Marlett’s Musings: Clerical… Error?
- Forward by Neuroglyph
I have to admit to a certain stunned surprise at the changes were seeing to PHB Classes now that the Cleric/Templar has been released. Based upon the Legend & Lore article by Mike Mearls, The Problem of Clerics , I honestly thought we were going to see Clerics/Templars get a boost in power, in order to make them more desirable to play. Instead, this week I witnessed a class being stripped of power, with reductions in damage, areas of effect, and overall efficacy.
Now I am not saying all the changes are unwarranted. I have no problem with changing some of the “selective target” AoEs from enemies to creatures – Flame Strike was never that precise. And part of the change to Turn Undead made sense, bringing the damage increases in line with the start of the Tiers, like everyone else’s’ powers. But the reduction in damage dice to d8’s seemed a bit harsh – seriously, 3d8 + Wisdom Modifier against an Epic Tier monster? Even if an epic level undead were 10 vulnerable to radiant damage, isn’t inflicting 20-40 damage to a monster that has 200-300 hit points really just a little sad?
These sorts of changes to classes reminds me WAY too much of the sweeping changes I experienced playing World of Warcraft. I love tanking and healing, and have been playing a Paladin for years. But after the recent expansion, and then several series of “patches” later, I could no longer recognize my own class! It’s shocking to suddenly have a character changed right from under you, and worse if those changes reduce the character classes effectiveness in combat.
If WotC Devs are going to treat D&D 4E like an MMO, and continue to make drastic changes to already established characters – and we’re not talking simple errata here – then they need to man-up and deal with the D&D 4E Community like an MMO does. When changes are coming, an MMO such as WoW puts the changes into effect on a “test realm” to let the community of players work them over. The programmers get feedback and information about performance BEFORE the changes become official.
Would it be so hard for WotC Devs to do the same thing? Rather than secretly making “star chamber” judgments about changes to the powers of a class, then dumping those changes on the community, how about actually posting the proposed changes several weeks prior to release, and let the people who actually pay to play the game give their feedback? Yes, there will be those gamers who will be unhappy with the changes, and some who won’t care, but isn’t getting feedback and input prior to a change – when it can still be reconsidered – better than making a horrendous change, and then having a PR nightmare trying to “spin” things to a mob of angry gamers? (…thinking of you, Trevor!)
And it’s doubly bad as a DM when you have to see changes affect the happiness of a Player, and have to weigh the “rightness” of the changes to a class over the enjoyment of a guy at your gaming table. So here are some thoughts from one of the gamers in my Toledo Campaign, who now has to deal with a Cleric-turned-Templar…
Marlett’s Musings
When the Class Compendium article series was announced, I had some small trepidation. My long history of playing games has prepared me for bad news any time that a class is “revisited”.
I did not have enough experience with the Fighter or Warlord classes – since my current campaign has no one them – to take much notice of the first two CC articles, other than the renaming of those classes. I didn’t think that was such a stellar idea, but again, I was not affected enough to concern myself.
But the Cleric now is another matter, as I have played Clerics since D&D 1st Edition (1980s, leg warmers, Miami Vice – all that good old-fart stuff). In the fallout since the Templar came out, the folks “bleeding Dragon blood” out there continue to rant over the fact that a few Cleric powers were wildly – in their opinion – “overpowered”. Those WotC loyalists point to Turn Undead, as experienced in the Epic tier, in a small sampling of published modules.
Got news for ya kids – by the time you are a Cleric in the Epic Tier, you should be an undead-killing machine! That’s been part of the lore ever since the dim and misty days of AD&D. As for it making the modules a joke to walk through, well, not everyone plays out of the module series. I’m sorry that the designers made the first published series of modules as a lead-up to confronting Orcus, but again, if you are facing the Lord of the Undead, then your Divine power-based character SHOULD be shining!
And let’s face it, Turn Undead is damned situational. In our last (3.5) campaign, I played a Cleric of Kelemvor, and built myself as an undead-hating and killing Doombringer – and I think we wound up fighting undead maybe 3 times in the whole campaign [Editor’s Note: It was at least 5 times in 12 levels – you forget the Swamp of Dooooom!] It’s not like you use it every play session, unless your DM like to run a Ravenloft campaign. It’s no different than if you had a room full of traps, and you have a Rogue who’s the trap-busting equivalent of the Ocean’s 11 team.
There’s been a lot of mention about the CharOps board highlighting the powers you “need” to play a class optimally, and that those are the powers that got hit hardest. Just for the record, oh great R&D team, but I never heard of that board until now, and I wouldn’t use it even if I cared to. I design characters around a character concept, and choose my powers accordingly. I don’t take powers or feats because some math-crunching, min-maxing, optimization monkey tells me to.
And I have to wonder about the changes to the Cleric/Templar when I read something like this from The Rule-of-3 article (5/2/2011):
“Is the list of feats ever going to get cleaned up (weak options removed or updated, obsolete feats removed)?
