# Battle Cleric Options is up



## Colmarr (Jun 24, 2011)

Here.

If only I was still a subscriber, cause it sounds interesting:



> This article introduces a new set of powers tailored for Strength clerics, aka battle clerics, along with an optional class feature, Battle Cleric’s Lore, which a cleric can take in place of Healer’s Lore.
> 
> The encounter attack powers presented in this article focus on two general paths. Both paths augment the cleric’s weapons, granting an attack or a damage bonus as part of the power’s effects.
> 
> ...




So, is it as interesting as it sounds?


----------



## Larrin (Jun 24, 2011)

Its very interesting. Its also useful, so thats good too.

battle lore give a +2 shield bonus to ac only, and scale proficiency, and when you heal the target get a +2 attack.

It gives two paths, each with an at will (which are colored red like encounters, but say at will, watch for this  ) one encounter per level you get encounters and encorages simple weapons.

Path one requires simple weapons and give a +2 to damge when you hold in in both hands, these powers tend to make you/r allies have better attacks.

_edit: Path 1 also tends to give str+1 Vs AC on attacks, and for example allows attacking the lowest defense as an effect_

Path two give +1d6 damage when using simple weapons, and seems to be more about disrupting foes attacks, or protecting people.

_edit: Path 2 _example target does half damage on next attack, as an effect.

The retraining choices are more or less upgrades to previous powers, i think

PP has features with options (ie you have two choices what to do when you s[pend an AP) and several ways to make basic attacks as a minor action.

I like its style, it feels about right, but also shiny and powerful.


----------



## Destil (Jun 24, 2011)

The at-wills don't scale at epic. Why is this so hard for wizards to consistently get right in Dragon?


----------



## Incenjucar (Jun 24, 2011)

Has the simple weapon mechanic been used before? Gotta say that I like it. Opens up new possible builds that would otherwise go neglected for the standard superior weapon fare.


----------



## interwyrm (Jun 24, 2011)

Incenjucar said:


> Has the simple weapon mechanic been used before? Gotta say that I like it. Opens up new possible builds that would otherwise go neglected for the standard superior weapon fare.




Yeah, charop is whinging about it. Maybe, just *maybe* simple weapons will get used once in a while now.


----------



## Neverfate (Jun 24, 2011)

Destil said:


> The at-wills don't scale at epic. Why is this so hard for wizards to consistently get right in Dragon?




Maybe Mearls is just trolling us. Either way, I'm sure this will corrected before the next DDI update 

 @Incenjucar  Off hand I can't think of any 4E class that has gotten a simple-weapon-focus treatment. This does give some nice alternatives seeing as people will be more comfortable staying with-in the theme of the no-sharp-object-cleric before grabbing the bastard sword (but the sword options are there if people want them!).


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2011)

Whoa.

This is actually a good article.  A _really_ good article.

-O


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 24, 2011)

Larrin said:


> battle lore give a +2 shield bonus to ac only, and scale proficiency




This is a very interesting way of subtly guiding battle clerics towards 2h weapons.

The +2 shield bonus makes shields irrelevant for AC, and the free scale proficiency frees up a feat for use on Lightning Reflexes (or whatever the suped-up Essentials version is).

From the sound of it, this article gives battle clerics the option of surrending the cleric's mantle as 'healer supreme' in return for getting a lot of new offensive options.

Nice.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jun 24, 2011)

I don't particularly like clerics or divine classes in general, and I particularly had no use for the Strength cleric build, but I have to say - good article!

It does what articles like this *should* do - it (almost) makes me want to play one, even though I don't like them.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2011)

I absolutely love that any melee class now has a reason to use Simple weapons.  It's flavorful and awesome.

All around, this article seems to *re*-buff clerics, in a way that makes them better actual _leaders_.  Bye-bye, Divine Fortune!  Bye-bye Priest's Shield!  Hell, I don't know why most Clerics would take Healer's Lore _at all _now.

-O


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 24, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Bye-bye, Divine Fortune!




Why do you say this? I haven't seen anything mentioned so far that affects channel divinity.


----------



## Dannager (Jun 24, 2011)

Colmarr said:


> Why do you say this? I haven't seen anything mentioned so far that affects channel divinity.




The article presents two new Channel Divinity options, one that replaces Divine Fortune and one that replaces Turn Undead.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 24, 2011)

This will put mace, spear and morningstar at the top of the food chain for strength clerics now. They get the bonus to hit of a superior/military weapon along with its damage. I can already envision eladrin spear builds dominating this style.

I have to say that this actually annoys me. Dwarves are perfect as a race for this sort of cleric build and yet no hammers or axes are considered simple weapons.


----------



## Peraion Graufalke (Jun 24, 2011)

I like this article very much. Enabling at-will attacks as minor actions is what the battle cleric needed IMO, and he got it. Dead monsters don't crit. 

Well done, Mearls.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 24, 2011)

Kzach said:


> This will put mace, spear and morningstar at the top of the food chain for strength clerics now. They get the bonus to hit of a superior/military weapon along with its damage. I can already envision eladrin spear builds dominating this style.
> 
> I have to say that this actually annoys me. Dwarves are perfect as a race for this sort of cleric build and yet no hammers or axes are considered simple weapons.



indeed, dwarves sould be able to use hammers here...


----------



## Dannager (Jun 24, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> indeed, dwarves sould be able to use hammers here...




Sounds like a good place to start for coming up with a new feat.


----------



## Lord Ernie (Jun 24, 2011)

This makes me want to rebuild my cleric|invoker. The powers are awesome leader powers, the healer's lore replacement puts the old one to shame (and as written, hybrid clerics gain healer's lore), and I really just love the feel of the whole thing.

Battle clerics went from a rather subpar option to brutally efficient and powerful leaders, all in one article. They may even get close to the warlord, which is saying a lot. The battle cleric is now one of the best buffers in the game. 

Brilliantly played, mr. Mearls.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 24, 2011)

The battle cleric option needs to clarify, that you only get scale proficiency IF you have chainmail proficiency to prevent hybrid abuse.

I also believe, the battle clerics lore is terribly powerful, maybe a bit too good to pass, even for a wisdom cleric.
2 handed simple weapons gain great boost with this article. On the other hand, I don´t know why any battle cleric should use a one handed weapon.

Maybe this is reserved for the warpriest and helps to distinguish one from the other.

Our group´s hybrid fighter/cleric will be very happy with those options i guess. He really liked to give up his shield and have a more damaging weapon instead and also can retrain his hybrid talent, maybe into combat superity.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2011)

Kzach said:


> This will put mace, spear and morningstar at the top of the food chain for strength clerics now. They get the bonus to hit of a superior/military weapon along with its damage. I can already envision eladrin spear builds dominating this style.



Staff is the one to watch out for.  With Staff Expertise and Staff Fighting, you're looking at a Defensive 1d8 Two-Handed Simple Weapon with a Reach of 2.



> I have to say that this actually annoys me. Dwarves are perfect as a race for this sort of cleric build and yet no hammers or axes are considered simple weapons.



Hmmm...  It doesn't bother me, honestly.  I mean, I'm used to Dwarven Clerics who use maces from past editions. 

-O


----------



## Riastlin (Jun 24, 2011)

Clearly this article must be a misprint as it is giving non-essentials support to a pre-essentials class.  

In all honesty though I do like the article and it definitely provides a nice option for strength clerics.  I also like the focus on simple weapons as this may be what can ultimately be used to try to set the runepriest apart from the clerics and warpriests.  Though shield-based runepriests will still be in an odd place.  

Obviously, runepriests still need help in a variety of ways, but at least I think this helps them to carve out a bit of a niche.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 24, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Staff is the one to watch out for.  With Staff Expertise and Staff Fighting, you're looking at a Defensive 1d8 Two-Handed Simple Weapon with a Reach of 2.




I considered this but I felt that there is too little benefit from it to justify the expenditure of extra feats. Defensive is overshadowed by the Battle Lore's +2 AC bonus, the staff isn't versatile so the damage is lower than mace/spear/morningstar, clerics don't use staves as implements, and the reach simply isn't needed with, again, the Battle Lore feature.

Nice as a flavour option but for optimising, it's fairly weak.

An eladrin with Eladrin Soldier and Spear Expertise and Feycharger cheese, however... yeah, that's actually getting into the silly range. The +1 to hit on those powers is going to make all the difference and, in all honesty, I can see being errated down the track because of charop builds making it way too powerful.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 24, 2011)

I don´t really see how the char op board can break it. +1 to hit is not that powerful on a simple weapon, which usually is only at +2 to hit...

+1 to hit +2 damage is a really nice flavourful nod to ADnD, where weapon specialization gives exactly that.

You should also not forget, that eladrin can wield a spear with +3 to hit and higher damage with their feat. So i really don´t see an immediate broken build.

Edit: also keep in mind, that charop is more or less a thought experiment, not useful for actual gaming...


----------



## Shroomy (Jun 24, 2011)

I've read thru a bunch of these threads and there's a point everyone missed while discussing the awesomeness contained within the article.  That is, this is the _first_ in a series of articles that take a look at underserved classes.


----------



## Damon_Tor (Jun 24, 2011)

Yeeeeeah, so this + hybrids is just a no-brainer.  Free scale prof + a +2 shield bonus to AC for free is just too good.  I had built my Griffonrider Charger as a Ranger|Warlord mostly for the free heavy shield prof and slightly easier path to scale prof, the idea that I could not only get scale prof and a heavy shield for free PLUS I can do all of that while wielding a 2-handed weapon is just _sick_.


----------



## jbear (Jun 24, 2011)

Kzach said:


> This will put mace, spear and morningstar at the top of the food chain for strength clerics now. They get the bonus to hit of a superior/military weapon along with its damage. I can already envision eladrin spear builds dominating this style.
> 
> I have to say that this actually annoys me. Dwarves are perfect as a race for this sort of cleric build and yet no hammers or axes are considered simple weapons.



You mean there is a reason for Dwarves not to take Dwarven  Weapon Training!!!!???!!!

Hehehe, sounds like a good thing!


----------



## Klaus (Jun 24, 2011)

These new powers, coupled with a Belt of the Brawler, make for an interesting unarmed leader!


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 24, 2011)

jbear said:


> You mean there is a reason for Dwarves not to take Dwarven  Weapon Training!!!!???!!!
> 
> Hehehe, sounds like a good thing!




True.  But it is sort of weird that a battle-cleric of Moradin would potentially be LESS effective with a hammer than with a silly club.


----------



## the Jester (Jun 24, 2011)

I just hope this helps lay to rest all the whinging and gnashing of teeth about how Essentials means that no pre-Essentials stuff will ever get support.


----------



## jbear (Jun 24, 2011)

Yeah, I haven't even read the article, so really it was just a flippant comment posted for my own amusement. Sorry about that. I totally agree that a dwarven battle dwarf with a  hammer makes total sense.

But I do honestly like the idea that can perhaps make a 'must-have' feat choice into a questionable one.

