The Cleric (Templar)

[Anonomuss]

So... Wizards just released the class compendium update for the cleric (http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dra/201105templar). Can anyone say nerf?

The general approach to the class is reduce the size of bursts and reduce the damage on many powers across the board. The only positive addition made was giving Nimbus of Doom a miss effect.

Not really very impressed with it, never really regarded the Cleric's damage output as being too great.
Upset about no longer being able to move consecrated ground, but it does mean its no longer the encounter-changer it once was.

[artstsym]

Well ok some of these actually needed to be nerfed either due to misspellings or just plain accidents. In the end I suppose they probably felt that the cleric did a better job at controlling that most controllers, especially with all of those zones they could keep moving around.

Don't get me wrong, some of them are stupid (turn undead was clearly nerfed because no other channel divinity is nearly as powerful, but for a reason), but I do agree that a lot of these needed to be fixed.

The only thing I dislike is the number of powers that have had "enemy" changed to "creature". That is not how clerics generally work because it makes it that much harder for allies to maneuver.

[Kurald Galain]

In the end I suppose they probably felt that the cleric did a better job at controlling that most controllers,
If so, then they really have no idea what they're talking about. "Control" does not mean "area effect damage", and a cleric can in no way substitute for a real controller.

Yes, Consecrated Ground needed a nerf because it's a heroic spell that wins an encounter all by itself. The rest of the nerfs I see as unreasonable.

Hm, the WOTC forums seem to have a strong negative reaction to this errata. Why am I not surprised? :smallamused:

[artstsym]

Less damage I can safely say was a poor choice on wizards part. Less area, not so much, especially when you take into consideration the general ally avoiding that most cleric powers do. Rather than needing forced movement for maximum effect, you'd just have all of your allies go toe to toe with the enemy and nuke them where they stand (with none of the usual fiery repercussions). That's the idea behind a lot of these.

That said, I agree that they've gone overboard with making sure the cleric can't match the wizard "on paper" (yeah, I was on the forums as well. Not a happy crowd). Hopefully they'll realize the mistake and throw in a few fixes, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Lord Ascapelion]

To be fair, a good chunk of the nerfs (especially to stuff like Firestorm and Flame Strike) made absolutely no sense. No really sure why they did that at all.

[evirus]

I haven't seen the whole list yet (nor have I ever played a cleric).

But if they did change a lot of the powers to creatures instead of enemies, wouldn't it make sense to lower damage so you could still include allies in the bursts?

[Kurald Galain]

But if they did change a lot of the powers to creatures instead of enemies, wouldn't it make sense to lower damage so you could still include allies in the bursts?

I don't think that works well. Monsters have several times as many hit points as PCs, so an attack that deals damage to both is rarely a good trade-off.

[Doug Lampert]

I don't think that works well. Monsters have several times as many hit points as PCs, so an attack that deals damage to both is rarely a good trade-off.

They have several times as many HP? Only if you are fighting elites and solos or grossly overleveled foes (or incorporeals or regenerating or something similar).

Monsters do have more HP, but not several times as many.

A "typical" standard monster at level N has 8(N+1)+Con HP. For "typical" Con of 10+level/2, this comes to 8.5N+18.

A "typical" PC at level N has 12+5(N-1)+Con HP and Con of 10+1/tier and probably gets Toughness sometime prior to Paragon. So Heroic without toughness: 5N+17; Paragon: 5N+28; Epic: 5N+34

The worst this ever gets is level 10, where the monster has 103 HP to the PCs 67 (assuming the PC doesn't have toughness by level 10), that's barely over 50% more, a fairly typical healing word will make up the difference.

If you are a barbarian or a melee ranger or take toughness by level 8 your character may well never face an equal level standard non-brute with as much as 50% more HP, never mind several times as many.

Now, area attacks probably aren't great choices vs. elites and solos unless they inflict significant status effects. But standards simply don't have significantly more effective HP than PCs once you start taking healing powers into account.

Mind: I'll agree that nearly equal HP still says a power that hits allies as hard as enemies is a poor choice.

