What is the essence of D&D

[Zardnaar]

If "celibate bible banger" is your take-away impression of the Cleric class it's no wonder you don't like them very much.

Of the great many Clerics I've seen played over the years I don't think that description would apply to any of them.

Cleric of love goddess


Only celibate clerics were specialty priests or priests handbook specials 2E.

 

[Garthanos]

Only celibate clerics were specialty priests or priests handbook specials 2E.

They didnt even have support for non-judeo christian style clerics until those specialty priests came out...

 

[Lanefan]

It doesnt do attrition combat well... is attrition combat the essence of D&D?

I think a solid argument can be made that attrition-based adventuring (beyond just a single combat) was an essence of D&D from inception on through 3e, but not since.

Where as Heroic center piece battles are definitely not since a spell caster could one shot an encounter or simply decide we win In many editions (paladins even seem able to in 5e) ARE you sure that doesn't relate to primacy of magic? If you take away the trivializing of otherwise big battles....

Magic-heavy editions can still do the big set-piece battle very well - I've seen (and run) my share in both 1e and 3e - but they need to be set up differently than in 4e; and the enemies either need to be able to fight fire with fire (i.e. have their own magic) or have a big numerical superiority such that the PC front-liners can't always keep the casters out of melee.

 

[Zardnaar]

They didnt even have support for non-judeo christian style clerics until those specialty priests came out...

So? Clerics weren't celibate in any phb. D&D cleric was never a Christian type priest.

Except in 2E where it was an option. Only in 2E as well.

 

[Garthanos]

I think a solid argument can be made that attrition-based adventuring (beyond just a single combat) was an essence of D&D from inception on through 3e, but not since.

clw wands and cheap potions became dujour from what I heard in 3e and while that may not be all that is required. its possibly one component. Its handy to have a solid grasp of party durability or you have anti-climactic death by random arrow.

Magic-heavy editions can still do the big set-piece battle very well - I've seen (and run) my share in both 1e and 3e - but they need to be set up differently than in 4e; and the enemies either need to be able to fight fire with fire (i.e. have their own magic) or have a big numerical superiority such that the PC front-liners can't always keep the casters out of melee.

Well that is support for primacy of magic right there... they have to be set up to "deal" with casters.

 

[Garthanos]

So?

The class dripped with flavor of that one mythos including the hypocrisy of its historic members who engaged in war while pretending to follow.... never mind.

 

[Garthanos]

Once you get beyond low level in 1e-2e each heavy Fighter pretty much needs her own hench Cleric whose one and only job is to keep her upright; because the amount of curing otherwise required would overwhelm the PC Cleric unless curing was all that PC ever did.

Hence the scaling heals of 4e...

 

[Zardnaar]

The class dripped with flavor of that one mythos including the hypocrisy of its historic members who engaged in war while pretending to follow.... never mind.

Very very loosely based on one individual.

Your the one projecting the cleric was never celibate in a phb.

Druid was very very loosely based on Celtic mythology.

If you don't like something just state it, don't make up crap.

 

[Lanefan]

A 4e rogue is capable of reliably performing feats that any other edition rogue couldn't possibly replicate. Such as "Cloud Jump" a 22nd level utility that lets the rogue chain two jump checks together without landing in between. IOW, it's a low powered fly spell, that, by that level, would likely allow the rogue to "jump" about 60 feet or more as a single move.

In any other edition, doing this would be impossible for a rogue. It would REQUIRE magic to replicate.

Actually it would simply require being a Monk instead of a Rogue. Monks had some crazy leap-jump-climb stuff they could do in 3e and earlier - very Crouching-Tiger-like - and Monks being able to do this sort of thing without magic is perfectly cool with me as it suits their genre.

I can't get behind Rogues being able to do this stuff to nearly the same extent, though. Doesn't fit.

 

[Lanefan]

That’s kind of the way it should be to me for the games I like to play. If every paladin gets a holy avenger it’s not exciting. If every wizard gets a staff of the magi it’s not exciting.

Heh.

The only time I've ever seen a Staff (well, in this case a Wand) of the Magi in play it went like this: character acquires the wand in town (can't remember if by purchase or she'd had it specially commissioned) at cost of about 3/4 of her total wealth, gets all excited, and heads back out into the field with the party.

At the very first possible opportunity to use it she pulls it out, gets hit by a lightning bolt, fails some saves badly, and the Wand blows up in her face. The only shred of luck she had was making her save vs the enormous amount of explosion damage, meaning she didn't drop dead on the spot.