And  I also like the idea that there finally exists a reason to use maces. Maces have been out in the cold from the start. It's nice to see them win a small corner of usefulness.


----------



## DEFCON 1 (Jun 24, 2011)

Am I correct in interpreting that the Battle Cleric's _Favor of the Gods_ channel divinity power is different than the Avenger's _Divine Guidance_ (and not as good) in that the cleric has to give his target the chance to re-roll before the target's makes his attack (thereby possibly making the gift superfluous if it turns out the target hits anyway?)

I would understand why it would be done (so as to not step on the Avenger's toes by having it be an interupt), but it certainly does make _Favor of the Gods_ a bit more tactical as to when to use it.  You'll want to make sure the target you give it to is going to have multiple attacks throughout the round (via bursts, blasts, multi-attacks, expected OAs) so that there's a better chance at least one of them might miss, thereby allowing _Favor of the Gods_ to be used.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 24, 2011)

jbear said:


> But I do honestly like the idea that can perhaps make a 'must-have' feat choice into a questionable one.




I'm with you on that one.  And I like the article overall.  Any battle cleric who doesn't worship Moradin is golden with maces now, which is great.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 24, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You should also not forget, that eladrin can wield a spear with +3 to hit and higher damage with their feat. So i really don´t see an immediate broken build.



Give an eladrin templar the battle lore feature, all the Str+1 vs. AC attacks with the +2 two-handed damage bonus rider, eladrin soldier and spear expertise with an 18 Str.

So at 2nd level you'd have +9 to hit and do 1d8+9 (13.5 average) damage on your at-will attack. That's before any magic items are added. Then add in a 20 AC.

Compare to, say, an eladrin fighter with the same str, feats and a greatspear at 2nd-level. +9 to hit and do 1d10+6 damage (11.5 average) and have an 18 AC.

The only way a fighter could compete would be to make a sacrifice somewhere. They'd either have to get the +1 to hit (probably the best option), or go battlerager dropping AC for more damage.

The fighter would have reach but reach by itself doesn't really mean much unless it's paired with options to utilise the advantage, which don't really come into play until paragon.


----------



## SabreCat (Jun 24, 2011)

Fantastic article! I'm looking forward to seeing more of this.

Re: no simple Hammers... apparently Moradin favors Warpriests over Battle Priests. That's right, Mearls is telling Dwarf players, _God wants you to play an Essentials build._


----------



## Herschel (Jun 24, 2011)

jbear said:


> And I also like the idea that there finally exists a reason to use maces. Maces have been out in the cold from the start. It's nice to see them win a small corner of usefulness.




Now we need some Trident love.


----------



## fba827 (Jun 24, 2011)

Herschel said:


> Now we need some Trident love.




That sounds painful.


----------



## Nullzone (Jun 24, 2011)

The simple weapons restriction is the most arbitrary and ridiculous thing I've seen in a long while. It makes the whole article frustrating to me.

If they want to empower the battle cleric to be an offensive leader, then why can't my dwarf use a hammer or my drow use a fullblade?

Giving simple weapons some love is great, but you give them love by giving incentives to use them, not by cutting all the other groups out of the picture and saying "You want to be cool? Use a crappy weapon."

Hell, I wouldn't even mind if the base cleric only had simple weapons as proficiencies, if you want to go this route. And leaving the extra buffs when using simple weapons is fine, it makes them competitive. But don't restrict an entire set of _really good_ exploits to them!


----------



## Riastlin (Jun 24, 2011)

I'll reread the article when I get home, but I was under the impression that the powers didn't explicitly exclude non-simple weapons, rather it gave bonuses for using simple weapons to put them on a much more equal footing as the non-simple weaps.

That being said, even if it doesn't allow non-simple weaps, I still think this works as its giving each of the different leader builds their own little niche.  Battle clerics use simple weaps with two hands while handing out an assortment of buffs.  Warpriests likely use a shield.  Runepriests will likely use superior weapons to deal large amounts of damage, etc.  With luck, when they are all done (still anticipating some runepriest love) each of the different classes/builds will have their own little niche and be relatively balanced with each other as they'll each have their own pros and cons.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 24, 2011)

Riastlin said:


> I'll reread the article when I get home, but I was under the impression that the powers didn't explicitly exclude non-simple weapons, rather it gave bonuses for using simple weapons to put them on a much more equal footing as the non-simple weaps.
> 
> That being said, even if it doesn't allow non-simple weaps, I still think this works as its giving each of the different leader builds their own little niche.  Battle clerics use simple weaps with two hands while handing out an assortment of buffs.  Warpriests likely use a shield.  Runepriests will likely use superior weapons to deal large amounts of damage, etc.  With luck, when they are all done (still anticipating some runepriest love) each of the different classes/builds will have their own little niche and be relatively balanced with each other as they'll each have their own pros and cons.




Half of the powers require a simple weapon. The other half provide a pretty hefty damage bonus if you use one. Either way you'd be pretty much crazy to waste resources on using a superior weapon with any of these powers, even assuming you didn't want the "simple weapons only" line of powers.

It isn't bad, just creates a sort of an oddity in the game. I mean I don't know what other possibilities Mike looked into. I'd assume he wanted something that would make a STR cleric effective with a weapon right from the start.

[MENTION=56189]Kzach[/MENTION] Your analysis sounds about right. There are one or two little cracks here they're going to have to fill in... OTOH the comparison to fighter isn't 100% relevant, they are still quite different characters and the fighter has other advantages that make it more suitable to its role. Still could be an issue with hybrids though (they are definitely going to have to drop in some errata to keep the Battle Cleric's Lore option out of the hands of hybrids).


----------



## Klaus (Jun 24, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> The simple weapons restriction is the most arbitrary and ridiculous thing I've seen in a long while. It makes the whole article frustrating to me.
> 
> If they want to empower the battle cleric to be an offensive leader, then why can't my dwarf use a hammer or my drow use a fullblade?
> 
> ...



There *are* other Str-based cleric powers that you can use with a fullblade or mordenkrad.

The powers that don't *require* a simple weapon are those that give +1d6 damage if you use a simple weapon. If you have access to a d12 brutal 2 weapon superior weapon, you can use that instead of a 1d8 + 1d6 simple weapon.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 24, 2011)

SabreCat said:


> Fantastic article! I'm looking forward to seeing more of this.
> 
> Re: no simple Hammers... apparently Moradin favors Warpriests over Battle Priests. That's right, Mearls is telling Dwarf players, _God wants you to play an Essentials build._



Or the dwarf can play a runepriest instead...


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 24, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Or the dwarf can play a runepriest instead...




Which works fine if you re-fluff it to actually represent someone who is devout, but leaves out general cleric-y-ness.

Plus, these powers are straight up better than a lot of is currently available to str-clerics, and packed with stuff that screams "DWARF!", like the pseudo-defender schtick.


----------



## Obryn (Jun 24, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I considered this but I felt that there is too little benefit from it to justify the expenditure of extra feats. Defensive is overshadowed by the Battle Lore's +2 AC bonus,



Defensive _stacks_ with the +2 Shield bonus.



> the staff isn't versatile so the damage is lower than mace/spear/morningstar,



With Staff Fighting, you're looking at 1d8, at least.  And it fits the bill for 2-handed weapons that are required for some of the powers.



> clerics don't use staves as implements, and the reach simply isn't needed with, again, the Battle Lore feature.



Reach is an added bonus with a feat - Staff Expertise - that you're already going to take.  And it's never, ever a _bad_ thing to have.

So for 1 feat you were going to take anyway, and 1 feat you weren't, you get +1 reach, an added die size, and +1 to AC.  Not too shabby.

-O


----------



## Kzach (Jun 25, 2011)

Obryn said:


> Defensive _stacks_ with the +2 Shield bonus.



Hrm, for some reason I thought Defensive was a shield bonus.


----------



## frogged (Jun 25, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> Hell, I wouldn't even mind _*if the base cleric only had simple weapons as proficiencies*_, if you want to go this route. And leaving the extra buffs when using simple weapons is fine, it makes them competitive. But don't restrict an entire set of _really good_ exploits to them!



Umm...


> *Weapon Proficiencies:* Simple melee, simple ranged


----------



## Nullzone (Jun 25, 2011)

Klaus said:


> There *are* other Str-based cleric powers that you can use with a fullblade or mordenkrad.
> 
> The powers that don't *require* a simple weapon are those that give +1d6 damage if you use a simple weapon. If you have access to a d12 brutal 2 weapon superior weapon, you can use that instead of a 1d8 + 1d6 simple weapon.




Take inferior role-fulfilling powers that confer no benefit at all and waste a turn if I miss, just so I can use my mordenkrad...or take a power that actually does provide good role-fulfillment with a little extra oomph if I hit, but, for no logical in-character reason at all, says I have to wield a  simple weapon to use it. Yeah, really tough call. 

I did in fact say that the powers that deal extra damage with a simple weapon are fine. It's all the simple weapon only stuff that upsets me, because it's _patently_ better than everything else a Battle Templar can get, and yet for some reason they've felt the need to tell me I can only use it with an ordinary club. Even though there's an entire game mechanic (weapon proficiency) already established that they could use instead to try and favor the simple weapons, with expansion for personal choice/flavor requiring the use of feats (which is what the feat space is intended for).

If you want to give simple weapons a unique edge, do it through advantages, not exclusivity. And for pete's sake, make it fit the flavor design, not just "because I said so" or "because charop will break it if I don't". Because that's all I'm getting from these powers right now.

Edit  @frogged : My point stands all the stronger then. If the base cleric can only use simple weapons, then this restriction is completely unnecessary. Weapon proficiencies cost feats, which is a fair investment for that sort of flavor customization. Don't automatically cut those out of the picture by restricting your weapon options on top of it.


----------



## john112364 (Jun 25, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Hrm, for some reason I thought Defensive was a shield bonus.




Nope. According to the compendium the defensive property is a +1 untyped bonus. 

Hmm. Battle clerics really rock don't they.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2011)

> The simple weapons restriction is the most arbitrary and ridiculous thing I've seen in a long while. It makes the whole article frustrating to me.




It torques me like it does the rouge's restriction to "only light blades" or some other gibberish.

It's arbitrary and limiting, rather than interesting and expanding.



			
				Klaus said:
			
		

> The powers that don't *require* a simple weapon are those that give +1d6 damage if you use a simple weapon. If you have access to a d12 brutal 2 weapon superior weapon, you can use that instead of a 1d8 + 1d6 simple weapon.




This I'm cool with. 

I'm perfectly fine with a little bonus reward for those who use the "right weapons."

It's frustrating when the power is artificially limited to ONLY the "right weapons," though.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 25, 2011)

Kzach said:


> Give an eladrin templar the battle lore feature, all the Str+1 vs. AC attacks with the +2 two-handed damage bonus rider, eladrin soldier and spear expertise with an 18 Str.
> 
> So at 2nd level you'd have +9 to hit and do 1d8+9 (13.5 average) damage on your at-will attack. That's before any magic items are added. Then add in a 20 AC.
> 
> ...



