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

[FireLance]

I really hope they're not making any decisions for the game based on encounters per a day. What a horribly boring and irrelevant way to measure progress in an RPG. We have an exciting and fun history in this game and I'd much rather them make decisions based on the classic elements of the game than on progress toward a perfect series of combats in any given day. Blah.

Since every class has resources that require a day or more to be regained once depleted (even if only in the form of hit points), "the standard adventuring day" is simply shorthand for "after so many XP worth of challenges, the party will be almost out of resources". If there is no time limit to the adventure, then it really isn't an issue. If there is a time limit to the adventure, then it clues the DM onto how many XP worth of challenges he can realistically expect them to overcome within that time frame. If the evil ritual is set to be completed in an hour, then he probably shouldn't require the PCs to fight their way through more than one adventuring day's worth of combat. (That said, he is perfectly free to litter the adventure with optional encounters that a smart party could avoid, or provide alternate ways to around challenges instead of fighting that a smart party could exploit. Like any other tool, you could ignore the "standard adventuring day" if your playstyle doesn't need it.)

 

[Sunseeker]

I hope they remain a valuable ally worthy of the party... and never a necessary one.

Specifically the problem is not that we need a cleric in the party. The problem is if we need a HEALING cleric in the party. Over the years it's been shown that Clerics can be used to create all sorts of interesting characters, a great many of them don't heal at all, or if they do it's a very minor, side-aspect to their character design.

I've run healer-less parties. It can be rough, but there's a careful balancing act to it. The problem with needing a healer is that it basically means "the game is designed to put out more of a beating than characters are designed to handle." and I really don't think that's a positive direction to base game design in. It's really easy to up the ante, it's much harder to tune it down. The game should not assume someone is rolling a primarily healing/support class because that means the game also assumes that the other roles are being strictly filled, even if they're not explicitly outlined. The Heavy-armor fighter becomes the defender, the high-damage wizard becomes the striker, the skillful rogue becomes the monkey, and so on and so forth.

By demanding the need for one role, you demand the need for all of them, and your design focuses on when people "do their roles" and ignores or outright shames people who multi-task, do not specialize, or want to play something that doesn't fit in the square hole.

It's the "holy trinity" design that I find so annoying in games these days. You NEED a healer, you NEED a tank, you NEED strict DPS. Anything outside that system the game isn't designed to handle, which basically means you can't play it.

So while I'm fine with providing a method of play wherein a healing/support class is required(which really just means bumping up the damage of NPCs by a few points), I sincerely hope that DDN does not run on a "holy trinity" design.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Stamina X immediate power = Total Raw Power.

That's one way to do it. Are there no others? What if the extra stamina doesn't help?

The amount he adds to the party is 2x as much as the other characters add... the example cleric allows the party not the same increased staying power of a fighter who knocks enemies down faster.... but twice that.

F + F + F + F party succeeds at 4 encounters

F+F+F+C party succeeds at 5 encounters.

C= 2F

I see what you're saying. Then yes, the Cleric would provide twice as much party stamina as the Fighter. I get you.

Awesome you are almost getting and yes If that fighter is doing that 3F+C == 3F + F and all is great and balanced.

I wouldn't mind this "balance", but some people would still say the Cleric is "required" if natural healing isn't overnight, since you can heal faster with one. That is, a party of four Fighters heals their wounds over days, while the one with the Cleric heals over the next 1-2 days.

The Healer added to the party should have the same effect on party potency as the fighter.
Note one place the Clerics power is expressed is when they enable the fighter to be in the fight after he normally would have been downed .. this allows more powerful fights to be overcome than they would have before...

Yes, but "potency" how? Isn't the Wizard also boosting Fighter potency with spells?

This also leads us back to the problem with "roles" from 4e, in that they are just as "required" as what we're talking about now. You want 1 Defender, and 1 Controller, and 1 Leader, if you can help it. But, you can get along without them, there are just consequences. The Cleric giving healing is no different (just like playing with a Fighter would be no different).

