Unhappy Pally - Righteous Rage + Vicious Weapon

[doggywoggy]

Thanks for the replies.

I was thinking, hybrid would make more sense to hybrid with Fighter and then take the Ranger Double weapon Feat, thus saving me the need to wait till level 11. In exchange I would drop channel divinity, which is very limited and I would never take a divinity feat anyway (given how poor they seem, other than RRot. If no one's taking channel divinity feats because they are too weak, how is that supporting the idea of destroying the only one anyone wants to take? It's like the argument "there are no atheists in foxholes", that's only an argument against being in a foxhole, not against atheism.)

With Twin Strike, can one attack be ranged and the other melee? maybe this has been answered elsewhere...how does the fighter's Dual Strike compare? Is it essentially the same thing? I'm at work now and so don't have access to the PHB on me.

The problem I had with Tempus was that I wasn't enjoying playing the character, looked through the feat list, asked my DM if I could take it or if not, re-roll my character, he said yes, then right before the game said no...the unfairness made me not want to play, given how everyone else in the party basically got exactly what they asked for / wanted. Banning the Tempus feat, if no other CD feats are worthwhile in divine Power, would make it much better to hybrid with fighter or ranger in that case. Probably Fighter for the better armor and take the ranger double weapon feat instead--even better.

As for Tempus, my first toon in 2nd ed when I was 12 was a Tempus paladin...so when I saw that I was like wow that opens up a whole new set of possibilities. IMO Gods should not be limited to one planet. If they are, they aren't very Godly, are they But if they don't exist in the universe at all...that's fine. There seems to be a lot more Pelor stuff in these modules anyway. An easy improvement would be to include your God's CD feat for free. Now that I've upped my Wis to 15 (16 at lvl 4) in the re-build, I actually think Pelor's radience ain't half bad. Too bad I need 4 feats to MC into Ranger. Ouch. I will miss Hurl Breath. I hit Kararel with it, hanging from the rope: a 20. Good timez

One thing I like about sticking to my plan now instead of Hybridization (or within a month), is that I can easily re-strategize what I want when DP comes out in terms of feats and whatnot. I.e. if there's a better option than Paragon MC to Ranger. Having a Dex 12 will always be useful, as there's no point in having a 25 AC and a 16 Reflex Achilles Heel.

Another point about how mfft I am about the rules of 4e and why there is no reasoning behind them:

A quick answer to your last question: no, all ranged weapons used with Twin Strike use Dex.

The longer answer is that everything is power-based in 4e. Remember that even Ranged Basic Attacks are an at-will power. Technically, the only reason you use Str for Ranged Basic Attacks with Heavy Thrown weapons is because of the special clause allowing that in the Ranged Basic Attack power.

If I ever get to 11th level, having sacrificed 4 feats to be able to Twin Strike, without gaining the benefit of Str to my damage rolls on either melee or heavy thrown weapons, I'm going to be seriously disappointed in 4e. There is no realism to this limitation, it's like being stuck in a Kafka-esque world where the legal system is designed to frustrate you and drive you insane. There are so many things screaming for House Rules, such as Sacred Circle. (there is no implement in the whole game that can be used to augment it even though it has that keyword..and a 30th level paladin still only makes a 1 AC circle...blech. It's like they hate Paladins or something over at WoTc). It takes a Standard too, completely out of whack with other Utility powers. Back to CD, what other class has feats that actively prevent the use other class powers? At least allow us to swap those powers out instead of wasting precious feats. E.g. if I have a utility power to allow saving throws, 1/encounter, why should I use Divine Mettle, ever? It just sits there on my character sheet, sucking and killing trees for nothing.

I did it once in the Keep when we were being surrounded by undead and the party didn't even stay in it. They basically shrugged, and I don't blame them. Also, Channel Divinity is way overloaded with competing uses that are 1/encounter. E.g. if I take a CD feat, it actually makes me WEAKER because I don't get too use Divine Strength any more. Wow, thanks a lot. I only ever got to use Divine Mettle once, although it worked, to help a rogue pass a Save without taking damage. Yay. Taking a CD feat had better be damn worth it, since it's competing with other arguably useful choices.

Again, it seems like this class is fighting against itself. Not only this class, but the entire rules.

Q) Does twin strike allow one ranged and one melee attack? If not, why am I spending 4 feats to get it? Why does a HandAx become automagically become a "Light Thrown" weapon, when used through this power? It already has a way lower range + damage than crossbows or bows. Why would there be an exception to the exception? It's WAY TOO CONFUSING and illogical to even bother worrying about it. All this talk is making me happy I'm playing my 2nd ed 12-lvl Evoker on saturday : now That's power. I can teleport any distance to the other side of the world, in the middle of combat, after dropping a volumetric fireball from above. I mean, who thought it would be a good idea to take all the non-munchkin damage abilities out of combat use (rituals)? And make them all take a massive amount of time to cast. Lame Lame Lame. One of the reasons I can't be bothered to play an arcane in 4e. It's just such a let down some times, 4e, the rules are all over the place, convoluted, requiring errata and endless debate. 2nd Ed is way simpler and yet more powerful too. 3.5 is actually my favorite. When a cleric means something, and wizards still bring the pain. I'm sorry, but if a 20th level rogue or Ranger can do more damage in a single round than a wizard nuke, something's wrong.