[evirus]

I don't think that works well. Monsters have several times as many hit points as PCs, so an attack that deals damage to both is rarely a good trade-off.

It doesn't need to be a "good" trade off, it just needs to remain viable and make the cleric have to think aboutusing his powers like most other classes.

But again, I've never played a Cleric so I don't know how much my opinion makes sense (or even matters).

[MeeposFire]

I am not a fan of most of the changes mostly because they did not make those powers more leader oriented. If they gave the powers a leader effect it would have been worth while. This was sort of like a half done job. They removed some controller but forgot to add the leader part.

Also don't miss the randomly done stealth eratta for divine oracle.

[Kylarra]

Can't see the pdf from work. What's the DO errata? :smallfrown:

[Kurald Galain]

Can't see the pdf from work. What's the DO errata? :smallfrown:
That it only applies to Cleric and DO powers (just like e.g. the Daggermaster errata).

[Reluctance]

Is this listed somewhere else? Terrifying Insight was the real DO workhorse ability, it's not mentioned in the errata only, and a direct copy from the PDF goes:
Benefit: When you make an attack roll against Will, you can roll twice and use the higher result. If you do so and the attack misses, you are dazed until the end of your next turn.No mention of any cleric-only restrictions.

[Kurald Galain]

Is this listed somewhere else? Terrifying Insight was the real DO workhorse ability, it's not mentioned in the errata only, and a direct copy from the PDF goes:No mention of any cleric-only restrictions.
Well, it's a bit confusing. Apparently it's in the character builder, but custserv denies that it's official right now while implying that it will become official soon (probably in the big errata planned for June).

The apparent pattern is that WOTC doesn't like it if one of the best options for a given class is a paragon path from some other class (Divine Oracle is great for wizards; it's okay but not stellar for clerics).

[Reverent-One]

Having looked through the list and taken a look at some of the other options the cleric has at those levels, while I don't necessarily see why they really felt the need to nerf most of those powers, I also don't think they've been made underpowered either.

[Blackfang108]

Having looked through the list and taken a look at some of the other options the cleric has at those levels, while I don't necessarily see why they really felt the need to nerf most of those powers, I also don't think they've been made underpowered either.

Yeah. Over on the WotC forums, you'd think the Rapture was coming on Saturday.:smallbiggrin: :smallsigh: :smallamused:

The Cleric wasn't made unplayable. It's still a solid class with an extremely good ability to heal. exactly two feats don't work with Healing Word.

Whop-dee-do.

[Reverent-One]

Yeah. Over on the WotC forums, you'd think the Rapture was coming on Saturday.:smallbiggrin: :smallsigh: :smallamused:

The Cleric wasn't made unplayable. It's still a solid class with an extremely good ability to heal. exactly two feats don't work with Healing Word.

Whop-dee-do.

Actually, if the healing word lacking a divine keyword thing sticks around (it's not mentioned in the Updates document, so I'm a bit confused about that), that's one of the things from this update that I think they actually screwed up on. It makes no sense for the Cleric's healing power to NOT be divine and really should be boosted by any healing boosting feats the cleric picks up.

[Blackfang108]

Actually, if the healing word lacking a divine keyword thing sticks around (it's not mentioned in the Updates document, so I'm a bit confused about that), that's one of the things from this update that I think they actually screwed up on. It makes no sense for the Cleric's healing power to NOT be divine and really should be boosted by any healing boosting feats the cleric picks up.

At the same time, it doesn't make the cleric unplayable, and it doesn't make the cleric suck.

I repeat my previous post.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah. Over on the WotC forums, you'd think the Rapture was coming on Saturday.:smallbiggrin: :smallsigh: :smallamused:
Yeah, that happens every saturday. Over here, we have Monkday; over at WOTC, we have "oh noes teh game is riuned forevar!!!1!" day.

They could take Assassin's Point (a power that is used extremely rarely, because 1.it's a daily, 2.it's level 29, and 3.it's just not very good) and reduce it from 7[W] to 6[W], and people would exclaim that the rogue is now unplayable. Yeah...

