DracoSuave
First Post
So, you mean, if a striker, say, had access to 2d6 weapons and +5 to hit, they'd do their job as a striker well in your eyes?
That class exists.
It's called Avenger.
Divine Power should be called Paladin Power.
- Thread starter DracoSuave
- Start date
So, you mean, if a striker, say, had access to 2d6 weapons and +5 to hit, they'd do their job as a striker well in your eyes?
That class exists.
It's called Avenger.
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
I think it makes sense to build upon Controller or at least condition applying powers for Avengers, since he has a very good chance of bringing them through.
Thundershield
First Post
Well, I suppose I forgot to mention the 5d8 bonus damage? Does the Avenger have that? Oh, right, his damage tool was relegated to "control", which seems to mean a whopping +0 damage, which is sure great for a Striker..
Likewise I didn't mention the Sorcerer's +14 damage or the Warlock's +3d6.
No, if you just play the Avenger and have fun with it I urge you to play on by all means. Ignorance is bliss, after all. But it becomes painfully obvious the moment a damage-capable Striker (or even Leader or Defender) steps in and dishes out as much damage as your Avenger did over the past 2-3 rounds.
Sure the Oath of Enmity ensures a steady damage flow, but without the ability to cause some damage spikes your damage will still be mediocre compared to Strikers who actually, you know, focus on their role.
And yeah, let's fall back on Final Oath... So, okay, Avengers might be fixed for level 29-30 (once per day), but there's still 28 borked levels before that, then.
I'll simplify things:
Rogue: High attack bonus, does 1d4-1d8 plus 2d8-5d8 damage.
Avenger: High attack bonus, does 1d12-2d6 damage.
Ranger: Attacks twice, does 1d8-1d10 once or twice plus 1d8-3d8 damage.
Sorcerer: Attacks multiple targets, does 1d6-1d10 plus 4-14 damage on each target.
Warlock: Attacks multiple targets, does 1d6-1d10 plus 1d6-3d6 damage.
It just doesn't seem all that impressive in such a simplified comparison, and yes, that is all things being equal, and the Avenger's double-roll roughly equals a +4 bonus to attack. And all these classes can reach their target and have relatively little trouble with survivability (if played right, of course).
Last edited:
Actual Numbers
Generic brutal rogue with 18 dexterity and 14 strength, using a dagger, with the backstabber feat, with combat advantage, using piercing strike, attacking a target with a 14 reflex: Expected damage per hit is 17.5. Expected damage per critical hit is 24. Chance of hitting is 80% with an additional 5% chance of critically hitting. Overall expected damage is
therefore 15.2.
Generic ranger with 18 strength using two bastard swords with bastard sword proficiency, with combat advantage, attacking his quarry with twin strike versus an AC of 16: Expected damage per sword is 5.5. If at least one sword hits, an additional 3.5 expected damage is added in. If at least one critical occurs, that's 6 instead. I'll save you the math, since it gets really involved, but the overall outcome is going to be 11.587875.
Generic warlock, assuming similar stats and combat advantage, assuming Implement Expertise as a feat since I don't know what else to give them, and assuming Prime Shot for good measure, using Eldritch Blast versus a cursed target with a 14 will is going to hit on a 6+. With a 70% chance of hitting, 5% chance of critically hitting, and expected damage per hit
of 1d10+1d6+4, we've got a total expected damage adjusted for accuracy of 10.1.
Generic avenger with 18 wisdom, using a fullblade with the fullblade proficiency feat, with combat advantage, using any generic at will power he chooses, attacking an oath target with a 16 AC: Expected damage per hit is 10.5. Expected damage per critical hit is 22.5. Chance of hitting requires some math, beginning with a 70% chance of hitting in some fashion per attack roll, and therefore an overall chance of hitting of 91%. Inside that chance is a chance of hitting critically of 9.75%. So the chance of hitting without a critical is 81.25. Overall expected damage is therefore 10.725.
The sorcerer is a tough one, because he has area of effect and multi target at will attacks. If we're only counting single target hits, Acid Orb is probably the go-to choice, and its lame. Its a 1d10 attack, like the warlock above, except with additional damage equal to your secondary stat instead of +1d6. That's usually a reduction, since 1d6 averages to 3.5. And you don't get Prime Shot. And you are ill equipped to go flank in melee to get a flanking bonus, so you probably won't have combat advantage like a wise fey or infernal pact warlock. On the other hand, you have at will attacks that hit multiple targets, and that can dramatically increase your overall damage. But since there's no good way
to quantify the advantage or disadvantage of hitting multiple targets versus single targets, I'm going to leave the sorcerer out.
