Griff and I were talking (alas, not over a D&D table) about the whole Shaman thing, where I feel that healing is the realm of clerics, but most everyone else disagrees. I mentioned that I was considering trying out a cleric/shaman hybrid build, just to see how much healing goodness could be squeezed out - Griff pointed out that there likely isn't that much demand in a party for that much healing, given that people have their Second Wind and their own store of healing surges.
While that's true, that everyone has a little innate healing, it still takes something to stimulate the use of a healing surge after the Second Wind has been used in battle, and in a tough fight, the defenders tend to absorb a lot of healing on behalf of the party, and thus need their extra healing surges (of which they tend to have many) activated quite often. My defense in going ahead with a cleric/shaman build is that this 'activation' is still very much a necessary function, and that anything that can alleviate damage without using a healing surge is also welcome -- temporary hitpoints, damage redirection, or "as if they used a healing surge" powers.
And from that, we realize that this is how 4e and 3.5 differ yet again. That in 3.5, the healing came solely from your divine spellcasters and the healing potions which everyone would try to stock up on. When the cleric ran out of spells, or everyone ran out of potions, it was time to head back to town and rest (okay, the arcane spellcaster might also have run out of spells).
This daily limitation in 4e, though, only exists in two places: Daily powers (including Utility powers that have Daily use, and magic items with Daily abilities) and each character's healing surge total. That's it -- everything else comes back when you're done the battle. And, as Griff recently commented, gaining another Daily or two as you advance means that you last even longer per-day, provided the healing surges last.
So, how often has your party had to stop for the day because everyone's exhausted their daily resources? We've done it a few times already, I'd say at least once per party level. Is it because we're all feeling weak because our squishy Daily power is no longer available? Perhaps once, but I'd say it's almost always when the party as a whole, or our target-practice paladin are out of healing surges.
And this is why I think there's still a place for the "party healer", provided that there are ways to help apart from allowing the others to use their healing surges. In fact, as the party cleric, I've never used all of my surges (using more than half only once), so a way to share my inner strength by allowing others to take my surge is, to me, a nice parallel for the divine energy that 3.5 clerics brought to their wounded comrades. Instead of asking my deity to heal my companion, I'm begging my god to take my sacrifice of my own reserves to further her divine plans through my fellow adventurer.
Amen.
Showing posts with label healing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label healing. Show all posts
Monday, August 10, 2009
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Shaman
Next up in the Preview series is the Shaman, a Primal Leader.
Right off the bat, I love the Companion Spirit. What has always attracted me to the Druid, even though I seldom took advantage of it, is the idea of animal companions, and the companion spirit fits with the whole idea of a totem for the shaman.
Only a few of the powers, the at-wills, focus on the companion, but all in all, it has a really nice feel to it; ever since we saw a bard (of all things) use a summoned animal to good effect, I've liked the idea of using them for combat, and not just spies or scouts.
What bothers me about the other powers, though, is the focus on healing. Not just healing, per se, but also temporary hit points and regeneration -- over all, the shaman has more healing and its ilk than the cleric, even down to the Healing Spirit power, similar to what the cleric, paladin and warlord have, to allow an ally to use a healing surge.
Perhaps this is my own issue, seeing healing as the realm of the cleric, with bit parts by other players. Yes, the 4e cleric is better balanced, no matter how you build him: healer, warrior and bane of the undead. And perhaps the vision of shaman brings to mind someone who heals the mind and soul, and thus it fits that they provide in this role, but I think you'd be hardpressed to find someone who didn't answer "cleric" to "who is the party's healer?" If that has officially changed, I want an announcement of some sort.
Right off the bat, I love the Companion Spirit. What has always attracted me to the Druid, even though I seldom took advantage of it, is the idea of animal companions, and the companion spirit fits with the whole idea of a totem for the shaman.
