Avenger, the headache class?

[crisader]

I think it is all about group dynamic and the way you wish to play your avanger.
I play razenclaw shifter avanger with censure of pursuit, my party role is very clear cut. Get behind the enemy defenders and hit their controller or artilery. This has resulted in a massive use of my pursuit power.

You need a larger view in order to really evaluate a class, looking at just one party member is to narrowmined in my opinion.

 

[babinro]

Perhaps I'm a bad DM, but my front liners are constantly being attacked by more than 1 creature at a time. I would think the Censure of Retribution and Censure of Unity would trigger fairly regularly, at least once per encounter.

Granted, my party is often composed of equal ranged and melee characters. So 4 animals/undead will typically just go for the closest prey until given enough reason to do otherwise. Meaning two creatures on each melee combatant.

Having never run a group with an Avenger, I can't really comment on the Censure of Pursuit, but I wouldn't think that would trigger as often. Though there are certainly times when creatures are pulled away from melee targets so it wouldn't be useless.

 

[Orcus Porkus]

You all make great points.

What I've noticed in general after playing D&D again for one year is this:

All powers, feats, class abilities, paragon path features etc can be divided into two groups:

Group A: Grants a benefit that applies either all the time, or exactly when the player needs it and wants to use it, or where it's in his power to increase the chance of them coming into effect. Examples: Weapon Expertise, Powerful Charge, Weapon Focus, Rampage.

Group B: Some really interesting benefits, but the player has to wait for either DM or player actions to make them really useful, or where it's a more or less random incident without him getting a chance to influence the likelihood of the event taking place. Examples: Avenger features, daily item powers that depend on triggers like being bloodied.

Of course there is a grey zone, like with everything. My point is that from an optimization viewpoint Group A abilities are generally preferrable. Take rampage for example as something that's kind of in a grey zone. By actively working on getting more attacks and increasing the crit range, the player has a chance just on his own to improve the feature. Whenever monster actions or ally actions come into play, he can end up finding a feature completely useless because it just never happens that other conscious beings do what you need them to do at the right time.

Perhaps this is a bit too theoretical, but when I'm creating characters I'm guided by this divide.

 

[Garthanos]

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.

Raise your hands fellow Kendo enthusiasts!
I am suprised the Avengers mechanic didnt come out in a Duelist/Fencer class... Anyone who is trained in fencing or dueling will have a lot of singular focus.. splitting your attention is a pain.. If you have to think about deadly secondary enemies they would be quite a bit distracted and far less able to fight.

How Warriors manage all those awesome multi-opponent fighting I will never know... maybe it is the armor.

Based on real life fencing ... Against a single opponent your attacks are your defenses it isnt an armor of faith but rather an armor of focus... so it could be reasonable to make it a generic defense bonus and have it apply to just a single enemy, ofcourse realistically its useable with light weapons or versatile weapons only... and you might get a bonus on your critical chances (as compensation for not getting a fullblade etc).

Anyway fighting clumped together is something one is trained for .. and fighting one on one is too.

The Avenger needs a Challenge / Heckling and Questioning their manhood tempting target Power which draws the enemy away from his buddies perhaps against his better judgement (forced move charge with a penalty at the end instead of getting to attack your enemy gets attacked)

 

[-Avalon-]

How Warriors manage all those awesome multi-opponent fighting I will never know... maybe it is the armor.

Well, Fighters get +1 to hit, Rogues get +1 to hit... Avengers get to roll twice! I think Avengers have the better ability on focusing because fighters and rogues don't focus entirely, they look for too many enemies and pick one to smack for now...

Avengers focus so hard, that instead of only a +1, they get two chances to hit em!

 

[DracoSuave]

You all make great points.

What I've noticed in general after playing D&D again for one year is this:

All powers, feats, class abilities, paragon path features etc can be divided into two groups:

Group A: Grants a benefit that applies either all the time, or exactly when the player needs it and wants to use it, or where it's in his power to increase the chance of them coming into effect. Examples: Weapon Expertise, Powerful Charge, Weapon Focus, Rampage.

Group B: Some really interesting benefits, but the player has to wait for either DM or player actions to make them really useful, or where it's a more or less random incident without him getting a chance to influence the likelihood of the event taking place. Examples: Avenger features, daily item powers that depend on triggers like being bloodied.

Of course there is a grey zone, like with everything. My point is that from an optimization viewpoint Group A abilities are generally preferrable. Take rampage for example as something that's kind of in a grey zone. By actively working on getting more attacks and increasing the crit range, the player has a chance just on his own to improve the feature. Whenever monster actions or ally actions come into play, he can end up finding a feature completely useless because it just never happens that other conscious beings do what you need them to do at the right time.

Perhaps this is a bit too theoretical, but when I'm creating characters I'm guided by this divide.

Group B is further divided into two groups.

Group B1 is stuff that player actions can choose to bring about. This includes abilities that require positioning. These abilities tend to have large rewards for the investment put in, but can be attained by a party who likes this style of play. There are rewards for a party who invests in Group B1. The Rogue is a perfect example of this style. A character who takes B1 abilities often takes their own complimentary powers to back it up, so that they are more self-sufficient. This isn't always necessary.