In 2nd ed I am a controller, nuker, utility guy (fly invis, breathe water, dig...it goes on and on). And btw, my character doesn't have a single magic item, and is STILL way more powerful/versatile than a 4e wizard. I'm a specialist too. I just don't like the illogic of stuff like this Ax is Heavy Thrown, except when using something that would logically take advantage of that fact, e.g. throwing it. It boggles the mind sometimes.

 

[cmbarona]

Please don't quote me as fuel for an edition war.

Goodbye and good gaming.

 

[Blackbrrd]

We have a paladin in my regular weekend party. He was str-based. When we got to level 5 he got a bit fed up about the situation and wanted to roll a Fighter instead.

I talked to the DM about it and we decided that it would be better if he re-rolled as a cha based Paladin instead. I helped the player create a cha based paladin, and the player was satisfied.

The str-based paladin has too few powers. Same as the cha-based Warlock.http://www.enworld.org/forum/members/doggywoggy.html

I really love 4th edition btw:
- Combat is more interesting
- It is easier to learn
- I am not afraid of accidentaly doing a TPK

The resilience of a 4th edition party is really fun as a DM, because when you want to ramp up the action you can go pretty nuts. Last night I piled on 1500xp worth of mobs (level 7 encounter) on a party of 5 level 3 characters that were missing a couple of dailies (it was their 5th encounter of the day). It was a blast. Maybe 5 rounds of intense action and the players went nova right from the start.

At the same time I can run a ordinary encounter and have some fun rolling the dice. Running five encounters in a row in 3.5 wouldn't have been something I would have thought of doing. They would have been out of healing a long time ago, or the fights would have been much to easy.

 

[Nail]

I'm sorry, but if a 20th level rogue or Ranger can do more damage in a single round than a wizard nuke, something's wrong.

Here's your core difficulty. Wizards are no longer the kings of damage.

...actually, that was true in 3.xe too. You need to return to 2e for the stuff you're wishing for.

 

[Obryn]

You seem to have a very strong concept of what you want this character to do... If your primary focus is, "I want to attack with two waraxes a lot," it sounds like you should just make a dual-wielding Ranger or a Fighter with Dual Strike. Why be a Paladin if the class doesn't work in the ways you want your character to work?

There's nothing stopping you from using the class writeup for Ranger, then re-skinning it to some kind of holy warrior of Tempus or Pelor. Get your DM to allow Religion instead of Nature/Dungeoneering, and you're set. If you want, you can easily multiclass over to Cleric or Paladin and pick up some of the perks, there, too. I think you'd find it a lot easier to make your character concept work in this way than with the paladin class you don't seem to care for very much.

With Twin Strike, there's no restrictions about whether both attacks are ranged or melee. I'd say mixing and matching is fine - but you're opening yourself up to an opportunity attack from the guy you just hit in melee. With Dual Strike (the Fighter at-will), both need to be melee on the same target.

As for Tempus, I'm kind of confused. I'm not sure if you're attracted to the overpowered Channel Divinity or to the flavor. If the flavor is to your style, just ignore the Channel Divinity feats and go with it.

What you're looking at, sadly, is arguably the most-poorly-made 4e class. Paladins really just can't catch a break; they can work with very specific builds, but for what you're trying to do, it's sadly not well supported right now.

If I ever get to 11th level, having sacrificed 4 feats to be able to Twin Strike, without gaining the benefit of Str to my damage rolls on either melee or heavy thrown weapons, I'm going to be seriously disappointed in 4e. There is no realism to this limitation, it's like being stuck in a Kafka-esque world where the legal system is designed to frustrate you and drive you insane.

There's nothing stopping anyone from using two weapons. Heck; there are two feats for it - one gives you a damage bonus, and the other a defense bonus. I've always thought the mindset of, "I have two weapons, therefore I attack twice" was flawed, all the way since 1e.... I'd rather look at your paired weapons as just a single weapon, but maybe that's just me.

Q) Does twin strike allow one ranged and one melee attack? If not, why am I spending 4 feats to get it?

Honestly, I don't know. I wouldn't, personally. I don't think it's worth paragon multiclassing a paladin in order to pick it up.

