The Essentials articles are atrocious.

[Majoru Oakheart]

That is a great way of explaining the problem someone had with the Avenger CharOp guide. It was a guide on turning the Avenger from a rattlesnake into a spider.

Yes, this is precisely my point. I think the Avenger design was supposed to be very rattlesnake like. I didn't fully realize this until I saw the feat that gave you a bonus to your AC against all targets other than your Oath.

When I first read it, my thought was "But you WANT to get hit by everyone other than your Oath, it gives you more damage." Then I realized that the point of the class feature wasn't supposed to be damage. It was supposed to encourage all the enemies NOT to attack you because they'll just give you more damage.

 

[Runestar]

Then you will have to credit CO for their creativity and ability to think outside the box, being able to turn what should have been a defensive ability into an offensive power.

But seriously, does it really matter how a class is "supposed" to be played?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Then you will have to credit CO for their creativity and ability to think outside the box, being able to turn what should have been a defensive ability into an offensive power.

But seriously, does it really matter how a class is "supposed" to be played?

It might if we are talking about a newbie that wants to learn the class. It seems a little confusing if the core book says: "Do X" and then the Essential say: "Don't do X, do the opposite!".

 

[Jhaelen]

I am sorry, everyone, but Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin does not fit into 4e at all. It's already a controversial topic for Magic players, but trying to apply it into 4e is like trying to apply the concept of rare/medium rare/medium/medium into ice cream. Categorizing player types is dumber than horoscopes, and Timmy/Johnny/Spike/Vorthos/Melvin don't even align with the usual gamist/narrativist/simulationist categorization, which is an entirely different beast.

I wonder why this reaction doesn't surprise me...

Trying to apply a model to approximate reality (even if doesn't capture every aspect or is even plain wrong regarding minor aspects) is one of the most useful approaches to explain things (as you might have noticed had you read some of the posts above).

Dismissing articles on game design outright, imho, shows an appaling lack of insight, which makes me question every advice you might choose to give - unless, of course, you're just regurgitating the insights others have had before you.

 

[fuzzlewump]

When I first read it, my thought was "But you WANT to get hit by everyone other than your Oath, it gives you more damage." Then I realized that the point of the class feature wasn't supposed to be damage. It was supposed to encourage all the enemies NOT to attack you because they'll just give you more damage.

If the intention was solely to make enemies not attack you, I think the problem is in the design of the class. It would make more sense to give a penalty to the attack or a bonus to defenses from targets other than your oath rather than a damage increase. I personally think that was part of the design. I see it as the Avenger picking his target, and walking confidently past other enemies thus provoking. It makes less sense if he's already on his target, runs away to provoke then comes back, but hey, it works for me.

 

[Saeviomagy]

I think in general the avenger design is to isolate a target and wear it down OR to kill it quick because it's buddies don't get the message.

Essentially: it's designed to be an alternative way to get the striker job done, but if the DM ignores that and tries to kill you first, then you fall back to being a more normal deal-lots-of-damage-quickly type avenger.

 

[kilpatds]

Yes, this is precisely my point. I think the Avenger design was supposed to be very rattlesnake like. I didn't fully realize this until I saw the feat that gave you a bonus to your AC against all targets other than your Oath.

That specific feat still hurts my brain.

IMHO, the censure features for Pursuit and Retribution are intended to act as rattlesnakes to better allow you to use your Oath of Enmity rerolls.

A Retribution Avenger should stay in one place, and use the rattlesnake features to force enemies to move away and engage in combat elsewhere. The feature acts as "soft control" to get the enemies to leave the Avenger and his/her target alone.

Now take that feat, rephrasing: "Enemies that are not your Oath target take a penalty to hit you." This reduces the fangs of your already existing rattlesnake feature, by making it safer for the enemy to stay near you. This makes it more likely that the enemy WILL stay near you for more turns, which makes it harder for you to apply your Oath of Enmity feature.

Now, it also gives you a second rattlesnake feature ("You won't hit me anyway, so I don't know why you're bothering"), but it weakens the one you got for free, and costs you a feat in the process. And that's why I rated it Red.

(But still, more feedback welcome. Including "well, why didn't you put paragraph in the guide, you arrogant twit" if that's your reaction)

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Sorry, I'm going to have to agree that the MtG player archtypes don't apply to D&D. MtG is, at it's heart, a competitive game. D&D is not.

As for how useful it is to file people away into blank catagories...

All <ethnicity> does <stereotype>

I'm just trying to be useful, guys!

 

[Dausuul]

As for how useful it is to file people away into blank catagories...

All <ethnicity> does <stereotype>

I'm just trying to be useful, guys!

If that was supposed to prove a point, I'm at a loss as to what or how.

 

[Cadfan]

Now take that feat, rephrasing: "Enemies that are not your Oath target take a penalty to hit you." This reduces the fangs of your already existing rattlesnake feature, by making it safer for the enemy to stay near you. This makes it more likely that the enemy WILL stay near you for more turns, which makes it harder for you to apply your Oath of Enmity feature.

That doesn't make sense. Are you hypothesizing that enemies that stay next to the Avenger will accidentally attack him even though they didn't want to, triggering the Retributive feature, and that its therefore "safer" for them if the Avenger has a higher armor class, so that when they involuntarily attack him, they'll miss, which is what they would have wanted?

I can understand rating it down because you feel that the Retributive feature is already adequate, or because there's a slight diminishing returns going on (though I think gamers are overly averse to diminishing returns, amongst other things...). But as things stand your reasoning doesn't make sense. If your goal as an Avenger is to never get attacked by adjacent enemies other than your oath target, both a high AC and the Retributive feature are pulling in the same direction.