Strength Clerics Getting Away With Warpriest Domains

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think the reason they made 4e paladins Chr based was inspiration from 3.5. 3.5 paladins tended to have an -extremely- high Chr -- as Chr added directly to their saves, added to-hit on smites, determined Lay on Hands, and determined Turning -- making it a more important stat than their other main stats (Str, Wisdom, and, of course, Con). So it made sense to recast them as Chr-based (just not in combination with also having them be Str based)

But it would have been fine if paladins had simply been STR primary and cha secondary, with WIS as the second leg of the A. Now you have a rather nice weapon based close/melee divine warrior. Yes, the whole CHA thing is a holdover, but really from AD&D where you were simply required to have a CHA 17 (though it didn't actually do anything for you aside from reaction bonuses and such). I'm OK with the idea of encouraging paladins to have a good CHA, but making it the primary attack stat wasn't really needed. I mean you can dump STR, lol. It just isn't evocative of a holy warrior. The CHA paladin could almost have been relabeled cleric and you'd barely know the difference conceptually. The STR paladin was pretty much right on with the concept, but it was just so badly implemented it was virtually unplayable until DP.

Anyway, the point being divine power source is a mess. There are now 6 clerics, 4 paladins, avengers (yet another divine warrior!), the invoker in its various configurations, and the poor runepriest crying in his corner. Essentials clerics were actually a good idea in a way, they at least narrowed the concept down, though I'd have deemphasized weapon use instead of trivializing holy symbols and brought in elements of the invoker. The Cavalier covers the holy warrior perfectly well. Still, they at least made some non-problematic divine classes that leverage some of the existing power inventory.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

But it would have been fine if paladins had simply been STR primary and cha secondary, with WIS as the second leg of the A. Now you have a rather nice weapon based close/melee divine warrior. Yes, the whole CHA thing is a holdover, but really from AD&D where you were simply required to have a CHA 17 (though it didn't actually do anything for you aside from reaction bonuses and such). I'm OK with the idea of encouraging paladins to have a good CHA, but making it the primary attack stat wasn't really needed. I mean you can dump STR, lol. It just isn't evocative of a holy warrior. The CHA paladin could almost have been relabeled cleric and you'd barely know the difference conceptually. The STR paladin was pretty much right on with the concept, but it was just so badly implemented it was virtually unplayable until DP.

Anyway, the point being divine power source is a mess. There are now 6 clerics, 4 paladins, avengers (yet another divine warrior!), the invoker in its various configurations, and the poor runepriest crying in his corner. Essentials clerics were actually a good idea in a way, they at least narrowed the concept down, though I'd have deemphasized weapon use instead of trivializing holy symbols and brought in elements of the invoker. The Cavalier covers the holy warrior perfectly well. Still, they at least made some non-problematic divine classes that leverage some of the existing power inventory.

I won't disagree that the Divine power source as a whole is a big ol' mess, because it pretty much is.

That said, I actually like the paladin options. I like that the class is V-shaped. It's the first edition where I've truly enjoyed playing paladins without excessive houserules or optional stuff (llike the Paladin variants in Arcana Unearthed for 3.x). There are other factors at play besides just how the class is built as to why I like it, but that has a good bit to do with it - it's very flexible, and I really appreciate that aspect.

What I think could really use some work is the advice given in the PHB on how to approach a V-shaped class. Once you figure out how they work, they're not so bad. Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin - lots of build options, and thanks to DP, plenty of support to make all three viable. Awesome.

The Warlock approach on the other hand, is/was terrible. And the advice was even worse. Unlike a paladin (with one feat the baladin can get kick-ass mark punishment damage), there is almost no incentive whatsoever to keeping both Con and Cha high.

The difference between Str and Wis clerics was pretty evident, and the diference between the Ranger builds even more so... and at least they didn't tell you to screw yourself by trying to maintain two attack stats.

I get that a lot of people don't like it, but I appreciate the choices.

 

[Aegeri]

I honestly think paladins are V shaped because they wanted to make sure a paladin took some strength for OAs. I figure the same may be true for the cleric as well.

In the end, I wish concepts like melee training were in the game from the start, or they were prepared to just allow other stats for attacking with MBAs off the bat. If there is anything that I think essentials improved the game, it's for allowing classes with non-strength primary stats - like the thief - to just use dex for all their attacks. It really bothers me that a Battlemind, as an example, is a lethal combatant until it comes to making an OA. Where he's basically as effective as a clown.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It isn't that I hated either the paladin or the cleric, in any of the combinations, it is just that they ended up messily overlapping (which they actually did from all the way back to 1e, but...). There are basically 2 concepts that are rooted in literature and myth, the holy warrior, and the priest. The holy warrior archetype is your heavily armored "Sir Lancelot" type, powered by his faith and endowed with divine power, but meting it out at the end of a sword. Then you have the priest archetype, which is a little less well-defined but you have your "Van Helsing" types hunting down evil using their wits and defeating it with the help of divine power.

