Quote from: BedrockBrendan;629499I think this is the most significant thing if his information is accurate. I have always felt it wasn't a problem at all, but I assumed, judging by the comments I see on forums, that it was at least a problem lots of players felt was genuine. Now I think this may be one of those things where the impression online just didn't match the reality of what was going on at peoples' tables (not that there weren't people unhappy with healing, just that it wasn't this widespread problem posters made it out to be).

I think i've run into it once where a player wasn't pleased with what he said was "having to play a Cleric because we haven't got one." Of course, everyone told him to play what he wanted.

That's once in 30 years.

Having said that, of course having a Cleric with healing powers is important. Without him, your combat-endurance is reduced.

This is not really any different than not having one of the other 3 main classes represented. Don't have an MU? Well, your versatility is reduced. Don't have a Thief, that's potentially your treasure/xp gathering reduced. No Fighters? Well, that's your front-line protection and melee capability reduced.

yet, i never hear people complaining that those classes are 'mandatory.'

For whatever reason, there's a sub-set of players who seem to ignore the fact that the Cleric is a passable combatant, has turning, not to mention other utility spells. No, he's a heal-bot and that's interfering with my snowflake-ism.

Quote from: One Horse Town;629534For whatever reason, there's a sub-set of players who seem to ignore the fact that the Cleric is a passable combatant, has turning, not to mention other utility spells. No, he's a heal-bot and that's interfering with my snowflake-ism.

It is the same sub-set that proclaims that the Bard is useless.

Quote from: Benoist;629533Nah you're not odd. I'm in the same boat, and the Cleric's never been an "underplayed" character at my tables. I'd say it's actually a pretty popular class in my corner of the woods, in fact.

I can honestly say the "Nobody wants to play the cleric" meme is one I've only ever encountered online and in jokes.

That's gaming in various cities across three continents.

Not claiming to be an expert but I suspect the magnitude of this "problem" is greatly magnified by the internet.

Quote from: Mistwell;629527I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

I *liked* healing people in combat.  I liked being able to fight, clunking around in plate armor, dishing out some damage (though not as well as the fighter).  I liked making sure everyone stayed on their feet.  I liked having to move between allies, having specialization against undead, having unusual weapons that other players never used, having special knowledge of religions that others did not, and having some unique spells that in the right circumstances could result in miracles.

And I liked the role playing opportunities a cleric presents as well.  Every town seemed to have some difficult conflicts and challenges surrounding religion and religious competition, and the cleric was always in the thick of those intrigues.  Many a farm and rural encounter needed disease curing, or food or water creation, or healing, or the removal of a curse.  And almost every dungeon seemed to have an evil religion involved, and I enjoyed being on the front line in the clash between my religious views and theirs.  I liked having a built-in philosophical driver for my character in my deity's views, and I liked the potential to struggle with conflict between my character's history and evolution and changes and the static nature of his religion.

I get that many don't like Clerics.  But dammit, I do.  Long live the Cleric!

Fucking word, dude.

Clerics rock.  My favorite D&D class, hands down.

I can't remember who said it earlier, but it's a point worth repeating.  If your healing options are limited, that's only an issue if you spend all your time fighting everything you come across.

I think that illustrates a big difference between 4e and previous editions.  It seems that 4e players spend the vast majority of gameplay combat.  A tactical boardgame if you will.  Of course having multiple healing options are going to be important there.

But they need to realize that D&D, heck RPGs general, are a lot more than moving game pieces in combat.  Just look at the difference:

AD&D
DM: You peer around the corner and see a half dozen bugbears at a table, enjoying a feast of some sort of meat and engaging in crude banter.  There is an exit at the far end of the room where you need to go.
Thief: Ok.  Ragnar and Illustran, you go around the corner down the passage to the east.  I'll lure them out and go to the west, and hide and let them pass.  We'll then go into the room while they're gone.
--scenario is quickly played out, hopefully with a successful HiS check

4e:
DM: You peer around the corner, and this is what you see. (spends 3 minutes placing tiles of a battlemap and then placing the bugbear minis.  How are you guys situated?
Players: spends 2 minutes placing their minis on the battlemap
Thief: Ok.  Ragnar and Illustran, you go around the corner down the passage to the east.  I'll lure them out and go to the west, and hide and let them pass.  We'll then go into the room while they're gone.
Round 1: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 2: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 3: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate, thief is now around the corner and says he will try to hide in shadows
Round 4: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate.  DM rolls check to see of bugbears see thief.  They do not
Round 5-10: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate. repeat
---a brief moment of silence---
Player B: Well, that was sort of boring and time consuming.  Next time we fight!
DM:  Yeah, I had all the proper minis and everything.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;6295394e:
DM: You peer around the corner, and this is what you see. (spends 3 minutes placing tiles of a battlemap and then placing the bugbear minis.  How are you guys situated?
Players: spends 2 minutes placing their minis on the battlemap
Thief: Ok.  Ragnar and Illustran, you go around the corner down the passage to the east.  I'll lure them out and go to the west, and hide and let them pass.  We'll then go into the room while they're gone.
Round 1: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 2: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate
Round 3: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate, thief is now around the corner and says he will try to hide in shadows
Round 4: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate.  DM rolls check to see of bugbears see thief.  They do not
Round 5-10: everyone takes a minute and moves their movement rate. repeat
---a brief moment of silence---
Player B: Well, that was sort of boring and time consuming.  Next time we fight!
DM:  Yeah, I had all the proper minis and everything.

To be fair, that's how 3e usually played out as well.  Heck, when the DM had the right lead figures, that's sometimes how 1e played out for us too (though usually not our Basic and Expert games).  I don't see any of that as unique to 4e.

See, I remember being in Middle and High School in the 80's and we would watch televangelists and then mock them using our clerics in game.

Healing would involve a slap for 1-2 points of subdual damage while proclaiming "Odin the All-Father heals you for *rolls dice* 8 points of damage!" and then the rest of the group would chorus "Praise Odin!"

"If I don't come back with at least a thousand gold, then Odin will kill me!" was usually said while walking into a dungeon.

I can't remember anyone ever complaining about playing a cleric.

Quote from: Mistwell;629542To be fair, that's how 3e usually played out as well.  Heck, when the DM had the right lead figures, that's sometimes how 1e played out for us too (though usually not our Basic and Expert games).  I don't see any of that as unique to 4e.

Because 4e (and to an extent 3e as well) makes having minis as a sort of a requirement to play.  99% of my usage of minis in AD&D was just for general location representation and who's attacking who.  5' movement squares and such were never part of the game, and not required to play the game.  4e has the core ruleset dependent on them.  So the same scenario that takes 1 minute to resolve in AD&D takes several minutes using 4e/3e.  Resulting in more of your gameplay spent in an "combat mode" rather than doing other things, like exploration or interaction.

I do remember people complaining about playing a cleric - which is how I ended up first playing clerics.  I didn't know I'd enjoy it, until I did it.  I think that's perhaps the greatest weakness of the cleric - it does not have the instant easy marketing that "Slash things with big sword" or "Blast things with fireball" or "Backstab things and steal their stuff" does.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629546Because 4e (and to an extent 3e as well) makes having minis as a sort of a requirement to play.  99% of my usage of minis in AD&D was just for general location representation and who's attacking who.  5' movement squares and such were never part of the game, and not required to play the game.  4e has the core ruleset dependent on them.  So the same scenario that takes 1 minute to resolve in AD&D takes several minutes using 4e/3e.  Resulting in more of your gameplay spent in an "combat mode" rather than doing other things, like exploration or interaction.

3e did as well, just as much as 4e.  4e combats took longer to resolve on average, but they always had that high detail of grid-type combat.  I played a lot more 3e than 4e, and I never once saw it played without detailed movement and range rules that slowed things down just like described above.

I saw plenty of AD&D miniature/battle grid combat as well.  As DMs got more cool miniatures, they wanted to use them more.  As more interesting magic items with ranges or movement were involved, the battle grid came out more often as well.  

I think it's shortsighted to say that D&D is historically a verbal-only game when it came to combat.  It's not.  It could be done that way, but I'd say a majority of the games ever played of D&D involved some sort of battle grid and miniatures or other tokens to represent the players and their foes and movement and range.  Miniatures were an important sales point for TSR from early on, and other companies that supported D&D.  The game was based on a wargame to begin with.  The rules frequently supported such type of play, and as more supplements came out over time that focus increased rather than decreasing.  They wanted you to use that carrion crawler miniature.  They wanted you to use that baggage-carrying follower.  They even wanted you to start using set pieces like chests of gold. TSR, from the early days, wanted players using miniatures in combat.

Quote from: Mistwell;629553but I'd say a majority of the games ever played of D&D involved some sort of battle grid and miniatures or other tokens to represent the players and their foes and movement and range.  

I disagree.  I know this is only anecdotal, but I'd say 95% of everyone I gamed with since 1981 to today (still playing AD&D) never used minis any more than rough representations of marching order and to keep track of where and how many monsters there were.  Seeing as how I spent 6 years in the military where new gamers came and went like clockwork, my sample size includes hundreds of gamers.

I know that's anecdotal, but still.  Hell, I have hundreds of minis, but have them because I like them and I like to paint them.  Not because I use them for in-depth tactical movement rules like in 3e and 4e.  If fact, several months ago on this very forum I mentioned how our group played 3e for the first time, and we ignored most of those rules and didn't play with minis at all.

Quote from: Mistwell;629527I must be odd, because some of my most memorable, favorite characters that I played were clerics, even in combat.  

I *liked* healing people in combat.  I liked being able to fight, clunking around in plate armor, dishing out some damage (though not as well as the fighter).  I liked making sure everyone stayed on their feet.  I liked having to move between allies, having specialization against undead, having unusual weapons that other players never used, having special knowledge of religions that others did not, and having some unique spells that in the right circumstances could result in miracles.

And I liked the role playing opportunities a cleric presents as well.  Every town seemed to have some difficult conflicts and challenges surrounding religion and religious competition, and the cleric was always in the thick of those intrigues.  Many a farm and rural encounter needed disease curing, or food or water creation, or healing, or the removal of a curse.  And almost every dungeon seemed to have an evil religion involved, and I enjoyed being on the front line in the clash between my religious views and theirs.  I liked having a built-in philosophical driver for my character in my deity's views, and I liked the potential to struggle with conflict between my character's history and evolution and changes and the static nature of his religion.

I get that many don't like Clerics.  But dammit, I do.  Long live the Cleric!

Preach it brother! Cleric is one of my favorite classes.

Quote from: One Horse Town;629534I think i've run into it once where a player wasn't pleased with what he said was "having to play a Cleric because we haven't got one." Of course, everyone told him to play what he wanted.

That's once in 30 years.

Having said that, of course having a Cleric with healing powers is important. Without him, your combat-endurance is reduced.

This is not really any different than not having one of the other 3 main classes represented. Don't have an MU? Well, your versatility is reduced. Don't have a Thief, that's potentially your treasure/xp gathering reduced. No Fighters? Well, that's your front-line protection and melee capability reduced.

yet, i never hear people complaining that those classes are 'mandatory.'

For whatever reason, there's a sub-set of players who seem to ignore the fact that the Cleric is a passable combatant, has turning, not to mention other utility spells. No, he's a heal-bot and that's interfering with my snowflake-ism.

I think there is nothing wrong with needing a cleric to get regular healing like that. And I say that as someone who has enjoyed all fighter or all wizard games. Half the point of such a campaign, is you are missing a crucial resource, and you need to work around it somehow. To me, when you insert a mechanic specifically to get around a perceived pacing issue or class limitation issue, it really feels forced and artificial to me.

Quote from: Piestrio;629536I can honestly say the "Nobody wants to play the cleric" meme is one I've only ever encountered online and in jokes.

That's gaming in various cities across three continents.

Not claiming to be an expert but I suspect the magnitude of this "problem" is greatly magnified by the internet.

I think the internet is a huge part of it.

One thing we ought to keep in mind, while there is a lot of support for what mearls is saying here, looking around the other forums it is getting quite an intense backlash from many of the modern design proponents. I definitely think if you like them going in this direction, make a point of sending wizards a message so they know how you feel. If all they see is backlash, they might not realize how many people are cool with this change.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;629558I disagree.  I know this is only anecdotal, but I'd say 95% of everyone I gamed with since 1981 to today (still playing AD&D) never used minis any more than rough representations of marching order and to keep track of where and how many monsters there were.  Seeing as how I spent 6 years in the military where new gamers came and went like clockwork, my sample size includes hundreds of gamers.

I know that's anecdotal, but still.  Hell, I have hundreds of minis, but have them because I like them and I like to paint them.  Not because I use them for in-depth tactical movement rules like in 3e and 4e.  If fact, several months ago on this very forum I mentioned how our group played 3e for the first time, and we ignored most of those rules and didn't play with minis at all.

OD&D of course was a miniatures game, using Chainmail miniatures rules for combat.

Then from Basic edition:

QuoteMINIATURE FIGURES: D&D adventures are more interesting to play when figures are used. Metal miniatures (about 15 to 25 millimeters high) are often used, for they can be easily painted to look like real dungeon adventurers. Many excellent figures are designed specially for fantasy role playing games. These are available from TSR or from local hobby stores. If metal miniatures cost more than the players want to spend, many companies make inexpensive packs of plastic figures. These are not specifically made for fantasy role playing, but can easily be adapted for it. Inexpensive plastic monsters of many sizes are also available in local stores. (page B61)

FIGURES: If miniature figures are used to represent the characters, the players should choose figures which look like their characters, and should make sure that the DM knows which miniatures represent which characters. The miniature figures should be lined up in the same order as the marching order. When special situations occur, the players should change the position of their figures as they desire. File cards with names on them, pawns, and other markers may be used instead of miniatures, or the marching order may simply be written on a piece of paper. (page B19)

USING FIGURES: Miniature figures are useful during combat for both the DM and the players, so that they may "see" what is happening. If miniatures are not being used, the DM should draw on a piece of paper, or use something (dice work nicely) to represent the characters in place of miniature figures. (page B26)

SCALE MOVEMENT: If miniature figures are used, the actual movement of the characters can be represented at the scale of one inch equals ten feet. A movement rate of 60' per turn would mean that a miniature figure would move 6 inches in that turn. Scale movement is useful for moving the figures on a playing surface (such as a table). (page B19)

PLAYING SURFACE: Combats are easy to keep track of when large sheets of graph paper, covered with plexiglass or transparent adhesive plastic (contact paper) are used to put the figures on. The best sheets for this use have 1" squares, and the scale of 1" = 5' should be used when moving the figures. With water-based markers or grease pencils, an entire room or battle can be drawn in just a few seconds. When the battle is over, the board may be wiped off, leaving it ready for the next combat. Dominoes or plastic building blocks can also be used to outline walls and corridors. When using figures, the DM should make sure that a solid table top is used, so the figures won't fall over when the table is bumped. (page B61)

And from the AD&D DMG:

QuoteThe special figures cast for Advanced Dungeons & Dragons add color to play and make refereeing far easier. Each player might be required to furnish painted figures representing his or her player character and all henchmen and/or hirelings included in the game session. Such distinctively painted figures enable you to immediately recognize each individual involved. Figures can be placed so as to show their order of march, i.e., which characters are in the lead, which are in the middle, and which are bringing up the rear. Furthermore, players are more readily able to visualize their array and plan actions while seeing the reason for your restrictions on their actions. Monster figures are likewise most helpful, as many things become instantly apparent when a party is arrayed and their monster opponent(s) placed.

Be very careful to purchase castings which are in scale! ... As a rule of thumb, HO scale is 25mm = 1 actual inch = 6' in scale height or length or breadth. ... Figure bases are necessarily broad in order to assure that the figures will stand in the proper position and not constantly be falling over. Because of this, it is usually necessary to use a ground scale twice that of the actual scale for HO, and squares of about 1 actual inch per side are suggested. Each ground scale inch can then be used to equal 3 1/3 linear feet, so a 10' wide scale corridor is 3 actual inches in width and shown as 3 separate squares. ... Be certain to remember that ground scale differs from figure scale, and when dealing with length, two man-sized figures per square is quite possible, as the space is actually 6 scale feet with respect to length. This is meaningful when attacking a snake, dragon, etc., if characters are able to attack the creature's body length. With respect to basically bipedal, erect opponents, scale will not be a factor.

I would actually say that the emphasis on the use of miniatures decreased with 2e.  And then of course it was quite increased with 3e.