Clerics were more fun in 2nd edition. They were still healers which is (to me) their main distinction, but they did not fall behind as fast on the "I can hit that" scale because feats did not exist. In trying to balance the cleric in 3rd ed. someone somwhere thought they needed to have the same amount spells per day and the same top spell level as wizards. sounds good...but that means they have to lose ground in combat. But the 1st and 2nd edition description of cleric call the class a holy...
View full commentClerics were more fun in 2nd edition. They were still healers which is (to me) their main distinction, but they did not fall behind as fast on the "I can hit that" scale because feats did not exist. In trying to balance the cleric in 3rd ed. someone somwhere thought they needed to have the same amount spells per day and the same top spell level as wizards. sounds good...but that means they have to lose ground in combat. But the 1st and 2nd edition description of cleric call the class a holy WARRIOR. Give clerics less magic at the top 7th level resurrection should be just about the most powerful healing in existence anyway. Then give them back some martial power, and make them really shine vs. undead.
OR take the route 2nd edition eluded to but never really fleshed out. Gods have priest, and clerics and Druids are just two kinds of priests. then the cleric I described above would be like a priest of Kord etc. and a spell throwing buff-giver type would be a priest of some other god.
1. The Cleric Is a Healer: “This one should seem obvious, but it's worth making it clear that we assume that clerics can heal and that their abilities should reflect that. A player new to D&D who creates a cleric could focus on keeping the rest of the characters on their feet, and the mechanics would make that easy to understand and do.” - M.Mearls No, absolutely not. Especially not at the top of the list. A Cleric has the ability to aid his allies, including the ability to Heal...
View full comment1. The Cleric Is a Healer:
“This one should seem obvious, but it's worth making it clear that we assume that clerics can heal and that their abilities should reflect that. A player new to D&D who creates a cleric could focus on keeping the rest of the characters on their feet, and the mechanics would make that easy to understand and do.” - M.Mearls
No, absolutely not. Especially not at the top of the list. A Cleric has the ability to aid his allies, including the ability to Heal them, but this is not his Role. That’s right, you’re trying to pigeon-hole the Cleric as a Heal-bot by giving them the Role of Healer (Remember how you said you weren’t going to force Role’s on Players?!). Put this at the bottom of the list, or take it out altogether since it’s part of #2. Stating this as a Goal for the class disgusts me, it takes the focus off Roleplaying a Divine Servant and shoves it squarely onto playing a heal-bot
2. The Cleric Is a Divine Spellcaster:
I can agree with this as M.Mearls writes it. It is important that the Cleric not outstrip the other core classes by being able to do what they do, only better (using the #4 and #5 points as examples).
3. Divine Magic Is Subtle and Indirect:
I have no problems with this as M.Mearls interprets it.
4. The Cleric Is an Armored Warrior:
I think this can be true and so should be an option for the Cleric, through backgrounds and themes. I think a Clerics choice of Divine should play a large part of what kind of Cleric is being played.
5. Clerics Reflect the Gods:
Yes, absolutely agree with M.Mearls here. I’d go further, and say that each Cleric’s individual abilities and skills are tied to their choice of Divine.
Gotta be paladin, you get it all - spells, big armor and weapons, unique special abilities, and some really cool roleplaying hooks. Rangers are a close second, though I've never really agreed with them getting spells... I think they were at their finest in 3.5 with a lot of skill points and good fighting and stealth. Wizards should be awesome, and often are fun... but there's always been something lacking. I think it's that magic in stories is fantastic, and in D&D it's rather mundane....
View full commentGotta be paladin, you get it all - spells, big armor and weapons, unique special abilities, and some really cool roleplaying hooks. Rangers are a close second, though I've never really agreed with them getting spells... I think they were at their finest in 3.5 with a lot of skill points and good fighting and stealth.
Wizards should be awesome, and often are fun... but there's always been something lacking. I think it's that magic in stories is fantastic, and in D&D it's rather mundane. You can't cow a cowherd by throwing a shower of sparks... even though you really should be able to.
I like Warlord and Bard. Perhaps more so Bard although I never cared for the whole "musician/dancer" theme that is forced to accompany their basic skills and role. I enjoy having lots of skill options and in battle primarily strengthening my allies. In fact, I would like it very much if there was a class that really strengthened the concept of giving your allies bonuses and maybe even getting to choose which bonuses to give which allies at which time while outside of battle primarily...
View full commentI like Warlord and Bard. Perhaps more so Bard although I never cared for the whole "musician/dancer" theme that is forced to accompany their basic skills and role. I enjoy having lots of skill options and in battle primarily strengthening my allies.
In fact, I would like it very much if there was a class that really strengthened the concept of giving your allies bonuses and maybe even getting to choose which bonuses to give which allies at which time while outside of battle primarily relying on knowledge and diplomacy.
Totally agree w/Katalia369. Make it an option. It should -not- be automatic, and it should not be impossible or discouraged. It depends on what the group decides they want from the experience, and the D&D experience, IMVHO, isn't necessarily about magically attracting followers and receiving permission to build a stronghold at a set level -although if a player wants to hire people, or commission some kind of HQ, well, that should be possible and yeah, there should be rules somewhere for it,...
View full commentTotally agree w/Katalia369. Make it an option. It should -not- be automatic, and it should not be impossible or discouraged. It depends on what the group decides they want from the experience, and the D&D experience, IMVHO, isn't necessarily about magically attracting followers and receiving permission to build a stronghold at a set level -although if a player wants to hire people, or commission some kind of HQ, well, that should be possible and yeah, there should be rules somewhere for it, maybe simple ones in the core product(s) and crunchier stuff in some rules module.
