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.
It seems that Divine Power has managed to have fixes for almost every major issue with Paladins that have been found up till now.
1) Str/Wis, Str/Cha, and Cha/Wis builds are all viable and powerful across all levels.
2) The addition of powers that can go either Strength or Charisma aid in more flexible character design.
3) The addition of an at-will that is both Charisma based, and can be used instead of a melee basic attack means that OAs are available to Charismadins without Martial Training, and that HBO is not needed, curing a lot of MAD issues for that type.
4) There are powers for both primaries across all levels, so there's no Nineth Level Strengthadin-sucks issues.
5) Divine Sanction. Enough said.
6) The addition of a feat that allows you to add your Strength mod to your Divine Challenge damage means you no longer need to rely on Charisma if you don't want to.
7) Paladins can sport a DPR build that is competitive with Fighters.
Just to be clear, divine power seems to be imo pretty much comparably powerful to arcane power and martial power.
Now I wait for 11 years for primal power.... sigh
Just to be clear, divine power seems to be imo pretty much comparably powerful to arcane power and martial power.
Now I wait for 11 years for primal power.... sigh
Or, until October, I believe.
I feel your pain, as I'm hoping to see a set of new Barbarian Paragon Paths myself before I have to choose one, but it looks like 4 months, rather than 11 years.
I feel your pain, as I'm hoping to see a set of new Barbarian Paragon Paths myself before I have to choose one, but it looks like 4 months, rather than 11 years.
on the + side, if you are human, paragon into bear warrior, multi-class druid and wild shape while raging you are by raw ManBearPig.
Just to be clear, divine power seems to be imo pretty much comparably powerful to arcane power and martial power.
Now I wait for 11 years for primal power.... sigh
Paladins had to wait an entire year for their book, and three newer classes got in first.
I'm pretty happy with Divine Power, overall. I find the feats kind of lackluster compared to Martial Power and Arcane Power, but the new features and powers are very cool.
Although I never expect to see one in play, I like that you can play a pacifist character now. Well, mostly, anyway. That's a major departure from everything we have in 4e to-date.
Agreed. Over-all, Divine Power is a nice supplement. The new stuff for Paladins is, as already pointed out, great and really fixes what issues the class had.
The new stuff for Clerics, especially their new pacifist build, is also very interesting and really adds to the feel of the game. Almost feels like we got the old Healer class (from Miniatures Handbook, except vastly improved) back.
The new build for Invokers is a tad suicidal for my tastes, but also has a lot of potential. It's relative focus on psychic and necrotic powers makes the Dark Fury feat an interesting choice again, and it might also be a good candidate for the Avatar of Death epic destiny, should you be inclined to go that way.
The Avenger, however, got utterly shafted. Almost every power, feat, and paragon path in the book veers toward the low-damage "Censure as a control tool" playstyle and away from the "Censure as a damage tool" playstyle, even though the class is already hurting for damage, which they yet seem aware of and thus implement a new damage-tool-only Censure. It's confusing. Many of the powers and feats for Avengers also make it seem like there was confusion as to what direction they wanted to take the Avenger and in some cases it even seemed like the confusion was about what an Avenger is (the Eye of the Hurricane power and the Avenging Allure feat make little to no sense in context).
Not gonna let one shoddy chapter mess up a whole book, though, so still think it's a nice supplement.
Last edited by Thundershield; 2nd August 2009 at 11:32 AM..
1) Dark Fury is never an interesting build for a class that can use staves as implements and has Charisma as a dump stat.
2) You -are- aware that Oath adds 50% of their total damage per combat right? Low damage isn't low damage when you -rarely miss-.
Also, Avengers =are= secondary controllers. Some people dig that about them. How many powers do you need that say 'Shift X, Hit: deal X[W] damage. Miss: Half' Pretty much every level has something that does that. Flat out damage isn't exactly probing new design space.
1) Dark Fury is never an interesting build for a class that can use staves as implements and has Charisma as a dump stat.
2) You -are- aware that Oath adds 50% of their total damage per combat right? Low damage isn't low damage when you -rarely miss-.
Also, Avengers =are= secondary controllers. Some people dig that about them. How many powers do you need that say 'Shift X, Hit: deal X[W] damage. Miss: Half' Pretty much every level has something that does that. Flat out damage isn't exactly probing new design space.
Maybe the Avenger isn't for you?
1) Yeah, okay. I'm sorry for trying to breathe a little life back into feats that everybody seemingly have buried and forgotten. /snarkiness off
2) Then maybe 50% of their total damage isn't much, as most every Avenger I've played, seen played, and seen for PEACH so far has been inferior to equivalent Rogues or Rangers or Sorcerers or, gods help me, even Feylocks.
