The Cleric Pregen

[Cadfan]

I love clerics, and I love plate-wearing warrior-priests.

Of course, concievably that concept can be covered by any class (or combo thereof) or talent tree that doesn't shoot too many laser beams.

Paladin?

 

[Sitara]

I wonder when priests will get flamestryke. (I bet it will be splled with a Y this time )

 

[Mirtek]

Paladin?

No.

 

[Dausuul]

I've never understood that kind of issue.

If its lacking in fluff you like.. make it up?

Put some flavour text to it? Have your cleric strike out in the name of their god, and their god bolsters the cleric and his party in return?

This is a weird variant on the Oberoni fallacy that I've been seeing more and more of lately. Yeah, with enough mental contortion, I can figure out a plausible explanation in the game world for what the mechanics are doing in 4E, just like I could patch and house-rule the mechanics of 2E into something resembling functionality. But I shouldn't have to. Working out how the mechanics connect to the game-world reality is every bit as much the game designer's job, and every bit as important, as hammering out the mechanics themselves.

 

[Vayden]

This is a weird variant on the Oberoni fallacy that I've been seeing more and more of lately. Yeah, with enough mental contortion, I can figure out a plausible explanation in the game world for what the mechanics are doing in 4E, just like I could patch and house-rule the mechanics of 2E into something resembling functionality. But I shouldn't have to. Working out how the mechanics connect to the game-world reality is every bit as much the game designer's job, and every bit as important, as hammering out the mechanics themselves.

I agree that that answer is a fallacy. I'll just skip that response and go straight to "I don't care about this issue. I understand that you care, but your opinion on this does not affect me, and the fact that you care this much confuses me slightly", which is what I expect most of those responses are trying to say.

Basically, do I worry about how the cleric gives me a boost to do something? Not really - he's doing his god mumbo-jumbo, and I get a bonus to X. I'm happy.

Do I care why or how the Warlord lets me charge someone for free? Not really - I just got to charge into some mope for free. That rocked - way to assess the tactical situation, Warlord.

Do I care how my fighter managed to paralyze someone with a paragon/epic blow? Eh, it was pressure points or something - the point is, he's paralyzed, pile on the hits, kids.

Do I care how exactly the goblin harpooned me and is dragging me towards him? Only in the sense that I'm scrambling for an edge, and if I think I can get away with it, I'll try throwing out some BS about how unrealistic it is and see if I can sucker the GM into an on-the-spot houserule.

I guess what I'm saying is, it would be a bonus if all of the flavor text on the powers was excellently done. But on my list of priorities, flavor text (and names) for powers is way, way, way down on the priority list. I'm much more concerned about the rules and the flavor text for races, paragon paths, epic destinies, monster ecologies, etc.

 

[TerraDave]

In play, the wizard is much more of a blaster, with the advantage in range, area, and (mostly) damage. I think the fact that he is more focused on one ability (int) also gives a little edge in this area.

The cleric can do a lot of things. But his niche remains supporting other charecters, even as he is able to make his own attacks (or do other things) at the same time.

 

[Knightlord]

Honestly, the cleric was one of my favorite classes in D&D 3E, at least conceptually. I didn't play one often due to the fact that, mechanically, I felt like I was only good for pretty much healing everyone, then trying to strike a foe next to me to no avail. The 4E cleric, however, seems to be more to my liking. Better spells (which I can actually use cause everyone has some form of recovery capability now and does not have to rely upon me and a wand of Duct Tape), cooler attacks that actually have a chance of hitting, and with all this attached to the same conceptual fluff, it makes me want to try a cleric first thing in 4E.

 

[Dausuul]

Basically, do I worry about how the cleric gives me a boost to do something? Not really - he's doing his god mumbo-jumbo, and I get a bonus to X. I'm happy.

Do I care why or how the Warlord lets me charge someone for free? Not really - I just got to charge into some mope for free. That rocked - way to assess the tactical situation, Warlord.

