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

[Klaus]

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?

Okay, let's turn this on its head: say cleric is the only mid-combat healing option available. The guy that plays the cleric wants to play a war priest, so he prepares only damaging spells (including several inflict wounds). Who heals the party? If a PC dies, is the cleric player to blame for not wanting to play a medic?

 

[Ratskinner]

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?

If you're the kind of player who likes to play clerics.....doesn't it stand to reason that you've never seen the "nobody want to play clerics" problem? Kinda circular there.

Certainly there are players who enjoy playing clerics, I do from time to time. When one of them shows up, you're golden. However, back in 2e days, it was very easy to gather a group and find none who wanted to play the cleric.

 

[Klaus]

If you're the kind of player who likes to play clerics.....doesn't it stand to reason that you've never seen the "nobody want to play clerics" problem? Kinda circular there.

Certainly there are players who enjoy playing clerics, I do from time to time. When one of them shows up, you're golden. However, back in 2e days, it was very easy to gather a group and find none who wanted to play the cleric.

And the biggest evidence of that is the ammount of "bribe" the system has been giving out clerics throughout the editions, in order to convince people to play them.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

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.

If everyone can heal themselves outside of combat, but only the cleric can heal you in combat, they are special. If everyone can heal themselves while conscious, but only the cleric can heal you while you are unconscious, they are special.

 

[sheadunne]

Okay, let's turn this on its head: say cleric is the only mid-combat healing option available. The guy that plays the cleric wants to play a war priest, so he prepares only damaging spells (including several inflict wounds). Who heals the party? If a PC dies, is the cleric player to blame for not wanting to play a medic?

A cleric can always choose what spells to prepare, ideally the cleric does not have any damaging spells (with the exception of healing spells used to damage undead), that's not their roll. However, let's assume debuff spells or control spells. The groups I have associated with other the years have never expected the cleric to memorize healing spells exclusively or even at all, it's nice when they do, but it's certainly not required. The nice thing about the cleric is they aren't limited to a spellbook, so if the party can hold on for a day, the cleric can take care of them in the morning, assuming things have gone that badly. If healing isn't available, you don't rush into combat, you find other ways of neutralizing the enemy without risking injury. You focus on the other tiers of play to get the end results.

And I'm not sure what groups you're playing with that blame other players for anything. The option is there for anyone to play a cleric. I'd suggest finding a group of supportive and encouraging players to play with. That's work for me over the years.

 

[sheadunne]

If everyone can heal themselves outside of combat, but only the cleric can heal you in combat, they are special. If everyone can heal themselves while conscious, but only the cleric can heal you while you are unconscious, they are special.

Disagree. And that's okay.

 

[D'karr]

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.

I've always run a larger than average group 6-12 (9 regular players). With our games I've had to become very "strict" with "lollygagging". In 3.x as we started to go up in level each turn could take a long time due to the action economy (iterative attacks) and summoned creatures/effects. In the beginning with 4e the unfamiliarity made the turns longer. As the players started to get familiar with their characters and with common group tactics the turns started to get shorter. When things have "seemed" longer is usually because I've thrown a very complicated combat, with different "phases" triggering as the combat escalates.

What seems longer is actually longer because we are doing so much more. I've had to discipline myself to stay on task - moving the game along. I'm using the same techniques I had to develop with 3.x to deal with turn speed, but the overall effect is more satisfying. We accomplish a lot more.

PC classes do play a large role in determining the speed of things. More strikers usually means shorter combats. Too many interrupts can slow down, so you have to handle them rapidly. Minutia discussions are a time sink (can you use that?, don't move there because..., the rules are..., etc.) Eliminate those as quickly as possible. Make an adjudication and move on. Focusing fire is another speed enhancing technique. Roll attack and damage at the same time. Cycle through initiative quickly, don't delay. All these and more help to "speed" things up and also increase excitement at the table.

So there is some truth to what you are alluding, but it is usually tied to "wasted" time at the table (conversations, etc.) Not wasted time in game.

 

[sheadunne]

If you're the kind of player who likes to play clerics.....doesn't it stand to reason that you've never seen the "nobody want to play clerics" problem? Kinda circular there.

Certainly there are players who enjoy playing clerics, I do from time to time. When one of them shows up, you're golden. However, back in 2e days, it was very easy to gather a group and find none who wanted to play the cleric.

Just because I like to play clerics doesn't mean I exclusively play clerics and I've never felt I had to play a cleric when I've chosen to play other classes. I found an abundance of cleric players in the 2e days, more so than in 1e. The 2e cleric was a blast to play.

 

[Manbearcat]

@D'karr Sure. No, I agree with all of those things. Do you think there is any truth to my two hypotheses below?

Hypothesis 1: 4e's "sweet spot" is 4 - 5 PC's with no more than 1 defender and leader and encounter budgetting around that expectation. Moving beyond that number, especially with additive pure defenders and leaders (without synergy a la Radiant Mafia or Lazy-lord + Slayer/Barbiarian et al) will yield a more "grindy" experience than the "sweet spot".

Hypothesis 2: Most groups who claim that 4e's combat is "grindy" likely experience a combination of issues 1-3 in my post upthread and are playing well out of the "sweet spot" expectations.

Outside of the synergy of a Radiant Mafia or a Lazy-Lord + MBA Striker with consistent Striker mechanic (eg Dex or extra dice on all MBAs), those seem logical and intuitive. I'm certainly willing to except that one or both of those hypotheses are rubbish. I'm not saying that it makes for a bad experience at all. I'm just postulating that the slope of time spent outside of your own turn and a sense of "grindiness" is likely increasingly positive as the number of PC's (and total turns in a round, and enemies that the GM has to contro, and total enemy HPs) increase.

 

[VinylTap]

What about a first aid ability that could turn lethal damage into non-lethal damage. A mechanic similar to Pathfinder, where if your Non-lethal total equals your HP total you lose consciousness (say for the rest of the adventure you'd be KO'd). It would be a way of sliding some of the damage you've taken over to another health pool, and offer a limited mechanic for prolonging a full rest.

At least this way it could be "don't try a dungeon without someone with 'first aid'" instead of "don't try it without a cleric".

Another option is giving the damage classes enough utility to reduce incoming damage. As many have pointed out, saving damage isn't much different from healing damage, from a math standpoint. Its tougher to do in a "modifier unfriendly environment", but you could toss out a lot of "disadvantage de-buffs".