Having controller as your secondary role is hardly an excuse. Rogues, Warlocks, and Sorcerers have that too, and they're all doing better in the damage department, either by having a very good attack bonus (Rogues) or hitting multiple targets (Warlock and Sorcerer), while the Avenger hardly is better at control. True, the Avenger has better defenses, but if you're sacrificing damage-dealing for defenses and control as a Striker, you've got your priorities messed up.
Maybe the Avenger isn't for me, or for you, or for anybody. Maybe they need to fix it first and turn it back on the path of the Striker.
Last edited by Thundershield; 2nd August 2009 at 02:06 PM..
We have an avenger in our group right now and he doesn't seem to be hurting for the pain. Sure he doesn't throw damage like our sorc does, but the rerolls are damn nice. I have seen in the last two sessions at least 8 horrible rolls turn into winners with the reroll. He also has the highest AC in our party, and abilities like phasing through walls is great.
I also think avenger have some of my favorite dailies. So many of them have effects and are encounter lasting. That's a big factor.
Having controller as your secondary role is hardly an excuse. Rogues, Warlocks, and Sorcerers have that too, and they're all doing better in the damage department, either by having a very good attack bonus (Rogues)
So, you mean, if a striker, say, had access to 2d6 weapons and +5 to hit, they'd do their job as a striker well in your eyes?
I think it makes sense to build upon Controller or at least condition applying powers for Avengers, since he has a very good chance of bringing them through.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
So, you mean, if a striker, say, had access to 2d6 weapons and +5 to hit, they'd do their job as a striker well in your eyes?
That class exists.
It's called Avenger.
Well, I suppose I forgot to mention the 5d8 bonus damage? Does the Avenger have that? Oh, right, his damage tool was relegated to "control", which seems to mean a whopping +0 damage, which is sure great for a Striker..
Likewise I didn't mention the Sorcerer's +14 damage or the Warlock's +3d6.
No, if you just play the Avenger and have fun with it I urge you to play on by all means. Ignorance is bliss, after all. But it becomes painfully obvious the moment a damage-capable Striker (or even Leader or Defender) steps in and dishes out as much damage as your Avenger did over the past 2-3 rounds.
Sure the Oath of Enmity ensures a steady damage flow, but without the ability to cause some damage spikes your damage will still be mediocre compared to Strikers who actually, you know, focus on their role.
And yeah, let's fall back on Final Oath... So, okay, Avengers might be fixed for level 29-30 (once per day), but there's still 28 borked levels before that, then.
I'll simplify things:
Rogue: High attack bonus, does 1d4-1d8 plus 2d8-5d8 damage. Avenger: High attack bonus, does 1d12-2d6 damage. Ranger: Attacks twice, does 1d8-1d10 once or twice plus 1d8-3d8 damage. Sorcerer: Attacks multiple targets, does 1d6-1d10 plus 4-14 damage on each target. Warlock: Attacks multiple targets, does 1d6-1d10 plus 1d6-3d6 damage.
It just doesn't seem all that impressive in such a simplified comparison, and yes, that is all things being equal, and the Avenger's double-roll roughly equals a +4 bonus to attack. And all these classes can reach their target and have relatively little trouble with survivability (if played right, of course).
Last edited by Thundershield; 3rd August 2009 at 11:23 AM..
Generic brutal rogue with 18 dexterity and 14 strength, using a dagger, with the backstabber feat, with combat advantage, using piercing strike, attacking a target with a 14 reflex: Expected damage per hit is 17.5. Expected damage per critical hit is 24. Chance of hitting is 80% with an additional 5% chance of critically hitting. Overall expected damage is
therefore 15.2.
Generic ranger with 18 strength using two bastard swords with bastard sword proficiency, with combat advantage, attacking his quarry with twin strike versus an AC of 16: Expected damage per sword is 5.5. If at least one sword hits, an additional 3.5 expected damage is added in. If at least one critical occurs, that's 6 instead. I'll save you the math, since it gets really involved, but the overall outcome is going to be 11.587875.
Generic warlock, assuming similar stats and combat advantage, assuming Implement Expertise as a feat since I don't know what else to give them, and assuming Prime Shot for good measure, using Eldritch Blast versus a cursed target with a 14 will is going to hit on a 6+. With a 70% chance of hitting, 5% chance of critically hitting, and expected damage per hit
of 1d10+1d6+4, we've got a total expected damage adjusted for accuracy of 10.1.
