OneD&D UA - THE CLERIC AND REVISED SPECIES

[Melil12]

It probably doesn't wreck the class structure but it does create one oddity: the Thaumaturge gives you a quick-recharge on Channel Divinity when you wouldn't yet have the Channel Divinity feature.

Would be true … I wonder how that works with Paladin MC or Druid (If channeling is the priest thing.) Would it work On theirs? All of a sudden we have a new master MC Dip.

[paladinn]

Change Multiclass so spells outside of the class that gave you armor proficiency can’t be cast in armor.

Problem solved.

Add a tab to Warcaster or Heavy Armor training to allow you to cast in said armor.

As off-the-wall as this sounds, it's not bad..

[PhoenixPhyre]

Change Multiclass so spells outside of the class that gave you armor proficiency can’t be cast in armor.

Problem solved.

Add a tab to Warcaster or Heavy Armor training to allow you to cast in said armor.

Yeah. This is a proper response to the "multiclassing for armor is too easy and too good" issue--fix multiclassing!. I wouldn't add the feature to Warcaster, personally. It's already too potent of a feat.

[Melil12]

Yeah. This is a proper response to the "multiclassing for armor is too easy and too good" issue--fix multiclassing!. I wouldn't add the feature to Warcaster, personally. It's already too potent of a feat.

Saddly warcaster would be more thematically appropriate. But that is why I hesitated to just list it. Other than making another feat entirely.

[ZRN]

But...here's the thing. If you have to think at level 1 "well, I'm going to take the heavy armor <thing> at level <X>, so I should build my character like <this>" or else end up with significant issues (yes, stat allocation at levels > 1 is a major issue and this is as bad or worse than the whole "species" ASI issue), that goes exactly contrary to everything they did say about why they were doing it. You still have to do the analysis and make those future decisions, but now you don't even see the benefits for a few levels. And are actually harmed by it.

So yeah, it doesn't pass a smell test. It'd be much simpler and more in keeping with what they've said are their goals to just say "ok, all clerics wear medium armor. Certain types get bonuses that improve their durability later on" (things like getting Medium Armor Master-equivalent features for free or getting a source of temporary hit points or whatever that isn't heavy armor proficiency with all the curliques that entails).

I think you're mixing different categories of player here.

The type of player who is intimidated by too many choices at level 1 probably isn't going to be min-maxing his Strength and Dex to optimize his AC. And the type of player who does care about min-maxing can probably suffer through a single session at level 1 before getting his plate armor at level 2. (And if we're actually playing by the rules, nobody can afford plate armor at level 1 anyway.)

I think your second paragraph here misunderstands the point of the heavy armor feature: the point is to feel like a tough guy with a big heavy weapon and huge chunky armor, not just to get a moderate increase to durability.

[Segev]

But...here's the thing. If you have to think at level 1 "well, I'm going to take the heavy armor <thing> at level <X>, so I should build my character like <this>" or else end up with significant issues (yes, stat allocation at levels > 1 is a major issue and this is as bad or worse than the whole "species" ASI issue), that goes exactly contrary to everything they did say about why they were doing it. You still have to do the analysis and make those future decisions, but now you don't even see the benefits for a few levels. And are actually harmed by it.

So yeah, it doesn't pass a smell test. It'd be much simpler and more in keeping with what they've said are their goals to just say "ok, all clerics wear medium armor. Certain types get bonuses that improve their durability later on" (things like getting Medium Armor Master-equivalent features for free or getting a source of temporary hit points or whatever that isn't heavy armor proficiency with all the curliques that entails).

I am liking swapping "order" and "CD" more and more. I appreciate giving the cleric the divine power thing at level 1 for true iconic-ness, and also to make level 1 very cut-and-dried with minimal choices, but I think the avoidance of analysis paralysis is too great, here. Let them have a choice beyond their skills to differentiate this cleric from that at level 1. Level 2 is when they start getting the holy powers of their god; no choices there, but that's fine because they already made a choice and they get another choice at level 3.

