4e: With regards to clerics

[wodan46]

Several forumites have made comments suggesting that 4e clerics would be either weak, have to spend their time healing rather than fighting and "take one for the team", or both. I've found these comments odd, as from what I can tell, neither of those statements seems to be accurate.

First off, Healing Surges. Clerics can grant Healing Surges +1d6 bonus hp as minor action via Healing Word twice an encounter, which means with a typical 5 encounter day, they trigger 10 surges this way. Second Wind triggers are a standard action for comparison, and give no bonus HP. Encounters and Dailies often trigger Surges as a side effect, in addition to the regular effect of whomping on an enemy. Clerics can allow a party of 4 to use all their surges up in battle along with second wind triggers, and if some surges are triggered outside of combat, you could trigger all needed surges for a party of 6 or 7 even. Or a Level 1 Cleric could go solo, and with 16 constitution, could give themselves 70+10d6 HP during combat as minor actions over the course of a 5 encounter day.

Furthermore, the Cleric is not hampered in any way other than that they use up a class feature. The Cleric has solid combat capabilities, capable of doing plenty of damage, including radiant damage that targets Will and Wisdom unlike most other attacks. The Channel Divinity ability in particular seems to give a Cleric a set of 3 abilities, of which they can use 1 per encounter. This allows the Cleric additional flexibility.

Like the Warlord, the Cleric enhances the rest of the party, but are effective on their own and aren't required to play second fiddle to the meatwalls and blasters.

[Theodoxus]

QTF. Have people been bugging about clerics?

[Edea]

It's power shock. I suffer from it too, atm (still suffering :biggrin:).

You have to re-remember just how dominating divine casters are in 3E. Compared to that, yes the 4E cleric is quite weak. But then again, I'm betting that's the point; it plays on a much more even field now. And weak doesn't necessarily = useless or not fun. To me -atm- it does, because it is NOT the 3E cleric, but that's a cross-edition comparison, something I haven't gotten over yet. More specifically, we can't get Clr20 out of our heads even though this is only a Clr1; we haven't seen the rest of what the cleric can do yet, so some of us are getting a bit antsy about it.

The other thing mildly irritating about the PPH cleric in particular, is that he's holier than most celestials, positively dripping with radiance and purity. I'd...kinda like to play a neutral cleric not affiliated with whole wheat toast and the Osmonds. I'm betting that option will be available in the full PHB release.

[Kurald Galain]

I think the issue is that people are still thinking of them as 3E clerics (just like, in 3E design, people were thinking of them as 2E clerics).

It helps if you mentally call them woozle-wazzlers, or whatever; starting with a blank slate makes it easier to appreciate that they're quite effective. Sure, they're not everybody's cup of tea, but then, no class is everybody's cup of tea.

[Roderick_BR]

Yeah, clerics are now what people wanted them to NOT be: Heal Bots. Since healing is easier, it become *part* of a cleric's abilities, not it's main ability.

I think what people complained about nerfing clerics is that they, apparently, can't become CoDzilla as easier as before, since those incredible powerful spells from 3.x won't be in 4E, or will be toned down.

[Vortling]

Like the Warlord, the Cleric enhances the rest of the party, but are effective on their own and aren't required to play second fiddle to the meatwalls and blasters.

I'd be interested to see if you can replace the fighter or the paladin with another cleric. Also, we haven't seen or played the game beyond the preview games where the characters are built for you. Thus I believe statements like the above are a little presumptuous. We don't know yet what's possible when people are allowed to make their own characters.

[Starbuck_II]

I'd be interested to see if you can replace the fighter or the paladin with another cleric. Also, we haven't seen or played the game beyond the preview games where the characters are built for you. Thus I believe statements like the above are a little presumptuous. We don't know yet what's possible when people are allowed to make their own characters.

I am not sure:
Fighters get that extra +1 bonus to hit at 1st.

Cleric's ability called at will Priest Shield (KotS did not choose it) is a melee attack that if hit also boosts your and one adjacent allys AC by your Charisma until end of next turn. So he could be a great supporting or primary attacker, but he lacks the defenders marking ability.