You really forgot, that the fighter also uses an at will... not a basic attack... also the fighter marks.... and it seems you forgot weapon talent...

also the fighter is no striker, so the comparison is of no practical use... i still don´t see anything broken. A striker does the same and more damage and also may add an effect.

Which does not mean, that it would be sufficient, if you got a +1 shield bonus, and a +2 shield bonus if you have one hand free/use a one handed weapon...

I actually would like to see a priest really using a one handed weapon...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 25, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It torques me like it does the rouge's restriction to "only light blades" or some other gibberish.
> 
> It's arbitrary and limiting, rather than interesting and expanding.
> 
> ...



No, restrictive powers are perfectly fine. As is the rogue restriction to light blades. A rogue with a full blade makes no sense... you can argue about the cleric. But it is a holy cow that does not need slaughtering.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2011)

> No, restrictive powers are perfectly fine. As is the rogue restriction to light blades. A rogue with a full blade makes no sense... you can argue about the cleric. But it is a holy cow that does not need slaughtering.




How about you keep your sense of what makes "sense" or not out of my game of magical elves and wizards and dragons?

Again, no problem with encouraging thematic ideas. But restricting to certain weapons makes me feel like the old 2e days of saying, "No, dwarves can't be wizards, 'cuz that just wouldn't make _sense_!"

Let my rogue trade extra damage form using a light blade with extra damage from using a fullblade if they want. I'll decide if it makes sense in my game, I don't need designers artificially limiting me.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 25, 2011)

4e suffers a lot from powers that "encourage". Simple "yes" and "no" worked for 2 decades and it worked fine. Powergaming not withstanding...

So leave your game of magical elves and dragons and full blade wielding rogues out of my game.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jun 25, 2011)

You know what else worked for 2 decades (more actually)? DMs saying what goes in their games.

Which means that it is easier to leave the restrictions out of the rules for those who want to play outside of traditional tropes, (and let those decisions happen at the individual game-tables), than it is to force everyone who disagrees with the sacred cows to have to houserule like mad.


----------



## Nullzone (Jun 25, 2011)

I'm okay with the Rogue restrictions, because they've set out from the getgo and said "Rogue is a master of agility and uses light blades to best strike his target with precise, lethal attacks".

This has nothing. I wouldn't even complain if there was a specific deity these were tied to and the deity required the use of simple weapons. As it is, it's just a "because I said so".


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 25, 2011)

There is no difference in allowing more than restricting. Allowing dwarves to become paladins also worked for a while.

If a power is designed to make simple weapons good enough, it may be unbalanced for other types of weapons. There are enough powers out there for such clerics. (Righteous brand e.g.)
One of the new options only encourages using simple weapons, as it only adds 1d6 to the roll. And it is still a great option with a +2 shield bonus as an effect, even if it only gives +1d6 damage with simple weapons.

I really can´t see the problem here...

If you like full blade wielding rogues in your game, by all means, let him take them. But don´t make it the default playstyle...
Rogues actually beeing encouraged to stay with the dagger was one of the things I liked most in the initial design.

Really, making restrictions is as valid as making none. Someone has to houserule if it is not to the liking of the group. And it is more easy to allow more later than to balance all possibilities.

If you have a different opinion, so be it, you can´t change mine. And I hope the power does not change.
If an eladrin could actuall use the first power with his great spear the power may actually be too good.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2011)

Nemisis Destiny said:
			
		

> Which means that it is easier to leave the restrictions out of the rules for those who want to play outside of traditional tropes, (and let those decisions happen at the individual game-tables), than it is to force everyone who disagrees with the sacred cows to have to houserule like mad.




I can't XP, but I must agree. 



			
				UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> If you like full blade wielding rogues in your game, by all means, let him take them. But don´t make it the default playstyle




The "default playstyle" for D&D should probably allow BOTH players who want to have unorthodox characters, and players that want highly iconic characters, without making one or the other allowable only through a DM's house rule. 



> If you have a different opinion, so be it, you can´t change mine. And I hope the power does not change.




Well, no one can force an open mind. Though I'd like the _designers_ to keep one, even if _you_ don't.


----------



## Mummolus (Jun 25, 2011)

I don't really get what the big issue is - that the powers require a simple weapon and subsequently buff it up (with +1 to hit and +damage) effectively removes a feat tax that would otherwise go towards getting the cleric a superior weapon for comparable damage or accuracy.

I can see the point about dwarf clerics, but that's a minor thing that can be fixed easily. Otherwise I quite like how the powers work.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2011)

"Big Issue" is an exaggeration. 

It's just irksome.


----------



## Mummolus (Jun 25, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> "Big Issue" is an exaggeration.
> 
> It's just irksome.



Okay... I still don't get why it's "irksome". One less feat taken up by something previously considered essential.


----------



## Colmarr (Jun 25, 2011)

It does raise some interesting issues with the (old?) concept of favoured weapons.

As mentioned, dwarven Clerics can't wield Moradin's favoured weapon (hammer) and gain the bonuses. Kord's followers can't wield his favoured weapon (battleaxe), and from personal experience, my Tempuran cleric* won't be able to wield the weapon that is displayed in Tempus' holy symbol (sword) and get the bonuses.

Not that I'm complaining. From the sounds of it, this article is good enough that I wouldn't really care, but I can see where some people are coming from.

* No, he doesn't have Righteous Rage. Nor does he wield a fullblade. Stop looking at me that way.


----------



## Herschel (Jun 25, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> etc.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2011)

> Okay... I still don't get why it's "irksome". One less feat taken up by something previously considered essential.




It's not the bonuses that I, at least, object to. Bonuses are good. I like the powers that don't require a weapon, but give a boost to simple weapon wielders.

It's this text:



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> *Requirement*: You must use this power with a simple weapon.




Because that screws with one of the levels at which you customize your character: what weapon they use to whack things with. 

Alternately, this text:



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> *Weapon*: If you’re wielding a simple weapon, the attack deals 1d6 extra damage.




A-OK ++ Like Thumbs Up Good in my book.


----------



## Nullzone (Jun 25, 2011)

Nice try  @Herschel , but the truth is that I haven't actually rolled a Battle Cleric since the Warpriest came out, because they still can't get it right 

I'm just disappointed because they still miss the mark through TWO major update cycles to the class. This is better, don't get me wrong, but the restrictions have neither defined form nor function, which makes them just feel tacky and irrelevant.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 25, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> You really forgot, that the fighter also uses an at will... not a basic attack... also the fighter marks.... and it seems you forgot weapon talent...




I didn't forget anything, unlike you who seems to have completely glossed over the point of the comparison. I'd point out that point, but you still wouldn't get it, so... what's the point?


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 25, 2011)

Kamikaze Midget said:


> It torques me like it does the rouge's restriction to "only light blades" or some other gibberish.
> 
> It's arbitrary and limiting, rather than interesting and expanding.
> 
> ...



Well, +2/1d10 is morningstar, which I guess is the best Simple 2-hander. Fullblade is +3/1d12, which is a pretty good Superior 2-hander. Even assuming they made the powers usable with anything, and have the bonus be +1 to attack and +1d6 damage on simple weapons only, the superior weapon would even out at approximately 3[W]-4[W] powers, and pull ahead beyond that and with high crit, not to mention the basic attacks with the superior weapon will be quite a bit better.

So, given that, I like that they made the restriction because it's interesting to see the 'crappier' but thematic/classic weapons see use. Like Morningstar? Man, I don't think I've ever even seen the stats for Morningstar until I looked it up just now. They could have jiggered around with it more to balance it or to be sure superior weapons never outperformed them I guess, but it's cool to see something different in my opinion.


----------



## Destil (Jun 25, 2011)

Oh, hey, they already fixed the at-wills. _Looking good!_


----------



## Obryn (Jun 25, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> You know what else worked for 2 decades (more actually)? DMs saying what goes in their games.
> 
> Which means that it is easier to leave the restrictions out of the rules for those who want to play outside of traditional tropes, (and let those decisions happen at the individual game-tables), than it is to force everyone who disagrees with the sacred cows to have to houserule like mad.



Your DM can still say what goes in his or her game.

I like the restrictions.  It adds interesting flavor to a class, and makes for the first time a weapon-primary character might actually seek out simple weapons instead of feating out of them at the first opportunity.

I'd rather see the developers creating stuff that's new and of interest, than see them creating stuff that's bland and unfocused.  If you don't want to play with the restrictions, that's your call.  In this case, it's far easier to houserule in a less restrictive manner than in a more restrictive one.

-O


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jun 25, 2011)

Obryn said:


> In this case, it's far easier to houserule in a less restrictive manner than in a more restrictive one.
> 
> -O



Not if your group/DM uses the character builder it isn't.


----------



## Mummolus (Jun 25, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> Not if your group/DM uses the character builder it isn't.



The way the builder works right now, it will probably still show you the math for the weapons you can't use with the power. This is definitely the case with my bastard sword executioner, whose Poisoned Dagger power requires a dagger. It still shows me the math at the top of the card for my bastard sword.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 25, 2011)

Kzach said:


> I didn't forget anything, unlike you who seems to have completely glossed over the point of the comparison. I'd point out that point, but you still wouldn't get it, so... what's the point?




edit: got it... didn´t understand that taking a +1 bonus to hit (weapon talent) is a sacrifice, as I am of a different opinion here.

Also, just because one power requires a specific weapon does not mean, that you are restricted to those weapons. A dwarven templar can use a warhammer, take righteous brand and all the old powers which are perfectly fine for a dwarven battle cleric. Just this one power line does not work.

So I still don´t see how new options take away good old options. They are still good.

Oh, and let me add: let us keep personal attacks out of here.


----------



## Kzach (Jun 25, 2011)

UngeheuerLich said:


> Oh, and let me add: keep your personal attacks out of here.




You first.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 25, 2011)

Done.

Wasn´t trying to be offensive in my first post. But reading it again I can see your point. Sorry. And happy gaming.


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2011)

fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> They could have jiggered around with it more to balance it or to be sure superior weapons never outperformed them I guess, but it's cool to see something different in my opinion....




I'm actually pretty OK with superior weapons being...y'know...superior. Dude spent a feat on them, dude should probably get the benefit of them. 



			
				Obryn said:
			
		

> I like the restrictions. It adds interesting flavor to a class, and makes for the first time a weapon-primary character might actually seek out simple weapons instead of feating out of them at the first opportunity....I'd rather see the developers creating stuff that's new and of interest, than see them creating stuff that's bland and unfocused.




I don't know what the restrictions do that a bonus wouldn't. They both incentivize simple weapons, reducing the appeal of military or superior weapons. One does it by saying you'll be more awesome with simple weapons, the other does it by being all Soup Nazi on the characer: "NO SWORDS FOR YOU!"