[Lord Ascapelion]

Yeah. Over on the WotC forums, you'd think the Rapture was coming on Saturday.:smallbiggrin: :smallsigh: :smallamused:

The Cleric wasn't made unplayable. It's still a solid class with an extremely good ability to heal. exactly two feats don't work with Healing Word.

Whop-dee-do.

It still doesn't make the nerfs they did do make any sense. The powers they nerfed weren't exactly over-the-top, so there was pretty much no point. It doesn't particularly bother me, individually, but I just find it silly that they'd feel the need to nerf stuff like that... makes me worry about the Warlock, which is what I'm currently playing...

[darkdragoon]

The change to Healing Word is not listed in the class change. Hopefully they either goofed on the Templar, or are changing the Warpriest's as well, as it makes no sense to have two versions of the same class with the same class power having different keywords for it.

[Nu]

Eh, the most powerful cleric options from Divine Power wee untouched, so this hardly renders the cleric unplayable.

I don't really understand the reasoning behind this wave of nerf, however. Seems awfully silly to me. It's not as if the powers they did nerf were extremely unbalancing, and it does LOOK awfully bad when your whole list of updates is basically "reduced X to X-2, changed targets enemies to target creatures."

[ashmanonar]

If so, then they really have no idea what they're talking about. "Control" does not mean "area effect damage", and a cleric can in no way substitute for a real controller.

Yes, Consecrated Ground needed a nerf because it's a heroic spell that wins an encounter all by itself. The rest of the nerfs I see as unreasonable.

Hm, the WOTC forums seem to have a strong negative reaction to this errata. Why am I not surprised? :smallamused:

The WOTC forums have a strong negative reaction to everything and everyone, so this is nothing new.

[WickerNipple]

There's a few sky-is-fallers over there, but most of the complaints read as legitimate this time to me.

No, clerics haven't been made 'underpowered' overall, but it boggles the mind why anyone considered them to be worthy of a nerf in the first place when they're widely considered one of the lesser Leaders.

They chose to take away one of the few things Cleric had that made it unique to other leaders and gave it a solid niche (party friendly AoE) and replaced that with nothing. Turn Undead is now worse than Invoker/Avenger equivalents.

They took away the Divine keyword from Healing Word, breaking feats clerics need to even be mildly superior healers. Healing Word - their signature power - is now the only power in a cleric's arsenal that lacks the Divine keyword. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

They buffed Strength clerics in several good ways, but not enough imo to make up for all the problems inherent in that build. And again ~ those fixes don't provide anything to make the cleric more Leadery and make up for the secondary ability (pseudo-controlling) that they lost. The Runepriest is still a much better melee divine leader.

Yes, it is still perfectly viable to play Cleric. But no, no one with any sense will now look at a leaderless party and decide a ranged Cleric best compliments that party mechanically. It's unlikely they would have done that before anyway ~ so why is a nerf possibly in order?

[Reverent-One]

They took away the Divine keyword from Healing Word, breaking feats clerics need to even be mildly superior healers. Healing Word - their signature power - is now the only power in a cleric's arsenal that lacks the Divine keyword. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Given that the update document does not include that change, I'm not sure whether they did or not. It could be a typo.

[WickerNipple]

It is definitely not a typo - they did it to streamline Healing Word across classes (the Sentinel, a Primal class has the same power).

Whether they fully intended the consequences of that or were even aware of them is the real question ~ and a lot of people's genuine concern.

[Reverent-One]

It is definitely not a typo - they did it to streamline Healing Word across classes (the Sentinel, a Primal class has the same power).

And a primal class logically shouldn't have the Divine keyword in that power. The only way to say it definitely wasn't a typo is if it was included in the update documents, which it wasn't. As it stands now, the Divine keyword has yet to be officially removed from the PHB I Cleric's healing word.

[Zaq]

Huh. I haven't spent much time on the WotC forums since my group went into Eternal October (haven't really followed the new options very closely, since we're done paying for DDI for now and mostly just use the offline builder options), so forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought that the Cleric was considered the strongest leader after the Warlord? I'm not sure where the "already weak and now weaker" sentiment is coming from.