Sure, 2 Clerics could work but I think they'd be as effective as a 3.5 Fighter at defending. Which not much.

[MorkaisChosen]

I don't think comparing them to another archetype is fair. Sure, you may not be able to replace a Fighter with another Cleric.

The question is, could you replace the Cleric with another Fighter?

[Vortling]

I don't think comparing them to another archetype is fair. Sure, you may not be able to replace a Fighter with another Cleric.

The question is, could you replace the Cleric with another Fighter?

How are you suggesting anything different from the comparison I suggested? You're still comparing different archetypes. I personally think that if a group can be just as effective without one of the roles specified by WotC that that role and the classes in it need reworking.


Cleric's ability called at will Priest Shield (KotS did not choose it) is a melee attack that if hit also boosts your and one adjacent allys AC by your Charisma until end of next turn. So he could be a great supporting or primary attacker, but he lacks the defenders marking ability.


What I'm wondering is if the marking ability is essential to fill the defender role. I'll be a bit sad if it is since the fighter and paladin seem to get powers that would let them fill the striker or leader role partially. No other classes appears to have powers that would let them fill the defender role partially.

Mind you my impressions are based off play reports from DDXP, KotS, and seeing the prebuilt characters from each of those. It's possible there are powers we haven't seen that deal with these thoughts.

[skywalker]

I don't think comparing them to another archetype is fair. Sure, you may not be able to replace a Fighter with another Cleric.

The question is, could you replace the Cleric with another Fighter?

No, people would die, at least in the preview adventure.

[SamTheCleric]

No, people would die, at least in the preview adventure.

Several times over.

[Rutee]

Here, however, we have the other relevant question:
How would the PReview Adventure do with a Warlord instead of a Cleric? :smallcool:

[Xuincherguixe]

Bleuch, Healbots.


It was good that Clerics got to do a bit more, but they ended up being able to do too much.

I would say that a good way of dealing with the issue is if Clerics were able to pick a secondary set of abilities. So they could be a back up tank or blaster (or buffs, or debuffing, or battlefield control, or any number of things).


We might be going to back to the days when being the cleric was a sentence.

[Roderick_BR]

Here, however, we have the other relevant question:
How would the PReview Adventure do with a Warlord instead of a Cleric? :smallcool:
Hmm.. the Warlord is supposed to be a "leader", right? Does it means he can heal allies? Like replacing a cleric with a druid in 3.5? I kinda like the idea of you being able to replace a class with another, without making the group weak, as in 3.5. For example, if you doesn't have a cleric, you could get a druid, or even a paladin for healing, but if you don't have a rogue, you'll have dozens of traps going off at your face, unless you use another class from some splatbook that can deal with traps.

[wodan46]

Warlords have the same Healing Word ability as Clerics, only renamed Inspiring Word. No one whines about them being healbots. The main difference between the 2 is that Clerics get radiant damage that targets will/wisdom and defensive boosts, while Warlords grant bonus movement and attacks.

In regards to roles, classes can substitute for other roles, but can't really fulfill them. The abilities listed below are near monopolized by their respective classes, with few options outside of them.

Defenders have the marking ability, and the best HP/Surges
Leaders have the Word ability, and grant extra actions and most buffs
Controllers have AOE attacks, and inflict disables
Strikers receive bonus damage die against a chosen/vulnerable target

However, Clerics can use Healing on themselves to make themselves as tough to kill as a Defender, and have radiant attacks that can disable or hit AOEs on occasion like a Controller. Clerics are probably the most flexible class so far.

[Greenfaun]

Well, not that I'm going to convince anyone, but it seems from the previews that they've put the cleric back into a single niche without making it a healbot. Specifically because the majority of their powers fill the support role in an "and" way instead of an "or" way. By this I mean, unlike most MMO's for instance, the cleric gets to do significant damage to enemies with spells or weapon attacks, and their powers are designed to support partymates as they do it, rather than as an either/or problem.

Now, I haven't played it, so they could have gotten it wrong in some way, but I'm totally digging the intention behind the new rules, at least.