It probably doesn't wreck the class structure but it does create one oddity: the Thaumaturge gives you a quick-recharge on Channel Divinity when you wouldn't yet have the Channel Divinity feature.

Good point. Though I would personally give that featurette to every cleric, and apply it to every PB/long rest ability in the game while I'm at it.

Shadow Sorcerer did solve this problem, itself, too: just word it as, "When you gain Channel Divinity at level 2, you may recover one use of it with a short rest," if you don't want to go all in with my prior suggestion of making CD recharge that way no matter your order.

Yeah. This is a proper response to the "multiclassing for armor is too easy and too good" issue--fix multiclassing!. I wouldn't add the feature to Warcaster, personally. It's already too potent of a feat.

I... actually just don't see 1 level dips as a problem. They are their own cost. You are slowing progression in your other class. If level 1 dips are a problem because they're so badly front-loaded that later levels in other classes aren't worth getting ASAP, then the problem isn't with level 1 dips or multiclassing; it's with higher-level features not being cool enough.

Playing a wizard with a level 1 dip in cleric for flavor and skill reasons, I am not behind on spell slots, but believe me, I feel the pinch every odd level when I am a level behind in actual spell access. And that's just a single level dip. (I didn't take a heavy armor cleric domain, and I don't even wear armor, though I do use a shield. I have a spell similar to mage armor from Valda's Spire of Secrets I use, instead.) If a wizard dips fighter or even cleric (twilight) for heavy armor, he's paying a price for it, and I don't see that price as being too low. Heavy armor is nice, and all, but ultimately it is the hp count that makes higher-level PCs durable. As the game moves to higher and higher levels, you will get hit.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I think you're mixing different categories of player here.

The type of player who is intimidated by too many choices at level 1 probably isn't going to be min-maxing his Strength and Dex to optimize his AC. And the type of player who does care about min-maxing can probably suffer through a single session at level 1 before getting his plate armor at level 2. (And if we're actually playing by the rules, nobody can afford plate armor at level 1 anyway.)

I think your second paragraph here misunderstands the point of the heavy armor feature: the point is to feel like a tough guy with a big heavy weapon and huge chunky armor, not just to get a moderate increase to durability.

Except...it's not a minimal thing. Now everyone who wants heavy armor has to pay for it, in coin at least. Because you can't start with it unless you give up your medium armor...and if you do, you can't wear it yet.

Choosing the heavy armor one now creates trap options. All for the sake of making multiclassing not quite so bad for the health of the game. But multiclassing is a variant rule--changing the base rules to accommodate it is a bad idea in its own right. You're penalizing (and yes, it's a penalty) everyone for the sake of the small percentage who abuse this feature.

And yes, @Segev, it is an abuse. Flat out. 100%. The cost (being one level delayed on wizard spells) is tiny and mostly counteracted by an increase in versatility. And you get more HP out of it (ok, a tiny amount, but every bit counts). You have a massive increase in durability[1], which drastically reduces the primary weakness of the base wizard, for a tiny reduction in something they're already leaps bounds and lightyears ahead of everyone else in.

[1] if all you ever throw at the party is boss-caliber CR = level + X monsters in big solo fights, you don't see it as much. But against the (system-expected) norm of CR ~ level / 2 monsters? The difference is tremendous. It turns a wizard from one of the squishiest, having to actively use resources just not to die, into one of the tankiest, who still has resources to boost that even further.

[animorte]

I... actually just don't see 1 level dips as a problem. They are their own cost. You are slowing progression in your other class. If level 1 dips are a problem because they're so badly front-loaded that later levels in other classes aren't worth getting ASAP, then the problem isn't with level 1 dips or multiclassing; it's with higher-level features not being cool enough.

I… kind of agree, but I honestly think it’s both. If people aren’t spending very much time at level 1 or 2, why does the class need to be that front-loaded? I honestly don’t see any reasoning for extreme front-loaded nonsense.

