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

[darjr]

I think there is something missing in this debate. I enjoy a play style that doesn't have fast non-divine healing but yet also is playable without a cleric.

What I mean is that old style D&D without a cleric can and has been a VERY enjoyable experience for me, as a player and a DM. Usually it leads to a different style of play without that cleric. It's a style that I think 4e, by design if not forethought by the designers, kinda walked away from.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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.

Because if this desire isn't met, you limit your audience in ways that don't really seem necessary.

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.

I'm not talking about that, though. I pointed out up-thread that the role of "healing" can also be played by temp HP, negating attacks, higher AC's, and other mechanics. You can have a Basic game where the only HP-restoring effect is clerical magic and still not require clerics in the party, because that healing isn't necessary to have a viable party.

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.

Sure. But healing magic also wasn't very essential to 3e or 1e (it mostly reduced your "down time"), both games had alternate healers (druids, bards, even paladins), and it was absolutely an issue even then.

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

Sure. I'm not talking about those, though. I'm talking about a game that doesn't require clerics. There's a lot of ways that could look.

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.

I don't think "playing the kind of character I want to play" should be optional. Pretty sure that's a requirement from a game of make-believe. If clerics and their healing are required, if someone must pull that duty, you're going to get some people saddled with a role they don't want, and won't be interested in playing for long enough to get beyond the basic options.

 

[sheadunne]

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.

Was this a common occurrence for your games? In all my years playing, we never stuck the newbie player with a caster class. We always game him the fighter or rogue. Strange that some groups operated differently. The cleric is/was far too important and complex to give to a newbie. The fighter or rogue were much more obvious choices since they rarely required more than roll and dice and add damage.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Was this a common occurrence for your games? In all my years playing, we never stuck the newbie player with a caster class. We always game him the fighter or rogue. Strange that some groups operated differently. The cleric is/was far too important and complex to give to a newbie. The fighter or rogue were much more obvious choices since they rarely required more than roll and dice and add damage.

Nope, never happened with me either. But everything Kamikaze is saying hinges on the fact that all these random new players are being assigned the cleric to play, and unless the Basic includes more than just the magical Cure Wounds spells... then all these new players are going to be forced to do nothing but heal the other players. Apparently the idea that the new player who has the cleric might choose to use different spells doesn't count, because they're going to get browbeaten into only taking Cure Wounds. And thus, the only way to protect these poor mindless new D&D players who can't think for themselves and are going to be tricked into taking on this class and role that no one else wants to play, is to throw a whole bunch of alternate options into the Basic game... rather than just relying on the Standard game to present those rules for them.

I'll say it again. If you are an experienced D&D player... AND are teaching the game to new players... AND you are giving them the cleric to play even if they don't want it just because you don't want to play it either... AND are telling them they better use their spells for nothing but healing because otherwise the party can't function... AND don't want to bother incorporating any alternate healing rule from the Standard rules because of some inane belief that playing the "Basic" game actually means something... then you're being a total jerk. And Mike can not and should not make the Basic game more confusing by including alternate and extra rules into the Basic game just to try and ameliorate your jerkishness.

 

[am181d]

Was this a common occurrence for your games? In all my years playing, we never stuck the newbie player with a caster class. We always game him the fighter or rogue. Strange that some groups operated differently. The cleric is/was far too important and complex to give to a newbie. The fighter or rogue were much more obvious choices since they rarely required more than roll and dice and add damage.

You're overlooking the case where ALL of the players are relative newbies. (Which WotC presumably wants to encourage with their shelf-friendly Basic game.)

 

[Bedrockgames]

Because if this desire isn't met, you limit your audience in ways that don't really seem necessary.

but your assuming there is no desire in the other direction. I have a desire to play a game like the classic editions, where magical healing (i am fine with bards, druids and paladins having something for that) is needed. If you make it default that everyone can heal themselves, or that people can absorb damage to the point that these iinds of healers are not neccessary, then it isnt meeting the need of those who ike the way things were done in the previous editions. I am not saying dont offer alternatives, just dont force us all to play it that way.

I don't think "playing the kind of character I want to play" should be optional. Pretty sure that's a requirement from a game of make-believe. If clerics and their healing are required, if someone must pull that duty, you're going to get some people saddled with a role they don't want, and won't be interested in playing for long enough to get beyond the basic options.

Yes it should. The game has to have some limits. Like I said, if someone wants to play zeus out of the gate they cant. If someone wants to play a minotaur out of the gate they cant, you have to rely on options for that kind of stuff. All I am saying is set up the classic approach as default and literally put in the kinds of healing options you are suggesting right there in the first book. That in no way limits people. It is in the book next to the standard rules and the only thing blocking anyone from enjoying it is an "(optional)" tag.

 

[I'm A Banana]

But everything Kamikaze is saying hinges on the fact that all these random new players are being assigned the cleric to play, and unless the Basic includes more than just the magical Cure Wounds spells... then all these new players are going to be forced to do nothing but heal the other players. Apparently the idea that the new player who has the cleric might choose to use different spells doesn't count, because they're going to get browbeaten into only taking Cure Wounds. And thus, the only way to protect these poor mindless new D&D players who can't think for themselves and are going to be tricked into taking on this class and role that no one else wants to play, is to throw a whole bunch of alternate options into the Basic game... rather than just relying on the Standard game to present those rules for them.

