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

[DEFCON 1]

Great question, although I quibble with your use of the word 'Core' instead of 'Basic'.

1. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have a party of four non-healers survive an adventure long enough to get loot and go home?

No, I don't believe the Basic game will require healing spells. Not having them in the party will just reduce the number of fights they will want to get into before stopping to rest. Will having a class with a healing spell help extend that? Sure. But it won't be required.

2. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different classes (Warlords, Bards, etc) that also fulfill the required healing role?

Yes. The Basic game is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. That's all. If you want healing or recovery that comes from another class... play Standard.

3. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different types of abilities that work similar mathematically to healing (temporary hit points, parrying, dodging, etc) and one of those be required?

I believe Temp HP, parrying, dodging etc. are all more advanced rules for melee combat that Basic is meant to support. They won't appear in the Basic rules and thus would not be a replacement for healing spells for faster-than-normal-resting-recovery. If you want them... take your Basic rules, add in the Fighter's Parry and Protect maneuvers (thereby instantly turning your Basic game into a Standard game) and you're good to go.

 

[steeldragons]

The question everyone is asking is, should the Core require Cleric healing? And I think that's what's causing all this strife, because we're all focusing on different parts of the question. So, without further ado, here's a quick survey so that we all know where we stand. Fill in the blanks.

Good point...and a survey? FUN!

1. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have a party of four non-healers survive an adventure long enough to get loot and go home?

No. It should not [nor do I see how it possible could] require Cleric Healing. If you want to heal up fast (or in the midst of combat) and move on more quickly, then it is advisable. But hardly required. And yes. 4 non-healer should be able to survive long enough to get loot and go home. This does not equal "they can go through fighting everything they see and expect to 'win'/go unhindered and just grab whatever they want.

2. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different classes (Warlords, Bards, etc) that also fulfill the required healing role?

Yes, the core should require Cleric healing simply by virtue of not having those other different healing classes in the core game....and the fact that healing is baked into the Cleric class since the stone age. And Yes, I think it is ok to have them in...but that ship's sailed as far as I know, so your only fast-extra-special-healing option is from a cleric.

3. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different types of abilities that work similar mathematically to healing (temporary hit points, parrying, dodging, etc) and one of those be required?

Yes. If, again, if you want faster-than-normal-or-during-battle healing, then the game must have some fashion to permit, not require, healing. And No, it is not extra sub-systems that work similar mathematically is not "ok."

Hard Mode: answer these questions without mentioning Modules, House-Rules, or DM discretion. We're talking about hard-and-fast Core rules, not optional rules.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bluenose]

I'm not trying to argue anything here...I just don't see where the complications are.

Maths is hard!

And while I've expressed it somewhat facetiously, that's a common argument. It's too difficult for some people to work out percentages, so we have to roll dice and add them up to see how many hit poitns are regained. That the first method, the 4e one, requires you do one calculation of slight complexity and the other requires repeated calculations of very slight complexity is apparently greatly to the advantage of the second method.

 

[Garthanos]

All i am suggesting is the base style of play resemble the way the game has been played through most of its history. D&D isnt just simulating genres, it is its own genre with its own feel

I bought the original Heroic Fantasy line - but found the results a sad mismatch (even though the game actually had some nice tools and concepts which it failed to commit to like abstract hit points being treated fully as abstract)

 

[Garthanos]

No. It should not [nor do I see how it possible could] require Cleric Healing.

Basically if your survival is substantially less likely without the healer... the game is featuring fragile little ones as its default and IF the Cleric class is obviously superior at keeping the party alive then it will have become obligatory. Its not down time that bothers me that much.. in 4e terms making an extended rest take a week cool that is interesting and gritty requiring I have a cleric in the party to avoid that easy death... no thanks then I say they failed..

 

[JamesonCourage]

In my ideal game, the specific composition of the party should not matter most of the time.

For example, if a party composed of a fighter, a rogue, a monk and a wizard and another party composed of a fighter, a rogue, a cleric and a wizard were to undertake the same generic adventure and fight the same generic encounters, they each ought to have to rest at approximately the same time.

On a related note, this was one of my observations with combat roles being baked into classes in 4e. Some classes could blend from their main role into others, from what I understand (the 4e Fighter can be a good Striker, for example), but some seemed much less able to blend. And so you have people saying what they think is the optimal party composition (1 Leader, 1 Controller, 1 Defender, and a couple Strikers, or something similar). So, while you get some options when going for your party composition, you still get kinda stifled. That's not to say you can't go a different route (pemerton's group has no Leader, but I think three PCs that can heal), but I still see a lot of people say "no, you shouldn't have 2 Leaders, 2 Defenders, and 1 Striker. The fights will drag on too much." And I think we can probably agree that a group without Leaders to PCs that can dip healing (like pemerton's group) might be in for a lot of a hurt.

However, the game is playable like that. And that's about how I feel with cleric healing. I have played without any source of magical healing a few times, and I've run even more games where my party didn't have any magical healing. We actually quite like this kind of thing; if you're wounded, you might need to wait somewhere while you treat your wounds. However, the world evolves a lot during this time. Suddenly, we had games where years passed potentially between levels, instead of days or weeks. It's also why we like missing magical transportation.

