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

[Bedrockgames]

Remember why those changes were put into place? Why clerics got Spontaneous Healing in 3e, and why Healing Word was a minor action in 4e? Because no one wanted to play the medic! Over the course of the game's history, D&D has tried to facilitate cleric players having fun with their characters, attacking and smiting and casting spells beyond mere healing.

As far back as I can remember clerics have always been about way more than healing. It certainly is a major feature of what they do, but they were always a great class for someone who wanted to fight but also wanted spells. I really never encountered anyone who complained about having to heal the party.

 

[Klaus]

As far back as I can remember clerics have always been about way more than healing. It certainly is a major feature of what they do, but they were always a great class for someone who wanted to fight but also wanted spells. I really never encountered anyone who complained about having to heal the party.

And IME, anyone who played the cleric in 1e and 2e was miffed because they felt obligated to memorize cure spells as much as possible. To the point where the only priest that saw extensive play in 2e for my group was an unarmored variant from Complete Priest, so he could have more spells to make up for tying up the cure spells. That was the reason for spontaneous healing coming into place in 3e: so that the cleric's player could have other spells available instead of being saddled up with cure wounds.

 

[Bedrockgames]

And IME, anyone who played the cleric in 1e and 2e was miffed because they felt obligated to memorize cure spells as much as possible. To the point where the only priest that saw extensive play in 2e for my group was an unarmored variant from Complete Priest, so he could have more spells to make up for tying up the cure spells. That was the reason for spontaneous healing coming into place in 3e: so that the cleric's player could have other spells available instead of being saddled up with cure wounds.

But then a lot of people who complain clerics were too dull in 1E/2E complained they were too powerful in 3E. I am sure this was your experience but in my games people were happy to play them (especially in 2E). I think Mike is on the ball on this one, the problem appears worse if you go by the internet than if you talk to gamers and solicit feedback. If anything the 4E solution to get around the perceived problem drove away fans of the old cleric only heals. So I just dont see the issue with making it go back to the default of the first three editions, but including am optional non cleric healing method. People who want that will be perfectly able to have it in their games, but for those of us who left 4E (partly because of how it handled healing) we dont get stuck with it as well.

 

[pemerton]

It shouldn't be, but look at how long it took them to "get the math right" for skill challenges and monster attack/damage.

I'll add my pet theories on these to [MENTION=6688937]Ratskinner[/MENTION]'s.

Skill challenges: the rapid and differential scaling of skill bonuses, particularly as new elements (backgrounds, items etc) are introduced into the game, makes balancing this sort of conflict resolution system too hard. In the end, Essentials adopts the (rather under-explained) "advantage" mechanic to cope.

Monsters: initially they envisage higher level fights taking more time over more space - hence lower damage, lower attack bonuses etc were all meant to balance out.

 

[Klaus]

But then a lot of people who complain clerics were too dull in 1E/2E complained they were too powerful in 3E. I am sure this was your experience but in my games people were happy to play them (especially in 2E). I think Mike is on the ball on this one, the problem appears worse if you go by the internet than if you talk to gamers and solicit feedback. If anything the 4E solution to get around the perceived problem drove away fans of the old cleric only heals. So I just dont see the issue with making it go back to the default of the first three editions, but including am optional non cleric healing method. People who want that will be perfectly able to have it in their games, but for those of us who left 4E (partly because of how it handled healing) we dont get stuck with it as well.

The power issue of the CoDzilla was not from the healing, it was from the spell list. If you take a look at the spell list for Clerics in 1e, it's about a third of the size of the Wizard list, and there is pretty almost no attack spells (beyond the occasional Spiritual Weapon). The cleric spell list got marginally expanded in 2e, but it was 3e that gave clerics the full range of attack spells usually given for the Wizard, with full armor, good weapons, decent Hit Dice and the healing cherry on top, so the cleric now fulfilled the Fighter/Mage niche.

You may not see the issue, but I know a lot of veteran (as in 25+ years of gaming) who do not want DDN to "regress" into a game where a character can take no measures to patch himself up without resorting to a cleric, a magic item or a potion. Moreso than wanting nonmagical healing, they want a "second wind/take a breather" option to be in the game.

 

[sheadunne]

Remember why those changes were put into place? Why clerics got Spontaneous Healing in 3e, and why Healing Word was a minor action in 4e? Because no one wanted to play the medic! Over the course of the game's history, D&D has tried to facilitate cleric players having fun with their characters, attacking and smiting and casting spells beyond mere healing.

I always enjoyed playing it so clearly "no one" isn't accurate. I never encountered the "forced to play cleric" phenominia that so many people talk about. The cleric has always been a fun and exciting class to play, at least since I started 30 years ago. It favors a certain type of gamer certainly, but doesn't every class?

 

[howandwhy99]

Moreso than wanting nonmagical healing, they want a "second wind/take a breather" option to be in the game.

