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.
I try to keep an open mind, but it seems they really just made a lot of PHB2 classes better. In the last adventure one of the players in the group decided to make a warden, a defender class from the PHB2. I play a paladin, also a defender class.
Warden is nice, but they can mark anyone in melee with them as a free action, which seems noticeably better than other defenders who must at least attack to mark. Then we hit lvl 2 and I was picking my paladin's utility power. I went with Sacred Circle, Daily, Close burst 3, gives +1 to allies AC for the fight. I joking said the warden would probably have the same power but gives +2 to AC. I was wrong, it is the same thing but gives cover to allies, which is actually +2 to ALL defenses for the fight in a close burst 3. After we all laughed about it for a bit, I thought about it more and it just really seems that the classes in the PHB2 seem to have a lot of benefits with few of the drawbacks of classes in the PHB. Sorry if this has been brought up before, but please let me know your thoughts.
__________________ Whatever you read in my post, I actually do like 4e
All my questions are for 4e unless otherwise stated.
"A true slacker needs no excuse to slack" - Evan G.
1: Cover is +2 to defenses against ranged and melee only. Not much of a consolation, but there you go.
2: The Warden doesn't have Lay on Hands, or anything like Lay on Hands.
3: The Paladin's powers do more damage overall
4: If a monster gets too far from the Warden, his mark doesn't do much, whereas the Paladin's mark continues to be effective so long as that Paladin has any way to attack the monster.
5: Enfeebling Smite will reduce all a monster's attacks by -2. This is an at-will, better than a daily utility for this effect.
6: It's one of only two utility powers in the game a Warden can use to buff allies. Paladins have a -much- greater selection.
Now, while there are a couple bugs with the Paladin class, it isn't weaker or worse than the Warden in terms of power level. Looking at two powers in isolation doesn't make one class better than the other.
Every PHB class is solid at what they do.
Shamans can -potentially- outheal a Cleric, but a Cleric doesn't have to position a spirit conjuration to make things work, and is -always- healing for a lot. And Warlords aren't exactly obsoleted by the Bard.
Barbarians and Avengers aren't better strikers than Rangers or Rogues.
Warlocks still have a lot of upside when compared to Sorcerers, who are one trick ponies in comparison. (Granted, it's a good trick)
And as for Fighters and Paladins? Still good, even after the Warden. Yeah, the Warden has -obvious- upside, but the Fighter brings a LOT to the table a Warden simply doesn't. The same can be said for Paladins.
Now, are the PHB2 classes more elegant, and better presented? Yes. And that is what is responsible for the 'These are better view.' The fact is, all the classes in the game are good. There are no stinkers. It's just, the new ones are shinier cause they know how to polish them better. That's all.
I agree that the PHB2 classes are better presented and a maybe a little better at their role in some instances, but the PHB1 classes are not bad by any means.
The new powers and such in the [Power Source] Power books help with any real shortfalls, though. For example, I'm looking at reworking my PHB wizard with a lot of powers from Arcane Power when I pick it back up at a few levels higher because they fit the "controller" role a bit better (although by no means are the powers in the PHB bad choices in most instances).
As I've seen mentioned before, it seemed that they were being a little more conservative in designing the classes in the first PHB, and I would agree.
I think the PHB2 classes are better designed, but by and large they aren't better in power.
I really think the issue is that you're comparing a paladin - which is basically one of the poorest-designed PHB1 classes, IMO - with a warden. If you were comparing a Fighter and a Warden, I think you might have reached somewhat different conclusions.
I would suggest that PH2 classes are better designed, with less glaringly obvious gaps... paladin is actually one of the best examples of a class that is currently lacking in design options with insufficient powers to select (Str paladins for heroic dailies, so sad), excessive MADness, etc.
That said, a paladin mark's punishment is generally stronger than a warden's and may be done to a target at range, instead of only adjacent.
I'd agree that Nature's Abundance and Sacred Circle should not coexist at the same power level, given their marked similarities and difference in effect.
At least with the Warden/Paladin comparison, I think the warden "looks" better because a lot of the benefits of the Warden are directly in the Class block (increased HP, good powers, etc).
On the other hand, a lot of the cool stuff for the paladin is "outside" the class stat block. Paladins get access to all of the armors without any feats (and there are a LOT of good scale/chain/plate only armors). Paladins get access to channel divinity feats (admittedly, some are lame, but Wardens get NONE).
Also, Wardens look really good as an "island". Wardens have a LOT of abilities that boost themselves, and don't do much to help anyone else (like Polymorphs, powers that let them heal). Paladins have a lot of access to powers which make them helpful to those around them. Looking at a sheer "internal power" metric, I think Wardens are more useful, but I think that often, a party will be better off with a Paladin.