I still don't think it deserved those nerfs (most of them seem pretty arbitrary and pointless to my untrained eye, especially the nerf to Turn Undead), of course. I've only seen a Cleric in play for a couple sessions (brought one in as a replacement character while my Runepriest was busy casting a ritual), but nothing about them seemed to need too much nerfing.

I presume that WotC offered no explanation for any of these? I see a couple lame attempts to justify one or two of 'em ("Flame Strike: Changes the target from 'enemy' to 'creature' to better reflect the power's intent," because the intent of the power was to use one of your few daily powers to not only in no way lead your allies, but also to kill them. Hell, doesn't the power's flavor text say "A column of flame roars downward to engulf your foes"?), but nothing really fully-assed.

I just don't see what the point of this is, to be honest. It doesn't affect me personally (I have no desire to play a Cleric, and neither does anyone in my group), so I don't really feel the need to get too worked up about it, but it's still downright bizarre. It just feels like it came out of nowhere.


It is definitely not a typo - they did it to streamline Healing Word across classes (the Sentinel, a Primal class has the same power).

Why on earth would they do that? Why not just write up another "X Word" power? It's not like it would hurt anything.

[Kurald Galain]

I thought that the Cleric was considered the strongest leader after the Warlord?
'fraid not. At least the Bard and Artificer would come first, possibly the Ardent as well.

[WickerNipple]

And a primal class logically shouldn't have the Divine keyword in that power. The only way to say it definitely wasn't a typo is if it was included in the update documents, which it wasn't.

You just explained why it's not a typo, because something else didn't make sense before. A typo is a mechanical keystroke error. I'm more than willing to admit it might have been some other sort of clueless error.


Why on earth would they do that? Why not just write up another "X Word" power? It's not like it would hurt anything.

Why on earth did they do any of this? We don't know! :smallsmile::smallsmile: Thus: why people are all up in arms.

[Reverent-One]

You just explained why it's not a typo, because something else didn't make sense before. A typo is a mechanical keystroke error. I'm more than willing to admit it might have been some other sort of clueless error.


Except that the Sentinel could have a different version of the power without there being an issue. This could just be copy-paste job from the sentinel without them noticing the difference.

[WickerNipple]

Absolutely - and that's not a typo. That's not realizing there's a difference between who to copy and paste.

I'm not trying to be all semantic-y here. There's a whole world of difference between the two. If an accident was made here it's because of the ignorance of the person making the document ~ not because their fingers slipped.

[Reverent-One]

Absolutely - and that's not a typo. That's not realizing there's a difference between who to copy and paste.

I'm not trying to be all semantic-y here. There's a whole world of difference between the two. If an accident was made here it's because of the ignorance of the person making the document ~ not because their fingers slipped.

Then fine, not a typo, but a simple mistake then. It doesn't change my point either way, as either case would be an unintentional mistake rather than actual errata.

[Kurald Galain]

WOTC has put an explanation on their side. Basically, they're saying that the cleric was overpowered, and needed nerfing.

[tenshiakodo]

(I posted this on the WotC forums. I expect a lot of derision there. Hopefully less here. This is long-winded, and I apologize for that.)



I wonder if the problem wasn't so much that the Cleric did a lot of damage, or that that the damage they did was self-generated. If you consider the Warlord to be the gold standard for Leader classes, look at how they primarily generate damage- they use their teammates!

This 'teamwork dynamic' is really how I feel a Leader class should function. By themselves, they aren't particularly awesome, but they synergize with the rest of the party to make the whole far greater than the sum of it's parts.

A Leader who throws down damaging burst and blasts isn't accomplishing that goal in any real fashion. Now all that having been said, if the purpose of Leader classes is to grant bonuses and let other characters do more and be better at what they already do, then it's obvious- several Leader classes need to be re-designed.

The Warlord's schtick, in particular, ie, granting basic attacks, while very effective, is still far from where it needs to be, simply because not all classes have effective basic attacks! A Warlord's biggest problem as a class is that the party needs to be built around the Warlord for maximum effectiveness.

