Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ferrous" data-source="post: 4273250" data-attributes="member: 61796">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. I think the main problem here is that everyone is excited about the release of 4E and so don't want to hear it has flaws, no matter how minor. However the reason we have a 4E is that the editions before had flaws! To think that 4E will not have any flaws is simply the triumph of hope over experience.For me the main selling point of 4E over 3.E is one of balance. 4E has rebalanced caster classes versus martial classes to be much fairer. This is great. Balance makes the game more fun for most people as everyone can make an equal contribution. However a few gliches have slipped through. The most extreme example is Storm of Blades. If a tricked out 15th level Wizard being able to save or die stuff and dominate play is bad in 3E then it is equally bad for a 15th level Ranger to do the same in 4E. It is fairly hypocritical to think otherwise I feel.At the end of the day clerics being mechanically disadvantaged for taking anything other than two-handed weapons is a minor quibble. However I am worried because if something as simple as this has not been thought through then what does this say about the more complex interactions between powers later?P.SLogic is knee jerk? I see. Well everything is for the best in this best of all possible (4E) worlds...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ferrous, post: 4273250, member: 61796"] 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. I think the main problem here is that everyone is excited about the release of 4E and so don't want to hear it has flaws, no matter how minor. However the reason we have a 4E is that the editions before had flaws! To think that 4E will not have any flaws is simply the triumph of hope over experience. For me the main selling point of 4E over 3.E is one of balance. 4E has rebalanced caster classes versus martial classes to be much fairer. This is great. Balance makes the game more fun for most people as everyone can make an equal contribution. However a few gliches have slipped through. The most extreme example is Storm of Blades. If a tricked out 15th level Wizard being able to save or die stuff and dominate play is bad in 3E then it is equally bad for a 15th level Ranger to do the same in 4E. It is fairly hypocritical to think otherwise I feel. At the end of the day clerics being mechanically disadvantaged for taking anything other than two-handed weapons is a minor quibble. However I am worried because if something as simple as this has not been thought through then what does this say about the more complex interactions between powers later? P.S Logic is knee jerk? I see. Well everything is for the best in this best of all possible (4E) worlds... [/QUOTE]

Verification