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

[SkidAce]

My experience lines up with [MENTION=1210]the Jester[/MENTION], my current group has no healer.

But, they do have to think more deeply about when to retreat and how long they want to spend on downtime. Which reinforces the other point of healer/no healer changes the dynamic.

It does, its just not the end of the world.


Had a group with no fighters one time...

 

[DEFCON 1]

Personally... I think the entire issue comes down to one thing-- how supportive or how much of a jerk is the DM being?

The DM controls the pace of the game. Anything that happens (especially related to combat) is under his purview. The DM decides just how much stuff to throw at the PCs, and he/she knows whether or not they are or are not equipt to handle it. If the party is without a caster who has a Cure Wounds spell... the DM knows this. And the DM decides just how much healing is necesary for the group to have, for the pace which the group travels at.

The DM can literally do anything to make sure the group is capable to adventure at the pace the DM is setting for them. Adjust the 'healing during rest' modules. Hand out more potions of healing. Allow non-magical healing. Throw less damaging enemies at them. Change the adventure pace so that natural healing is all that is needed. That's *all* up to the DM. He knows how he'd like the adventures to flow, and he can facilitate it himself... all without forcing the players into positions they might not care to take.

But too often, I think some DMs get into the mindset of "Here's how my campaign works and I ain't deviating from it... so if you players don't set yourselves up in an optimal situation to deal with it, that's YOUR problem!" As a result, the players feel guilted into making sure someone runs a Cleric, because they know full well the DM isn't going to change things and will kick the crap out of them if they don't. The DM doesn't specifically SAY they need to have a Cleric... but it sure as hell is implied if they have any hope to play and not get killed. So someone ends up feeling "forced" to play the Cleric and they take one for the team so the team can actually play.

Which to me, is the exact opposite of what a DM should be doing. Forcing players to play characters they don't want, all because you have some grand ideas about how "your world" works that you are unwilling to bend a little bit on. To me, that's a rather icky attitude to have-- that the essence of your campaign world is sacrosanct and it's up to the players to adjust to you. If that's the case... then why bother having other people play in your world to begin with if you're unwilling to facilitate it? And bending their desires to your will because your world is more important than their enjoyment is not something I feel Wizards needs to go out of their way to condone by how they design the game. As an option? Absolutely. But a requirement? Hopefully not.

 

[Kinak]

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.

Oh, yeah, I'm sure you don't have the problem I was talking about in 4e. Healing and daily resources are already synched up through the extended rest mechanic, so it shouldn't drastically change the pace of the game to include/exclude a healer.

It's just, as you say, smoothing out damage spikes. Which is nice to have, but not where the problem comes in.

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

Yeah, that'd probably do it. I'm not surprised a build like that came together eventually.

I don't think it existed during my "giving 4e a chance" period, but it wouldn't have changed the outcome substantially if it was. Trying it out post-Essentials might have done the trick, but I doubt we'll ever know.

In any case, I don't mean to rag on the 4e cleric at all. I know a lot of people like it and I think it's a good design for what it's intended to do.

I just can't go along with arguments that start with "everyone hates playing a healer" when we have multiple people in our group who like playing healers. I get we're the outliers, but we do exist, I promise

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.

Yeah, the campaign being condensed to a couple weeks always feels wrong somehow. My Pathfinder players are at 16th level now and it's only been a little over three months game time since they started, about a month of which is me intentionally pausing the action.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Dungeonman]

Personally... I think the entire issue comes down to one thing-- how supportive or how much of a jerk is the DM being?

I'd reword it to: I think the issue coming down to how collaborative or not the DM is being. See, I didn't add emotional biases there.

Which to me, is the exact opposite of what a DM should be doing. Forcing players to play characters they don't want, all because you have some grand ideas about how "your world" works that you are unwilling to bend a little bit on. To me, that's a rather icky attitude to have-- that the essence of your campaign world is sacrosanct and it's up to the players to adjust to you. If that's the case... then why bother having other people play in your world to begin with if you're unwilling to facilitate it? And bending their desires to your will because your world is more important than their enjoyment is not something I feel Wizards needs to go out of their way to condone by how they design the game. As an option? Absolutely. But a requirement? Hopefully not.

