Class being penalized for doing its thing?

[ShadowX]

I know the comparison of 4e to MMORPG, and WoW in particular, has already been done to death in a matter of days, but this thread sounds exactly like every discussion of party balance in WoW I have ever seen.

Niches are a very easy and very lazy way to balance classes. It takes far more ingenuity to let classes breathe and partake of several roles than to give one domain of the game exclusively to one class. MMORPG run on a triad of tanks, damage dealers and healers. Unfortunately, they always have more than three classes so you have multiple classes that are basically mirror images of another or you have various hybrids that by virtue of the stringent class roles are perennially outcasts.

Third edition mostly avoided doling out specific responsibilities and as such is tactically far more interesting than any elaborately scripted raid boss. Foremost, I don't think there are any necessary support roles as written and any that crop up can always be mitigated by a proficient DM. Part of this has to do with healing being so weak. People here talk as though healing is a required component of a party. Healing in 3e is extremely impotent until Cleric's get Heal. Before that, the extremely offensive nature of 3e far outstrips a Cleric's ability to heal. Even with Heal, Clerics are sometimes better served by killing the enemy with their very many offensive tools.

So I hope that 4e does not relegate Clerics to a healing duty resembling that of MMORPG. Unfortunately, I also want 4e to reduce the dependence on buff spells even more than on magic items. At least most magic items are permanent effects, whereas you have to constantly recalculate the effects of buff spells. This make me wonder what purpose a Cleric could serve without these historic underpinnings of the class.

 

[Zelligars Apprentice]

Or they could use the current mechanics of healing up to half max hit points with unlimited abilities.

HUH? Please cite a source for this. I've never heard of it.

 

[carmachu]

The Cleric could then heal everyone up to half, no matter what.

The Mage could blast stuff, virtually any old time. Not for heaps, but probably better than the poor old crossbow.
.

I would be unhappy with that.

While I'm playing a cleric now...he's specializes in healing, its his shtick, if you will. With a party of 6, thats what I do party wise and outside the party.

yes, I run out of spells, but that limitation helps define him as well. Being able to heal all the time would remove the fun from him.

Mage would be the same way...

 

[RigaMortus2]

HUH? Please cite a source for this. I've never heard of it.

Well, the Dragon Shaman is one such current source that does this...

 

[Hammerhead]

Touch of Healing Reserve Feat, Complete Champion.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I would be unhappy with that.

Same here, actually.

For the time being, anyway. Maybe I'll come round to the idea. But at the moment, I'm not convinced that even the general idea is a good thing. Well, for *my* gaming, that is.

yes, I run out of spells, but that limitation helps define him as well. Being able to heal all the time would remove the fun from him.

Mage would be the same way...

That's precisely it, yep.

 

[Cadfan]

The problem with the current version of the cleric is that it, more than any other class, has a built in mechanic in which the decision to act for the benefit of the group trades off with the ability to act for the benefit of oneself. Other characters tend to act for the benefit of the group in ways that are compatible with having some glory for themselves, but the cleric has a direct trade off.

That needs to be cut back. Even if you like supporting other characters, you shouldn't have such a strong personal detriment involved if there's a way to make a support character that doesn't have that detriment when they act for the group.

 

[RFisher]

From a note about the coming new edition: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.

I think most of the interpretations given do reflect what Wizards means by it.

I also think it's more than a bit of stretching to phrase it that way.

Maybe I'll have an epiphany & feel differently in May.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I don't quite see where the problem is, frankly. Clerics heal when they can, and when they can't, they launch flamestrike spells, or spiritual weapon, or blade barrier, or just pick up their mace and shield, and stride into battle, to aid the fighter, or protect the wizard, whatever.

In my games, players love playing clerics. They have great abilities, lots of flavour, and a huge ability to be flexible, and are always, always useful, and welcome members to the group.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Quasqueton]

The "penalty" is running out of spells, running out of hit points? That makes no sense. That's like saying archers are penalized because they can run out of arrows. Like saying trying to pick a lock is penalized because it takes at least a round (and usually 20).

Quasqueton