Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6654902" data-attributes="member: 996">Well, you did peg what I was talking about: the DM has choices in how to model something based on it's role in the story, challenge he wants to present to the PCs, in-world consistency, or whatever else he values.  Saelorn, it seemed to me, wanted to take those choices away.If all he's saying is he wants DM's to stick to such a choice once made, that's a lot less objectionable - but it's a DM technique or campaign-presentation concern rather than a system one. They're two different people: they're distinguished, right there.  'Wizard' might be a game construct or an in-game label.  Wizard, as a PC class, is a game construc: it has a lot of choices that can make one PC seem very different from the next PC (or the could take the same number of wizard levels, prep all the same spells, and seem virtually identical).  Or, wizard could be an in-game description:   In 5e, for instance the Court Wizard of a kingdom could be a 7th level wizard (Diviner), but he could also be a 9th level dragon sorcerer, a rogue with the charlatan background, a bard with the Sage background, an NPC with a spell list chosen by the DM, or even a rakshasa; in 3.5, that same court 'wizard' might have been PC-class wizard, or an NPC class Adept, or a monster with spell-like abilities able to disguise itself convincingly.  That's actually one of the nice thing about 'lame' old class names like fighter or magic-user - they're too generic to be used meaningfully in the in-game fiction, so they don't create that confusion. The PC /are/ different, because the DM isn't controlling them.  They're different because it's a game.  You shouldn't ask a game to completely deny it's nature, as a game.   It's up to the DM to take a game like D&D (any ed), and use (and mod) it to create the experience he wants.  If that means using the exact same mechanics to represent a PC and an NPC wizard, he can do that - he can also use very different mechanics, or use a different design, but 'call back' some of the PC mechanics.   Exactly.  5e's use of a monster stat block (whether you like to think of it as a 4e-style or 1e-style or Pathfinder-style block) and giving the DM some fairly simple tools the DM create monsters and NPCs who are distinct from eachother and from PCs, is one of the many things 5e got 'right.' I've certainly seen that happen.  Not as an improvised action in combat, but as some elaborate plan, where the players spend hours coming up with it and selling the DM on it, leading to a resolution of "OK, that worked."  It's an example of the kind of style that got labeled 'CaW' in the edition war.  5e works for that style.  It's worth the player's while to make an end-run around the published system and get straight to a DM ruling - if they can be reasonably certain that ruling will be in their favor.   There's really nothing you're "supposed" to do.  There are things that work better or are more enjoyable than others.  There are monsters that are fun to toe-to-toe, and monsters that are boring in that mode.  There are monsters & scenarios that have the potential to be entertaining, dynamic combats, if the system is up to it or the DM can pull it off. It's always an option, even a game like 4e, but 5e brings that DM contribution front-and-center.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Even in AD&D there were alternatives - other classes that could heal, DM-placed healing items, even the completely impractical alternative of resting for weeks.  The real question is how well do the alternatives take the place of the Cleric.  In 5e, any caster with Cure Wounds or Healing Word on his list can do enough in-combat healing to get by, even if he might not heal /as much/ as the Cleric, he can get an ally back into the fight when he's dropped in combat.  Getting a sack of healing potions can also do the trick, at low level, though it'd be a poor, inefficient nth choice, even then.  Other alternatives - HD, overnight healing, Inspiring Leader, healers kits, etc - can get the party through the day, but can't get a PC back into the fight when he's dropped.  So while there's no absolute need for a Cleric, having one is probably pretty close to ideal.  Failing that, an alternate caster with the right spell list would be better than depending on healing potions.  Remaining alternatives would leave the party at a distinct disadvantage.</blockquote>

Verification