And healing mid fight also allows bigger fights... I can keep the party fighting against bigger enemies longer... the same capacity to extend the day allows the wins not possible.

Right. Just like a Fighter adds by soaking up damage (higher hit die), or the Wizard preventing damage, or the Rogue dodging it... It's just how the Cleric adds to it.

The thing is its 5 encounters per day with a Cleric and 4 with a Figher in his place at the table

Healing is a battlefield activity

No offense by this, honestly, but when you string thoughts like this, I can't follow them easily. I have to make educated guesses at what you mean, but I don't want to misrepresent your views. What did you mean here?

Gygax talked about the responsibility of the fighter to protect his squishy allies at considerable length I think it was in the 1e DMG, roles werent just invented... and the Classic party composition from which we get the original classes, was purportedly inspired by the US Army fireteam.

So, we agree that it's edition specific? Because "classes have always had roles" is something that plenty of people disagree with. PCs have, generally, had a "role" of some kind, but there are many people that would disagree about classes having inherent roles in every edition. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

First, great post. Glad I had some XP for you.

I think the individuals' definition of balance really goes to the heart of this discussion and is the reason for the apparent disconnect which has caused this thread to just keep going.

I think I agree. That's the vibe I'm kinda getting from this discussion.

My fundamental premise is that in the ideal situation, there should be nothing that would bias the selection of one character class over another apart from the preference of the player. In other words, the other players at the table should be indifferent whether someone chooses to play a fighter or a cleric.

I think this would be awesome, but runs into the stumbling block of table play styles.

Before we go any further, let me acknowledge that some groups like to "cover all the bases", and ensure that there is at least one fighter, one rogue, one wizard and one cleric in each party. I am not presenting a scenario in which there are four players in a campaign, three have already decided to play the fighter, the rogue and the wizard, and so the fourth "has to" play the cleric. I am looking at a scenario in which all the bases are already covered (say, there are five players and the party will "double up" on one class) or it is impossible to cover all the bases (there are only two or three players). In such circumstances, in my ideal system, none of the classes would be considered more "essential" than any of the others.

Again, this is a cool goal. Definitely ambitious, and I'd be interested in seeing how to do it.

So, in order for that to occur, there must be at least relative disadvantages to offset any advantage that a class brings to the party. My personal preference is for each class to be able to contribute relative equally (altough not identically) to the resolution of each challenge. So in combat, a rogue may be able to kill the opponents quickly, reducing the attacks they make against the party and hence, the damage dealt to the party. A fighter might be able to encourage the enemy to attack him instead of more vulnerable party members, reducing the damage dealt to the party. If a cleric were to replace the fighter or the rogue, he would not be able to reduce the damage dealt to the party, but he would be able to heal it later. So, in terms of the party's overall combat endurance, it doesn't matter whether someone chooses to play a fighter, a rogue or a cleric.

I think I start to question this when we get to "contribute relatively equally (altough not identically) to the resolution of each challenge." How do we account for all challenges that people will face? And, how do we make sure that every class can contribute relatively equally to all of those challenges? I can get this, to a large extent, for combat, but in all social situations? All exploration situations? Knowing things? Traveling? I just think this goal is so wildly ambitious that I don't see it happening right now, but I'd love to talk about it and see what comes up if people start compiling working mechanics.

Now, others have mentioned that a cleric should ideally increase the party's combat endurance. It seems to me that if the addition of a cleric increases a party's combat endurance by more than the addition of a fighter, a rogue or a wizard, either the cleric is more powerful than those other classes, or the cleric has a relative disadvantage in some other area compared to these classes. My question was whether those who proposed that the addition of a cleric should increase the party's combat endurance by more than the addition of any other character class were willing to accept that the cleric should be more powerful than any other class, or, if not, how they would balance this advantahge. (For example, if there are combat, interaction and exploration pillars in an adventure, and the cleric contributes more than the fighter in the combat pillar, then it probably should contribute less than the fighter, and by an approximately equal amount, in the interaction or exploration pillars for it to be considered balanced.)