This is a contentious issue here in R&D. On one hand, it makes sense to remove options and elements that are weak or obsolete. On the other hand, people have access to those options now and it seems problematic to simply take them away; this might also cause problems for non-optimizers who took these feats and are perfectly happy with them.
For now, we’re content to keep them in place and rely on our lists of suggested feats to guide players to good choices. That’s our best tool to handle the amount of content a player has to navigate when creating a character or leveling up.”
I underline the important part here. If R&D feels that way about feats, then why do they feel the need to retool the PHB classes? Rather than change a class, couldn’t the Weaponmasters, Marshalls, and Templars have easily been new builds, unique in their own right?
Wizards of the Coast R&D needs to remember that they are simply the current stewards of D&D. Yes, they bought it from TSR, and Hasbro bought them out in turn, but we gamers – the folks who have kept it alive all these years, and those who are bringing up new generation to follow us – are the ones who truly make D&D what it is, and are the driving force for its future.
D&D 4e was the first edition where I could play a Cleric and I didn’t feel like a Healbot. I really embraced the Leader classes, and loved the fact that I could heal and still help the party even more immediately by buffing and debuffing, enjoying the secondary Controller aspects, which was a great choice for all Leaders.
So looking at the changes to make a Cleric into a Templar, I ask myself: Has my class been improved and balanced, or just slapped down with a massive nerfbat? Definitely the latter, and it makes me fear what will happen to the next class.
It’s been said by many of the WotC folks that Essentials is the “new direction” of D&D 4E. At this point, I’m thinking of getting off the train, because I really don’t like where it’s going. And I don’t think I’m the only one looking for the exit at the next station.
About The Author
Agree with all of this 100%, especially about WoTC having an open test chamber for changes before they go live. Great idea!
Bleh, phrases like this: ” I design characters around a character concept, and choose my powers accordingly. I don’t take powers or feats because some math-crunching, min-maxing, optimization monkey tells me to.” always turn me off entirely. Insulting people whose play-style differs from your own undercuts any other points you might have, and as has been repeated plenty of other times, just because you’re good at number-crunching doesn’t mean you’re a bad roleplayer. I have several players in my game that are both.
If you pick your powers according solely to your concept instead of the rules, then why do the adjustments matter? The truth is, you probably do care about your numbers, and folks that really delve into the numbers of the game are a good indicator of when things are a bit extreme. Remember, the game is only being sold to you: there are people who care about having decently balanced classes in their game, and have wider experiences than just your own cleric.
I don’t disagree that the changes to the Cleric were disappointing, and more could have been done to make it feel more like a “this class is getting more interesting and defined” rather than a “this class is getting weaker” – but your derisions of anyone who doesn’t play like you don’t help your argument at all.
I jumped ship when Essentials came out, but I still like to keep an eye on what WotC is doing and where 4E is going. When I saw the changes to the Cleric I wrote a comment/rant on my facebook wall just to get it out of my system. I figure it could be posted here also.
“This is my biggest qualm with 4E. I don’t buy that 4E feels like an MMO. In my experience it really doesn’t; it still feels like D&D and plays like D&D. And the majority of places where I’ve seen people compare 4E to MMOs are things that have been present in D&D and roleplaying far longer than the MMO has existed.
However, there is one thing that does make 4E feel like an MMO. This ridiculous patching. Errata and rules clarifications are one thing. Completely redesigning a class mid-cycle is unseemly. And this is why, for all the great things 4E has, I’ve switched my preference to 3.5 and Pathfinder.”
Quote: If R&D feels that way about feats, then why do they feel the need to retool the PHB classes?
I’m not saying that I agree or disagree, but the difference between what Mike Mearls wrote about WotC not pruning “bad” feats and WotC lowering the strength of “overpowered” Cleric powers is the end of the power scale that these things are on. It seems pretty clear that they think it’s a little annoying but not unbalancing to have options that nobody takes because they’re so weak, but that it’s problematic to have options that everybody takes because they’re so strong.
Great points in the article and comments. I think in order to appeal to a wider audience, including those who want a competitive play-style, and those who need an equality of classes, such as the encounters program and the newly announced pro adventure series this fall, respectively, the classes needs balance, just like an mmo. But for us it only means “official” rules.
We still have our books, so we can read it out of the book, and update our power cards by hand. Also hopefully there will eventually be a custom rules set for online character builder.
jfc… this is why I love the internet so much…
Dave, if all you got out of my opinion piece is that you think I slighted optimizers, then I’m just stunned. I don’t give a rat’s ass who optimizes what, and to which degree. If someone plays different than I do – spanktacular! I’m not someone who twirls my cape and *roleplays!*, nor do I break out basic calculus to create a character. I’m in my game to drink beer, kick ass, and have fun with my friends – and for a couple decades now, that means keeping them alive.
My problem with optimizing comes in when a vocal minority of any playerbase preaches it like the gospel, and that causes powers and the like to be nerfed stupid (back to the MMO comparisons), even if it would take one singular train of feats and items to make it happen. Turn Undead for instance, only really gets obnoxious after you get Demonbane and other feats. That’s why the adjustments matter.
