What might a fully Essential-ized Cleric look like?

[Prestidigitalis]

As some of you may have been able to infer from my previous posts, I am a big fan of the Essentials Warpriest. But as I waiver between making my next character a Warpriest or a Knight, I find that I keep getting stuck on the issue of ease of play.

While the Essentials Knight is very easy to play so long as you buff a single stance and stick with it, the level 13 Warpriest I've made has 3 at-will attack powers (half-elf with Versatile Master), 4 encounter attack powers, 2 encounter utiliy powers, 2 healing words, 3 daily attack powers and 6 daily utility powers. Now the sheer number of powers is part of why I like the Warpriest -- as a group they provide many different ways to contribute, and the party I would be joining desparately needs a leader -- but the fact is that I'm ready for a simpler character.

So my question is, what might a Cleric look like if it were stripped of Daily powers and most of its Encounter powers, as has been done with the Fighter in creating the Knight?

I'm tempted to mimic the Knight and go with MBA/RBA-based attacks and auras. Some of the auras would affect allies and some would affect enemies, while some might affect both but in different ways. The burst size of these auras need not all be 1 -- the size could be used to balance the effect, i.e. small and powerful or larger and weaker.

Aura bonuses could include most anything -- bonuses to attack, damage, defenses, saving throws or movement, as well as healing, regeneration, THP, free saving throws, rerolls, etc. Penalties could affect the same or similar statistical elements, but negatively -- regeneration becomes damage, THP becomes vulnerability, etc., and could be specific, e.g. damage to undead or to extraplanar creatures. Because of the wide variety of options, it might even make sense to to allow one offensive and one defensive aura to be active at one time.

I don't claim this is a great framework, but it's all I have come up with so far. I'd love to hear alternatives.

I would also be happy to hear opinions on why this is a bad idea, but please be kind.

 

[Larrin]

the Sentinal druid is one example of what you're asking. The animal companion kind of confuses how a stripped down cleric version might look, but it gets across some of the features.

Buts lets try and get it down to knight level simplicity.

First of all you still get Healing word. It works, don't break it. Then you get something that lets you use wisdom for basic melee attacks. Auras will almost certainly be a head ache, maybe you get one based on your domain, but no more! Why? You want simple, multiple fiddly bonuses that come and go as you move around are not simple, and are forgetable.

At wills would likely be stances, although that doesn't sound clericy you don't want it stacking with stances by being something else. They should be simple "when you hit with a basic melee attack X occurs" There are plenty of cleric at wills this can be modeled after. The encounter power needs to be always useful, I'm thinking it should be determined by domain, but be a "trigger when you hit" like power strike, these could be based on current encounter powers pretty easily. You gain extra uses at the same rate as power strike. Channel divinity? Sure. Keep it the same. Utilites are unchanged. Instead of dailies (I love not having dailies...most of the time) you get bonuses to your leading ability. improved healing, improved defenses in certain situations, but also occasionally some stuff to help YOU in combat, because lets face it you're still hitting things with a stick all day. Following a knights progess here as appropriate wouldn't be a bad idea, you second as a defender.

 

[OnlineDM]

I see what you're going for here, but I wouldn't call this the "Essential-ized" Cleric. Essentials Clerics and Wizards are magic users, just as in earlier editions. They're inherently more complex than martial characters, just as in earlier editions. This is no accident.

So, the question is, what would a Cleric look like if it were built more like the Knight, Slayer or Thief? That's a reasonable question, and it sounds like you have some interesting ideas on it. But "Essentials" does not equal "no dailies, simpler choices." That's only true for certain classes, of which Cleric is not one.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I would see a daily-less cleric as having healing as their encounter power they can use x times per day (like sneak attack and the fighter one the name escapes me now)

SO the same number of times per day they can let an ally spend a surge when they successfully hit an enemy, ...

But how? Will this cleric be strength melee or wisdom ranged. I would tend to go with melee because it is simpler. So give them the healing as their encounters, drop dailies and have utilities mostly powers the cleric gives to one or more allies. Auras would be a bit new and interesting.

I think giving away utilities would be a nice mechanic ofr a leader to have.

 

[Prestidigitalis]

I see what you're going for here, but I wouldn't call this the "Essential-ized" Cleric. Essentials Clerics and Wizards are magic users, just as in earlier editions. They're inherently more complex than martial characters, just as in earlier editions. This is no accident.

So, the question is, what would a Cleric look like if it were built more like the Knight, Slayer or Thief? That's a reasonable question, and it sounds like you have some interesting ideas on it. But "Essentials" does not equal "no dailies, simpler choices." That's only true for certain classes, of which Cleric is not one.

I hear what you are saying, and I suppose it would have helped if I had explained why I used the phrase.

I believe that the most successful builds in the first Essentials book (which are the ones that I am most familiar with) are the Thief, Knight and (to a lesser extent) the Slayer. Although I like the Warpriest too, the Mage builds don't do much for me.

So to me, "Essential-ized" means "applying the treatment that the most successful builds in Essentials got". You may, of course, disagree.

 

[Taralan]

The level of complexity of the warpriest that I dislike is not the numbers of it's powers but it is in the powers themselves. I hate all of these powers that do 3 things at the same time ... An attack, remove some conditions plus a bonus to defend or strike for X allies for next turn... Argh ... They all look the same and are hard to remember .. Just give me a good attack power or a good defense or a good buff but stop trying to meld all three in each single power ! .I tough they had learned with the wizard powers which are now more streamlined, but apparently not :-(