Oh, yeah. I get you. I think that they'd be worse at damage, and would be able to absorb less spike damage. And they won't have the melee versatility that Fighters do (maneuvers). So I don't think that makes them worse. However, I don't mind them being worse than Fighters in other ways outside of combat, too. So, heck yeah, let's explore that area, too. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

I've said a few times that the level to which that "requirement" is felt is going to be different at different tables, but the basic idea is that a prospective player shouldn't have to choose between being effective and being the character they want to play. Any character they want to play should be as effective (generally, in different ways) as any other. If a cleric makes the party more effective, that forces the choice: If I'm not interested in playing a cleric, and the party doesn't have one, do I play a cleric anyway to make the party more effective, or do I play any other class, and thus make the party less effective?

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.

"Necessary" happens when a party without a cleric isn't going to be able to get as much XP between recharges by RAW as a party with one. If the player chooses not to play a cleric, the party will suffer in terms of not being able to meet their goals (inasmuch as goals are measured in XP).

If that party goes until they can't go anymore every single time they engage in combat. This has rarely been my experience (though it's happened), but I know it differs at different tables. That's been my point.

The metric is largely a mathematical one of XP earned between recharges. This maps, in general, to the level of challenge a party can face: a party with a cleric like some are proposing would be allow the party to face a greater challenge than a party without one (and with any other class instead).

What is a "cleric like some are proposing"?

Not exactly.

Every character in 5e measures progress toward their goals with XP. This is because XP serves as a measure of challenge: a critter (or, presumably, other obstacle) that is harder to beat is going to be worth more XP, and the more critters you beat up (or places you explore, or intractable political opponents you persuade to back down, or whatever), the more XP your party earns. Overcoming these obstacles is going to cost you something -- in combat, it costs you HP. The harder a thing is to beat, the more it costs you. You determine what things you can beat as a party by comparing your existing resources (HP) to what it might cost you (the damage you will take) to determine if you can tackle the challenge or not.

If a cleric (or any other "designated healer") is designed to make the party go on longer, a party with one is going to earn more XP, by fighting more creatures, or by fighting tougher creatures, or otherwise taking on bigger challenges. Because of that, they'll make more progress toward their goal (the goal being XP).

Not exactly.

They'll be able to take on more threats quickly in-game, but the same number of combats can be held in the same amount of time by a group that uses one or doesn't, as long as natural healing exists and the group passes over that. 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. Theoretically, this should be just about the same amount of table time. The only advantage happens in-game. Which can be significant (if you get pushed to your max limit), but hey, good for the Cleric. It's not like the Rogue and Wizard don't have significant contributions.

So, the ultimate effect is that adding a cleric to the party gets you closer to your goals faster than adding any other class. It's like saying "Because you're playing a cleric, everyone at the table gets 20% extra XP each time we play."

Can you see why this doesn't line up to me?

Clerics would do this by virtue of making the party more robust and able to withstand punishment than it would be without one. In comparison, a party that swaps out a fighter for a rogue might just focus more on Sneak Attacks; a party that swaps out a rogue for a wizard might rely more on divination spells; a party that swaps out a wizard for a fighter might rely more on tricky maneuvers....etc.

Right. I get this, which is why I don't understand the objection to extra stamina from a Cleric.

This is personal, though. At the basic level, which is facing newbies, we can't know if they're going to care about effectiveness, or if they're going to be playing in a group that cares about it or not. And I'd prefer not to create a situation where that choice needs to be made -- it's a false choice.

We don't know their play style at all, and play styles conflict. There's absolutely no way to cater to them all.

If the cleric uniquely has the power to expand the adventuring day, it would be like the Fighter being the only one capable of making damage rolls, or the rogue being the only one allowed to make Perception checks. The point is that these things should be things that any character is capable of (the cleric might be the best/most versatile/most useful/whatever, but a fighter or rogue should be able to do it, too).

