Paladin. Disappointing

[whydirt]

Okay, so if you want to play a holy warrior with less flash then just use a fighter and give him an appriopriate background and personality, possibly along with a Paladin Class Training feat if you want to take a few actual divine powers. Done and done.

 

[Darth Cyric]

I really hope 4E has a very very very clear definition of an "attack".

Something where you roll a die to hit a defense. I don't see how much clearer you can get.

 

[MaelStorm]

Sitara you will never have it both ways. A fighter's power might be more powerful than a paladin's smite, but a fighter can't trigger a healing surge.

 

[Carnivorous_Bean]

I have no problem with a paladin burning the unrighteous in holy fire.

But I will admit that I don't like the shield. Oh, well, I'll make something up else up to replace it, I guess.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Read the power again. The King would only take damage if he attacks someone other than makes an attack that does not include the paladin. If he attacks no one, he takes no damage.

see my correction.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I have no problem with a paladin burning the unrighteous in holy fire.

But I will admit that I don't like the shield. Oh, well, I'll make something up else up to replace it, I guess.

Why is holy fire (powered by divine energy) OK but holy shield (powered by divine energy) not? I could see your point if the fighter had the shield power, otherwise I don't get the hate for shield?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Something where you roll a die to hit a defense. I don't see how much clearer you can get.

Why the attitude? Is that your opinion or a fact? Because in previous editions of D&D there have been plenty of ways to take offensive action without rolling attacks. I assume with 4E's changing of saves to defenses and so on, there will be less, but I'll be very surprised if there's absolute no way to obviously attack without rolling a die to hit a defense.

Why is holy fire (powered by divine energy) OK but holy shield (powered by divine energy) not? I could see your point if the fighter had the shield power, otherwise I don't get the hate for shield?

Because it doesn't make any sense. The holy fire makes sense, because the god is warranting that the enemy must take an action. The shield doesn't make any sense ONLY BECAUSE it's reliant on an attack. It's an entirely bizarrre and metagame thing. It doesn't make any sense from the character's perspective. He just makes an attack and Jesus decides to shield his friend? I mean what? Why couldn't he just get Jesus to shield his friend?

It's clearly an entirely arbitary decision by a game designer to tie these things together. A lot of spells are pretty arbitary, but this one doesn't make intuitive sense, because there's no intuitive link between the actions, which is a huge difference.

If you're incapable of getting that, well, that's fine, it just means you'll never understand and you shouldn't try to argue with people about it.

 

[fafhrd]

I mean what? Why couldn't he just get Jesus to shield his friend?

God demands blood and does not reward failure.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

God demands blood and does not reward failure.

Seems a bit insane for Tymora and most other typically worshipped by players, though. It's more "Chaos Warrior" than "Paladin".

 

[fafhrd]

Seems a bit insane for Tymora and most other typically worshipped by players, though. It's more "Chaos Warrior" than "Paladin".

I was geeking out about holy warriors of Draconus and the other blood fueled Elder gods of the Malazan series. However, the latter half of the idea seems to work in most cases. Gods want winners on their side.