What I would like, though, is that it's not a given reward available from a certain level or stuff like that. Not a feat, not a class feature, not that kind of stuff. If you got the money, knock yourself out. If you wanna build a castle, talk about it with the local head honcho, grant them your fealty as a vassal, be knighted, receive a barony, whatever, and start building. You wanna skip the RP details? As long as it's fine with the others, go for it. Want your dominion to play a big role in the game? Same as above, talk about it and see if it's OK for everyone. Possibly not at the last minute -the earlier, the better. Social contract, you know (which in D&D could really stop being "unspoken" -a clearly agreed on, defined social contract would do wonders for the whole experience, but I digress).
In summary, I don't think it should be one of those 'rewards' you automatically get when you reach some arbitrary level -it should depend on many factors, like your social class, how much money you got, your relationships with the royals, where you decide to build your stronghold, wether you decide to conquer someone else's and refurbish it... story stuff. If the mechanics can support it, all the better. If not... well, at least mention it can be done and suggest some how-tos in the DM's guide, right?
Personally I like to run (I am almost always the DM in our campaigns) sandbox games. In other words, no set adventures, just engaging characters in a detailed world and I let my players decide what direction they want to take their characters. This means that I would like to have this option as my players tend to go for "conquering the world" type of ambition. For that you need armies, castles, followers, etc (I used a HEAVILY modified version of Birthright rules to do this, but I truly miss a...
View full commentPersonally I like to run (I am almost always the DM in our campaigns) sandbox games. In other words, no set adventures, just engaging characters in a detailed world and I let my players decide what direction they want to take their characters. This means that I would like to have this option as my players tend to go for "conquering the world" type of ambition. For that you need armies, castles, followers, etc (I used a HEAVILY modified version of Birthright rules to do this, but I truly miss a good solid system for stuff like this in almost any RPG system out there. The first game that does this well will have a very loyal customer in me; currently this is done best in Rogue Trader). The thing is, this should not be tied to level. Are all kings a level 16 Fighter? Probably not. This is the type of thing that should be a focus of your campaign, a support for back story in your campaign, or not be used at all, regardless of character level.
And do not limit yourself here either. Don't stop at 1 castle. Make it scale properly; it should work if you just want a small band of followers, but it should scale all the way up to ruling empires, managing armies and leading crusades across entire worlds. This includes a conflict resolution system between organizations, armies and empires. Thieves guild versus merchants, barons versus kings, empire against empire.
The mechanics and the story/flavor should be deeply connected. To say, for example, that "Dwarves are excellent craftsman, especially when working with stone or metal" can only be true if they are actually good at it. If humans, elves, and even orcs are every bit as good at crafting (mechanically) as a Dwarf is, then it would be false to say that Dwarves are better at it. If, on the other hand, Dwarves are supposed to be better at it, then make them actually better at it. I mean,...
View full commentThe mechanics and the story/flavor should be deeply connected. To say, for example, that "Dwarves are excellent craftsman, especially when working with stone or metal" can only be true if they are actually good at it.
If humans, elves, and even orcs are every bit as good at crafting (mechanically) as a Dwarf is, then it would be false to say that Dwarves are better at it. If, on the other hand, Dwarves are supposed to be better at it, then make them actually better at it.
I mean, what's next? A strong character doesn't need a high strength score to be strong? A giant doesn't have to be any bigger than a halfling to be a giant? C'mon.
The mechanics and flavor should go hand in hand.
That being said, I see no reason why the book can't give rules/guidelines for altering a race's mechanical facts, based on the nature of individual campaigns. So, if Elves don't use Bows in the Land of Nolegolasia, then maybe the book should provide some means of replacing that benefit with another.
I am on board with the idea of a neutral option. I think that having flavor represented in the rules - like the dwarven Stonecunning racial trait - is a cool feature. As for weapon-favoring and favored enemies, I'd be okay with having tohe option of bypassing these. What if my gnome was orphaned and raised in a monastery far from the ongoing mutual disdain between his kin and kobold. What it my dwarf was raised in a city and joined the city guard, favoring a broadsword? If he runs across his...
View full commentI am on board with the idea of a neutral option. I think that having flavor represented in the rules - like the dwarven Stonecunning racial trait - is a cool feature. As for weapon-favoring and favored enemies, I'd be okay with having tohe option of bypassing these. What if my gnome was orphaned and raised in a monastery far from the ongoing mutual disdain between his kin and kobold. What it my dwarf was raised in a city and joined the city guard, favoring a broadsword? If he runs across his "favored weapon" in a dungeon would he suddenly feel generations of axe-wielding prowess coursing through his body? Likely not. But at the same time, I don't mind abstractions such as these effects. They still define something broad about the race, the world, and the game on a general level. I don't think that something based on your physical racial qualities can be as easily passed over though. Maybe you play a halfling that is on the chubby side and isn't the best climber, but it's assumed that it's not the case and that your physical build is allowing you this improved climbing. I see things like the halfing's prowess at a certain ability based off of their stature and physical nature - or how dwarves are sturdy and hard to push around or knock over - to be more embedded than something like favoring a specific arm or knowing a certain foe's weaknesses.
View full comment
“This one should seem obvious, but it's worth making it clear that we assume that clerics can heal and that their abilities should reflect that. A player new to D&D who creates a cleric could focus on keeping the rest of the characters on their feet, and the mechanics would make that easy to understand and do.” - M.Mearls
No, absolutely not. Especially not at the top of the list. A Cleric has the ability to aid his allies, including the ability to Heal...
View full comment