Help Me Fix The Cleric

[ptolemy18]

Okay, so, the 4e class that annoys me the most is the cleric. It is the MOST different from clerics in any previous edition of D&D... in that it's now impossible to play a "defensive" cleric.

It just boggles my mind that the Warlord (which has WAR in its name) has an At-Will Standard Action power that doesn't require the Warlord to be right in the thick of combat ("Commander's Strike", a very fair and interesting power, trading off your own attack to give somebody else a chance to attack), whereas the cleric doesn't. Instead, every at-will 1st level Cleric power is now an attack power. Hit the enemy and heal hit points. Hit the enemy and raise your armor class. Hit the enemy and get a new cell phone (etc.) Even the Paladin has a non-combat, At-Will healing ability (Lay on Hands). Does the Cleric? Nope.

Six words: WHAT THE HELL! THIS IS STUPID! ~_~ The whole "instead of attacking, you can run up to your ally and heal them... but can you get over to them past the horde of monsters standing in the way?" is so archetypal to "what a cleric is" that I am really, genuinely annoyed that the 4e designers left it out. So, I'm going to add it back in. Let's call it "Healing Touch."

HEALING TOUCH
At Will * Divine, Healing
Standard Action * Touch
Target: You or one ally
Effect: The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points. (Increase the amount of additional hit points at 11th level, etc. etc.)

There. Since it's a Standard action and requires Touch, this is now exactly like the thing that clerics have been doing in D&D since time immemorial (until 4e). Obviously it is worse than Healing Word, which doesn't require Touch and is only a Minor Action, but on the other hand, it's At-Will.

I'm annoyed they didn't include this. I'm annoyed at the whole design philosophy that no one would ever want to play a defensive character because it's boring. I mean, not, "the default assumption is that you wouldn't play a defensive character", but "you actually CANNOT play a defensive character because ALL your powers are offensive." :/ Unbelievable. *sigh*

Okay, rant over! Has anyone else considered a change like this?

 

[Juriel]

You defend better by attacking foes. Also, there is this class feature called Healing Word. Perhaps you've heard of it?

 

[Grazzt]

You defend better by attacking foes. Also, there is this class feature called Healing Word. Perhaps you've heard of it?

Since he mentions it in his post, my guess would be yes.

 

[Ander00]

It just boggles my mind that the Warlord (which has WAR in its name) has an At-Will Standard Action power that doesn't require the Warlord to be right in the thick of combat ("Commander's Strike", a very fair and interesting power, trading off your own attack to give somebody else a chance to attack), whereas the cleric doesn't.

Commander's Strike is a melee power so no, the warlord doesn't, and he is further limited in that all of his at-will powers require an ally to be adjacent to him or his target. In contrast, the cleric actually has two that do not require him to be in the thick of things (Lance of Faith and Sacred Flame).

A typical paladin will not have a wisdom score high enough that his daily limit on Lay on Hands doesn't have a meaning. At-will powers that enable the use of healing surges seem to go against the whole point of the healing surge model, but knock yourself out. If i was looking for such a fix, I'd probably make that temporary hit points (you could likely work something out based on Sacred Flame).

Edit: I mean, really. You have just created a 1st level at-will attack power that does pretty much what a 2nd level daily utility power does. If you want to play that type of cleric, just pick your utility powers from the Cure Wounds line. Or if you really want to be able to do it often, look at the warlord's Aid the Injured, and model encounter utility powers for the cleric after that.


cheers

 

[Galadrin]

Hi Ptolemy, I like it quite a bit. That it is an at-will seems to balance it against the minor action healing word. The only problem I can imagine is that it allows nearly unlimited healing in a battle (only limited by your remaining surges), but then again, the party is out one combatant so maybe this is balanced too.

 

[ptolemy18]

Hi Ptolemy, I like it quite a bit. That it is an at-will seems to balance it against the minor action healing word. The only problem I can imagine is that it allows nearly unlimited healing in a battle (only limited by your remaining surges), but then again, the party is out one combatant so maybe this is balanced too.

Thanks Galadrin. I noticed that design philosophy while I was reading the 4E rulebooks... but you had unlimited healing in battle in 3E, so it can't be that unbalancing. If you want to blow all your healing on one encounter, then go for it, right? Plus, since it's a standard action, the cleric has to actually make a CHOICE between healing and attacking once in awhile (like in 3E). That's one of the core tension-points of 3E combats... the cleric has to get up in the front lines to heal the dying party member, oh noes! There's no good reason to eliminate such a fun melodramatic thing, such a staple of every D&D game I've ever played, in 4E.

I mean, seriously. There are 8 classes in the core rules -- and not *one* which can be played defensively? (Except perhaps the defense wizard, but even then, not really...) If someone doesn't want to pay defensively, let them play any of the 7 other classes, or a non-defensive cleric build. But for god's sake, they didn't have to eliminate *every* defensive build of *every* class.

As for the Warlord's power, my point is, the Warlord himself doesn't have to attack. The Warlord doesn't even get a d20 roll. They can stand back and use the power and shout "Attack!" and their *ally* gets to do the actual attacking. It is viable for a Warlord to occasionally not be right on the front lines, to hold back and use support powers from a slight distance. Not for a 4E Cleric, apparently.

Agggh! This whole subject bugs me so much I have to stop posting. In closing: Wizards are fools if they think every D&D player is so ADD-afflicted they can't get behind the idea of a defensive character. I hate 4E's "attack attack attack, everything is an attack" philosophy which makes it nearly impossible to play a defensive or support character.

 

[ptolemy18]

I mean, really. You have just created a 1st level at-will attack power that does pretty much what a 2nd level daily utility power does. If you want to play that type of cleric, just pick your utility powers from the Cure Wounds line. Or if you really want to be able to do it often, look at the warlord's Aid the Injured, and model encounter utility powers for the cleric after that.