Why does a HandAx become automagically become a "Light Thrown" weapon, when used through this power? It already has a way lower range + damage than crossbows or bows. Why would there be an exception to the exception? It's WAY TOO CONFUSING and illogical to even bother worrying about it.

It's not that it's too complex - it's that it's too simple. The power pretty much spells it out. I don't think most DMs would have a problem house-ruling Twin Strike to let you use your Strength for Heavy Thrown weapons; I'm just giving you the official word at the moment.

-O

 

[doggywoggy]

I didn't mean to start any edition "war", (is it not allowed to mention other editions?). I didn't know people were so touchy. As for me, when and if I get fed up with the rules of 4e, I will simply play a different game. I really don't care, life's too short. I did, however, spend enough time looking at the 4e rules for good combinations and it seems like 4e is a strategy board game. Fun in its own right, but also sucky when you have to jump through contorted hoops to figure out why you can't apply your strength damage to something heavy you hurl. Fine, it takes Dex. If I need to throw and make it count, I'll just use a basic attack and an off hand attack with the other one as a minor action. Problem solved.

I have no problem with Rogues stabbing people to death better than all others over time, but if you're up against, say, a huge titan or something, what "realistically" do you think will hurt it more, a dagger or a massive fireball? If you say the former, well, we have different opinions and leave it at that. Maybe I am spoiled in 2nd ed. However, once your spells are gone you are basically canon fodder--even then, once your stoneskins are gone and out of fly / invis / tp you are also a goner. Enemies tend to hit way more crits against you than you do them, averaged over the lifespan vs PCs. I spent most of 2-3 years avoiding combat in any way I could. The last thing I killed in melee was when the rest of the party was all down, at lvl 1, with a call shot dagger to the eye of a small dragon : natural 20. These are the moments which to me are magical, and probably a reason I will never quit playing Dnd my whole life. The balance of earlier ed wizards was that it was much less likely than, say, a fighter, of surviving up to high levels, given how pathetically weak you are. I also don't like the fact that I couldn't melt a lock with my dragon breath (acid) weapon, or if I picked fire that I couldn't even light up a torch. That's a 0th level cantrip in 2nd ed, for F's sake. It seems in 4e all it is is combat-related, otherwise it's a huge production to set up rituals. What proportion of people in 4e spend a feat in ritual casting if they don't already get it for free? I looked through them...not too blown away, frankly. It's like an after thought. And what's up with no rituals in combat? There are many more things I'm disappointed in but others that I really do like. For a combat-oriented game it's pretty strategic and fun...if a bit too long. Maybe if Wotc managed to find a way to monetize people spending inordinate amounts of time in combat (oh wait, they did) they could give us stuff that would actually shorten them. I can't imagine spending more than a few hours in a single encounter. Usually in 2e we have 6-10 encounters PER session. (6 hours). In 4e, at 3rd lvl, we managed to have 1-2 / encounter. Maybe it's just cuz we were learning the system. Anyway, it IS fun, but sometimes...man. I gotta ask myself if all this is worth it.

Hanging with my friends makes it so....but honestly I wish we were playing 3.5 full time. I also feel somewhat "detached" from anything but the mechanics of the game system. Modules emphasize that feeling of "temporariness" for me, that can only be replaced by a feeling for my character that goes beyond items and feat and which frankly I haven't had yet. For instance, not to focus only on the DM, but the other players seem to be more focused on "hey it's been three weeks since we had a battle" -- duh, we're in town, resting and planning. Actually, since 4e makes it such a huge ordeal to have a battle compared with 2e (tiles, minis, etc...which I actually love and own tons of), I find that we could probably had a couple skirmishes in town. My 2nd ed group is sometimes so brash (paladins that act more like how they did in the 1st Crusade..out for money, blood, and glory-- in that order) that it's rare for us to even meet one group of new NPCs that we don't end up with some type of altercation (even allies). And these proceed, but quickly. We might get sidetracked, but we get there. I guess what I'm saying is that RP has taken a back seat to character optimization. That's the way the rules seem to push it. I rarely see anyone at the other game table worrying about what + they have to hit with what power, or why --not to beat on a dead horse--you can't get a str bonus for an attack that clearly uses it. The meta-game seems to be "the game".

I hope it doesn't have to be that way, but if we spend another hour or so mid-battle arguing about some rule or other, I will seriously say screw this. It happened so many times that it's like, whoah, what happened to simplicity? Instead of simplicity, we get complexity that doesn't even reward us with more realism. It's very micro-manage-y, I find. I really like the story aspect better, but honestly modules make it seem sometimes like the adventure is on rails, like someone has already boldly gone. I couldn't believe the first time we got ambushed by those goblins how long the combat took. It was cool, but not sure if it's worth it. And if I'm going to play a complex game, you can be darned sure I intend to play it the most strategically I can, looking at every possibility for character options I like flavour-wise, as well as game-mechanics wise.