I also don't see what's so bland or unfocused about a dwarf cleric of the god of the forge wielding a hammer instead of a mace (for instance). I doubt WotC _meant_ to punish such a character type, but the weapon restrictions wind up doing it anyway. Just like the PHB "light blade required" powers punish the idea of a rogue wielding a club. 

Again, not the end of the world, but certainly a little yellow in the snow.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 25, 2011)

Use a staff.  Hit things with reach.  Get benefits.


----------



## MerricB (Jun 25, 2011)

Yuck!

Awful, awful article, and it's because of the simple weapons requirement.

What's one of the key battle priest paragon paths? Oh, the Angelic Avenger. 

What's its special ability? You gain proficiency in the heavy blade of your choice.

Seeing the battle cleric in my group being unable to benefit from half of this article is unbelievably stupid.

What makes it worse is that it actually makes a battle cleric either go with the powers in *this* article, which help simple weapons, or with every *other* strength power, which are better with superior weapons. It is forcing a false choice which is incredibly poor design.


----------



## fuzzlewump (Jun 25, 2011)

MerricB said:


> Yuck!
> 
> Awful, awful article, and it's because of the simple weapons requirement.
> 
> ...



This Cleric Guide on char-op Whoops! Browser Settings Incompatible ranks 3 Strength-based paragon paths ahead of Angelic Avenger, with a lot of more of equal rank. It's annoying that the cleric in your party doesn't benefit as much, but at worst the Cleric should get Master at Arms(Heavy Blade Expertise isn't very good anyway)/Quickdraw or what have you and switch between a simple weapon and the superior weapon. Requires either two-weapons or the... weapon that can change into other weapons, I forget the name, and is certainly a price to pay. Or, just dual wield them, and take Battle Cleric's Lore to get the +2 shield bonus anyway. 

Annoying to do, but awful article? Certainly not objectively, though I see it is bothering you and others.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 25, 2011)

People crying because a class with simple weapon proficiency now has powers that show love for simple weapons?

It's a leader, not a striker.  Why is it so important these powers must work with a mordenkrad?

Man.  This is why we can't have nice things.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 25, 2011)

I wouldn't classify it as "crying."

The single cleric archetype that has GOOD REASON to use better weapons _because they are dedicated to battle and presumably so are their gods_, is the one being either encouraged or flat out required to use simple weapons.

That doesn't strike you as illogical or invalidating of the usual tropes?  The exact type of character that would most want to use their deity's favored weapon being built to be more effective when NOT doing so?


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 25, 2011)

Canis said:


> I wouldn't classify it as "crying."
> 
> The single cleric archetype that has GOOD REASON to use better weapons _because they are dedicated to battle and presumably so are their gods_, is the one being either encouraged or flat out required to use simple weapons.
> 
> That doesn't strike you as illogical or invalidating of the usual tropes?  The exact type of character that would most want to use their deity's favored weapon being built to be more effective when NOT doing so?




But... they can?  And already have powers and a build for doing so?

And so making new powers that help a different archtype of battle clerics, i.e., the original archtype of cleric from the original game, to be effective in 4th edition is bad because......?

This 'usual trope' thing... you know it's only been a cleric thing for a small subset of 3rd edition clerics, right?  That clerics of other domains and other editions never actually followed that trope?


----------



## I'm A Banana (Jun 25, 2011)

> People crying because a class with simple weapon proficiency now has powers that show love for simple weapons?




I think it's great that simple weapons get some love. I think it sucks that nobody else can do anything with some of the powers. 

Third time: Incentives Yay, Restrictions Nay.



> It's a leader, not a striker. Why is it so important these powers must work with a mordenkrad?




Cuz you might want to use a mordenkrad? 



> Man. This is why we can't have nice things.




Who's crying about what now?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jun 25, 2011)

I see both sides of this argument.

For the dwarf clerics of Moradin that want to use these powers... you can just refluff your mace or morningstar and call it a hammer. They benefit from a lot of the same feats (i.e. bludgeon expertise), and often have the same enchantments available to them.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 25, 2011)

You can use a mordenkrad. Just not with that power. That power, with mordenkrad would be too good.

Use the mordenkrat with righteous brand. It is a great choice of a power.

Scimitar dance does not work with a full blade. It has balance reasons I guess... (of course, hammer rythm does wok with a mordenkrad, so maybe not  )


----------



## SabreCat (Jun 25, 2011)

Complaining that an article presents new options that don't fit automatically with an existing character or a particular concept isn't a very strong strike against it. Support for a class or build sometimes buffs existing characters, sometimes it opens up more possibilities for new (or reworked) characters--in this case it did the latter, which in no way hurts characters using other setups.

I'll agree with the "incentives are better than restrictions" camp, though. Rogue powers, for instance, would be better off without the Requirements tags, leaving Sneak Attack (with the corresponding feats/features that open up its use with other weapon classes) as the carrot.


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 25, 2011)

But maybe if they were no 3w powers but 1w + 2d6 powers (like the seeker has)

I would maybe agree then. (it would be nice for hybrids)


----------



## Klaus (Jun 25, 2011)

MerricB said:


> Yuck!
> 
> Awful, awful article, and it's because of the simple weapons requirement.
> 
> ...



Here's an idea: carry a heavy blade for the battle cleric powers that allow them, and a mace for those powers that don't. Describe the mace as a holy water sprinkler.

Or maybe get a Dynamic Weapon?


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 25, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Here's an idea: carry a heavy blade for the battle cleric powers that allow them, and a mace for those powers that don't. Describe the mace as a holy water sprinkler.
> 
> Or maybe get a Dynamic Weapon?




Ah yes, Dynamic Weapon, the duct tape of 4e 

I can see the distaste with rules that tend to arbitrarily dictate use of certain weapons for purely mechanical reasons. It is NOT that elegant a way to design things and really should be avoided whenever possible. Not sure it WAS possible in this case, but...

The material overall is quite nice and gives STR clerics a nice boost, maybe putting them past Warpriests again. It would be really nice if there was a simple hammer weapon. That would knock out one of the little annoyances at least. 

Still, this stuff is nice and very welcome. Try to not to poop all over it too much, eh?


----------



## Klaus (Jun 25, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Ah yes, Dynamic Weapon, the duct tape of 4e
> 
> I can see the distaste with rules that tend to arbitrarily dictate use of certain weapons for purely mechanical reasons. It is NOT that elegant a way to design things and really should be avoided whenever possible. Not sure it WAS possible in this case, but...
> 
> ...



You got a point re: simple hammers. I'd expand the list to include:

- Mallet (one-handed simple hammer)
- Cleaver (one-handed simple axe)
- Machete (one-handed simple heavy blade)


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jun 25, 2011)

Klaus said:


> You got a point re: simple hammers. I'd expand the list to include:
> 
> - Mallet (one-handed simple hammer)
> - Cleaver (one-handed simple axe)
> - Machete (one-handed simple heavy blade)




Gets my vote.


----------



## Zaran (Jun 26, 2011)

I think it would have been better to bring back favored weapons and give each one a benefit that fits the order.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jun 26, 2011)

Canis said:


> I wouldn't classify it as "crying."
> 
> The single cleric archetype that has GOOD REASON to use better weapons _because they are dedicated to battle and presumably so are their gods_, is the one being either encouraged or flat out required to use simple weapons.
> 
> That doesn't strike you as illogical or invalidating of the usual tropes? The exact type of character that would most want to use their deity's favored weapon being built to be more effective when NOT doing so?




It is a bit counter-intuitive. However, there is already a build for cleric's that works perfectly well with superior weapons (the WAR priest), yes, one is a battle cleric, but the other is a warpriest. War is bigger than battle. Also, a templar can take he wisdom based warpriest weapon powers as well.

There are absolutely NO cleric's that encourage the use of simple weapons. There are weapon wielders, and there are the implement users that don't care about weapons at all (outside of maybe a couple of limited use powers.)

So they've made ONE build (the strength based battle templar) have a 'path' of powers which encourage/require simple weapon prof. There is ONE power at each level that needs a simple weapon, the other pretty much just patches over the lower damage of a simple weapon by throwing extra damage onto the attack. The requirement one also does that with extra to-hit and damage tacked on ... but does close off the riders to non-simple weapon users. 

The rest of the options in the article (the build alternates giving the shield bonus, the alternate channel divinities and the paragon path) are all perfectly fine for existing strength based clerics who just want a bit of a power boost. [Heck, outside of the level 16 paragon path feature and punish the profane, the abilities are fine for non-Strength clerics as well].

While there is a power that has a restriction in it ... it's hardly restrictive. There are plenty of powers out there that:

a) Can only be used with a shield
b) Can only be used while wielding two-weapons
c) Can only be used while wielding a reach weapon
d) Can only be used while wielding a two-handed weapon
e) Can only be used while one hand is free

It's hardly the first, nor last, power that has a weapon based restriction on it. And, it's one power of many.

EDIT:

BTW, scythe wielding cleric. Nuff said.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jun 26, 2011)

There was already a build of templar that worked with non-simple weapons as well.

Don't see the problem.


----------



## Garthanos (Jun 26, 2011)

Klaus said:


> You got a point re: simple hammers. I'd expand the list to include:
> 
> - Mallet (one-handed simple hammer)
> - Cleaver (one-handed simple axe)
> - Machete (one-handed simple heavy blade)




OK if you are conjuring them.... I want details oh imaginative one.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 26, 2011)

Looking at this, the first thought that came into my head was:

"Helloooooo, goliath battle cleric!"

Goliath Greatweapon Prowess even works with Staff Fighting, since the primary end of the staff has Stout.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jun 26, 2011)

I think the magnitude of y'all's upset about my upset is substantially greater than my upset.  It's illogical.  I'll get over it or build my next strength cleric with different powers.

I am, however, starting to get a little upset about the state of discourse in the 21st century.  I thought there was room for intelligent discussion here about what place simple vs. military vs. superior weapons have in the game and whether there was a purpose in selectively invalidating that progression (particularly in the case of a character archetype that should actually care about those distinctions).  I also think there is room for intelligent discussion about whether war gods are currently well served by the rules.  I didn't realize that raising these points (perhaps inelegantly) qualified as "crying", "whinging" etc.

I thank those who bothered to engage intelligently on the subject.


----------



## Klaus (Jun 26, 2011)

Garthanos said:


> OK if you are conjuring them.... I want details oh imaginative one.



Oh, they'd be completely boring, and on-par with a mace: one-handed simple melee weapons, +2/1d8. The point is to provide ways for a character to use feats and powers.


----------



## SabreCat (Jun 26, 2011)

Klaus said:


> You got a point re: simple hammers. I'd expand the list to include:
> 
> - Mallet (one-handed simple hammer)
> - Cleaver (one-handed simple axe)
> - Machete (one-handed simple heavy blade)



Cool idea! Shouldn't be too difficult to take the Military versions of those weapons, knock off a die size or the Versatile property, and call them Simple weapons of the corresponding group.