Generic avenger with 18 wisdom, using a fullblade with the fullblade proficiency feat, with combat advantage, using any generic at will power he chooses, attacking an oath target with a 16 AC: Expected damage per hit is 10.5. Expected damage per critical hit is 22.5. Chance of hitting requires some math, beginning with a 70% chance of hitting in some fashion per attack roll, and therefore an overall chance of hitting of 91%. Inside that chance is a chance of hitting critically of 9.75%. So the chance of hitting without a critical is 81.25. Overall expected damage is therefore 10.725.
The sorcerer is a tough one, because he has area of effect and multi target at will attacks. If we're only counting single target hits, Acid Orb is probably the go-to choice, and its lame. Its a 1d10 attack, like the warlock above, except with additional damage equal to your secondary stat instead of +1d6. That's usually a reduction, since 1d6 averages to 3.5. And you don't get Prime Shot. And you are ill equipped to go flank in melee to get a flanking bonus, so you probably won't have combat advantage like a wise fey or infernal pact warlock. On the other hand, you have at will attacks that hit multiple targets, and that can dramatically increase your overall damage. But since there's no good way
to quantify the advantage or disadvantage of hitting multiple targets versus single targets, I'm going to leave the sorcerer out.
The barbarian is also a tough one, since rage changes things significantly and the amount of time you spend raging increases as you advance in level. I'm going to leave him out.
So our totals are
Rogue: 15.2
Ranger: 11.587875
Warlock: 10.1
Avenger: 10.725
But what does that tell us? Well, the first thing we should note is that it leaves some other details out.
Rogue: The rogue's attacks grow very poorly as he adds [W]s. He shows the best in comparisons of low [W] at will attacks where his large sneak attack damage can overwhelm the higher damage dice other classes receive. When he has no combat advantage he suffers an enormous in effectiveness, though this rarely happens in most groups. He has no class abilities or effects which add any other details to this comparison. This comparison is probably the perfect storm for the rogue- there may be no other comparison possible that would make him look any better than this one.
Ranger: The ranger's attacks grow well with the addition of magic items and feat damage, which will apply to both hits. He has no other relevant class abilities or effects.
Warlock: The warlock in our example is a lucky warlock indeed to have both combat advantage and prime shot. A real warlock would probably not have this, unless it was an infernal pact warlock shielding himself with temporary hit points while casting spells at point blank, or a fey pact warlock doing the same with eyebite. The warlock's damage is likely lower than this in actual gameplay. The warlock has no other relevant class abilities or benefits except for his pact boon if his cursed foe dies.
Avenger: The avenger in our example has significant benefits that are not listed here. First, he is the only character using an attack that does something other than pure damage. He may be shifting himself and sliding his foe about, or granting attack bonuses to his allies, or some other utility benefit. He also has an automatically applied class ability related to his oath that is included, such as bonus damage if his foe flees, or bonus damage if he is doubleteamed by his enemies. He also has the highest AC present, and possibly the highest hit points, though the ranger's free access to Toughness will mitigate that at lower levels. His attacks grow the best as [W]s are added.
So... I think he's fine. The math seems to hold that up. If we were to redo the comparison at a higher level, not much would change. The rogue would drop back a bit, as his incredible frontloading would recede in importance and as he swiftly ran out of feats to improve his damage. The ranger would gain a bit in damage as feats like Weapon Focus add static damage twice per round for him. The warlock would stagnate a little, unfortunately, but at the same time gains some significant utility effects. The avenger would grow slightly in damage, but not quite at the same rate as the Ranger, but with the addition of Armor Proficiency: Leather and Improved Armor of the Faith he will match the paladin for armor class and leave the rest of this group in the dust. Since I don't believe in evaluating any role, even that of striker, purely on one dimension, I am inclined to think that these are fair tradeoffs.
Thanks for the analysis cadfan... (I have been resenting Avengers - stepping on the name of the Avenging Paladin a bit - and was only just now starting to look in to the possibilities the class provided ...). I am designing an avenger who revels in the no armor = armor - might see if I can get a leather harnass that acts like leather but looks like a few belts to properly exploit Avenger armor potential.
Besides, I'm not seeing the lack of damage in Divine Power.
I see 3[W] dailies at level 1 through heroic, moving up to a 7[W] daily at level 39. I see lots of ongoing damage, lots of 'do more damage for the rest of the encounter' and lots of 'Do x damage.' The encounter powers in heroic go from 2[W] at level 1 to 3[W] for a level 9. Now, granted, the later level 27 powers don't do huge damage on paper. But you have one that heals you for every enemy close to you for a turn, one that dominates a secondary opponent and forces them to attack your oath target (!!!!).
Sure, these aren't 'do massive damage' powers, but frankly, that's because there's only so much you can do with massive damage. So what if these powers don't appeal to you? They aren't designed for a 'hit hard' type character. Others, however, will find them appealing. Some people -like- the feylock style, even if it's numerically less than some people insist it should be.