Do I care how my fighter managed to paralyze someone with a paragon/epic blow? Eh, it was pressure points or something - the point is, he's paralyzed, pile on the hits, kids.

Do I care how exactly the goblin harpooned me and is dragging me towards him? Only in the sense that I'm scrambling for an edge, and if I think I can get away with it, I'll try throwing out some BS about how unrealistic it is and see if I can sucker the GM into an on-the-spot houserule.

See, this is all very well until somebody wants to do something that isn't covered by the rules.

One of the things that defines the RPG (at least the traditional D&D-style RPG) is that the rules are just a starting point. You're free to go beyond them. The goblin picador has just harpooned you--pull back! Use the rope as a tripline against his buddy! Yank the harpoon out and throw it back at him! None of these is covered by the rules, but all should be viable options. That's a big part of why we have DMs, to figure out ways to handle those situations.

The problem is, dealing with "beyond-the-rules" situations requires knowing what the heck is going on. If you don't know how the picador is keeping you from moving, you can't react to it in character. All you can do is use some other combat maneuver.

And if the flavor text for a given rule is shoddy, the effect is to either negate or substantially alter the rule itself as soon as somebody questions it. Take the goblin picador. He harpoons a fighter. The DM announces that the fighter can't move away.

The fighter's player replies, "What? I have a Strength of 22. I can lift smallish boulders--and he's a skinny little goblin on open ground. He doesn't even raise my encumbrance level. I just drag him after me."

And unless the flavor text suggests a good explanation for why this trick won't work (or the DM can invent one), the picador's signature ability instantly ceases to exist, and the picador itself is essentially negated as an opponent.

Please note: I'm not asking for explanations of the picador's ability here, merely pointing out that such explanations are required for its ability to work effectively.

Bottom line: Flavor text is rules text, because it's telling the DM how to adjudicate the rule in play. A good rule with bad flavor text is a bad rule.

 

[Howndawg]

I like the clerc pregen. I like the fact that turning is based on Wis rather than Cha (Cha-based turning was too MAD for me). I like that with the new best of two scores for defense scheme, the cleric actually has a reason to take a decent Int. I like that healing is a minor action.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And if the flavor text for a given rule is shoddy, the effect is to either negate or substantially alter the rule itself as soon as somebody questions it. Take the goblin picador. He harpoons a fighter. The DM announces that the fighter can't move away.

Please note: I'm not asking for explanations of the picador's ability here, merely pointing out that such explanations are required for its ability to work effectively.

Personally, I don't WANT the rules telling me much about what's going on, because then it limits the imagination, and causes the same thing to happen over-and-over.

For instance, if the Picador's harpoon says "the harpoon lodges between your third and fourth ribs" I'd think that was dumb (and too specific) if the character isn't bloodied by it.

Or if it says "Gets pinned into your armor" what if the character is not wearing armor?

The thing is, both of those descriptions are great, depending of the exact situation, and I should be able to describe it any way I like to provide "realism" "narative" or "cool factor" as I like.

Off the top of my head

Big fighter with a shield, low damage from the picador?
The picador throws his harpoon which lodges in your shield, he drags you forward, momentarily off-balance.

No armor? Not bloodied?
When the picadore throws his harpoon, you duck. It passes over your left shoulder, but he jerks on the rope causing the haft of the 'poon to catch around your neck from behind. He then runs to the left, dragging you in that direction.

Dropped by a crit harpoon attack?
The picadore throws his harpoon hard into the halfling's shoulder. The halfling cries out in pain and slumps to the ground. A quick tug by the picadore drags the halfling's body past the ogre who snarls and rushes toward the dwarf.

It's all relative to every little factor in every situation, and if you give too much, you LIMIT what can happen.

I once played a game a role-master which has these huge charts, the conciet being that it covers "every" situation. So I fire a bow shot (a crit!) at a baddie who was waist-high behind a boulder, I consult the six charts (or whatever) rolling carefully on each one - and I come up with a result of... I shoot him in the foot. How did THAT happen, given the situation. I was far too close to "lob" the arrow over the boulder.

Fitz