The barbarian is also a tough one, since rage changes things significantly and the amount of time you spend raging increases as you advance in level. I'm going to leave him out.
So our totals are
Rogue: 15.2
Ranger: 11.587875
Warlock: 10.1
Avenger: 10.725
But what does that tell us? Well, the first thing we should note is that it leaves some other details out.
Rogue: The rogue's attacks grow very poorly as he adds [W]s. He shows the best in comparisons of low [W] at will attacks where his large sneak attack damage can overwhelm the higher damage dice other classes receive. When he has no combat advantage he suffers an enormous in effectiveness, though this rarely happens in most groups. He has no class abilities or effects which add any other details to this comparison. This comparison is probably the perfect storm for the rogue- there may be no other comparison possible that would make him look any better than this one.
Ranger: The ranger's attacks grow well with the addition of magic items and feat damage, which will apply to both hits. He has no other relevant class abilities or effects.
Warlock: The warlock in our example is a lucky warlock indeed to have both combat advantage and prime shot. A real warlock would probably not have this, unless it was an infernal pact warlock shielding himself with temporary hit points while casting spells at point blank, or a fey pact warlock doing the same with eyebite. The warlock's damage is likely lower than this in actual gameplay. The warlock has no other relevant class abilities or benefits except for his pact boon if his cursed foe dies.
Avenger: The avenger in our example has significant benefits that are not listed here. First, he is the only character using an attack that does something other than pure damage. He may be shifting himself and sliding his foe about, or granting attack bonuses to his allies, or some other utility benefit. He also has an automatically applied class ability related to his oath that is included, such as bonus damage if his foe flees, or bonus damage if he is doubleteamed by his enemies. He also has the highest AC present, and possibly the highest hit points, though the ranger's free access to Toughness will mitigate that at lower levels. His attacks grow the best as [W]s are added.
So... I think he's fine. The math seems to hold that up. If we were to redo the comparison at a higher level, not much would change. The rogue would drop back a bit, as his incredible frontloading would recede in importance and as he swiftly ran out of feats to improve his damage. The ranger would gain a bit in damage as feats like Weapon Focus add static damage twice per round for him. The warlock would stagnate a little, unfortunately, but at the same time gains some significant utility effects. The avenger would grow slightly in damage, but not quite at the same rate as the Ranger, but with the addition of Armor Proficiency: Leather and Improved Armor of the Faith he will match the paladin for armor class and leave the rest of this group in the dust. Since I don't believe in evaluating any role, even that of striker, purely on one dimension, I am inclined to think that these are fair tradeoffs.
Generic brutal rogue with 18 dexterity and 14 strength, using a dagger, with the backstabber feat, with combat advantage, using piercing strike, attacking a target with a 14 reflex: Expected damage per hit is 17.5. Expected damage per critical hit is 24. Chance of hitting is 80% with an additional 5% chance of critically hitting. Overall expected damage is
therefore 15.2.
Generic ranger with 18 strength using two bastard swords with bastard sword proficiency, with combat advantage, attacking his quarry with twin strike versus an AC of 16: Expected damage per sword is 5.5. If at least one sword hits, an additional 3.5 expected damage is added in. If at least one critical occurs, that's 6 instead. I'll save you the math, since it gets really involved, but the overall outcome is going to be 11.587875.
Generic warlock, assuming similar stats and combat advantage, assuming Implement Expertise as a feat since I don't know what else to give them, and assuming Prime Shot for good measure, using Eldritch Blast versus a cursed target with a 14 will is going to hit on a 6+. With a 70% chance of hitting, 5% chance of critically hitting, and expected damage per hit
of 1d10+1d6+4, we've got a total expected damage adjusted for accuracy of 10.1.
Generic avenger with 18 wisdom, using a fullblade with the fullblade proficiency feat, with combat advantage, using any generic at will power he chooses, attacking an oath target with a 16 AC: Expected damage per hit is 10.5. Expected damage per critical hit is 22.5. Chance of hitting requires some math, beginning with a 70% chance of hitting in some fashion per attack roll, and therefore an overall chance of hitting of 91%. Inside that chance is a chance of hitting critically of 9.75%. So the chance of hitting without a critical is 81.25. Overall expected damage is therefore 10.725.
