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

[I'm A Banana]

Like I mentioned above, different tables are going to feel this differently, and it might not happen everywhere. But it's like 3e's CoDZilla problem, or 4e's grindy combat problem, or 2e's Complete Book of Twinks problem: some tables don't experience it, but that doesn't mean it's not a real problem that shouldn't be addressed.

The needle the designers need to thread on that is to solve the problem, without ruining the play experience for those who never had the problem.

What complicates that is when the problem is seen as just part of the game folks want to play. The line between a bug and a feature can be blurry, and no one wants to stop folks from enjoying the game how they like. I feel that the criteria for the basic version of the game are unique in that we'd like it to (a) deliver the purest, distilled essence of classic D&D, and (b) not present artificial barriers to entry, aimed as it is as newbies.

Are "clerics are more powerful" such a part of A that any loss in B is fine?

Personally, I don't think so, but I am a well-known rogue agent with a reckless disregard for authority, a chip on his shoulder, and a cool set of shades that metaphorically conceal my true feelings from all but the one woman who can melt my heart of ice.

 

[Balesir]

Not exactly advocating for uber powerful clerics, just meaningfull clerics, that a party with a cleric can do things a party without one doesn't necesarilly mean the cleric itself is more powerfull than other classes.

As it happens I agree that it can easily be designed this way, but I think the demand that "a party with a cleric should be able to face 5 encounters before resting, a party without a cleric only 4" is queering the pitch. I think if the difference is that marked, then something is awry; but I don't think it has to be so with the cleric still "special".

A low level party on 3.5 with a Healer instead of a Cleric can take more fights than one with a Cleric instead of a Healer, as long as the Healer has enough Orisons, the party will remain at full health, yet nobody would think a Healer is overpowered and vastly superior to a Cleric. On a straight fight the cleric would trash the floor with the healer.

Right - so, it follows, the cleric can do some damage to monsters, too. It has less healing, but greater damage output. Healing is very useful - but so is damage output. Damage output means monsters die sooner, which means the party takes less damage. Get this balance right, and I think you're golden.

Likewise on Basic a straight fighter will trash the floor with a cleric, but if they work together the fighter with the cleric backing will be able to do more than just two fighters. And if he also has a Thief on his side he will be able to out do three fighters, no member of the big four should be able to be removed without reducing the party capacity.

One issue with 3e, especially, is that, if s/he gets lucky, a cleric alone can take two fighters (using command, hold person and such - with good rolls). It seems to me that two fighters should, with luck, be able to take a cleric and a fighter. Whichever way the battle goes, the winners should be out of resources, all else being equal (i.e. cleric out of spells, fighters out of hit points, or near to).

In other words, the cleric should not be clearly superior to the fighter. Able to do different things - sure! One of healing's main benefits is to distribute damage around the party - i.e. the party with a reduced-damage-doer will take a bit more damage, but by healing selected parts of that the damage can be distributed more as they wish. Add to that clerical spells and turning undead and you have some very distinctive capabilities - but not a character that allows the party to hit harder and fight longer without any downsides.

 

[Iosue]

On the subject of proportionate healing, I do wonder why they've given each Clerical heal spell its own die to roll, when you have the PC's Hit Dice right there. Cure Light Wounds = roll PC HD+4. Cure Moderate Wounds = roll up to 2 HD+4. Cure Serious Wounds = roll up to 3 HD+8. The nice thing about this is you could have, say, the option of using HD average. Then you have the optional surge rule to put a limit on healing for the groups that would like it. I see a game that could give you these kinds of options:

Basic Game: no rest healing, Cleric healing is based off Hit Dice.
Option 1: Cleric and Rest Healing based off Hit Dice (default rule in current playtest)
Option 2: Cleric and Rest Healing based off total HD average (Iosue variant of Option 1)
Option 3: Slower Hit Point Recovery (optional rule in current playtest)
Option 4: Slower Hit Dice Recovery ( " " )
Option 5: All-Around Slower Recovery ( " " )
Options 6-8: Iosue variants of Options 3-5
Option 9: Rests (Experimental Rule 1 in current playtest)
Option 10: Healing and Rests (Experimental Rule 2 in current playtest)
Option 11: Surges - You get half your Con score (round down) in surges. Every time you roll your total HD, you lose a surge. When you are out of surges, you can no longer use HD. You get all surges back after a long rest.
Option 12: Surges - Iosue variant that uses average of total HD instead of rolling.

This lets you spin dials from "Slow and careful play" to "Heroic play" and from "Hit points as meat" to "Hit points are part meat/part intangibles" to "Healing surges as a daily resource mechanic."

 

[D'karr]

This lets you spin dials from "Slow and careful play" to "Heroic play" and from "Hit points as meat" to "Hit points are part meat/part intangibles" to "Healing surges as a daily resource mechanic."

Yep, if what they want is dials they need to build the basic game with the dials in mind. Not try to tack them ad-hoc in Standard and Advanced later. Even though Basic might not use all or any of the dials, its core design needs to be able to support all the dials.

