Community

AdrianLP wrote:

Wouldn't the "exception-based rule system" make it harder, not easier? I mean you have basic rules, then every class in some way breaks those rules. If you can't rely on even the basic rules, what makes things go smoothy?

Honestly, every edition of D&D (and pretty much every complex game in existence) has rules and exceptions to those rules.

The reason why WotC points this out is when two rules clash EX. Fighter's Reaping Strike hits on a miss, but minions never get hit on a miss. The exception trumps the normal rules.

elecgraystone wrote:

You missed the point I was making. He might be a useful character, even a worthwhile one. But he's clearly inferior at his job, a cleric. When you have a cleric join your group, you expect them to be able to cast all the spells the class provides them. If you want someone to fight, you get a fighter to join. If your looking for a skill monkey, you get a bard or a rogue. If you think it might be nice to get some healing and maybe a raise dead you get a cleric. In essence, the 10th level cleric with a 12 wis is more like a 4th level cleric/6th level warrior.

What you are using is a logic construct known as a syllogism. A syllogism is two premises statement supporting a conclusion. In your case:

The job of a cleric is to cast spells.
A cleric with 12 wisdom is an inferior spell caster.
Therefore, a cleric with 12 wisdom is inferior at his job.

One problem with a syllogism is that to work both premises statements must be correct. An easily identifiable false syllogism is this:

All carp are fish.
Socrates was a carp.
Therefore, Socrates was a fish.

Now if the second statement was true, possibly referring to someone's pet carp named 'Socrates', the syllogism works. However, since we are speaking of the philosopher named 'Socrates' the second statement is false leading to an incorrect conclusion.

In your syllogism you say that the job of a cleric is to cast spells. I disagree with that statement with the following syllogism:

The job of a character is to be fun for the player.
A cleric is a character.
Therefore, the job of a cleric is to be fun for the player.

Now, can it be fun to play a cleric with 12 wisdom? That's really up to the player, isn't it? However it is pretty hard to say with absolute certainty that a cleric with 12 intelligence would always be less fun to play. Perhaps for you this would be the case but I think it is a dangerous generalization to make for everyone.

The other problem with your argument can be addressed reductio ad absurdum:

The job of a cleric is to cast spells.
A starting wisdom of 20 gives the maximum spell casting benefits for a cleric.
Therefore, unless one is playing a cleric with a starting wisdom of 20 (a dwarf, elf, or human) one is playing a character who is inferior at his job.

Obviously this is for 4e but a similar argument can be constructed for earlier editions.

DireMongoose wrote:

You perhaps forget that D&D is generally played as a cooperative game...

Actually, I didn't, but I did use a certain shorthand when I said the job of a character is to be 'fun'. I did that because I really didn't want a huge long post.

There's a lot of elements for 'fun' and how a character interacts with others in his group is one of them. You say that playing a character who can't pull their own weight sucks. Well, if you feel that way then obviously the character isn't 'fun', is it?

You also say it isn't fun to play with someone who isn't pulling their own weight. Well, for most people aggravating those around them isn't 'fun'. There are a few people for whom this is fun but they generally aren't welcome to play for very long so I have to assume that most people I am speaking to do not fall into this category and as such would find not find it 'fun' to play a character who causes aggravation for the other players.

Of course a lot of people get enjoyment by having a well delineated job in the group so that the effects of their contributions can clearly be seen. This may even be the majority of players. For them a more standard cleric build would be more fun but that still doesn't contradict my assertion that first and foremost the purpose of a character is to provide the player with fun. All that really says is that for those players, in those conditions, such a character wouldn't be fun.

Given this I still stand by my statement that the job of any character is to be fun. Maybe you have fun being the comic relief, and if it isn't upsetting anyone else then how is this a bad thing? Maybe the group already has someone who wants to be a dedicated cleric and you want to just sort of straddle between fighter and cleric by providing a little bit of healing backup while focusing more on your combat abilities. If the group doesn't care that you're neither fish nor fowl because healing is covered then why does it matter?

In the end this is a game, not a job. We play games to have fun. If you aren't having fun then why are you playing?