The sorcerer is a tough one, because he has area of effect and multi target at will attacks. If we're only counting single target hits, Acid Orb is probably the go-to choice, and its lame. Its a 1d10 attack, like the warlock above, except with additional damage equal to your secondary stat instead of +1d6. That's usually a reduction, since 1d6 averages to 3.5. And you don't get Prime Shot. And you are ill equipped to go flank in melee to get a flanking bonus, so you probably won't have combat advantage like a wise fey or infernal pact warlock. On the other hand, you have at will attacks that hit multiple targets, and that can dramatically increase your overall damage. But since there's no good way
to quantify the advantage or disadvantage of hitting multiple targets versus single targets, I'm going to leave the sorcerer out.
The barbarian is also a tough one, since rage changes things significantly and the amount of time you spend raging increases as you advance in level. I'm going to leave him out.
So our totals are
Rogue: 15.2
Ranger: 11.587875
Warlock: 10.1
Avenger: 10.725
But what does that tell us? Well, the first thing we should note is that it leaves some other details out.
Rogue: The rogue's attacks grow very poorly as he adds [W]s. He shows the best in comparisons of low [W] at will attacks where his large sneak attack damage can overwhelm the higher damage dice other classes receive. When he has no combat advantage he suffers an enormous in effectiveness, though this rarely happens in most groups. He has no class abilities or effects which add any other details to this comparison. This comparison is probably the perfect storm for the rogue- there may be no other comparison possible that would make him look any better than this one.
Ranger: The ranger's attacks grow well with the addition of magic items and feat damage, which will apply to both hits. He has no other relevant class abilities or effects.
Warlock: The warlock in our example is a lucky warlock indeed to have both combat advantage and prime shot. A real warlock would probably not have this, unless it was an infernal pact warlock shielding himself with temporary hit points while casting spells at point blank, or a fey pact warlock doing the same with eyebite. The warlock's damage is likely lower than this in actual gameplay. The warlock has no other relevant class abilities or benefits except for his pact boon if his cursed foe dies.
Avenger: The avenger in our example has significant benefits that are not listed here. First, he is the only character using an attack that does something other than pure damage. He may be shifting himself and sliding his foe about, or granting attack bonuses to his allies, or some other utility benefit. He also has an automatically applied class ability related to his oath that is included, such as bonus damage if his foe flees, or bonus damage if he is doubleteamed by his enemies. He also has the highest AC present, and possibly the highest hit points, though the ranger's free access to Toughness will mitigate that at lower levels. His attacks grow the best as [W]s are added.
So... I think he's fine. The math seems to hold that up. If we were to redo the comparison at a higher level, not much would change. The rogue would drop back a bit, as his incredible frontloading would recede in importance and as he swiftly ran out of feats to improve his damage. The ranger would gain a bit in damage as feats like Weapon Focus add static damage twice per round for him. The warlock would stagnate a little, unfortunately, but at the same time gains some significant utility effects. The avenger would grow slightly in damage, but not quite at the same rate as the Ranger, but with the addition of Armor Proficiency: Leather and Improved Armor of the Faith he will match the paladin for armor class and leave the rest of this group in the dust. Since I don't believe in evaluating any role, even that of striker, purely on one dimension, I am inclined to think that these are fair tradeoffs.
Garthanos
Arcadian Knight
Thanks for the analysis cadfan... (I have been resenting Avengers - stepping on the name of the Avenging Paladin a bit - and was only just now starting to look in to the possibilities the class provided ...). I am designing an avenger who revels in the no armor = armor - might see if I can get a leather harnass that acts like leather but looks like a few belts to properly exploit Avenger armor potential.
DracoSuave
First Post
Besides, I'm not seeing the lack of damage in Divine Power.
I see 3[W] dailies at level 1 through heroic, moving up to a 7[W] daily at level 39. I see lots of ongoing damage, lots of 'do more damage for the rest of the encounter' and lots of 'Do x damage.' The encounter powers in heroic go from 2[W] at level 1 to 3[W] for a level 9. Now, granted, the later level 27 powers don't do huge damage on paper. But you have one that heals you for every enemy close to you for a turn, one that dominates a secondary opponent and forces them to attack your oath target (!!!!).
Sure, these aren't 'do massive damage' powers, but frankly, that's because there's only so much you can do with massive damage. So what if these powers don't appeal to you? They aren't designed for a 'hit hard' type character. Others, however, will find them appealing. Some people -like- the feylock style, even if it's numerically less than some people insist it should be.
