Is it just the fact that it doesn't wear armour? Why do you all hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors so much?
Is it just the fact that it doesn't wear armour? Why do you all hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors so much?
Just because one concept (non-armoured warrior) appeals to you, doesn't mean you hate another (armoured warrior), it's just nice to be able to realize different concepts/themes.
That and it's all dark and emo and whatnot, so it's instantly so cool!
What is it that appeals to everyone about the new Avenger class?
Is it just the fact that it doesn't wear armour? Why do you all hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors so much?
Thanks for the false dichotomy.
I suspect people were pleasantly surprised that it is something that mechanically and visually is distinct from all other classes, rather than simply a high-damaging paladin. Usually in the past, WotC has equated "two-handed weapon" with "hulking monstrous warrior."
I'm also led to understand that people like their class features and powers. :lightbulb
Mechanically, its quite interesting, throwing in a mix of close-range implement powers, weapon powers, teleport powers, with the two-roll mechanic. In terms of math, the dual-roll works quite well, and I have a feeling we'll see lots of powers with the capability to either chase after the Oath of Enmity target, or manipulate them as we wish. Pretty much all the powers we've seen already do that. People love that idea, of choosing one enemy, and taking them down.
Plus, in terms of battlefield control, the Avenger forces the DM to make hard choices. Depending on the censure feature, the DM has to choose to flank you and hit you, or leave you alone to go it one-on-one with the creature.
But if you don't like it, all the power to you. We need people to play not-avengers ;)
I think it's because people were, overall, disappointed with the fluff of the Invoker whereas the Avenger has a clear role to distinguish it from the other Divine classes.
Half right, I never really cared for the invoker anyways, wasn't no fluff reason though, then again I never got a clear chance to look at it.
That and it's all dark and emo and whatnot, so it's instantly so cool!
EPIC FAIL.... partly. If you're a avenger of the raven queen then SURE you'll probably be dark and emo.
Avenger of pelor or bahamut? I don't see you being dark or emo at all. Though that depends on your definition of "emo" but most people use it to describe unhappy, depressed sort of folk that are all dreary and such. In which case, no they wouldn't be emo.
If you use emo as the short for emotional then I could see it as I am sure being the weapon of their god they are very passionate in what they do o_o so I can imagine they are probably pretty emotional in what they do.
Why do you all hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors so much?
I take it you're more a fan of the new Straw Man class? Great for tanking, but has a really lousy save against Flames...
EPIC FAIL.... partly. If you're a avenger of the raven queen then SURE you'll probably be dark and emo.
Avenger of pelor or bahamut? I don't see you being dark or emo at all. Though that depends on your definition of "emo" but most people use it to describe unhappy, depressed sort of folk that are all dreary and such. In which case, no they wouldn't be emo.
Oh, I can see them being very emo. With all the good and happy followers of Pelor around and them being the only ones having to perform all the horrible deeds that makes them go unaligned rather than good.
And I'm certain that some might even be dark on the outside but atypically well-adjusted underneath, perhaps even going so far as to learn the Insight skill and take care with the matter of whom they judge (and then executing their judgment with brutal efficiency), as opposed to being a straight-up loose-cannon fanatic.
Hell, some might even be surprisingly pleasant when they're not "in the zone," relegating their career as a horrifically talented killer to one particular part of their life, one particular mindset, and doing their best to "switch gears" or "turn it off" during the precious little time they get to spend off the job.
As far as why on Earth someone would like this class when they could play an armoured warrior instead, it's that some people like the options. Yes, I know you're big on armour, WhiteHarness. Lots of people think armour is cool. Hell, I think the knight in shining armour archetype is cool. However, the armoured warrior is not always what people want to play (including people who often like to play armoured warriors); we like having the option of playing the more lightly armoured or unarmoured duellist, as well.
I, personally, like what I'm seeing about it because it appears to be a lightly armoured/unarmoured, low-Strength character that's still a tough and effective one-on-one duellist who's capable of pulling their enemies into, well, one-on-one confrontations, and quite possibly being able to contribute to both the group's offense and defense by, say, biting off a dangerous brute or soldier and then chewing it with their above-average HP and AC (they have rather good AC in leather, at least) as well as their prodigious accuracy. Fluff is malleable, and in the case of the avenger, less interesting to me than the mechanics.
While I have yet to see any of their powers, Im certain that most of them could even be re-fluffed as martial powers, or at the very least - as Ki powers if the player felt it appropriate for their character.
I'm starting to think the wrod 'emo' should be a flogging offense. Preferably delivered by an Avenger.
I concur. Another reason I love Avengers though is they explain themselves as being adventurers. As a fighter you gotta think, why did I become a fighter? Why did I leave? Why don't I just retire? As an avenger all those questions are answered by a simple statement, "I love [deity name here] and everyone who doesn't can burn in hell! And I'll make it happen!" The Avenger is an identifiable archetype that's easy to explain on the surface, but can have much deeper story underneath.
Not to mention walking down a crowded city street with your hood up holding a huge axe in one hand is BAD ASS AS HELL!
Elven accuracy and Daggermaster’s Action helped things sink, like Righteous rage of Tempus. It just felt good to not let encounter attacks with cool hit effects not go to waste.
I also liked giving flavor to him: Tempus gave him quantum attacks (roll 2d20) and because you couldn't tell which one was the real one he was harder to hit (armor of faith). The lightly armored gives him real flavor while maintaining Front line AC. The martial weapon prof gives me options for weapon choice, whereas the cleric has poorer choice.
There's been quite a bit of talk about the darker side of the avenger, but I like to bear the lighter side in mind, that there are quite likely to be avengers who kill for things perfectly worth killing for--and accept that while paladins get to be the heroic, celebrated shield, and clerics get to be the voice of their deity (or cause) and beloved community leaders, their own fate is to be the sword, working in shadow and praying for forgiveness for some of the things they have to do to protect what they believe in. This can lead to undue darkness and brooding--or it can lead to someone who accepts that they don't get to be all sunshine and roses like everyone else without being unrelenting gloom muffins about it. It's all about their motivations, how they deal with their problems (aside from "just kill it," which doesn't work as well for inner demons as it does for regular demons), and to what extremes they take their philosophy of being willing to kill for their beliefs (as in, are they careful judges or bloodthirsty fanatics).
Also, I get the impression that learning the Perception skill and divination rituals could go a long way towards playing a more temperate, well-intentioned avenger. Spend a good feat or two and bamf! your avenger's mind and belief system have just been expanded for the better.
What is it that appeals to everyone about the new Avenger class?
Is it just the fact that it doesn't wear armour? Why do you all hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors so much?
Hate?
I think because of the Avenging Paladin some people think it would be redundant for the Avenger to use heavy armour, and there are some people who want to have a light-armoured slayer type character.
What is it that appeals to everyone about the new Avenger class?
Is it just the fact that it doesn't wear armour? Why do you all hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors so much?
1) Armor is no longer cool, unless it looks so insane that wearing it - much less walking in it - should automatically puncture your body and shear off limbs in several places at once.
2) They are most certainly emo. You can combine them with Tiefling and have an Emo-plosion.
3) They look like assassins. This doesn't even require an explanation.
;)
They are most certainly emo. You can combine them with Tiefling and have an Emo-plosion.