Also I think it's interesting that, while a cleric COULD hang back and use their at-will healing power over and over, that would probably not be as effective as blasting the monsters with shiny shiny radiance or whatever, since that will also boost their partymates, and kills the monsters faster. No idea if this is true till I try it in action, of course, but it seems like what they intend.

[wodan46]

Clerics do not have an At-Will healing power. They have At-Will attacks. Which they can do every turn in ADDITION to casting Healing Word. Many of the Encounter and Dailies do an attack AND a healing effect as well.

[JaxGaret]

Clerics do not have an At-Will healing power.

Sacred Flame is similar to an At-Will healing power, in that it grants temporary HP to an ally.

[wodan46]

Sacred Flame is an At-Will attack. The healing is minor and secondary, which is the point I've been trying to make, but which people seem to ignore. They keep saying that the Cleric is a Healbot, despite him attacking every round.

[JaxGaret]

Sacred Flame is an At-Will attack. The healing is minor and secondary, which is the point I've been trying to make, but which people seem to ignore. They keep saying that the Cleric is a Healbot, despite him attacking every round.

I wasn't saying that the 4e Cleric is a Healbot, not at all, i was simply pointing out that one of the At-Will powers does simulate healing. And that's just the quickstart character; we haven't seen all of the choices that Clerics get.

[Vortling]

Sacred Flame is an At-Will attack. The healing is minor and secondary, which is the point I've been trying to make, but which people seem to ignore. They keep saying that the Cleric is a Healbot, despite him attacking every round.

I don't think it matters what the Cleric can do every round. People will continue to think of the class as the healbot class until healing is no longer the cleric's primary function. At least in 4e the person forced to "take one for the team" won't be horribly bored while doing the healing.

As to the Warlords not being pegged as healbots: It's not described as their primary function. Healing is set out as a secondary function for them. Granting extra attacks/actions is their contribution. They also don't have years of history associating them with healing.

[wodan46]

Clerics aren't even really healing much at all anymore. They just trigger surges mainly, which can be triggered outside of combat freely anyway. The only real healing they do is the 1d6+Modifier extra HP granted with each use of Healing Word. Since they trigger surges as a minor action rather than the ally wasting a standard action on second wind, you could say that Clerics are just enhancing surges already available. They spend most of their time fighting, and chip in just as much as the Warlord. They just spend more time bolstering defense than offense.

[xirr2000]

Sacred Flame is an At-Will attack. The healing is minor and secondary, which is the point I've been trying to make, but which people seem to ignore. They keep saying that the Cleric is a Healbot, despite him attacking every round.

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm not entirely sure what people are referring to when I've read (mulitple times) that a cleric is a "healbot". From the usage it seem derogatory and implies that all the cleric can do is heal. That to me merely describes a 3.x cleric not a 4e cleric who can heal and do damage every single round. Well not after his heals are used up, but the cleric no longer has to choose to heal a teammate at the cost of getting his hands dirty in combat. They can do that whenever they want.

While running the risk of sounding the noob, can someone define what folks mean when they throw out the term "Healbot" in reference to clerics?

[JaxGaret]

Thank you for pointing this out. I'm not entirely sure what people are referring to when I've read (mulitple times) that a cleric is a "healbot". From the usage it seem derogatory and implies that all the cleric can do is heal. That to me merely describes a 3.x cleric not a 4e cleric who can heal and do damage every single round. Well not after his heals are used up, but the cleric no longer has to choose to heal a teammate at the cost of getting his hands dirty in combat. They can do that whenever they want.

3e Clerics didn't have to be Healbots if the player didn't so choose. It's possible (depending on what powers are available to it) that the 4e Cleric will be more shoehorned into the combat-healer role than the 3e Cleric, since a 3e Cleric didn't technically have to do any healing at all to be an effective party member, whereas it seems that healing class features are built-in to the 4e Cleric, and not utilizing them may or may not be suboptimal.


While running the risk of sounding the noob, can someone define what folks mean when they throw out the term "Healbot" in reference to clerics?

Being a Healbot means that your primary (or only) function in combat is to heal your party mates.