Only a few of the powers, the at-wills, focus on the companion, but all in all, it has a really nice feel to it; ever since we saw a bard (of all things) use a summoned animal to good effect, I've liked the idea of using them for combat, and not just spies or scouts.
What bothers me about the other powers, though, is the focus on healing. Not just healing, per se, but also temporary hit points and regeneration -- over all, the shaman has more healing and its ilk than the cleric, even down to the Healing Spirit power, similar to what the cleric, paladin and warlord have, to allow an ally to use a healing surge.
Perhaps this is my own issue, seeing healing as the realm of the cleric, with bit parts by other players. Yes, the 4e cleric is better balanced, no matter how you build him: healer, warrior and bane of the undead. And perhaps the vision of shaman brings to mind someone who heals the mind and soul, and thus it fits that they provide in this role, but I think you'd be hardpressed to find someone who didn't answer "cleric" to "who is the party's healer?" If that has officially changed, I want an announcement of some sort.
Sunday, June 22, 2008
Adventures in 4e
We finished our third session of 4th edition last night.
So far, this campaign has been very combat heavy, partly by the design of the module, but also based on the choices the players are making. This means we've been putting the combat system through the loops, and so far, I'd say it's standing up.
The issue of level one characters and their meager hit points in earlier editions (such as the ever-vulnerable wizards and sorcerers) is long gone, and good riddance. With the new starting hit points, everyone can take a smack or two. Granted, with the new role idea, the controllers such as the wizard really shouldn't be taking too many smacks anyway, with the defender supposed to be, well, defending, but everyone has their own play style, and it hasn't turned out dismally for that.
We've had a lot of close calls, a few characters on their way to dying, and I think all in all the level 1 encounters have been very balanced for how involved they have been. This last encounter had many more foes than you could ever shove into a 3rd edition encounter, no matter how small you made the enemies. This gives a very nice realism and flexibility that I've mentioned before -- early encounters are not limited to four or five maximum.
The healing issue is still a sticky point with me. It was nice that each character could use a second wind during the encounter, and Crwth the cleric expended every bit of healing magic he could muster -- which isn't much at first level. I suppose I need to remind myself that even in 3e, I wouldn't have that many Cure Light Wounds spells at my disposal either, so given the amount of damage being dealt to the party, I don't know that we would have fared any differently. Still, for a cleric, the iconic healer, to be able to do nothing for his party members except stabilize with a skill check that anyone might have made, it felt disappointing. Some sort of at-will gain-one-hitpoint power or something would be nice. As it is, the paladin is just going to rest there for a bit as she recoups.
I think action points have become welcome to everyone. In this last back-to-back set of battles, every character used an action point to persevere, which helped demonstrate the heroic nature of the party, beating all odds by tapping every resource they have. And tap they did -- I think every Daily and Encounter power was used up as well.
Some of the new combat rules were used effectively by both the enemy and the party. Using party members as cover for the strikers worked well, and the ability to knock a target unconscious with the final blow, instead of killing them outright, was also used -- perhaps a bit oversimplified, but definitely less of a hassle than trying to do subdual damage to accomplish the same thing in third edition.
The party also had their first skill challenge last night, which was barely successful. I can safely admit now that it was an impromptu one, not anticipated by the module, but which played out well, until someGriff who shall remain nameless got a bit greedy.
The talk of combat being faster, though, I do not agree with. There are still tactics to be decided, things to look up (even once it's a familiar ruleset, that won't fully go away), and other tricks (on the enemies' side) that prolong things just when the party thinks they're done. Even with a late start, the back-to-back combats lasted until after 2:00am.
All in all, a very accomplished night. The party has reached second level, which isn't as exciting as it was in older editions; no class-choosing, rank-ascribing, hit-point-rolling... everything is very simple -- too simple, in my opinion -- and quick. I planned the next 20 levels of Crwth in a few minutes, which does take a bit of fun out of it. One feat, one utility power, add some static hit points, and increasing a handful of values up by one. That's it!
