Clerics need a wis of 20.

potomak

First Post
The KotS Cleric is fine. There isn't anything wrong with him. Even if the entirety of the issue actually came down to the question of "is the cleric's capacity to heal worth an extra 20% miss chance on its attacks", I would still say that the cleric is fine.

As I look at my cleric character sheet, I notice that they do in fact have a mere +3 on their attacks, due to their wisdom modifier. I then glance over at the wizard who has a mere +4, due to his int modifier.

I've seen no problem with either of these - they both work nearly equally well (with a 5% difference, of course). The reason for this is simple: they aren't attacking the same defenses that the fighters and rogues are concentrating their efforts against. The cleric is rolling against reflex on his at-wills. The wizard is rolling against fort and will. This changes... everything - and I don't see why this hasn't come up yet.

When you're playing a cleric or wizard, you have to acknowledge that some creatures are just going to make themselves out to be better targets, and you have to find them.

**Spoilers**
[sblock]
In KotS, the first encounter pits the heroes against some kobolds - of the minion, slinger, and dragonshield variety. The defenses are as follows:

Slinger - AC 13, Fort 12, Ref 14, Will 12
Minion - AC 15, Fort 11, Ref 13, Will 11
Dragonshield - AC 18, Fort 14, Ref 13, Will 13

The Cleric's at-will ability is +3 to hit, and it's against reflex. A fighter, on the other hand, has a +6 to hit on his at-will, and it's against AC instead.

Let's take a look at that dragonshield, shall we? If the fighter is attacking the dragonshield, he's looking at needing a 12 or higher to hit. A cleric, on the other hand, only needs a 10. I don't see the problem here for the cleric.

Yes, I know it isn't as great against the slingers and the minions - but come on. We've all played 3.5, where we learned to avoid using will-save spells against mages, and dumped them on the brutish looking types - and laid the fort-save spells on the mages. It's the same concept here, though it looks a little bit different. Each monster role seems to have, across the board, predictable defenses. Learn those, and you'll have a more productive character in combat.

Using that encounter as an example - the dragonshields charged the melee characters, and promptly marked them. The cleric aided in that struggle, and contributed quite nicely, having a better chance of a success than the fighter - meanwhile, the ranger and wizard knocked out the minions and slingers. Everything worked out fine, everyone had similar chances of succeeding in what they were doing, no one got killed, everyone had fun, and the cleric wasn't complaining about not having 20 wisdom out of the gate.
[/sblock]
As for the encounter ability - I'll grant that it's worse than I'd like - on the pregen, that is. They made a character right out of the gate with MAD. I'm certain it was to showcase a diverse array of abilities, but I could easily see players focusing on either str or wis when they make their own clerics - but unlikely both (just like the rogue, which will seemingly be focusing either on Str or Dex, but unlikely both). For that matter, now that I look at those encounter abilities again...

Healing Strike (Clr 1)
2[W] + str damage, target is marked until the end of your next turn. In addition, you or one ally within 5 squares can spend a healing surge.

Spinning Sweep (Ftr 1)
2[W] + str damage, target knocked prone.

Knocking the target prone is nice, but I think Healing Strike is a bit meaner - it having that extra 15% chance of missing (from the pregen sheets) seems almost acceptable in my book - but I'm sure a better built cleric won't have it that bad if a player felt so inclined to utilize that ability.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

loseth

First Post
small pumpkin man said:
Weapon prof doesn't help as much as you seem to think,

Just going off my experience with EfS. I couldn't see behind the screen, so I don't know what numbers the DM had for AC vs other defences, but I do know that everyone agreed that the cleric suffered badly from suckitude. As I said, hopefully he was just a bad build and the clerics from the PHB will work out better.
 

Saeviomagy

Adventurer
Am I the only person who noticed that the thread started out "why would you take anything but wisdom on a cleric?" and ended up "Why didn't the pregen cleric take strength over wisdom?"
 

Victim

First Post
potomak said:
Healing Strike (Clr 1)
2[W] + str damage, target is marked until the end of your next turn. In addition, you or one ally within 5 squares can spend a healing surge.

Spinning Sweep (Ftr 1)
2[W] + str damage, target knocked prone.

Knocking the target prone is nice, but I think Healing Strike is a bit meaner - it having that extra 15% chance of missing (from the pregen sheets) seems almost acceptable in my book - but I'm sure a better built cleric won't have it that bad if a player felt so inclined to utilize that ability.

Spinning Sweep is 1[W].

Healing Strike is pretty poor on a ranged cleric with weak STR.
 

theNater

First Post
Clerics wanting a 20 wisdom and wizards wanting a 20 intelligence aren't anything new. The desire may be a little stronger now, but it hasn't magically appeared from nowhere. One of the things I like about 4th edition in terms of having a 20 wisdom to start is that now you can. In the 3.5 Player's Handbook, there are 0 races that provide a bonus to wisdom. In 4th edition, we expect 2 races, 4 if you wish to count humans and half-elves. The numbers for intelligence are 0 and 2/4, and charisma has 0 and 4/5.

