D&D 5E Live Q&A with D&D R&D

[Hussar]

During a campaign characters come and go all the time - someties they have two or three healers, sometimes just one; if they ever find themselves without one they'll almost always go and recruit an NPC.


Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...p-A-with-D-amp-D-R-amp-D/page11#ixzz30F0D83cH

I think this is the issue though. Why do we "almost always" go and recruit an NPC if we don't have a healer? I mean, a group can do without a ranger or a monk or a fighter even. If you had a group of 8 characters, 3 clerics, a thief, a magic user, a ranger and a paladin, that would be a perfectly viable AD&D group. No real problems. But, go without a cleric? Most groups won't because most groups recognise that having a healer (or two) makes the group far, far stronger than one without.

And, like I said, this is the heart of the problem. No given class should be given that much weight.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I think this is the issue though. Why do we "almost always" go and recruit an NPC if we don't have a healer? I mean, a group can do without a ranger or a monk or a fighter even. If you had a group of 8 characters, 3 clerics, a thief, a magic user, a ranger and a paladin, that would be a perfectly viable AD&D group. No real problems. But, go without a cleric? Most groups won't because most groups recognise that having a healer (or two) makes the group far, far stronger than one without.

And, like I said, this is the heart of the problem. No given class should be given that much weight.

The problem is that when you are dealing with hitpoints there are only 3 things they can do, mathematically. They can go up, they can do down or they can stay the same. So, there are only really 3 types of actions you can take in combat: You make the enemy's hitpoints go down, you prevent your team's hitpoints from dropping or you make your teams hitpoints go up.

The issue is that these actions don't map well to archetypes that people can relate to. Nearly everyone can relate to fighters using swords on enemies, wizards fireballing enemies, rogues backstabbing enemies, even clerics hitting enemies with their mace. However, as has been discovered by previous attempts, many people can't relate to a fighter who can heal.

So, there is only really one option to make hitpoints go up with a couple of lesser options like Paladins and Druids that people are willing to accept.

There really is no replacement for making hitpoints go up, either. More damage is only a replacement for healing if the amount of extra damage can somehow keep your hitpoints at max almost constantly. A game where no one takes damage ever isn't very satisfying. So, someone HAS to heal. And since there is not a way to make people accept the other classes as healers....it has to be the cleric. I just don't see another way around it.

 

[Halivar]

The problem is that when you are dealing with hitpoints there are only 3 things they can do, mathematically. They can go up, they can do down or they can stay the same. So, there are only really 3 types of actions you can take in combat: You make the enemy's hitpoints go down, you prevent your team's hitpoints from dropping or you make your teams hitpoints go up.

This is something I feel 4E definitely did right; by giving the cleric abilities that did all of the above, the cleric was fun to play while filling its traditional role quite well. "Heal as you hit" may have been a narrative departure from traditional healing, but quite frankly the traditional method of giving up your turn and a spell is boring as dirt, and it's no wonder no one wants to do it.

 

[Blackbrrd]

...Just so we're on the same page, have your party ever moved from having a healer to not or visa versa, mid-campaign? Because that's where it turned into a train wreck for me.

I am playing in a campaign that had a healer (cleric), but then the player got kids and never showed up. We have been playing since level 3-4 to level 11 without a healer. We have compensated by getting more healing related powers (it's a D&D 4e game), to handle random spikes in incoming damage.

 

[Blackbrrd]

This is something I feel 4E definitely did right; by giving the cleric abilities that did all of the above, the cleric was fun to play while filling its traditional role quite well. "Heal as you hit" may have been a narrative departure from traditional healing, but quite frankly the traditional method of giving up your turn and a spell is boring as dirt, and it's no wonder no one wants to do it.

I really liked the 3e cleric, although there is little reason to use the cure spells in combat, they just heal to little compared to incoming damage. You either used the Heal spell, or party-wide buffs. When you had access to the Mass cure spells, that was also an option at higher levels, especially in a big party like we had (6-8 PC's).

 

[DMZ2112]

This is something I feel 4E definitely did right; by giving the cleric abilities that did all of the above, the cleric was fun to play while filling its traditional role quite well. "Heal as you hit" may have been a narrative departure from traditional healing, but quite frankly the traditional method of giving up your turn and a spell is boring as dirt, and it's no wonder no one wants to do it.

I didn't really "get" the D&D4 cleric until I rolled a Devoted Cleric in Neverwinter, was excessively disappointed that I didn't even get a mace, sucked it up, and started firebombing enemies while watching myself and my companion glow with heals and defense buffs. Now I get it. But before I had that strong artificial mental image I always pictured the D&D4 cleric as the technoviking -- forever advancing, forever pointing in two different directions at once.

I dunno, I always looked at having to "give up turns" as a combination mechanical challenge and opportunity for roleplay. I love the traditional cleric and I'm super nervous about these "alternate healing methods." A statement like that was the first time I started to realize D&D4 might not be what I thought it was going to be. Coincidentally, I think that also happened in April. :|

 

[Halivar]

I dunno, I always looked at having to "give up turns" as a combination mechanical challenge and opportunity for roleplay. I love the traditional cleric and I'm super nervous about these "alternate healing methods."