So far, this campaign has been very combat heavy, partly by the design of the module, but also based on the choices the players are making. This means we've been putting the combat system through the loops, and so far, I'd say it's standing up.
The issue of level one characters and their meager hit points in earlier editions (such as the ever-vulnerable wizards and sorcerers) is long gone, and good riddance. With the new starting hit points, everyone can take a smack or two. Granted, with the new role idea, the controllers such as the wizard really shouldn't be taking too many smacks anyway, with the defender supposed to be, well, defending, but everyone has their own play style, and it hasn't turned out dismally for that.
We've had a lot of close calls, a few characters on their way to dying, and I think all in all the level 1 encounters have been very balanced for how involved they have been. This last encounter had many more foes than you could ever shove into a 3rd edition encounter, no matter how small you made the enemies. This gives a very nice realism and flexibility that I've mentioned before -- early encounters are not limited to four or five maximum.
The healing issue is still a sticky point with me. It was nice that each character could use a second wind during the encounter, and Crwth the cleric expended every bit of healing magic he could muster -- which isn't much at first level. I suppose I need to remind myself that even in 3e, I wouldn't have that many Cure Light Wounds spells at my disposal either, so given the amount of damage being dealt to the party, I don't know that we would have fared any differently. Still, for a cleric, the iconic healer, to be able to do nothing for his party members except stabilize with a skill check that anyone might have made, it felt disappointing. Some sort of at-will gain-one-hitpoint power or something would be nice. As it is, the paladin is just going to rest there for a bit as she recoups.
I think action points have become welcome to everyone. In this last back-to-back set of battles, every character used an action point to persevere, which helped demonstrate the heroic nature of the party, beating all odds by tapping every resource they have. And tap they did -- I think every Daily and Encounter power was used up as well.
Some of the new combat rules were used effectively by both the enemy and the party. Using party members as cover for the strikers worked well, and the ability to knock a target unconscious with the final blow, instead of killing them outright, was also used -- perhaps a bit oversimplified, but definitely less of a hassle than trying to do subdual damage to accomplish the same thing in third edition.
The party also had their first skill challenge last night, which was barely successful. I can safely admit now that it was an impromptu one, not anticipated by the module, but which played out well, until someGriff who shall remain nameless got a bit greedy.
The talk of combat being faster, though, I do not agree with. There are still tactics to be decided, things to look up (even once it's a familiar ruleset, that won't fully go away), and other tricks (on the enemies' side) that prolong things just when the party thinks they're done. Even with a late start, the back-to-back combats lasted until after 2:00am.
All in all, a very accomplished night. The party has reached second level, which isn't as exciting as it was in older editions; no class-choosing, rank-ascribing, hit-point-rolling... everything is very simple -- too simple, in my opinion -- and quick. I planned the next 20 levels of Crwth in a few minutes, which does take a bit of fun out of it. One feat, one utility power, add some static hit points, and increasing a handful of values up by one. That's it!
Monday, March 3, 2008
13 tips - feeling unlucky
Wow, only one post in February... short month or not, that's pretty bad.
But it looks like this past weekend has supplied a few tidbits to comment on. One is a two-page PDF for the D&D Experience 2008 event. It has a bunch of numbered points, so let's take a look.
1. Character roles are more clearly defined.
Yeah, we knew about the roles already, and I don't think there has been any more love fostered here on this blog about them. But, they're here to stay, so why waste any more breath, right? Okay, one more time: *grumble* stupid roles...
2. Powers give you more combat options.
We knew about the per-day/per-encounter/at-will powers, too, but the tip they give at the end -- that your at-will powers will frequently do more than a basic attack -- is interesting. It sounds like every action in combat has to be heroic now, and that you get shunned if you just swing a sword like some peasant child.
3. Attacker rolls against a static defense.
We've talked about this one, too, and I still think that saving throws represent something that a character is resisting, and thus it should be something that the player rolls when defending against the effect.
