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="Cadence" data-source="post: 6043316" data-attributes="member: 6701124">I like variety in my clerics. -- So I want the rules to have suggestions on making new domains, things to sub in for less combat ability if appropriate (a la priest/cloistered cleric), and things to sub in for turning. The gods aren't stupid though, so I would probably leave most spells on the base list (including healing) and note that both background and need should reflect what is chosen. Too much choice is supposed to be intimidating for new players and raises the specter of capitalizing on mastery of the rules. Too much change from traditional DnD-isms seems to lead to hate. -- So I think the base cleric should be the classic build that is decent at combat and with a variety of spells including healing type. I don't need much realism, but if you step too far away from the tropes it just seems silly. -- So I'm ok with magic letting the really injured person jump up and start fighting, and I'm ok with heroic characters being able to take a heck of a beating and keep on ticking. But I'm not ready for slapping on a few bandages and yelling words of encouragement to do entirely the same thing. I'm not against reasonable change as long as it doesn't seem to be overturning things just for the sake of doing so - I want it to be recognizably D&D in the sense of being able to convert pre-existing stuff over and have it still carry the feel with it.-- So I'm good with maybe giving eveyrone one healing surge per day. I'm fine with having a bloodied status and having some more common healing work on the non-bloodied. I'm happy to have creative new healing spells. I don't like the idea of everyone being able to do magical things... "And when everone's [magical], no one will be."-- So I don't like having rituals sitting around for everyone to use without special magical training, and I don't want them to be an expected part of the game for non-spellcasters. I don't want everyone and their friends being able to find healing potions like they grow on trees as a default. In other threads I keep reading about how its bad for Rogues to steal the Fighter's combat maneuver thunder, and its bad for Mages to steal the Rogues thunder, and all kinds of turf protection.-- So I want turf protection for big healing.  In other threads I keep reading about how its bad for parties to need a healer type or for the cleric to be expected to be focus on healing, but also how some parties are at a disadvantage if the Paladin is the only fighter type and they want to have a high charisma and mediocre stength.-- So I don't really understand why needing a healy type is different than needing a melee type and needing a missile weapon type and needing a skills type. I want something prominent in the book about the importance of having a good idea for a character that you can get into, while also respecting that its cooperative -- and that its not the job of the players to fill out slots on a roster. I want the rules to give advice on what to do if an important character type is missing from the party in general (having an appropriate NPC, having an appropriate magic item, etc...).  I read in various threads about how one-trick characters can be boring and drive the game in particular ways the other party members don't want. And I see the idea of balancing the three pillars. And I notice that the cleric is pretty good at fighting, has a variety of support spells, and has specials that encourage taking WIS and CHR which are helpful in exploration and social things.--So I want someone to explain why being a cleric is bad... is part of it because its about the only class that's actually balanced and so they is expected to take up the slack for everyone else being unbalanced? Is it because a lot of players need special ways to kill people to be happy?</blockquote>

Verification