Battle Cleric Options is up

[I'm A Banana]

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:

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:

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

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

 

[Nullzone]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Obryn]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

You first.