I always viewed it so that "fighters get to use all weapons and armor", whereas clerics only got the armor bit. If clerics did get to use everything, it would have meant fighters get nothing on them out the gate.

Quote from: PaladinCA;372114Since we're bitching about 4e here, I thought I'd mention something that annoyed me this past week. Clerics can't use shields. WTF?

In the interests of "game balance" they decided that a Cleric shouldn't be able to equip a shield because it gives them too much of a bonus to their AC.

This is the kind of design bullshit that causes a cognitive disconnect for people that have been playing D&D for thirty years.

Why can't clerics equip shields when they always have before? Because of "game balance." Nothing more.

It doesn't say anywhere that a cleric can't use a shield. You just have to use a feat to do so. Fucking crybaby.

Quote from: two_fishes;372123Remind me again why clerics were prohibited from using edged weapons in earlier editions.

Because of the (once widely believed but now debunked) notion that "fighting priests" in medieval times used blunt weapons as a means of skirting the prohibition against shedding blood, backed up by the depiction of Bishop Odo in the Bayeux Tapestry apparently fighting with a mace and the warrior-saint (can't recall his name offhand) who ordered his men to turn around their spears and fight using the blunt end.

Sure game balance (that this rule conveniently prevented clerics from using bows and magic swords and gave the fighter a nice protected niche (at least until the thief class came along)) was also a factor, but it wasn't the only factor.

two_fishes is a hateful forger. This time he hates realism or emulation, as is standard for a card carrying member. No surprise.

Quote from: T. Foster;372128Because of the (once widely believed but now debunked) notion that "fighting priests" in medieval times used blunt weapons as a means of skirting the prohibition against shedding blood, backed up by the depiction of Bishop Odo in the Bayeux Tapestry apparently fighting with a mace and the warrior-saint (can't recall his name offhand) who ordered his men to turn around their spears and fight using the blunt end.

Sure game balance (that this rule conveniently prevented clerics from using bows and magic swords and gave the fighter a nice protected niche (at least until the thief class came along)) was also a factor, but it wasn't the only factor.

It's true, but the point is there are odd game-balance limits in all the versions of D&D. I'm aware there are valid reasons for disliking 4e but these particular complaints strike me as pretty trivial. Crossbows do less damage than longbows, clerics need a feat to use shields. Like I posted before. Meh. Big deal

Quote from: two_fishes;372123Remind me again why clerics were prohibited from using edged weapons in earlier editions.

I think there's an argument to be made for tradition, as long as we don't get it all gummed up with arguments about realism. On the other hand, while I can't be bothered to find the exact thread, one of those OSR threads had a lot of verbiage about how important it was to mold your game to your needs. So hey, make crossbows hurtier and make clerics get shields by default.

Quote from: two_fishes;372132It's true, but the point is there are odd game-balance limits in all the versions of D&D. I'm aware there are valid reasons for disliking 4e but these particular complaints strike me as pretty trivial. Crossbows do less damage than longbows, clerics need a feat to use shields. Like I posted before. Meh. Big deal

But only people who don't like Forge games are allowed to make arguments like that.  This is a big no-no, fishes.  :rolleyes:

Back on topic.  

FWIW, if you're going for realism or detail that "makes sense", I wouldn't really look to D&D.  There was already a game made in response to D&D to cater to people who wanted that type of detail and sense in their game, and it came out a few decades ago.

Indeed.

Anyway, I was glancing through Fantasy Craft last night and I saw that there, arrows and quarrels do exactly the same damage regardless of the type of bow used. BUT, the type of bow influences the chance of getting a critical hit, and here a heavy crossbow is better than a longbow.

I can't say exactly how that fits into the rest of the system; e.g., I don't know if it uses AC or armor absorbs or both.

Quote from: Settembrini;372131two_fishes is a hateful forger. This time he hates realism or emulation, as is standard for a card carrying member. No surprise.

:rolleyes:
that funny glass thing between you and me is a mirror, settie.

The true reason for the crossbow disconnect, of course, is again the Burgundian Wars. Or more precise, the Hundred Years War as filtered through Oman, a century of British propaganda, producing a feedback loop for the yeomanry heroization, which in turn brought us the Legend of the Longbow. It´s really the Katana of the Victorians.

And then Gygax came and ate that all up as a sidedish in his wargaming buffet. With a bottle of fine Burgundian, which closes the circle. Case closed.

Same with odo and Bayeux, milHist myths all the way.

Quote from: Benoist;372108What is too nit picky for your eight-year-old?

I suspect that worrying about the relative damage potential of longbows versus crossbows would be too nitpicky for my eight-year-old.

Quote from: two_fishes;372138:rolleyes:
that funny glass thing between you and me is a mirror, settie.

You are an asshole. Just that. No fun to argue with, you don´t even raise my anger. You do get bonus points for a weird form of sock puppetting. Greatest sin: no clue whatsoever re: Gaming. Have fun with the others on the list.

Quote from: Settembrini;372142You are an asshole. Just that. No fun to argue with,

aw, did i make you cry? are you gonna take your ball and bat and go home?

Quoteyou don´t even raise my anger. You do get bonus points for a weird form of sock puppetting.

i'm koltar.

QuoteGreatest sin: no clue whatsoever re: Gaming. Have fun with the others on the list.

i do! i enjoy myself immensely!

Quote from: Benoist;372108It's a question of emulation/immersion to him. I understand, personally.


What is too nit picky for your eight-year-old?

Kinda curious about that, too...I run Star Wars Saga Edition for my six year old.

Quote from: IMLegend;372126It doesn't say anywhere that a cleric can't use a shield. You just have to use a feat to do so. Fucking crybaby.

Crybaby? Really? That's the best a self-identified prick can come up with?

I figured that you would probably have to burn a feat. But if it can be done by DDI, then I couldn't figure out how to do it. There were no feats on DDI that had anything to do with equipping a shield. Weapons? Yes. Shields? I didn't see it. So how do you do it? What feat is it? Do you have to multiclass?

There is a difference between bitching and crying. When you cry, you stop playing a stupid game for making such a lame design decision. When you are just bitching, you keep playing the game but feel that you have the right to complain about this aspect or that. But whatever... I'm pretty sure that 4e has zero flaws in your mind.