Tieflings have become passé; it’s now Shadar-Kai Avenger for an Emo Spooge-Fest.
They look like assassins.
Maybe they should have called the class Hassassin?
The Operative: I'm sorry. If your quarry goes to ground, leave no ground to go to. You should have taken my offer. Or did you think none of this was your fault?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: I don't murder children.
The Operative: I do. If I have to.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: Why? Do you even know why they sent you?
The Operative: It's not my place to ask. I believe in something greater than myself. A better world. A world without sin.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds: So me and mine gotta lay down and die... so you can live in your better world?
The Operative: I'm not going to live there. There's no place for me there... any more than there is for you. Malcolm... I'm a monster.What I do is evil. I have no illusions about it, but it must be done.
Except the Avenger doesn't consider what he does as evil.
Bel
I'm starting to think the wrod 'emo' should be a flogging offense. Preferably delivered by an Avenger.
The Emo Avenger! Destroying his foes with vast waves of angst.
OT: I can finally play Buffy the Vampire Avenger!
What is it that appeals to everyone about the new Avenger class?
Is it just the fact that it doesn't wear armour? Why do you all hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors so much?
He is basicly a striker version of a swordmage... seems very fun
Personally, I see the exact opposite possibility for a RQ Avenger- life is to be preserved, cherished, enjoyed. Like the most beautiful of bonsai trees, it requires careful management, cultivated to true magnificence...and a whole lot of pruning. Anything that threatens the harmony, the grace of this life with the blight of suffering or undeath requires immediate shearing.
So yes, they practice cutting. But not the emo kind. :D
Handled properly, a character with a dark side (or, more generally, a "not sunshine and roses" side) need not be sucked into some irredeemable black hole of CRAWWWLING IIIN MY ROOOBES, THESE WOOOUNDS REQUIIIRE ELIXIRRR.
Everyone is whining about "emo this" and "emo that," and I can certainly see how you could make an emo shadar-kai or tiefling or whatever else avenger, but they are hardly limited to "emo." They (well, at least tieflings and avengers) could easily be played more like Tidus from FFX: they have problems, they have internal conflicts, but that doesn't mean they don't deal with them or accept what they can't change rather than sit in the dark and brood and listen to bad music.
Handled properly, a character with a dark side (or, more generally, a "not sunshine and roses" side) need not be sucked into some irredeemable black hole of CRAWWWLING IIIN MY ROOOBES, THESE WOOOUNDS REQUIIIRE ELIXIRRR.
You make a good point. Except for the fact you make reference to the biggest crybaby male lead in any Final Fantasy game! Its like I said in another thread, the most famous model for an avenger is Batman. He doesn't brood, he kicks donkey. He doesn't sit in the dark and listen to bad music, he goes out and kicks donkey.
And there are quite a few variations on this theme, "I will achieve vengeance for _______ and I will slaughter thousands to do it! Huzzah!"
You make a good point. Except for the fact you make reference to the biggest crybaby male lead in any Final Fantasy game! Its like I said in another thread, the most famous model for an avenger is Batman. He doesn't brood, he kicks donkey. He doesn't sit in the dark and listen to bad music, he goes out and kicks donkey.
And there are quite a few variations on this theme, "I will achieve vengeance for _______ and I will slaughter thousands to do it! Huzzah!"
Tidus actually seemed pretty upbeat to me, outside of those points in the story where he had to confront his issues (and it's not necessarily his fault that he kept running into such unpleasantness). Perhaps it was just a matter of me comparing him to types like Cloud and Squall.
They remind me of the Operative from Serenity;
Except the Avenger doesn't consider what he does as evil.
Bel
Unless he does. Some might, some might not.
Actually, the Operative (along with historical Assassins) along with Van Helsing, and the Fraternity from the movie Wanted (never read the comics), were amongst the first things I thought of when they announced the Avenger.
Everyone is whining about "emo this" and "emo that," and I can certainly see how you could make an emo shadar-kai or tiefling or whatever else avenger, but they are hardly limited to "emo." They (well, at least tieflings and avengers) could easily be played more like Tidus from FFX: they have problems, they have internal conflicts, but that doesn't mean they don't deal with them or accept what they can't change rather than sit in the dark and brood and listen to bad music.
Handled properly, a character with a dark side (or, more generally, a "not sunshine and roses" side) need not be sucked into some irredeemable black hole of CRAWWWLING IIIN MY ROOOBES, THESE WOOOUNDS REQUIIIRE ELIXIRRR.
Have you read the Playing Shadar-Kai article yet? They're far from emo, and don't have the tragic past or internal struggles of Tieflings or Drow. :P
Play a shadar-kai if you want . . .
✦ to use your shadow origins to enhance your abilities with dark powers.
✦ to be part of a culture that values great deeds and great power.
✦ to be a member of a race that favors the avenger bard, fighter, invoker, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, warlord and wizard classes.
.........
Shadar-kai Characteristics: Ambitious, blood-thirsty, detached, excessive, grim, intrepid, rash, ruthless, sinister, thrill-seeking, unconventional, violent, zealous
Have you read the Playing Shadar-Kai article yet? They're far from emo, and don't have the tragic past or internal struggles of Tieflings or Drow. :P
I'll admit I kinda-sorta skipped to the crunch.
Everyone is whining about "emo this" and "emo that," and I can certainly see how you could make an emo shadar-kai or tiefling or whatever else avenger, but they are hardly limited to "emo." They (well, at least tieflings and avengers) could easily be played more like Tidus from FFX: they have problems, they have internal conflicts, but that doesn't mean they don't deal with them or accept what they can't change rather than sit in the dark and brood and listen to bad music.
Handled properly, a character with a dark side (or, more generally, a "not sunshine and roses" side) need not be sucked into some irredeemable black hole of CRAWWWLING IIIN MY ROOOBES, THESE WOOOUNDS REQUIIIRE ELIXIRRR.
In all honesty, its all because of the over-backlash against some stupid kids in highschool. Now anything remotely or stylistically resembling being an anti-hero or being "dark" is to be mocked and purged.
I agree with Vaalingrade Ashland. The any person who says "emo" as if it somehow wins an argument or is in any manner insightful, concise, or witty, is getting pistol whipped.
The Avenger in this case has a very nice class feature (roll 2d20 for attack roll). This overcomes the problem of not hitting frequently. The DM has a way to combat it (send mooks to mug you while you're wailing away on your oath). It's refreshing to have a balanced advantage that gets rid of the disappointment of wasting your encounter/daily.
You can pick up a Spiked chain and throw Holy Water: Instant Belmont.
So how does the class fit for the concept of a Peter Cushing or Belmont family style holy badass?
Pretty damn close, actually.
I agree with Vaalingrade Ashland. The any person who says "emo" as if it somehow wins an argument or is in any manner insightful, concise, or witty, is getting pistol whipped.
Am I the only one who thought of "Super Troopers"?
And, yeah, it should be.
ONe of my characters has a portion of his backstory (explaining his Warlock X-Class) unfinished. It was supposed to be a Noodle Incident.
When the topic came up, my character says: "It's a long story. I'll tell it later, on the road."
Somehow, that was Emo.
Yeah, some of my friends suck.
