Concept Feat: Divine Archer

[Fredrik Svanberg]

I was trying to make a bow-using paladin and noticed that it was pretty difficult. At first I thought I would create a whole new class for this but then I realized I could just create a feat instead. I can't think of a better name so until someone does it's going to be:

Divine Archer
Benefit: All your prayers (Divine powersource powers) that use Strength for attack and damage rolls are now also Ranged weapon actions that can use Dexterity for attack and damage rolls if you use a ranged weapon. All other power effects that depend on your Strength remain unchanged.

This feat will not only enable clerics and paladins to be effective while using bows or crossbows, but it will make multiclassing a lot more interesting.

 

[generalhenry]

also

instead imo

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

Wow, I expected a... well, some kind of storm in response to this. I guess it wasn't a bad idea after all. I did consider writing "instead" instead of "also" but I don't think that a feat should remove options, ever. If you "pay" for something you should not lose something else.

 

[FireLance]

I wonder if it might work better as two feats: one that converts implement-based ranged attacks into weapon-based ranged attacks that target AC and another that converts melee attacks into ranged attacks.

For the melee to ranged feat, I might also throw in a secondary restriction that you can only convert one at-will power, and one encounter power and one daily power per tier, just to make ranged paladins more distinctive by inclining them towards the implement-based ranged powers.

 

[Old Gumphrey]

It seems very overpowered to me. Why not make a feat like this for wizards to use Con, and let warlocks freely cherry pick all their best powers to their main stat at the cost of one feat?

If you want a bow-using paladin I'd pick ranger and multiclass paladin, or vice versa. Get a good Cha stat and take powers like Radiant Delirium that work at range. Paladin powers aren't balanced to be used from 20 squares away.

 

[guybrush]

Old Gumphrey makes a good point about Paladin powers being balanced for melee, so I don't know how reasonable this is. Assuming you're happy to run with that aspect of the change, though, I'd suggest putting a prerequisite on it.

Paladins aren't proficient with military ranged weapons, an in my campaign (YMMV, of course) I don't think a heavily armoured warrior of the gods is a concept that fits in well with using crossbows or slings (the latter seems ridiculous - David wasn't anything like the Paladin archetype, after all - while the former is too technological to sit well with a divine blessing). As a minimum, I'd make the feat have a prerequisite Dex score (either 13 or 15), and also require the Paladin be proficient with some kind of bow.

I realise this gives Elves a slightly easier time, but really, if any Paladin is going to attack at range with a bow, surely it'll be an Elf? And for everyone else, this is potentially kickarse, so I think two feats (proficiency then Divine Archer) isn't too much to ask.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

It seems very overpowered to me. Why not make a feat like this for wizards to use Con, and let warlocks freely cherry pick all their best powers to their main stat at the cost of one feat?

Because as you yourself point out, Dexterity is not normally the best stat for a cleric or paladin. All this does is change the "combat stat" from strength to dexterity. Or rather open up dexterity as an alternative combat stat. It doesn't make the cleric or paladin better at anything else and doesn't synergize with anything for the single-classed paladin or cleric.

The reason I wouldn't create a feat like the one you described is because that would be overpowered, and it isn't necessary for any concepts I know of.

If you want a bow-using paladin I'd pick ranger and multiclass paladin, or vice versa. Get a good Cha stat and take powers like Radiant Delirium that work at range. Paladin powers aren't balanced to be used from 20 squares away.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. Of course I tried multiclassing ranger/paladin first. That's why I thought of this solution - I noticed that all the paladin's strength-dependent melee powers could just as well have been ranged and dexterity-dependent. Without being overpowered.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

Old Gumphrey makes a good point about Paladin powers being balanced for melee, so I don't know how reasonable this is. Assuming you're happy to run with that aspect of the change, though, I'd suggest putting a prerequisite on it.

I thought about it but then I realized that any character that would want this feat would already fulfill any reasonable prerequisites I could imagine. You don't want to make a ranged paladin if you don't have a high dexterity, and I didn't want to require a bow since there are so many other fine ranged weapons that could be used. That is also why I don't like the name of the feat, by the way. It needs a better name.

Paladins aren't proficient with military ranged weapons, an in my campaign (YMMV, of course) I don't think a heavily armoured warrior of the gods is a concept that fits in well with using crossbows or slings (the latter seems ridiculous - David wasn't anything like the Paladin archetype, after all - while the former is too technological to sit well with a divine blessing). As a minimum, I'd make the feat have a prerequisite Dex score (either 13 or 15), and also require the Paladin be proficient with some kind of bow.

Since the ranged paladin concept would probably replace a high strength with a high dexterity he doesn't have to be heavily armored.

I realise this gives Elves a slightly easier time, but really, if any Paladin is going to attack at range with a bow, surely it'll be an Elf?

You see now why prerequisites are mostly pointless for this feat.

And for everyone else, this is potentially kickarse, so I think two feats (proficiency then Divine Archer) isn't too much to ask.