I'm happy to just have the option to start with a caster who's as min/maxed as a fighter. The fact that I can do it in several ways makes me downright giddy.
 

the Lorax

First Post
hong said:
The main reason for maxing out Wis (and Int for wizards) in previous editions was because of the all-or-nothing nature of instakill spells. If your spell can take out the enemy in one go, or do nothing, then a lot depends on hitting.

Instakills no longer exist, so the cleric and wiz have been brought back to the same baseline as everybody else. Thus the incentive for maxing out Wis/Int should be pretty much the same as for fighters maxing Str, rogues maxing Dex, etc.

As someone who has played a lot of spell-casters, several of them up into epic levels, the whole blaming things on "instakill" spells is absurd. I've found that its best to stay far away from those spells for the most part, as the flip side of most of them is that the victim of those spells suffers minimal or even no effect. As a Wizards/Sorcerer you want your DCs as high as possible not for the one target, instakills, but for mass kill save for half/save to avoid an effect direct damage spells and the bonus spells (particularly the higher level slots). For most Wiz/Sorc characters, if a point build was allowed, there was NO mechanical reason not to put an 18 in the casting stat, regardless of the cost. If I had to make a sorcerer 8,8,8,8,8,18 that would be fine.

As many of the spells that one would have wanted a cleric to cast in 3.x were Buff/Cure/Utility spells Save DCs were less important. Also a clerics slightly more hybrid (melee vs. spell caster) role meant that a cleric had more stats that were of value, and more reason to spend stat points in a more efficient way (again assuming point build)

I suspect that the cleric's role in that regard is going to be similar, and that having a passable melee option means that point buy efficiency is going to be more important than maximizing "DCs".
 

MindWanderer

First Post
I personally thought the cleric was badass. I played the cleric in Sembia, and the ranger in Scalegloom, and now I want my first PC to be a cleric--after being a big cleric-hater in all previous editions.

Going with Totoro's point-buy, a 20 Wis leaves you with 6 points to distribute. Let's be generous and say you're a dwarf (+2 Con is probably better than +2 Dex, for a cleric, unless you're a melee cleric which everyone seems to agree is suboptimal). You could end up with a 16 Con, an 8, an 11, and the rest 10's, or you could get 14 Con, 12 Dex, 12 Cha, 10 Str, 8 Int. Which is not horrendous--you won't die too easily (although your reflex save will be weaksauce), although you'll have to avoid all the Str or Cha-based powers, of which there may be many. And most likely your choice of useful paragon paths will be limited as well. Hello, one-trick pony.

Or you could go with an 18 Wis, leaving 13 points. There's a lot of options there; again, still assuming a dwarf, you could have an 18 Con, 12 Dex, 12 Cha, 10 Str, 8 Int and still be pretty optimized (and, speculatively, a good warrior with a hammer); 14 Str, 14 Cha, 15 Con, 10 Dex, 8 Int and be able to use both Str- and Cha- based powers competently; 16 Str, 14 Con, 12 Dex, 10 Cha, 8 Int and be a potent warrior-cleric; and so on.

Both paths can work just fine. One allows for a slight increase in focused Wis-based prayer use, the other permits some diversification.
 

sukael

First Post
hong said:
The main reason for maxing out Wis (and Int for wizards) in previous editions was because of the all-or-nothing nature of instakill spells. If your spell can take out the enemy in one go, or do nothing, then a lot depends on hitting.

Instakills no longer exist, so the cleric and wiz have been brought back to the same baseline as everybody else. Thus the incentive for maxing out Wis/Int should be pretty much the same as for fighters maxing Str, rogues maxing Dex, etc.

Also, not needing an Int of 19 to cast 9th-level spells.
 

Gloombunny

First Post
phil500 said:
Healing strike is a good encounter power that lets an ally spend a surge, as well as doing damage. It increases the clerics healing options from 2 to 3, although not on a miss.
It's also not based on Wisdom. The lesson here is don't take a Str vs AC power when your Str mod is only +1. Leave the Str-based melee powers to the melee-oriented clerics with high Str, especially the dwarven ones who can take Dwarven Weapon Training and use military weapons. (Actually I suspect neither hammers nor axes will have better prof. bonuses than the mace's +2, but the extra damage is pretty sweet.)
 

Moon-Lancer

First Post
is it just me, or do some classes have mad pretty bad (like the claric) and the ranger gets almost everything he could need with dex? I wonder if this is why in part why strikers do more damage, they have less mad?
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top