"Life is short, enjoy it." -Raven's Harbinger
Personally, I see the exact opposite possibility for a RQ Avenger- life is to be preserved, cherished, enjoyed. Like the most beautiful of bonsai trees, it requires careful management, cultivated to true magnificence...and a whole lot of pruning. Anything that threatens the harmony, the grace of this life with the blight of suffering or undeath requires immediate shearing.
So yes, they practice cutting. But not the emo kind. :D
You sir have won the internet. Again.
That's what three times I've said that to you since I've come here? :D
Have a
for your dragon's horde.Some of us like the idea of a lightly armored slayer skirmisher type of character. It fits in very nicely with the other divine classes, in that it actually fulfills it's own niche it's rather refreshing to see a class like this.
Also it's reroll feature is nice, it's got teleportation madness. And is probably the first class we have seen that makes Cloth wearing bad ass.
You sir have won the internet. Again.
That's what three times I've said that to you since I've come here? :D
Have a
Some of us like the idea of a lightly armored slayer skirmisher type of character. It fits in very nicely with the other divine classes, in that it actually fulfills it's own niche it's rather refreshing to see a class like this.
Also it's reroll feature is nice, it's got teleportation madness. And is probably the first class we have seen that makes Cloth wearing bad ass.
Now, all I want is a Plate-wearing Striker. We have plenty of lightly armored strikers, but I can't think of one where wearing Plate is a good idea.
Maybe the Psychic Warrior...
Now, all I want is a Plate-wearing Striker. We have plenty of lightly armored strikers, but I can't think of one where wearing Plate is a good idea.
Maybe the Psychic Warrior...
Platelock anyone? :P
Platelock anyone? :P
Lol... A friend is thinking of doing that. I'm not sold on spending 4 feats on armor proficency.
Let me rephrase that, just to clarify:
A Naturally Plate wearing Striker.
In addition to the above, I think part of the reason is because this makes the avenger look freaking awesome.
OMG! I Must play this class!
Pretty damn close, actually.
Sweet! I might end up torn between Avenger or Shaman then for my first PHB 2 character.
Sweet! I might end up torn between Avenger or Shaman then for my first PHB 2 character.
Multiclass!
Maybe the Psychic Warrior...
I doubt they will port that class name over from 3rd ED, as 4th Ed classes are all one word titles, and doesn't it seem a tad generic?
Lol... A friend is thinking of doing that. I'm not sold on spending 4 feats on armor proficency.
Let me rephrase that, just to clarify:
A Naturally Plate wearing Striker.
bbut most feats suck now? *L*
I'd set it up though so that you aren't getting plate till Paragon so you still have some feats to work with.
bbut most feats suck now? *L*
I'd set it up though so that you aren't getting plate till Paragon so you still have some feats to work with.
It's still 4 feats, some with stat requirements that may not fit my build, and three of which are ultimately usless to me. (They aren't all CON based, right? AFB.)
If the armor wasn't a feat chain, it'd be different. So far, we only have ONE class with Plate Proficiency out of the gate. Are we getting any more in PHB2? (Honestly don't know.)
So far, we only have ONE class with Plate Proficiency out of the gate. Are we getting any more in PHB2? (Honestly don't know.)
Nope.
I know that there are better back stories (and less cliche ones) but his is pretty good. TBH i couldn't care less that he is divine. He takes one foe at a time and tears him to pieces.
TFL
Id hate to see how depressed the Paladin gets once he realizes what the developer's did to his precious Alignment while he was on a much deserved vacation.....
Or what happens when he realizes that the Developer's forgot to feed his mount.
I guess the developer's were feeling sorry for what they did to him, and decided that stealing the armor off the backs of every other class was a way of making up for it......
Paladin: "Sob.... What did I ever do to them that they would kill off old charlie, and put me out of the job?".
Fighter: "There, there.... If its an' consolation, those bloody dev's swiped me arm'r n give me sup'r powers".
Paladin: "Is that supposed to make me feel better?"
lol, if I didnt know any better - I would say that the Developer's are a loosely organized group of very powerful Primordials; so powerful that they can exert their world-shaping powers despite being chained and bound by the all-powerful Legal Gods.
Wow, what a correlation:
Dev's = Primordials
Wizards Legal = Gods
It's still 4 feats, some with stat requirements that may not fit my build, and three of which are ultimately usless to me. (They aren't all CON based, right? AFB.)
If the armor wasn't a feat chain, it'd be different. So far, we only have ONE class with Plate Proficiency out of the gate. Are we getting any more in PHB2? (Honestly don't know.)
That's why you Con Lock you could also be a Con Wizard :P
It's a chain because they didn't want everyone and their kid brother to be running around in plate anymore. Now the only people that do it are the ones that -really- want to do it for the look, not because it's the mechanical best choice ever!!11
I hope there is some sort of cloth and leather armor specialization feats o_o that would be quite rad.
Or that, yeah.
Because there's very little keeping my characters in leather.
Even my Wizard will probably go for Hide at some point.
(His Con's 13.)
I am honestly more thrilled about seeing the bard and druid back, the barbarian and shaman are good to see too. I for one would rather see the older stuff changed over before they start throwing new stuff at us. Not to say "screw the avenger give me the psion" I don't want to say that at all, but honestly what makes the avenger any different than a barbarian who has the decency to keep his shirt on? Sure they are mechanically different in some ways but beyond that they both use two handed weapons, they both hit things really hard (like all strikers) they both tap into supernatural forces. I see them as very simular from an idea standpoint though not a cultural one admittedly. And if you want to get into the social ideaology then you start talking about how the barbarian has changed (lack of illiteracy and things like that) and how the Avenger looks like an unarmored paladin from almost every facet.
Avenger seems more like a Rogue/Cleric than a Paladin with no Armor.
Just to note, hide armour also requires Str 13, unless that received errata. Which I will admit would excite me.
Oh.
Crud then.
He may be a Genasi, but I dumped STR on him.
Darn AFB posting.
Where'd the OP run off to, anyway?
Still here; still reading.
There really isn't anything else I have to say. I wasn't looking for a fight or anything. I suspect that any indignation that came across in my initial post was just a manifestation of my frustration over the lack of heavy armour options in 4th edition so far.
I mean, we've got how many classes that use light armour? And only a couple of classes that use armour heavier than chainmail. And we still have light armour classes sometimes having higher ACs than the heavy armour types!
All I want is to see some heavy armour love from the developers. In particular, I'd like to see some options for increasing AC in heavy armour at the Heroic tier...
I mean, the flavor is cool, but it mostly just reminds me of a monk, but with a sword. An Avenger of Bahamut seems similar to a samurai (a good aligned samurai anyway...) in my mind. I suppose for a more western reference you could use Van Helsing as an example of an Avenger as well; that would actually probably be a good model to base an Avenger of either the Raven Queen or Pelor on.
The class is a good concept, but it really doesn't have anything which makes me go 'OMG' and forget my desire to play other classes. That's why there are different classes though, and I'm sure there are plenty of things (bard, half-elf, inspiring warlord, sorcerer) which I have a very strong fondness for which other people don't like.
For the later, you pick up a whip or flail and use Alchemical weapons as well.
You can pick up a Spiked chain and throw Holy Water: Instant Belmont.
