Legends & Lore: Live together, die alone!

[UngeheuerLich]

Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (Live Together, Die Alone)

Talking about the team aspect of the game...

not a lot said here and a terribly binary poll...

Actually I like the way, how 4e handles the team aspect and how every class is self sufficient to a certain point. I like how the fighter has abilities to heal himself, how everyone can use a second wind etc.

there are however some few points which I want to point out:

- he mentions, that every class could have actions, that could help others, special for each class or even universal... i like that idea
- Classes specially designed that may give up their combat actions to help others for people who enjoy that... As long as not every cleric or bard is designed that way, it would be a nice addition to the base classes.

And one point I want to make myself:
When you look at the warlord and compare him to the warpriest, you will notice that the warpriest´s buffs also buff himself in addition to the rest of the party... and I believe, that was a step into the right direction. With stacking rules for power bonuses as they are, there is really no harm in that.

 

[MerricB]

The biggest problem I have with the article is that I get the distinct feeling that Monte Cook is unfamiliar with 4e and that a lot of what he talks about IS ALREADY HERE.

One of the biggest flaws with 3e was how it required you to have a cleric in your party. If you got hit by energy drain or ability drain, only a cleric could heal you - the druid and other healers couldn't. And with more and more creatures dealing those sorts of attacks (especially if you were reading Paizo's Dungeon magazine), it became absolutely necessary to have a cleric in the party.

I know that the Warlord and Ardent - in particular - can give up their actions to give a friend a bonus (normally a free attack). I'm happy for the options to be expanded a bit more. And I really, really hope that Monte pays heed to his own advice and makes none of the classes indispensable.

Cheers!

 

[Will Doyle]

I like the idea of support powers too. I'd love to see these slotted into character progression at set levels; giving everybody the chance to develop a suite of support powers tailored to their class (or perhaps their role), with scope to pick from a "general" pool too.

It would also be pretty cool if a bunch of these were designed to support certain class combinations e.g. Defender > Leader, Striker > Defender, etc.

If designed well, we could see a load of nice synergies - picking powers that compliment your friends' roles in clever ways would be fun.

 

[delericho]

Everything he says in the article should be utterly obvious. Of course, it's worth saying anyway, just to be sure.

Three things:

- requiring a particular class, or even a particular role, is a bad thing. The need for a Cleric in previous editions was a pain. Defining the 'Leader' role, and casting the Bard and Warlord as clear "Cleric substitutes", was definitely an improvement.

- in-combat healing is an abomination.

- while it's good that the classes are designed to work together as a team, it's really important that the game be adaptable for bigger or smaller groups. One of my groups has three players, so whenever we play we'll always be missing one of the four roles; can the game adapt to that? What if we're down to only two players, or even one? Likewise, defining the roles and maintaining niche protection is fairly sensible... but if you have four roles and five players, doesn't that mean that two players aren't going to get as much chance to shine?

(And in the above, please note that I'm not necessarily talking about 4e, which I'm sure has its own answers to the above. But for a theoretical 5e, those are questions that really need answered.)

 

[MrBeens]

Everything he says in the article should be utterly obvious. Of course, it's worth saying anyway, just to be sure.

Three things:

- requiring a particular class, or even a particular role, is a bad thing. The need for a Cleric in previous editions was a pain. Defining the 'Leader' role, and casting the Bard and Warlord as clear "Cleric substitutes", was definitely an improvement.

- in-combat healing is an abomination.

- while it's good that the classes are designed to work together as a team, it's really important that the game be adaptable for bigger or smaller groups. One of my groups has three players, so whenever we play we'll always be missing one of the four roles; can the game adapt to that? What if we're down to only two players, or even one? Likewise, defining the roles and maintaining niche protection is fairly sensible... but if you have four roles and five players, doesn't that mean that two players aren't going to get as much chance to shine?

(And in the above, please note that I'm not necessarily talking about 4e, which I'm sure has its own answers to the above. But for a theoretical 5e, those are questions that really need answered.)

What do you mean by "in-combat healing is an abomination." ?

 

[delericho]

What do you mean by "in-combat healing is an abomination." ?

Simply that.

Basically, in-combat healing is pretty much a D&D invention, it doesn't appear in the source literature, it exists to make the game work, and I would vastly prefer to see it removed. And doing so would be simple, too - make healing effects rituals that require longer to cast or take effect, and the whole issue of in-combat healing disappears. (Of course, you would need to rebalance the game, but if we're talking about a theoretical 5e...)

I would actually specifically exclude "Second Wind" from my blanket statement, since something like that actually is pretty common at least in the movies. But otherwise, in-combat healing should join the +1 sword and rolled hit points as D&D-isms that we don't need any longer.

 

[Echohawk]

One of the biggest flaws with 3e was how it required you to have a cleric in your party.

In Zogonia, one cleric equals three healing potions...

And because I feel slightly bad about posting that without permission, here is a link in case someone wants to buy the Zogonia book from [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Zogonia-Slice-Death-Tony-Moseley/dp/1601250215/]Amazon[/ame].

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Simply that.

Basically, in-combat healing is pretty much a D&D invention, it doesn't appear in the source literature, it exists to make the game work, and I would vastly prefer to see it removed. And doing so would be simple, too - make healing effects rituals that require longer to cast or take effect, and the whole issue of in-combat healing disappears. (Of course, you would need to rebalance the game, but if we're talking about a theoretical 5e...)

I would actually specifically exclude "Second Wind" from my blanket statement, since something like that actually is pretty common at least in the movies. But otherwise, in-combat healing should join the +1 sword and rolled hit points as D&D-isms that we don't need any longer.

Actually the healing surge mechanic is quite good. Two extra heals per leader is not bad either...

maybe second wind and healing surge need to be synonymous and leader heals should just allow you to use up your second wind with a little bonus... and maybe you get two second winds per combat...
once you assume that, adding more leaders would not help so much more, as your resources per fight are a bit more limited...

Also I would like to see some wounds that are not so easy to heal, and here rituals will have their place to remedy them. You could once again diferentate between lethal and nonlethal damage...

So yes, in combat "healing" is an abomination. But inspiring and taking a deep breath is not. (3rd edition made helaing always awailable... in older editions healing in combat realy costed a lot of resources)

 

[TerraDave]

I see a little criticism of 4E here, or at least early 4E, and even 3E, where the approach was to compensate for having to play a supporting role with other, non-leadery, stuff.

Of course, in latter 4E, you can just make the leader who boosts others, really well, and it seems to be pretty popular.

 

[Joshua Randall]

It does feel like Monte is just discovering some things about 4e that have been true since day 1.

He goes on about how "some people" "say that using an action to help someone else is a waste of that action."

Well, that's great, because the vast majority of heals and buffs in 4e are either
* minor actions (so you don't "waste" your own standard (= attack) action)
* standard actions that also have an attack roll with them

Monte is disagnosing a problem that was already solved by 4e.

= = =

Also, his polls are ludicrous. He may as well make the poll options for this one:

Which do you prefer?

Characters should be friendly, nice, team players.
Characters should be selfish jerks.