Higher level features do need to be more enticing. One of the comments I made on the Epic Boons was in the way they should design them (because they’re erratic and wildly unbalanced). If taking a 1-level dip in a different class is more valuable than reaching level 20, then taking level 20 is not strong enough*.

* This likely includes the Epic Boon and any class features that benefit from scaling with an additional level.

[ZRN]

I am liking swapping "order" and "CD" more and more. I appreciate giving the cleric the divine power thing at level 1 for true iconic-ness, and also to make level 1 very cut-and-dried with minimal choices, but I think the avoidance of analysis paralysis is too great, here. Let them have a choice beyond their skills to differentiate this cleric from that at level 1. Level 2 is when they start getting the holy powers of their god; no choices there, but that's fine because they already made a choice and they get another choice at level 3.

I think this is a bad change. It's weird enough that now a level 1 cleric of Baal is mechanically identical to a level 1 cleric of Pelor; changing it so that clerics DO get a choice at level 1, but that choice has nothing to do with their god and instead is about what kind of armor they wear? Like, "I definitely know I want to wear some badass platemail; I'll figure out that whole Good vs. Evil thing later"?

Overall I think the move from level 1 to level 3 subclass makes mechanical sense for reasons they discussed in the video - my biggest concern is that saying level 1 is when you figure out how to Be A Cleric and you decide what kind later means that your identity as A Cleric is supposed to be more important than what god you worship.

I really don't like how this would play out for sorcerers down the line, either. Like, level 1 I start casting Mage Armor and Magic Missile and stuff because that's what a Sorcerer does, and then after I kill a few dozen goblins I finally figure out whether I can cast Magic Missile because my grandpa was a dragon, or because Zeus thinks I'm hot, or because my soul has been twisted by eldritch horrors? Hm.

[GooeyChewie]

I think you're mixing different categories of player here.

The type of player who is intimidated by too many choices at level 1 probably isn't going to be min-maxing his Strength and Dex to optimize his AC. And the type of player who does care about min-maxing can probably suffer through a single session at level 1 before getting his plate armor at level 2. (And if we're actually playing by the rules, nobody can afford plate armor at level 1 anyway.)

I think your second paragraph here misunderstands the point of the heavy armor feature: the point is to feel like a tough guy with a big heavy weapon and huge chunky armor, not just to get a moderate increase to durability.

The type of player who is intimidated by too many choices at level 1 is probably going to take the chain shirt in the standard equipment, without considering that they could transition into heavy armor at level 2. And then when that player hits level 2, they'll see that they could get heavy armor proficiency, but decide not to take it because they don't have heavy armor. It's clunky progression, which gets in the way of the overall design of the class.

[OvisCaedo]

I'd also point out that just "acquiring heavy armor at level 2" isn't always going to be an actual option. Not every campaign is going to have you fighting people in heavy armor to loot from immediately, or have free access to towns+shops.

[Aquillion]

Change Multiclass so spells outside of the class that gave you armor proficiency can’t be cast in armor.

Problem solved.

Add a tab to Warcaster or Heavy Armor training to allow you to cast in said armor.

Another, broader possibility:

Add an "If this is your primary class..." rider to certain class abilities (or "primary only" for certain options), which you only get if you take the class at level 1. Mostly this would be attached to level 1 abilities that are intended to give you immediate competence but which wouldn't be appropriate to get with a one-level dip later on.

[Tanarii]

Really they just need to give Clerics HA as a proficiency and be done with it.

Fix Multiclassing dip for armor problems by fixing Multiclassing, not by screwing with the classes.

[ZRN]

Except...it's not a minimal thing. Now everyone who wants heavy armor has to pay for it, in coin at least. Because you can't start with it unless you give up your medium armor...and if you do, you can't wear it yet.

Choosing the heavy armor one now creates trap options. All for the sake of making multiclassing not quite so bad for the health of the game. But multiclassing is a variant rule--changing the base rules to accommodate it is a bad idea in its own right. You're penalizing (and yes, it's a penalty) everyone for the sake of the small percentage who abuse this feature.

