Why don't clerics get Shield proficiency?

[keterys]

You've never seen two-handed weapon or bow using clerics? How big of a sample set do you have, I wonder.

I also wonder if you actually used the 3.x rules that required that you have a hand free to cast, or if heavy shield and weapon while casting was the norm

 

[VannATLC]

Yeah.

I was constantly surprised by how many people forget that a Heavy shield and a weapon means you can't cast.

Bucklers were an option, at least.

 

[keterys]

Sure, but no bucklers in 4e (and honestly, for the better). If you want a militant priest, you need to actively pursue that path and those who want a less 'rar smash' cleric are not penalized for skipping certain class benefits.

Or just play a warlord or paladin, both of which are more armor and shield type examples.

 

[Gloombunny]

Sure, but no bucklers in 4e (and honestly, for the better). If you want a militant priest, you need to actively pursue that path and those who want a less 'rar smash' cleric are not penalized for skipping certain class benefits.

I think built-in shield proficiency would penalize the rawr-smash ones more, actually. A ranged character can still make good use of a shield, but a cleric who wants a two-handed weapon can't.

 

[Ferrous]

Actually I think that a cleric not having shield proficiency limits choice as it is always better to choose a two-handed weapon. If a cleric had light shield proficiency there would at least be a real choice. I think that the Fighter is in the same boat as they get both heavy and light shield proficiency meaning that two-handed weapons are a less viable choice as they have "wasted" two virtual feats. I would have given one-handed Fighters Heavy Shield proficiency and Two-handed weapon fighters Power Attack to compensate. Choice between less viable options is no real choice at all.

 

[Blacksmithking]

seems odd, chain mail, yes, they have skill withm but shield...no?!

The armor proficiencies make sense for a cleric if you look at 4e as a game. Leaders should be less armored and durable than defenders but more durable than strikers and controllers. I made a group containing a cleric, warlock, wizard, and defender, and I found that the cleric ended up as the 2nd most armored character in the group. That's right where a leader should be, I think.

I found it more interesting that fighters don't start with plate.

 

[Minigiant]

Clerics are leaders. They are to be the 2nd or 3rd best AC in the group behind the defender or melee martial characters. Clerics get chain to get over controllers and arcane characters but lose shield to stay behind defenders and warlords, and stand with rogues and rangers.

I'd even say AC should go defender, striker and leader, then controller. Martial classes go up a tier and arcane go down.

 

[Ferrous]

Warlords are leaders as well you know.

What we are talking about is a lack of viable choice. I would like two-handed and single handed weapons and shield to be equally viable choices for each class. However this is not the case because of the "free" virtual feats allocated. It is simply poor design.

 

[Ecaiki]

By the same token, if said fighter uses a light shield and a sword he "wastes" his heavy shield and two handed weapon feats, same for a heavy shield.

Also it can only be poor design if they had intended the 4e cleric to be like it's 3e predecessor, and not given the class the required feats to fill that role. That being said nothing stops a cleric from taking plate and a heavy shield, though they must sacrifice some of the feats that would improve the abilities they already possess. Besides from what others have posted here plate is no longer the be all and end all of armour, since there are now feats that boost other types to be more effective.

Side note: I'm guessing you didn't mean every class right Ferrous? Since I'd really rather they didn't try to make a two hander and/or sword and shield viable for a wizard.

Now a question, are shield reserved for just defenders in 4e? Since I don't recall reading anything about anyone other then paladins and fighters using them.

 

[Ferrous]

Yup, I made the same point about Fighters earlier.

I think the problem is that the weapons are more or less balanced until you add in the proficiences given away at first level, and then the oppotunity cost of having to take a feat (or ignore two feats that you have been given) means that certain choices are less viable. In this way the game restricts choice.

Warlords are leaders and they get light shield proficiency. For them two-handed weapons or one-handed weapon and shield are both viable options and it is the style of the warlord that is important i.e a roleplaying choice rather than a mechanical choice foisted on them.

P.S
Yup I meant the defender and leader classes should have the choice of one-handed weapon or two-handed weapon without there being a mechanical advantage to either choice.

P.P.S
To be fair this is a fairly minor issue. Clerics are not less powerful per se from it being optimal for them to take two-handed weapons. What bothers me is that it was unecessary. With a few minor tweaks everyone is happy. I feel that this was a poor design choice as it restricts player choice without being necessary from either a balance or flavour viewpoint. It becomes surreal when you realise that due to the restrictions on feats gained that are not a class feature, a cleric needs a 13 Str to wield a lLght Shield but has no such restrictions on swinging away with a Maul (if similary purchased through a feat)! What were they thinking?