D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
2) Not sure I agree, whenever we've had a warlock in the group they have dealt significant damage while also remained the hardest to kill.
Just compare the dpr (damage per round) of a warlock to a sorcerer of the same level. Ask your warlock to build a sorcerer of a similar flavor and he may well decide to switch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otterscrubber
3) What is MAD? Even without know thign, I'm going to agree though
Mulitple abilities dependancy. It means being required to focus on too many abilities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Otterscrubber
4) I found a melee ranger x-classed to fighter dished out a ton of hurt, especially with Storm Warden as the paragon path and scimitar dance. Would deal significant damage even if all attacks missed. I keep hearing about the ranged ranger dishing it out though even more, but I"m not sure how.....
It's not even that it dishes out more, but personally I think that archery rangers had their damage based on two weapon rangers who had their damage based on other melee attackers. When I think their damage should be based around sorcerers and warlocks (seemingly less than melee attackers from what i see) since they are ranged.
Avengers are divine. In theory, they get love in the same book as the paladins.
not necessarily the same kind of love.. give palidans more non charisma bound powers and a new marking power and it will suddenly seem un mad --- but rather more split build like the ranger.
Erm... fighters? Technically they can mark with a ranged basic attack or a special-case like dragonborn breath weapons, but their mark does absolutely nothing besides the -2 if they aren't in melee range.
The power argument really does depend on what you're talking about, and how you define power. A battlerager fighter is easily the most powerful class in the game - so long as you define power as "the inability to ever die (ps. seriously, ever)." A ranger is the most powerful character in the game if power is defined as "the most single-target damage in a single round (assuming a few conditions and some help)." A wizard is the most powerful if you define power as "I can finish an entire encounter by myself with one daily (up to and including Orcus)." And the warden and avenger are each certainly incredible powerhouses, if power is defined as "massive damage potential combined with insanely high AC." In fact, I'd say any Str/Con based class is going to be a mega-powerhouse because it's so easy to grab Storm of Blades or any of the other game-altering barbarian encounter powers.
But are all of these classes better than a paladin? Oh god yes. Obscenely better. The poor paladin (and cleric) players are just holding out one more month for Divine Power in hopes that they'll suddenly have a massive power boost, too.
Ah... another class balance thread, another round of doubleplusunlove for the paladin (curse you 4e for making me into a paladin apologist!).
My paladin currently does his mortal cavorting with an avenger and a sorcerer (after two people swapped PC's after the release of the PHBII). While both new classes have their share of shiny, new, interesting mechanics, of which I-the-player am a little jealous, they don't completely overshadow my lowly paladin.
In fact, I'm not sure they overshadow him at all. He does what he was built to do: take a beating and talk a great game. He dishes a fair amount of damage, does fantastically against undead, and even has a few interesting powers (like Wrath of the Gods).
Once he hits 11th level, he'll take Champion of Order and gain the ability to cripple a single powerful foe, like a good dragon-slayer wannabe should.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Ah... another class balance thread, another round of doubleplusunlove for the paladin (curse you 4e for making me into a paladin apologist!).
Anecdotal "but I don't feel wimpy" posts ignoring the points which have been made are probably not going to convince people, stand up and blast em dude... I love paladins myself. I miss the paladin's signature mount and think a Strength Wisdom Paladin represents some interesting concepts that has been well underfed so far (you couldn't play it in previous versions at all). I think Paladins and Clerics have some scary advantages if you have a campaign / game world featuring hosts of the undead. That said campaigns / game worlds featuring plagues of trolls probably leg up most arcane classes.
Last edited by Garthanos; 1st July 2009 at 11:57 PM..
1: Cover is +2 to defenses against ranged and melee only. Not much of a consolation, but there you go.
Not true. First of all cover grants -2 penalty to all attack rolls. Yes, you can think of it as +2 to all defenses, but there might be a difference at times, so it's important to note the exact effect. More importantly, cover is not only against ranged and melee! It works against Area Attacks and Close Attacks as well. The photo on PHB page 281 specifically shows a goblin getting cover from a statue against an Area Attack.
Most of the wizard powers are ... lets say.... complicated to use. Specilly close blast ones that target all creatures.
If the wizard go ahead of the party, he is a prime target.
If he stays behind the melee line he cant effectivelly use half of his powers.
Invoker simple does not have this problem, considering all his "hit enemies" powers.
This simple difference is actually annoying in my opinion. Admittely I have never tested by myself, but I can see all the trouble my parties wizards have to hit with their close burst spells. Usually my brother is ganked after such attempts...
Wizard/Invoker is an obvious comparison. The Invorker has a couple of at-wills that are strictly better than similar wizard at-wills, but the Wizard's dailies are pretty impressive. The wizard's need to watch where he places his AEs is a downside, but it does make the class more interesting and challenging to play, and is compensated by some rather large AEs...
