NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7419982" data-attributes="member: 996">That goes way back, really.  Even in 1e, the Paladin & Druid could heal - just not enough, at 1st level, to see a party through to 2nd.  1e also gave the cleric bonus spells at 1st level, that was really the cleric-mandatory edition (and mainly so at 1st level) moreso than 0e, when the cleric didn't even cast at 1st level, or 2e where the cleric (priest) was considerably more customizeable and might not be able to heal, either), or 3e when it became the C in CoDzilla (and any class that got CLW on it's list - Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin, Bard - could keep the party going with a wand), or 4e when everyone got surges (like HD, but a much more significant, more accessible resource) & each Source (Divine, Arcane, Primal, Psionic, even Martial) had a 'leader-Role' class (Cleric, Bard/Artificer, Druid/Shaman, Ardent, Warlord) who could help restore hps in some way.    5e is very evocative of the classic game, but as far as which classes can heal and how well, it most strongly emulates 3.x, with the Cleric the stand-out best healer, followed by the Druid & Paladin, with the Bard showing and the Ranger trailing(pi).  The most visibile difference is that everyone can fall back on HD when they have some time to kill (short rest) in 5e, while in 3e it was wands (wielded by the afore-mentioned classes, or someone with UMD skill) that provided systematic between-combat healing. That's my experience, as well.  Clerics were absolutely necessary in the classic game, but unpopular because of the concept and because the healing function took up most of their actions in combat and most of their spell slots each day, making it downright boring.  Each WotC edition has tried to 'fix' that, only 4e succeeded.  3.x made the cleric wildly overpowered to boost it's popularity, bringing us CoDzilla, while 5e spread out healing a little with HD, but left spell slots a necessity, expanding the 'you must have a cleric' maxim to 'you must have a caster who can heal, and, oh, now the Sorcerer & Warlock can heal.' Throughout the playtest, WotC openly affirmed that they were taking every previous edition into consideration, and no small number of column inches in 5e are taken almost verbatim from past editions.   5e gives players fewer options than 2e, 3e, & 4e did, even though 5e has no been actively published longer than 4e was, and less freedom to use those options than either 3e or 4e did.  Slow pace of release & DM Empowerment are excellent reasons to restrict player options & freedom, but restricted they are.It's nice, in theory, and it was equally nice in 3e when you could get by with a Cleric or Druid or hefty supply of wands.  But, the party still definitely needs a healer who brings a daily resource to supplement HD.  They're basically the same list of classes in 3.x/PF & 5e  Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin, Ranger (3.5/PF, obviously have a lot of lesser-known classes & PrCs).  But neither went as far as 4e in that regard. It always has been able to do so in every edition of D&D.   Heh.That's a legitimate style of DMing, and 5e does put the DM very much in the driver's seat as far as the style & tone - and balance - of his own campaign.  Nod, it's entirely up to the DM to establish and maintain balance for his own campaign, both in terms of putting each character in the splotlight a fair proportion of the time, and in making combats feel sufficiently challening without bringing unitentional TPKs. The Leader Role was still nominally needed in every party (in as much as any role other than Controller was, anyway, certainly /very/ nice to have), but each Source had a leader class (or two) and Source was the broadest take on heroic fantasy archetype, so if you did want to play a warrior rather than a caster, but the party 'needed that Role covered,' you could play a warlord.  If you really wanted to play a caster, but the party 'needed a tank,' you could play a swordmage.  If the DM wanted to run a setting where certain archetypes were just not an option - the Gods are Dead or psionics is too-sci-fi or whatever - he could ban a whole Source, and all the role bases could still be covered. Harsh.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  The Cleric as undead-turning zealot has a bit of genre lore on it's side, a very little bit, more from Bella Lugosi recoiling from Van Helsing's cross than anything.  It was the glowing-healing-every-round dynamic that was sadly counter-genre, but it was a function of D&D's hp mechanics (which were otherwise pretty useful mechanics, really), the game just needed better genre-evoking concepts of restoring hps than the pious guy in full plate with a mace touching you ever round to make your wounds disapear.  5e has not been too bold in going there.  It has the Fighter's Second Wind feature, and a few other little odds and ends hidden here or there, but you still /need/ the caster with Cure Wounds or the like on his list, for the healing resource (& versatilty) of the slots he brings.</blockquote>

Verification