Avenger, the headache class?

[Orcus Porkus]

Rolling 2 d20 is great, but the rest?

Censure of Pursuit
"If your oath of enmity target moves away from you willingly" - that's one big if. I can't stand it when a core feature depends on others to function. In practice you become a defender and nothing happens.

Censure of Retribution
"When any enemy other than your oath of enmity target hits you" is equally bad, if not worse. The natural DM reaction is to never let any other monsters attack you. Bad DM'ing, but pretty common. You end up begging the DM in private conversations to please hit you more often. Sounds like S/M but not like D&D.

Censure of Unity
"You gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls against your oath of enmity target for each ally adjacent to that target." Hello friends, group photo! Smile! You are constantly itching to group allies together even when it doesn't really matter naturally (flanking etc.) So you end up just hoping for them to be there and pick up some additional damage here and there, like pigeons the bread crumps.

 

[Flipguarder]

No offense, meant by this. But Orcus, you don't seem to like much today.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

OK I can also brag about how much I love the barbarian mechanics! It's the complete opposite. You attack in the face, you add up weapons and feats that kill better and harder, and you get free attacks left and right. Great - and almost nothing the DM can do about that!

 

[Flipguarder]

except not allow the barbarian a bunch of triggered free actions. That is a DM's right.

 

[Sgt_Shock]

Meh, I see the censures as flavorful morsels more than super-useful main courses. Except the whole 1d20-1d20 attack roll thing. That's just sexy.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

I think Oath of enmity is the core feature of the avenger.
As I said, the 2d20 is really good and satisfying.
But there is another limitation that encourages "unnatural" battle tactics: You don't like other enemies adjacent besides the Oath target. This means you shift into odd positions, possibly positions that are tactically bad (like out of flanking) just to get your 2 rolls.
I understand that they had to nerf the feature a little, but in my book it just adds to the headache.

 

[Sgt_Shock]

I was drawing conclusions on its hard uses, and how they weren't really essential to the class's functions but rather there for flavorful reasons -- Sort of like guidelines on what you should be doing in combat (following and focusing on one baddie).

I'll agree with you that it's unorthodox compared to methods we're used to, but I think it's important that classes have distinctions from each other other than the weapons they wield, armor they wear, and reasons they fight. Battle tactics are just as viable differences.

Now, if you're questioning the flavor/reasoning behind the "No adjacent enemies allowed" that's an entirely different subject. I've been skeet shooting on multiple occasions and I always found it more difficult to shoot one down when another was being launched at the same time. My eyes would dart back and forth, and in that split second of indecisiveness my chance was lost, effectively causing me to miss.

Now, I'm unsure of the degree to which that little anecdote of mine relates to the intended reasoning behind the Avenger's combat style, but I thought it would be worth mentioning nonetheless.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

I think it explains why I haven't seen many avengers in my games...

 

[aurance]

My feeling is that the Oath of Enmity is the primary damage feature of the class (in line with Sneak Attack or Hunter's Quarry), and the Censures are things that either help you fulfill the conditions of the Oath, or compensate for you not being able to get your Oath attacks.

I.e., I think it's fine. I think the base mechanics of the Avenger are fantastic. Their powers are definitely lackluster, however.

 

[Starfox]

Censure of Pursuit[/B]
"If your oath of enmity target moves away from you willingly" - that's one big if. I can't stand it when a core feature depends on others to function. In practice you become a defender and nothing happens.

The Avenger is defender-like in many ways so this is thematic. With this, you are supposed to attack targets that don't like melee, like artillery and controllers.

Censure of Retribution
"When any enemy other than your oath of enmity target hits you" is equally bad, if not worse. The natural DM reaction is to never let any other monsters attack you. Bad DM'ing, but pretty common. You end up begging the DM in private conversations to please hit you more often. Sounds like S/M but not like D&D.

This is a defender in reverse. Consider this a paved road to your target, straight trough his guards. Either they attack you on the way, which is a bonus, or they don't, which is nice in itself.

Censure of Unity
"You gain a +1 bonus to damage rolls against your oath of enmity target for each ally adjacent to that target." Hello friends, group photo! Smile! You are constantly itching to group allies together even when it doesn't really matter naturally (flanking etc.) So you end up just hoping for them to be there and pick up some additional damage here and there, like pigeons the bread crumps.

Well, a divine character gaining a benefit from a "community" makes kind of sense. You can also consider this super flanking or formation fighting. Overall, I think this is the best variant, as I find that both monsters and heroes tend to clump up a lot.