Leader Suggestion

[vhailor]

I'm currently playing a Paladin Human (Bolstering Strike, Enfeebling Strike, Shielding Smite, Radiant Delirium)
WISDOM 16 CHARISMA 18, AC 20 , HP 33 FOR 13, REF 14, WIL 16. He is the MOST boring character I've ever played.

Every round is the same: I hit with bolstering strike (almost 50%), get 3 temp HP, mark a target, and wait to heal the barbarian with Berronar’s Salve if he ever need it. (We did manage twice to provoke OA from the marked creature and they were the most thrilling moments so far). And again, and again the same thing. When I try to hit with enfeebling strike, bad things happen. In the last encounter I tried to hit with enfeebling strike three times and the two of the them I droped the weapon. The third I just didn't hit (phew). I guess the paladin was BORN UNDER A BAD SIGN.

The other three party characters are ranger archer, wizard (focused on damage dealing) and a barbarian who is the most reliable.
Can someone suggest a leader class character who is more fun to play and more appropriate for the other party characters?

 

[cmbarona]

I'd always recommend a Warlord, but then, I'm biased since I play one. Seriously, though, if you make one and go the route of "grant attack whenever possible" (which usually means Taclord), then the Barbarian's big base damage will really shine through.

Still, though, something strikes me as odd: how did you drop your weapon? If your DM is making you drop on a critical miss, then that's just unfair and unfun, IMHO.

 

[vhailor]

Still, though, something strikes me as odd: how did you drop your weapon? If your DM is making you drop on a critical miss, then that's just unfair and unfun, IMHO.

When we roll 1 on an attack the DM tell us to roll 1 more d20. If we roll 1-3 or 1-4, I don't remember, We drop the weapon or really bad things happen, like hit an adjacent ally.

 

[Hjorimir]

Well, of course, you're low level so you don't have that many powers to choose from. The good news is that it looks like you shorted yourself an At-Will (Humans get a bonus).

 

[Shroomy]

Eh, whiffing is bad enough in 4e without having to deal with critical miss house rules; rolling that low is punishment enough IMO.

You're missing an at-will power, but unfortunately, the other two in the PHB are Strength-based and you're a Charisma paladin; Divine Power should fix that, but that's still a couple of months off. If you still want to change classes, you'll be leaving your party without a defender, which could spell trouble, even with two high damage strikers. I would go warlord, since it will give you another melee combatant to replace your paladin.

FYI, if you keep the paladin, I would definitely get the Melee Training feat from the PHB2 right away; that will allow you to use Charisma for your OAs.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

When I try to hit with enfeebling strike, bad things happen. In the last encounter I tried to hit with enfeebling strike three times and the two of the them I droped the weapon. The third I just didn't hit (phew). I guess the paladin was BORN UNDER A BAD SIGN.

We can't help if you are going to be superstitious... Enfeebling strike is a pretty effective power that can't be struck from your arsenal because you rolled poorly a few time.

Maybe the paldin doesn't suit you, but you still ain't gonna have any more fun with any class if you pull the same 'can't use that at-will, I rolled too low for a few rolls in a row so I must spam the same power over and over' non-sense.

You'll always have bad sequence. It is meaningless as far as tactic is concerned. You still have to keep using the right power in the right circumstances. In the long run the odds even out and the player who keeps using the correct strategy will prove much more efficient than the one who goes with the 'lucky' powers or whatever.

 

[AngryPurpleCyclops]

I'd always recommend a Warlord, but then, I'm biased since I play one. Seriously, though, if you make one and go the route of "grant attack whenever possible" (which usually means Taclord), then the Barbarian's big base damage will really shine through.

If you're bored with a paladin you'll really be bored with a warlord. Warlords are also less effective than clerics in a lot of situations. There's also some reviews saying that warlord is going to be the first class obliterated by power creep. I read two different early reviewers who felt the bard out warlorded the warlord.

Eh, whiffing is bad enough in 4e without having to deal with critical miss house rules; rolling that low is punishment enough IMO.

as long as critical misses impact the monsters too it's not giant deal but this is a house rule not a game rule.

We can't help if you are going to be superstitious... Enfeebling strike is a pretty effective power that can't be struck from your arsenal because you rolled poorly a few time.

Hits the nail on the head.

 

[cmbarona]

If you're bored with a paladin you'll really be bored with a warlord. Warlords are also less effective than clerics in a lot of situations. There's also some reviews saying that warlord is going to be the first class obliterated by power creep. I read two different early reviewers who felt the bard out warlorded the warlord.

Gee, thanks. Maybe you're right, I'm not sure. But I think you're making assumptions about what makes a class "boring" without figuring out why the OP is bored in the first place. FWIW, I'm never bored to play Balasar of Azgaroth, Black Talon of the Honorblood Legion.

Anyway, to the OP, I'd recommend trying to pin down what your exact play style and preference is like. Warlords (and leaders in general) are not known for their own damage-dealing capabilities, so if that's your plan, I'd like to cut you off right now and suggest a striker would be better.

But it sounds like your current problem is repetition. First, I'll say that repetition becomes less of an issue as levels progress, meaning you'll have more Encounters and Dailies to pull out during the course of a battle. Repetition is always a problem with low-level characters.

Second, though, there are some classes with a little more versatility than the Paladin. I consider Warlord to be one of them; I've played to level 8 so far, and I'm always tactically considering my options and the best power to use at each phase of combat.

 

[Jhaelen]

If you're bored with a paladin you'll really be bored with a warlord.

Why? A warlord doesn't even have the same role as a paladin. It will also obviously depend a lot on the build.

Warlords are also less effective than clerics in a lot of situations.

Says who? I'll say this: Clerics are also less effective than warlords in a lot of situations. So, there!

There's also some reviews saying that warlord is going to be the first class obliterated by power creep. I read two different early reviewers who felt the bard out warlorded the warlord.

Well, I've read reports that the US is controlled by aliens. Of course I totally believe it
Whenever a new supplement comes out there are people screaming power-creep. So far, in 4E it hasn't happened (with the possible exception of the Battle Rager).

 

[vhailor]

When I say the paladin is boring I mean that the versatility of the Paladin in non-existant. I always rate lower powers that debuff enemies than powers that buff allies(like righteous brand). That's why I think cleric is more suited for me. I believe a human battle cleric with Gritty Sergeant(taking Longsword to increase the chance to hit with Righteous Brand) for background, 17 or 18 AC, 18 STR, 16 WIS, could give a significant boost to the barbarian or the rogue (who is going to join soon). Having healing word twice/encounter and choosing at some point Berronar's Salve covers the healing.

The Paladin has 20 AC, 33 hit points and he takes so much damage that he spends his healing hands on himself. Perhaps our DM is just lucky and keeps rolling with his encounter powers those 20s that slaughtered us in the last encounter, but after the last three encounters, I believe that boosting so much the AC isn't worth it, especially if you consider the penalties to the skills(-4 Acrobatics, -4 Athletics, 2 Endurance!!!). I'm not saying all Paladins are worthless. It's just that I never wanted one, and I've possibly made some mistakes playing him. I wanted to take Fighter-Swordmage, but a leader was necessary, so I made the sacrifice. I think I'll play him till he gets his third level and decide later.

But I still can't see how a paladin is going to be fun to play. He doesn't give significant bonuses to other players, like clerics do. He doesn't grand attacks like the warlord does. On top of that, he is the worst of the three at healing. Some may say that at higher levels (7-8) he will have more powers and will be more fun and versatile. OK, but what happens till I get there?