 

[TwoSix]

On the subject of proportionate healing, I do wonder why they've given each Clerical heal spell its own die to roll, when you have the PC's Hit Dice right there. Cure Light Wounds = roll PC HD+4. Cure Moderate Wounds = roll up to 2 HD+4. Cure Serious Wounds = roll up to 3 HD+8. The nice thing about this is you could have, say, the option of using HD average. Then you have the optional surge rule to put a limit on healing for the groups that would like it. I see a game that could give you these kinds of options:

That's not bad at all. Only problem is it doesn't solve what I think is a major problem for cure spells, which is "Why can a 1st level cleric heal a fellow adventurer from unconscious to full health, while a seasoned adventurer only has a few scratches closed up?" I think that's where proportional healing has to come into play.

 

[Iosue]

Yep, if what they want is dials they need to build the basic game with the dials in mind. Not try to tack them ad-hoc in Standard and Advanced later. Even though Basic might not use all or any of the dials, its core design needs to be able to support all the dials.

Well, given that HD have been part of the playtest since the beginning, I think the basic game is designed with the dials in mind. They are simply being removed from the default. I still think it's entirely possible some or even all of the healing rules in the current playtest may still be included in the basic rules, only put in an "optional" box.

It seems to me that through the whole public playtest process, they've been presenting incomplete Standard Rules, with the intention of paring them down to the Basic Rules. Thus, through the whole playtest we've had skills, we've had backgrounds, themes/specialties, we've had rest-based healing and HD. Then for the Basic Rules, they take out skills, give each class a default background and specialty, and make HD healing optional, if not removed from the Basic Rules altogether.

 

[DEFCON 1]

My problem is that forcing someone to choose between playing the character they WANT to play, and playing the character they feel the MUST play (or weaken the entire party and create a more difficult challenge for everyone) is an unfair choice to force someone -- especially a newbie -- to make. I don't think D&D players should have to choose between effective in mechanical terms and cool in their own minds. If the cleric is better than any other class, that's a choice we're forcing on them.

No... right now it's a choice that YOU are forcing on them, under the mistaken belief that if a party with a cleric can accomplish an extra encounter over one that doesn't... that makes a cleric REQUIRED. Which is complete and utter hogwash. Just because YOU believe that the most efficient method of achieving goals (regardless of how small a difference there might be between the most efficient and the next most efficient) means that particular party layout is FORCED upon all players... (because in your mind no one in their right mind would ever just play what they wanted rather than the most efficient, right?)... doesn't mean it's true.

Every class is going to have something the other classes can't do. Or can't do as well. That's the whole point of having different classes. So to want every single combination of class and party number be OPTIMAL in every single encounter possibility is ridiculous. And impossible.

As long as every combination of class and number are relatively comparable... that's good enough. And that's all we can ask of WotC as they put the game together.

 

[Iosue]

That's not bad at all. Only problem is it doesn't solve what I think is a major problem for cure spells, which is "Why can a 1st level cleric heal a fellow adventurer from unconscious to full health, while a seasoned adventurer only has a few scratches closed up?" I think that's where proportional healing has to come into play.

True, true. One thing you could do is Cure Light Wounds = Total HD, Cure Serious Wounds = Total HDx2, etc, etc. Proportional healing!

 

[TwoSix]

True, true. One thing you could do is Cure Light Wounds = Total HD, Cure Serious Wounds = Total HDx2, etc, etc. Proportional healing!

Well, let's say, for assumption's sake, that a standard character has HP roughly equal to the max total of their HD. That's pretty reasonable, assuming average rolls, max HD at 1st level, and per-level Con bonuses.

Frex, a character with 10d10 HD probably has around 100 HP. 10 at 1st level + 50 (average of 9d10 rounded) + 40 (18 Con * 10 levels, 18 is reasonable for 10th level fighter type.)

So let's say a 1st level spell should be able to heal about a quarter of that. How do we get there?

A) Spell heals a set value of the target's HP. This would be the healing surge approach.
B) Spell heals a dice amount somehow set by the target. Maybe half their HD value? 5d10 = 27.5 average.
C) Some combined value. 2*target level + dHD? That would be 25.5 average. For a d6 HD character, that would be 23.5 of ~60 max HP, which is about 40% of their HP. I can see an argument that wimpier characters would require less healing magic than the tough guys up front as an explanation.

I picked 10th because it's right in the middle of the range, but I'd want to see what these methods would look like at 1st and 20th as well.

(I still think healing surges are best!)

 

[I'm A Banana]

No... right now it's a choice that YOU are forcing on them, under the mistaken belief that if a party with a cleric can accomplish an extra encounter over one that doesn't... that makes a cleric REQUIRED. Which is complete and utter hogwash. Just because YOU believe that the most efficient method of achieving goals (regardless of how small a difference there might be between the most efficient and the next most efficient) means that particular party layout is FORCED upon all players... (because in your mind no one in their right mind would ever just play what they wanted rather than the most efficient, right?)... doesn't mean it's true.

The issue is that it's a false choice. They shouldn't have to choose between what they want and what is the most efficient. They should be able to play whatever they want without any drop in efficiency. That's a choice that the design of the game is forcing on them. Not every group or every player gives a flip about drops in efficiency, so the pressure isn't always present or dominant, but why force the choice if you don't have to?

Every class is going to have something the other classes can't do. Or can't do as well. That's the whole point of having different classes. So to want every single combination of class and party number be OPTIMAL in every single encounter possibility is ridiculous. And impossible.

As long as every combination of class and number are relatively comparable... that's good enough. And that's all we can ask of WotC as they put the game together.

I feel like this part of your post is a very passionate point against something that no one is really arguing for.