D&D 5E Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[MoonSong]

I think everyone should strive for some level of self-sufficiency. Healers, tanks and some types of DPS get it easier than other classes. Avoidance, damage reduction, self-healing, etc... But for some classes this comes at the expense of other class features. It was one thing I liked about 4E, you didn't need to sacrifice unique class features to get some sustainability.

Being interdependent is fine if the group builds for it from the start, I don't have a problem with people doing that, but if it's not pre-planned, there's a risk of people running characters that NEED support, in a group that doesn't provide it. And of course, it depends heavily on how strategically the DM runs encounters, because encounters that aren't strategic don't require any coordination on the part of the players mechanically or tactically.

As for clerics using magic that isn't healing, that doesn't bother me at all. But I do dislike that Clerics can literally cover every role in the game, while the same is not available to the vast majority of other classes.

I think -might be wrong- that one is consequence of the other. The cleric is more self-reliable but still needs to do its basic job so after many design cycles it can now cover all the roles. Had players being more accepting of otherwise useless healbots, we wouldn't have come to this -again this is just silly me thinking-.

 

[Sunseeker]

I think -might be wrong- that one is consequence of the other. The cleric is more self-reliable but still needs to do its basic job so after many design cycles it can now cover all the roles. Had players being more accepting of otherwise useless healbots, we wouldn't have come to this -again this is just silly me thinking-.

Well, I personally wouldn't mind if the Cleric got downgraded into a 1/2 caster and we gave full "healbotting" to a Priest class or some such.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, I personally wouldn't mind if the Cleric got downgraded into a 1/2 caster and we gave full "healbotting" to a Priest class or some such.

Or a warlord.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think everyone should strive for some level of self-sufficiency.

Some level, sure. They also need to be contributing to the party.

Being interdependent is fine if the group builds for it from the start, I don't have a problem with people doing that, but if it's not pre-planned, there's a risk of people running characters that NEED support, in a group that doesn't provide it.

True. 5e is designed concept- and tradition- first, and its take on Vancian magic makes traditional casters very flexible. A Cleric who just doesn't prepare support spells isn't providing any of the support other characters might need - he can fix that the next day, if he wants, but he may not want to.

I haven't been too concerned with it, but I suppose that you could do a lot better designing the whole party to synergize than just throwing together a random, or traditional 4-PC fighter/cleric/magic-user/thief equivalents, party. Whether you synergize as a team or independently stand next to eachother, though, you'll still either be in a tailored campaign, where the DM will just have to beef up or softball challenges to match your effectiveness, or a status-quo campaign where you'll have to pick the battles you hope you can win.

As for clerics using magic that isn't healing, that doesn't bother me at all. But I do dislike that Clerics can literally cover every role in the game, while the same is not available to the vast majority of other classes.

The old 'heal-bot' cleric was so unpopular that 2e, 3e & 4e all tried to 'fix' it, mostly by throwing more toys at it, 4e also be distributing the healing burden. 5e hasn't exactly gone back on any of those attempts. It gives everyone some between-combat healing, removes the cleric from daily healing, and gives the cleric Domains to further add to the versatility of neo-Vancian casting. It's not quite CoDzilla all over again, but no one should be able to pass on the Cleric on the ground it's underpowered or can't do what he wants.

 

[MoonSong]

Well, I personally wouldn't mind if the Cleric got downgraded into a 1/2 caster and we gave full "healbotting" to a Priest class or some such.

I really agree, in fact my heartbreakers all feature priests as the default divine caster, but that is just a reset button. How long until players start demanding that the priest be self-reliant and the whole process starts over?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I don't take issue with healers deciding where healing is most needed. That's NOT what you were doing. You are using your rationing of healing as a bar to judge PLAYERS and if they are fit for your group. That is NOT your job. It is not your job to determine if the player cares. It is not your job to determine if the player is taking the game seriously. And it's not your job to attempt to force people from the table when they start playing in a manner you don't like, especially through passive-aggressive social engineering. You're welcome to talk to the DM or heck even voice your concerns in the ever acceptable "Hey man, you're gonna get us all killed, stop that!" But being the healer no more entitles you to control the group than being being any other member of the group.

