Dragon 379 - Class Acts: Cleric Essentials

[Shroomy]

The newest essentials article is up, this time for the cleric. To me, it seems to be more like last month's article on the fighter than this month's article on the warden (lots of charts). I didn't get a chance to read anything more than the feats or powers, but they look interesting. I especially like how all of the powers tie into either the cleric's healing word or channel divinity powers. For feats, I particularly like the Battle Cleric's Armaments (kind of a two for one deal here for battle clerics), domain synergy, and harbringer of rebirth.

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drcact/20090918

 

[Deverash]

I liked the article, it had some great points in how to play clerics. When/if my group tries out 4e, i'll likely print these articles out to give to those people.

However, I had to say I strongly disliked the Harbringer of Rebirth. Now, this is probably a personal issue. I like having death as a possibility. That feat, though, gives everyone such a large bonus to death saves it makes it virtually impossible to die from death saves, and you don't even have to both with healing someone who's down, since they have a good chance of rolling a 15+ on their save and be able to spend a healing surge themself! All for one feat with minimal prereqs, and no in-game cost.
Ah well, other than that feat, I liked the other stuff.

 

[Mouseferatu]

However, I had to say I strongly disliked the Harbringer of Rebirth.

As much as I love most 4E stuff, most of Logan's work, and most of that article, I have to say I agree. 4E already borders on "too hard to die" for my own personal tastes. It doesn't normally cross that border, but it's close. I think including this feat in my campaigns would push it over the line.

I don't mind it existing for people who want it, but it's one of the very few mechanics to date I don't think I'd include in a game I was running.

 

[Jack99]

As much as I love most 4E stuff, most of Logan's work, and most of that article, I have to say I agree. 4E already borders on "too hard to die" for my own personal tastes. It doesn't normally cross that border, but it's close. I think including this feat in my campaigns would push it over the line.

I don't mind it existing for people who want it, but it's one of the very few mechanics to date I don't think I'd include in a game I was running.

Yeah, it's horribly broken and whoever in R&D let it slip past should be beaten with a wet newspaper.

(Only somewhat kidding)

 

[Pour]

The Harbinger feat also gave me pause, but on second thought I'm going to allow it. It'll help ease some of my guilt when a monster coup de grace one of my players or an AoE catches someone when he or she is down. Still, an incredible feat and one I can't see any cleric who cares for her party going without.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yeah, it's horribly broken and whoever in R&D let it slip past should be beaten with a wet newspaper.

(Only somewhat kidding)

I wouldn't go that far. As I said, for people who don't want lethality in their games, it's a perfectly adequate feat. I just dislike it for personal taste reasons.

 

[MrMyth]

I wouldn't go that far. As I said, for people who don't want lethality in their games, it's a perfectly adequate feat. I just dislike it for personal taste reasons.

Now, to be fair, I came to a slight realization with it as I did with a lot of the other enormous boosts to healing that showed up in Divine Power - it makes a very big target out of the healers themselves, and they don't get the bonus they're providing to their allies.

Now, I'd still prefer to not see something that basically takes a core mechanic of the game (death saves) and tosses it out the window... but it does prevent me from being as bothered as I would be otherwise. I think a party that has a super-healing cleric who constantly keeps everyone from ever being in danger of dying... is going to soon be a party with a lot of monsters aiming to take that cleric out.

 

[Cadfan]

I'm not a fan of a lot of the article, and the problem is that I'm just not a fan of Channel Divinity and the whole penumbra of feats and powers surrounding it.

Just... eh. I think Channel Divinity could have been cool, and on newer classes as a build its getting better and better, but overall I think its just not working as a mechanic.

There's a basic paradox: if your class channel divinity power is useful, then you won't want or need a feat to give you a new channel divinity option. But if your channel divinity isn't very good, then you will want a feat to switch it out, but you won't feel very good about taking it because you're just spending a feat to get rid of a free thing that you didn't want.

And feats to power it up tend to suck because any feat that gives a bonus that only occurs when you use one specific encounter power is already running against the wind. Its likely to be vastly overwhelmed by a similar feat that provides a similar bonus all the time.

The same is true for some of the powers listed.

If I were writing Channel Divinity from scratch, I'd do something like this: all Channel Divinity options available to a starting character would be as powerful as Turn Undead, but also equally situational. Then Channel Divinity feats would allow you to access similarly powerful but similarly situational powers. You'd feel ok with what you initially got, because its sheer usefulness would override its situational nature. And you'd be ok with taking feats that essentially let you sacrifice Turn Undead to get some other power in a particular encounter because you'd be able to use Channel Divinity in more situations.

The present system in which you've got Turn Undead or some similarly awesome versus undead power, and then another weak but non situational power tacked on as an alternative, and you can trade out the non situational power for an equally weak non situational power, just isn't very good.

Please don't respond by pointing out the handful of very powerful channel divinity powers hidden away in various domains or deities. I am aware of them. I'm also aware of the many, many more that just aren't good.

 

[Nifft]

Gambler's Word is ZOMG awesome for anyone who multi-classes into Cleric. Going from a daily encounter to a many-times-per-encounter power? Yes please. Avengers, Rangers, and multi-attack Controllers in general should give this some heavy consideration.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Jack99]

I wouldn't go that far. As I said, for people who don't want lethality in their games, it's a perfectly adequate feat. I just dislike it for personal taste reasons.

Well, obviously I wouldn't have either, if I was working with (or planning to) the people who wrote it

No offense to you Mouse, you know I am a fan, but I would never expect you to openly claim that something your colleagues made was stupid or broken.

Either way, while you are right that it could be fitting for a none-lethal game, I still think it's a *bad* feat. I try to allow everything, and thus I rather want as few things to house-rule. A lot of DM's allow to create characters via the C-Builder, again making the feat easily accessible.

Sure, it's easy to say no - but I rather not have to.