|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 11:03AM
#31
|
Date Joined:
Aug 21, 2007
|
I think that healing is something that's necessary; the party's heath is a resource to be managed like spells, potions or other consumables.
I think the resource management minigame is fun, but I don't know if the damage-vs.-healing race is really fun in the middle of combat. For my money, I'd be satisfied with healing being a thing that happens (and consumes resources) after the fight is over, without occupying any one character's actions.
In my mind, what made older edition clerics not fun, were silly mechanics and the fact that if I chose to be a heal bot that round, I didn't to do anything else. It felt like my job was to enable other people to kick butt and have fun.
Yeah, I think this is the big issue. But what about more active forms of butt-kick-enabling? For example, is playing a lazy Warlord boring? I've never done it myself, but it looks really cool. I think you can have a lot of fun without doing direct damage yourself, as long as you're still rolling dice, making decisions, and having a progressive (rather than merely preventative) effect on the fight.
So, if in-combat healing has to be a thing, I really like the idea of getting rid of "cure" spells and instead sneaking healing effects in along with buffs. That way, you're never "just" healing. Really, I think I'd like to see the 5e Cleric work a lot like a 4e laser Cleric, Invoker, or combination thereof. With lots of theme/domain options, as well. Mostly because of the raw apoplexy the very concept of 'martial healing' invokes for some unknown reason.
Yeah, that's a problem. I suspect a shift in presentation might make a difference, there: if we stopped calling every effect that restored hit points "healing", maybe people would realize that the Warlock is not shouting people's wounds closed.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 11:28AM
#32
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2011
|
To truly explore this topic, I think we need to look at where these class concepts came from. The concepts of Paladins and Clerics were born of role-played restrictions and modified equipment lists. If future concepts of these classes will change such concepts, these iconic classes must be redefined, and the entire D&D community mustn't be upset at any core-concept changes to these classes.
In earlier editions, a Paladin stepped on everyone's toes. He was as capable as a fighter, he could (eventually) heal and use prayers like a cleric, and he was as diplomatic as a bard. However, he had to maintain a certain standard of behavior; if he deviated by any margin, he became a standard fighter.
Clerics used reduced weapon lists and didn't gain the high-Consititution HP bonuses that Paladins received. But clerics could use prayers to augment their abilities and provide boons to allies and hindrances to enemies.
If we keep the role-played restrictions in place, Paladins won't step on fighters' feet too often; each class will have a distinct feel and approach toward the game. If we impose limitations on what the cleric can use in battle, its spells become more important to the class' concept.
However, if we want to find a balanced cleric that functions mostly as a prayer-wielding priest, we will have a hole in the entire schematic. Traditional (iconic) clerics were powerful for a reason; they could stand side-by-side with a fighter, handle themselves in combat, and use prayers to turn the tides of battle while they stood in the thick of things. A priest class won't have that ability.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 11:37AM
#33
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
To truly explore this topic, I think we need to look at where these class concepts came from.
Chainmail, and the earliest bits of D&D74.
The Fighting-Man and Magic-User are theoretically murdering things on every action. The Cleric, meanwhile, had to be given not-quite-as-good-as-Fighting-Man combat abilites, so it would have something to do apart from stand around waiting to heal the Fighting-Man, while not obsoleting the fighting-man (that came later, with Ranger and Paladin).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 11:54AM
#34
|
|
|
I agree with you. I've tried out many different versions of clerics in 4e, and my preference is the stand in the back and blast things type rather then the get up close and personal with a hammer type. The fact that both are feasible is a good thing.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 12:07PM
#35
|
|
|
Armor and weapons may not be unique to the cleric but they are an iconic part of the class. The D&D cleric has always been a battle front melee cleric, a combat medic type. The range spell casting cleric is the odd ball exception, not the standard.
This is the argument winner for me; that's all that really need be said.
If the Cleric does not wear heavy armour and wield a mace, it will not be the D&D Cleric.
People complain about the Cleric treading on the Paladin's territory, but I see absolutely no need for yet another robe-wearing magic dude, like the hypothetical "priest" class; the Magic-user already has that squishy territory adequately covered, I think.
I agree with you that it (the non-armored priest character) shouldn't be a class. Is there any reason however, why it shouldn't be a possible build of the Cleric class?
It IS a possible build.
Always has been. (well, at least in non-4e games)
See, it's real easy, you just don't kit your cleric out in armour. Voila; an un-armoured priest....
And then? If your vision of an unarmoured priest also doesn't involve swinging weapons or casting certain spells? Guess what, you don't choose to use those options either.
What you don't need in order to do this is;
WoTC permission,
Any special benifits for choosing not to use an option.
So your answer is just to build a character and not play it to its potential?
That's not a helpful solution. You could say the same thing about fighters and martial arts. Do we really need the monk when we can just make a fighter with no armor and weapons? Of course, if we do that, then we get all the joy of watching him die exponentially more often and being almost useless because he was built to be competent/effective when using the very things that would be stripped away.