If it was about “Monkeys”.. ok – it’s a subjective term, but hey – I’m a blunt instrument and frankly, I’m allergic to bullshit at this stage of my life.
I’m fully aware that the game isn’t being sold just to me. Everyone plays the game the way they want. Balance is best handled at the table by the DM, in conjunction with the players. We also have a fantastic roleplayer who also happens to be mostly Vulcan – he can crunch numbers and optimize a class to a ridiculous degree. This has caused problems with the campaign, but you know what? He and we and Neuro here managed to work it out without having to rewrite any powers, items, feats or anything. We just made it all work.
If I were you, I’d be a lot more concerned that they just not only renamed, but completely revamped the scope of several core classes. Three down, and at least one to go. If there were massive imbalances in several classes, then why has it taken three-ish years of released game time; plus I don’t know how much beta test time to fix it? I’m pretty sure I read a fairly extensive list of beta testers of 4e – with several well-known members of the game blogging community included. Did all those people, and all of us who started after official release, fail to catch glaring imbalance issues?
I believe that there are several outstanding folks who work in R&D (management and the DDI team are a whole ‘nother vitriol-filled rant), but these retconning classes is just not making any sense. At the risk of starting yet another F***ing edition war – if they are going to change all the PHB classes then they need to sack up and call it 4.5 or whatever the hell they are aiming at.
Game balance discussions aside – what about a business ethics one? A brand new player starts playing the game, and after they buy the Essentials, they grab a PHB – and think a Cleric is a pretty cool class. The PHB (and just about everything else WotC has going) advertises the crap out of DDI and the new Character Builder. They then sign up, and whoopsie! – you can’t make a PHB Cleric with the CB anymore……
Anyway, me and my narrow experiences will just keep on keeping on, and I’ll keep distrusting decisions made in a vacuum.
So I was thinking more about the Cleric/Templar, and did a little research on Character Builder, and kinda think I figured out what the Devs were doing. The Cleric/Templar has basically had their damage “normalized” to around that of comparable powers from Essentials.
Level 15 Dailies
Purifying Fire – Reduces the power’s damage from 3d10 to 2d10. >>> New Damage: average 11 + Wisdom Mod
Seal of Warding – Changes the damage dice from 4d10 to 4d6. >>> New Damage: 14 + Wisdom Mod
Manifestation of Wrath – 10 + Wisdom Mod damage
Level 19 Dailies
Fire Storm – Reduces the power’s damage from 5d10 to 3d10. >>> New Damage – 16.5 + Wisdom Mod and 5.5 + Wisdom Mod if creatures remain in storm = 22 damage + Wisdom Mod
Gaze of the Sun – 20 radiant (ongoing save ends)
Level 29 Dailies
Astral Storm – Reduces the power’s damage from 6d10 to 4d10. >>> New Damage – 22 + Wisdom Mod
No comparative Essentials AoE Daily – Ordained Victory are comparable in structure and damage to the Cleric/Templar power Godstike – both are 7[W] single target.
So is my theory valid here? The math looks just about right, which makes this pretty much an “Essentials nerf” to alter a PHB class. If true, I can’t say that makes me very happy.
[...] all the Essentializing of 4e from people I’d considered reasonable and pro-4E writers like Neuroglyph Games. And even a casual perusal of the 4e forums will show the craziness that Essentials is causing for [...]
If all this errata, updating & what not, is the result of Wizards treating 4th like an MMO, then wow, I am at a loss of words on the folly of that kind of thinking.
I hate errata. I have never used errata from Wizards other than the deluxe core books. Why? Because it’s freaking printed is why.
Grab some popcorn, sit in a lawn chair and watch this insanity unfold- starting with Essentials.
Heh, just found out I can sell back D&D books to Amazon. 4E ones are not worth more than 3 bucks in most cases unfortunately. Might sell back my MM3, as I’m thinking my group is done experimenting with 4E.
My 3.5 books are worth decent money though. 3x or more the 4E ones.
Dave
Marlett,
you make a very valid point. No one in the groups I ever played in, and this includes the RPGA never compalined about the cleric’s abilities being over powered or better than anyone elses. I do like what they did with the essentials classes and they can exist in my game as very focused builds (sorry no choices, your dedication to your profession determines the skills you learn).
Huntarian7, I have never used errata either. There has never been a need. Like you said the books are printed and an issue ever comes up the DM has final say. It used to be in 1st and 2nd Edition that the DM had a lot more say on how a game is run then they micro-managed it to death in 30(3.5) and pared it back down some in 4.0 but player’s and DM’s shouldn’t be led by the hand on how to run the game by the designers.
Marlett, also perhaps they wanted to offer the PH classes to those brand new essentials player’s that bought the PH so they don’t fell like a fish out of water. The only logical one that I can come up with otherwise they just responded to those that screamed the loudest for change.
I might use the changes with the other essentials classes and call them just that the templar and the weaponmaster; focused builds of the more effective cleric and fighter. I do remember the devs saying that they will focus on more standard D&D stuff so we’ll see but since I am not a DDI I probably wont see it.
Shawn