Why don't clerics get Shield proficiency?

[Mengu]

My problem with the lack of armour proficiencies is that the cleric has lots of "hit it and buff/heal your team" abilities. These builds become less viable because you have low AC but still need to be in the thick of combat. You can say "just take the feat" all you like, but the wisdom cleric doesn't need to take a special feat to be effective so why should the strength based cleric?

So the +1 from the shield that makes 1 out of 20 attacks against you miss is going to make the difference between deciding to play a melee cleric or not?

Protecting the Cleric is not the Cleric's job, it's the fighter's job. Simply by Marking the target next to the Cleric, he essentially gives the cleric a +2 AC. Then by using Tide of Iron and pushing the enemy away, he provides even more protection. You're worried about making Healing Strike work reliably? It's amazing how helpful the Rogue decides to be just to provide you that flank by moving, or using a Positioning Stike, or dazing or knocking down the enemy.

Everyone has a role. If they do it well, the cleric should not need a meager +1 AC to play his own role.

 

[Mirtek]

So the +1 from the shield that makes 1 out of 20 attacks against you miss is going to make the difference between deciding to play a melee cleric or not?

Actually it will be more than 5%. The chance to get hit is increased by 5 percentage point. How much percent these five percentage points increase the chance to get hit depends on the attacker.

If the attacker needs to roll a 13+ with light shield and a 12+ without light shield the increase in percentage points is only 5, but the increase in percent is 1/8 = 12,5%

However the lack of a small shield should be no reason to stay out of melee

 

[Moggthegob]

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

I knew that,but you COULD use a light shield as it is possible(once you have a +1 to BAB) to put the mace in you shield hand and cast.

That aside, if you want an armor wearing,damage dealing, holy man who can heal, there really is no reason not to a play a holy-spec Paladin with healing powers/ Hospitaler path. Frankly, I dont know why anyone would play a cleric in the new system. Turn undead? ust another of my quibbles. The reason the cleric was so good was so people would play" the healer" without feeling like they took the shaft.

 

[Silverblade The Ench]

Zinovia,
lol I HATE non-random methods for character creation, ugh. Just roll the frikkin' dice *he says like Dr Evil*
If it's totally crappy, re-roll a fresh set. Long as you get a couple of 16s, or a 17 or 18, you're set, IMHO. You're playing a hero, not a gimp.

He's also going to act as the party "tank" and healer, so he needs to be tough (take a whiel for folk to get you can use heal skill/second wind etc)

hm think I'll forget shield, and give him Weapon Proficiency Greataxe...big, heefing, scary, scaly dude with a BIIIIIIG axe...yeah, I like it!

 

[lukelightning]

Holy symbols don't have to be held to function.

They do if you want to cast with them. As a focus they are treated the same a material component, which must be in-hand to use.

 

[Ferrous]

Guys, the point I was trying to make was about game logic and internal consistency.

If one-handed shield + one handed weapon is balanced against two-handed weapon for the Warlord then it should be balanced for the Cleric. If this is not balanced i.e a shield is always better then remove two-handed weapons from the Warlord so someone does not make a poor choice. If this is balanced then Cleric should have the same option so that their choice can be about the character. I don't know what type of "double think" is going on with some people to think that +1 damage = +1 AC in some cases but not in others. Either it is balanced or it ain't. And if it is balanced then Clerics should have it to give them a genuine choice. And if this is balanced what does this say about a Fighter trading +2 AC for +1 damage?

Allowing a Cleric a light shield does not suddenly make them a Defender their AC would then only be 17 which is the same as a Ranger with standard array. Just like using a two-handed weapon does not make a Warlord a striker.

Note a Cleric could choose Scale armour instead of Light Shield for the feat to get exactly the same bonus to AC and yet still wield a two-handed weapon for +1 damage (if constitution was 13). This is obviously better.

If they had said that Clerics were only familiar with simple one handed weapons and not given them two-handed weapons I really would not have minded. This is internally consistent. As it is nearly all Clerics will use a two-handed weapon as the rules encourage this to the detriment of choice (and hence the game).

I am not stuck in a 3rd edition mindset in that Clerics should be tanks. Clerics were overpowered in 3rd edition and I think that a downgrade to their relative power is a good thing. However I do want to see internal logic in the system. The actual difference between +1 damage per (W) and +1 AC is fairly trivial. The lack of internal logic though is not.

P.S
And the type of race does not really matter. A dwarven/eladrin Warlord can still choose between using the warhammer/longsword in one hand with a shield for +1 ac or using the weapon in both hands for the +1 damage. A dwarven/eladrin cleric will always use it in both hands for +1 damage unless there is some reason to use the weapon one-handed e.g hanging from a rope (but this is also true of the warlord).