This isn't WoW. You're not setting up to raid endgame content. You're creating a character you enjoy, and -every- power in the game is designed around the idea of appealing to a player who enjoys that sort of power. You enjoy massive damage. Grats. Go take massive damage powers and enjoy them. Someone else may not, and so they take more controlly powers, or shifty powers, or what have you.
So, again, I reiterate. If it -appears- that a given power doesn't do enough damage, and that is the reason you feel it sucks, entertain for a moment the idea that that power -might not be designed for you to like it.- Ask who it -would- appeal to, and then you'll understand the design of that power better. Frankly, this is good for the game, because if every power were designed 'Do X Damage, miss: Half' then it'd be a very dull game.
"But Strikers are supposed to do massive damage!"
No. They are supposed to single out an enemy and deal concentrated firepower to it.
Avengers are probably the best design for that particular role. They hit with their dailies and encounters almost guaranteed. Elven Avengers are -sick-.
Not as sick as a Ranger with the new Avenger multiclass. He can double enmity to the end of the encounter, meaning 2 bad guys getting severely spanked by 2 weapons, both with rerolls to hit every round. Ranger/ Avenger just seems plain better than Avenger. Is this the case?
My cleric got really sick. Rejigged him with new Divine Power feats. Has got Devil and Demon Bane meaning that his undead affecting stuff also affects Immortals and Elementals. So triple the firepower.
Also, the Cleric can now use 2 Channel Divinitys per encounter. So he now worships Pelor so he can whip out both a Turn Undead/ Elemental/ Immortal and Pelor's Radiance in the same encounter. A mass stun 120 square area attack? Yes please. Also affects Elementals and Immortals.
It's an Encounter power? Pure filth.
Supreme Healing is also sweet, as is shared healing as it means that the whole party can keep going until every single PC has used up all their surges.
Remorse at lvl 13 is pure dirt. Fighter pulled in 3 bad guys. Cleric Remorsed them (Daze effect was nice as well) before the Wizard hit them with Poison and Fire and Psychic damage and then they took Rain of Steel damage in their turns, and the Fighter attacked them with a close burst.
Final result. Cleric added a total of 150 damage to the Wizard's and Fighter's attacks. Not shabby for a lvl 13 encounter power.
The next combo plan is to Remorse them before Blood Pulsing them for lots of 1D6+10 damage per square movement.
Cleric now does very little damage (No 19-20 crit feat unlike the Arcane and Martial classes) but certainly helps others to dish it out.
The new avenger multiclass is easily among if not the single most broken thing that's slipped into 4E, right up there with Cascade of Blades and Tempest Fighters. It'll be nerfed, hard.
Also, while a lot of people like the perusing avenger (and for good reason, I've got to get my party's avenger to work with my paladin some more after seeing the simple overwhelming strike + divine challenge combo), I like censure of retribution a lot. How often do most characters get hit with area attacks or the like. Often enough to provide a nice constant string of bonus damage, in my own games.
Also, the harder an opponent is to hit the better the avenger looks for the most part. Really hard fights often end up requiring either large numbers of foes or opponents significantly higher level than the party. Censure and high AC make avengers great when dealing with high defense/damage foes.
__________________ "I took a risk... and I ended up in the bag of holding" -the player of Ian Whitefire (deceased)
2) You -are- aware that Oath adds 50% of their total damage per combat right? Low damage isn't low damage when you -rarely miss-.
Maybe the Avenger isn't for you?
For a guy who throws out a lot of math you omit it here. There is already a 1st level damage analysis here, it works a bit differently than mine, but has similar results. Here we go:
(All results assume 80% combat advantage, an even distribution of foes per the sample encounter charts in the dmg, with AC's ranging from player level +12 brutes to +21 for high level skirmishers. Equal level magic weapons with constant bonuses etc, I do include armbands at appropriate levels, but as a GM I might decide they are going the way of bloodclaw).
The problem isn't first level. It's not even heroic tier. It's that all the other strikers scale relevantly at paragon, it's where fighters stop being terribly competitive. Barbarians get some pretty impressive rage effects, that I hope (but haven't seen in game) make up for relatively poor performance, but they still kick the tar out of avengers. I am not sure that rerolling daily powers as cool as that is makes up for the big difference.
These numbers are pre Divine power, and the new censure should bump them up above fighters, at the very least it should be +.7 dpr per tier or so. Perhaps more with a melee focused group.
What bugs me most is that I want to like them. Paladins got all the love they could possibly need (heck maybe more than they needed), but I think avengers still need something, and at this point it seems they are not going to get it.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