Consider that for a minute. Most games I've played, the players don't really sit down and strategize how their builds will work with one another. About the best you'll get is one guy will agree to play the Defender, another will agree to be the Leader, and everyone else brings whatever the heck they feel like to the table, often without any real considerations towards how they will work together.

Public play tends to exaggerate this issue to the extreme- if you go to a convention and play LFR, it can result in a table of five completely random characters, often with the same role covered multiple times, and no real synergy in how the group functions.

Bringing a Warlord to a random table, unless you completely avoid taking enabling powers, is a complete coin-toss. You can either make everyone else awesome, or just be sort of lackluster. Considering that the Warlord's enabling powers are their strongest suit, this presents a large issue.

I think everyone can agree that "super healing" isn't really the best use of a Leader. Unfortunately, this is the use most parties have for their Leaders. I recently played an LFR game where we had a Runepriest for the Leader. No one was particularly impressed by the wide array of buffs the Runepriest had to offer (in fact, most of the party scoffed at the idea of having to be adjacent to their Leader in the first place), and instead they continued to complain (loudly) about the Runepriest's "weaksauce heals".

I'll throw in the disclaimer that I'm not an expert on the Runepriest, and this was an H1 mod. Maybe he was doing it wrong, maybe the class doesn't get amazing until higher levels- I'm not sure, but what I took from that is, even now in 4e, most players just want a Leader to bring amazing heals so that they can take stupid risks without consequence.

I personally don't care for Pacifist builds because of this fact- characters seem to feel that they don't need to work together, they can just do whatever, because the Pacifist will erase any consequences for this sort of behavior.

I know I'm rambling, and I doubt many people are still reading this (let alone taking me seriously), but I feel the following factors exist, and need to be addressed, with regards to the Leader role.

1- all Leaders need to enable. And they need to be able to enable in ways other than "target ally can make a basic attack against target enemy". There are Striker classes that simply cannot gain any real benefit from this type of enabling. Further, Leaders need to be able to enable other roles as well. Instead of just focusing on making the Strikers better at dpr, enabling for Defenders, Controllers, or even other Leaders if need be should exist. I have seen powers on the Bard that can help Defenders do their job, and I assume other Leaders have these abilities, but I don't often see them in play. This implies that either they need buffing, or...

2- not all players play the game optimally. Many players don't see buffing/enabling as the primary role of a Leader. They just want "moar healz pleez". Playing Encounters, I see this a lot. You have a low level group, undergeared, consisting of mostly random characters, facing challenges of N+2 or N+3 (and the monsters using the new damage expressions, no less), with nothing but a single Warpriest or Sentinel to keep them alive. Someone goes down, they cry and whine, the Leader heals them, and then they immediately stand up, throw themselves back into danger, go down again in a single hit, and blame the Leader!

In situations like this, even the Warlord, our gold standard Leader, cannot function optimally. I'm not sure how to remedy this situation, since system mastery is acquired at different rates by different people, and some people simply plateau at a certain level. I have, however, noticed that powers that let characters "self heal" by attacking an enemy (Astral Seal, some Bard powers) are very popular. Perhaps these could be buffed. At the very least, however, Leaders should have more leeway with their powers.

Many Leader powers are situational. Either give Leaders more choices, or make their powers less situational. The Runepriest, with their "dual mode" mechanic, is probably the way to go. A Leader class with "stances", where they can switch gears based on the party needs, having a toolbox at their disposal, would likely be both fun to play, and better at what they do.

3- Leaders need to be able to buff the entire party, not just their allies. This may seem counterintuitive, but the fact is, only a few personality types are happy enabling their team, while being ineffectual themselves. I believe a lot of the derision towards the Cleric changes result from this. I recently had an encounter with an enemy who could teleport both themselves and their target into a tiny room, away from the rest of the party. When the enemy grabbed the Ranger, it was a non-issue. When the enemy did the same thing to Pacifist Cleric, it almost caused a TPK!

