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.
The only thing I need from books is numbers and a small descriptions/flavor. I find large and extensive fluff blocks to be rather useless, as they often don't fit into whatever particular setting or situation I happen to be running. I care about numbers because I want the numbers to be balanced. I never want to worry about mechanical balance - everything else I can make up, but please don't make me do math.
View full commentThe only thing I need from books is numbers and a small descriptions/flavor. I find large and extensive fluff blocks to be rather useless, as they often don't fit into whatever particular setting or situation I happen to be running.
I care about numbers because I want the numbers to be balanced. I never want to worry about mechanical balance - everything else I can make up, but please don't make me do math.
I agree with other posters that the 2e page design is an ideal balance. I also want to make a statement heretical to game design: In past editions, annoying gaps in design have led to great play. 2nd ed often left the GM without a clear answer, leading to improvisation and better role-playing. Being outsmarted by players is fine, and as long as they haven't broken the game outright, exploiting the setting (not just an ill-worded rule) is a good thing. In real life, there are lots of...
View full commentI agree with other posters that the 2e page design is an ideal balance.
I also want to make a statement heretical to game design: In past editions, annoying gaps in design have led to great play. 2nd ed often left the GM without a clear answer, leading to improvisation and better role-playing. Being outsmarted by players is fine, and as long as they haven't broken the game outright, exploiting the setting (not just an ill-worded rule) is a good thing. In real life, there are lots of balance issues, and any plausible world should have its own. This might be animals that behave wrong and have unexpected abilities/weaknesses or common magic that changes the ways society functions.
The monsters in D&D Next are bland. But, hey, we are just starting out. I have regularly added an ability or two to monsters to keep them from just being sources of damage. The Monsters in 4th Ed. are better because they where not just a Goblin, but many types of Goblins, each with their own special powers and abilities. With Pathfinder, you can add classes to monsters, but that does take time and is hard to run off the cuff. It is easy to add powers to monster in 4th Ed. My suggestion would be...
View full commentThe monsters in D&D Next are bland. But, hey, we are just starting out. I have regularly added an ability or two to monsters to keep them from just being sources of damage. The Monsters in 4th Ed. are better because they where not just a Goblin, but many types of Goblins, each with their own special powers and abilities. With Pathfinder, you can add classes to monsters, but that does take time and is hard to run off the cuff. It is easy to add powers to monster in 4th Ed. My suggestion would be have a base monster with a number of examples of special abilitys that follow with their culture and mannerisms. Have goblins that snipe, sneak and/or backstab. Have Gnolls that go berzerk, use vile poisons and/or have demonic gifts. Each power would have an XP kicker if needed.
Oh, one more thing. I keep seeing comments like "The DM should just add or alter whatever they want". That is true and a good philosphy. But, if DMs are just supposed to make it up themselves, then why have a rulebook? And how are the players supposed to have any idea what to expect?
I agree with some observations. One thing that frustrated me to no end in 4ed was that players looked up to "Skills" section of their character sheets as some kind of choice menu. Considering that skill system is mostly used out of combat, in roleplaying situations - it felt like it was overly restricting. Furthermore, penalizing party for failures created a situation where players would pass on interesting ideas because their characters are unlikely to make the roll. I also didn't...
View full commentI agree with some observations. One thing that frustrated me to no end in 4ed was that players looked up to "Skills" section of their character sheets as some kind of choice menu.
Considering that skill system is mostly used out of combat, in roleplaying situations - it felt like it was overly restricting. Furthermore, penalizing party for failures created a situation where players would pass on interesting ideas because their characters are unlikely to make the roll.
I also didn't quite like the way the skills were always tied to the same ability score. I liked World of Darkness system idea of combining skills with different abilities depending on the action performed. Think the episode in Terminator 2 when the machine cuts open his arm to remove the skin - that would be great example of Intimidate (CON) roll. Or scaring someone by punching a hole in a wall beside his head would be Intimidate (STR).
I think that ability checks could work for all 'skill' checks. But there are two things missing from that basic approach. The first is that some skills really do require learning and, secondly, people can get better with practice. But I think it's a very simple prospect to address both while still retaining the same mechanic. First is to have a small list of skills that require training (acrobatics, swimming, etc.). There would have to be a mechanic for limiting the number and types....
View full commentI think that ability checks could work for all 'skill' checks. But there are two things missing from that basic approach. The first is that some skills really do require learning and, secondly, people can get better with practice.
But I think it's a very simple prospect to address both while still retaining the same mechanic.
First is to have a small list of skills that require training (acrobatics, swimming, etc.). There would have to be a mechanic for limiting the number and types. It could be similar to any of the older systems, or like feats.
Second, the modifier would be the ability score modifier plus 1/2 the character's level or something similar. Yes, that means that somebody picking up the skill at 10th level would be as proficient as somebody who learned it at 1st level and is now 10th level. But for simplicity (and you could argue that a 10th level character could learn faster and more easily), this mechanic would work well.
Combining a question from another post, I do think that a 'skill feat' should be separate from choosing a 'combat feat'.
Although players in my campaigns learned that I don't always play to their strengths, and the environment is a powerful ally or enemy so they tended not to min/max on just combat abilities.
Except then You have to sacrifice your background and specialty choices just to approximate that class, rather than having an equal ability to explore different stories within the class as the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard do. NO WAY.
View full commentExcept then You have to sacrifice your background and specialty choices just to approximate that class, rather than having an equal ability to explore different stories within the class as the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard do.
I think in relation to paragraph 2 above, it would be awesome if a paladin had martial dice to use but instead of straight damage they could be used to provide effects based on deity choice. For example: I follow the edicts of a god of healing and as an option I can spend a martial die on a hit allowing the party member with the lowest HP to gain HP equal to a given modifier.
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