You can build any class to be strictly inferior (both to others of its class and characters of other classes) just to fill a character concept or archetype, but what good reason is there for having to do so?
Why Mechanics-Alignment Integration is Bad
Show
so why even play a fighter if you can play the paladin the exact same way behaviorally and get added power to boot. "Paladin" is about accepting better game-enhancing mechanics at the price of more rigid in game behavior.
Really? So it goes something like this?
Fighter: "I want to be a paladin."
NPC: "Really?"
Fighter: "Yes."
NPC: "Very well." Starts reading from a holy book while still in-character "Do you accept having to choose and stick to the lawful good alignment, eventhough neither of us actually knows that it exists or what it is?"
Fighter: "I do."
NPC: "Do you reject good game balance because you accidentally rolled a high Charisma?"
Fighter: "What?"
NPC: "I don't know what it means either."
Fighter: "Oh. Umm, ok I do."
NPC: "In the name of all that is metagamey and broken, accept these better game enhancing mechanics."
Fighter: "These what?"
NPC: "Just get out there and try to fulfill a million different people's notion of good while not violating and part of any of them."
So the system is designed such that every single hit needs to be described to avoid confusion? Here's a scenario. The players are nudists, everybody in the world are nudists, it's not weird, it's totally normal in this land. They are naked and they fight drakes taking damage throughout, but healing up with surges. Later they meet the guy who raised the drakes.
Part 1: I didn't describe any of the hits. What does he see?
Part 2: Lets say I described the drakes as biting the players, yet they healed up. What does he see?
D20 Modern Toon PC Race.
Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 27, 2012 - 2:50PM
#36
|
Date Joined:
Aug 27, 2007
|
My experience, with both TT games and MMOs, is that there are people who like to play support characters, who have little or no useful direct offense. However, they need enough options to be tactically interesting, and thus have to do more than just heal -- usually, the result is a character who alternates heals with buffs and debuffs.
The problem, however, is that the number of people who want to play such characters is relatively small, meaning your average group of players has a high chance of not having anyone who actually wants to play that character. This leaves something of a dilemma: either you have to make that character unnecessary, or someone has to play a character they really don't want to play.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 29, 2012 - 11:43AM
#37
|
|
|
Option 3.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:25PM
#38
|
Date Joined:
Dec 17, 2008
|
Acting like it's necessary to hog-tie the class to either a robed or an armored concept is pretty silly. If designed competently, it could easily encompass both concepts - which is precisely what it should do.
Either that or make them 2 separate classes, but that really seems unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:42PM
#39
|
Date Joined:
Jun 30, 2008
|
I think I would vote for option 3. Make cleric the hit them in face with a mace build. His spells tend to focus on ally/self buffing or are close range offensive, he's tougher and is not a liability in melee combat. Make priest the ranged caster who also heals. He gets to do offense through things like cause fear and flame strike, but is not good at melee and not as tough. Maybe think of the lazer/pacifist or invoker in 4E for the priest and the battle cleric/warpriest for the cleric.
The main thing is that they need keep healing something like what happened in 4E, where if you heal it is not the only thing you get to do that round or if it is the only thing you do that round, its a really massive amount. I like playing support characters and have always liked playing clerics to some extent, but they need to be interesting.
And domains should be written up before the classes are published so they can implemented to make each domain get some interesting and flavorful options from day 1. Putting domains off until divine power was a mistake IMO and should have been done more like the PHB domains in 3.5.
my handbooks & builds
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 04, 2012 - 1:57PM
#40
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2004
|
You could take healing away from combat. It would work too. But then front-line fighters would have to retreat when low on HP and let others fill the gap. Perfectly acceptable in concept, but equally as likely to garner complaints from the fighters who don't think its "heroic" to have to retreat all the time.
I understand that many people don't want to be the healbot/buffer, so they are asking to be able to heal and fight at the same time. The real question is whether they would be satisfied with healing half as much and being half as effective in combat. My guess is the answer is no. They want to heal and then, in the same round, fight as well as any other character. The problem is if that becomes the case, why would anyone play anything other than a cleric.
In fact, I heard of a party that consisted of all clerics in 3e. Built one way using Divine Favor and Righteous Might (prior to FAQs) they could fight as well as almost any fighter. Built others they were as good as wizards in terms of casting divine lasers or fireballs. Then of course they would have healing specialists. A complete party in one class...
The point being there are gives and takes. Asking to both heal and fight in the same round means, for class balance sake, one's fighting is going to be vastly inferior to all other party members. If not, we end up with the 3e scenario mentioned above.
Personally, I'd rather be able to heal fully one round or fight fully another. To pick and choose, round-by-round, is easier and more versatile than doing both every round and being mediocre at both.
|
|
|