Finally, I think the paladin could possibly see a lot of "improvement" from Divine Power. It seems like a lot of the PHB1 classes had many COOL powers held back for their "source" supplement book, while the bard and sorceror, for example, whose release was much closer to the Arcane Power release, seemed to have the "showy-good" powers pretty much divided fairly between books. Thus, I think you might see a bigger power jump for the Paladin and Cleric after Divine Power, than you will see for the Shaman, Barbarian, or Warden, after Primal Power. I could be wrong, however.
Yeah, I think you're pretty much making one of the most lopsided comparisons between PHB and PHB2 classes when you compare the paladin to, well, anything else. It is a good solid playable class, but it does have problems with a lack of sufficient options and its stat distribution certainly puts you in a bind.
Even so the paladin doesn't come up short in terms of plain old power on the battlemat when you play it. Wardens for instance can mark easily, but then what? Warden's Fury is fine, but not as good as a fighter's CC. Warden's Grasp is nice too, but does no damage and its other effects are situational. There are times when a Warden simply can't do much at all to stick people to him and usually isn't as sticky as a fighter. WRT the paladin they certainly don't punish their mark target nearly as much, nor can they project that control much beyond 1 square.
Paladins and fighters can overall dish out more damage. This has ramifications for defending as often a monster is going to take a shot from a warden to go after another character, whereas they could be a lot less well advised to do so from a fighter.
The other PHB2 classes are definitely more sophisticated class designs in some ways than the PHB ones, but again it really doesn't particularly translate into better on the table. Both druids and invokers for example are very nice controllers, but the druid is a lot more limited in projecting its control anywhere on the battlemat than the wizard is. Invoker will do that job quite handily and is a very consistent controller, but when push comes to shove the wizard can do almost as well, can dish out a bit more damage, and overall is a bit more flexible.
Other people have mentioned the other PHB2 classes. They all work well, but notice that the PHB2 strikers are designed for more limited types of tactics than any of the PHB1 strikers. They work great, but drop a barbarian in a swamp full of difficult terrain and things don't always look so good.
Bards just naturally seem to follow the opposite curve. They are certainly WAY flexible, and perhaps open to a lot of cheese, but a good warlord will do its job just as well and there are some amazing warlord builds. With MP in the mix I almost find warlord to be the most successful class at its job of all. Shaman and bard can match it, but I don't think they can beat it.
in response to the your exampled situation:
keep in mind that a paladin has more damage output than a warden.
and a paladin does more radiant damage (the warden more elemental type), there are more radiant vulnerable creatures than other types in the MM1, though it depends on what creature mix your DM actually uses at your game table.
plus, for a warden to use his rider effect on his marked opponents, he has to use his immediate interupt/reaction action for the round, whereas for a paladin it's no action. It's a minor thing, but it also means a paladin could theoretically still get in an immediate action in addition to his mark's rider effect. the warden has to do one or the other.
Also, sometimes a flat bonus (+1 to ac) is better than a condition (granting cover)
Although the cover does give +2 to all defenses, some monters have ways to bypass a target's "cover" bonus. Thus the +2 to defenses becomes meaningless in those situations but they can't just as easily bypass that +1 to ac.
as for a general comment
i do think the phb2 classes are designed better (something about them seems "cleaner" and more precise; but that could be my imagination), but I don't think they are stronger than the phb1 classes.
Lots of it really becomes situation (sure, it looks like a better 'general thing' but then it turns out there is some situation where it might not be better, and thus it turns in to, how often does that situation come up in your own games) - such as the +1 ac vs cover bonus in your example.
__________________ If you're bored and like to follow links provided by random strangers, check out my ENWorld Blog http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/fba827/
It will have campaign logs and random thoughts...
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA PCs now: Genasi Warlord 5 Human BRV Fighter 5
Posts: 8,000
dracoSuave makes some good points. Especially:
Quote:
Originally Posted by DracoSuave
Now, are the PHB2 classes more elegant, and better presented? Yes.
There are no "V" classes in the PH2, which already tells you the designers learned something between PH1 and PH2. More class powers are official "At-Will" class features, rather than hidden in a paragraph of the class abilities. Again, another improvement.
__________________ - Nail
Last edited by Nail: Today....just a few minutes ago
I agree that PHB2 are more smoothly written, and perhaps easier to play. Shaman's spirits stand out as a major hassle to adjudicate (problems every session for us, mostly because the current DM [we rotate] isn't happy with the simplest, RAW, just a conjuration + some extras version).
The paladin is a bit gappy. My first character is a dragonborn paladin (helps a bit) who's strength and charisma, but is multiclassing into warlord a fair bit. Works really well. Paladin level 2 utilities are very poor.