That's entirely too swingy for my tastes. It's ok to make a Leader class less effective in combat than Defenders or Strikers, but they should be able to make up for that limitation by enjoying the benefits of their buffing powers. Now some powers do affect the entire party, but a lot do not. I feel this is an oversight. Allow the Leader to have some fun and deal some damage too, but require them to lay down a buffing effect or zone first to do so, and thus, everyone is happy.

Also, buffs should be interesting and dynamic. "+1 to attack rolls" is a powerful buff from a mathematical standpoint, but a lot of players feel that "+1 to hit" is rather 'meh'. They see damage bonuses are being cooler, and yet, a huge bonus to damage matters little if you can't hit. I feel buffs should include several minor benefits at once. Place conditions on these as needed, with an eye towards influencing characters to use better tactics. The carrot, rather than the stick. Getting allies to flank enemies, for example, gets a lot easier when you grant them larger bonuses for doing so.

4- Fragility. The Leader is intended to be the engine that powers the machine (ie, the party). As a result, they are a very large target, and enemies will focus fire on them. This can be problematic for Leaders that need to be on the front lines to do their job. Leaders should be fairly tough to withstand this sort of abuse. In Heroic Tier, especially, even if you are playing an Implement-using ranged Leader, your "Healing Word" mechanic only has a range of 5 squares, which means you have to remain somewhat close to the front lines.

The easy solution is to increase Leader defenses and hit points, but a better solution goes back to point

1- give the Leader more ways to enable the party Defender. If it becomes easier for Defenders to guard their Leaders, then they are less at risk for having the nerve to, you know, fulfill their party role.

There are no doubt more issues, but I feel these four, especially, need to be addressed.

[technoextreme]

all Leaders need to enable. And they need to be able to enable in ways other than "target ally can make a basic attack against target enemy". There are Striker classes that simply cannot gain any real benefit from this type of enabling. Further, Leaders need to be able to enable other roles as well. Instead of just focusing on making the Strikers better at dpr, enabling for Defenders, Controllers, or even other Leaders if need be should exist. I have seen powers on the Bard that can help Defenders do their job, and I assume other Leaders have these abilities, but I don't often see them in play. This implies that either they need buffing, or...
They all ready addressed this issue with the article on the cleric. Most people find the mechanics that would make for a good leader absolutely boring.

The Warlord's schtick, in particular, ie, granting basic attacks, while very effective, is still far from where it needs to be, simply because not all classes have effective basic attacks! A Warlord's biggest problem as a class is that the party needs to be built around the Warlord for maximum effectiveness.

Actually, all classes are capable of having effective basic attacks. It just depends how. Its typically either a feat or an attack power and depending on which class you would be braindead not to take them.

[Kurald Galain]

This is Charop's response to the podcast,

http://community.wizards.com/erachima/blog/2011/05/23/but_first,_do_no_harm:_clerics,_healers,_leaders,_ and_power_expectations.

[tenshiakodo]

Actually, all classes are capable of having effective basic attacks. It just depends how. Its typically either a feat or an attack power and depending on which class you would be braindead not to take them.

See, I don't really agree with this. Sure, a character could take Melee Training, but the damage bonus they gain from that feat is rather lackluster, and the attack may still not benefit from the special features of their class.

I just don't feel that granting a character a 1W + half mod attack is really a good use of a Leader's enabling powers.

[Kurald Galain]

I just don't feel that granting a character a 1W + half mod attack is really a good use of a Leader's enabling powers.

I agree, it really isn't. Many classes don't get enough of a benefit from Melee Training to make it a good choice for a feat.

[evirus]

Actually, all classes are capable of having effective basic attacks. It just depends how. Its typically either a feat or an attack power and depending on which class you would be braindead not to take them.

The fact that every class is "capable" of having effective basic attacks them does not mean every build can. Wis based Druids, Cha based Paladins, etc are all simple examples of very basic builds (and that are suggested in PHB2) that require deep feat investment and an awkward ability setup.

Keeping that in mind, many of these builds are more likely to invest in to feats and ability setups that will be more valable to them in the long run in exchange for less effective BA's.