EDIT: Whoops, ninjaed by the very fellow I was replying to. Missed the new thread page!


----------



## Aegeri (Jun 26, 2011)

I liked the article a lot, but honestly the weapon restriction is pretty dumb and a good old fashioned bonus would have been far better. It's still a very good article and FINALLY we see something that needs support getting it.

Now do something about Runepriests already.


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jun 26, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> Now do something about Runepriests already.



And Artificers, and Seekers, and...

(but you're right - the Runepriest needs it most of all)


----------



## Droogie128 (Jun 26, 2011)

Aegeri said:


> I liked the article a lot, but honestly the weapon restriction is pretty dumb and a good old fashioned bonus would have been far better. It's still a very good article and FINALLY we see something that needs support getting it.
> 
> Now do something about Runepriests already.




The Ossassin has needed to not suck longer than the Runepriest has needed to not suck. 

The Artificer has needed support longer than both, though.


----------



## Moorcrys (Jun 26, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Oh, they'd be completely boring, and on-par with a mace: one-handed simple melee weapons, +2/1d8. The point is to provide ways for a character to use feats and powers.




I'm totally on board with this line of thought. I think the issue, if there is one, isn't that this build makes use of simple weapons almost exclusively, it's that there are weapon types that aren't supported in the simple category. A dwarf cleric should be able to pick up a simple hammer of some sort. This doesn't seem like too difficult a thing to add to the game.

I like your weapon ideas. Write an article and send it to Wizards.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 26, 2011)

Hrm.  It looks to me like the Battle Cleric can ditch Wisdom, since with all its features switched over, it only benefits from Charisma, and looking at the utilities, very few mention Wisdom at all.

Now, this does lock you out of using the various Wis attacks, but were you going to do those anyway?

Brad


----------



## Marshall (Jun 26, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> It is a bit counter-intuitive. However, there is already a build for cleric's that works perfectly well with superior weapons (the WAR priest), yes, one is a battle cleric, but the other is a warpriest. War is bigger than battle. Also, a templar can take he wisdom based warpriest weapon powers as well.




Warpriest is a WIS build, the whole of point of this article is to buff the STR side of the V-frame.



> While there is a power that has a restriction in it ... it's hardly restrictive. There are plenty of powers out there that:
> 
> a) Can only be used with a shield
> b) Can only be used while wielding two-weapons
> ...




a)because the shield is/is part of the attack
b)because the attack uses the off-hand weapon
c)because the attack is made at reach
d)ok, this one is usually stupid
e)because the empty hand is used in the attack

Usually those restrictions are based on the function of the attack, Shield Bash without a Shield works about as well as trying to Grab someone with your hands full.
These powers fill the same questionable design space as restricting Rogue/Sorcerer powers to using daggers and/or short swords. Its just arbitrary. If the devs believe its too powerful with a fullblade change the benefits to a rider based on using a simple weapon, much cleaner design work.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jun 27, 2011)

Marshall said:


> Warpriest is a WIS build, the whole of point of this article is to buff the STR side of the V-frame.




Yes. But, there are already multiple builds of cleric that exist which all are 'best' served when using superior weapons. In fact, nearly every melee weapon wielding class, save for the rogue (thieves want a rapier, which still requires a weapon prof, but it's not superior anymore) and the sentinel druid (since their simple weapons become very good in their hands), and I guess the executioner (they might as well stick with the rapier and be able to go to grab suprising charge instead of getting a +2/d12 or +3/d10 one handed weapon). So, another goal of the article seems to be to give people a reason to build a character based on simple weapons. Some of which (like the mace/morningstar) are iconic for clerics.

It does give class features and a paragon path that supports existing battle templars without requiring the use of simple weapons. It introduces 1 encounter power at each level for those that don't want to go with simple weapons, and they still get pretty much everything the power provides (the bonus damage is more than made up for by the superior weapon being used. Even if the encounter power would do more damage, you still have dailies and possibly other powers from outside this article you may be taking which will make up for the d6 you lost.) Yes, there is another encounter that you lose out on if you are dead set on spending the feat to grab the best weapon you can get, like every other melee class in the game, but you already can't have all the powers featured in the article since they are two for every level you get encounters anyway.

I will say that, hopefully, they do some minor patching. Specifically: If you are granted a weapon proficiency because of your race, it counts as a simple weapon. And then they could do a series of 'favored weapon' feats where, you are granted proficiency with, and 'simple weapon status' to, the prefered weapon of your god. 



> a)because the shield is/is part of the attack
> b)because the attack uses the off-hand weapon
> c)because the attack is made at reach
> d)ok, this one is usually stupid
> ...




Of course, making a power that has "Special: You will never pick this power if you don't have a simple weapon" is more or less the same as just restricting it to one type of power.

While SOME weapons based on using shields actually attack with the shield, they don't all do that (Tide of Iron). Not every dual-weapon required attack uses the off-hand weapon (Careful attack, dire wolverine strike, etc). Most weapon attacks use melee weapon as it's range, so having a reach weapon already modifies the attack without needing to require it (Savage Reach, another at-will example, doesn't actually 'require' reach to function, it just has it 'arbitrarily' added as a restriction). 

Of course, the point is, when most of these powers were designed, the GOAL was "we want people to use this type of weapon". It's not a case of the power being made and then they decide "oh no, this is way too good if you have it with a fullblade, we better slap a restriction on this power". Instead, from the beginning of the design process, they approach it as "no one bothers to build around simple weapons, outside of a few corner cases, like rogues with daggers or sentinel druids. So (a) make powers that 'force' them to use simple weapons or (b) alter simple weapons for that class to make them equivalent to superior weapons. These powers do both, to an extent. They only 'modify' the simple weapons when used with these powers (giving bonuses to hit and/or damage), but they don't modify the weapons when they are used with daily powers, which does mean you are giving up some daily potency in exchange for getting these at-will/encounter powers ...


----------



## UngeheuerLich (Jun 27, 2011)

Maybe if they said:

"this power has to be used with a mace", it would be easier to swallow. (Even when it is actually more restrictive)

Actually I personally would favour this approach.


----------



## IanB (Jun 28, 2011)

This article makes St. Cuthbert happy. You don't want St. Cuthbert to get cranky, do you?


----------



## TerraDave (Jun 28, 2011)

Setting aside everything else, if my group had this in 2008, it would have made a big difference. 

Question: is it viable to make a cleric with a wisdom of say, 8?


----------



## Lord Ernie (Jun 28, 2011)

TerraDave said:


> Setting aside everything else, if my group had this in 2008, it would have made a big difference.
> 
> Question: is it viable to make a cleric with a wisdom of say, 8?



With these options? Perfectly. Go for a 16 12 10 12 8 16 spread, or something similar, take Battle Cleric's lore, go for the strength powers (with Cha riders) and never look back.

Of course, you can do a mixed strength/wisdom build that seems more versatile and effective, but it is now really possible to completely dump wisdom as a cleric.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 4, 2011)

Sorry for the delay replying.  I was away from computers for a week.  Which was heavenly.



WalterKovacs said:


> Yes. But, there are already multiple builds of cleric that exist which all are 'best' served when using superior weapons.




Sure.  But _why is that a problem?_

There's a reason simple/martial/superior categories exist.  Selectively invalidating that progression is what needs to be justified from the rules side.  And from the flavor side, why is it attractive or reasonable for a guy with apparently no weapon training to be as effective as or more effective than a guy who received some training/sought some training (read: racial proficiency/proficiency feat) in better weapons?

That's not terribly logical, if we assume that weapons should matter for weapon-based attacks, which doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption.  And I don't think there's a compelling flavor argument.  Or at least not a consistent one.  We're talking pretty specifically about the Church Militant here.  You could make a case for Cuthbert liking the cudgel, but his battle cleric is just as good with a dagger.  Why?

We're selectively invalidating a section of the rules in a way that makes even less sense than the rogue restrictions, and they have more flavor inconsistencies than flavor benefits.


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 4, 2011)

Canis said:


> Sorry for the delay replying.  I was away from computers for a week.  Which was heavenly.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Neither is the logic that no build should exist for simple weapons just because martial and superior weapons exist.  This is equally as arbitrary.

The difference is one philosophy allows for the potential existance of staff-fighting experts, club-wielding thugs, and sling-mastering giant killers, and the other does not.

Therefore, once you remove 'arbitrary' from the argument, all that is left is what allows more possible cool characters.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 4, 2011)

If clubs, daggers, and quarterstaves are just as good, why did anyone bother inventing the sword and the battleaxe?


----------



## Nemesis Destiny (Jul 4, 2011)

That's hardly the point; you don't need to use the best or more optimal weapons to be a cool or interesting character.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 4, 2011)

Nemesis Destiny said:


> That's hardly the point; you don't need to use the best or more optimal weapons to be a cool or interesting character.



Of course not.  I've played very cool quarterstaff users as well as craghammer users.  While being equally cool, they played differently, and they hit for different amounts of damage.  And _that is as it should be._

Perhaps the worst thing about that one line of powers is that all it effectively does is turn a bunch of +2/d6 weapons into ~ +3/d10 weapons.  So it's both insipid _and_ boring.  You don't make a club cool or interesting by making it into a one handed greatsword.

Plus, there are mechanical and "world" consequences to throwing out the idea that there is a mechanical benefit to using a higher quality weapon.

Hell, you could make the argument that D&D is mostly about getting and using better stuff.  Undermining the very concept of "better stuff" seems counter-productive


----------



## DracoSuave (Jul 4, 2011)

Canis said:


> Of course not.  I've played very cool quarterstaff users as well as craghammer users.  While being equally cool, they played differently, and they hit for different amounts of damage.  And _that is as it should be._
> 
> Perhaps the worst thing about that one line of powers is that all it effectively does is turn a bunch of +2/d6 weapons into ~ +3/d10 weapons.  So it's both insipid _and_ boring.  You don't make a club cool or interesting by making it into a one handed greatsword.
> 
> ...




And the way you make simple weapons interesting is to give them niches where they shine.  This new cleric is a niche where simple weapons shine.  The alternative is to provide a lot of special effects for niche weapons to acquire, which is a great option for controllers, but subpar for other types.

And using simple weapons doesn't undermine the concept of finding and using better stuff... a +2 quarterstaff is better stuff than a +1 quarterstaff, is it not?  

Moreover, what's the point of having a class designed around melee combat and simple weapons if they don't have at least one build designed around the stuff they are proficient in?  This strange concept that clerics are about non-simple weapons baffles me, simply due to the fact that they're only proficient in simple weapons, and have no legacy support for martial clerics outside of very specific dieties.

So... if you weren't of Corellon, Grummsh, Hextor, Heironeous, or Erythnul, you weren't of a deity of war, and weren't automatically entitled to using his favored weapon.

Moradin's hammer?  Let's not pretend that the god of smithys is some uber-war-god that makes all his clerics carry the biggest weapon they can find.  Seriously.

