Unhappy Pally - Righteous Rage + Vicious Weapon

[Herschel]

It's funny, at yesterday's RPGA event the "up" table (4 - 7 w/ most at 7 already, experienced and generally older players) had 6 players and no strikers. In the other "up" players usually attending (but we also take turns DMing too) there is a Rogue and a Warlock but that's two out of the 14ish higher level players. There's no shortage of leaders (Warlord, Bard or Cleric) or controllers (Wizards galore).

Out of the 13 players in the lower level games of "newer" or younger players (a couple were "up" playing secondaries who weren't strikers) there were 8 strikers. That's over 60%.

Is there, dare I say, a certain level of maturity needed to not play a striker? It seems many people, especially younger, focus only on damage output and not cohesive unit play or niches/roles. People who show up with leaders or defenders especially in the "down" games are in high demand.

 

[CubeKnight]

I haven't played a warden yet but I've spent some time on them in the Character Builder. It looks to me like you could build them as secondary strikers with good mobility (I haven't yet looked at their damage to see how it would compare to a striker) or secondary controllers with good battlefield influence (at least on par with the fighter, if not better).

Playing a Warden right now, and built him like a Defender/Controller. My damage is crap, but I love how much he can control the enemies around.

 

[Byronic]

yeah - i guess i'll have to reroll with him... Its too bad because as a DM I liked having that particular player play that class, plus I had some cool Pelor-related stuff planned that will have to be NPCed as there are no other Divine characters in the party.

We have 2x Rogues, a warlock and a warden, so hopefully he goes for a controller for more mass damage balance - 4e battles are still taking WAAAAAY too long.

Though cleric multiclassing might be something i suggest to him.

Are the FR feats/skills/powers designed to be more powerful overall then core? or balanced differently? I dont own any FR stuff so I don't know, but if so that would be a less arbitrary reason not to use any.

While you're only doing Core you might think of allowing him to play an Avenger. Would be a divine class with more damage and possibilities.

Or would you could let him do is simply ask him if his new character still wants to worship Pelor. There's no reason a Wizard, Fighter or whatnot can't still worship Pelor (and even work for the church). This will allow you to keep your intended stuff.

 

[Obryn]

Seriously, it sounds like you want to do the striker thing, not the defender thing. That's fine - there are lots of good strikers out there.

So really, let us know what you want to do with this character. Are you looking at a character concept and trying to build with it? Or do you mostly want to create a character who deals as much damage as possible? I'm not sure where your goals are.

-O

 

[doggywoggy]

What's wrong with being a Defendery-Striker? Or, Strikery-Defender. As for my being immature for wanting this--guilty as charged! That said, I think if Wotc didn't want Paladins to dual-strike they wouldn't have invented the Two-Bladed Warrior feat. I am merely taking advantage of that. Also, is it equally immature to have chosen War domain for my 3.5 dwarven cleric? Melee is fun. Is having fun wrong? I thought that was the whole point. I also think the concept of a 3.0 "Diplo-monster" was pretty funny (though highly unrealistic).

My inspiration was here:

Wizards Community - View Single Post - Defender Peer Pressure

We're playing tonight--yay. In short, Obryn, my goals are to have fun, play by the rules and what the DM will let me get away with . If my choices are a detriment to the party (and I don't see how they are. I have two less HP and one more Reflex point than I had before, plus more strength. A net gain IMO). I love optimization, why not? (disclaimer : I program video games for a living. Efficiency is paramount). Is that not what this board is for? A lot of the gripes I learned about other people's experiences playing 4e have shaped my own opinions of it..some I agree with and others I disagree with. I'd rather play a Paladin than a Sorcerer..it's just my style. Damage or no Damage, I like being in the thick of it. If it's immature to want to dual-wield, then so be it. I take no personal offense. I play a very diplomatic "avoid battle at all costs"-wizard in 2nd ed. This is a different character with different aims, using a different system.

 

[Nail]

Is there, dare I say, a certain level of maturity needed to not play a striker?

I game with my daughters and their friends occasionally. I'd say there is not an "age-related" maturity issue, at least.

There does appear to be personality types that are drawn to strikers. But that's not surprising, is it?

 

[Obryn]

We're playing tonight--yay. In short, Obryn, my goals are to have fun, play by the rules and what the DM will let me get away with . If my choices are a detriment to the party (and I don't see how they are. I have two less HP and one more Reflex point than I had before, plus more strength. A net gain IMO). I love optimization, why not? (disclaimer : I program video games for a living. Efficiency is paramount). Is that not what this board is for? A lot of the gripes I learned about other people's experiences playing 4e have shaped my own opinions of it..some I agree with and others I disagree with. I'd rather play a Paladin than a Sorcerer..it's just my style. Damage or no Damage, I like being in the thick of it. If it's immature to want to dual-wield, then so be it. I take no personal offense. I play a very diplomatic "avoid battle at all costs"-wizard in 2nd ed. This is a different character with different aims, using a different system.

I'm not even approaching the whole maturity question; I'm just trying to help with the character. There's nothing wrong with playing strikers - some players like doing that more than they like doing other things, and the game needs those people. If damage is your thing (and IMHO there's no reason why it shouldn't be), then I think Paladin is quite possibly one of the last class choices I'd take.