If it weren't for the incredibly stupid fact that the weapon mastery multiclass feats were restricted to martial characters, you could even take whip mastery or spiked chain mastery. You can always houserule it, but that doesn't help people in Living games. *le sigh*
Still here; still reading.
There really isn't anything else I have to say. I wasn't looking for a fight or anything. I suspect that any indignation that came across in my initial post was just a manifestation of my frustration over the lack of heavy armour options in 4th edition so far.
I mean, we've got how many classes that use light armour? And only a couple of classes that use armour heavier than chainmail. And we still have light armour classes sometimes having higher ACs than the heavy armour types!
All I want is to see some heavy armour love from the developers. In particular, I'd like to see some options for increasing AC in heavy armour at the Heroic tier...
I tend to agree somewhat. This also became a problem in 3E; eventually there were so many good light armor options that wearing heavy armor was obsolete. I hope 4E doesn't do the same thing.
Still here; still reading.
There really isn't anything else I have to say. I wasn't looking for a fight or anything. I suspect that any indignation that came across in my initial post was just a manifestation of my frustration over the lack of heavy armour options in 4th edition so far.
I mean, we've got how many classes that use light armour? And only a couple of classes that use armour heavier than chainmail. And we still have light armour classes sometimes having higher ACs than the heavy armour types!
All I want is to see some heavy armour love from the developers. In particular, I'd like to see some options for increasing AC in heavy armour at the Heroic tier...
Now, one thing I can definitely understand is that at least another class or two would make sense with default plate proficiency (such as the fighter), and that the prerequisites for getting plate armour (Str 15, Con 15) can be a pain especially on top of already spending a feat or two to get it.
That said, there are a number of classes for which it's a viable--even good--option, though in many cases there's difficulty getting the stat prereqs together by heroic tier (though in many cases it's a good upgrade at a later tier, much as waiting sucks), and in some cases a high feat cost involved. The fighter is the easiest, but plate often eventually becomes a good option (or sometimes starts as one, for some races) for valour bards, battle clerics, warlords, Con-secondary invokers, star-pact warlocks, and beastmaster and two-weapon rangers not balancing Str and Dex. The primal classes could do it and gain AC from it, though they'd lose speed and the relative feats spent-to-AC gained ratio would probably be poorer unless you started with an AC-giving stat below 16, and it doesn't fit their nature-based idiom as well as hide. And certainly, if I were DMing, I'd let you SFX scale as light and highly articulated plate where the D&D "plate" seems to be less articulated and more mass-produced than custom-fitted.
And yes, some lightly armoured classes can get AC better than plate, but it tends to require hoop-jumping (picking certain paragon paths, going Demigod for an epic destiny, budgeting your ability score points to qualify for hide where Strength might be better used as a dump stat, using specific magic items, or so on and so forth). The avenger is the one against whom the complaint seems to be most justified, considering that their (nice) AC bonus apparently stacks with light armour proficiencies and lets you wield a two-handed weapon and all that, and that's more understandable.
It's only a matter of spending one, two, even three feats to get it (yes, 4 it's a bit too much, but I think 3 might still be worth it).
It's more than probable that with the Shadow power source we'll see some kind of hexblade / dark warrior coming out, that will most probably wear scale or plate. But however, the mere fact that Plate gets the best enchantments (more or less), and such a high AC bonus, makes it simply the BEST option for AC. No matter what you do, a light armor type can't match the AC of an Agile Plate guy with the right Dex-aid.
To speak about the Avenger, it's not at all the "light armor", but the "LIGHTEST of armors" thing that impresses... And the retribution build that makes damage to your enemy out of being hit. We're seeing a never before thought armor concept (because it's not unarmored like a monk and it's not leather like rogue, but cloth like a mage AND melee at the same time), coupled with two-handed weapons and either a fetish on being hit or on pursuing a fleeing enemy.
It's simply the most original thing WotC came up with since 4e.
I mean, we've got how many classes that use light armour? And only a couple of classes that use armour heavier than chainmail. And we still have light armour classes sometimes having higher ACs than the heavy armour types!
All I want is to see some heavy armour love from the developers. In particular, I'd like to see some options for increasing AC in heavy armour at the Heroic tier...
My first post was just a joke, but I agree with you here completely.
You'd think with such a massive revision you wouldn't have lightly armored classes with higher ACs than Heavy Armor.
I've never agreed with INT or DEX giving unlimited bonuses to AC.
Light armor classes capable of achieving equal or better AC than Heavy Armor wearers is one of the very few things in 4E that I outright dislike.
My first post was just a joke, but I agree with you here completely.
You'd think with such a massive revision you wouldn't have lightly armored classes with higher ACs than Heavy Armor.
I've never agreed with INT or DEX giving unlimited bonuses to AC.
Light armor classes capable of achieving equal or better AC than Heavy Armor wearers is one of the very few things in 4E that I outright dislike.
So... what? Monks, Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues, Swordmages, Wizards, Warlocks, and now Avengers should either wear heavy armor or be prepared to suck in melee?* Because that's fair and fun, especially for the light-armored Swordmage, who's a Defender. Honestly, light armor isn't really better than heavy armor most of the time, unless you're building for AC. 4e did a good job of balancing heavy armor and light armor + DEX/INT.
I believe that ALL options for a role should be balanced, so that a defender in light armor doesn't just outright suck compared to the Paladin or Fighter. Honestly, it would be kind of boring if all Controllers had cloth armor and crappy AC, all Strikers had leather and had medium-low AC, all Leaders had Hide/Chain and medium-high AC, and all Defenders had Heavy Armor and high AC.
Or, even worse, if Heavy armor was the only viable option, a lot of characters who shouldn't be in Heavy armor (Ranger, Rogue) would immediately pick up heavy armor, at least up to Chain and probably to Scale or Plate, simply because they need a good AC since they're in melee.
Show
*Yes, this is an exaggeration, but really, is there a particular reason that Heavy Armor classes need to have more AC than Light Armor classes, even if the Heavy Armor class is, say, a Striker or Controller, and the Light Armor class is a Defender?
So... what? Monks, Barbarians, Rangers, Rogues, Swordmages, Wizards, Warlocks, and now Avengers should either wear heavy armor or be prepared to suck in melee?
None of those are defenders, why should anyone them be capable of equal to or greater AC than a Defender when wearing leather?
Why does being Intelligent help you deflect blows?
Why should any class that uses DEX or INT as not only their main attack attribute also be able to stack that for AC bonus as well? Why is there no similar mechanic for Heavy Armor using say half CON or STR mod? Or perhaps heavy armors could have added a layer of Damage Reduction.
Outside of Hide Armor, why should you be able to not only have a similar AC as Heavy Armor but also none of the drawbacks that come with it like reduced speed and skill checks?
Honestly, light armor isn't really better than heavy armor most of the time, unless you're building for AC.
See if you can't understand what's ridiculous about that statement, then we have no common ground for a discussion.
Light armor isn't really better than heavy armor most of the time??
Wait it get's better "Unless you're building for AC"
No seriously, just think about that statement and you should understand what the inherent problem is.
It goes back to the old problem of "What is the point of Heavy Armor, if you can do the same and be faster in Light Armor?"
Basically it exists for the people who can't pump DEX or INT.
Which makes no sense of any kind.