We're talking, what, 25 gold wasted on a chain shirt you resell for half price? And you think that the entire multiclassing system has to be junked to avoid that 25g "trap"?

I mean, if you don't want a gp cost attached to your important class abilities, you probably shouldn't be playing a spellcaster to begin with, given expended and unexpended material component costs.

And again, as others have said, multiclassing dips are only a small part of why they want subclasses at 3.

There are reasons to not like moving subclasses to 3 but I really don't think the minimal cost of nonmagical armor and weapon at level 2 is a determinative one.

[Bobthewizard]

I'm not sure the cleric changes were made solely for multi classing. Clerics were maybe the most powerful class at levels 1 and 2, so pushing some abilities back makes sense from a balance standpoint. It also allows more uniformity in class progression to give everyone's subclass features at the same levels.

For those of us used to clerics getting their subclass at level 1, having to play a generic cleric feels weird, but it's no weirder than a generic fighter that goes on to be an eldritch knight or rune knight. You are a priest of whatever god or goddess, but you don't get your full subclass powers until you get more powerful. D&D has always been about progression of power. This just changes the cleric's progression.

I was happy to see the changes for rogue subclasses. Now that I see it on clerics, though, I'd rather they give subclasses at level 1, but I understand why they are waiting. Most people don't make as many characters as some of us do, so this lets them ease into a new class.

[Segev]

I think this is a bad change. It's weird enough that now a level 1 cleric of Baal is mechanically identical to a level 1 cleric of Pelor; changing it so that clerics DO get a choice at level 1, but that choice has nothing to do with their god and instead is about what kind of armor they wear? Like, "I definitely know I want to wear some badass platemail; I'll figure out that whole Good vs. Evil thing later"?

It doesn't bother me as much because I assume that there are RP elements in play. "I'm studying to be a cleric of Baal" and "I'm studying to be a cleric of Pelor" may not have a huge difference, mechanically, but that's fine. "I'm training to be a warrior serving the King" and "I'm training to be a warrior who sells his sword to the highest bidder" is also very different, RP-wise, but will NEVER have mechanical backing, at least not unless 5.1 makes subclasses for Fighter depend on who you serve.

I see what you're saying, but "I'm in training right now, but I know I'll get (un)holy powers when I've learned enough to serve Baal/Pelor," is fine with me. The kind of cleric you'll be in terms of warrior/scholar/mage is more something you can start training from the get-go, though.

[Bobthewizard]

Really they just need to give Clerics HA as a proficiency and be done with it.

Fix Multiclassing dip for armor problems by fixing Multiclassing, not by screwing with the classes.

I think that's the right answer. You don't even need to change multiclassing. Clerics already just give medium armor for multiclassing, just like fighters and paladins.

Just give clerics heavy armor, then the martial option just gives martial weapons... and maybe extra attack?

[Psyren]

It's not a matter of "well, if you think ahead you'll be better", it's if you don't think ahead, you'll actively be worse. Well, if you don't think ahead you'll be even worse than if you do.

Basically, this change screws over all clerics, multiclassed or not for the sole (reasonable) purpose of making multiclassing for heavy armor slightly less efficient (now you need 2 levels, not 1). I reject the "it's too big a deal to make people decide stuff at level 1" objection because, frankly, they're already making the vast majority of their choices at level 1. And heavy armor isn't linked to subclass anymore at all--they could just have said that you get your Divine Order at 1 and Channel Divinity at 2. Then you have no issue whatsoever...except in regards to multiclassing.

And as I said, fixing multiclassing by patching all the places it breaks instead of, you know, fixing multiclassing so it doesn't break things is utterly 100% pants-on-head stupid. And guarantees an endless chase of making those who don't use that variant option's lives worse chasing an impossibility (making multiclassing as it stands now work without breaking things).