I guess my question is really - what is it you want to get out of playing a paladin as opposed to playing a ranger or a fighter? Is there something mechanical you're drawn to, or is it mostly roleplay- and characterization-based considerations? The latter can honestly be used no matter what character class you've picked.

I'm not making any kind of value judgment here. I'm just curious why, if your main goal is to do a lot of damage, you're trying to do it with a class that's not really suited for it. Why not start from the more-damaging Fighter or Ranger or Avenger classes, and maybe pick up some paladin or cleric stuff from multiclassing, rather than the other way around?

EDIT: I also have to remark that, in 4e, dual-wielding isn't an ideal way to increase your damage. It is, however, a great way to improve your accuracy.

-O

 

[Herschel]

I game with my daughters and their friends occasionally. I'd say there is not an "age-related" maturity issue, at least.

There does appear to be personality types that are drawn to strikers. But that's not surprising, is it?

I definitely agree that maturity isn't necessarily related to any particular age. I'd say in this (striker-heavy) case it may be more a maturity in table top RPGs in general and/or especially maturity in the 4E system overall.

Those of us who either started reading early and/or are the types to read everything completely probably had a better "chance" to figure out what we could and should do in the game structure. Since many of us kinfd of started fresh together it was likely easier to do so without feeling like we were bogging things down.

Those starting later are a bit behind the curve and could well not feel they have the time to work through most everything because they're joining a game with people who already have system experience.

And this says nothing about those coming from video games and are new to RPG as anything more than an interesting concept.

As an example: I used to play fighter types in 1E and 2E, quite often with a two-handed sword or a ranger (shields were in so much of the artwork and other fighter types I wanted to go away from them and the fighting over treasure separation and draft). When I first played 4E I went straight for the Melee Ranger. Hated it.

Sure, I was doing fine damage but I didn't like the way a: everything hit me constantly and b: there was so much potentially (tactically) to do that I wasn't doing besides running up and hitting things. After a couple of sessions I switched to a defender to work with the party rogue rather than independent of him.

This was early on when the edition was new and we were all kind of feeling our way around things and how to work together (although some sessions still look like we haven't ). As I said above, people starting now may not have (or at least feel they have) that luxury and fall back on the damage numbers that jump off the page at them.

 

[brendan candries]

Ok, so I have an unhappy player pissed off with the 4th ed paladin... he's up to 4th level now as a dragonborn serving pelor STR 19, WIS 14, CHA 14.
Sam.

My suggested stats for a heavy blade dragonborn paladin are 18 13 14 8 14 12.

Main stat Str. Your main damage power is Holy Strike (at-will) so you want Wis as high as possible from here on. You don't need Cha at all. Champion of Order PP makes your DC/marks much stronger than any Cha based paladin could hope for (see In Defense of Order/Certain Justice).

You want Heavy Blade Opportunity (to use Holy Strike with IDoO) and Heavy Blade Mastery (17 dex by level 21).

Also, take the cleric MC feat for an extra heal, take either cleric heal lvl 6 utility power at level 8 and Divine Power at level 10 as a replacement for your level 9 daily.

You don't need Melee Training nor Implement Expertise from PHB2.

Also, take the enhanced dragonbreath feats, esp the 5x5 area one.

If he wants to outdamage rogues, he will have to wait until paragon and start playing a stormwarden (str/dex) or pit fighter (str/wis) melee ranger or the ranged variants. /shrug

B.

 

[doggywoggy]

If he wants to outdamage rogues, he will have to wait until paragon and start playing a stormwarden (str/dex) or pit fighter (str/wis) melee ranger or the ranged variants. /shrug

nah, out-damaging rogues is not the point. How can they perform max damage (min-maxing the overall party's efficiency rather than one element) without my help? They can't. My character concept is "smart + diplomacy, without effeminacy". Speak softly but carry a big stick (==axe).

Two things my character does not tolerate : torture and slavery. When Balgron and the torturer in the Keep were doing their thing, I ran in like a thunderbolt, without regard. That was the moment of Truth, and righteousness crushed the evil. I was first-in, last out. I'd rather die fighting such atrocities than burn in shame, shuddering at my failings to prevent it. There are worse fates than Death : dishonour.

Only a fool would disdain getting the sharpest blade or fellest Axe they could find. For me, that was WarAxe, allowing a shield to defend my Party or the weak and meek.

That said, is it conclusively proven one way or the other whether more accurary or higher dmg is better? (i.e. hitting some vs hitting none or hitting harder). It seems to me Twin Strike requires a lot of feats to achieve for me, for only a few extra dpr but a more graceful and reliable in terms of killing things. Is reliability that much in favor? Let's compare Valiant Strike vs Twin Strike. Valiant in the last battle would have allowed me to hit on like a 6 or better, for less dmg, whereas Twin Strike would have a certain chance to his twice, a greater chance to hit once, but only to a maximum of a "retry" rather than +1/enemy adjacent? That's the choice I'd face at lvl 11 : to Twin or not to Twin, that is the question. Holy can generate moly dmg, but unreliably. Twin could do more overall (slightly, if all the right feats are taken), but it's a question of diminishing returns. An at-will, is it better to be more reliable damage or higher max potential? My gut tells me the latter, but my belly says the former (meaning I could spend those extra feats in actual defendery abilities and a real paragon class).

hmmmmm...