How is this more kickarse than the regular paladin or cleric? I don't agree that it would be worth more than one feat just to make a character concept work. It's not really worth even one feat but since it might cause balance issues I guess it has to "cost" something. I wouldn't recommend using this if you're competing against the rest of the party and the DM in trying to make the most ridiculously overpowered builds but in a normal cooperative game it probably won't cause any problems.

 

[guybrush]

I realized that any character that would want this feat would already fulfill any reasonable prerequisites I could imagine. You don't want to make a ranged paladin if you don't have a high dexterity, and I didn't want to require a bow since there are so many other fine ranged weapons that could be used.

That would be the case if someone were building a Paladin who was going to mainly or exclusively used ranged weapons. But this feat allows you to use all your melee weapon attack powers with ranged weapons, so what's to stop anyone from taking it so that, when the enemy tries to run, they can just switch to ranged weapons?

How is this more kickarse than the regular paladin or cleric? I don't agree that it would be worth more than one feat just to make a character concept work.

Well, I'm all for supporting character concepts. If you see your Paladin or Cleric as firing arrows empowered with holy might, that's pretty cool - but if that's the concept, why does the character also need to be able to swing her broadsword with holy might as well? Is it just a Paladin who, on top of all the other stuff she does, uses a bow? If the feat allowed you to pick one at-will power with a ranged weapon that'd fulfil that goal.

It's not really worth even one feat but since it might cause balance issues I guess it has to "cost" something. I wouldn't recommend using this if you're competing against the rest of the party and the DM in trying to make the most ridiculously overpowered builds but in a normal cooperative game it probably won't cause any problems.

When I worry about balance I never really worry about competitiveness, but one of the strengths of the new edition is making sure everyone has cool stuff they can do that no-one else can. Being really good at attacking at range is pretty much reserved for Wizards, Warlocks and Rangers. If Paladins and Clerics can smite foes from 10 squares away with more damage than a Wizard or Warlock - and they probably will, when they get their hands on a magic bow - and take the fight right up to the monster's face, then it's not that the Paladin player has "won", but it does rather make being a Ranger redundant. (Remember, only half of a Ranger's possible powers are only usable at melee or only usable at range.)

More than that, though, the trouble is one for your DM in how to challenge your character. Classes are - except maybe the Ranger - usually focussed on attacking at range or close up. This is great for DMs since it means you can easily challenge combatants by including ranged and melee enemies. But if you can take punishment, dish it out in close combat, and fire back at enemies with ranged attacks, well...that makes my life as a DM a bit tough. It's maybe too broad a skill set for one character, and much more powerful than multiclassing into Ranger, because it turns every melee weapon power into two powers, one melee and one ranged.

If you still don't think this power is kickarse, think about marks. Currently the only way to get rid of a Paladin's mark (behind powers that shed marks) is to run away from him so he can't attack you and keep the mark active, since you can't reactivate it the next turn if you don't attack the creature. But if you can mark a creature on the other side of the battlefield, and keep it marked by using ranged attacks - and which, thanks to this feat, make use of the mark to cause additional damage or affect (like all the Paladin At-Will powers do) - then it will take -2 to all its attacks (since, unless it also has a ranged attack, it can't attack you) and will have to either not attack anyone or take damage from the mark as well. The Divine Challenge is a Minor Action too, so you can mark your foe up to 5 squares away, move your speed further away, and then shoot him, keeping the mark going and gaining benefits from the mark.

Now, here's the thing: you might think this is awesome. Maybe the other players in your group are cool with you being able to do this. Perhaps half the reason you want to do this is to differentiate yourself from the Fighter in your party who is a melee specialist. Or hey, maybe you don't intend to do this, you just want to whip out your bow when the flying undead thing tries to get away and shoot it with Bahamut's arrow - and now I've typed that sentence, who wouldn't want to do that? It's an awesome concept.

But for my money, it's running counter to the concept of a Paladin, especially in the class's role as a defender. A Paladin's job is to run into danger and protect others from it. That necessitates getting up close with enemies and taking their attention. A ranged Paladin is more of a striker, and while I don't dislike the concept, I think to really make it work alongside the existing classes we're looking at a whole new - and really interesting - class: a Divine Striker.

Don't mistake me - if this idea works for you, and just as importantly it works for your DM, go ahead and use it. When I say it's kickarse, I mean it though - the one real weakness of a Paladin is that he has to get up close and smack you to unleash his god's wrath, but if he can also do that from the other side of the dungeon while wearing his armour and hanging on to his massive hit points, I don't see how he's risking much for the glory of his god.

 

[Fredrik Svanberg]

That would be the case if someone were building a Paladin who was going to mainly or exclusively used ranged weapons. But this feat allows you to use all your melee weapon attack powers with ranged weapons, so what's to stop anyone from taking it so that, when the enemy tries to run, they can just switch to ranged weapons?

Well, I'm all for supporting character concepts. If you see your Paladin or Cleric as firing arrows empowered with holy might, that's pretty cool - but if that's the concept, why does the character also need to be able to swing her broadsword with holy might as well?