Wow, really? I played a 3.x pally for years and always thought the mount was a waste of a class feature. It was cool in one or two encounters, but otherwise it was basically never used.
I'm glad they got rid of that.
To fix the Pally, I think all they need to do is use Divine Power to add sufficient powers at each level so either pally build is viable. At the absolute bear minimum, there should be a Strengthadin and Chaladin available to choose from. Ideally, there'd be a couple of each and they'd be equally viable.
__________________ "Give a man a gun and he's Superman. Give him two and he's God."
Wow, really? I played a 3.x pally for years and always thought the mount was a waste of a class feature. It was cool in one or two encounters, but otherwise it was basically never used.
I'm glad they got rid of that.
To fix the Pally, I think all they need to do is use Divine Power to add sufficient powers at each level so either pally build is viable. At the absolute bear minimum, there should be a Strengthadin and Chaladin available to choose from. Ideally, there'd be a couple of each and they'd be equally viable.
I agree that would fix his playability... Chaladin is close already and for fans of the class well that is sometimes enough.
I had 2 horses in High School.... (Smokey and Wild Fire)
Gandalf and his horse. Thomas Covenant and the herd of magical horses that bowed to him The Llone Rangers and Zorros horses... they are character features with plenty of flavor even if they are not necessarily a power function, and as flavor is never a waste I miss them.
In the Disney show El Dorado.. remember that smart horse. In 4e I might call the one guy (who seems adopted by the horse) a Multiclass rogue dabbling in paladin and the other pure rogue. ( I seem to be on a Disney kick)
Technically there are few stories I can narrow down as being about Paladins with special horses Arthurian Knights doing healing miracle...dont really mention magical horses much... For me it was more something a signature of D&D itself if you will.
There is a thread of heros with intelligent horses that I have absorbed in D&D it was the Paladin.
Gandalf and his horse. Thomas Covenant and the herd of magical horses that bowed to him The Llone Rangers and Zorros horses... they are character features with plenty of flavor even if they are not necessarily a power function, and as flavor is never a waste I miss them.
It's certainly a staple of fantasy (and other) literature. I like RL horsies, and I enjoyed my old pally's dire boar (horsies are nice, but pigs, pigs have character<g>)
That said, there were *very* few times when he made a difference in gameplay, which seems a shame. In addition, I've often wanted to play a non-paladin with a horsey. But 3.5 rules didn't support that either... hmmm... I wonder about getting a Rage Drake for my 4.0 Barbarian...
__________________ "Give a man a gun and he's Superman. Give him two and he's God."
To be honest, the worst class balance problems are in the PHB1. Fighters and Rangers are basically the most powerful classes in 4th ed so far, and Paladins are among the weakest. The Warden may be better than the Paladin, but he's not better than the Fighter.
So. Now that fighters have been hacked off at the knees...
It's certainly a staple of fantasy (and other) literature. I like RL horsies, and I enjoyed my old pally's dire boar (horsies are nice, but pigs, pigs have character<g>)
That said, there were *very* few times when he made a difference in gameplay, which seems a shame. In addition, I've often wanted to play a non-paladin with a horsey. But 3.5 rules didn't support that either... hmmm... I wonder about getting a Rage Drake for my 4.0 Barbarian...
Well if you want your horsey to be an active aide in battle ... could we do it as a Beastmaster companion.. combine with mounted combat and stir vigorously ... does the idea inspire new beast master powers?
Thing is I do want it to be more... less the core part of ones class... but a significant personal bond... like a familiar almost.
So. Now that fighters have been hacked off at the knees...
Now the fighter got "hacked off at the knees", he stands 6'4 instead of 10' tall. Even after the changes, Fighter is still one of the top classes(at least top 3), in the game.
So. Now that fighters have been hacked off at the knees...
This I don't get. Battlerager gets toned down from ridiculous(and it was heavily overrated before, Fighters were better off with the offensive firepower of the other three builds), Tempest gets a non-nerf by its primary at-will becoming more defender and less striker, and an overpowered encounter power gets a modest nerf.
If they can't do striker damage, whats the point of having them in the party? The role of defender is redundant when strikers and controllers can have the same or even better survivability AND end the fight sooner. The defender's role is to mitigate damage and fighters don't do that significantly better than anyone else, even non-defenders, while other defenders can do additional things other than pretend to be a sub-par striker.
Interestingly, regarding the Warden, it's not his mark that makes him an effective defender.
From my (admittedly limited to a few encounters worth of combat testing) experience of my level 6 earthstrength warden, it's his controller aspects that kept the other party member almost entirely untouched. All the slowing, knocking prone and use of difficult terrain make it very difficult for them to get away from you once you close with them.
Now, I'm making no claims as to their relative power to the other defenders, just pointing out that the mark for them is very much a secondary way of defending.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