This isn't WoW. You're not setting up to raid endgame content. You're creating a character you enjoy, and -every- power in the game is designed around the idea of appealing to a player who enjoys that sort of power. You enjoy massive damage. Grats. Go take massive damage powers and enjoy them. Someone else may not, and so they take more controlly powers, or shifty powers, or what have you.
So, again, I reiterate. If it -appears- that a given power doesn't do enough damage, and that is the reason you feel it sucks, entertain for a moment the idea that that power -might not be designed for you to like it.- Ask who it -would- appeal to, and then you'll understand the design of that power better. Frankly, this is good for the game, because if every power were designed 'Do X Damage, miss: Half' then it'd be a very dull game.
"But Strikers are supposed to do massive damage!"
No. They are supposed to single out an enemy and deal concentrated firepower to it.
Avengers are probably the best design for that particular role. They hit with their dailies and encounters almost guaranteed. Elven Avengers are -sick-.
I see 3[W] dailies at level 1 through heroic, moving up to a 7[W] daily at level 39. I see lots of ongoing damage, lots of 'do more damage for the rest of the encounter' and lots of 'Do x damage.' The encounter powers in heroic go from 2[W] at level 1 to 3[W] for a level 9. Now, granted, the later level 27 powers don't do huge damage on paper. But you have one that heals you for every enemy close to you for a turn, one that dominates a secondary opponent and forces them to attack your oath target (!!!!).
Sure, these aren't 'do massive damage' powers, but frankly, that's because there's only so much you can do with massive damage. So what if these powers don't appeal to you? They aren't designed for a 'hit hard' type character. Others, however, will find them appealing. Some people -like- the feylock style, even if it's numerically less than some people insist it should be.
This isn't WoW. You're not setting up to raid endgame content. You're creating a character you enjoy, and -every- power in the game is designed around the idea of appealing to a player who enjoys that sort of power. You enjoy massive damage. Grats. Go take massive damage powers and enjoy them. Someone else may not, and so they take more controlly powers, or shifty powers, or what have you.
So, again, I reiterate. If it -appears- that a given power doesn't do enough damage, and that is the reason you feel it sucks, entertain for a moment the idea that that power -might not be designed for you to like it.- Ask who it -would- appeal to, and then you'll understand the design of that power better. Frankly, this is good for the game, because if every power were designed 'Do X Damage, miss: Half' then it'd be a very dull game.
"But Strikers are supposed to do massive damage!"
No. They are supposed to single out an enemy and deal concentrated firepower to it.
Avengers are probably the best design for that particular role. They hit with their dailies and encounters almost guaranteed. Elven Avengers are -sick-.
Hi all,
Not as sick as a Ranger with the new Avenger multiclass. He can double enmity to the end of the encounter, meaning 2 bad guys getting severely spanked by 2 weapons, both with rerolls to hit every round. Ranger/ Avenger just seems plain better than Avenger. Is this the case?
My cleric got really sick. Rejigged him with new Divine Power feats. Has got Devil and Demon Bane meaning that his undead affecting stuff also affects Immortals and Elementals. So triple the firepower.
Also, the Cleric can now use 2 Channel Divinitys per encounter. So he now worships Pelor so he can whip out both a Turn Undead/ Elemental/ Immortal and Pelor's Radiance in the same encounter. A mass stun 120 square area attack? Yes please. Also affects Elementals and Immortals.
It's an Encounter power? Pure filth.
Supreme Healing is also sweet, as is shared healing as it means that the whole party can keep going until every single PC has used up all their surges.
Remorse at lvl 13 is pure dirt. Fighter pulled in 3 bad guys. Cleric Remorsed them (Daze effect was nice as well) before the Wizard hit them with Poison and Fire and Psychic damage and then they took Rain of Steel damage in their turns, and the Fighter attacked them with a close burst.
Final result. Cleric added a total of 150 damage to the Wizard's and Fighter's attacks. Not shabby for a lvl 13 encounter power.
The next combo plan is to Remorse them before Blood Pulsing them for lots of 1D6+10 damage per square movement.
Cleric now does very little damage (No 19-20 crit feat unlike the Arcane and Martial classes) but certainly helps others to dish it out.
Cheers,
Gaz
Not as sick as a Ranger with the new Avenger multiclass. He can double enmity to the end of the encounter, meaning 2 bad guys getting severely spanked by 2 weapons, both with rerolls to hit every round. Ranger/ Avenger just seems plain better than Avenger. Is this the case?