Group B2 are reactive abilities that require the monster's cooperation. These are less commonly triggered and so are not as powerful in the long term as offenses, but are -very- powerful as defenses. Healing is a B2 ability that is powerful because it is defensive. As is Polearm Gamble.

Oath of Emnity is a Group B1 ability, and probably one of the most powerful in the game in terms of constant ability to destroy an opponent.

The Censures (except Unity) are a group B2 ability, but it happens to dovetail into Oath of Emnity, thusly often causing a foil to the standard methods of an enemy to foil Oath.

The trick to understanding Fourth Edition is that while group A abilities are more 'constant' you can build a party around complimentary group B1 abilities and that group will steamroll most encounters that group A might have trouble with.

So to say that Group A abilities are more powerful than Group B1 abilities is a fallacy; Even a Ranger depends on a B1 ability to function on a basic level. (The enemy closest to you is the only one you can slap a Quarry on)

 

[Dr_Sage]

I think most fellows missed what an Avenger is about: most other strikers do some more damage but they depend on the defender to not get surrouded and smashed.

The rogue in my gamming group is afraid of flank most of the time. I think that happens becuse our encounters are tough, and he could easly be turned into jelly if he goes behind the enemy front. (Ok he is a bit chicken ).

The Avenger seems to disencourage others from interfering with his duels - Period. Its great, but depends on play style and "DM dificulty level". Now I see why many people suggested a pursuing avenger for my "nightwing" build.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have to agree that it is Oath of Enmity that is the real core feature of the Avenger. Just like Sneak Attack, Curse, and Hunter's Quarry are the core features of other striker classes. They're what define how you fight. Getting those extra dice of damage, and in the case of the avenger effectively a +4 to-hit is the key to damage dealing.

Just like it is up to the rogue to get combat advantage, it is up to the avenger to move into a position where he can get the double die roll from OoE. It really isn't any harder either. The other players know how your character works, and they can position themselves accordingly. They can also apply forced movement to the enemy in order to help you out. You can shift, you can move, you can use powers like Angelic Alacrity, feats, items, etc to give you extra capability there. Its really the same story as with the rogue trying to get CA, just kind of in reverse. There are a dozen ways to maximize a rogue's chances to get CA and a dozen ways to maximize the avenger's chances of being non-adjacent to enemies that aren't his oath target.

The Censure is a fairly nice extra bonus, but I see it as being a bit like the rogue's weapon talent feature. Sure it helps a lot and you try to use it as best you can, but compared to the advantage granted by OoE it is fairly trivial. An effective +4 to hit and an almost doubled crit frequency beats the TAR out of any static damage bonus. Plus even if your censure NEVER triggers you still forced the enemy to do something that you wanted them to do. It is a no lose proposition.

Maybe avenger powers are considered mediocre, but the odd thing about it is that the avenger is the one striker class that isn't built around "big-bang" styles of offense. Their whole shtick is that they just keep hitting round after round. They don't need a power that does mega-damage or anything super incredible. They really are pretty much a walking class feature. Notice too, their powers are not really sub-standard, they are just supportive of the use of the oath more than an end in themselves. You fire of an Aspect of Might and do 3[W] + WIS damage (not actually bad at all for a level 1 daily) but the till end of encounter effect is what's nice because it goes right along with the oath, tossing in an extra +2 damage and making it just that much easier to move around and get that thing working and keep it working.

Honestly if I have a negative on the avenger it isn't mechanical at all. Its more in the nature of the class. It is so incredibly focused on its "thing" that the character is a bit one-dimensional as a result. You can play to that and make a fun character, but I do feel like its one of those classes someone will likely only play once. You could play wizards for years and not touch all the RP possibilities, avenger not so much.

So it is an oddball class and probably not the pinnacle of 4e classes, but lets face it, not every new class is going to occupy such a key place in the game as the big 4.

 

[Stuntman]

I'm not exactly what the OP meant by 'headache.' My personal opinion of the avenger is that it is cool in that it appears to play quite differently than many other strikers. I haven't seen one in action, so I cannot say how effective it is. My impression is that it is used more to attack softer targets at the back rather than big tanks up front. The Censure of Persuit appears to be designed to make life difficult for ranged attackers. Censure of Retribution is designed to discourage enemies from attacking you as you get to your soft target. Censure of Unity appears to be designed for tough big bosses like elites and solos after cleaning everything else out.

I can see why Censures may not appear attractive. They depend on enemy actions. The point is that they are designed to discourage some enemy actions much like the defender's marking ability. You may not trigger damage from Divine Challenge or attacks from Combat Challenge, but you are still doing your job as a defender if you prevent enemies from attacking allies. The point is that you want a certain behaviour from your enemies and if they do not trigger the punishment, then they did what you want the to do in the first place.

 

[DracoSuave]

Honestly if I have a negative on the avenger it isn't mechanical at all. Its more in the nature of the class. It is so incredibly focused on its "thing" that the character is a bit one-dimensional as a result.

To be fair, this is a fair complaint of most Strikers. It's interesting that the striker that most people complain is the least Strikey-est, Warlock, is also the one with the most variable and interesting play beyond the 'do moar damage' expects of the role.