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

[Klaus]

The nice thing about the cleric is they aren't limited to a spellbook

In my feedback I advocated for the cleric to have a Known Spells limitation, similar to the Spellbook, because the sheer number of cleric spells available no longer warrants the "everything is available" paradigm.

, 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.

What morning? Specially if the cleric is the one that is dead.

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.

"No plan survives contact with the dungeon" -- Sun Tzu, Honorable Dungeon Master

It's nice if the story allows for the players to choose this or that approach. But that is the exception, not the norm. And do realize that now the presence or absence of a single class is shaping the entire game for the whole group?

 

[DEFCON 1]

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?

No... the entire table is to blame for playing Basic 5E, when you all should be playing Standard 5E.

When that table was putting the game together... as soon as that cleric player said he wanted to play a war priest and not focus on Cure spells, the very first thing the table should have agreed on was to add one of the healing modules from Standard into their Basic game that would have allowed other players to heal themselves. If they didn't do it because they had this ridiculous idea that playing a straight-up Basic game was the way to go and somehow "better" that adding in a Standard module to it... then that's everybody's fault.

Why do people continually think they're going to be playing all these Basic games? And thus whatever Mike et al. put in as rules for the Basic game, you're all stuck with? You're not. That's the entire point of the system in the first place. People who want to play Basic as-is... will do so-- clerical healing and all. But the very first time someone wants to play something outside of Basic... like let's say, a gnome for example-- BOOM! You're no longer playing Basic. You're now playing Standard. So what difference does it make at that point which rules you decide to keep or not keep from Basic? Add in the non-magical healing option! Who cares! If the table is happy with it, then you're good to go! But let's not CONFUSE the issue in the baseline Basic game by including OPTIONS.

Because the whole point of the Basic game is that there are no options. It's why the game exists in the first place.

 

[sheadunne]

In my feedback I advocated for the cleric to have a Known Spells limitation, similar to the Spellbook, because the sheer number of cleric spells available no longer warrants the "everything is available" paradigm.

What morning? Specially if the cleric is the one that is dead.

"No plan survives contact with the dungeon" -- Sun Tzu, Honorable Dungeon Master

It's nice if the story allows for the players to choose this or that approach. But that is the exception, not the norm. And do realize that now the presence or absence of a single class is shaping the entire game for the whole group?

I have no issue with a simplified cleric spell list (especially one focused on domains/spheres etc). I actually prefer the cleric to function more like the 3x sorcerer (favored soul) rather than a memorization class (although I prefer the wizard to be a memorization class).

Poor planning can often lead to a dead cleric. Them's the breaks. Character death does indeed happen and it's a sad affair, but the gods above shrug and move on.

Different play styles all all that. I'm happy with the direction that is mentioned. Although, until they get rid of the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, it's still not enough to make it a game I'm dying to play.

It is nice to have discussions about the various mechanics and preferred play styles.

 

[Ratskinner]

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.

While there were certainly more clerics around for 2e than 1e, I certainly never experienced an "abundance" of them until the Skills & Powers made playing a customized Elf Speciality Cleric so mechanically advantageous as to render other choices moot.

 

[Ratskinner]

<snippage>

Why do people continually think they're going to be playing all these Basic games? And thus whatever Mike et al. put in as rules for the Basic game, you're all stuck with? You're not. That's the entire point of the system in the first place. People who want to play Basic as-is... will do so-- clerical healing and all. But the very first time someone wants to play something outside of Basic... like let's say, a gnome for example-- BOOM! You're no longer playing Basic. You're now playing Standard. So what difference does it make at that point which rules you decide to keep or not keep from Basic? Add in the non-magical healing option! Who cares! If the table is happy with it, then you're good to go! But let's not CONFUSE the issue in the baseline Basic game by including OPTIONS.

Because the whole point of the Basic game is that there are no options. It's why the game exists in the first place.

I agree.

I sometimes wonder if folks are trying to "push" for their way being the "default" way for some reason that's beyond me. Maybe people don't remember how many "optional" parts of 2e became so common folks think they were standard?

 

[I'm A Banana]

Why do people continually think they're going to be playing all these Basic games? And thus whatever Mike et al. put in as rules for the Basic game, you're all stuck with? You're not.

Ah, but a newbie to the game? Someone learning to play for the first time? Someone who is just playing a pick-up game? Rather than being able to explore any option they're interested in, they face the possibility of being told that they MUST play a certain character, in a certain way, or the game will suffer. That's not really the most fun way to learn to play a game whose arguably biggest awesome point is that you can do anything you want. Except, I guess, play a second fighter in a party without a cleric.

 

[Ratskinner]

Ah, but a newbie to the game? Someone learning to play for the first time? Someone who is just playing a pick-up game? Rather than being able to explore any option they're interested in, they face the possibility of being told that they MUST play a certain character, in a certain way, or the game will suffer. That's not really the most fun way to learn to play a game whose arguably biggest awesome point is that you can do anything you want. Except, I guess, play a second fighter in a party without a cleric.

You mean like it was up until very recently?

Folks, just because we've gotten the Warlord and non-magical healing in D&D's most recent incarnations, doesn't retroactively horribilify the gameplay most of us grew up on where only one of the "big four" got to heal people (without a magic item, anyway.) Let's save the terror for WotC decisions that deserve it (you know they're coming .)

Having said that, as I posted upthread, I would prefer they re-work the game so that its not absolutely necessary.

 

[I'm A Banana]

You mean like it was up until very recently?

Basically, yes. I know people have negotiated this for 40 years and for a lot of folks it's not really a problem. And, like I said upthread, I'm sure WotC has better data than me on how much this "problem" actually occurs. But looking at this from the perspective of someone who is going to be picking up their first weird polyhedral die, I'm not sure what you gain from requiring clerical healing as a gameplay element is worth losing out on someone who might otherwise find the game delightful.

It doesn't seem like a great idea from where I'm sitting.

 

[mlund]

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.

Indisputably ontological truth.

What really at issue for some is whether that is special enough for their taste.

- Marty Lund

 

[Bedrockgames]

Basically, yes. I know people have negotiated this for 40 years and for a lot of folks it's not really a problem. And, like I said upthread, I'm sure WotC has better data than me on how much this "problem" actually occurs. But looking at this from the perspective of someone who is going to be picking up their first weird polyhedral die, I'm not sure what you gain from requiring clerical healing as a gameplay element is worth losing out on someone who might otherwise find the game delightful.

It doesn't seem like a great idea from where I'm sitting.

But having a clear optional rule for non-cleric healing will get around this problem. It will be there for anyone who has an issue with needing clerics in the party.