I completely disagree with your framing. The Cleric's unique ability to extend the adventuring day is like a Fighter that can make uniquely high damage rolls, or the Rogue getting uniquely high Perception checks. Anyone can roll Perception checks, but Rogues are better; anyone can deal damage, but Fighter's get better; any party can adventure, but one with a Cleric can do it longer. It's exceptionally different from what you just used to frame it.

A cleric made in this mode is the one who gives you progress toward any goal, by giving you more XP.

The cleric doesn't give you more XP, as far as I can tell.

I hope I've given enough maths and evidence that this is a legit concern if Clerics are the only ones that can extend the length of the day.

No, your maths failed me. The same exact number of combats (and thus XP earned) are had at each table, but the Cleric allows for it to happen in the same in-game day. That makes a difference, but is certainly far away from more XP.

If they're the only ones who can do that, there is pressure to choose them over another class that cannot do that, for the purposes of meeting the party's goals.

Depends on the party goal.

Pfft, I'm just some jerk on the Internet with kind of weirdly strong opinions about magic gumdrop elves.

Aren't we all... Thanks for the thoughtful and civil reply, though. Sent some XP your way. As always, play what you like

 

[Garthanos]

That's one way to do it. Are there no others? What if the extra stamina doesn't help?

You mean like over kill... then it still carries disproportionate awesome or disproportionate sense of ease ... OR may be worse loss of tension in the story.

I wouldn't mind this "balance", but some people would still say the Cleric is "required" if natural healing isn't overnight, since you can heal faster with one. That is, a party of four Fighters heals their wounds over days, while the one with the Cleric heals over the next 1-2 days.

That is the time factor I think FireLance or Pemerton? was referring to... if there is NO time constraints for ongoing adventure that enforce a specific pace then the extra potency gained from out of combat healing like what might be provided by rituals or just having a healers care for instance is not a big deal even though the healer allows a different story pace.

Optimally I would like to see every character to be have abilities flexible enough that they can perform to a certain measure in many roles allow specialization certainly because that is trope worthy and archetypal but by allowing even attribute checks to enable Leader/Striker/Defender/Controller functions might be rather cool. The obsession with classes having there own mechanics I find disturbing for multiple reasons in part because there really ought to be overlap.

 

[Garthanos]

Effective at what though? This is my disconnect. If you value party POWER in BATTLE, play a Cleric. If you want to be effective in other areas, play a class that enhances the party in that area.

unless it is only gained during down time ... yup that stamina we are talking about is battleflield might.. Example you have 3 fights (or many minor ones that add up to a 3) on the 4th fight its a real knock down drag out but uber healer here brings every party member back on the table half way through .... so we can win this fight which would be like having fight 4 and 5 at once.... since my heal is instant doesnt matter that party takes it down. I just doubled the potency of peak performance the party can have hurray ! Now who doesnt NEED this ummm stamina enhancing healer if you are going to battle.

 

[JamesonCourage]

You mean like over kill... then it still carries disproportionate awesome or disproportionate sense of ease ... OR may be worse loss of tension in the story.

I mean, basically, what if parties are only getting in 3-4 fights per day on the very high end, and that extra fight possibility from the Cleric doesn't really ever happen?

That is the time factor I think FireLance or Pemerton? was referring to... if there is NO time constraints for ongoing adventure that enforce a specific pace then the extra potency gained from out of combat healing like what might be provided by rituals or just having a healers care for instance is not a big deal even though the healer allows a different story pace.

Personally, I'm okay with magical healing allowing for a faster in-game story pace than you'd have without one. Clerics help you recover and act quickly in-game, while rangers and druids help you in nature, fighters and barbarians help you in combat, and rogues and bards help you in exploration/social interaction. Choosing your class helps dictate pacing, and I'm okay with that.

Optimally I would like to see every character to be have abilities flexible enough that they can perform to a certain measure in many roles allow specialization certainly because that is trope worthy and archetypal but by allowing even attribute checks to enable Leader/Striker/Defender/Controller functions might be rather cool. The obsession with classes having there own mechanics I find disturbing for multiple reasons in part because there really ought to be overlap.