A class based around weapons needs to be able to leverage its proficiencies to be effective.  That's the bottom line, and a cleric has simple weapons.  So a cleric needs to be able to have some way to leverage simple weapons.  Having simple weapons automatically suck is the opposite of leveraging them.

Weapon Proficiency: ______ should NEVER, EVER, be a feat tax choice.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 5, 2011)

The cleric is not a striker.  How does doing more damage make the cleric better at its job?

Since there's only one logical answer to that, I'll go on.... I can see the +1 to attack since leader effects don't go off on misses, but why make give them the damage as well?

You're making this into some grand statement about simple weapons, but all these powers actually do is punish hammer and axe users for using military weapons without an increased proficiency bonus.  Sword clerics can pick other powers and be similarly effective to these powers.


----------



## WalterKovacs (Jul 5, 2011)

Canis said:


> If clubs, daggers, and quarterstaves are just as good, why did anyone bother inventing the sword and the battleaxe?




Because they are only good for a small corner case of people.

If you aren't a rogue, you probably want something better than a dagger. If you aren't a battle templar using these specific powers, you may want something better than a greatclub.

However, for a small number, there is a preference.

Barbarians like big weapons (for the most part). An Avenger wants to wield a two-handed weapon since they can't benefit from shields. A warlord or warpriest get shield prof, so they'll probably pick a 1-handed weapon, while a battle templar, lacking shield proficiency, might as well get a two-handed weapon. Slayers likes axes and swords, while a knight likes hammers and swords. You _could_ have an axe wielding knight, but he misses out on bonuses. You _could_ have a longsword/broadsword wielding rogue, or a hammer wielding dwarven rogue (with feats), but they aren't as good as the real thing (in the case of thieves, the bonuses they give to light blades makes any replacement weapon inferior). 

Each class is given an implied or forced weapon selection based on proficiencies. True, anyone could just grab shield profs, weapon profs, armor profs, etc but there is a sort of style being assigned to each class based on their initial proficiencies. Sometimes, this is reinforced by things like rewards for playing "in style" (The tempest or battlerager fighter going with chain or light armor; primal classes in light armor; monk, avenger or vampire in cloth armor; knight using sword/hammer and shield; sentinel druids favored weapons) or are reinforced by restrictions (sneak attack damage restriction; tempest fighter powers; most ranger melee or beast powers; etc).

There isn't really a class that favors simple weapons (the sentinel druid and rogue, sort of, but those are only a few of them). This is a sub-build or a battle templar, which is half of the templar, which is one of two builds for the cleric. So it's one way to build 1 of 3 clerics. It's also only one of many strength based leaders. And even with the powers, half of them are still fine for use with any weapon you want to bring into the fight.

Weapon Prof is already nearly a feat tax for most weapon wielding classes ... it's nice to have a few clases that don't use implements that actually are happy to use their normal weapon proficiencies.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 5, 2011)

I see a battle cleric's "simple weapons only" powers as a test of the character's faith. Yes, he's a *battle* cleric, but his prowess comes from his devotion to his god. He consciously forgoes more effective weapons as a way of surrendering his survival to the power of his deity.

"See that burly fella over there on the corner, in the robes and chain? I saw him fight a bunch of goblins one time. Sure, he's a strong fella, looks like he could've been a lumberjack or smith. But the way he swung that mace... there's no way he could've wrecked that much havok on those goblins by strength alone. He looked almost possessed... except his face was calm. Almost... peaceful, y'know?"


----------



## Nullzone (Jul 5, 2011)

Klaus said:


> I see a battle cleric's "simple weapons only" powers as a test of the character's faith. Yes, he's a *battle* cleric, but his prowess comes from his devotion to his god. He consciously forgoes more effective weapons as a way of surrendering his survival to the power of his deity.
> 
> "See that burly fella over there on the corner, in the robes and chain? I saw him fight a bunch of goblins one time. Sure, he's a strong fella, looks like he could've been a lumberjack or smith. But the way he swung that mace... there's no way he could've wrecked that much havok on those goblins by strength alone. He looked almost possessed... except his face was calm. Almost... peaceful, y'know?"




Which again turns us back to "Why are these powers 'simple only' instead of 'simple booned'?"


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 5, 2011)

While I do like Klaus' bit of story there, I just don't see there being a coherent benefit here.

And I really don't think "_somebody_ has to use simple weapons!" is an argument.  For one thing, everybody can.  And everyone has the option to move up the line if they want to.  I've had a cleric swinging a morningstar.  He worked.  He didn't seem to need propping up relative to other characters at the table.  I'm not sure why he suddenly gets to be more effective than a character who actually spent a feat on better weapons.


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 5, 2011)

Canis said:


> I've had a cleric swinging a morningstar.  He worked.  He didn't seem to need propping up relative to other characters at the table.  I'm not sure why he suddenly gets to be more effective than a character who actually spent a feat on better weapons.



I suppose that's how it works, when it comes down to it--a class feature that gives you a feat, like the original Ranger fighting styles. It comes out much like "You gain proficiency with a military weapon of your choice". It just looks different, in that the character wields a club instead of a warhammer.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 5, 2011)

No, it takes them well past military weapons.

If you're using a morningstar, you go from +2/1d10 to an effective +3/2d6.  Actually, the average damage is 7.5, which is a little better than 2d6.  3d4 is what springs to mind, so it's like using 3 daggers at the same time.  That's at least as good as the fullblade.  I haven't mathed it out, but it's probably better unless you're crit fishing.

The mace is at least as bad.  +2/1d8 one-handed becomes effectively +3/1d12.  That's as much damage as the craghammer or the waraxe with a higher chance to hit.

Frankly, the damage is irrelevant to me on a leader, but the accuracy improvement is significant.  This outstrips almost all the superior weapons without costing you anything at all since the powers are at least as good if not better than anything currently available.

My inner min-maxer keeps telling me to shut up and just roll a cleric of kord next time for farts and giggles.  See how absurd I can make it.

That is to say, it's probably not absurd unbalanced.  Just absurd logically that I can spend no resources and hit that hard with my fist or a big stick.  They made weapons actually matter again in 4e.  After that, this is just disappointing.


----------



## bganon (Jul 6, 2011)

Canis said:


> No, it takes them well past military weapons.
> My inner min-maxer keeps telling me to shut up and just roll a cleric of kord next time for farts and giggles.  See how absurd I can make it.
> 
> That is to say, it's probably not absurd unbalanced.  Just absurd logically that I can spend no resources and hit that hard with my fist or a big stick.  They made weapons actually matter again in 4e.  After that, this is just disappointing.




Uh, you realize that Haunting Strike and Punishing Strike have been Cleric powers for quite a while now, right?  No resources spent, and the Strength Cleric is better at hitting than the Fighter (at least twice per encounter).

The truth is, there _are_ resources spent: the opportunity cost of choosing another power.  I'm not actually sure I'd choose one of the new powers over Blazing Beacon (which is pretty damn awesome in the right party), but at least there's a choice now.


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 6, 2011)

There's a difference between "once or twice an encounter based on whatever weapon you're good with" and "always on, but only with specific weapons" which is now possible, but the point is taken.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 6, 2011)

Well, it is certainly going outside of the topic to some extent, but I never understood why 4e (or any other system for that matter) insists that some weapons are substantially better than others. I assure you that a guy swinging a mace at your head is just as deadly as a guy swinging a sword given equal skill. The whole concept of some weapons being better than others is dubious. Some may be more effective in certain situations, others may have less tangible benefits, and some may simply exists because although inferior they can be easily or cheaply constructed. I think the whole notion of simple weapons suck and other weapons don't doesn't hold much water. Not only that but the assignment of weapons to the different types is virtually arbitrary. I think the whole concept stinks. Weapon choice really should just be mostly a cosmetic thing, with any tangible benefits being based on some kind of rational analysis of different trade offs (IE two-handed weapons give the wielder some advantages when you have sufficient room to use them and time to prepare, but a short sword is just that much better in close quarters and a dagger can be drawn quickly and concealed easily).


----------



## bargle0 (Jul 6, 2011)

Big swords, big axes, and big spears are naturally more awesome than their smaller siblings. Moreover, they are more awesome than some wooden stick, which is the weapon of peasants and other swordfodder.

I'm sure Hârn has excellent rules for dying horribly by any weapon, but D&D since at least AD&D has been about coolness and not realism in weapons*. I believe that magic swords were elevated above other magic weapons in even older editions.


----------



## SabreCat (Jul 6, 2011)

A system like Gamma World's would make the differences between weapons cosmetic. It wouldn't get you the detailed situational tradeoffs, though.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 6, 2011)

bargle0 said:


> Big swords, big axes, and big spears are naturally more awesome than their smaller siblings. Moreover, they are more awesome than some wooden stick, which is the weapon of peasants and other swordfodder.
> 
> I'm sure Hârn has excellent rules for dying horribly by any weapon, but D&D since at least AD&D has been about coolness and not realism in weapons*. I believe that magic swords were elevated above other magic weapons in even older editions.




Except this is exactly the problem. Why can't I be an awesome mace wielding badass? Just because AD&D blew it has no bearing on where we are now. Consider all the characters of legend. OK, I want to play a 'Friar Tuck' character, nope, you have to suck in melee combat because hey staves aren't macho. Oh, you DON'T want to suck? OK, here's a feat tax on your butt for trying to be creative... Yeah, that's good.


----------



## Klaus (Jul 6, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Except this is exactly the problem. Why can't I be an awesome mace wielding badass? Just because AD&D blew it has no bearing on where we are now. Consider all the characters of legend. OK, I want to play a 'Friar Tuck' character, nope, you have to suck in melee combat because hey staves aren't macho. Oh, you DON'T want to suck? OK, here's a feat tax on your butt for trying to be creative... Yeah, that's good.



Funny you should mention Friar Tuck. I was reminded of him when I saw this article. He wasn't always "wise" (and his tendency to get drunk and eat too much point in the other way), but he was always strong enough to work the land and live in a forest with a bunch of outlaws. I'd really stat him as a Battle Cleric wielding a staff, with his heavy robes counting as hide armor.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 6, 2011)

Klaus said:


> Funny you should mention Friar Tuck. I was reminded of him when I saw this article. He wasn't always "wise" (and his tendency to get drunk and eat too much point in the other way), but he was always strong enough to work the land and live in a forest with a bunch of outlaws. I'd really stat him as a Battle Cleric wielding a staff, with his heavy robes counting as hide armor.