Well, the Cure Wounds utility power is only available at 2nd level, so apparently we've now regressed back in pre-Advanced-D&D days, when clerics couldn't cast spells until 2nd level.

My point is -- there's no cleric power in 4E which replicates the cleric's most archetypal power in 3E (cure wounds -- you have to be adjacent to the person to heal them, and spend a standard action). This is Core D&D to me, and the fact that they eliminated it in all its forms, bugs me to no end. So I'm going to houserule it back in and complain pointlessly about it on forums. ~_~ (Phew... I guess I've had a bad day...)

 

[SaffroN]

Okay, so, the 4e class that annoys me the most is the cleric. It is the MOST different from clerics in any previous edition of D&D... in that it's now impossible to play a "defensive" cleric.

Fair enough. they are 'leaders' now. However, it is still possible to play a pseudo-defender with the Warpriest Paragon Path, but go on.

It just boggles my mind that the Warlord (which has WAR in its name) has an At-Will Standard Action power that doesn't require the Warlord to be right in the thick of combat ("Commander's Strike", a very fair and interesting power, trading off your own attack to give somebody else a chance to attack), whereas the cleric doesn't. Instead, every at-will 1st level Cleric power is now an attack power. Hit the enemy and heal hit points. Hit the enemy and raise your armor class. Hit the enemy and get a new cell phone (etc.) Even the Paladin has a non-combat, At-Will healing ability (Lay on Hands). Does the Cleric? Nope.

Actually yes the Cleric does. However, it can only be at will for a certain number of uses every encounter, otherwise it is potentially game breaking as it allows unlimited healing.

The Paladin can use lay on Hands a certain amount of times per day. The Cleric can use Healing Word twice every single encounter. If anything the Cleric is the one with At-will healing.

Six words: WHAT THE HELL! THIS IS STUPID! ~_~ The whole "instead of attacking, you can run up to your ally and heal them... but can you get over to them past the horde of monsters standing in the way?" is so archetypal to "what a cleric is" that I am really, genuinely annoyed that the 4e designers left it out. So, I'm going to add it back in. Let's call it "Healing Touch."

I don't really care for iconic, Its not nearly a good enough reason to put anything back into the game. Also, its not very fun to engage in a pillow gauntlet just to heal a hurt ally only to end up getting killed and triggering a cleave which kills your ally in the process.

HEALING TOUCH
At Will * Divine, Healing
Standard Action * Touch
Target: You or one ally
Effect: The target can spend a healing surge and regain an additional 1d6 hit points. (Increase the amount of additional hit points at 11th level, etc. etc.)

Ok. For the reason listed above, lets change it.

Make the following changes to the Cleric Healing Word ability:

Change 'Close burst 5' to Melee touch.
Change 'Minor Action' to 'Standard Action'
Addition Under 'Effect:' Add The target gains additional temporary hit points equal to your charisma modifier.

If anything, its weaker than the old Healing Word so there is no chance of game breaking.

There. Since it's a Standard action and requires Touch, this is now exactly like the thing that clerics have been doing in D&D since time immemorial (until 4e). Obviously it is worse than Healing Word, which doesn't require Touch and is only a Minor Action, but on the other hand, it's At-Will.

Has there ever been a cleric that could heal indefinitely without a rest? (No truly, I actually don't know)

I'm annoyed they didn't include this. I'm annoyed at the whole design philosophy that no one would ever want to play a defensive character because it's boring. I mean, not, "the default assumption is that you wouldn't play a defensive character", but "you actually CANNOT play a defensive character because ALL your powers are offensive." :/ Unbelievable. *sigh*

Your using the wrong terminology (or at the very least confusing). A 'Defender' character protects their other party members by blocking a path to them, or by making themselves a bigger threat. If you want to play a divine defender the paladin works just fine, and is not boring at all. A defender is one of the Four core roles.

In 4e, you can attack and heal in the same turn. You are not required to sacrifice your attack in order to heal an ally. That is the beauty of 4th edition. Characters require almost no effort to perform the function they are designed for. However, if they choose to, they can become even better at performing that function for the group.

I think what you are trying to say here is that you dislike the fact that you no longer have to spend every single action looking after your teammates. Fair enough, if you wanted to create a character that simply aids other characters and does nothing of their own volition, it would be a little difficult to recreate under the 4e ruleset. I would give such a character the choice of an at-will ability "Commander’s Strike" but replacing the intelligence modifier with a Charisma.

 

[ptolemy18]

In 4e, you can attack and heal in the same turn. You are not required to sacrifice your attack in order to heal an ally. That is the beauty of 4th edition. Characters require almost no effort to perform the function they are designed for. However, if they choose to, they can become even better at performing that function for the group.

I think what you are trying to say here is that you dislike the fact that you no longer have to spend every single action looking after your teammates.

That's not the beauty of 4th edition. That's the weakness of 4th edition -- you no longer have to make hard choices.

I've played plenty of Clerics in 3E, and playing a cleric didn't mean I had to spend every single action looking after my own teammates. It meant that *sometimes* I had to spend an action looking after my own teammates. The rest of the time I was Flame Striking or thwacking people with everyone else. Anyone who would begrudge the maybe 1/3rd of 1/2 of combat rounds which a 3E cleric has to spend healing other party members, is just not the right person to play a cleric... but that doesn't invalidate the class itself.

 

[ptolemy18]

Last post on the topic -- touch-range healing powers are fun for gameplay because they facilitate movement on the battlefield. The cleric *has* to run over and heal the downed guy, etc. Imagine, a reason to move around the battlefield other than to attack someone!

Not that ranged healing powers aren't good too, but I wish the touch-based healing powers were still the "core" healing powers.