I agree it's important to align expectations in D&D, and I as I mentioned elsewhere, I think it's been highly underrated. I also think it's less black-and-white that the way you put it. For example, the players aren't monolithic. What if only 1 player(s) doesn't like the DM's campaign concept, another player loves it, and the rest don't care? Is it a democratic vote? If one player is roleplaying way out in left field, who should adjust to who? I don't think the entire issue comes down to the DM's attitudes vs the players. Personally, I think the burden of campaign style should come down to an adventure or setting or campaign toggle. That way, you externalize the issue instead of making it personal. The DM isn't a "jerk", for example, if he chooses a cleric-y campaign and all the players know it in advance. It's like a movie that you've seen the trailer and you now what kind of movie it is and you don't complain that it's unrealistic or too scary or not funny since you've hopefully aligned your expectations.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd reword it to: I think the issue coming down to how collaborative or not the DM is being. See, I didn't add emotional biases there.

I agree it's important to align expectations in D&D, and I as I mentioned elsewhere, I think it's been highly underrated. I also think it's less black-and-white that the way you put it. For example, the players aren't monolithic. What if only 1 player(s) doesn't like the DM's campaign concept, another player loves it, and the rest don't care? Is it a democratic vote? If one player is roleplaying way out in left field, who should adjust to who? I don't think the entire issue comes down to the DM's attitudes vs the players. Personally, I think the burden of campaign style should come down to an adventure or setting or campaign toggle. That way, you externalize the issue instead of making it personal. The DM isn't a "jerk", for example, if he chooses a cleric-y campaign and all the players know it in advance. It's like a movie that you've seen the trailer and you now what kind of movie it is and you don't complain that it's unrealistic or too scary or not funny since you've hopefully aligned your expectations.

There's a big difference between a DM having a theme to his campaign that he'd prefer players ascribe to up front, than having a particular mechanical requirement (in this case, someone in the party NEEDS to have a Cure Wounds spell available) so that the party can advance at the pace the DM wants.

That final point is the key. It's the combination of the two (the amount of healing available *and* the pace at which the party progresses) that is the issue. If a DM wants a "grim and gritty" game with lots of damage and threat about... and is perfectly happy to have the group take weeks off to recover from the grievous wounds they suffer because they might not have the healing resources for quick recovery... that's great! If that's the world he has, then so be it. The party does not need a Cleric, because the DM has set up the expectation for the campaign that occasionally the party will get the butts handed to them, and when that happens they'll need to go lie down and rest for a spell. And the story will pick up when they finally get up and about.

But I'm talking about the kind of DM that wants that "grim and gritty" kind of game but also wants his story to progress at speeds which he (and everyone at the table) knows they cannot handle and cannot recover from. Because his "story" says that they don't get any down time. They don't get to recover from their wounds. Like every two hours there's some new threat that's going to attack the group and that's the way the world is, and woe be to them if they cannot handle it. At that point, the DM isn't collaborating (as you put it) with the group... he's forcing their hand because the pace of his story trumps their choice. He basically is telling them that if they want to play in his world, they better get a Cleric or two because his world is his world and will stop at no man.

You may not want to ascribe an emotional description to what that DM is doing. But I have no problem with that. I think that DM is being unreasonable, and yes "jerkish"... because he wants it both ways. *His* decision on how violent his world is, and *his* decision on the frequency how that violence gets dispersed and recovered from. He could easily adjust either dial slightly so that no one player felt forced to play a class just to get a specific mechanic (Cure Wounds) into the game... but nope. His world, his rules. Deal with it or the party keeps dying. To me, that's not collaboration at all, and yes, there's an emotional component there to what I thnk the DM is choosing to do.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I just can't go along with arguments that start with "everyone hates playing a healer" when we have multiple people in our group who like playing healers. I get we're the outliers, but we do exist, I promise

I don't know if we are outliers either. From 3e on, you had so many ways to customize your cleric through domains.

My favourite cleric was the elven cleric archer. He usually won initiative (high base dex, +2 dex from elf, improved initiative domain feat), he could then buff himself/the party or shoot a couple of arrows, follow up with some more arrows/offensive spells in round two, and maybe some healing in round three if it was necessary. After/between encounters he usually had a bazillion spells left over to heal, buff or tinker with, since he barely used any spells in easy encounters, solving them with archery.

Another favourite was a cleric/fighter/knight or the crown/sword/rose in Dragonlance. Really good defenses, good diplomacy, good damage and some kick ass offensive spells (we got to level 18). With the Strength/War domain, he had some really good spells like Bigby's grasping hand. He also self-buffed with Divine Favour/Might, Rightous Might (partially quickened). Basically, he could be played as three different characters, switching between encounters: offensive melee, spellcaster, defensive healer. Nearly no other class has the versatility and power at the same time.

