Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6089739" data-attributes="member: 2067">&quot;Slippery slope&quot; doesn't really apply here. I'm only talking about someone who doesn't want to play a cleric coming up against a game that wants to MAKE them be a cleric. I'm not arguing that everyone should always get everything they think they want, just that this desire should be met, because the reward for doing so is greater than the cost for not doing so. In the first place, it remains to be seen whether &quot;lots of people who already play the game&quot; will be scared away by the prospect of possibly having a party without a cleric in it. Second, it's not an unsubstantiated fear of a freak-out, but a real issue with the product you are selling being primarily entertainment. There's lots of ways to get entertained that are a lot easier to do than play D&amp;D. People generally don't &quot;freak,&quot; but they might not show up for their next game, and they might decide it's less of a hassle and more fun to do other things. I didn't know the existence of the druid in 1e generated enormous backlash...Yes, of course, non-cleric healing should be an option, but it should also be possible to play the game without a healer, which means, in the basic game, playing it without a cleric. If that's too controversial for 5e, then you're going to see some people walking away from the game. WotC knows better than I if those numbers are likely to be significant or not.If this is true for the basic game, it would suck, too.But since currently in 5e, ability checks can cover this, even without a rogue, it's not a problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6089739, member: 2067"] "Slippery slope" doesn't really apply here. I'm only talking about someone who doesn't want to play a cleric coming up against a game that wants to MAKE them be a cleric. I'm not arguing that everyone should always get everything they think they want, just that this desire should be met, because the reward for doing so is greater than the cost for not doing so. In the first place, it remains to be seen whether "lots of people who already play the game" will be scared away by the prospect of possibly having a party without a cleric in it. Second, it's not an unsubstantiated fear of a freak-out, but a real issue with the product you are selling being primarily [I]entertainment[/I]. There's lots of ways to get entertained that are a lot easier to do than play D&D. People generally don't "freak," but they might not show up for their next game, and they might decide it's less of a hassle and more fun to do other things. I didn't know the existence of the druid in 1e generated enormous backlash... Yes, of course, non-cleric healing should be an option, but it should also be possible to play the game [I]without a healer[/I], which means, in the basic game, playing it without a cleric. If that's too controversial for 5e, then you're going to see some people walking away from the game. WotC knows better than I if those numbers are likely to be significant or not. If this is true for the basic game, it would suck, too. But since currently in 5e, ability checks can cover this, even without a rogue, it's not a problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification