Yeah, I guess the question is, are we getting rid of clerics because

• we just hate the specific archetype and the perceived "need" to force some of the players into it, or
• we don't like a "healer" archetype in general (and the need, etc.), or
• we don't like to spend character points or resources on "healing skills/spells" (and the need, etc.), or
• something else

Without changing the overall pace/intensity of combat, some of these can be addressed by having new PC archetypes, or moving healing abilities to other PC archetypes. Some can be partly addressed by having a general "bind wounds" concept, where you can recover some points after a fight. Even more if you explicitly define part of the HP pool as "fatigue" and allow it to be recovered quickly.

And finally you can have healing potions, available from NPC alchemists, while leaving the exact definition of hit points vague--i.e., regardless of how much physical damage is in a hit point, you aren't really seriously injured until you hit zero.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;631190Yeah, I guess the question is, are we getting rid of clerics because

• we just hate the specific archetype and the perceived "need" to force some of the players into it, or
• we don't like a "healer" archetype in general (and the need, etc.), or
• we don't like to spend character points or resources on "healing skills/spells" (and the need, etc.), or
• something else

Without changing the overall pace/intensity of combat, some of these can be addressed by having new PC archetypes, or moving healing abilities to other PC archetypes. Some can be partly addressed by having a general "bind wounds" concept, where you can recover some points after a fight. Even more if you explicitly define part of the HP pool as "fatigue" and allow it to be recovered quickly.

And finally you can have healing potions, available from NPC alchemists, while leaving the exact definition of hit points vague--i.e., regardless of how much physical damage is in a hit point, you aren't really seriously injured until you hit zero.

This is a good point.  

One thing that I did in my house rules for S&W (later incorporated into Crypts & Things) is to treat PC (and special NPC) hit points as 'exhaustion' (points lost for dodging blows, rolling with hits, etc.), which were easily recoverable with rest and even some 'strong drink'.  Real physical damage was applied to Constitution, and could be recovered only very slowly, or with magical healing (hit points, in contrast, could not be healed magically).  Most of the time PCs worried only about hit points, so this limited the necessity of magical healing.

Please allow me to throw out yet another mention of the superlative Crypts & Things. It was a surprise hit with my group and pretty much handles Barsoom/Carcosa/Dark Sun-style settings better than any other OSR game.

Quote from: Akrasia;631308This is a good point.

Glad you think so, because right after I wrote it I was afraid I was just lamely repeating points already made.

QuoteOne thing that I did in my house rules for S&W (later incorporated into Crypts & Things) is to treat PC (and special NPC) hit points as 'exhaustion' (points lost for dodging blows, rolling with hits, etc.), which were easily recoverable with rest and even some 'strong drink'.  Real physical damage was applied to Constitution, and could be recovered only very slowly, or with magical healing (hit points, in contrast, could not be healed magically).  Most of the time PCs worried only about hit points, so this limited the necessity of magical healing.

If you do this, then you have the option of using something like Dragonquest's encumbrance/movement/fatigue system. Cross index your encumbrance (based on STR and how much you carry) with how fast you travel overland, and that gives you the fatigue you expend per time unit. So if you force march all day carrying a heavy pack, you'll have fewer hit points to buffer you from real damage in a fight.

Depending on the effect you want, fatigue loss can be in absolute points or % of total or hit dice, etc.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630581That's a non-answer, since monsters and encounter balance in all editions of D&D have been designed with Clerics being present in mind.

What is this "encounter balance" you speak of?

Quote from: RandallS;631181Microlite74 Swords & Sorcery Edition has two classes: Adventurers and Sorcerers. It's free and can be downloaded from my Microlite74 site.

Came in to recommend this.

I think that so long as you provide alternatives to clerical healing (be it other classes with healing abilities, or magic, or enhanced healing rates), its not really "unbalancing" to get rid of clerics.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630581That's a non-answer, since monsters and encounter balance in all editions of D&D have been designed with Clerics being present in mind.

Ho. Ho. Ho.

Encounter balance is about as useful as bantha fodder.

Ho Ho Ho.

Encounter balance = whatever the PCs think they have the balls to defeat.
Sometimes they are right, and sometimes [dead] wrong.

This is the fun of the game.