I think the curve goes towards being more mechanically complex. PHB1 classes are very simple to understand and play (although they might lack in presentation). They are good for introducing people to the game. PHB2 classes just have more bits to play with. A savvy player might squeeze more power out of a PHB2 class, but I don't think it is by much. The power source books are also evening out that power gap. If the monk is any indication, PHB3 will have even more complexity and versatility than the other two.
Paladins generally rank pretty low on the defender totem pole (or even the class totem pole) for a variety of reasons. So the fact that the warden compares favorably to paladins isn't too surprising: I think the issue is the paladin, not the warden.
The comparison of a warden against a fighter or shielding swordmage is much more balanced IMO.
IIRC, the warden's marking is that he marks all adjacent foes, correct?
Tactically, that's not always going to be the best thing to do - you're actually aiming to keep the entire party going as long as possible. If the defender runs out of surges, the day is over, just the same as if the strikers do.
Additionally the fact that the paladin can apply his mark at range is a big plus for him being an effective defender. He's probably the best defender for controlling artillery.
Next up: granting cover is good, unless you already have cover. And a lot of the time your back-row characters WILL already have cover from the front-rowers. So a bit of a mixed bag there.
Finally: as far as I recall paladins are still the only class that can pass their surges to another character.
I adore the fighter and warden. They are well designed and fun to play.
And though I don't play a swordmage, I see that it is well designed too.
I think that most PHB 1 & PHB 2 classes are competitive and fun.
However, the Paladin and Warlock stand out like sore thumbs.
The Warlock (striker) has too many 1d6 & 2d6 damage spells.
And the Paladin seems the only defender whose class seems poorly designed.
STR needed for oppourtunity attacks (your MARK)
DEX: needed for feats (DAMAGE)
CON: needed for surges and feats (DAMAGE and AC)
WIS: needed for Lay On Hands per day (LOH)
CHA: needed for mark (MARK)
When I build a paladin, I must ask myself
"Which two features should I give up?"
"Which one feature should I never increase?"
No other defender loses class features based on stats.
...Do creatures grant cover in 4e? If so, is there a chance of hitting the person in front of your target?
I was under the impression that cover from creatures and firing into melee and all of those headaches were done away with.
Your own allies do not grant enemies cover, but an enemy's allies do grant other enemies cover. There's no way to accidentally hit the cover instead of your target, though.
__________________ ++++++++++++
Travis Stout
"An absolute monarchy is one in which the sovereign does as he pleases so long as he pleases the assassins."
--Ambrose Bierce
STR needed for oppourtunity attacks (your MARK)
DEX: needed for feats (DAMAGE)
CON: needed for surges and feats (DAMAGE and AC)
WIS: needed for Lay On Hands per day (LOH)
CHA: needed for mark (MARK)
Martial training erases the STR issue.
Plate proficiency/enfeebling strike erases the AC issue.
Paladins start with more feats than anyone else, erasing the surges issue.
This leaves needing Str, Wis, and Cha.
Of these, Str is only important if it's your primary, otherwise you can do without, and Wis only serves one class feature, and not your most important ability in terms of defense.
So, if you focus on Charisma and either Strength or Wisdom, you can get by quite nicely without a lot of the problems people seem to feel are there.
The same argument could be used for Heavy Blade Fighters who 'need' Str, Dex, Con, and Wis, or Swordmages who allegedly 'need' Str, Dex, Con, and Int.
That said, I want to see where Divine Power takes the paladin before signing judgement completely. Virtuous Paladin? More Strength powers? Or a Wisdom based one?
And the Paladin seems the only defender whose class seems poorly designed.
STR needed for oppourtunity attacks (your MARK)
DEX: needed for feats (DAMAGE)
CON: needed for surges and feats (DAMAGE and AC)
WIS: needed for Lay On Hands per day (LOH)
CHA: needed for mark (MARK)
When I build a paladin, I must ask myself
"Which two features should I give up?"
"Which one feature should I never increase?"
No other defender loses class features based on stats.
I'm not sure how much Divine Power can help.
There are a few workarounds if you're playing a Charisma paladin. Melee Training (Charisma) reduces the need for Strength. Wisdom doesn't need to be exceptionally high unless you're the primary healer for the party or there are so many party members that the primary healer needs additional support, so one or two ability increases could be assigned to Dexterity or Constitution. Blade Opportunist has relatively low prerequisites, and with Melee Training, Heavy Blade Opportunity becomes less of a must-have. A paladin starting with Str 13, Con 12, Dex 13, Int 8, Wis 14, Cha 16 could have Heavy Blade Opportunity at Epic tier.
Wisdom doesn't need to be exceptionally high unless you're the primary healer for the party or there are so many party members that the primary healer needs additional support
I'll be honest, if your group needs a healer (read: Leader) probably a character with touch-range daily-resource heals that suck up his own healing surges are probably not the best way to get that 'healbot' going.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
