General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
It's interesting that the Virtue's Touch has the same frequency as Lay on Hands, but it's marked as a Daily instead of an At-Will. Probably done for the sake of removing confusion (LoH gets that complaint a lot).
The Suggested Feat is Virtuous Recovery. I wonder if that will allow you to give a healing surge to the target, or allow them to spend their second wind, or what.
Also, I spot this little nugget:
Quote:
But you might instead be an ardent paladin, one who sacrifices your own defense and even your health for greater offensive power. Or you are a virtuous paladin, a warrior of pure heart who can withstand the wiles and blights of your gods’ enemies...
the ardent paladin, who specializes in offense, and the virtuous paladin, who focuses on resisting harmful effects.
I wonder if the Ardent paladin will have powers that do things similar to the Malediction Invoker, or if he has to spend healing surges to do things.
IMO the biggest weakness of the paladin is that it really doesn't represent the paladin of previous editions, ie. the strong, tough, knight in shining armour who smites evil things, turns undead and heals.
That complaint comes because after trying to get an 18 in strength and a 16 in Charisma, to be remotely effective in your powers and melee abilities, you're left with stuff-all Wisdom or Constitution, both of which you need to be an effective melee combatant and defender, and an effective paladin (healing).
It's the worst designed class in the game AFAIK.
So instead of giving us something to help these issues and make the paladin what it should be, they give us yet another Cha/Wis build. Oh yay.
The teleporting paladin power seems...why the hell is a paladin teleporting others??? Why not just allow them to shift? I gather the power level... or... someone help me please!
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
Reminds me of the 3.x paladin a lot as well. Basically, if you play in a high-point buy game, the problem disappears to an extent. Similar to how a 3e's monk's problems become not as apparent (although at least the paladin can still contribute past level 7 unlike a monk in even a high point buy game IMO)
I think the problem for the class mechanically is that it is a melee class so you want STR and CON to be important, but it is also, as a holdover from pre 3e, you want both CHA and WIS to play a part (Remember, the ability requirements of the paladin in pre 3e was a 17 CHA with WIS being a 13 - the 2nd highest stat requirement since STR was only a 12 while CON had only to be at least a 9).
I think either the 3e or 4e designers should have said, "look, there's no way we can be beholden to what the paladin in pre 3e looked like in terms of stats....We go with STR, CON and either WIS or CHA. That's it".
The paladins of previous editions (pre-3.x) was MAD as heck too. It was just that you couldn't play a paladin unless you were lucky and had multiple good rolls. It was probably the toughest class to enter because of its high stat requirements. Both 3e and 4e paladins has had MAD issues due to those legacy effects.
If anything, 4e paladins are less MAD than older paladins. You could focus on either str or cha and use wis as the secondary. Also, con isn't as big a deal in 4e. The only difference between a 12 and a 16 con is 4 more hp and 2 more healing surges.
The major problem I have with it is that there aren't enough powers because they had to split the PHB powers between str and cha based. A problem that exists for all V shaped classes except for ranger. I'm hoping that DP can fix some of that.
Last edited by nightwyrm; 6th July 2009 at 07:43 AM..
Failure Is No Option?
Virtue's Touch is okay if you face a lot of solos, controllers, and elites. I'd go CHA/CON with only 14-16 WIS since encounter long effects are very rare.
That complaint comes because after trying to get an 18 in strength and a 16 in Charisma, to be remotely effective in your powers and melee abilities, you're left with stuff-all Wisdom or Constitution, both of which you need to be an effective melee combatant and defender, and an effective paladin (healing).
In my experience, Strength-based paladins have got no use at all for Constitution. It doesn't help their Fortitude save, they've already got 11 surges right out of the gate, and a piddling handful of HP at 1st level means nothing. I'd seriously consider dumpstatting it to 8 if Dex or Int weren't even more irrelevant. I can buy 16 in Strength and Charisma, drop the rest on Wisdom, and I'm set. Reflex saves are less important to me because I'm using a heavy shield and getting the +2 to Reflex that comes with it.
