Paladin. Disappointing

[Darth Cyric]

In comparison to the Paladin as a Defender, the Fighter seems to be deadlier and stickier up close, but the Paladin makes up for this by being deadlier and stickier outside the Fighter's melee range, and also being able to help allies that are a few squares away.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Yeah, the Fighter looks like the very hard close range version of the Controller.

Hits multiple opponents and moves people around the battlefield really easilly.

Yup.

Between the Fighter smacking lots of things up close and the Ranger more than likely getting some ranged multi-attack options as he levels up, I don't think an actual Martial Controller class will be necessary. Plus, every proposal of one I've seen so far has been extremely contrived and unfeasible.

 

[Sir Brennen]

The only potential concern I see with smites is that there might well be times when a paladin wants to bless an ally and there are no enemies present--the obvious example is a trap encounter. It might well be beneficial to give the rogue an AC bonus as she tumbles through the slashing pendulum-blades and dodges the spring-loaded spikes to get to the "off" button, but as written there's no way for a paladin to do that if there's nothing for him to smack. Personally, I'd rule that any smite that buffs an ally can be used without an attack, and you just ignore the attack roll and damage portions of the power (e.g. you can give your ally a "smiteless" Shielding Smite, you're just sacrificing the potential to do 2[W] + Strength modifier to an enemy), but that doesn't appear to be an official option. Still, that's minor enough, IMHO.

When talking about traps, one of the designers mentioned that 1) it takes more than just a single "disable trap" (or whatever) roll to take it out and 2) pretty much any method the players want to try to take the trap out, the DM should let them have a shot. I can see this including smacking at it with a weapon (in fact, I think this was mentioned.) So, the paladin could easily smite the repeatedly thrusting spears-from-the-wall near him while protecting the rogue going for the reset mechanism on the far side.

That being said, I've played quite a few of the classes and so far, the paladin is my favorite. I was able to introduce a magic item (a Frost Warhammer +1) into the game, and the GM said my Paladin was proficient. So #1, I got to deal a base d10 instead of a d6. (Who knows if that's actually allowed? I just went off of what the GM said).

Xath, can you tell us about the Frost Warhammer? Did the "Frost" property add to damage over the +1? Did all the damage you inflicted with the weapon count as Cold?

 

[Gloombunny]

I mean what? Do you have to bet Jesus that if you'll hit the opponent, and if you're right, he has to put a shield on them? That's just silly.

The shielding effect occurs whether or not the attack hits.

 

[Kordeth]

The shielding effect occurs whether or not the attack hits.

Was this confirmed somewhere?

 

[Darth Cyric]

It says "effect" on the power listing. I think that means regardless of hit or miss. If it were hit only, it'd be listed under the "hit" entry, methinks.

Also, the old Paladin Smites article. It may be somewhat outdated by now (apparently Shielding Smite is what used to be Safeguard Smite), but there you go.

 

[Kordeth]

It says "effect" on the power listing. I think that means regardless of hit or miss. If it were hit only, it'd be listed under the "hit" entry, methinks.

You've got a point there, other powers with a special effect (e.g. the fighter's Iron Tide) include those effects on the Hit line, and the no attack-roll powers have an "effect" line. That makes it even easier to say "yeah, you can invoke this power without attacking somebody, if you really want to/there's nobody around to attack," since it wouldn't be like you're avoiding a potential fail state.

That interpretation makes sense, and I endorse it.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Umm...how is "standing in front kicking behind and leaving the wizard to take names" not the same thing as "standing around and getting hit while everyone else kills the monsters?" I'm not trying to be snarky, but these seem to be pretty much the same sentiment. And given that the fighter's at-will abilities are both about crowd-control and her encounter power is all about mobility, I don't really see the fighter "standing around" all that much. Seems she's got a pretty good set of abilities to put herself wherever the thickest press of bad guys is, wade in, and start smacking fools around.

It is not remotely the same. To be blunt, the previous archetype of the fighter was hitting monsters. The primary role of the current fighter is to get hit by them.

Old skool: The fighters attack and kill the monsters (unless there's a whole bunch of monsters in which case the wizard fireballs them).
New skool: the fighters stick to the monsters and force the monsters to attack them (even though the monsters would much rather attack other party members who are actual threats to them) and the strikers kill the monsters.

It's a complete change in archetypes.

If the current statblock is any indication, the fighter is actually not very good at hitting monsters. She can't "smack fools around" except once per day (just like everyone else). She has some decent opportunity attack related powers, but the new cleave is a joke. When a 1st level kobold has 27 hit points (see the preview on the front page of ENWorld), doing 3 points of damage to an adjacent enemy when you hit with your main attack is not going to add up very quickly.

Don't see where you're getting this. The ranger has only one multiple attack power, and that's per-day. The fighter's damage on all her powers exceeds the rangers, and in fact of the two the fighter is the one who can hit multiple enemies (with Cleave and Passing Attack).

snip.

I look at the fighter powers the sample characters have, and I get the impression the fighter actually has a healthy side of striker to go with her defender, and I have no problem at all seeing her laying the smack down with equal fervor.

Interesting. When I look at the fighter posted, I see nothing but defender and that is the essence of the complaint. The fighter archetype, up until this point has included the role of striker. It seems to me that it no longer does. Hopefully there will be some other fighter powers that actually enable fighters to hit reliably and do more damage. I am going to REALLY dislike the game if the only guys who get to do damage are either A. hiding in the back and using bows or wands or B. sneaking up in leather and wielding a dagger. If the fighter can't pick up a longsword (or greatsword) and kick some ass, the game isn't D&D.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Although I do have to point out that Careful Strike only lets the ranger hit 20% more often.

That depends how you interpret more often. It will generally increase the ranger's chance to hit by 20%. However, depending upon the target's armor class, it may be more of a difference in the likelihood of the ranger hitting. For instance, against an AC of 20, +10 hits 55% of the time and +6 hits 35% of the time. That's a 57% increase in the number of hits the ranger is likely to make over time.

Digressions aside, however, you're right and I was guilty of exaggeration on that point.

 

[The Little Raven]

It is not remotely the same. To be blunt, the previous archetype of the fighter was hitting monsters. The primary role of the current fighter is to get hit by them.

The only explanation for the different in hit points for fighter and wizard is because the fighter is supposed to be absorbing damage, so the wizard doesn't have to. If the fighter's job didn't include taking the beating, then there's no reason for him to have d10 hit points.