I believe that ALL options for a role should be balanced, so that a defender in light armor doesn't just outright suck compared to the Paladin or Fighter.
So do I.
I have no problem with the ACs that Swordmages can achieve, even if I disagree with how they get there.
I'm sorry, but people that say heavy armor should be better than light armor in fantasy just rub me the wrong way. On that note, everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm just glad the designers decided to make them both balanced options, instead of giving one or the other a significant advantage.
1) Just because it's Fantasy doesn't mean you throw out any concepts that work inherently in reality.
2) How is it balanced that heavy armor makes you slower and applies skill check penalties for the same AC or less?
In the end there's more to Defenders than just AC, but it still makes no sense for Light armor to ever be as good as, or better, than Heavy armor when it comes to absorbing/deflecting damage.
Where Light Armor should stand out against Heavy Armor is in Mobility and Speed.
Oh wait, it get's that...
Why do you all hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors so much?
Can't really talk for anyone else, nor can I be sure I'm completely explainging my opinions. But you're right, I do hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors. Haven't really thought about it, but the guy covered in so much armour he's got to hire an aid to help him get enough open to take a leak, let alone get completely in or out, is completely absurd to me. Now this doesn't mean I'd punish anyone really for choosing plate, not if/when I DM'd nor would I find a problem with my fellow players choosing a class with plate, it's just not something I would ever play.
None of those are defenders, why should anyone them be capable of equal to or greater AC than a Defender when wearing leather?
They aren't. The only one that isn't a Defender that reaches Defender AC is the Wizard, and only if you take the Staff Implement Mastery and use feats to get Hide Armor Specialization and the Staff as a Double Weapon, and Two-Weapon Defense. Is that unfair for some reason, that a Light Armor class can get to a Heavy armor Defender's AC by taking 5 feats and a specific class feature?
Why does being Intelligent help you deflect blows?
It doesn't. Neither does being Dexterous. They help you avoid being hit.
Why should any class that uses DEX or INT as not only their main attack attribute also be able to stack that for AC bonus as well? Why is there no similar mechanic for Heavy Armor using say half CON or STR mod? Or perhaps heavy armors could have added a layer of Damage Reduction.
Heavy armors get a much higher rate of scaling in their Masterwork armors than Light armors do to make up for this. In fact, it's sort of the whole point of having Masterwork armors.
Outside of Hide Armor, why should you be able to not only have a similar AC as Heavy Armor but also none of the drawbacks that come with it like reduced speed and skill checks?
They can have a similar AC, but not the same AC without Hide. Similar being 2-3 points lower. Also, Hide is the only Light armor with a Specialization feat for a reason.
See if you can't understand what's ridiculous about that statement, then we have no common ground for a discussion.
Light armor isn't really better than heavy armor most of the time??
Wait it get's better "Unless you're building for AC"
No seriously, just think about that statement and you should understand what the inherent problem is.
There's nothing ridiculous about the statement. You have to spend a large number of feats (nearly an entire tier's worth) and use a specific sort of weapon (a double weapon) or a Shield. Most people (including me) feel it isn't quite worth it for an extra 5-6 AC.
It goes back to the old problem of "What is the point of Heavy Armor, if you can do the same and be faster in Light Armor?"
Basically it exists for the people who can't pump DEX or INT.
Which makes no sense of any kind.
It makes perfect sense. If you have the DEX or INT to wear light armor, you're a class that has a thematic reason to be in light armor that also gives you a reason to pump DEX/INT (Wizard, Swordmage, Rogue, Ranger) or you have a thematic reason and a class feature that allows you to add another stat to your AC in light armor (So far: CON Druid, probably Barbarian, Warden).
So do I.
I have no problem with the ACs that Swordmages can achieve, even if I disagree with how they get there.
So you don't have a problem with the Swordmage having a high AC, but you want them to wear heavy armor?
1) Just because it's Fantasy doesn't mean you throw out any concepts that work inherently in reality.
2) How is it balanced that heavy armor makes you slower and applies skill check penalties for the same AC or lesser?
1) I agree. However, much of fantasy involves cloth armored warrior-wizards and leather armored back-stabbing thieves and hide armored nature attuned dual-wielding sword users that are just as successful in melee combat as the scale and plate wearing fighter/paladin archetypes, if not moreso.
2) It's balanced because it doesn't give the same AC or less. The only way light armor equals or exceeds heavy armor is if you spend feats on it.
In the end there's more to Defender's than just AC, but it still makes no sense for Light armor to ever be as good as, or better, than Heavy armor when it comes to absorbing/deflecting damage.
Where Light Armor should stand out against Heavy Armor is in Mobility and Speed.
Oh wait, it get's that...
Light armor isn't better at absorbing/deflecting. It's better at dodging. If you still think that Heavy armor is inferior to Light armor in the AC category, see my points above.
On that note, this has almost nothing to do with the Avenger directly, other than that the Avenger wears Light armor and has INT/DEX as secondary stats. On that note, I'm going to cease the thread-hijack from me.
On-topic:
For me, the draw of the Avenger is the teleporting/two-handed weapon striker. The high mobility two-handed striker has always been a favorite of mine, and the Barbarian isn't quite what I was looking for, being Primal.
Then there is the fact that with a slight re-fluff, the Avenger can work perfectly to represent the unarmoured Samurai/Kensai archetype.
While I have yet to see any of their powers, Im certain that most of them could even be re-fluffed as martial powers, or at the very least - as Ki powers if the player felt it appropriate for their character.
Very true, and with PHB3 and ki classes a long way off, a fine idea. Deriving their powers from a strict adherence to the code of bushido instead of a deity, etc.
The fact that it's another Striker that uses a two-hander is just gravy.
Honestly, it would be kind of boring if all Controllers had cloth armor and crappy AC, all Strikers had leather and had medium-low AC, all Leaders had Hide/Chain and medium-high AC, and all Defenders had Heavy Armor and high AC.
More boring still is the fact that, of the dozen-and-a-half (or thereabouts) classes that we have so far, only what? four? of them use heavy armour. Every single one of the other classes is built around light armour. That's boring.
...just as successful in melee combat as the scale and plate wearing fighter/paladin archetypes, if not moreso.
It's the "moreso" that bothers me. Heavy armour should be a huge advantage in close-quarters combat. I wish D&D reflected that.
...you're right, I do hate the idea of heavily-armoured warriors. Haven't really thought about it, but the guy covered in so much armour he's got to hire an aid to help him get enough open to take a leak, let alone get completely in or out, is completely absurd to me.
I'm sorry that you feel that way. I do feel that you might be misinformed about the "taking a leak" part; it sounds like you learned about heavy armour from the Jabberwocky film or something...
More boring still is the fact that, of the dozen-and-a-half (or thereabouts) classes that we have so far, only what? four? of them use heavy armour. Every single one of the other classes is built around light armour. That's boring.
Noooot quite. It depends not just on class, but on build.