E.g. I'm just not that into MordenKrad or Fullblade or Bastard sword. I'm an ax man for better or for worse.

 

[doggywoggy]

back to the main issue : build

To get back on-topic

Here are my lvl 4 stats:

Str 20 (+1 at 4th)
Con 11
Dex 12
Int 8 (or, if my DM prefers, Cha 10)
Wis 16 (+1 at 4th)
Char 12 (or 10, if my DM allows)

(at 8th it will be Con and Dex)

I'm going for an ALL -str power based character. That's partially why I'm going to start taking the MC feats at lvl 8 (Double Bladed Warrior). If liking damage is Wrong, I don't want to be Right. Amen.

Samusek graciously helped me go through the powers that I had initially selected and we picked up Valiant Strike and Piercing Smite instead of Enfeebling (which I never used, once), and Radiant for the Encounters. As for feats I'm keeping Hurl Breath until I need that slot to retrain it to Adept at level 11 so I can PMC ranger (if I end up that high and/or am still alive and /or still want to if there's something I like better in Divine P.)

As for having Wings at 11 instead of Paragon multi-class, my logic is this : not being able to really "Fly" is rather dull, especially since you can't actually DO anything while in flight. It's way, way too limited for me. I mean, not to be a punk mentioning 2nd ed again, but I had more mobility with Alter Self at 1st level. I could breathe water or grow wings. Let along Fly spell at lvl 5. From there it's rare that I cast anything in combat without being invis + in the air. And still the DM manages to bring me down. It just means the enemies have to have some cunning and experience dealing with flying menaces Just another thing that, at first, seemed way awesome to me, but at length I realized that it was mostly just a video-gamey concoction that only dreams in 2d on a board game surface. You can't even swoop down and crush people. I mean, crushing people under my dragon heels is that I've always wanted to do (probably because it's usually US on the receiving end of that). You can't even dragonbreath in mid-air. Is this supposed to be "balanced"? Can you "glide" from one platform to another, at some distance below? How about fly upwards to a ledge, is it 3 squares up maximum or is that not allowed either? They don't mention these things I suspect because they want things simple on a board square where all the min-maxy powers where designed for. My wizard would cast shrink on boulders, fly them up high over a castle wall, and drop them exactly when they poofed back to full size, causing massive damage. Can you do that sort of thing, or not? Or is there nothing in heaven and earth than art dreamt of in the power card? Being creative like that has earned me over a million points of XP with that character. When I thought of lasso-ing Kalarel to pull him away from the portal, how much did I get? Exactly what the module said...hmmm. That's wrong. That doesn't reward players for thinking outside the box, and one of the reasons I wanted to quit. If we're playing a real life video game, I'd rather just play an *actual video game.

Old man remembers : the days when Invisibility lasted 24 hours. When Fly was actually awesome. When wizards were feared. When Paladins were considered dangerous in hand-to-hand combat, and not a threat to be ignored without magical incentives. If I were a cunning mob, and someone marked me, I would think "he's doing this because killing the other guy instead is a better plan, so that's exactly what I'll do". It reminds me of MMORPGs with enemies that would keep switching from one ranger to another as they balanced their damage, keeping it in the middle at a decent distance. A smart creature will just go and kill one of you, to heck with the guy in the back. It seems a lot of these powers in 4e assume all creatures to be dumb. At least the Paladin ones. It's a fun mechanic from a purely "strategy" POV, but I fail to see the realism or how it's any different from a video game.

 

[keterys]

I'd quite honestly suggest rebuilding as a Tempest Fighter - you could even multiclass paladin to retain that flavor, if you wanted. The marks effectively stack (not the penalty, but you get an attack _and_ do the automatic damage) so it's really not all _that_ bad.

 

[Obryn]

I get that you don't dig 4e. That's cool, not everyone does.

But do you want help to try and improve your enjoyment of the 4e game you're playing, or do you want to talk about the ways in which you like other games better?

I mean, we can help with the former. If you'd rather be playing something else, though, we can't help with that... I like 1e, 2e, and 3e also - but you're asking about a 4e character in a 4e rules forum, and taking digs at the system.

My honest advice is, whatever RPG you're playing, be it D&D, Shadowrun, WFRP, GURPS, etc., dive in and experience it. Give it a fair shake and go with the flow rather than fighting against it. If it turns out you're still not enjoying yourself, then it's time to decide if gaming with your game group is worth playing in a system you don't like. If it is, then we can help make your character more to your liking. If it's not, and you think the fact you're not having fun is taking away from everyone else's fun, it might be time to move on.

For this character, you're really fighting against the system. Tell us what you'd like your character to do, and we'll try to help you with the mechanics end of things. Hopefully, you'll end up having a better time than you are now.

-O

 

[invokethehojo]

Insulting people? Not okay. Post removed by Admin