Class being penalized for doing its thing?

[Quasqueton]

From a note about the coming new edition:

Resource Management: All classes have defined roles – a fighter is never penalized for being a “tank”, a “healer” is never penalized for curing, a mage is never penalized for “magic missiling”

What does this mean in the context of current and previous D&D? How are the various class types "penalized" for doing their thing? I don't understand this comment.

Quasqueton

 

[Horacio]

A cleric who cures run out of spells, but a cleric who attacks with a maze doesn't run out of power.

A wizards who attacks with magic missile runs out of spells, a wizards who attacks with a crossbow doesn't.

It means that in 4e, wizards will have a magic attack that won't run out, i.e. usable every round, and clerics a basic healing usable every turn too. But more powerful attack will be x times by encounter or x times by day like now.

 

[Stormborn]

Well, one penalty is "If I do it now I can't do anything later" another is "If I make the wrong choices ahead of time I could over/under specialize and be less than effective." At least in some people's estimation. However, I also found the comment a bit odd.

 

[Klaus]

Speaking specifically of the cleric and wizard, the more magic they use (healing or magic missiling), the faster they'll need to stop and rest. So a cleric and a wizard, if they want to stay in the action longer, have to conserve their spells. Since their defined roles are as spellcasters, if they want to stay useful, they have to cast less spells.

With the recent Reserve feats, spellcasters got the opportunity to keep doing their thing while conserving their spell power. As I understand, 4e will allow clerics and wizards to always be capable of doing their archetypal actions, without fear of becoming useless later in the day (and "having to pull out a crossbow").

 

[Doug McCrae]

I didn't understand it either. As the game currently stands, no class is penalised for doing its thing. Except maybe rogues versus creatures immune to SA.

 

[Slife]

I suppose they're admitting that clerics are so much better at filling the fighter's niche than the fighter is, and in the new edition they'll make it so the class doesn't work best outside its normal party function.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

I suppose they're admitting that clerics are so much better at filling the fighter's niche than the fighter is, and in the new edition they'll make it so the class doesn't work best outside its normal party function.

Say goodbye to people playing clerics, then.

I like general roles as defined by class, but a nice thing about 3.5 is that by customization of feats & skills you can have a character that is still somewhat effective outside the traditional role, which enables you to have a party without a specific role character. A party without a cleric, or a fighter, or a rogue, or a wizard is viable.

If you push role-niches too far, you might end up with a system where you can't effectively play with a party that doesn't have a tank, healer, blaster, and skill monkey.

I'm sure the design team is aware of that pitfall ... whether they manage to avoid it or not is another question.

 

[Zephrin the Lost]

There's always a 'least satisfying and/or useful' action you can take. If before it was (for wizards) using their crossbow, now ( it sounds like) it will become throwing an acid splash every round.

Unless the idea that it's a spell that is having almost no effect on the encounter somehow compensates for having little or no effect in an encounter.

Also, why won't this conversation happen? "We need to rest. I used all my fireballs in the first two encounters and only have my acid splash ability now."

Not saying they don't have solutions for this, just wondering what they might be.

--Z

 

[Kaodi]

Probably because fireball will be a once per encounter type spell, as opposed to once per day.

 

[Glyfair]

Say goodbye to people playing clerics, then.

I would, but you need to twist arms now to get people to play clerics in my games anyway.