The fighter, paladin, cleric, warlord, invoker, and bard all start with heavy armour proficiencies--that's six (and there would be more if the upcoming power source weren't primal, which has a leather/hide motif). Of them, rare fighters (like Dex-focused tempests), some tactical warlords, many Int-secondary invokers, and many virtue of cunning bards will actually use light armour instead. However, of the classes that don't start with heavy armour, some have builds for which they'll want to acquire it. Str/Wis rangers will want to upgrade to heavy armour, as will Con/Cha (i.e., star pact) warlocks. We still don't know if barbarians or Con-secondary shamans will get a feature to keep them in light armour, so file them under "maybe." And then, on top of that, the primal classes that do use an ability score that grants them extra lightly armoured AC aren't obligated to wear heavy armour, but may choose to do so anyway because it would likely still raise their AC, albeit at the cost of mobility.
Noooot quite. It depends not just on class, but on build.
The fighter, paladin, cleric, warlord, invoker, and bard all start with heavy armour proficiencies--that's six (and there would be more if the upcoming power source weren't primal, which has a leather/hide motif). Of them, rare fighters (like Dex-focused tempests), some tactical warlords, many Int-secondary invokers, and many virtue of cunning bards will actually use light armour instead. However, of the classes that don't start with heavy armour, some have builds for which they'll want to acquire it. Str/Wis rangers will want to upgrade to heavy armour, as will Con/Cha (i.e., star pact) warlocks. We still don't know if barbarians or Con-secondary shamans will get a feature to keep them in light armour, so file them under "maybe." And then, on top of that, the primal classes that do use an ability score that grants them extra lightly armoured AC aren't obligated to wear heavy armour, but may choose to do so anyway because it would likely still raise their AC, albeit at the cost of mobility.
I dont really see it as a problem especially when at higher levels plate becomes far far better than any of the other armours.
Personally invoker and avenger are the first divine classes ive ever been very interested in playing because of how different they are. I have very little desire to play the heavily armoured knight, however the shifty sometime fanatic who goes in wearing cloth or at most leather while swinging a two handed weapon yes please.
DR 1-2 Chain
DR 2-3 Scale or MW Chain
DR 3-4 Plate or MW Scale
DR 4-5 MW Plate
The only mechanical difference between this and the RAW, is the fact that heavy armored combatants will have a pool of "virtual" HP which makes them slightly more durable vs. certain kinds of attack....which in and of itself adds a sense of realism to armor, and simulates how heavy armor can turn aside all but the most lethal of dagger/claw blows.
Noooot quite. It depends not just on class, but on build.
The fighter, paladin, cleric, warlord, invoker, and bard all start with heavy armour proficiencies--that's six (and there would be more if the upcoming power source weren't primal, which has a leather/hide motif). Of them, rare fighters (like Dex-focused tempests), some tactical warlords, many Int-secondary invokers, and many virtue of cunning bards will actually use light armour instead. However, of the classes that don't start with heavy armour, some have builds for which they'll want to acquire it. Str/Wis rangers will want to upgrade to heavy armour, as will Con/Cha (i.e., star pact) warlocks. We still don't know if barbarians or Con-secondary shamans will get a feature to keep them in light armour, so file them under "maybe." And then, on top of that, the primal classes that do use an ability score that grants them extra lightly armoured AC aren't obligated to wear heavy armour, but may choose to do so anyway because it would likely still raise their AC, albeit at the cost of mobility.
I completely agree, there has been a quite balanced point of view about the light/heavy armor choice, coming from the developers.
If you LOVE heavy armor, you can be a bit disappointed but especially because we're seeing Primal classes now, or it would be just because they're "too balanced".
And I think if you LOVE anything else you can be disappointed. Because the very same focus on balance implies that nothing receives particular love from the developers.
The guy who loved tinker gnomes? Disappointed. Me who loved the idea of a Con-primary and very different Primal defender class, or the katar being an optimal rogue weapon? Disappointed.
As with everything, if you want to represent your love for certain themes or mechanics in your campaign, there's not an easier thing to do, just do it, it's your world.
The only point I think is worth me bringing up is this one.
They aren't. The only one that isn't a Defender that reaches Defender AC is the Wizard, and only if you take the Staff Implement Mastery and use feats to get Hide Armor Specialization and the Staff as a Double Weapon, and Two-Weapon Defense. Is that unfair for some reason, that a Light Armor class can get to a Heavy armor Defender's AC by taking 5 feats and a specific class feature?
I had to think about this, because it's a good question.
5 Feats is a very significant investment for any class, and represents nearly 1/3rd of all your feats.
So I understand the point you're making.
However after considering it, I think my answer is still yes.
Unless there is something I'm not aware of that would allow any Defender to spend 5 feats and allow them to do something that is exclusive to a Wizard.
I personally like the idea of granting DR to those who wear heavy armor vs. AC attacks and/or physical (untyped) damage.
DR 1-2 Chain
DR 2-3 Scale or MW Chain
DR 3-4 Plate or MW Scale
DR 4-5 MW Plate
The only mechanical difference between this and the RAW, is the fact that heavy armored combatants will have a pool of "virtual" HP which makes them slightly more durable vs. certain kinds of attack....which in and of itself adds a sense of realism to armor, and simulates how heavy armor can turn aside all but the most lethal of dagger/claw blows.
I like the idea too, but you need to find a way to balance it at early levels.
5 DR at L1 in plate would be incredibly powerful, and stacking with a battlerager (who already is quite powerful in heroic) would probably be broken.
Unless there is something I'm not aware of that would allow any Defender to spend 5 feats and allow them to do something that is exclusive to a Wizard.
You mean something like a multiclass feat? :P
Anyway, being a defender isn't all about having high AC; it's about stopping the monster from killing your squishies and surviving.
And how resilient your character is depends on many things: HP, Healing Surges, powers that let you soak damage/let you spend healing surges and so on.
So I don't really think there's a problem with a striker that achieves defenderish AC, mainly because a striker or a controller ( in this case, a wizard ) just doesn't have the resources to step on the defender's toes, even if he can ( with significant expenditure of resources ) match his AC.
Unless there is something I'm not aware of that would allow any Defender to spend 5 feats and allow them to do something that is exclusive to a Wizard.
Well, there are Arcane Initiate, Novice Power, Adept Power, and, if you want to count it, Acolyte Power (controllers tend to get a little more of their role from their powers, whereas defenders seem to get more defenderiness out of their features). You could make the argument that Intelligence is a hard sell for fighters, paladins, and wardens, which would be accurate (it's not a terrible multiclass for swordmages, though)--but all of them have Wisdom-secondary builds, and we're getting two controller classes that use Wisdom in the PH2 (the invoker likely being better for Con-tertiary defenders and the druid likely being better for Dex-tertiary defenders). The invoker and druid will open up controller dabbling to a lot of defenders for whom Intelligence is a poor choice.
I like the idea too, but you need to find a way to balance it at early levels.
5 DR at L1 in plate would be incredibly powerful, and stacking with a battlerager (who already is quite powerful in heroic) would probably be broken.
I will break it down by armor type, what I feel is balanced for that armor.
Level 1
DR 1 - Chainmail
DR 2 - Scale Armor
DR 3 - Plate Armor
Level 12
DR 2 - Forgemail
DR 3 - Wyrmscale Armor
DR 4 - Warplate Armor
Level 22
DR 3 - Spiritmail
DR 4 - Elderscale Armor
DR 5 - Godplate Armor
I hardly think that DR 5 at epic level is something to worry about, and in fact - a higher value may be more appropriate.