I think "screws over" is a massively overblown viewpoint. Even if you go the "suboptimal" route of having 14 Dex on your heavy armor cleric, that stat is still very useful despite not factoring into your AC past 2nd level. And if you instead "dump" Dex to 8-10, you'll still be starting the game with 15/16 AC as long as you grab Scale Mail + Shield. In short, it's fine.

I think that's the right answer. You don't even need to change multiclassing. Clerics already just give medium armor for multiclassing, just like fighters and paladins.

Just give clerics heavy armor, then the martial option just gives martial weapons... and maybe extra attack?

Extra Attack should be specific to War Domain imo.

[paladinn]

I think that's the right answer. You don't even need to change multiclassing. Clerics already just give medium armor for multiclassing, just like fighters and paladins.

Just give clerics heavy armor, then the martial option just gives martial weapons... and maybe extra attack?

Looking back, traditionally All clerics were proficient with All armor. Maybe not all shields, but all armor.

[animorte]

Really they just need to give Clerics HA as a proficiency and be done with it.

Fix Multiclassing dip for armor problems by fixing Multiclassing, not by screwing with the classes.

Actually I would go the opposite way. Instead of just making the Cleric a “full-caster-better-Paladin,” actually embrace the caster trope with a few subclass options that would bring it back to what the Cleric is now. I know this ideal doesn’t resonate with the majority, which I’m fine with.

Completely agree on multi-classing.

[GooeyChewie]

We're talking, what, 25 gold wasted on a chain shirt you resell for half price? And you think that the entire multiclassing system has to be junked to avoid that 25g "trap"?

I mean, if you don't want a gp cost attached to your important class abilities, you probably shouldn't be playing a spellcaster to begin with, given expended and unexpended material component costs.

I don't think the multiclassing system needs to be junked; I think it needs to be fixed such that WotC doesn't need to junk early class progression to avoid multiclass combos. The 25g tax isn't the biggest trap. The biggest trap is that a player who takes WotC's advice and plays a just a cleric at level 1 without thinking about their level 2 and level 3 choices at character creation will be ill-equipped to actually make the Holy Order choice when they hit level 2. The second biggest trap is assuming that all clerics will have ready access to selling their level 1 weapon and armor and upgrading upon hitting level 2.

And again, as others have said, multiclassing dips are only a small part of why they want subclasses at 3.

There are reasons to not like moving subclasses to 3 but I really don't think the minimal cost of nonmagical armor and weapon at level 2 is a determinative one.

Multiclassing is a smaller part of why they want subclasses at level 3, compared to the intimidation factor. But they talked a fair bit about multiclassing in the video, so I wouldn't call it a small part.

It doesn't bother me as much because I assume that there are RP elements in play. "I'm studying to be a cleric of Baal" and "I'm studying to be a cleric of Pelor" may not have a huge difference, mechanically, but that's fine. "I'm training to be a warrior serving the King" and "I'm training to be a warrior who sells his sword to the highest bidder" is also very different, RP-wise, but will NEVER have mechanical backing, at least not unless 5.1 makes subclasses for Fighter depend on who you serve.

I see what you're saying, but "I'm in training right now, but I know I'll get (un)holy powers when I've learned enough to serve Baal/Pelor," is fine with me. The kind of cleric you'll be in terms of warrior/scholar/mage is more something you can start training from the get-go, though.

I would like to see Divine Spark offer a choice between Radiant and Necrotic damage to help with the RP element. Other than that, I agree with you that who a cleric serves doesn't have much (if any) mechanical impact.

[Kane0]

I just noticed something, though I'm not sure if this is the first occasion in this playtest:

It seems they have moved away from having spell slots separately and an amount of spells prepared derived from the class level and primary ability score modifier, and rather taking a small step back towards the old Vancian system, with the spells prepared columns of the class table showing the exact number of spells prepared of each given spell slot level.

It was in the bard as well.
As a player its meh, instead of freely choosing X number of spells spread across your available spell levels you now have set numbers for each spell level to prepare.
As a dev, you're chopping off a valuable variable you can use for class balance, especially when you add in features that grant extra spells known (like domains).