You can tell people to take things more seriously, but some people aren't going to listen to reason, and they're not going admit when the game is a bad fit so they should bow out. One type of player that is frequently encountered when group-building is someone who says they appreciate a certain style - the style that the DM is advertising - but derails the game by trying to force a different style. Healing distribution is a way of getting that player on the same page as the rest of the group, in a way that they'll understand. It can save three or four dramatic confrontations where the DM tries to tell a player that they aren't a good fit, only for the player to swear that they can change.

If you're playing football (either version), and one of your team-mates is running toward the wrong end of the field, you don't pass them the ball and hope they'll turn around, even if you're telling them the whole time that they're going in the wrong direction; you pass the ball to someone who can make use of it, and the errant player will figure it out pretty quickly. I can tolerate a fair amount of foolishness around the table, but I'm not going to enable it.

 

[Sunseeker]

Or a warlord.

Sure, variant "warpriest". GET UP OFF YOUR LAZY BUTT AND GET BACK IN THE FIGHT!!! *regain 2d6+con HP*

 

[Sunseeker]

Some level, sure. They also need to be contributing to the party.

True. 5e is designed concept- and tradition- first, and its take on Vancian magic makes traditional casters very flexible. A Cleric who just doesn't prepare support spells isn't providing any of the support other characters might need - he can fix that the next day, if he wants, but he may not want to.

I think that's one of the biggest problems. Clerics shouldn't simply be divine wizards. There are reasons they might not have access to spells per their religion/order and god. Not being able to switch out spells may lead to mistakes, but being able to "know everything" is IMO, worse.

The old 'heal-bot' cleric was so unpopular that 2e, 3e & 4e all tried to 'fix' it, mostly by throwing more toys at it, 4e also be distributing the healing burden. 5e hasn't exactly gone back on any of those attempts. It gives everyone some between-combat healing, removes the cleric from daily healing, and gives the cleric Domains to further add to the versatility of neo-Vancian casting. It's not quite CoDzilla all over again, but no one should be able to pass on the Cleric on the ground it's underpowered or can't do what he wants.

I really agree, in fact my heartbreakers all feature priests as the default divine caster, but that is just a reset button. How long until players start demanding that the priest be self-reliant and the whole process starts over?

I think the answer is that it's easier to resist adding features than it is to remove them. As Tony points out above, 5E hasn't gone back on all the stuff that's been added to Clerics (and other classes) over the years, but they've certainly resisted adding new features to certain classes moreso than others. With Clerics we're at a point where they've got so much of everything, that the argument against adding more are fundamentally weak. Why can't clerics of arcane gods have full wizard spell access? Clerics of nature gods? Clerics of music gods? Clerics of war gods getting more attacks? Clerics of shadowy gods warlock stuff?

Clerics are and have been walking in that direction, so the argument to stop them are weak. I'll also let this stand as my response to Tony in that, simply put, the more you add, the harder it is NOT to add.

 

[Shasarak]

Whether you're talking about the original topic of hp inflation or the easy availability of between-combat healing, it is. High point, and arguably beginning. PC hps in 3e could go higher than in other editions, because CON bonus added at every level and CON didn't have a hard cap (and you had CON boosting items). WoCLW healing quickly became trivially available - virtually unlimited, while surges were & HD are daily resources.

If you want to talk about hp inflation then you can not look past Unearthed Arcana for the beginning with the introduction of the Barbarian and Cavalier. And of course the slow increase every edition of the negative hp point when your character died.

So really it is only 5e that has managed to reign in the pure number porn inflation that peaked in 4e.

 

[Shasarak]

If you're playing football (either version), and one of your team-mates is running toward the wrong end of the field, you don't pass them the ball and hope they'll turn around, even if you're telling them the whole time that they're going in the wrong direction; you pass the ball to someone who can make use of it, and the errant player will figure it out pretty quickly. I can tolerate a fair amount of foolishness around the table, but I'm not going to enable it.

Actually in football (rugby) it is a legitimate tactic to pass the ball to your team mate who is running towards the wrong end of the field so that he can then kick the ball forward.

Likewise the Barbarian who charges the Orcs is a high risk, high reward tactic that I am sure is a valid tactic for a group of players.