Alternately, you could always create a series of feats:
Heavy Armor Optimization [Heroic]
Requirments: Con 15, training with chainmail.
Benefit:When you wear chainmail armor, you gain a +1 feat bonus to Damage Reduction. This bonus increases to +2 if you wear Scale Armor, and to +3 if you wear Plate Armor. Your Damage Reduction only applies against AC attacks.
Special: You gain an additional +1 feat bonus to Damage Reduction when wearing Masterwork Armor of any type.
Greater Heavy Armor Optimization [Paragon]
Requirements: Con 15, Armor Specialization (Chainmail, Scale, and/or Plate), Heavy Armor Optimization
Benefit: If you have Armor Specialization (Chainmail, Scale, and/or Plate), you gain an additional +2 feat bonus to Damage Reduction when wearing armor of that type.
So you don't have a problem with the Swordmage having a high AC, but you want them to wear heavy armor?
I want them to wear heavy armor:
Why does being Intelligent help you deflect blows?
It doesn't.
It helps you PREDICT blows and your intellect lets you roll with them/step away from them.
All things being equal, a highly trained combatant will look at his opponents stance, see his opponents weight shift, and come to the determination that if X stance shifts to Y, the opponent must be readying themselves to perform A, B, or C maneuvers, and that by observing for 1 second longer, they can accurately determine which of the three will be used.
Experience and route memorization would then give them the correct counter-stance/combination(s) to avoid the attack while setting up the opponent for your next series of attacks, while simultaneously honing ones instinctual response to the degree that less conscious effort is required to perform the same action; which has the practical application of increasing reaction time/reducing effort as a result.
Practically speaking, your heavily armored combatant is performing the same calculations. The only difference being that the weight/inertia of their armor slows their reaction time/increases effort required, while their lower flexibility limits the range of motion (and by extension, defensive options) available to the character.
Given the fact that it only takes 1-6 seconds for an attack to be completed, the best that a heavily armored character can hope for is that they can shift their body weight sufficiently in order to have the attack hit their armor at the perfect angle so as to bounce/slide off harmlessly (assuming they don't parry/block the attack) - as they simply have too slow a reaction time (and too little range of motion) to outright dodge all but the wildest of attacks.
It is the abstraction of these factors which prevents a heavily armored character from adding their INT/DEX to AC.
Put simply - the higher your INT, the faster you can compute the variables, and come to a decision as to how best to defend oneself, while the higher your DEX, the faster you can physically react once you have made said decision/acted on impulse.
Since both INT and DEX are factors in determining your reaction time, both are considered equal for the purposes of determining AC in 4E.
In the RW - you would want both to be as high as possible as even a nano-second difference in reaction time can be the difference between being maimed/killed or dodging/deflecting the blow.
And as an aside, I love plate mail armor, even though I do feel it is overpowered. (I personally think dex should come into play, albeit at a penalty, for AC even if you are wearing heavy armor).
Yes, yes a good offense is a good defense, but this discussion also has do to with armor, and why there is a seeming obsession to make characters who are fabulous at Melee but still wear light armor.
I was watching Gladiator the movie last night while riding my bike , and the thought came to me. Every iconic melee character that I could think of wears light to maybe medium armor.
Maximus
Drizzt
Brunear
Boromir
Aragon
all of the Fighters in 300
heck the heaviest armor that I can think of was when Gimli donned chain mail, and that was on par with what Frodo was wearing. Every major hero that I could think of wears light to kind of medium. If we are emulating heroes who rip apart the battle field without plate, why should we don our characters in plate.
When we create characters we are creating them to be heroes. We are a visual story based people. What heroes can you think of that have donned heavy armor?
I think I figured out why tempest fighters and Avengers are so popular.
And as an aside, I love plate mail armor, even though I do feel it is overpowered. (I personally think dex should come into play, albeit at a penalty, for AC even if you are wearing heavy armor).
Yes, yes a good offense is a good defense, but this discussion also has do to with armor, and why there is a seeming obsession to make characters who are fabulous at Melee but still wear light armor.
I was watching Gladiator the movie last night while riding my bike , and the thought came to me. Every iconic melee character that I could think of wears light to maybe medium armor.
Maximus
Drizzt
Brunear
Boromir
Aragon
all of the Fighters in 300
heck the heaviest armor that I can think of was when Gimli donned chain mail, and that was on par with what Frodo was wearing. Every major hero that I could think of wears light to kind of medium. If we are emulating heroes who rip apart the battle field without plate, why should we don our characters in plate.
When we create characters we are creating them to be heroes. We are a visual story based people. What heroes can you think of that have donned heavy armor?
Iron Man, King Arthur, Prince Valiant, etc, etc...
You make a lot of good points; you really do. I just think that both types of characters should be equally viable; I hope that one type of hero isn't given more attention than a different type.
Yes, there are some good options for heavy armor wearing heroes in D&D, and there are also some drawbacks. I feel that light armor should be the same way; there should be good options, but there should also be some drawbacks. Throughout the ride I had with 3E I noticed an increasing amount of ways for lightly armored heroes to overcome their drawbacks; meanwhile, heavy armor seemed to get much attention. I don't want to see 4E follow the same model and favor one type of hero over a different type. There should be strengths and weaknesses to both options.
What is it that appeals to everyone about the new Avenger class?
It has that anti-hero vive to it, so people flock to it. Make it with a Shadar-Kai and you have emo anti-hero!
There should be strengths and weaknesses to both options.
There are.
Plate-wearing heroes are genuinely harder to hit than anyone else with most melee attacks. In return, they are slightly slower.
It is possible, if somewhat difficult, to make a lightly-armored character that is nearly as good at AC as a paladin while retaining his speed. This is a feature, not a bug, because fast, hard-to-hit characters are fantasy archetypes too (even then, the D&D characters are probably wearing hide to get their AC that high). Meanwhile, the paladin can dump Dex and Int entirely and get benefits from pumping other stats, then panzer-tank his way through epic levels with his Godplate.
There are.
Plate-wearing heroes are genuinely harder to hit than anyone else with most melee attacks. In return, they are slightly slower.
It is possible, if somewhat difficult, to make a lightly-armored character that is nearly as good at AC as a paladin while retaining his speed. This is a feature, not a bug, because fast, hard-to-hit characters are fantasy archetypes too (even then, the D&D characters are probably wearing hide to get their AC that high). Meanwhile, the paladin can dump Dex and Int entirely and get benefits from pumping other stats, then panzer-tank his way through epic levels with his Godplate.
It's starting to become a lot easier though. The party wizard (and often the rogue) tend to have AC which is often higher than the plate wearing Paladin while still maintining full speed. At least that's something I've noticed in the last few groups I've been in.
I'm not saying that there's a hole in the game design, but what I am saying is that I think there are being a lot of steps taken which may lead to the same path that 3E took and making heavy armor obsolete.
emo
What does this even mean? I hear this word used to degrade everything, and the qualities it applies to are often contradictory.
There is no meaning to the word Emo. Please refrain from using it, lest we add another useless word to the English Language.
Anyways I've determined that the highest AC character so far would be an Int optimized Swordmage, specialized in hide armour with the Coronal Guard paragon path.
What does this even mean? I hear this word used to degrade everything, and the qualities it applies to are often contradictory.