My cleric got really sick. Rejigged him with new Divine Power feats. Has got Devil and Demon Bane meaning that his undead affecting stuff also affects Immortals and Elementals. So triple the firepower.
Also, the Cleric can now use 2 Channel Divinitys per encounter. So he now worships Pelor so he can whip out both a Turn Undead/ Elemental/ Immortal and Pelor's Radiance in the same encounter. A mass stun 120 square area attack? Yes please. Also affects Elementals and Immortals.
It's an Encounter power? Pure filth.
Supreme Healing is also sweet, as is shared healing as it means that the whole party can keep going until every single PC has used up all their surges.
Remorse at lvl 13 is pure dirt. Fighter pulled in 3 bad guys. Cleric Remorsed them (Daze effect was nice as well) before the Wizard hit them with Poison and Fire and Psychic damage and then they took Rain of Steel damage in their turns, and the Fighter attacked them with a close burst.
Final result. Cleric added a total of 150 damage to the Wizard's and Fighter's attacks. Not shabby for a lvl 13 encounter power.
The next combo plan is to Remorse them before Blood Pulsing them for lots of 1D6+10 damage per square movement.
Cleric now does very little damage (No 19-20 crit feat unlike the Arcane and Martial classes) but certainly helps others to dish it out.
Cheers,
Gaz
Destil
Explorer
The new avenger multiclass is easily among if not the single most broken thing that's slipped into 4E, right up there with Cascade of Blades and Tempest Fighters. It'll be nerfed, hard.
Also, while a lot of people like the perusing avenger (and for good reason, I've got to get my party's avenger to work with my paladin some more after seeing the simple overwhelming strike + divine challenge combo), I like censure of retribution a lot. How often do most characters get hit with area attacks or the like. Often enough to provide a nice constant string of bonus damage, in my own games.
Also, the harder an opponent is to hit the better the avenger looks for the most part. Really hard fights often end up requiring either large numbers of foes or opponents significantly higher level than the party. Censure and high AC make avengers great when dealing with high defense/damage foes.
Also, while a lot of people like the perusing avenger (and for good reason, I've got to get my party's avenger to work with my paladin some more after seeing the simple overwhelming strike + divine challenge combo), I like censure of retribution a lot. How often do most characters get hit with area attacks or the like. Often enough to provide a nice constant string of bonus damage, in my own games.
Also, the harder an opponent is to hit the better the avenger looks for the most part. Really hard fights often end up requiring either large numbers of foes or opponents significantly higher level than the party. Censure and high AC make avengers great when dealing with high defense/damage foes.
tyrlaan
Explorer
Agreed. If nothing else, there are plenty of other cable stations out there that cost less and don't have mad issues.
For a guy who throws out a lot of math you omit it here. There is already a 1st level damage analysis here, it works a bit differently than mine, but has similar results. Here we go:
(All results assume 80% combat advantage, an even distribution of foes per the sample encounter charts in the dmg, with AC's ranging from player level +12 brutes to +21 for high level skirmishers. Equal level magic weapons with constant bonuses etc, I do include armbands at appropriate levels, but as a GM I might decide they are going the way of bloodclaw).
1st level:
Brutal/piercing rogue 12.2 normalized DPR
Bastard sword ranger 8.9
Fullblade avenger 8.9
Fullblade barbarian 8.2
Reaping Mordenkrad Fighter (future HR guy) 8.2
8th level
Rogue 22.3
Ranger 19.9
Avenger 16.4
Barbarian 14.7
Fighter 14.5
16th level
Rogue 29
Ranger 28
Avenger 18.7
Barbarian 22.1
Fighter 20
The problem isn't first level. It's not even heroic tier. It's that all the other strikers scale relevantly at paragon, it's where fighters stop being terribly competitive. Barbarians get some pretty impressive rage effects, that I hope (but haven't seen in game) make up for relatively poor performance, but they still kick the tar out of avengers. I am not sure that rerolling daily powers as cool as that is makes up for the big difference.
These numbers are pre Divine power, and the new censure should bump them up above fighters, at the very least it should be +.7 dpr per tier or so. Perhaps more with a melee focused group.
What bugs me most is that I want to like them. Paladins got all the love they could possibly need (heck maybe more than they needed), but I think avengers still need something, and at this point it seems they are not going to get it.
