Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dragonblade" data-source="post: 8227953" data-attributes="member: 2804">I like the mechanical weight behind the cleric's class abilities. It actually feels like what a cleric would be in pseudo-medieval fantasy world with a medieval church analog. I typically eschew the D&D pantheons of multiple gods. I don't think that cosmic framework suits the D&D cleric as written at all.The vows are too undefined. It opens the door for two games to have a wildly different experience playing a cleric. A strict DM may rule that Vow of Poverty means a Cleric can never have money or items, while another DM doesn't enforce any restrictions at all, only occasionally doing some token role-playing around it.Basically my informal rules of game design are as follows (and of course this is merely my opinion, yours may differ, etc.):<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">As a general rule, class abilities shouldn't include drawbacks. Specifically this means deliberately restricting something that is not restricted for other classes. And I don't mean things like proficiencies, spells or class abilities. I mean taking away something like saying this class can only attune 1 magic item, not 3. Or this class can only move 20 feet  a round, not 30, etc. Or it could also mean a penalty, like you always save vs fire damage spells with disadvantage.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If they do include drawbacks, the drawback (and the corrsponding benefit) should be explicitly defined in game mechanics terms. Not left vague or subject to interpretation. This is to prevent both power-gaming on the player side, but also inconsistent or overly punitive DMing as well.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Role-playing advantages and disadvantages should never be cross-balanced with mechanical advantages and disadvantages.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If you are using drawbacks, then passive (ie always on) drawbacks should be balanced with passive advantages, and active drawbacks (expending some resource such as x/day, spell slot, etc. to activate) should be balanced with active advantages. Never mixed. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If drawbacks are used in conjunction with class abilities, there should still be a net advantage to the player, it shouldn't just be a wash, otherwise what is in it for the player? Why play this class when other classes gain things without a commensurate drawback? This is more art than science though.</li> </ul>For example, my lets say I have an Ice Wizard subclass. If my permanent drawback is fire damage is always at disadvantage (a very common damage type), then a viable tradeoff might be complete immunity to all cold damage and cold environments. Note that mere advantage vs cold (a rarer damage type) would actually be a net loss to the player as cold is less common than fire. And resistance vs cold might be a wash. So upgrading it to total immunity might be a worthy trade pending play testing, etc.I actually see virtually all of these rules implicit in 5e game design, which is one reason I feel its one of the best designed editions of D&D.</blockquote>

Verification