Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 MaximumHavoc Jul 05, 2010 20:51:52	. . . and the other v-shaped classes, too. contrary to wisdom, i am going to hold my breath.
#2 williamhm75 Jul 05, 2010 20:53:37	I wish.  The paladin should be straight charisma same with warlock though some builds should use con as a secondary stat for warlock and strength secondary  for paladin.
#3 ppaladin123 Jul 05, 2010 23:58:33	I'm pretty sure you are getting your wish. It looks like they are introducing some radicallly different class mechanics in the Essentials line.
#4 undrave Jul 06, 2010 1:50:58	I can see them limiting the power choices in the Essential book to CHA/WIS builds to keep it simple for newbies but I doubt they would alter the Paladin so it would end up being incompatible with the original version. Same for any class.
#5 ppaladin123 Jul 06, 2010 3:11:36	I can see them limiting the power choices in the Essential book to CHA/WIS builds to keep it simple for newbies but I doubt they would alter the Paladin so it would end up being incompatible with the original version. Same for any class. You should read tonight's dragon article on the essentials line. They are introducing entirely new versions of each class with different mechanics (some classes won't even have daily powers). They'll act as sub-classes that you can choose at creation instead of the standard version (and its asociated builds).
#6 Caeric Jul 06, 2010 11:53:26	Wouldn't be hard for Wizards of the Coast to present only one side of the class with some new options for that side. My gut says that they'd present Strength/Wisdom rather than Charisma/Wisdom, though. Defenders are typically meant to be the strongarm of the team. Hopefully this means they'll adjust Divine Challenge and Divine Sanction to use Strength or Charisma interchangably (and that half-orc only feat can be left to rot; why give something so crucial to one race?). Warlocks would be even easier. All that need be done is just present the Star, Infernal, and Vestige pacts, showing only Constitution-based options. There are enough by now to make up some new ones and present it all neatly.
#7 MaximumHavoc Jul 06, 2010 14:21:52	assorted thoughts: i) a platemail wearing, heavy shield toting defender whose primary method of attack is laser zaps from a holy symbol seems odd to me (chaladin); ii) hellocks should have been cha only.  force of mind/personality has much more to do with the impact of devils than does force of body.  now, an abyss related pact would definitely be con based; iii) starlocks, fluffwise, could be based on either con or cha, but it would have been best to streamline them with only one secondary stat--con; iv) paladins should be str + cha/wis (A-shaped, of course) and be weapon users (perhaps, "implement: weapon with which you are proficient"); v) clerics should be wis + cha/con; vi) class dependency upon both a weapon and an implement should be removed from the game; vii) would someone please remind me why runepriests are so different from clerics, functionally? viii) every class should have at least two at-wills that can serve as basic attacks.
#8 Xeviat-DM Jul 06, 2010 14:53:26	I've always wanted to see Warlocks as Charisma primary, with different secondary stats for each Pact. I think it is pretty easy to see that the 4E team has left V classes by the wayside, since every other class made has been an A class. I only accept the Ranger as a V class since half of their powers are Str or Dex, leaving multiple options for each.
#9 undrave Jul 07, 2010 1:13:02	assorted thoughts: i) a platemail wearing, heavy shield toting defender whose primary method of attack is laser zaps from a holy symbol seems odd to me (chaladin); PRIMARY? Aren't you exagerating. I can count all the implement Paladin powers in PHB1 with my fingers. They don,t even have an Implement at-will. Avengers have more Implement powers than Paladins and no one say its their primary method of attack.
#10 toryn Jul 07, 2010 1:18:38	assorted thoughts: viii) every class should have at least two at-wills that can serve as basic attacks.  I agree with this whole-heartedly.
#11 MaximumHavoc Jul 07, 2010 6:57:03	assorted thoughts: i) a platemail wearing, heavy shield toting defender whose primary method of attack is laser zaps from a holy symbol seems odd to me (chaladin); PRIMARY? Aren't you exagerating. I can count all the implement Paladin powers in PHB1 with my fingers. They don,t even have an Implement at-will. Avengers have more Implement powers than Paladins and no one say its their primary method of attack. okay.  yes, i was exaggerating.  but unlike the avenger and swordmage, it always felt wrong with the paladin.  perhaps, if paladins could just get past the weapon/implement dual dependency by making proficient weapons their implements, then i'll stop thinking of a tank using a cross or an ankh as a zip gun.
#12 undrave Jul 08, 2010 1:53:15	assorted thoughts: i) a platemail wearing, heavy shield toting defender whose primary method of attack is laser zaps from a holy symbol seems odd to me (chaladin); PRIMARY? Aren't you exagerating. I can count all the implement Paladin powers in PHB1 with my fingers. They don,t even have an Implement at-will. Avengers have more Implement powers than Paladins and no one say its their primary method of attack. okay.  yes, i was exaggerating.  but unlike the avenger and swordmage, it always felt wrong with the paladin.  perhaps, if paladins could just get past the weapon/implement dual dependency by making proficient weapons their implements, then i'll stop thinking of a tank using a cross or an ankh as a zip gun. I admit I agree with you. I'd be more inclined to pick up a few cool Implement powers if there was more of them (like ones that pull enemies to you like that avenger at-will) if it wasn't a pain to maintain both a Holy Symbol and a Weapon.