I certainly don't mind overlap, but I also don't mind unique mechanics. But I'm all for some awesome flexibility. Let's open classes up. Some people in this thread seem amazingly ambitious, in my mind. If they come up with awesome stuff, then awesome.

unless it is only gained during down time ... yup that stamina we are talking about is battleflield might.. Example you have 3 fights (or many minor ones that add up to a 3) on the 4th fight its a real knock down drag out but uber healer here brings every party member back on the table half way through .... so we can win this fight which would be like having fight 4 and 5 at once.... since my heal is instant doesnt matter that party takes it down. I just doubled the potency of peak performance the party can have hurray ! Now who doesnt NEED this ummm stamina enhancing healer if you are going to battle.

First, please don't "fix" my quotes. I hate when people do that. Thank you.

Anyone who doesn't get into a fight like you described? Anyone who doesn't value that healing power (and potential survival) over other options? We're talking "need" here. We're talking "requires". Just like not having a Rogue can sometimes screw you. Or not having a Bard. Or a Wizard. Or a Fighter. Or a Ranger. And so on. Without the Cleric, yeah, you might get screwed, it's just in one area. Just like you'd be screwed in a different area if you didn't have that Rogue, Wizard, or Ranger.

You see what I'm saying? As always, play what you like

 

[steeldragons]

Are there any others?

When I think cleric, I do not automatically think "healing", but I do think "Defense."

So another option/answer would be "Defensive ability." Between their spells that, traditionally, all themselves and others to endure situations/hazards that might be out of the ordinary (like heat, cold, poisonous, undoing paralysis, undoing disease, etc...). And the other, obvious, fact that armor and shields let them get right down in the fray, to soak up some attacks, aids the party by nt taking as much damage (per person) in the first place because attacks can be spread out...But honestly, that's not really a "cleric" thing, this could be from just having another warm body to soak some attacks. So maybe it doesn't count...

Dunno. Just throwin' it out there.

 

[pemerton]

What if those encounters were much more "horrific slogs" than they would have been if the cleric had been some other class?

Right! In my view the salient measure is "XP per unit of real time", not "XP per unit of game time", at least until someone shows me why the passage of ingame time actually matters to anything.

If the DM doesn't want you to be bored for 18 hours, she's going to hurl bigger challenges at you, and then you get more XP, and lo, your hour of play has gotten you closer to the goal than someone else's hour of play.

This assumes that the real time required to earn those XP is constant (1 hour in your example). But that's not necessarily so. For instance, in 4e a party with 2 leaders, 2 defenders and a high-control low-damage wizard (say an illusionist type) may take forever to finish combats that a party with 1 defender, 1 lazy leader and 3 strikers (including a sorcerer for some crowd control) might breeze through in real time.

Why? Because the damage per hit is lower, the players have to roll more dice to win. And because the defences are higher, and the damage mitigation greater, the GM also has to roll more dice per unit of damage dealt.

If the cleric makes things quicker in game time (more encounters per day) but slower in real time (encounters take longer, because the group has traded damage for mitigation) then I'm not sure that's a power up. It may serve better in a scenario in which ingame time is critical (eg rescue the maiden before she's sacrificed) but that's a particular sort of adventure. Generically, in D&D, there is no time pressure - just a dungeon to explore.

Just to keep things applying regardless of class, I'm going to flip your 20 units into 20 HP, since not every class is going to play with an expendable active resource, but everyone's going to have HP's. Essentially, HP's are encounter-defeating capacity anyway, ultimately.

If the party has an essentially unconstrained power to choose to rest and regain hit points, then hit points are not a limit (provided you don't run out of them in a given encounter, when presumably resting will not be feasible).

With a cleric, the party loses 4 hp in each of 5 fights.

Without a cleric, the party loses 5 hp in each of 4 fights.

Thus, the cleric helps the party earn more XP in a day

"Necessary" happens when a party without a cleric isn't going to be able to get as much XP between recharges by RAW as a party with one.

