Battle Cleric Options is up

[Saeviomagy]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.