Given the propensity for clerics being relegated to NPC status, I would suggest that we need an alternative. Because no one in any group I've been in will play a traditional cleric. It's always an NPC.

 

[Kinak]

During a campaign characters come and go all the time - someties they have two or three healers, sometimes just one; if they ever find themselves without one they'll almost always go and recruit an NPC.

Ah, yeah, if you're willing to make sure the party is never without a cleric for long periods it's never going to be a problem. I'm glad I asked, because your campaigns look completely different from mine.

Another difference might be that the players here are often running more than one character in the party at a time - our average party size is about 8-10 for 4-5 players - so there's always room to chuck in another Cleric or Druid.

Ah, yeah, I never do this. I've run everywhere from six players all the way down to one, but never more than one character to a player.

We run at around the 3e baseline: three or four players, each with a character. I also tend to discourage animal companions and summoning unless we're really low on people.

I seem to remember my players bringing an NPC with them to help once back in 2nd Edition... say, 1998? So, aside from animal companions, familiars, and summons, not really something that comes up in my games.

And, for that, I'm glad. I have plenty to do and enough NPCs/combatants to run without adding one all the time.

But, in my current game, we lost the only arcane caster with no problems. We lost the only rogue with no problems and, many sessions later, got a new one with no problems.

But if we lose the cleric, I have to do this dance? I'd rather just fix the game. It's easier than running a tagalong NPC for a session and I only have to do it once.

That said, I understand why this wouldn't be a problem for you if you're using to having a ton of PCs and tagalong NPCs. Any party composition related issue comes out in the wash at that point.

Many a time I've seen the casters say "OK, we're set, let's go!" when some of the front-liners are still far from fit shape - usually followed by a debate which sometimes the casters win and sometimes the front-liners win. But the time difference is what sparks the debate.

I've seen that with arcane parties, but never with a party with a healer.

That might be a function of party size, though. It's possible with 8-10 people, a healer doesn't have enough spells to go around, especially if you're not playing in an edition with spontaneous healing or channel energy.

In any case, I'd consider that more of a bug than a feature. Unless we're playing something like Fiasco, where that's the whole point, I don't need the system sparking debates for me.

I think this is the issue though. Why do we "almost always" go and recruit an NPC if we don't have a healer? I mean, a group can do without a ranger or a monk or a fighter even. If you had a group of 8 characters, 3 clerics, a thief, a magic user, a ranger and a paladin, that would be a perfectly viable AD&D group. No real problems. But, go without a cleric? Most groups won't because most groups recognise that having a healer (or two) makes the group far, far stronger than one without.

For me, it's not so much the problem of the cleric being a force multiplier, it's how it reshapes the world around them.

The effectiveness of my party (fighter/paladin, fighter/ranger, rogue, and cleric) would be drastically effected by replacing the paladin with a non-frontliner. It would be as bad as losing the cleric, if not worse.

It's just this stupid thing where everybody's back to full every night (two days absolute maximum) versus having to wait a week to get everyone back up. The only thing I can compare it to is gaining or losing teleporation in how it drastically warps how you relate to time constraints, resting, and wilderness travel.

This is something I feel 4E definitely did right; by giving the cleric abilities that did all of the above, the cleric was fun to play while filling its traditional role quite well. "Heal as you hit" may have been a narrative departure from traditional healing, but quite frankly the traditional method of giving up your turn and a spell is boring as dirt, and it's no wonder no one wants to do it.

For what it's worth, the cleric in my current group has killed 5 things in 16 levels and loved every minute. And there's a good chance I'll be playing a healing oracle in the next game I'm a player, which is the first time I'll be playing D&D/Pathfinder in about a decade.

I can respect the 4e cleric from a game design perspective, but would never want to play it. Call it a warpriest or paladin or whatever. I don't mind it being in the game, I just want the option to play an actual healer if I want.

For what it's worth, in-combat healing is a poor use of actions in 3rd and Pathfinder. If someone's healing in combat consistently, either they want to be doing it or they need to take a closer look at their options. Out of combat healing is obviously a huge deal, but can be done with leftover spells after you're done being a fighter or "controller."

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[D'karr]

I can respect the 4e cleric from a game design perspective, but would never want to play it. Call it a warpriest or paladin or whatever. I don't mind it being in the game, I just want the option to play an actual healer if I want.
Cheers!
Kinak

The pacifist cleric build is exactly that, a very useful/powerful healer with little to no combat attacks.

 

[the Jester]

Not having a healer in the party changes the pace of the game, sure, but that is not the same as destroying the game.

I've run cleric/healer-less games in every edition from 1e on up. They work fine as long as the party is willing to retreat at times and willing to take time to heal. That- taking time to heal- isn't a bad thing. It's a good thing. I'm so sick and tired of "level 1 to 20 in five weeks" games that I can't even express it, and adventures with a taut, inflexible deadline are still viable, the party just needs to be sneaky/smart/less prone to the blunt-force solution.

At least IME. YMMV.