Essentials Cleric

[ppaladin123]

Another obvious change is that they've given the build class features (e.g. resurrection) that unlock as you level up. That ends the whole front-loading tradition that has held so far.

I think that only some of those powers (the at-wills and some bonus domain powers) are assigned according to the build. It looks like some can be chosen from the more general list of powers. The article suggests that the new fighters (slayers and knights) can, for example, take powers from the general class whenever they receive a level-numbered encounter/utility/daily power. They can also take the feats, paragon paths, etc. from the main class.

The warpriest has basically killed the strength-cleric and taken its stuff. I can't see much reason to play the poor thing anymore. I am DYING to see how they fixed the paladin and warlock.

 

[Markn]

Wow..big changes...but I can see how they can exist alongside the previous incarnations. Starting to wonder if anyone will stick with the old builds.

I wonder this too...Just because you CAN play the original 4e builds doesn't mean that people should or would. Does the original class designs get played by only a small percentage of the people now with the most wanting to use the new designs? Time will tell. I guess either way it makes no difference but it would be fun to look back on that after 2 years of Essentials and see if that is a trend!

 

[doctorhook]

Anybody else notice that the article seems to indicate that Warpriests also get a Utility power from their Domain features at 1st level?

I'm excited about this new approach being taken. Most of what I see, I like. That said, I'm somewhat worried about how much "structural difference" we're gonna see between classes, especially when the class comes with a chart indicating feats and XP required for leveling. (I assume that each class comes with a similar chart, and that these "class neutral" details are listed on each chart for the sake of convenience.) I wouldn't be very excited if, for example, one class were to get a bunch of extra feat selections as its class feature; that's a cop-out with almost no way to be balanced appropriately, since the benefits vary from character to character -- see 3E's Fighter class for examples of how much this kind of "benefit" can blow.

 

[Greg K]

I thought the warpriest was disappointing.

I was ready to give the game another look, but if this is the design to "form the basis of the roleplaying game system going forward", I guess that I will stop looking

 

[Aegeri]

I thought the warpriest was disappointing.

It's still clearly 4E mechanics and they've been saying that (despite the bleeting about 4.5) for a while now. Personally it looks like more of the same thing, with an alternative take on some power progression and similar.

I actually quite like what I've seen thus far and I'm looking forward to more previews.

 

[doctorhook]

I am DYING to see how they fixed the paladin and warlock.

Me too, especially the Warlock. In hindsight, it's obvious that they should've let pacts serve as builds for Warlocks from day-one, rather than trying to include both. Who the hell ever even talks about "Scourge Warlocks" anymore? It's all about the pacts, and I hope it becomes even more all about the pact with Essentials. As for ability scores, personally, I'm rooting for Charisma-based Warlocks.

 

[fanboy2000]

That said, I'm somewhat worried about how much "structural difference" we're gonna see between classes, especially when the class comes with a chart indicating feats and XP required for leveling. (I assume that each class comes with a similar chart, and that these "class neutral" details are listed on each chart for the sake of convenience.) I wouldn't be very excited if, for example, one class were to get a bunch of extra feat selections as its class feature; that's a cop-out with almost no way to be balanced appropriately, since the benefits vary from character to character -- see 3E's Fighter class for examples of how much this kind of "benefit" can blow.

Yeah, I do not want a return to varying levels of XP, and some classes getting extra feats in place of class abilities. The Cleric previewed had normal level and feat progression though. At least through the heroic tier.

Part of the problem though is that it's easy to misinterpret the slightest thing. I remember, in the days leading up to 3.5, there was a shirt with the new Pit Fiend statblock on it. It didn't have it's CR listed, and people speculated that 3.5 was going to drop the CR mechanic.

 

[Aegeri]

Anyone else notice the lvl 8 ability of Resurection? I wonder if that's a built in ritual ability?

It's pretty interesting to see them drop strength for a warpriest build. Maybe they'll errata all of the PHB classes to the one primary attribute style of PHB II and III.

They are not going to errata them. Those classes are still going to exist post-essentials and will still work. They aren't changing anything about the original ones and these are basically new builds.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

They are not going to errata them. Those classes are still going to exist post-essentials and will still work. They aren't changing anything about the original ones and these are basically new builds.

The Essentials Warpriest supplements the existing 4E Clerics, it does not replace them.

 

[Argyle King]

What I would still like to know is whether or not you can mix and match between the two versions of the classes. If I start out as an Essentials Cleric, can I then progress into a regular Cleric paragon path or do the Essentials classes have their own paragon paths which match up more closely with the different rules? Will multiclassing into or out of an Essentials class be different than normal?