There can certainly be characters that blend the two in various ways, but you have 2 basic well-defined archetypes and two character classes to fill. Call me unimaginative, but the blazingly obvious solution was a STR based paladin holy warrior, and a WIS based casting cleric. A blend of the two is like any other blend, MC or hybrid and you can get something pretty close to the 'baladin'.

 

[Zaphling]

Going to essentials. I also noticed that essentials version have an extra feature on levels 4 and 8, like Pace of the Virtuous Charge and Spirit of the virtuous charger. The original classes only receive a feat on those levels. Why not state somewhere in the essentials book that originals can also have those features at 4 and 8?

Also, although this is a small matter, why cavaliers have proficiency with military ranged? it's unfair to the original paladin. Unless you have a good explanation guys?

 

[mneme]

Well, Chr paladins are still basically a lot better than Caveliers, so I'm not sure how much it matters.

Channel Divinity is very nice.

The ability to remove conditions is huge at high levels.

Divine Challenge is much better than the aura mark -- particularly since it's not at all hard to build a Chraladin is a multimarker.

Finally, there's Lay on Hands vs Spirit of Sacrifice--where I don't think there's really a comparison. Lay on Hands can make a paladin a serious off-healer, and as long as you keep your wisdom up, will provide a large amount of healing when it's needed. Spirit of Sacrifice isn't awful, and may outperform Lay on Hands in -very- long days, but is still probably not as good.

Even an optimized Str paladin doesn't have to worry about being outperformed by a Cavilier -- a half-orc paladin will have a huge Challenge and not have to worry about Charisma much, wheras any other Str paladin can go Str/Chr, trade Lay on Hands for Ardent Vow, and dump Wis.

Basically, I don't think the original paladin has much to worry about.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Going to essentials. I also noticed that essentials version have an extra feature on levels 4 and 8, like Pace of the Virtuous Charge and Spirit of the virtuous charger. The original classes only receive a feat on those levels. Why not state somewhere in the essentials book that originals can also have those features at 4 and 8?

There are other issues involved. The cavalier, for example, doesn't get a daily power at level 1.

Some of the level 4/8 features (Servant of Vice from the blackguard and Spirit of the Virtuous Charger from the cavalier are considered leveled utility powers) so a different kind of paladin could grab them at higher levels instead of their other utility power options.

The class as a whole is meant to balance with the other versions of the paladin. They had things added in addition to missing out on things the other paladin got (choices for at-will/encounters, a daily at level 1, etc)

Also, although this is a small matter, why cavaliers have proficiency with military ranged? it's unfair to the original paladin. Unless you have a good explanation guys?

The knight also gets plate armor, which the original fighter doesn't get. The warpriest gets shield profs, which the original cleric doesn't get. The whole purpose of a new build is that they don't need them to be the same. Of course, access to bows isn't that helpful for cavalier's anyway... they would need to multiclass to get ranged weapon attack powers (or pump up their dex at the cost of str/cha).

 

[Zaphling]

But I would love to see a paladin/archer warlord hybrid that don't penalize your character to wearing hide armor so you can have bows. Would be cool to look at your paladin riding a horse then firing an arrow from his bow to kill an enemy running away.

 

[WalterKovacs]

But I would love to see a paladin/archer warlord hybrid that don't penalize your character to wearing hide armor so you can have bows. Would be cool to look at your paladin riding a horse then firing an arrow from his bow to kill an enemy running away.

Of course, that was never something that could have been done before they gave the cavalier it's new options. [Well, there was nothing stopping an archer warlord from buying a horse]. The idea of the bow wielding paladin isn't really something that they looked to be going for. I'm not even sure why they bothered to giving it to the cavalier, but at least it's possible to do a cavalier multiclassed into archer warlord now ... you'd lack the class feature that makes the bow use strength for ranged basic ... and you'd probably need two feats to get a warlord encounter power (assuming they eventually make a 'replace holy smite with encounter power' feat like they did for fighter's and rogue's, etc). Or if you go paladin/warlord hybrid you can just grab a greatbow as a single feat and miss out on RBA's, or take the archer warlord option and use Hybrid Talent to get scale and plate prof. True, it sucks you can't get the horse, but they probably wanted that to be an iconic cavalier thing (and likely will make the blackguard's servant into a non-leveled utility when they get around to it).

 

[darkdragoon]

Are there even that many Battle Clerics around after the nerf to Righteous Brand?

Not really.
I think, overall, that they realized that Strength paladins were a mistake as produced (while chr paladins had everything except a decent basic, str paladins were not only missing a class feature (or MADing to get it); they were also missing the "occasional ranged attack" that Chr paladins could manage); they eventually basically threw Str paladins a few bones to get them a decent (or great, for half-orc paladins) Divine Challenge and Ardent Strike, plus enough powers that you could actually make a Str paladin at all levels, then ignored them.

Divine Challenge was a self-created problem. The original version did higher damage with the CHA as a supplement. The early response was that it was too strong so the final version made CHA much more important.