"Cleaner" post-DP Paladin?

[CapnZapp]

I'm trying to grok what elements Divine Power added to boost the Defender part of the Paladin class, and I'm coming away with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction.

Is it just me or do you also feel things like Ardent Wow and Divine Sanction are somewhat of a kludge? I see these mechanisms and they tell me "the PHB Paladin isn't good enough and can't be fixed. You need to replace those original ideas with these new elements".

But I don't want that. I want my "... Power" books to repair the plumbing, not replace it.

To go straight to the point; I want to be able to introduce the fixes seamlessly into my existing campaign, for my existing Cha-ladin player, without necessarily adding Divine Power.

So this got me thinking. What about an alternative to this Divine Sanction, which seems to be a carbon-copy of Divine Challenge in everything but name anyway?

How about simply loosening up Divine Challenge? Like:

Target: One or more enemies in burst, up to your Wisdom modifier in number. You cannot target a creature that is currently challenged by you.

On your turn, you must engage at least one of the targets currently challenged or issue a new challenge. If you do neither, at the end of your turn the marked condition ends and you can’t use divine challenge on your next turn.



Now you can challenge more than one critter, and you don't have to "engage" more than one. (Apart from arriving at a much cleaner rules text, if I may say so myself)

To me this seems to accomplish much of what Divine Sanction aims for without a new parallel - and clumsy - structure.

As for Ardent Wow, my immediate thought was "Couldn't they include this without having to rip out the hallmark ability of the Paladin?! They really needed to make this an either or case!?"

Am I missing something here?

 

[CapnZapp]

Drawing from the other thread, perhaps this other "update":

Paladins can use any at-will as a basic attack.


While simple and elegant, perhaps it is too strong? (That is, which - if any - of the four PHB at-wills do you believe becomes overpowered as a basic attack?)

 

[CapnZapp]

As I feel daily healing powers is bad for the game* I have already made Lay On Hands into an encounter power.

This is great, because then I can fold at least Virtue's Touch (probably Ardent Wow too, though I have chosen not to at this time) into the same ability:

Lay On Hands (Minor; Encounter) Target: One creature (Melee touch); You either remove one of the conditions (blinded, dazed, deafened, slowed, stunned, or weakened) from the target or you spend a healing surge. If you spend a healing surge, do not regain any hit points; instead, the target regains hit points as if it had spent a healing surge, adding your Wisdom modifier to the total.

This does add flexibility, but does not allow a Paladin from using both Lay on Hands and Virtue's Touch in the same encounter (now that Lay on Hands is a 1/encounter power), which I believes tempers much of the abusability.


*) because:
'you have a strong incentive to take extended rests whenever you've used up strong daily powers' +
'healing powers are among the best there is' =
'you want to nova up your daily heals, then rest'

This directly goes against all the good that comes from having several encounters in a row, including surge management.

 

[Stalker0]

I basically Sancitified the divine challenge in my game a while back with this rule:

1) Divine Challenge remains in effect as long as the paladin does not move farther away from the target of the challenge (forced movement does not apply to this).


If you would like to use this an augment it further, you can go with this:

2) Divine challenge requires a minor action to use, you can use it multiple times in a round. A paladin can never have more creatures marked then his wisdom mod.

This works similar to your rule but forces more action to put the marks in place, which I think balances it better with the existing rules.


I had also consider combining lay on hands and ardent vow, allowing the paladin to use either....though I prefer the daily uses myself

 

[Nytmare]

The title of this thread confused the hell out of me for a really long time.

 

[CapnZapp]

2) Divine challenge requires a minor action to use, you can use it multiple times in a round. A paladin can never have more creatures marked then his wisdom mod.

Good idea!

The title of this thread confused the hell out of me for a really long time.

 

[aurance]

I do agree that as written, it's a kludge. I probably won't change it though, for play.

 

[silverwhisper]

capnzapp quoth:
i'm trying to grok what elements divine power added to boost the defender part of the paladin class, and i'm coming away with a vague feeling of dissatisfaction.

perhaps it's b/c i play a high-CHA defending paladin, but i thought it did a fantastic job, thanks to the virtuous strike at-will and the broadening of divine challenge into divine sanction, which i find superior.

as to ardent vow & virtue's touch: i think ardent vow needs nerfing (5+ WIS mod?!) with either a reduced bonus to damage, or conversion into an encounter power. virtue's touch i would have liked better had it been a channel divinity feat. perhaps the concern there was that if combined with lay on hands, the paladin becomes too leader-y?

 

[CapnZapp]

perhaps it's b/c i play a high-CHA defending paladin, but i thought it did a fantastic job, thanks to the virtuous strike at-will and the broadening of divine challenge into divine sanction, which i find superior.

I believe we're having a misunderstanding.

I'm not dissatisfied with the end results; I'm dissatisfied with the path taken to get there!

I'm not questioning the power-up the book delivers - those powers and features do indeed do "a fantastic job" of shoring up the Chaladin. As a player, I would be happy enough.

Instead, I'm questioning the rules design - the choices made by the designers. As a DM and general consumer of rpg rules mechanisms, I deserve better.

For example: Why add divine sanction instead of fixing divine challenge? Why add new at-wills instead of making the old ones useable as basic attacks? Why require a Paladin to dump his signature ability (Lay on Hands) to be able to check out the new Virtous Touch and Ardent Strike; instead of making these latter abilities balanced with the assumption Lay on Hands can stay?

Don't feel obliged to answer these questions... After all, you aren't responsible for the DP supplement!

 

[DogBackward]

For example: Why add divine sanction instead of fixing divine challenge?

Because Divine Sanction is meant to be in addition to Divine Challenge. You're not supposed to concentrate on handling lots of enemies at once; you're supposed to concentrate on one enemy (your DC target), and have the ability to temporarily mark another enemy, when you really need to. You're still a one-on-one defender, you just have the option to handle a few more when things get really hairy.

Why add new at-wills instead of making the old ones useable as basic attacks?

Because being used as a basic attack is a useful ability. Just adding new things onto old things is generally a bad idea; it's a major part of power creep. You have to balance powers, especially at-wills. If you allow all Paladin at-wills to be used as basics, it drastically increases the usefulness of those powers, which makes them better than other people's at-wills.

Why require a Paladin to dump his signature ability (Lay on Hands) to be able to check out the new Virtous Touch and Ardent Strike; instead of making these latter abilities balanced with the assumption Lay on Hands can stay?

Again, you can't just add on new things to an old thing without increasing its power level. Letting you use Ardent Vow, Virtue's Touch AND Lay on Hands would give you a huge set of abilities for no extra cost. And changing/mixing them together is even more of a "kludge" than just tossing in some new options for your players.