You can play ACKS without Clerics and Mages. For a swords and sorcery feel, just restrict play to the following classes:

Core: Assassin, Barbarian, Bard, Explorer, Fighter, Mystic, Shaman, Thief, Venturer, Warlock, Witch, Zaharan Ruinguard

In terms of swords-and-sorcery genre emulation, this class selection has several benefits:
1) No classes can turn undead and the "Restore Life and Limb" spell never becomes available;
2) Mages are replaced by spooky Warlocks. That means Fireball and Lightning Bolt become an order of magnitude rarer (7th level versus 5th level caster).
3). The Zaharan Ruinguard can fill the "Elric"-style swordmage niche, with a suitably dark feel.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;631190Yeah, I guess the question is, are we getting rid of clerics because

• we just hate the specific archetype and the perceived "need" to force some of the players into it, or
• we don't like a "healer" archetype in general (and the need, etc.), or
• we don't like to spend character points or resources on "healing skills/spells" (and the need, etc.), or
• something else

Without changing the overall pace/intensity of combat, some of these can be addressed by having new PC archetypes, or moving healing abilities to other PC archetypes. Some can be partly addressed by having a general "bind wounds" concept, where you can recover some points after a fight. Even more if you explicitly define part of the HP pool as "fatigue" and allow it to be recovered quickly.

And finally you can have healing potions, available from NPC alchemists, while leaving the exact definition of hit points vague--i.e., regardless of how much physical damage is in a hit point, you aren't really seriously injured until you hit zero.

I have another one which is why we did it.
We dislike magical healing and wanted to get rid of it.

In the fiction magical healing is incredibly rare and I can think of no instances where a 'healer' wanders round casually dispensing miracluous cure alls. You get balms that aid healing, you get the ocassional mystical saint type charcter mostly the heroes who get wounded get stitched up and slowly get better.

So if you decide to get rid of magical healing them you really have to think of what HP mean. the game as written needs magical healing because as characters level they get lots of HP but they are supposed to loose them a major fight is supposed to push that number to its limit becuase that is how the numbers are written A Giant will hit an 8th level fighter 1/2 of ther time and each blow will do 2d10 +4 damage (or whatever). As D&D went down that route the magical healer and the potion of healing became a trope not a trope to support the genre and immersion but one to support the emergent game play.

So we went back to basics and the solution HP as fatigue along with actual physical damage we came up with was much like Akrasia's solution.

Quote from: Mistwell;631400What is this "encounter balance" you speak of?

It is the attempt, made via the rules, to have the characters fight everything they encounter. I.e. no more "HOLY SHIT, THEY ARE CTHULHU AND HIS BRO!!! -------> Find a FAST way to cut the corner" mental-fatiguing situations.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;630581That's a non-answer, since monsters and encounter balance in all editions of D&D have been designed with Clerics being present in mind.

Have you tried it?  I did.  For a four year campaign.  It worked great.   Healing potions from alchemists.  It isn't a non-answer.  It's the answer given by people who were running some version of this game long before it became the "please game company, spoon feed me everything I need so I don't have to think about how to play" versions.

Quote from: Veilheim;632651Have you tried it?  I did.  For a four year campaign.  It worked great.   Healing potions from alchemists.  It isn't a non-answer.  It's the answer given by people who were running some version of this game long before it became the "please game company, spoon feed me everything I need so I don't have to think about how to play" versions.

No, I haven't, I'm glad I asked here though. What level did you play up to? What edition? That'd be interesting for an experiment. Please, share your experiences.

Quote from: Just Another Snake Cult;631319Please allow me to throw out yet another mention of the superlative Crypts & Things. It was a surprise hit with my group and pretty much handles Barsoom/Carcosa/Dark Sun-style settings better than any other OSR game.

Awesome!

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;633250No, I haven't, I'm glad I asked here though. What level did you play up to? What edition? That'd be interesting for an experiment. Please, share your experiences.

Offhand, I can only recall 3 clerics in all of the campaigns I've played or DMed over the past 20-something years, and the gnome died after a fairly short career.  Not sure what you are looking for in experiences, different party compositions approach things differently.  A party of a 2 thieves, an assassin, and a monk will not be doing the same things as a party of 2 fighters, a cleric, and a wizard.