In terms of concept continuity, I think it's worth remembering that from 1e on, the archetypal stat of the paladin was Charisma, not Strength. 17 Charisma was the minimum for all paladins, quite aside from whatever their Strength or Wisdom might be. A Cha-focused paladin might be something of a change from 3.x, where melee fighters were Strength-or-bust, but I'd certainly consider it in line with the origins of the class.
In terms of concept continuity, I think it's worth remembering that from 1e on, the archetypal stat of the paladin was Charisma, not Strength. 17 Charisma was the minimum for all paladins, quite aside from whatever their Strength or Wisdom might be.
Of course, even though cha was a major requisite, old edition paladins weren't doing anything with their 17 cha. It wasn't until 3e that cha was used to add to a paladin's save bonus and used for smiting.
Of course, even though cha was a major requisite, old edition paladins weren't doing anything with their 17 cha. It wasn't until 3e that cha was used to add to a paladin's save bonus and used for smiting.
Looking at my 2e PHB, it gets even weirder
The next highest requirement for a paladin was having a 13 WIS.
However, a paladin only got the 10% xp bonus if both CHA AND STR (not wisdom) were above 16.
As well, unlike arcane casters who needed a minimum int to cast certain level of spells, divine characters didn't. What's even more intriguing is that the PHB explicitly mentions that paladins don't get bonus spells for high WISDOM...
In my experience, the two paladin builds work fine, but you can't merge them. Doing so is awkward, and generates very little gain except a wider breadth of choosable powers. And with books like Divine Power, the breadth of choosable powers is expected to expand anyways. The strength paladin works just fine, other than the lack of power choices at 9, and a general scarcity of options, something that will hopefully change this month. Its on structural disadvantage is a lower damage divine challenge (starting at 3 or so damage instead of 7 or so), but I feel that this is made up for by far superior charges and opportunity attacks.
If anything, 4e paladins are less MAD than older paladins. You could focus on either str or cha and use wis as the secondary.
I think this is what the designers EXPECTED people to do. Go Str or Cha, not straddle the two. Same as the Cleric, and the Warlock. Considering that every other class is "Pump your primary skill as high as you can get it; put your second highest skill in your second score", it should have bled over.
Its on structural disadvantage is a lower damage divine challenge (starting at 3 or so damage instead of 7 or so), but I feel that this is made up for by far superior charges and opportunity attacks.
Melee Training put an end to that. Straladins really are in bad shape right now.
I think the Ardent build they alluded to is probably STR-based, though, so that should help.
I think this is what the designers EXPECTED people to do. Go Str or Cha, not straddle the two. Same as the Cleric, and the Warlock.
I'm not so sure about that. I recall in both the Paladin and Cleric build descriptions from the PHB1 they said take one stat the highest, and then take the other attack stat second highest since "you'll still want some powers" from the other build.
Of course, then 4e was released to the public, we've figured out since that any stat less than 16 to start (and 18 is FAR more preferable) and boosted every time simply is not good for attacking. And no one was building Paladins according to "script" because that would lead to a weak character.
Plus having no STR-powers at Lv. 9, and a paucity of either STR or CHA powers at any given level ... yeah.
Hopefully in Divine Power WOTC learned its lesson and adjusted to how people build workable Paladins in 4e.
I'd risk saying that divine sanction is a paladdin class feature, and you can choose between Divine Chalenge, and a new one published on DP. Maybe Strength based? I sure hope so.
About WotC expecting people to build Clerics or Paladins based on only one stat, I really don't think so. The pregen Half-Elf Cleric on the QuickStartRules (from the "test-drive" module) has Wis powers and one Str power (Healing Strike)
And the Dragonborn Paladin has 18 Str and 16 Cha. edit: But all the powers are Str based.
Last edited by Wepwawet; 6th July 2009 at 09:53 AM..
I was hoping that divine power would have a suitably defenderesque build for paladins, or at least something that made the paladins mark more than just damage and -2 penalty to attack rolls. They are a bit lackluster in comparison to the other defenders when it comes to marking. Virtues Touch seems more like a leader power than a defender one, but Name of Awe is awesome.
And offensive paladins seem redundant, now that we have the avenger class.
__________________ If "A" is broken, that isn't a valid reason for "B" to be so, even if they vary in degree.
Tactician style Gamer, or so I have been told.
"Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."-Albert Einstein
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