 

[StreamOfTheSky]

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.

Too bad it doesn't work this way in practice. A Wizard gets attack, damage, AC, and Reflex all from one stat. Needless to say, EVERY Wizard is going to have Int 18 or 20. When you then see the flawed increase of armor bonuses -- cloth to leather is 0 to +2, all other transitions aside from light to heavy are only +1 -- you'll note any Wizard with a brain is going to take the conveniently prereq-free leather armor proficiency. So, in fact, every Wizard in the game is likely to start level 1 with an AC of 10 +4/5 (int) +2 (armor), or a total AC of 16-17. One of the arcane implements, a free class feature, can upgrade this again by +1, and add your con bonus once per encounter AFTER damage has been rolled, giving supreme discretion in when to best use it. The Cleric, one the other hand, is really relegated to feats for +1 AC apiece, if he meets the frequently high prereqs. I tried building a Human Wizard 1. Ended up at AC 18, with +2 once/encounter. The (Dwarf) Cleric was at 16, if i wanted to blow two feats and switch to Human, I guess I could equal the Wizard, who only spent one feat on AC, but being able to just barely equal the Wizard is rather pathetic, no?

 

[Argyuile]

They do if you want to cast with them. As a focus they are treated the same a material component, which must be in-hand to use.

The only material components that exist are for rituals and in the description for implements it says that a cleric holding OR wearing an implement can benefit from it.

So again you don't have to have a free hand to use your implement.

 

[Cadfan]

Actually, the wizard spent one feat on AC, and enough points to purchase a 20 (18+2) in intelligence and a 14 in constitution, meaning his other stats probably languished quite a bit. That's 21 points out of 22. He also picked a subclass that boosted defense.

Lets permit the dwarf cleric to spend the same things. He chooses to go for Strength based clerical powers, and makes a minimal investment in 13 Constitution which adds to his racial bonus to equal 15, so that he is now qualified for every armor feat ever. But he stops at Scale, because, why not. He likes not having skill penalties. Anyways, he then attacks with an at will power that boosts his AC, and the AC of an ally, by +1. He now totals 18 AC. Plus, he has more hit points, he can use second wind once per encounter as minor action, and he drips healing surges for allies, and importantly, for himself.

Since durability has more factors in it than just your AC, these things matter.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Too bad it doesn't work this way in practice. A Wizard gets attack, damage, AC, and Reflex all from one stat. Needless to say, EVERY Wizard is going to have Int 18 or 20. When you then see the flawed increase of armor bonuses -- cloth to leather is 0 to +2, all other transitions aside from light to heavy are only +1 -- you'll note any Wizard with a brain is going to take the conveniently prereq-free leather armor proficiency. So, in fact, every Wizard in the game is likely to start level 1 with an AC of 10 +4/5 (int) +2 (armor), or a total AC of 16-17.

I created a wizard. I certainly didn't take the feat. I believe I had a brain. Frankly, those 2 points of AC didn't matter all that much to me. Most of the good magical powers for wizards are cloth only, so I won't find them on leather armor. It's not worth the feat when you rarely get attacked vs AC anyways, being in the back and firing from afar. If I was creating a melee wizard, I might take it, for sure.

One of the arcane implements, a free class feature, can upgrade this again by +1, and add your con bonus once per encounter AFTER damage has been rolled, giving supreme discretion in when to best use it. The Cleric, one the other hand, is really relegated to feats for +1 AC apiece, if he meets the frequently high prereqs. I tried building a Human Wizard 1. Ended up at AC 18, with +2 once/encounter. The (Dwarf) Cleric was at 16, if i wanted to blow two feats and switch to Human, I guess I could equal the Wizard, who only spent one feat on AC, but being able to just barely equal the Wizard is rather pathetic, no?

No, not really. Everyone's AC does stay pretty close to one another in 4e. Being within 1 point of someone is good. If you look at the average ACs of each class and 1st level using just their class abilities, you'll seeThis assumes everyone puts an 18 in their prime stat)

Paladin: 20 AC(and +2 Ref)
Fighter: 19 AC(and +2 Ref)
Warlord: 17 AC(and +1 Ref)
Ranger: 17 AC
Cleric: 16 AC
Rogue: 16 AC
Wizard: 14 AC
Warlock: 13 AC

Having a stat of 20 is above the curve but would increase Rangers, Rogues, and Wizards by 1.

As far as I can tell, the math is mostly balanced around an AC of 16 at first level. Above that and you are slightly ahead of the curve, below that and you are behind the curve. This is why it is easier to increase your AC TO 16 at first level than it is to increase it much above that.