You're not telling me why this matters. Who cares how many XP they earn betwen recharges? More generally, who cares about the ingame rate of level progression?

In my 4e campaign the PCs have earned, on average, a little over a level per ingame week. In someone else's campaign that may have been a level per ingame month. Does that mean the PCs in my game are overpowered? I don't think so. The passage of ingame time is just part of the fiction, like the colour of the gnome's shoes.

The relevant metric is "successes per unit of real time", not "successes per unit of ingame time". At least until ingame time itself is made into some sort of resource or contraint, like in a time sensitive scenario. But D&Dnext has no generic rule that makes the passage of ingame time significant.

How many obstacles can your party overcome before they must recuperate? If the party fails to overcome that number of obstacles, they fail to meet their goal.

Why? Unless there goal runs away while they're resting, they rest, regain resources and come back in and get it.

You're not showing me why the passage of ingame time, as a general rule, matters in D&Dnext.

Maybe I can turn the question around, for those who think that having a cleric in the party should increase the party's endurance, so that (say) a party who replaced the cleric with a fighter, rogue, wizard, monk, etc. would only be able to take on four encounters before it needs to rest while a paty with a cleric will be able to take on five encounters before it has to rest:

What should a party with a cleric be giving up, in order to balance its greater endurance compared to a party that does not have one?

Well, if having greater endurance makes no more difference than the colour of the gnome's shoes, it shouldn't have to give up anything.

Is there any reason to think that it does make more difference than that? (NB. I'm talking here about out-of-combat healing. In-combat healing is a completely different matter, and significantly changes the play of combat. But people like [MENTION=85555]Bedrockgames[/MENTION] are not calling for incombat healing as far as I can see - which is, in any event, not a big part of the pre-3E D&D exerience.)

Suppose it does, what does the wizard get instead? The ability to rest at will (via Rope Trick, Teleport and the like).

What do the fighter and thief get? I'm not sure, but my general feeling about martial PCs in D&Dnext is that they're back to their pre-4e status, of ceding narrative control to the spellcasters.

That is the time factor I think FireLance or Pemerton? was referring to... if there is NO time constraints for ongoing adventure that enforce a specific pace then the extra potency gained from out of combat healing like what might be provided by rituals or just having a healers care for instance is not a big deal even though the healer allows a different story pace.

Exactly!

Sometimes the game is about how fast this can be accomplished that race against time is often made fairly central (avoidance of the 5md).. and such.

In these scenarios then yes, a cleric who increases encounters per game day would be more powerful. But presumably in a scenario which involves getting info from slum-dwelling low-lifes a thief will be more powerful; or that involves infiltrating a castle, a bard or paladin will be more powerful. Unless the passage of time is built into the system as a generic cost or resource, I'm seeing this just as one of those "some classes suit some niche scenario" things, not as evidence of generic class power.

They'll be able to take on more threats quickly in-game, but the same number of combats can be held in the same amount of time by a group that uses one or doesn't, as long as natural healing exists and the group passes over that. 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. Theoretically, this should be just about the same amount of table time. The only advantage happens in-game.

This is exactly what I've been saying since more than 100 posts ago. My only quibble with you is that there is no reason to think there is even an ingame advantage - why does it matter to the PCs that they do things quickly rather than slowly?

And if the PCs are wizards who can control when they rest, and hence can afford to deploy more spells per encounter without risking running out, they have both an ingame advantage and, if the GM doesn't change the challenge difficulty, an in-real-life-at-the-table advantage too!

Well in that case then the game also wouldn't care if that pacing is achieved by using slightly weaker monsters.

Everything else being equal, though, that will slow the rate of PC level progression. Which may be an issue for some groups.

Or getting most of your XP from treasure instead of monsters.

I was going to post this myself! If that's how XP are earned, then being able to do 5 combats per day rather than 4 is neither here nor there.

Hence why, unless the "combats per game day" is more explicitly built into the system, I don't think a cleric who increases the number of combats between refreshes is per se overpowered.