Essentials Cleric

[jbear]

I'm wondering now whether it will actually be a correspondence of that sort of strength with all the classes.

Rogue->Halfling... seems plausible.
Wizard->Eladrin... would certainly fit
Elf-> Fighter?

And in the future it will be very easy for them to make subclasses for other races that thematically fit with a class fit mechanically as well. I guess if each race gets a third possible bonus variation to stats as per phb3 races, this will be easier to achieve.

They had made an effort via feats to make classes viable/attractive to races with non-optimal stats. I wouldn't be surprised if down the track we see something similar happen with 'subclasses'.

 

[Dungeoneer]

Really though I honestly have to say I think a lot of this simplification attempt is mis-aimed. It's not class build options that make 4e complex to play. Its all the fiddly stuff that goes on DURING play that scrambles the brains of new players.

I don't think those are two separate things. Joe's GF didn't build her own character b/c the process was too complicated. Now she doesn't understand what her character does or how it's supposed to be played, so she just stays at the back of the battlefield and spams At-Wills.

I've seen this MORE than once.

 

[mkill]

4e is just significantly more complex from a rules complexity standpoint than Basic or even AD&D were. If you did things a bit cockeyed in those games it didn't matter much, there really wasn't much to mess up.

Uh, what ? AD&D not complex? You may have felt that way after years of playing gave you a comfortable level of system mastery, but if you allow me to refresh your memory...

- To calculate whether you hit, you have to roll above a number. So far so good. That number gets lower as you level. Counterintuitive, but okay. You substract your opponents AC from that number. Wait, what?
- Magic weapons have a positive bonus, which you substract from your attack stat... Err?
- Magic armor has a positive bonus, that you have to substract from your AC. At least there is a pattern.
Okay, so your attack stat is 4, you wield a +5 sword, your enemy has plate (AC 1) +4, what do you have to roll to hit? So my attack stat is negative, and the enemy's AC is negative, so I add it, which brings my attack stat back into positive, ... Ok I give up.

Now, if you're a Wizard, you don't roll to attack at all, but your enemy has to roll against a number on his sheet.

And of course each class has its own XP progression.

You roll initiative every turn, and it depends on things like which level of spell you cast.

To cast your spells, you have to keep track of ... bat guano.

Forget about using that magic sword you found immediately, the wizard has to take an 8 hour break and burn a 100 gp gem to identify the damn thing. At least he doesn't have to roll a spellcraft check. Uh, that item was cursed? Pointy hat spent 8 hours analyzing the matrix and didn't notice? Let's all rest another 8 hours so the cleric can pray for remove curse.

I'll stop here. AD&D was incredibly complex, but in a "watch out or I'll screw you over" kind of way. And in a "scrap that who cares about material components anyway?" kind of way. And in a "unified mechanics what's that?" kind of way.

3rd and 4th edition simplified and streamlined a lot of that. The core rules of the newer editions are much simpler and more streamlined. What makes 4th edition more complex in play are not the rules itself, but the tactical options you have and the interactions between PCs.

In short, AD&D complexity and 4th edition complexity is very different, and it's not the 4th edition rules that are complex.

 

[RigaMortus2]

So, what is the difference between the Essentials Warpriest Cleric and the other Cleric builds out there (Battle Cleric and Devoted Cleric)?

Is it just another build, like one you would find in Divine Power? Or is there something that differentiates the Essentials builds with the current builds out there?

 

[abyssaldeath]

So, what is the difference between the Essentials Warpriest Cleric and the other Cleric builds out there (Battle Cleric and Devoted Cleric)?

Is it just another build, like one you would find in Divine Power? Or is there something that differentiates the Essentials builds with the current builds out there?

The essential classes are different to the builds you are used to. The essential clerics loose ritual casting & healers lore & switch to a weaker channel divinity power. The essential clerics gains shield proficiency (light & heavy) & domain class features (1/5/10). Also, depending what domain you choose your powers will be largely chosen for you. You also will not gain access to all your class features at first level like the non-essential classes.

 

[MrMyth]

So, what is the difference between the Essentials Warpriest Cleric and the other Cleric builds out there (Battle Cleric and Devoted Cleric)?

Is it just another build, like one you would find in Divine Power? Or is there something that differentiates the Essentials builds with the current builds out there?

The Warpriest has a few minor changes specific to it (shield proficiency, different bonus to Non-AC Defenses), but we've seen those sort of differences between builds before (Warlords, Monks).

What makes it more unique as a build is that a number of elements are pre-defined. You choose a Domain, and from what I can tell, that determines your level 1 At-Will Powers, level 1 Encounter Power, and one or two other features. Later encounter powers have 'default' versions chosen for you by your domain, but you can choose to switch those out for standard Encounter powers.

In some ways, it is similar to how Warlocks are defined for their pacts, just taken a bit further. But it also isn't completely locked in - while the new player might be able to grab the Warpriest and play it with all the default choices, more experienced players still have room to choose powers and customize as desired.

 

[keterys]

It's probably reasonable to compare the cleric to warpriest like comparing the battlefront archer warlord to the phb warlord.

 

[RigaMortus2]

The essential classes are different to the builds you are used to. The essential clerics loose ritual casting & healers lore & switch to a weaker channel divinity power. The essential clerics gains shield proficiency (light & heavy) & domain class features (1/5/10). Also, depending what domain you choose your powers will be largely chosen for you. You also will not gain access to all your class features at first level like the non-essential classes.

So if this is true, I agree with those who call it 4.5 or even 3.9. I mean, its not like they are using Essentials to clarify any rules or "fix" things that are broken. They seem to be adding things just for the sake of doing so. Which is fine. I am all for that. But let's call it what it is, an updated version.

This is basically what they did in 3.5. Look at the difference between the 3E Ranger or Monk vs the 3.5 Ranger and Monk. How is what they are doing w/ essentials any different?

I will probably still buy essentials myself. I'm the kind of person that needs to have "the latest" edition, which is why I got into 4E to begin with. So I am fine with that. And more options is always good IMO. But lets call it what it is, an upgraded edition...

 

[Storminator]

This is basically what they did in 3.5. Look at the difference between the 3E Ranger or Monk vs the 3.5 Ranger and Monk. How is what they are doing w/ essentials any different?

It's very different.

In 3.5, the rules for grappling change. Half the spells changed, including whole categories of spells. Damage reduction changed completely. Power attack changed. The list of changes that had nothing to do with how your PC acquired abilities was huge. There's no indication anything like that is going to happen with Essentials.

If all 3.5 did was change monks and rangers, it wouldn't have been another edition.

PS

 

[mkill]

This is basically what they did in 3.5. Look at the difference between the 3E Ranger or Monk vs the 3.5 Ranger and Monk. How is what they are doing w/ essentials any different?

Could 3.0 Ranger and 3.5 Ranger take powers from the book the other one was printed in, and could they play at the same table?

In other words, did they have this compatibility thing going on that Mearls is talking about?