I agree. Very-very early there was such a mechanic, a full round rest which meant you weren't actively defending yourself. Not only did you lose your DEX bonus to AC, but you took a penalty as well. But the rest completely removed any Fatigue penalties from continually taking strenuous actions too.
EDIT: Of course, this is back when combat rounds were a minute long.

 

[sheadunne]

Making the Cleric feel valued does not mean removing other forms of healing - whilst you are advocating fun times for those who want to play healers, you are also dooming one person in every group to have to play the healer, which is not necessarily fun times for them. If the core had non-magical healing, that does not stop the Cleric from having magical healing that is special and important. If the core had only magical healing, it makes the Cleric a necessity, and devalues their powers as we all search for a way to avoid having to play one if we don't want to - that's the real reason that wands and so on ended up existing.

It is a common mentality in gaming that if you can do it yourself, don't ask someone else. If everyone else has access to healing, no one asks the cleric. I am perfectly content with removing all forms of healing aside from the cleric (and/or a few other classes). I am perfectly aware that this doesn't appeal to everyone, but nor does allowing other forms of healing. Having a simple core of magical only healing, allows options for those that don't enjoy it.

 

[Manbearcat]

ON TOPIC: My position on this is the same as my position in the the Warlord thread. The "Rally" needs to be in play and there are only so many ways to accomplish that; (i) intra-combat healing, (ii) pro-active or reactive deployable mitigation effects (iii) refreshable/triggered nova capabilities. If 5e doesn't have (i), then it really needs to have a healthy assemblage of (ii) and (iii) or combats are just going to be little more than an HP-ablating/tree-chopping contests. If that turns out to be the case, my guess is that 5e will lose a large cross-section of the D&D crowd it hopes to court.

DIVERGENT NONSENSE TO NOT READ:

@Balesir

Gotcha. Well, a couple things.

1) I wasn't comparing 4e's "wieldiness" with respect to PC inflation relative to prior editions. I was comparing it to itself and my own sense of its sweet-spot; 4 - 5 PCs. My group has 3 PCs and without a doubt it is outside of the sweet spot of the edition; but we manager perfectly well.

2) My experience is considerable with 3 and 4 PCs, decent bit with 5 and marginal with 6. No experience with 7 or more.

3) As such, my thoughts are merely hypothesis based on my own experience and extrapolation/deduction, the consistent testimony of folks who call 4e combat a "grind" seem to share those issues in common.

4) Given that you have far more experience than I do with 7 PCs and obviously have considerable experience with the ruleset (and presumably your players are the same), I would have to defer to your thoughts on this scenario and would gladly do so.

However, I do wonder if you suffer from many of those outlined issues so you can maybe indulge me.

1) Fighters have a strong secondary Striker tendency and can be flat out built as alpha Strikers. If neither of your Fighters are Sword and Board (even those can be built as strong secondary strikers) and/or if either are built to be alpha Strikers.

2) You have no pure Leader and an abundance of primary Strikers, secondary Strikers and a Wizard (which in a game where there are as many enemies as you would have in the encounter budget expectations of 7 + PCs, they would easily be Strikers given their potential DPR).

3) I doubt, given your experience with the ruleset, that you guys bog down at all in the time:turn ratio.

So, I'm not sure you suffer from two of the main problems; too many pure defenders and too many pure leaders with no synergy - eg Lazy-lord + Slayer/Barbarian or Radiant Mafia. If you build a Radiant Mafia + a group underwritten by Lazy-lord + Slayer synergy then the efficiency should go up with numbers rather than down. Secondarily, see 3 above. Without those 2 main issues in play, the wieldiness difference of 7 PCs, vs 4-5, is likely marginal at best. You can correct me if I'm wrong about any of that. Again, your experience in this domain is more than my own (considerable:0). I'm just Thomas Jefferson building attempting to build a plow on mechanical extrapolation/deduction with no practical experience.

 

[Ratskinner]

The power issue of the CoDzilla was not from the healing, it was from the spell list. If you take a look at the spell list for Clerics in 1e, it's about a third of the size of the Wizard list, and there is pretty almost no attack spells (beyond the occasional Spiritual Weapon). The cleric spell list got marginally expanded in 2e, but it was 3e that gave clerics the full range of attack spells usually given for the Wizard, with full armor, good weapons, decent Hit Dice and the healing cherry on top, so the cleric now fulfilled the Fighter/Mage niche.

Having recently gotten a chance to play some old-school stuff. I think there are additional mechanical issues that made "magic" overall more powerful in 3.PF. Far too many "risk-free" upgrades to spells themselves, changes to saves, initiative, and spell disruption make magic far more reliable than in previous editions. For clerics, the change from "sphere" restrictions to "domain" bonuses was indeed a ridiculous upgrade. (One which, IMO, also drove a lot of flavor from the class.)