I don't feel like I've made myself understood if this is what you think my position is.

but your assuming there is no desire in the other direction. I have a desire to play a game like the classic editions, where magical healing (i am fine with bards, druids and paladins having something for that) is needed. If you make it default that everyone can heal themselves, or that people can absorb damage to the point that these iinds of healers are not neccessary, then it isnt meeting the need of those who ike the way things were done in the previous editions. I am not saying dont offer alternatives, just dont force us all to play it that way.

Given the mod-ability that 5e is promising, it doesn't sound like anyone is going to be "forced" to do anything.

But if you're new to the game, you're not going to fiddle with game settings. If the default game setting is "Someone has to play a cleric," then people are going to be put off by that setting.

Maybe this will help. Clearly, you have an issue with making clerics not be required. Which of these things specifically do you object to being in the Basic game?

1. A rogue ability that lets them choose an enemy to actively dodge, gaining an AC bonus against that enemy.
2. A fighter ability that lets them deflect a blow (a la the monk's deflect arrows)
3. A wizard spell similar to Mage Armor that gives them extra AC.

Which of these things makes you feel like you're not having the kind of fun you want with a cleric?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe this will help. Clearly, you have an issue with making clerics not be required. Which of these things specifically do you object to being in the Basic game?

1. A rogue ability that lets them choose an enemy to actively dodge, gaining an AC bonus against that enemy.
2. A fighter ability that lets them deflect a blow (a la the monk's deflect arrows)
3. A wizard spell similar to Mage Armor that gives them extra AC.

Which of these things makes you feel like you're not having the kind of fun you want with a cleric?

It isnt just about clerics. It is about how healing and damage pacing are approached.

I am not going to play questions and answers with you because a single mechanic may seem fine on the surface, but if you are doing any of these things to eliminate the need for magical healing it has a huge impact on the game. I am not interested in rigging the game to get around issues other people claim they had in play. for me it worked perfectly fine with mundane healing taking a long time and magic healing being very quick. trying to get around that by helping classes evade damage in the first place just isnt of interest to me. My issue with what you are proposing here is you are significanty altering the baseline D&D style of play to appease some vague concern that people wont like needing to be healed by magic.

Here is what we know: wizards of the coast says it isnt as big an issue as people think and when they have tried to rig the system to get around perceived problems concerning healing it has driven away existing players. I think they are just sensing that people who like D&D like the classic divide between mundane and magic, like the role clerics have played in the game, and see the challenge of taking damage and and needing magical healing to get back in real quick as an important part of the game.

Again, the option will be there for people who want it. I just dont buy that someone is going to pick up the game, try it out, and not play ever again because they couldn't stomach using an optional rule to fit their play style. If the option is in there with the other rules in the first players handbook, I simply do not see the issue.

 

[Iosue]

The newbie issue is not really a problem. The Basic game is basically one-step up from a D&D board game. Long-term, it's intended for primarily two audiences: veteran folks who want a B/X type game and don't need or want lots of options or rules, and ultra-casual gamers. And what I mean by ultra-casual gamers is folks who like to play boardgames and things like that. Here's what Mearls says about a theoretical Basic product:

Easy to learn, especially for new players and DMs. In an ideal world, a group of new players can pick up the game in about the same time it takes to learn a board game such as Settlers of Catan. The basic rules are at the forefront of recruiting new players, whether they're 10-year-olds trying their first RPGs or DMs coming back to the game after 10 years away. Adult D&D fans should feel that this is the best way to bring their kids into the games.

...

Quick to play, with complete adventures playable in an hour. A group should be able to complete a simple dungeon with five or six rooms in that time span. Obviously, you can build bigger dungeons for longer sessions, but it's important to reduce complexity and therefore reduce the minimum time needed to play an adventure. A quick start time and fast play are key to recruiting new D&D fans and making the game accessible for people with ever busier, hectic lives.

In terms of a product, you could imagine something along the lines of a set that covers levels 1 to 10 and includes an adventure of the size and scope of Temple of Elemental Evil.

So basically, we're talking about families or friends who want a game they can play in an hour or two in the evening. That's the product for them. They can take their characters through a neo-ToEE for many, many short play sessions. The B/X-type vets get their game, to build on however they wish. And in this group will be some newbies. Some folks who say, "Wow, I really love this, and want to keep playing!" And if they say, "But, man, I don't want to have to be the medic if I play a cleric. I want some more options," then they can move on to the Standard game.

This isn't the old days where if you wanted more than Basic D&D you had to go out and buy whole new books (though I'm sure that'll be an option). With DDI WotC has a whole new product delivery paradigm. So you buy the basic game, and maybe you get a one-month trial subscription to DDI. On DDI they've got a Rules Compendium which has all sorts of variant rules, classes, races. The newbie moves onto Standard through that, either getting an ongoing subscription, or buying a print book. They don't have to play the healer. Maybe he does and likes it. Maybe his group never gets into that mindset -- we never did. The number of newbies who pick up the game and are driven away because they played a cleric and had to heal people is going to be very, very small.

And incidentally, all that assumes that non-magical healing won't be an option in the basic rules. They could easily just have "You get 1 hp back for each day of rest" in the main Basic rules, and then a small optional box with one or two variants. The Basic rules are going to be as simplified and streamlined as possible, but that doesn't necessarily mean no options at all. After all, they're modeling it on B/X, which had its share of optional rules.

 

[Obryn]

I am not going to play questions and answers with you because a single mechanic may seem fine on the surface, but if you are doing any of these things to eliminate the need for magical healing it has a huge impact on the game.

I agree, it does have a huge impact on the game. I made a big ol' post about it, where I'm told it won't have a huge impact on the game.

-O