|
10 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 10:34PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Apr 21, 2004
|
Why is the cleric the only class that gets no improvement to physical or magic attacks. Based on the other class progressions shouldn't cleric be +3 in both at level 5?
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 11:12PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
I suppose because clerics are supposed to be more of a support class.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 15, 2012 - 11:51PM
#3
|
|
|
Clerics were way too good in Playtest 1 as they have often been over the history of D&D, they should not be nearly as good at fighting as a Fighter while casting spells in Heavy Armour.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 16, 2012 - 12:02AM
#4
|
|
|
Clerics were way too good in Playtest 1 as they have often been over the history of D&D, they should not be nearly as good at fighting as a Fighter while casting spells in Heavy Armour.
This should really be reinforced by putting the specialty priest of 2e front and center, over the cleric.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 16, 2012 - 12:02AM
#5
|
Date Joined:
Sep 26, 2007
|
True but in a bounded accuracy system he should likeley advance at the same rate as the rogue
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 16, 2012 - 12:10AM
#6
|
|
|
Not necessarily. Really it would be fine if only the Fighter advanced. There are 3 pillars after all. The fighter needs to get better at fighting, the Priest can do perfectly well with only getting better at exploration and interaction (to a significant degree).
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 16, 2012 - 1:16AM
#7
|
|
|
Well we've only seen 5 levels so far, I'd like to see the full path to 15, 20 or 30 or whatever the max level is.
Maybe the Cleric gets a +1 at Level 6....
I agree if there's a specialist melee "War Cleric" he would be expected to have a greater Attack Bonus but that's easily fixed with a Feat/Specialisation or whatever.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 16, 2012 - 4:55AM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Oct 17, 2007
|
Not necessarily. Really it would be fine if only the Fighter advanced. There are 3 pillars after all. The fighter needs to get better at fighting, the Priest can do perfectly well with only getting better at exploration and interaction (to a significant degree).
It may be ok for the fighter to be 'better at combat', but achieving that through different accuracy rates is a very poor solution. Make the cleric hit for less, have less manouvers or spells variety, fine. But don't make him be useless more often than other classes in combat.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 16, 2012 - 5:57AM
#9
|
|
|
The cleric's advancement should be at least as good as the rogue's, IMO. It certainly shouldn't be worse than the wizard's.
I think the wizard should be the only one whose physical attacks never advance (but magic attacks do) - even more so with the new cantrips.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Aug 16, 2012 - 7:31AM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 17, 2010
|
I'm not clear on why there's any automatic progression for any class. Isn't that against the point of bounded accuracy?
Sure, give fighters +1 to hit over clerics - fine. But why have that increase?
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
|
|
|