That's not necessary at all. I just don't like feats that remove options when you take them. I could have said that the powers become ranged and dexterity-dependent INSTEAD of melee and strength-dependent but then I realized that a paladin who goes for ranged weapons is not likely to have a lot of strength - because there are so many other abilities that he will need - so if he decides to pull out a sword and hit someone he would probably not be as good at that as if he kept shooting. Or used one of his many charisma-based prayers.

My idea was that you would build your character to be good at melee or ranged fighting, or you could be somewhat decent in both. You're probably not going to be able to afford both high strength, high dexterity and high charisma, and preferably medium-high wisdom and constitution as well, that you will want if you're a paladin. It pretty much balances itself.

Is it just a Paladin who, on top of all the other stuff she does, uses a bow? If the feat allowed you to pick one at-will power with a ranged weapon that'd fulfil that goal.

Not really. It might work for some concepts but my idea is a character who uses the bow almost exclusively.

When I worry about balance I never really worry about competitiveness, but one of the strengths of the new edition is making sure everyone has cool stuff they can do that no-one else can. Being really good at attacking at range is pretty much reserved for Wizards, Warlocks and Rangers.

If Paladins and Clerics can smite foes from 10 squares away with more damage than a Wizard or Warlock - and they probably will, when they get their hands on a magic bow - and take the fight right up to the monster's face, then it's not that the Paladin player has "won", but it does rather make being a Ranger redundant. (Remember, only half of a Ranger's possible powers are only usable at melee or only usable at range.)

I didn't check how much damage a ranged Paladin would be able to do compared to a ranger. I would be surprised if a paladin could outdamage a ranger on a regular basis - the ranger would also have a magical bow, after all. Furthermore I wouldn't play a concept like this if there was a ranger in the party already - it would be like wearing the same dress to the party, and I think the paladin player would be overshadowed by the ranger to the point where they wonder why they bothered with it at all.

More than that, though, the trouble is one for your DM in how to challenge your character. Classes are - except maybe the Ranger - usually focussed on attacking at range or close up. This is great for DMs since it means you can easily challenge combatants by including ranged and melee enemies. But if you can take punishment, dish it out in close combat, and fire back at enemies with ranged attacks, well...that makes my life as a DM a bit tough. It's maybe too broad a skill set for one character, and much more powerful than multiclassing into Ranger, because it turns every melee weapon power into two powers, one melee and one ranged.

But you won't be able to do all those things. You will be able to become good at maybe two of those things, with the limited ability scores that we have. Or somewhat decent at three or four of them. But you won't be able to get really good at all of them.

If you still don't think this power is kickarse, think about marks. Currently the only way to get rid of a Paladin's mark (behind powers that shed marks) is to run away from him so he can't attack you and keep the mark active, since you can't reactivate it the next turn if you don't attack the creature. But if you can mark a creature on the other side of the battlefield, and keep it marked by using ranged attacks - and which, thanks to this feat, make use of the mark to cause additional damage or affect (like all the Paladin At-Will powers do) - then it will take -2 to all its attacks (since, unless it also has a ranged attack, it can't attack you) and will have to either not attack anyone or take damage from the mark as well. The Divine Challenge is a Minor Action too, so you can mark your foe up to 5 squares away, move your speed further away, and then shoot him, keeping the mark going and gaining benefits from the mark.

That would be the one thing that a ranged paladin would be slightly better at than the regular paladin. Of course, Divine Challenge has a limited range so once you do the trick, marking and running away then attacking, your target is out of range and you will have to get closer or pick a different target next round.

What I think is really nice is that the ranged paladin can hold his ground better than the current one, and grab aggro better. Mark an enemy 5 squares away and throw something at him. No need to move anywhere, the enemy will come to you, probably, and you can keep blocking a chokepoint or stay close to the warlord while drawing the enemy attacks to you.

Now, here's the thing: you might think this is awesome. Maybe the other players in your group are cool with you being able to do this. Perhaps half the reason you want to do this is to differentiate yourself from the Fighter in your party who is a melee specialist. Or hey, maybe you don't intend to do this, you just want to whip out your bow when the flying undead thing tries to get away and shoot it with Bahamut's arrow - and now I've typed that sentence, who wouldn't want to do that? It's an awesome concept.

But for my money, it's running counter to the concept of a Paladin, especially in the class's role as a defender. A Paladin's job is to run into danger and protect others from it. That necessitates getting up close with enemies and taking their attention. A ranged Paladin is more of a striker, and while I don't dislike the concept, I think to really make it work alongside the existing classes we're looking at a whole new - and really interesting - class: a Divine Striker.

It was because I didn't want to make a whole new class that I came up with this idea. The reason I started looking into this in the first place was because I was building a bunch of characters and one of them was a conversion of an old 3.5 paladin who used a bow and had the ranged smite feats and everything. I took a casual glance at the paladin and noticed that the powers would work just as well at range. I'm probably not going to actually play that character because I have a ton of other ideas to try out first and only limited time to play them all.