleric onto these imaginary "newbie players" and thus demanding the Basic game should have options.

But again... having options goes against the whole point of having the "Basic" version of the game in the first place.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It has never been an anything goes game where the player doesnt have some limitations.

"Slippery slope" doesn't really apply here. I'm only talking about someone who doesn't want to play a cleric coming up against a game that wants to MAKE them be a cleric. I'm not arguing that everyone should always get everything they think they want, just that this desire should be met, because the reward for doing so is greater than the cost for not doing so.

But the problem is you are driving away lots of people who already play the game out of an unsubstantiated fear that a harry potter fan somewhere will freak because the group needs a cleric if it's to heal.

In the first place, it remains to be seen whether "lots of people who already play the game" will be scared away by the prospect of possibly having a party without a cleric in it.

Second, it's not an unsubstantiated fear of a freak-out, but a real issue with the product you are selling being primarily entertainment. There's lots of ways to get entertained that are a lot easier to do than play D&D. People generally don't "freak," but they might not show up for their next game, and they might decide it's less of a hassle and more fun to do other things.

People were never leaving D&D in droves because parties needed clerics (they were leaving over other things but not this). Let's keep in mind, they tried to spread the healing around last time and it generated an enormous backlash. Why not just include the option of non cleric healing, that way it is there if you need it but doesn't get in the wy if you prefer classic play.

I didn't know the existence of the druid in 1e generated enormous backlash...

Yes, of course, non-cleric healing should be an option, but it should also be possible to play the game without a healer, which means, in the basic game, playing it without a cleric. If that's too controversial for 5e, then you're going to see some people walking away from the game. WotC knows better than I if those numbers are likely to be significant or not.

And what about the Rogue? Even the Basic game's going to have traps in it. Thus... THOU MUST HAVE A ROGUE!

If this is true for the basic game, it would suck, too.

But since currently in 5e, ability checks can cover this, even without a rogue, it's not a problem.

 

[Bedrockgames]

"Slippery slope" doesn't really apply here. I'm only talking about someone who doesn't want to play a cleric coming up against a game that wants to MAKE them be a cleric. I'm not arguing that everyone should always get everything they think they want, just that this desire should be met, because the reward for doing so is greater than the cost for not doing so.

but why this desire over others. Why is the cleric issue such a sticking point, when even wptc is saing it was never much of an issue.

In the first place, it remains to be seen whether "lots of people who already play the game" will be scared away by the prospect of possibly having a party without a cleric in it.

i think if you are talking about making a healing surge thpe mechanic default or having a warlord who shouts people back to health, then it has been shown lots of poeple are averse to this and will not have interest in an edition of D&D featuring those things as default. 4E drove lots of folks away and healing surges were a huge part of that.

Second, it's not an unsubstantiated fear of a freak-out, but a real issue with the product you are selling being primarily entertainment. There's lots of ways to get entertained that are a lot easier to do than play D&D. People generally don't "freak," but they might not show up for their next game, and they might decide it's less of a hassle and more fun to do other things.

but it hasnt been impacting the entertainment value of D&D. Clerics were the norm up until 4E. But 3E and 1E were the most succesful editions.

I didn't know the existence of the druid in 1e generated enormous backlash...

no, but the warlord and healing surges did in a very big way.

Yes, of course, non-cleric healing should be an option, but it should also be possible to play the game without a healer, which means, in the basic game, playing it without a cleric. If that's too controversial for 5e, then you're going to see some people walking away from the game. WotC knows better than I if those numbers are likely to be significant or not.

if non cleric healing is an option then it is possible to play the game without a healer. All you need is a non cleric optional heal rule with some kind of HD or healing surge option for the classes and you are set. All I am saying is dont make that the default, give it a pn "(optional)" tag.