Battle Cleric Options is up

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

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]

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]

Defensive stacks with the +2 Shield bonus.

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

 

[frogged]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.



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.

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]

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.