Holy Order (L9): Bad - Why give every Cleric 2/3 of the options? It should instead be an improvement of the first in some fashion.

I’m sure this is all going to get lost in the ocean of words and opinions. Oh well. Thanks anyway!

I'm glad pretty much everyone agrees on this

I read it! And i'm in agreement pretty much across the board.

LMAO!! You honestly think there is any documentation? I'd be shocked if there was; even more shocked if it was actually useful.

Well yeah, theres never the correct handover docs and if there are its too uncoordinated or much to actually go through.

Ironically we have things like these here forums and the DM Guild for the devs to check in on in real-time to get a feel for things, plus any archived results of their own surveys and playtests from the last 8 years.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I don't think the multiclassing system needs to be junked; I think it needs to be fixed such that WotC doesn't need to junk early class progression to avoid multiclass combos. The 25g tax isn't the biggest trap. The biggest trap is that a player who takes WotC's advice and plays a just a cleric at level 1 without thinking about their level 2 and level 3 choices at character creation will be ill-equipped to actually make the Holy Order choice when they hit level 2. The second biggest trap is assuming that all clerics will have ready access to selling their level 1 weapon and armor and upgrading upon hitting level 2.

I agree (contrary to my own personal preferences) that the "right" way (for the product as a whole) is to fix, rather than junk multiclassing.

----

Personally, I think that front-loading is a strong feature, not a flaw. I'd love if most classes followed a roughly logarithmic or (x)^(1/2) curve--they start out really strong, the first few levels are big, impactful stuff, all your important (thematically) elements are online and kicking by level 3, level 5 at the very latest, even if not at full power. And then from then on the power curve starts slowing down and (more importantly) broadening.

Say your strong areas are labeled A1 and A2. As a (not-fleshed-out) example, think "A1 = party support and A2 = melee combat". Rating these on a hypothetical 0-10 scale, with 0 being "cannot do this at all" and 10 being "I can succeed at this in any circumstance without party support, I'm the best there ever can be". Numbers chosen to show relative scaling, not actual power levels.

At level 1, you're like
2/10 in area A1 and 1/10 in area A2.
0/10 in all other areas A3 ... AN.

By the end of T1 you might be, say,
5/10 in area A1 and A2
2/10 in area A3
0/10 in area A4, ... AN

By the end of T2, you're at
7/10 in Area A1, 6/10 in area A2
4/10 in areas A3, A4, and A5,
0/10 in areas A6, ... AN

By the end of T3, you're at
8/10 in area A1, 7/10 in area A2,
5/10 in Area A3 and A4
4/10 in area A5 and A6
1/10 in areas A7, ... AN

And by level 20 you're at
8/10 in areas A1 and A2
5/10 in areas A3 and A4
4/10 in areas A5 and A6
3/10 in areas A6, ... AN

A level 20 (in this model) is better at all areas than a level 1 is at their specialty. On the other hand, the growth in power in any one area slows down tremendously and plateaus. And then different classes, even if they follow the same scaling model, can have different mixtures of strengths.

[Psyren]

I would like to see Divine Spark offer a choice between Radiant and Necrotic damage to help with the RP element.

I can get behind that.

I don't think the multiclassing system needs to be junked; I think it needs to be fixed such that WotC doesn't need to junk early class progression to avoid multiclass combos. The 25g tax isn't the biggest trap. The biggest trap is that a player who takes WotC's advice and plays a just a cleric at level 1 without thinking about their level 2 and level 3 choices at character creation will be ill-equipped to actually make the Holy Order choice when they hit level 2. The second biggest trap is assuming that all clerics will have ready access to selling their level 1 weapon and armor and upgrading upon hitting level 2.

For the first "trap": Is that really going to be a common occurrence? I would argue even new players think about things like "do I want to be a healer who wears heavy armor or not." Most video games or other media either put that question front and center, or steer the player toward one choice or the other.