[technoextreme]

I just don't feel that granting a character a 1W + half mod attack is really a good use of a Leader's enabling powers.
Yeah but you effectively spam them out faster before any of the other Leader's enabling powers can provide them. Also most powers that grant basic attacks typically have some other bonus added on to them. The only thing that actually grants solely a 1W+half mod attack is Bravura Presence.

The fact that every class is "capable" of having effective basic attacks them does not mean every build can. Wis based Druids, Cha based Paladins, etc are all simple examples of very basic builds (and that are suggested in PHB2) that require deep feat investment and an awkward ability setup.

I built a Charisma paladin that could utilize melee basic attacks without taking a single feat. I hadn't of noticed this before but I wouldn't be surprised if there is no class that actually requires feats to do melee basic attacks. I know Invoker, Mage, Wizard, Paladin, and Druids can have basic attacks without taking any feats.

[evirus]

Actually, all classes are capable of having effective basic attacks.
...
And by deep you mean one feat?

One feat gets you Melee Training, which for any class that is not built around str/dex improves your basic attack, but by no means makes it effective.



... I wouldn't be surprised if there is no class that actually requires feats to do melee basic attacks.

Every class has access to "Melee Basic" (str based) and "Ranged Basic" (dex based). So all classes have the options, but that doesn't mean they are effective because the abilities may be dump stats for your build and you may not be weilding melee or ranged weapons.

[technoextreme]

Every class has access to "Melee Basic" (str based) and "Ranged Basic" (dex based). So all classes have the options, but that doesn't mean they are effective because the abilities may be dump stats for your build and you may not be weilding melee or ranged weapons.
Ok. Lets just rephrase this because apparently you missed the part in my original post and decided to harp on how bad melee training is. Depending on the parties composition a Warlord can spam At-Will powers instead of basic attacks.

[Kurald Galain]

Wow.

As a result of the massive outcry on their forums against the recent cleric errata, WOTC has withdrawn the errata, calling it a "playtest", and promises to print new errata the upcoming month.

[MeeposFire]

Well I guess you can't say they always ignore the players opinions.:smallcool: Also a lot of people are excited in general with the new Dragon articles which is really nice. Lastly hopefully this will get people off the "they will never support non-essentials stuff directly" band wagon considering they are apparently making a str cleric article which is decidedly not essentials.

[Fox Box Socks]

Wow.

As a result of the massive outcry on their forums against the recent cleric errata, WOTC has withdrawn the errata, calling it a "playtest", and promises to print new errata the upcoming month.
This marks possibly the first time ever that complaining on the internet actually accomplished something.

[surfarcher]

Wow.

As a result of the massive outcry on their forums against the recent cleric errata, WOTC has withdrawn the errata, calling it a "playtest", and promises to print new errata the upcoming month.

I don't see anything on the WotC site or community about withdrawing it.

Link?

[Nu]

I don't see anything on the WotC site or community about withdrawing it.

Link?

Can't find anything about it, but I did notice the Warlock updates have been released and labeled a "playtest."

http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/warlockplaytest/20110603

[WickerNipple]

There hasn't been an "official" announcement yet to my knowledge, but if you read the table of contents for the next Dragon it's clear they're responding to this month's little riot.

http://wizards.com/DnD/TOC.aspx?x=dnd/4new/drtoc/400

Class Compendiums have been renamed to playtests, players will have a month to respond to "proposed changes" and there's yet another Cleric article hastily scheduled in. The "player-in-chief" who got a good bit of negative focus as the person who's supposed to "stand up for us" also has an article wondering if it's all actually worth it. :)

[tbarrie]

Can't find anything about it, but I did notice the Warlock updates have been released and labeled a "playtest."


Hey, three years after the PHB came out they're finally resolving the question of how the heck those Sustain/Save Ends powers are supposed to work.


Absolutely - and that's not a typo. That's not realizing there's a difference between who to copy and paste.

Wicker, nobody who writes "compliments" when they mean "complements" is entitled to be that picky.:)

[WickerNipple]

But thank you for providing an example of what a typo actually is. ;)