• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Battle Cleric Options is up

Marshall

First Post
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
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

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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

WalterKovacs

First Post
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
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.

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 ...
 

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.
 


TerraDave

5ever, or until 2024
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

First Post
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.
 

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

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

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



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.

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.
 



Remove ads

Top