For the second one - even in the unlikely event the character can't get their hands on basic equipment during 2nd level to grab chainmail, being stuck with Scale Mail + Shield slightly longer isn't the end of the world.

Hot Take for the Armor Debate:

Dexterity should not negatively affect a person wearing armor if they're proficient in said armor. Added + bonuses are fine.

For heavy armor, it doesn't. For the other two categories it does, as they cover less "area." I think that's fine.

[Jakinbandw]

Interesting that a level 2 cleric can be better at persuasion than a Bard. +8 at level 2 is really solid, especially as the new social rules have all checks be made against a dc15.

Honestly this is the biggest win for me. I love the high Charisma preacher cleric archtype, and now dnd allows for it without mticlassing.

[Segev]

I think "screws over" is a massively overblown viewpoint. Even if you go the "suboptimal" route of having 14 Dex on your heavy armor cleric, that stat is still very useful despite not factoring into your AC past 2nd level. And if you instead "dump" Dex to 8-10, you'll still be starting the game with 15/16 AC as long as you grab Scale Mail + Shield. In short, it's fine.

I find this rich when you've in the past argued that having a +2 baked into a non-optimal stat adjustment based on race inhibits you from playing the character you wanted to play. But somehow having to put a 14 into a stat you wanted to dump is totally fine, because it's useful even if you later do make it less so with the build choices you actually wanted.

If we were discussing halflings having to have +2 to dexterity rather than floating stats, you'd be (if you haven't changed your position) siding with those angered that we would dare quash their character options by making them play a halfling wizard who can't have that +2 to Intelligence or a halfling barbarian who can't have that +2 to strength.

But when it's a clear class-intended design to play a heavy-armor cleric, it's fine to expect you to either suffer the actively sub-optimal choice early or be actively sub-optimal later within the class itself. No problem forcing that +2 to Dex over what you want, or even a +4 to Dex. After all, that doesn't change a concept at all, by requiring you to put a lower stat somewhere else. All clerics are known for being moderately dexterous, after all. It's not quashing your creativity for punishing a low dexterity at level 1, or punishing a high dexterity by making you waste resources by overriding part of it at higher level.

But heaven forbid a tiefling fighter have to have +2 charisma when he really wants +2 strength.

[Psyren]

Interesting that a level 2 cleric can be better at persuasion than a Bard. +8 at level 2 is really solid, especially as the new social rules have all checks be made against a dc15.

Honestly this is the biggest win for me. I love the high Charisma preacher cleric archtype, and now dnd allows for it without mticlassing.

I agree that clerics who are great at Persuasion (and Religion!) is overdue. I think it's awkward though that to get the full benefit of the feature, they have to not take those skills at level 1, so I'll be arguing for changes in the survey.

As far as being better than Bards though - that requires the cleric to have max Wis and Cha, in which case they probably should be. If they don't max out both stats, the Bard wins by having Expertise and only needing to max out one.

I find this rich when you've in the past argued that having a +2 baked into a non-optimal stat adjustment based on race

Nope, not going here yet again. If you don't get it by now you never will.

[Segev]

Nope, not going here yet again. If you don't get it by now you never will.

I do get it. It's just that your reasoning for it equally applies AGAINST your justification of punishing clerics who want to be heavy armor wearers by requiring them to have dexterity be moderate rather than low at level 1.

[Tanarii]

Actually I would go the opposite way. Instead of just making the Cleric a “full-caster-better-Paladin,” actually embrace the caster trope with a few subclass options that would bring it back to what the Cleric is now. I know this ideal doesn’t resonate with the majority, which I’m fine with.

Nonstarter. Clerics can wear all armor is a defining feature of the D&D class, a sacred cow. Even having some domains limited was a bad idea in the first place.

[Segev]

Nonstarter. Clerics can wear all armor is a defining feature of the D&D class, a sacred cow. Even having some domains limited was a bad idea in the first place.

Eh, medium armor only never bothered me on most of the cleric domains thus limited. And I tend to be one of those defending sacred cows as crucial to keeping D&D being D&D.