Why don't clerics get Shield proficiency?

[Majoru Oakheart]

The reason is to maintain the AC hierarchy:

Paladin: Plate + Heavy Shield
Fighter: Scale + Heavy Shield
Warlord: Chain + Light Shield
Cleric: Chain
Ranger: Hide
Rogue: Leather
Warlock: Leather
Wizard: Cloth

The idea that, generally, the higher up on the list you are the more AC you have. Warlord was given the shield to make them have a higher AC than the Cleric. This makes them more than a cleric with slightly different powers, it makes them more capable of standing toe to toe with the enemies, without putting their AC in the defender range.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

And the greatclub is crap in 4th ed...2d4 damage, for a 2hander with no other benefit...meh!
WIll give him a mornginstar, which are now 2 handers...and on anothwr point, there's no way I'm letting the greatsword stay at 1d10 damage, that's grossly wrong.

Since i've got books early, I'm making characters for my pals to play in KOTS...2nd level cleric (battle), ranger 2nd level (archer), dwarf wizard 1st, halfling rogue (1st, Ill go with pregen as it's cool). giving their main characters extra level to balance it up, to offset deaths, lack of experience in playing 4th etc.

The cleric will be the party "tank" as it were. No shield for clerics = silly, IMHO.

his two feats are armour of Bahamut (to offset party taking crits) and Toughness (maybe light shield, hm). Using 4d6 drop one for stats, so he got great rolls, so after racial bonus, s20 c17 d16 i14 w18 cha18, with hide armour and morningstar or mace and light shield. hopefully that should let him be a reasonable "tank" for the party, using "Healing strike" and Righteous Brand to help.

 

[Ferrous]

Warlords are controllers as well as clerics. It has to be remembered that two-handed weapons are not per se worse, they do deal more damage. What we are talking about is simply restricting options. Not all Fighters should have to take a shield. Not all clerics should have to take a two-handed weapon to be optimal.

And because of the weird and punitive restrictions on Armour proficiencies you get situations where the 12 Strength Halfling Paladin can where Plate but his 18 Strength but 14 Con Dragonborn mate can't.

As an aside I am glad to know that I am at least Strength and Constition 15 as I often run about in Plate (unless I am actually a Paladin!). I am confused why my Polearm is so heavy and unweildy though, surely my 6 year old niece should be able to wield it as it has no Strength restriction, but she can't even lift my hand and a half sword the slacker!

 

[Ecaiki]

I'm afraid then that I'm missing something here. How is the players choice restricted just because they don't have something free at level 1, or do and don't use it?

Considering what the cleric was, I'm glad they changed them enough to be noticeable. No longer is a cleric a paladin with better spell progression... well that, no free horse and less restrictive rules. ;

Re: great club Vs. greatsword. I'd take the 2d4 over the 1d10 since you always do 2 damage on a crappy roll.

Edit: On the stat restrictions, perhaps they intended this to say "Hey, here's a perk for being a paladin instead of a cleric with a few feats." Otherwise it doesn't take anything to tell players they have to meet the stat requirements of a feat as if they had taken it to use it. Also yes I agree it's very weird that the feat free has no restrictions, they did in every other edition...

 

[Ferrous]

You don't have less options per se. You just have less optimal or viable options. It amounts to the same thing really. Also note the weird and wacky restrictions on what armour you can wear if you don't get it for "free".

 

[Ferrous]

You don't have less options per se. You just have less optimal or viable options. It amounts to the same thing really. Also note the weird and wacky restrictions on what armour you can wear if you don't get it for "free".

 

[TwoSix]

You don't have less options per se. You just have less optimal or viable options. It amounts to the same thing really. Also note the weird and wacky restrictions on what armour you can wear if you don't get it for "free".

The cost you pay to move outside your role increases dramatically the further you move away from it.

 

[Cadfan]

This is a silly argument. Is the cleric balanced as is? If so, it doesn't need light shield proficiency, even if old clerics had it, and even if warlords have it now.

I also think its interesting that in a game with as many powers and feat slots as we have, people still focus on weapon choice as the defining issue of diversity of options.

 

[Ecaiki]

Well if we're talking pure min-max'ing, then of course some options will seem worse. I'm sure there are different but equally powerful options for someone with a greatsword Vs. someone with a short sword and a shield. Also things one can do that the other can't, so more balancing right there. Of course this is all assumption on my part, no books sadly.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

The cleric will be the party "tank" as it were. No shield for clerics = silly, IMHO.

That's exactly the point. In previous editions the cleric could act as the tank with no problem. It could easily achieve the same AC as any fighter and it was very close to the same hitpoints plus the ability to cast spells allowed it to increase its own AC and hitpoints and provide protection to a lot of things that fighters didn't have. They were better tanks than the tanks.

Now, they are significantly worse tanks than the actual tanks, meaning that the player who chooses fighter or paladin has a reason to be there over the cleric.