Why don't clerics get Shield proficiency?

[Ferrous]

No, that is not the point. I am not arguing that Clerics should get Plate armour or such which is simply better and makes you a better tank. What I am arguing is that they should have the (viable) option of choosing between more damage with a great weapon, or more armour i.e a shield.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

No, that is not the point. I am not arguing that Clerics should get Plate armour or such which is simply better and makes you a better tank. What I am arguing is that they should have the (viable) option of choosing between more damage great weapon, or more armour i.e a shield.

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).

 

[invokethehojo]

Forgive me if someone already said this but, as a DM, I have to guess that using the heal skill requires two hands (tie a bandage, apply and salve or herb) so therefore it would make sense a cleric doesn't necessarily have something in each hand. If a cleric wanted to use his heal skill during combat to allow a fallen ally a save vs death he would have to 1. move action to walk to the ally 2. free action to drop his weapon 3. standard action to use heal skill 4. minor action to pick back up weapon

If he were using a shield he would need to use an action point to also pick up the shield or just have to wait till the next round.

Just my thoughts, I like characters with a free hand in combat so I can have extra options to manipulate my environment

 

[Mercutio01]

No, that is not the point. I am not arguing that Clerics should get Plate armour or such which is simply better and makes you a better tank. What I am arguing is that they should have the (viable) option of choosing between more damage with a great weapon, or more armour i.e a shield.

He does - by taking a feat.

I think this attitude that "OMG, the cleric can't be the tank!" is a holdover from 3E where Clerics could effectively win D&D. I myself made a cleric that out-tanked any fighter, one that out-skill-monkeyed a rogue, and outcast most casters. I think nerfing the cleric, which this clearly is, is absolutely merited and is one of the better decisions I've seen come out of 4E.

 

[Zinovia]

Using 4d6 drop one for stats, so he got great rolls, so after racial bonus, s20 c17 d16 i14 w18 cha18

Err... wow. Nice numbers there. Just a 4d6 drop the lowest for that? Or more of the roll a set by the rules, look with puppy dog eyes at the DM, asking for a reroll pleeeeeeeeeese - over and over until you break the probability curve with an ungodly set of stats.

Even with the two racial bonuses, those numbers are exceptional. So much so, that they violate the suggested guidelines in the PHB for having total bonuses over +8 prior to racial adjustments.

 

[Mirtek]

More to differentiate than from warlords, who are supposed to be more martial.

Technically the only martial disadvantage they have compared to warlords is that they need to take a weapon proficiency feat since their starting proficiencies suck. However not being proficient with shields make the weapon of choic a 2h weapon (e.g. maul, bastard sword) and thus the cleric seems to end more martial than the 1h+shield warlord.

Beside from the limited starting proficiencies the cleric can be just as martial as the warlord. The melee cleric is a viable build and has enough melee weapon attacks that your warpriest doesn't need to select a single at will, encounter, daily attack that's not a Str-based melee attack and all of them do the same damage than they're warlord counterparts

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).

Well, comparing their melee attack powers this is not the case. The melee powers avaible to clerics are just as powerfull and numerous as the ones avaible to warlords.

Given their lack of shields, the typical cleric 2h melee cleric will even do more damage than the m 1h+shield melee warlord.

 

[Evenglare]

-They have poor Dex/Int, so light armor is not an option for them.
QUOTE]

I didnt know classes defined stats. It it true i could not put an 18 if i so wished into dex or int?

 

[Mengu]

Clerics have the option to choose ranged attack powers based on wisdom. Warlords do not have ranged attack power options, they must be melee fighters, and as such, they get the option to use a light shield.

I don't understand why there is so much crying over 1 point of AC difference between the two leaders. It's not like you'll have people running around with +5 shields as in 3.x.

Classes are balanced in many dimensions. For instance, keep in mind the Cleric is less MAD than the Warlord. You can build a Cleric focused purely on Wisdom, or purely on Strength, and function reasonably well. Warlords need a good Strength, *and* they need good Intelligence or Charisma.

In a similar vein, Paladin's are more MAD than Fighters, so this could be one reason why they have Plate where fighters don't. Or it could be because Fighters have these cool reliable powers, whereas Paladins don't. When you are comparing classes there is tons to consider.

I will agree with one of the comments though. Fighters could have gotten shields as an optional class feature of the defensive build, and they could get something like +1 damage when wielding a melee weapon two handed as an optional class feature of the offensive build. It would seem to fit nicely with the other class designs.

 

[Xsjado]

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?

 

[Argyuile]

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.

For the cleric I think a lot of it depends on the race you choose. For example if I take a Dwarven Cleric I am proficient in the warhammer but not the war maul. This gives me a +2 to hit (very important to a melee cleric). Then I spend my feat on light shield giving me +1 to AC and +1 to my probably crummy reflex save.

Alternately I just spend my feat on weapon proficiency to get the mauls to hit bonus, I do more damage but I'm wasting one of my racial abilities and my AC and reflex saves are lower.