Yeah, it's just a preference thing. However, my point is that you can get along without magical healing in the same way you can use a party composition in 4e that others would find grindy (or worse, such as a party with no Leaders). Essentially, either one should be able to work, but there's consequences for choosing that party composition (periods of rest, or grindy fights). And, personally, I'm totally okay with that. As always, play what you like

The arguments I've seen seem to be pulling in both directions with no sense in between. If something is necessary, then not having it is going to have an impact. If something is NOT necessary, then not having it should have little to no impact.

I'd disagree with this. If I don't have internet access, that'll make an impact on my life. By no means do I consider internet access necessary, however. The same is true for instant healing (magical or otherwise) in my campaign; if you don't have it, it'll make an impact, but you can (and I have) played games without it, and have fun games if that's something you're okay with (and I get that not everyone is). But "makes an impact" is not how I'd describe "necessary", personally. As always, play what you like

The question everyone is asking is, should the Core require Cleric healing? And I think that's what's causing all this strife, because we're all focusing on different parts of the question. So, without further ado, here's a quick survey so that we all know where we stand. Fill in the blanks.

I want to feel included!

1. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have a party of four non-healers survive an adventure long enough to get loot and go home?

Depends on the adventure. If they can take their time, why not? If they can't, then they might need to press on, and they might suffer casualties or not even make it back. I'm okay with this dynamic.

2. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different classes (Warlords, Bards, etc) that also fulfill the required healing role?

Core, or Basic? If you mean Basic, then I doubt we'll even have Warlords, Bards, and the like. Since I basically don't care about Basic (and don't think that the large majority of people will be playing it to any degree, including new players), I'll take this as "Core" as in Basic+Standard. If that's the case, sure, let other classes heal.

3. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have different types of abilities that work similar mathematically to healing (temporary hit points, parrying, dodging, etc) and one of those be required?

Again, are you talking about "Core" or "Basic"? If Basic (which I still don't really care about), then yeah, to a small degree (Fighter's Parry, for example). If anything beyond Basic? Definitely. But again, I don't see the Cleric as necessary even if it is the only way to heal. As always, play what you like

 

[mlund]

Great question, although I quibble with your use of the word 'Core' instead of 'Basic'.

1. Should the Core require Cleric healing? Is it OK to have a party of four non-healers survive an adventure long enough to get loot and go home?

No, I don't believe the Basic game will require healing spells. Not having them in the party will just reduce the number of fights they will want to get into before stopping to rest. Will having a class with a healing spell help extend that? Sure. But it won't be required.

See, I'll disagree here. I think in an ideal design a party of 4 should be inclined to cover, say 4 level-appropriate encounters in a day. If the party has a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric it's functional rate should be 4 encounters. If the party has 2 Fighters and 2 Wizards it's functional rate should be 4 encounters. If the party has 4 Clerics it's functional rate should still be 4 encounters.

The game should not care whether that pacing is achieved by making the HP totals go back up after they went down (cleric healing) or preventing those totals from going down (parry, dodge, deflect, AC boosts, temp HP, or killing monsters extra-fast).

D&D should be a game where you can make up for not having a Cleric by having more offense or defense in exchange. The Cleric is therefor unique, but no more or less necessary than any other character class - even in a party where there are no clerics or everyone is already a cleric.

 

[steeldragons]

Basically if your survival is substantially less likely without the healer... the game is featuring fragile little ones as its default

Due respect, but how does this leap make sense? Having someone t magically seal wounds is OBviously going to make survival easier. How that means you are "fragile little ones" without them?

There seems to be a great deal of anthropomorphizing of the game...by several people, I mean. Not just you. Folks are assigning it power and influence it simply does not have.

and IF the Cleric class is obviously superior at keeping the party alive then it will have become obligatory.

No. It has not...again, assigning importance that simply isn't there. You and the other players and the DM [if that's not you] are playing this game. Your DM knows, presumably, that you have no Cleric. There has been discussion, presumably, that you [the plural/collective "you" meaning all of the players] want no cleric and don't want that to matter to your game. It's up to your DM to create/present challenges accordingly. This should probably make things gritty or hairy sometimes. But not, "Nyah nyah. I got you. Ya shoulda brought a cleric." The GAME does not dictate these things...the people at the table do.

Its not down time that bothers me that much.. in 4e terms making an extended rest take a week cool that is interesting and gritty requiring I have a cleric in the party to avoid that easy death... no thanks shove it...

I...ok. I don't know how else to put it. So...if the Basic game said, "You don't need a cleric to heal. Natural healing requires 1 week in a secure restful environment to return to full HP. You just have to survive long enough to get back to that secure restful environment." THAT would be ok with you? Or that is somehow still making a cleric "obligatory"?

 

[steeldragons]

[MENTION=82504]Garthanos[/MENTION] PS, you need to clear out your private message box.

 

[TwoSix]

[/B]
D&D should be a game where you can make up for not having a Cleric by having more offense or defense in exchange. The Cleric is therefor unique, but no more or less necessary than any other character class - even in a party where there are no clerics or everyone is already a cleric.

Yes. I would say synergy (or lack thereof) might influence the balance up and down somewhat, but this should be largely true.