Clerics in 3.x was one of the most overpowered character to come out of the PHB without any supplements. There is a reason it got it's term "Codzilla" on the charop forums.(refering to Cleric or Druid godzilla, aka totally overpowered if you play either cleric or druid). The 4e cleric is actually quite a lot weaker (relatively to the 3.x cleric), and isn't nearly as fun to play in my opinion. On the other hand, you don't have to give up standard actions to heal either.

 

[Dungeonman]

But I'm talking about the kind of DM that wants that "grim and gritty" kind of game but also wants his story to progress at speeds which he (and everyone at the table) knows they cannot handle and cannot recover from. Because his "story" says that they don't get any down time. They don't get to recover from their wounds. Like every two hours there's some new threat that's going to attack the group and that's the way the world is, and woe be to them if they cannot handle it. At that point, the DM isn't collaborating (as you put it) with the group... he's forcing their hand because the pace of his story trumps their choice. He basically is telling them that if they want to play in his world, they better get a Cleric or two because his world is his world and will stop at no man.

You may not want to ascribe an emotional description to what that DM is doing. But I have no problem with that. I think that DM is being unreasonable, and yes "jerkish"... because he wants it both ways. *His* decision on how violent his world is, and *his* decision on the frequency how that violence gets dispersed and recovered from. He could easily adjust either dial slightly so that no one player felt forced to play a class just to get a specific mechanic (Cure Wounds) into the game... but nope. His world, his rules. Deal with it or the party keeps dying. To me, that's not collaboration at all, and yes, there's an emotional component there to what I thnk the DM is choosing to do.

Maybe I missed the context then, I thought you were talking about something more general. Have said players told the DM that they don't like the death rate? How horrible is it for someone to play a cleric? Is there a way to engage the story in-character that mitigates this problem? Can the players ask the DM to choose a less gritty campaign style that doesn't induce a story like that, can anybody play a cleric without feeling guilty because the overall experience is worth it, or can the unhappy individual choose a different DM?

 

[DMZ2112]

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.

I am familiar with the phenomenon. I'm just in the camp that believes instant healing ought to be a divine-magic standard action because that's the classic D&D rule. In Magic: the Gathering you cast summoning spells, in Monopoly you build houses, and in D&D clerics cast powerful healing spells as a standard action. You can play these games without doing these things, but it makes the game a different kind of challenge, as it should.

If Wizards wants to release a rules module for non-divine-magic, non-standard-action instant healing, I think that would be a good expenditure of their resources. But I won't use it, because when I play Sorry I land on my opponents' pawns when possible.

 

[Kinak]

I don't know if we are outliers either. From 3e on, you had so many ways to customize your cleric through domains.

I was thinking in terms of "people who want to play pure healers" rather than "people who play clerics." There's definitely something to be said for dropping into and out of pure healer mode, though, and I hadn't considered people who like that.

I don't mind, as a healer, throwing out the occasional attack or debuff, but I really want that to be at the expense of healing. Choosing which direction to go each round is interesting, but having a "both at the same time" makes that tactically uninteresting to me.

I'm actually a little worried about Healing Word in Next for that reason. It might be weak enough that it actually creates some interesting choices, but I'd rather they tone back the "necessity" of healing than try to make it palatable to people who don't want to do it in the first place.

Clerics in 3.x was one of the most overpowered character to come out of the PHB without any supplements. There is a reason it got it's term "Codzilla" on the charop forums.(refering to Cleric or Druid godzilla, aka totally overpowered if you play either cleric or druid). The 4e cleric is actually quite a lot weaker (relatively to the 3.x cleric), and isn't nearly as fun to play in my opinion. On the other hand, you don't have to give up standard actions to heal either.

It's true, 3.x clerics are busted in half. Only the truly absurd Skills and Powers point-buy cleric can stand up.

Cheers!
Kinak

 

[Sword of Spirit]

So, just taking the playtest, we have 10 classes. We have 3 respectable healers amongst them, and 2 additional partial healers.

A lot of the whole argument against how it's bad to require a party to have a cleric vanishes when you realize that the actual situation is more like requiring a party to have a cleric...or a druid...or a paladin.

But what about parties where no one in the group wants a character from that entire 1/3 of available classes?

Well they are going to play a different game with different challenges, just the same as any party that entirely leaves out a major role. How about a party where no one players a fighter...or a barbarian...or a paladin...or a melee ranger? Well they'll be squishy. It will change how the group plays.

What about not having a wizard? Absolutely changes how the party plays.

What about a single class party, with all wizards? Doable, but definitely changes the game.

So the point I'm really making here is to please be a bit more aware of the actual issue--having a strong healer. Almost 1/3 of the classes can fill that role, and they are 3 entirely different feeling classes.