Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="WalterKovacs" data-source="post: 5604424" data-attributes="member: 63763">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.   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 ...</blockquote>

Verification