4. Standard, move, and minor actions.
I like the free actions being done out-of-turn; it makes sense that you can drop an item at any time, and that conversation can happen out-of-turn. We tried the strict interpretation of the 3.5 rules where you can only talk (bluster, threaten, surrender) on your turn, which led to some halted conversations.
5. Healing gets an overhaul.
I'm still against this. If I can only use "second wind" once per encounter, then just give me extra hitpoints or better AC out of the box, or something. I'm sure the NPCs never get second wind - is this supposed to represent the heroic nature of the PCs? Because they don't have enough advantages? Healing surges? I just don't get it. But I'm not going to go down the tough-shit-you're-the-cleric-now-do-your-job road again. Nope, not gonna do it.
6. Short and extended rests.
Finally, something I can accept! Well, except for the healing surges. Here's your definition of when an encounter has ended in terms of getting back the per-encounter powers. It's not clear what happens if you don't take the short rest -- does five minutes of walking not count as long enough between encounters to get them back? Is an hour long enough? Or if you're always on the move, is your whole day considered one long encounter?
7. Attack!
Nothing new here, except that they re-iterate that you'll likely use "basic attacks" only when you aren't allowed anything else, such as charging, attacks of opportunity, etc. Every other time you're likely to use at-will or per-encounter powers. Still sounds a bit overly heroic, but I'll give it a chance.
8. Action points give you an extra action.
I'm a bit back and forth about action points. We never used them as a variant in any of our games, but games that had them (d20 Modern, Eberron) we'd leave them (and forget to use them. These new ones are a little more powerful (an extra action instead of +1d6). II'm not sure I like the distribution of them, with these "milestones". It seems too plentiful. However, the fact that an extended rest resets them to 1 is good, so they don't accumulate, and this does give them a sense of a bonus if you soldier on in your quest -- perhaps "perseverance point" would be a better name. But these are still more plentiful than in other settings, and again are likely restricted to PCs -- more hero bonuses that I'm not sure are needed.
9. Movement is quick and easy.
Yeah, if you like squares. Since I'm pretty sure I've previously said I was going to stop bitching about the squares-not-feet thing, I'll just address the fact that it looks like a 5-foot adjustment (oops, 1-square adjustment) is now a move action. While you could never move and do a 5-foot (unless you're a dirty cheater), this doesn't seem like a change, but in 3.5, a move was a move-equivalent, and you could do your 5-foot and still do one of these equivalent actions. Perhaps the equivalents have all been moved to minor actions?
10. Saving throws are straightforward.
This goes back to #3 above, where I liked the old saving throw system. I see why they did it -- to simplify the math, and the system in general, but it still doesn't feel quite right.
11. Durations are easy to manage.
I like this. It makes me wonder about Acid Arrow, though ... has it become more or less powerful because of this?
12. Reach (usually) isn't as threatening.
My first thought was "boo", but then I saw that creatures can have "threatening reach". "Yay". You can't take away the idea that traipsing up to a giant or dragon should be folly! I guess we'll have to see who gets the threatening reach and who doesn't.
13. A trio of "c" rules you might want to know.
It's nice to see they pooled everything into "combat advantage". It makes a lot of the conditions in 3.5 (which always required flipping through the rulebooks) a lot easier.
It sounds like they simplified cover. It makes the game faster, I suppose, but I'm not sure about the loss of that touch of realism.
I've never liked the charging rule about having to go to the nearest square (even ignoring the "square" terminology - it's just too Miniatures-like). And now a charge is only +1? And only a basic attack? I'll have to see why you'd want to do it at all. Sure, it's a move and attack in one action, but... why only +1??
Overall, not too much to get excited about, except that they're finally spelling out some of the changes in nice, succinct lists.
But it looks like this past weekend has supplied a few tidbits to comment on. One is a two-page PDF for the D&D Experience 2008 event. It has a bunch of numbered points, so let's take a look.
