Yep, I can post again. I have no idea if PMC-ing into Ranger will yield me 2x the average damage, I just think it's wicked and for all the few levels here and there that undoubtedly will have sub-standard encounter powers and/or daily powers for a str-paladin, that I will take whatever Ranger offers at that level (or lower), thanks to the unlimited swappability and versatility those feats offer. In the long-run, even WITH Divine Power, I think I'll be happier with PMC-ing rather than go into a Paladin Paragon class that just goes deeper into the "you can't hit me, so don't bother"-trap. Having too much AC is useless if it doesn't prevent the Rogues from being targetted.
Also, having too much AC instead of Reflex is also a bad idea, even for plate-wearers. There will be plenty of enemies that target Reflex, for which someone with an 8 dex, was woe-fully weak. A defender in my view should be more balanced in his defenses, and offer some credible threat otherwise the marks will be overshadowed by the exposed-flesh of the squishies in the back.
Admin edit: Paragraph removed. How many times, in how many ways, do I have to say it? Don't discuss moderation in a thread. Email the moderator if you want to talk to them about moderation. There are no exceptions to this, and I even emailed you to give you the opportunity. You can check here for the rules. ~ Piratecat
As for 3e vs 4e vs 2e, I just drove my from an awesome RP-only session in 2e that was setting up some high-level politics that will influence our assault on a vampire-lich's castle, anyway, driving back we were discussing the relative un-realism or broken-ness of the versions, and one guy absolutely hated 3e precisely because it was so easy to make uber-characters that break all balance (he also doesn't like 4e, but for different reasons). I personally find 2e boring to play for any class except wizard
I mean, except for the story of course. If my character died (NO!!) in that game, I'm sad to say, I wouldn't go back as another class, and starting at level 1 would be futile in a long-term campagin. Another guy started over as a level 1 cleric which is great for party balance to heal the melees, but man, if I had to play a 2nd ed cleric who HAS to memorize heal or the party will bitch at him---I'd rather slice my eyeballs open with razor-blades or gargle with them than play that. Psionics is cool (we have one..very usefull. a gypsy too, good RP stuff there), but for all the standard fights we had, the only time she got to have a mind-battle was against a demi-deity guardian of the Ways, "The GateKeeper", which is pretty much impossible to kill and made me eat someone thru mind-compulsion. Now I have protection from Evil, but I don't even know if it would do any good against a demi-god anyway. //aside
We're playing 4e on monday and I'm psyched. If it's tactical and video-gamey, fine...I just want to get some striker-ish stuff from Ranger eventually so I'm not completely just a dumb meat-shield in battle with an ineffective mark, and eventually do some damage. In a pavlovian way, twice as many d20s in a round is also twice as rewarding...anyone remember that "Ding" feeling in EQ? Same thing. Rolling more dice is more fun, period. And yes, tactically too, if I drop this guy I can throw my offhand over there, just in time. Lots and lots of interesting possibilities open up on my turn with this simple At-Will, and benefits the use of high-crit Axes (thru a feat) a lot too.
Herschel, I think you have fixed rules about what one can and can't do. If RRot was way too powerful, was it too unbalancing because it made a lot of people WANT to play Paladins as a result, period? I like the Paladin class "concept" if not all the particulars, and am glad it will get some additional oopmh in a couple months. For the time being, I am hedging my bets so that I don't have to settle for an unsatisfactory character. Most fiction out there would find it absurd to equate most damage == weakling who stabs thinks from behind, rather than huge crushing swings from massive guys. There is no logical reason I can't try and take feats and powers to increase my damage. It isn't logical to assume Paladins don't want to do more damage. They are Holy Knights, after all. Bring that Pain, I say. I will never apologize for bring divine retribution through righteous and furious anger upon the foes of Pelor...why should I? I don't have square thoughts that resist circles. Just because something is labelled "defender" doesn't mean I have to play it that way. It's my decision, and I'm sure a lot of other paladins out there are dying to do the exact same thing.
The only rational question to this debate is : is it more damage to take 4 feats that would go to PMC-ranger, which as many have pointed out will make me more of an immediate, attractive target for the mobs than a weak mark ever could, or, to use those feats for some other (likely damage-based) feat selections. As per "flavour", that's entirely subjective, and you already know my preference in that regard.
I'm not just here to be a meat-shield and leave all the glory to the sneakies.