Battle Cleric Options is up

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.