1. Character roles are more clearly defined.
Yeah, we knew about the roles already, and I don't think there has been any more love fostered here on this blog about them. But, they're here to stay, so why waste any more breath, right? Okay, one more time: *grumble* stupid roles...
2. Powers give you more combat options.
We knew about the per-day/per-encounter/at-will powers, too, but the tip they give at the end -- that your at-will powers will frequently do more than a basic attack -- is interesting. It sounds like every action in combat has to be heroic now, and that you get shunned if you just swing a sword like some peasant child.
3. Attacker rolls against a static defense.
We've talked about this one, too, and I still think that saving throws represent something that a character is resisting, and thus it should be something that the player rolls when defending against the effect.
4. Standard, move, and minor actions.
I like the free actions being done out-of-turn; it makes sense that you can drop an item at any time, and that conversation can happen out-of-turn. We tried the strict interpretation of the 3.5 rules where you can only talk (bluster, threaten, surrender) on your turn, which led to some halted conversations.
5. Healing gets an overhaul.
I'm still against this. If I can only use "second wind" once per encounter, then just give me extra hitpoints or better AC out of the box, or something. I'm sure the NPCs never get second wind - is this supposed to represent the heroic nature of the PCs? Because they don't have enough advantages? Healing surges? I just don't get it. But I'm not going to go down the tough-shit-you're-the-cleric-now-do-your-job road again. Nope, not gonna do it.
6. Short and extended rests.
Finally, something I can accept! Well, except for the healing surges. Here's your definition of when an encounter has ended in terms of getting back the per-encounter powers. It's not clear what happens if you don't take the short rest -- does five minutes of walking not count as long enough between encounters to get them back? Is an hour long enough? Or if you're always on the move, is your whole day considered one long encounter?
7. Attack!
Nothing new here, except that they re-iterate that you'll likely use "basic attacks" only when you aren't allowed anything else, such as charging, attacks of opportunity, etc. Every other time you're likely to use at-will or per-encounter powers. Still sounds a bit overly heroic, but I'll give it a chance.
8. Action points give you an extra action.
I'm a bit back and forth about action points. We never used them as a variant in any of our games, but games that had them (d20 Modern, Eberron) we'd leave them (and forget to use them. These new ones are a little more powerful (an extra action instead of +1d6). II'm not sure I like the distribution of them, with these "milestones". It seems too plentiful. However, the fact that an extended rest resets them to 1 is good, so they don't accumulate, and this does give them a sense of a bonus if you soldier on in your quest -- perhaps "perseverance point" would be a better name. But these are still more plentiful than in other settings, and again are likely restricted to PCs -- more hero bonuses that I'm not sure are needed.
9. Movement is quick and easy.
Yeah, if you like squares. Since I'm pretty sure I've previously said I was going to stop bitching about the squares-not-feet thing, I'll just address the fact that it looks like a 5-foot adjustment (oops, 1-square adjustment) is now a move action. While you could never move and do a 5-foot (unless you're a dirty cheater), this doesn't seem like a change, but in 3.5, a move was a move-equivalent, and you could do your 5-foot and still do one of these equivalent actions. Perhaps the equivalents have all been moved to minor actions?
10. Saving throws are straightforward.
This goes back to #3 above, where I liked the old saving throw system. I see why they did it -- to simplify the math, and the system in general, but it still doesn't feel quite right.
11. Durations are easy to manage.
I like this. It makes me wonder about Acid Arrow, though ... has it become more or less powerful because of this?
12. Reach (usually) isn't as threatening.
My first thought was "boo", but then I saw that creatures can have "threatening reach". "Yay". You can't take away the idea that traipsing up to a giant or dragon should be folly! I guess we'll have to see who gets the threatening reach and who doesn't.
13. A trio of "c" rules you might want to know.
It's nice to see they pooled everything into "combat advantage". It makes a lot of the conditions in 3.5 (which always required flipping through the rulebooks) a lot easier.
