Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="DracoSuave" data-source="post: 4842087" data-attributes="member: 71571">1: Cover is +2 to defenses against ranged and melee only.&nbsp; Not much of a consolation, but there you go.2: The Warden doesn't have Lay on Hands, or anything like Lay on Hands.&nbsp; 3: The Paladin's powers do more damage overall4: If a monster gets too far from the Warden, his mark doesn't do much, whereas the Paladin's mark continues to be effective so long as that Paladin has any way to attack the monster.5: Enfeebling Smite will reduce all a monster's attacks by -2.&nbsp; This is an at-will, better than a daily utility for this effect.6: It's one of only two utility powers in the game a Warden can use to buff allies.&nbsp; Paladins have a -much- greater selection.Now, while there are a couple bugs with the Paladin class, it isn't weaker or worse than the Warden in terms of power level.&nbsp; Looking at two powers in isolation doesn't make one class better than the other.&nbsp; Every PHB class is solid at what they do.&nbsp; Shamans can -potentially- outheal a Cleric, but a Cleric doesn't have to position a spirit conjuration to make things work, and is -always- healing for a lot.&nbsp; And Warlords aren't exactly obsoleted by the Bard.Barbarians and Avengers aren't better strikers than Rangers or Rogues.&nbsp; Warlocks still have a lot of upside when compared to Sorcerers, who are one trick ponies in comparison.&nbsp; (Granted, it's a good trick)And as for Fighters and Paladins?&nbsp; Still good, even after the Warden.&nbsp; Yeah, the Warden has -obvious- upside, but the Fighter brings a LOT to the table a Warden simply doesn't.&nbsp; The same can be said for Paladins.&nbsp; Now, are the PHB2 classes more elegant, and better presented?&nbsp; Yes.&nbsp; And that is what is responsible for the 'These are better view.'&nbsp; The fact is, all the classes in the game are good.&nbsp; There are no stinkers.&nbsp; It's just, the new ones are shinier cause they know how to polish them better.&nbsp; That's all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="DracoSuave, post: 4842087, member: 71571"] 1: Cover is +2 to defenses against ranged and melee only. Not much of a consolation, but there you go. 2: The Warden doesn't have Lay on Hands, or anything like Lay on Hands. 3: The Paladin's powers do more damage overall 4: If a monster gets too far from the Warden, his mark doesn't do much, whereas the Paladin's mark continues to be effective so long as that Paladin has any way to attack the monster. 5: Enfeebling Smite will reduce all a monster's attacks by -2. This is an at-will, better than a daily utility for this effect. 6: It's one of only two utility powers [I]in the game[/I] a Warden can use to buff allies. Paladins have a -much- greater selection. Now, while there are a couple bugs with the Paladin class, it isn't weaker or worse than the Warden in terms of power level. Looking at two powers in isolation doesn't make one class better than the other. Every PHB class is solid at what they do. Shamans can -potentially- outheal a Cleric, but a Cleric doesn't have to position a spirit conjuration to make things work, and is -always- healing for a lot. And Warlords aren't exactly obsoleted by the Bard. Barbarians and Avengers aren't better strikers than Rangers or Rogues. Warlocks still have a lot of upside when compared to Sorcerers, who are one trick ponies in comparison. (Granted, it's a good trick) And as for Fighters and Paladins? Still good, even after the Warden. Yeah, the Warden has -obvious- upside, but the Fighter brings a LOT to the table a Warden simply doesn't. The same can be said for Paladins. Now, are the PHB2 classes more elegant, and better presented? Yes. And that is what is responsible for the 'These are better view.' The fact is, all the classes in the game are good. There are no stinkers. It's just, the new ones are shinier cause they know how to polish them better. That's all. [/QUOTE]

Verification