Right, and while I can understand the messiness of the Battle Cleric stuff under debate here, I think the fundamental blame has to go to the design of weapon types in 4e as a concept. THIS is where you don't want your mechanics detached from or unrelated to the world that the narrative is happening in, because INEVITABLY you will end up with these arbitrary distinctions that simply shouldn't need to exist. 4e is filled with them unfortunately. I don't care about CaGI nonsense, but this stuff is more fundamental and in the long run causes a lot more system issues. I'm sure it seemed like an innocent and convenient convention when PHB1 was written, but obviously it hasn't turned out so well. Again, were I redesigning the game, I'd simply abolish the whole idea. In fact it isn't clear to me that the 4e devs ever intended things like simple/military/superior to actually HAVE mechanical import beyond being a handy way to specify proficiences. It should have stayed that way.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 6, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> I assure you that a guy swinging a mace at your head is just as deadly as a guy swinging a sword given equal skill.




Both can kill me, sure.  But the guy swinging the mace at my head and using heavy crushing impact simply isn't as fast as the guy with the scimitar trying to lop off my arm.  And the guy trying to thrust at me with the mace gets beaten by the guy trying to thrust at me with a longsword.

It gets more complex.  From my experience of reenacting, sword and shield beats spear three times in four.  But three spearmen beat four swordsmen nine times in ten assuming anchored flanks.  The reach just allows a massive amount of focus fire.

And then it gets simpler again.  Spear vs Staff.  Same length, same weight.  Effectively the same balance.  The spear wins by virtue of being able to do everything the staff can and having a much more effective stab (and slash for that matter).  Covering argument.  The spear can do everything the staff can and it can do many of the core attacks much much better than the staff.

Also scimitar vs dagger.  Scimitar wins almost every time.  As a weapon it's faster (seriously - you don't have to move very far to get the edge to move in a wide arc).  It's got a longer reach so it hits first.  And it does much more damage per hit.

Spear vs Staff.  Scimitar vs Dagger.  There's a huge difference in play here.  The reason is that neither staff nor dagger were ever designed to be primary weapons.  The dagger is a sharpened belt knife.  The staff is a straight piece of wood.  The club is a log off the ground.  It loses to a sharpened bit of metal the same length and weight (although the weight of the sword should be lower).

That said, with the arguable exception of the greatbow (125lb draw longbow only used by specialists), the superior weapons are all just wrong.  If weapons were really that much better it's what everyone would be trained on.



> Not only that but the assignment of weapons to the different types is virtually arbitrary.




Oh no it isn't.  Although some are misassigned.  Simple weapons are the dagger (a tool or something primarily meant to be concealable), the scythe (a tool), the staff (a tool as much as anything), the greatclub (a tool).  The exceptions are the mace and the morningstar - and there are western european historical reasons for this to do with the cleric (which is not a good reason but not arbitrary).   Martial weapons are weapons designed as weapons.  And superior weapons are either extreme niche weapons (the garrote, the shuriken), weapons that require serious specialist training to use at all (the 125lb draw great bow), silly and kewl weapons (the fullblade, the double sword and double axe), or in the case of the Urgrosh a misidentified martial weapon (call it a poll-axe with a butt spike and you're done).


----------



## Jeremy Ackerman-Yost (Jul 6, 2011)

Apparently I can't give Neonchameleon xp yet, but I was severely beaten to the punch.

There's a reason peasants and nobility have different weapons and armor.

Try doing significant harm to a guy in plate armor with a club, dagger, or staff before his sword rips you a new one.  We read books where a guy with a quarterstaff is godly, but in real life a trained guy with metal weapons and armor will punk him every time.  Possibly barring lightning storms.

You can find ways the simple/martial/superior distinctions in D&D are flawed, but some weapons really are just better than others IRL.  We can debate whether that's something we actually want to model in game, but it is a distinction that exists.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 6, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Both can kill me, sure.  But the guy swinging the mace at my head and using heavy crushing impact simply isn't as fast as the guy with the scimitar trying to lop off my arm.  And the guy trying to thrust at me with the mace gets beaten by the guy trying to thrust at me with a longsword.
> 
> It gets more complex.  From my experience of reenacting, sword and shield beats spear three times in four.  But three spearmen beat four swordsmen nine times in ten assuming anchored flanks.  The reach just allows a massive amount of focus fire.
> 
> ...




Yes, I spent many years in the SCA beating on people with rattan weapons too... Sorry, I disagree with much of this. There are certain general conclusions you can draw. Reach is quite important. Swords, in general, are better defensive weapons than most anything else, with shorter and longer versions having various advantages (reach, utility in tight quarters, etc). Maces and similar weapons provide a somewhat superior offense (go ahead, block the blow from my 3.5 pound headed war mace with your sword, good luck). Shields are however quite a bit more useful defensively than any sword, and really are far more critical than all but the very heaviest armor. In general in basic one-on-one melee someone equipped with a shield and a one-handed weapon will beat out almost any other permutation overall. This is why a sword/spear/mace/club plus shield and a helmet was the most ubiquitous type of style in most periods. 

Staves are actually QUITE effective, and you cannot achieve the same balance with a spear, which requires a reasonable amount of mass in the head. Not that spears were particularly ineffective, quite the contrary, but they weren't any more effective one-on-one than staves (and this can be verified by a quite extensive contemporary literature). In fact a skilled staff user was considered to be at a significant advantage over your average 'longsword' (a nonhistorical term, D&D's weapons are actually rather nonsensical).

Personally I've never played with axes, picks, or flails. I suspect in some forms axes were quite deadly, picks were really a late medieval specialist weapon, and I'm skeptical of flails in general, though no doubt they COULD be dangerous.

In any case, in the hands of skilled users the differences between weapons are mostly situational and I will say it again, there's little to no justification for making some of the significantly less effective than others. Daggers and shortswords in general wouldn't be a first choice of weapon and suffer reach disadvantages, but in a tight situation will actually be superior to longer weapons. 




> Oh no it isn't.  Although some are misassigned.  Simple weapons are the dagger (a tool or something primarily meant to be concealable), the scythe (a tool), the staff (a tool as much as anything), the greatclub (a tool).  The exceptions are the mace and the morningstar - and there are western european historical reasons for this to do with the cleric (which is not a good reason but not arbitrary).   Martial weapons are weapons designed as weapons.  And superior weapons are either extreme niche weapons (the garrote, the shuriken), weapons that require serious specialist training to use at all (the 125lb draw great bow), silly and kewl weapons (the fullblade, the double sword and double axe), or in the case of the Urgrosh a misidentified martial weapon (call it a poll-axe with a butt spike and you're done).




Well, since all pole weapons had butt-spikes I never understood why the urgrosh was justifiable either. Daggers are actually a weapon type which is highly specialized and skilled dagger fighters are exceedingly deadly close combat opponents. Things like scythes and simple clubs, sure they aren't primary weapons, but why should they be 'simple'? Same with the staff, staff fighting being historically a high art at least on a par with swordsmanship. I think we agree on other weapons.

Anyway, the point was that the whole 'simple weapon' thing was totally gamist and arbitrary. It is ludicrous to believe that staff is magically something that most characters would be able to master when it was a weapon used by some of the most highly trained martial artists in history (as an example). 

I think plenty of the superior weapons just don't need to exist even if they COULD. Why do we need a 'great bow', there is already a longbow, which is absolutely historically a high draw self bow. If it needs to do d12 damage, then it should do d12 damage (why rangers need this I have no idea). 

In any case, 4e (and D&D in general) has such utterly ahistorical and inaccurate weapons to start with it rapidly gets difficult to even talk about which one should do what.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Jul 7, 2011)

WalterKovacs said:


> If you aren't a rogue, you probably want something better than a dagger.




The interesting thing is that this is NOT a restriction that relies on rogue powers being limited as to what weapons they allow. It is in fact primarily reliant on the fact that rogues are given a bonus with the dagger and have a large non-weapon related damage bonus. There's a feat which allows you to pick up a heavy blade and use that, and charop recommend NOT BOTHERING because light blades have excellent support and turn out to be better for a rogue to use.

Now sure, if you had full rogue abilities with a gouge, that might cause issues.

However the current rules on rogue abilities and powers cause some issues in and of themselves. For instance rogues cannot strangle someone with a piano wire. Why? Piano wire is an improvised weapon. Improvised weapons are not a light blade, crossbow or sling. Therefore NO rogue powers work with piano wires, including _garrote grip_. Amusingly enough, you cannot _knockout_ someone with a blackjack (without a very specific and awful rogue build).

In fact, even jumping through hoops, the most current rogue errata (playtest, whatever) makes it impossible to _garrote grip_ with a garrote EVEN IF you take the garrote line of feats to make a garrote a light blade, because some genius decided that _garrote grip_ should require one free hand.

The rogue powers don't need weapon restrictions to be balanced. Only sneak attack actually requires that. But someone thought it would be evocative and flavoursome to limit their use and so we're left with a bit of a trainwreck.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 7, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Shields are however quite a bit more useful defensively than any sword, and really are far more critical than all but the very heaviest armor. In general in basic one-on-one melee someone equipped with a shield and a one-handed weapon will beat out almost any other permutation overall. This is why a sword/spear/mace/club plus shield and a helmet was the most ubiquitous type of style in most periods.




Agreed absolutely.  D&D has always criminally undervalued the shield.  And swords are pretty much ubiquitous one on one with or without shields.  On the other hand for mass combat the ubiquitous weapons have been either ranged or long sticks with sharpened bits of metal allowing much more focus fire.



> In fact a skilled staff user was considered to be at a significant advantage over your average 'longsword' (a nonhistorical term, D&D's weapons are actually rather nonsensical).




"Longsword", agreed.  But the staff user IIRC was not considered to be at an advantage over someone with either a shield or a _two handed_ sword.  That extra hand makes a lot of difference unless you're going for either Spanish or Italian Rapier (and even then it's important and both were eliminated by the smallsword).  Also the staff user was at a positive disadvantage against a halberdier or billman.



> Personally I've never played with axes, picks, or flails. I suspect in some forms axes were quite deadly,




From facing them axes are very much like maces.



> In any case, in the hands of skilled users the differences between weapons are mostly situational and I will say it again, there's little to no justification for making some of the significantly less effective than others. Daggers and shortswords in general wouldn't be a first choice of weapon and suffer reach disadvantages, but in a tight situation will actually be superior to longer weapons.




They are specialist.  But lose in the general case.



> Well, since all pole weapons had butt-spikes I never understood why the urgrosh was justifiable either.




The pollax isn't really a classic pole weapon.  It's more an iron bound half-staffed warpick (the classic problems with half-staffing just ending up with broken knuckles not happening if you're already wearing steel gauntlets).  And as such the spike comes into play far more than it does on a weapon you hold almost exclusively at one end.



> Things like scythes and simple clubs, sure they aren't primary weapons, but why should they be 'simple'?




Non-martial would be a better term. Or possibly even improvised.



> Anyway, the point was that the whole 'simple weapon' thing was totally gamist and arbitrary. It is ludicrous to believe that staff is magically something that most characters would be able to master when it was a weapon used by some of the most highly trained martial artists in history (as an example).




I'm reminded of the success of the Okinawan liberations despite some of the strongest martial arts in history.