It sounds like they simplified cover. It makes the game faster, I suppose, but I'm not sure about the loss of that touch of realism.
I've never liked the charging rule about having to go to the nearest square (even ignoring the "square" terminology - it's just too Miniatures-like). And now a charge is only +1? And only a basic attack? I'll have to see why you'd want to do it at all. Sure, it's a move and attack in one action, but... why only +1??
Overall, not too much to get excited about, except that they're finally spelling out some of the changes in nice, succinct lists.
Friday, December 21, 2007
Heals for everyone! Huzzah!
Just read over the free pdf on the 4e version of the cleric that was offered by WotC recently.
No real meat to it (ie, no stat blocks or tables, just vague essays) but it was enough to send Crwth and myself into panic mode. Maybe not "panic" mode, but some kind of mode for sure.
The one thing that struck me, and surprise surprise, ticked me off was that every class will get some limited self healing. The logic behind this new mechanic is apparently to free up the cleric to do other things.
Now, I've only really played one cleric and he was a reluctant healer at best, so for me "giving up a round" wasn't a big deal. I can however understand that players who run a cleric might resent doing nothing but cast healing spells round after round. It's the same thing with the Bard, where the first round or two is invariably "wasted" on casting buffs and singing.
Um, if you resent "wasting" actions on buffing and healing, then why the fuck are you playing a cleric or a bard? Are you fucking retarded?
In the PHB there are 11 core classes. The PHB2 has another half dozen or so. The Completes and other add on books throw even more classes into the pool. Surely amongst all that chum in the water players can find something that fits their play style and their idea of fun.
Personally, I'm in the "I hate wasting actions on healing chumps who shouldn't have gotten so badly hurt in the first place" boat. So I choose my classes accordingly. Luckily the others in our group seem to like being the support classes for my stealthy warriors and sorcerous blasters. Maybe I'm just lucky.
Still, if you're in a group where no one ever wants to play a cleric. A group full of Griffs for example (you lucky bastard, to be surrounded by such handsome and witty friends). Well, here's an idea. Play without one!
I know. I know. Years of MMORPGs and computer games have conditioned us into the false belief that no cleric = TPK. But guess what? DnD is not a MMO or video game.
At least it wasn't before 4th edition.
No real meat to it (ie, no stat blocks or tables, just vague essays) but it was enough to send Crwth and myself into panic mode. Maybe not "panic" mode, but some kind of mode for sure.
The one thing that struck me, and surprise surprise, ticked me off was that every class will get some limited self healing. The logic behind this new mechanic is apparently to free up the cleric to do other things.
Now, I've only really played one cleric and he was a reluctant healer at best, so for me "giving up a round" wasn't a big deal. I can however understand that players who run a cleric might resent doing nothing but cast healing spells round after round. It's the same thing with the Bard, where the first round or two is invariably "wasted" on casting buffs and singing.
Um, if you resent "wasting" actions on buffing and healing, then why the fuck are you playing a cleric or a bard? Are you fucking retarded?
In the PHB there are 11 core classes. The PHB2 has another half dozen or so. The Completes and other add on books throw even more classes into the pool. Surely amongst all that chum in the water players can find something that fits their play style and their idea of fun.
Personally, I'm in the "I hate wasting actions on healing chumps who shouldn't have gotten so badly hurt in the first place" boat. So I choose my classes accordingly. Luckily the others in our group seem to like being the support classes for my stealthy warriors and sorcerous blasters. Maybe I'm just lucky.
Still, if you're in a group where no one ever wants to play a cleric. A group full of Griffs for example (you lucky bastard, to be surrounded by such handsome and witty friends). Well, here's an idea. Play without one!
I know. I know. Years of MMORPGs and computer games have conditioned us into the false belief that no cleric = TPK. But guess what? DnD is not a MMO or video game.
At least it wasn't before 4th edition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
