D&D 5E A new way to see the cleric...

[Greg K]

I have to disagree. The goal of D&D is not to re-define anything, but to find those existing definitions that are the least broadly offensive to past fans.

Well, following the introduction of 2e specialty priests, my gaming friends and I have found the cleric as presented in other editions to be offensive to our sensibilities and desire for how they should be portrayed

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, more or less. Personally I love this game, but I always hated the vancian spell system, as well as cleric cloning despite their deities.
I know those are staples of D&D, but they're simply not fun for me.

The impression I get is that if you don't love at least one edition of D&D as-was, 5e is simply not for you.

 

[pemerton]

telling the PC fighter not to be an idiot by picking a fight with the city guard doesn't cost the fighter his feats, bravery, or whatever other abilities the fighter gets if the fighter listens. The fighter player is not incentivized to continue their bad behavior within the rules.

A paladin player pretty much has to preach. The rules don't give them much leeway... and being intelligent dishonorable PCs isn't bad behavior. (Being stupid or disruptive is, but that's another issue.)

I agree with the paladin point - one of dozens of reasons why I think the mechanical alignment of traditional D&D is the worst rule in the game by a significant margin.

But I was meaning to pick up on your comment about non-mechanical ways of bringing the cleric's behaviour into line with his/her divine loyalties. At this point mechanical effectiveness isn't under threat, which is why I thought it was no more likely to cause intragroup troubles than any other non-bland roleplaying (ie it might cause some, but a healthy group can normally work its way through that sort of stuff).

 

[pemerton]

The impression I get is that if you don't love at least one edition of D&D as-was, 5e is simply not for you.

Do you think the bolded bit includes 4e or not?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

A player that can't handle that has the freedom to play another available class. YMMV.

I'm not a huge fan of "you must be more mature to play this class". Especially since a "less mature" player could play one, or a less mature player could resent having one around.

 

[bbjore]

I have to disagree. The goal of D&D is not to re-define anything, but to find those existing definitions that are the least broadly offensive to past fans.

Doing things like 're-defining the Cleric' is at least a small part of what got them in trouble in the first place.

I don't think it's about finding the least broadly offensive ruleset is right. I think it should be a modern ruleset, that captures what people liked about or found was best about those past editions.

For instance, how many cleric players were really attached to the vancian system? Is that an important part of the cleric identity, or could we find a modern mechanic that appeals and supports the core of what people really enjoyed about playing the cleric in past editions.

 

[howandwhy99]

1. Any player who is going to explore what it means to follow a code of conduct in a game (or for clerics a deity, religion, philosophy, or similar) should write that themselves. Think of it like when magic users make their own spells or fighters their own maneuvers. At start cleric players choose what their deity is and why they believe in it. They can have a schism later, if they don't like Mr. Potato Head anymore, but this can be done in game. Initially the design should largely be left up to players. This doesn't mean a loss of powers however. It means a changing of deities followed and probably a change in powers available - certainly the spells available suite. It isn't like Paladin where the class is actually lost, though it might be for a shorter time until another deity is chosen and the cleric is re-ordained. Seeing how Paladins are one and one I would think clerics have it much, much easier.

2. I'm against small penny pinching of a point system where all the wavering up and down the alignment track constantly shifts the power of a character class. The executive powers granted worldly authority in modern times isn't that fickle; deities typically take a longer view than us. The game is designed in levels rather than point-based powers for just that reason. It also simplifies the DM's tracking. If groupings like class or levels are lost, then losses come in bunches. That's much easier to handle. All that said, if you want to do it, then you can for your game.

3. Fitting deities, moralities, and cultures into boxes of 5 or 10 things isn't the way to go. Build for flexibility. If I only have one overriding edict I must follow, but that edict is extraordinarily stringent, than the gains in response to following it are that much more regardless if it is only one.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The impression I get is that if you don't love at least one edition of D&D as-was, 5e is simply not for you.

Do you think the bolded bit includes 4e or not?

Maybe not. It would be pretty practical for WotC to throw 4e under the bus entirely. 4e fans won't have a 4e-clone alternative to 5e, so there's little need to accommodate them.

I think it should be a modern ruleset, that captures what people liked about or found was best about those past editions.

There may not be such a thing.

 

[bbjore]

There may not be such a thing.

Perhaps not for every individual's really specific play style, but there are number of rulesets that do a good job of capturing the spirit of previous editions and improve upon them. Fantasy Craft, Dungeon Crawl Classic, Dungeon World, 13th Age, and even Star Wars Saga edition all show ways previous concepts or mechanics could be improved upon without disrupting their spirit, and I'd rather play all of them than their spiritual predecessor if they had similar levels of support.

I fear some people are just too attached to a very specific playstyle of the past, and I trying to include a mishmash of rules that are essentially copy and paste from previous editions does not advance the game and won't be acceptable to those kinds of players anyways, since what they want has already been done. 5E will succeed or fail on how well it supports players that aren't supremely attached to a particularly ruleset, and are willing to let some things slide as long as it makes an interesting game that enjoys current publishing support.

I do, however, think the different rulesets are different enough both in spirit and mechanics, that trying to make a single ruleset that supports them all may not have been the best way to serve everyone. Sometimes I think they may have had more success, making a clean, modern design that supported a mix of 4E/3E style of play, and then made a classic edition to give fans of older editions the cleaned up and currently supported version of their game they've been clamoring for for two decades now.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I fear some people are just too attached to a very specific playstyle of the past, and I trying to include a mishmash of rules that are essentially copy and paste from previous editions does not advance the game and won't be acceptable to those kinds of players anyways, since what they want has already been done.

That's a stumbling block that's hard to get around. The various pre-3e editions of D&D are really pretty close, but 3e and 4e struck off in quite distinct direction, 3e providing a great deal of mechanical customization and detail and intentional 'rewards for system mastery,' and 4e delivering mechanical balance, with customization and genre-fidelity consigned to the narrativist side.

But, the editions have commonalities. 3e and 4e are both more player-focused, and use consolidated mechanics (4e being further along in that consolidation trend), while classic D&D puts most of the responsibility for the campaign's success squarely on the DM. 3e & classic D&D are both less concerned with (or less successful in delivering) balance, while 4e is alone in delivering strong class balance. 4e & classic D&D are both focused on the character and story, leaving monsters and NPCs less detailed, while 3e is alone in a simulationist equivalency among PCs, NPCs, and monsters.

Siezing on such commonalities, 5e could conceivably succeed in unifying all but one of the editions of D&D.

5E will succeed or fail on how well it supports players that aren't supremely attached to a particularly ruleset, and are willing to let some things slide as long as it makes an interesting game that enjoys current publishing support.

I'm afraid a fairly large segment of the fanbase is supremely attached to a particular ruleset. The success of Pathfinder stands as evidence of that. And, it's that segment that prompted the destruction of 4e and the early announcement of 5e. 5e's goal of re-unification rests on appeasing that segment - and they do not seem easy to appease...