> I think plenty of the superior weapons just don't need to exist even if they COULD. Why do we need a 'great bow', there is already a longbow, which is absolutely historically a high draw self bow. If it needs to do d12 damage, then it should do d12 damage (why rangers need this I have no idea).




There are longbows.  And there are the absurdities the English and Welsh riased it to with multiple hours of practice mandated for the peasantry.  It's defensible.



> In any case, 4e (and D&D in general) has such utterly ahistorical and inaccurate weapons to start with it rapidly gets difficult to even talk about which one should do what.




Don't forget the Unearthed Arcana Polearm Fetish.


----------



## Obryn (Jul 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Also the staff user was at a positive disadvantage against a halberdier or billman.



...or anyone with significant armor.

Come on, you folks are talking about SCA.  You know how tough it is to actually kill someone in armor with a heavy stick. 

-O


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> Agreed absolutely.  D&D has always criminally undervalued the shield.  And swords are pretty much ubiquitous one on one with or without shields.  On the other hand for mass combat the ubiquitous weapons have been either ranged or long sticks with sharpened bits of metal allowing much more focus fire.




Yeah, I've never understood the way shields have been treated in D&D. Eh well, it is what it is.



> "Longsword", agreed.  But the staff user IIRC was not considered to be at an advantage over someone with either a shield or a _two handed_ sword.  That extra hand makes a lot of difference unless you're going for either Spanish or Italian Rapier (and even then it's important and both were eliminated by the smallsword).  Also the staff user was at a positive disadvantage against a halberdier or billman.




Hard to say. In general I think where staves lose out is armor. Given the nice reach though I'm not sure I'd really vote for a sword/shield type guy there. Keep your distance, whack a few elbows and hands, knock 'em off their feet, lol. I think it is safe to say that if you put swords, shields, etc in the hands of modestly trained people they are going to beat equally trained staff users most of the time, it is quite a bit easier to get lucky with a sword and the results are a bit more decisive.



> There are longbows.  And there are the absurdities the English and Welsh riased it to with multiple hours of practice mandated for the peasantry.  It's defensible.
> 
> 
> Don't forget the Unearthed Arcana Polearm Fetish.




Well, there were a vast array of minor bow variations certainly. I think within the context of D&D categorizing them as 'light' and 'heavy' is really all that's needed. I mean you can always point to some weapon and say "that one is better than most". In the real world various considerations that can't be modeled in a game tend to make the extremes unworkable.

Actually the pole arm fetish in AD&D was quite alive and well in the original PHB. There are well over a dozen variations listed in the weapon tables, lol. UA just recapitulated and clarified since obviously this important aspect of game design desperately needed updating and improvement! Gygax does sometimes make me chuckle. Notice the opposite extreme in OD&D, weapons were all virtually identical, the dagger did lower damage and the two-handed sword did extra damage, that was about it.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Jul 7, 2011)

Nullzone said:


> Take inferior role-fulfilling powers that confer no benefit at all and waste a turn if I miss, just so I can use my mordenkrad...or take a power that actually does provide good role-fulfillment with a little extra oomph if I hit, but, for no logical in-character reason at all, says I have to wield a simple weapon to use it. Yeah, really tough call.
> 
> I did in fact say that the powers that deal extra damage with a simple weapon are fine. It's all the simple weapon only stuff that upsets me, because it's _patently_ better than everything else a Battle Templar can get, and yet for some reason they've felt the need to tell me I can only use it with an ordinary club. Even though there's an entire game mechanic (weapon proficiency) already established that they could use instead to try and favor the simple weapons, with expansion for personal choice/flavor requiring the use of feats (which is what the feat space is intended for).
> 
> ...




I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say. I am not trying to be a jerk. I am just not sure what you are getting at.


----------



## Grabuto138 (Jul 7, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Except this is exactly the problem. Why can't I be an awesome mace wielding badass? Just because AD&D blew it has no bearing on where we are now. Consider all the characters of legend. OK, I want to play a 'Friar Tuck' character, nope, you have to suck in melee combat because hey staves aren't macho. Oh, you DON'T want to suck? OK, here's a feat tax on your butt for trying to be creative... Yeah, that's good.




The difference between superior and martial is really only a point of damage per W and maybe a kicker so, in a real world campaign, its not that big a deal. I agree that it would be cool to play a staff-wielding badass. On the other hand there is a reason that serious warriors did not use blunt sticks for battle if they could avoid it. The difference between a quarterstaff and a long sword is 1 point of damage and +1 to hit. Considering that a sword is metal and sharp this sounds reasonable, and in a real world campaign, is probably not that big a deal in the long term if you wanted to use the staff.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 7, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> Hard to say. In general I think where staves lose out is armor. Given the nice reach though I'm not sure I'd really vote for a sword/shield type guy there. Keep your distance, whack a few elbows and hands, knock 'em off their feet, lol. I think it is safe to say that if you put swords, shields, etc in the hands of modestly trained people they are going to beat equally trained staff users most of the time, it is quite a bit easier to get lucky with a sword and the results are a bit more decisive.




You IME seriously underestimate the usefulness of a large shield.  And of the sword.  With a properly used large shield, there are no elbows to get at.  Or even much above the knees.  And you need to keep the length of the staff between you and the swordsman or he's in range and one half-decent hit and you go down.  A trip is just a trip; a stab is fatal.  Effectively everything from shoulders to thighs is impregnable as the staff can't get through solid wood (and the knees are trivial to guard).  Which means it's either high at the head or low at the shins to attack, either of which allows the swordsman to advance fast (and is relatively easy to defend against).


----------



## Grabuto138 (Jul 7, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> You IME seriously underestimate the usefulness of a large shield. And of the sword. With a properly used large shield, there are no elbows to get at. Or even much above the knees. And you need to keep the length of the staff between you and the swordsman or he's in range and one half-decent hit and you go down. A trip is just a trip; a stab is fatal. Effectively everything from shoulders to thighs is impregnable as the staff can't get through solid wood (and the knees are trivial to guard). Which means it's either high at the head or low at the shins to attack, either of which allows the swordsman to advance fast (and is relatively easy to defend against).




I have been hit in anger with large pieces of wood. The human body is very resilient. But cut me I will bleed.

SCA fighting is, I am sure, usefule for tactics. I am not sure it is useful for comparing the consequences of various strikes.


----------



## Nullzone (Jul 7, 2011)

Grabuto138 said:


> I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say. I am not trying to be a jerk. I am just not sure what you are getting at.




Compare the "Requirement: You must use this power with a simple weapon" group of Encounter powers in the Dragon article with virtually any other Strength-based attack power available to a Cleric. In terms of action economy as a leader, the D400 powers are hands down some of the best options available to the class, because they let you be a Leader whether or not you're hitting with the powers. There's a reason the Warpriest was considered almost unilaterally better than the base Battle Cleric before these recent updates, and it was primarily thanks to the fact that in every single case they were able to do something useful with their turn thanks to the Effect lines on most of their powers. Often the effect was much better if they hit first, but even on a miss it was a significant improvement over the Battle Cleric's net impact of zero on misses.

The other powers in the D400 article, while not requiring the simple weapon, are not as potent enablers as the first set. Extra damage only helps if people are hitting, and "The best status effect is dead" is not a good way to think about the game in practical terms, despite its altruistic nature in theory. Enablers should do whatever they can to generate accuracy first (whether through attack bonuses or extra attacks), as it's often much harder to hit something than it is to get respectable damage rolls once you do hit.


Also, for future reference, if you click the "Multi Quote" button next to each of the posts you want to respond to and then click through to reply to thread, it will automatically add all the quoted posts and you'll be able to get all of your replies in a single post.


----------



## darkdragoon (Jul 8, 2011)

It's not strictly about deadliness as otherwise you'd have wet floors and rock as effective as a spear or an arrow.      I don't doubt there were capable quarterstaff users to serve as inspiration for Little John.  But by the same token, those stories are largely about a bowman.    I'd agree that the weapon classification seems to be quite random.


----------



## bargle0 (Jul 8, 2011)

AbdulAlhazred said:


> In any case, 4e (and D&D in general) has such utterly ahistorical and inaccurate weapons to start with it rapidly gets difficult to even talk about which one should do what.




We play a game where elves throw fireballs. Being ahistorical is not a problem. Double weapons, Dark Sun weapons, and the modern D&D model for hammers as weapons are all completely wrong and make no sense, but D&D is not about modelling reality. Differentiating weapons makes the game more interesting and more fun, which to me at least, is the point.

I will concede that maces need some help in the feat department. I would like maces to be something that is useful and different then what you can do with other weapons, rather than something you could do better with a different weapon.


----------



## AbdulAlhazred (Jul 8, 2011)

bargle0 said:


> We play a game where elves throw fireballs. Being ahistorical is not a problem. Double weapons, Dark Sun weapons, and the modern D&D model for hammers as weapons are all completely wrong and make no sense, but D&D is not about modelling reality. Differentiating weapons makes the game more interesting and more fun, which to me at least, is the point.
> 
> I will concede that maces need some help in the feat department. I would like maces to be something that is useful and different then what you can do with other weapons, rather than something you could do better with a different weapon.




I agree as well, but there is a problem there. If a weapon doesn't correspond to something in the real world then I can't visualize what it is or how it works. Most players also work mostly on their knowledge of how things actually do work and not whatever arbitrary attributes the game may assign to things.

I'm not particularly interested in simulation for the sake of simulation or anything like that. The problem is when you create a detailed list of weapons with a variety of slightly different performance and utility and that list is entirely divorced from reality then it is just confusing and arbitrary. It would be FAR better to simply understand that 4e mechanics are fairly abstract and it isn't practical to make them reflect all the real world subtle trade-offs between weapon types. Thus the logical and superior solution would be to simply let them be abstract. So perhaps 'club like weapons' (group them in 'mace' or 'bludgeon' or whatever) do a bit more damage, light blades allow for quick accurate use, heavy blades provide other advantages, etc, give them a few characteristic names and call it a day. So you just don't need 6 different kinds of sword, 4 different kinds of spear, etc. Anyway, it is a discussion that bears little on the current topic at this point.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Jul 8, 2011)

Actually, that's pretty much what I do with superior 4e weapons and exotic 3e weapons.  Double weapons are out (with the noted exception of the Urgrosh).  But the main difference between a greatsword and a fullblade is the technique and practice put in.  And between a waraxe (or whatever the 2 handed martial axe is) and an executioner's axe.  It's specialist technique focussing on that weapon (as opposed to the more general weapon focus).

There are a couple of exceptions, one obvious one being the superior crossbow.  Now that thing's masterwork.  Balanced, perfectly smooth, and with much better winding mechanisms.

That said, if someone wants to run with an anime inspired fullblade, I'm going to let them.  Good luck finding treasure when I'm DMing (you'll probably have to beat up ogres and steal their greatswords) but if I'm playing it's fine.  It's silly, but not silly enough to break my ability to visualise.

And no Dire Flails.  Ever.


----------

