Why don't clerics get Shield proficiency?

[AtomicPope]

Majoru did a nice table earlier. However it should be noted that a shield is assumed for all who can use one rather than using a two-handed weapon. This perhaps gives a distorted view when for me a major point is that by not giving cleric shields you are dicouraging choice but not limiting power.

No it doesn't. It shows that there are multiple builds. If a defender class wants to defend less and attack more they'll opt for a two-handed weapon.

Where you see bad, others see good. If the AC was the same for a Shield+Weapon fighter (like in 3e) as it was for a TWF or THF then no one would use a shield.

 

[Destil]

Destil no one is saying that you cannot spend the feats on a shield. What we are saying is that it is not a BALANCED option to do so as the cleric gets proficiency with simple two-handed weapons but not light shields. As stated earlier if one-handed weapon + shield = two-handed weapons for one then it should for all. Either 2+2 = 4 or it don't.

If you compare the cleric and the warlord you'll see what happened: the cleric traded light shield for ritual casting. This it not imbalanced, though it does create a 'false' choice for a cleric's weapon selection of one-hand vs. two-hand... slightly. I still don't see the cost of a feat as that big a deal with the core rules, because you just run out of feats to take after a certain point from a pure power-gaming perspective (hopefully with feat bonus not stacking this won't break later).

I don't see the problem at all. Warlords can have good Int, why not complain that they don't get ritual casting at 1st level for free?

 

[Ferrous]

As it is we have a "perfect" knowledge as we have all the facts detailed in the books to make logical comparrisons. The a priori assumption that anything and anyone who makes a criticism about anything in 4E s automatically wrong, biased and/or has committed some other form of "thought crime" is not really helpful.

I must confess I am at a loss to understand how the loss 0, 1 or 2 from your AC (and the corresponding number of starting feats) can simultaneously be perfectly balanced against +1 damage.

Are you saying that feats are so worthless that the loss of 1 or 2 does not matter? Because I really think that is overly cynical about 4E.

 

[Destil]

On further thought...

Actually, when you take ritual casting and class skills into consideration, the warlord looks like a chump for taking the shield!

It's two feats easier to make a cleric who wants to cast arcana, heal and religion based rituals and use a light shield vs. a warlord doing the same.

Cleric: Takes Religion, Heal and Arcana as class skills. Takes light shield at 1st.
Warlord: Takes Heal as a class skill (no other ritual skills available). Takes ritual casting at 1st. Takes skill training (religion) or Cleric Multiclass at 2nd. Take Skill Training (Arcana) or wizard Multiclass at 4th.

 

[PeelSeel2]

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

So it wont get in the way of female Dragonborn Clerics BooB'z.

 

[Ferrous]

Destil I agree with your analysis. As I said earlier I would be happy if clerics did not have two-handed simple weapons. I simply object to the lack of logic behind the initial feats given. This is because if the cleric takes two-handed weapons they are in effect not paying for ritual casting as they are losing something (initial shield use) that they are not using anyway.

I find it amusing that to think that everything in 4E is perfectly balanced is not a knee jerk reaction. But to say that it has flaws based on the exactly same knowledge is.

In any discussion or argument there are two components, the logical and the emotional. It is often the case if the logical argument is weak then there is an emotional attack or outburst. This is hard to counter as it's basis is not rational. I may well be a negative person who is prone to knee jerk reactions (though I reallywould like to think not). However saying I am a bad man does not really invalidate the logical component of the argument.

If anyone can logically show how losing 0,1 or 2 AC (and the same number of feats) for +1 damage is balanced then that is the end of the discussion. No one has yet even attemped to do this.

I ignored the Armour class hierarchy because it did not take into account the actual AC when attributes were taken into account, it is this value that is most accurate. Also I do see the multiple build options of the Warlord, Fighter and Paladin to be a strength. Indeed this is the point of my argument I would like Clerics to have this same option without being mechanically disadvantaged!

I do think that there are flaws in 4E. However "excellence does not require perfection"

 

[Gloombunny]

After a quick skim through cleric melee powers, it seems to me that they have less [W]-based damage than most melee classes' powers and more effects that require hitting but aren't otherwise affected by the cleric's weapon. This implies that the offensive advantages of having a two-handed weapon aren't as big for clerics as for, say, fighters. As such, letting clerics use shields without extra feat expenditure might make weapon+shield too good in comparison to two-hander.

Also, shields would be a no-brainer for non-melee Wisdom-based clerics if they didn't cost a feat and require physical stat investment. Built-in chain proficiency is already pretty good for a ranged class.

 

[Ferrous]

Please compare and contrast the Warlords powers and the Clerics, note how similiar they are? And Warlords get shield proficiency.

Also the true ranged class (Ranger) will likely have a 17 AC rather than the 16 of the Cleric.

 

[Intense_Interest]

It's simple: Having a shield increases your AC and makes you more tank like.

The main difference between Warlords and Clerics is that Clerics are the caster/weaker Leader while Warlords are the defender/strong Leader.

Clerics get more powerful heals and ranged spells in exchange for less AC(no shield).

Gosh, I hope the Arcane Leader[Bard] is a striker/Leader.

Anyway.

Isn't there a false dichotomy of optimal choices here?

A Cleric that does 2-H weapon damage is spending actions doing things that aren't it's true goal, because a larger percentage of it's power choices (vs. comparable Warlord abilities) are more ranged-usage rather than Hit to Work. If you work down the solely Hit-To-Work powers, then yes you have a better option within that build assuming that you don't have a floating feat that could be spent on shields anyway.

Meanwhile a 1-H shield user that focuses on Ranged is a better build option if you see the optimal choices being to have a higher AC to survive while casting your ranged abilities. And unless you find yourself feat-crunched you won't regret this path at all.

It isn't like there is a synergistic build within the Cleric class that amplifies damage like there is for Fighters. Your action economy will demand a chunk of your time doing Leader actions rather than HP damage, so you're already misappropriating the incidental benefit (2H weapon damage) for the continual benefit (Higher Armor Class).