Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7569294" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think that PHB1 is just a bit half-baked (7/8ths baked maybe?). They seem to have had this concept of making 'V-shaped' classes. We have the cleric, the paladin, the warlock, and the ranger which all fall into this category. With the possible exception of the ranger they are all somewhat problematic. It is telling that WotC NEVER released another V-shaped class during the lifetime of 4e.So, I think it is quite possible to blame it on a failed rules experiment. Given the desire to build a V-shaped class, you then look at the cleric and you create WIS and STR versions based on a look at the archetypal classic D&amp;D clerics. Likewise you end up with a STR and a CHA paladin. Taken in isolation, and given the goal of making V-shaped classes, these are logical implementations. They only fail in that the archetypes they are attempting to fill don't make sense in the greater context of the complete set of classes. Thus a STR/CHA/WIS A-shaped paladin, and a WIS/CHA/?(CON,INT) A-shaped cleric really do make the most sense.IMHO if 4e had been released with a year more development this is what we would have gotten, with the cleric being pretty much the 'laser cleric' build, and maybe some sort of 'rune priest like' build. The paladin would simply be a STR-primary defender with a CHA based punishment mechanic and a WIS based sustaining one. So you would either focus on 'laying on hands' and be more 'leadery' or on punishing and be pure defender. I'd note that this would be much closer to the style of PHB2 classes, which all have a primary attribute and a primary role, plus a 'side role' which leverages an optional secondary attribute. This gives 3-4 good build options vs the V-shaped class having basically 2 poor choices.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7569294, member: 82106"] I think that PHB1 is just a bit half-baked (7/8ths baked maybe?). They seem to have had this concept of making 'V-shaped' classes. We have the cleric, the paladin, the warlock, and the ranger which all fall into this category. With the possible exception of the ranger they are all somewhat problematic. It is telling that WotC NEVER released another V-shaped class during the lifetime of 4e. So, I think it is quite possible to blame it on a failed rules experiment. Given the desire to build a V-shaped class, you then look at the cleric and you create WIS and STR versions based on a look at the archetypal classic D&D clerics. Likewise you end up with a STR and a CHA paladin. Taken in isolation, and given the goal of making V-shaped classes, these are logical implementations. They only fail in that the archetypes they are attempting to fill don't make sense in the greater context of the complete set of classes. Thus a STR/CHA/WIS A-shaped paladin, and a WIS/CHA/?(CON,INT) A-shaped cleric really do make the most sense. IMHO if 4e had been released with a year more development this is what we would have gotten, with the cleric being pretty much the 'laser cleric' build, and maybe some sort of 'rune priest like' build. The paladin would simply be a STR-primary defender with a CHA based punishment mechanic and a WIS based sustaining one. So you would either focus on 'laying on hands' and be more 'leadery' or on punishing and be pure defender. I'd note that this would be much closer to the style of PHB2 classes, which all have a primary attribute and a primary role, plus a 'side role' which leverages an optional secondary attribute. This gives 3-4 good build options vs the V-shaped class having basically 2 poor choices. [/QUOTE]

Verification