There is no meaning to the word Emo. Please refrain from using it, lest we add another useless word to the English Language.
Sure it has meaning. Originally as a form of music (Emotive Hardcore, a style of Punk music that really got started in earnest int he mid-90's with heavy influence from Fugazi... see Panic at the Disco, My Chemical Romance, Fallout Boy, etc. for more modern "interpretations" of Emo music) and has come to be a label for those who are into said music, wear lots of black, heavy eyeliner, and black nail polish (regardless of gender), they are mopey and depressing and think life sucks and are full of angst. Not too far off from most teenagers. :D
Granted this is now getting off topic...
And I don't see anything emo about Avengers or Shadar-Kai. Avengers are more mystery cult to me, and Shadar-Kai seem more like Victorian hellfire clubs more than anything.
As much as I hate emo kids, they probably have it worse in Mexico where punks, rockabillies, skinheads, gangsters, metalheads and goths have made beating up emo kids their new past-time.
And I don't see anything emo about Avengers or Shadar-Kai. Avengers are more mystery cult to me, and Shadar-Kai seem more like Victorian hellfire clubs more than anything.
I once had a character called "Emo" because he didn't want to get into a long backstory at the time. OoC, it was because I have no plans to flesh that portion of the story out. IC, we were kinda strapped for time.
And they called him "Emo" for that... This is why the word is losing all meaning.
Emo
1 - Genre of softcore punk music that integrates unenthusiastic melodramatic 17 year olds who dont smile, high pitched overwrought lyrics and inaudible guitar rifts with tight wool sweaters, tighter jeans, itchy scarfs (even in the summer), ripped chucks with favorite bands signature, black square rimmed glasses, and ebony greasy unwashed hair that is required to cover at least 3/5 ths of the face at an angle.
--[Snip]--
5 - A group of white, mostly middle-class well-off kids who find imperfections in there life and create a ridiculous, depressing melodrama around each one. They often take anti-depressants, even though the majority don't need them. They need to wake up and deal with life like everyone else instead of wallowing in their imaginary quagmire of torment.
....the list goes on
These are the two most commonly used definitions for the word. Put in context, an "emo" conversation would go something like this:
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: omg my gf just left me
acidburnedsoul: that sux man
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: i blame myself only i'm such an ass *cries*
acidburnedsoul: dude come over to my house and we can cut ourselves together
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: okay *cries*
acidburnedsoul: omg dashboard confessional has a new cd, i preordered it already
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: dude they're my favorite band to self-mutilate to
acidburnedsoul: i prefer to cut myself while watching Napoleon Dynamite on my bigscreen
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: dude that movie is so deep. i cry every time i see it
acidburnedsoul: me too. i hate myself
XxSlavetoAnguishxX: yeah we're such tortured souls, nobody understands how hard life is for us
acidburnedsoul: yeah we got it tough dude. pass the tissues
In common usage however, Emo is (becoming) synonymous with melodramatic, in light of the fact that the culture itself is defined primarily by its melodrama.
But I digress that we are getting off-topic, and should stop debating the merits/existance of the term and its role in the modern english language, lest the thread be derailed.
I once had a character called "Emo" because he didn't want to get into a long backstory at the time. OoC, it was because I have no plans to flesh that portion of the story out. IC, we were kinda strapped for time.
And they called him "Emo" for that... This is why the word is losing all meaning.
I admit that in the way you are describing it - it appears that the word was used incorrectly.
However, lets also put this into the context of you being "in character" at the time your character said they did not want to give their backstory......
IRL - if someone said they didnt want to "talk about their past" when asked, you would automatically assume that the person felt great "angst" over their past (for one reason or another).
As such, is it even remotely possible that the way in which you stated these facts "in character" could be interpreted (by other characters) as being melodramatic and full of angst?
Especially if they were roleplaying their characters reaction to your statement in character?
If the answer is "yes" (which I highly suspect it is) - then "emo" was a fitting description for those whose character interpretted your refusal to speak about your past as being such - if you ignore the fact that "emo" is itself, a terrible choice of word for those who want to even remotely simultate the speech patterns used in the pseudo-medieval time period in which high fantasy games are usually set.
TBH - the fact that you take issue with your characters refusal to give a backstory being labeled emo is in fact, a little emo (aka. melodramatic) itself.
I admit that in the way you are describing it - it appears that the word was used incorrectly.
However, lets also put this into the context of you being "in character" at the time your character said they did not want to give their backstory......
IRL - if someone said they didnt want to "talk about their past" when asked, you would automatically assume that the person felt great "angst" over their past (for one reason or another).
As such, is it even remotely possible that the way in which you stated these facts "in character" could be interpreted (by other characters) as being melodramatic and full of angst?
Especially if they were roleplaying their characters reaction to your statement in character?
If the answer is "yes" (which I highly suspect it is) - then "emo" was a fitting description for those whose character interpretted your refusal to speak about your past as being such - if you ignore the fact that "emo" is itself, a terrible choice of word for those who want to even remotely simultate the speech patterns used in the pseudo-medieval time period in which high fantasy games are usually set.
TBH - the fact that you take issue with your characters refusal to give a backstory being labeled emo is in fact, a little emo (aka. melodramatic) itself.
The character's response was "It's a long story, we don't have time for it right now." NOT: "I don't want to talk about it." In fact, my Character then said: "I'll tell the story on our way back ot civilization." That was when the "emo" Minotaur-feces started flying.
It wasn't a refusal, it was a: we're on a timetable. Let's get moving and I'll tell you off-camera.
They were NOT responding as their characters, but in fact, breaking out of the game and calling ME emo because I never bothered fleshing this part of his backstory out.
I'm sorry, I have better things to do than write a 54 yr old Eladrin's entire Biography, down to the smallest detail. That particular portion of the backstory is supposed to be a Noodle Incident. I.E. something never fleshed out, but merely referenced..
I'm toying, after that part, with giving him complete amnesia regarding everything in his life except the Campaign and the War. (It wasn't the War, but a tangent during a lull, that I haven't fleshed out.)
If all of this is "Emu," then so be it. It's still a stupid ****ing word.
Still, it doesnt change the fact that you are being a little sensitive regarding a ficticious incident with a ficticious character you were portraying at the time.
Im sure that the incident in question is trivial compared to other issues in your life - and not worth the emotional energy holding onto. Just shrug it off as one of those "in game" things, and let it go.
Honestly, its not worth the resentment you feel about the incident - unless of course, said incident is just an example of an underlying problem you were experiencing and/or was borne out of said.
In light of that information - your character was not being "emo" in any way shape or form - just impatient/hurried.
Still, it doesnt change the fact that you are being a little sensitive regarding a ficticious incident with a ficticious character you were portraying at the time.
Im sure that the incident in question is trivial compared to other issues in your life - and not worth the emotional energy holding onto. Just shrug it off as one of those "in game" things, and let it go.
Honestly, its not worth the resentment you feel about the incident - unless of course, said incident is just an example of an underlying problem you were experiencing and/or was borne out of said.
Believe me, no emotional energy is spent on this. It's more of an overall annoyance with the word "emo" becoming a default insult of, well, just about anything, much like the terms "gay" or "retarded." It's ignorant at best, moronic at worst, and serves no purpose other than for the accuser to become more confident in his trouser size.
No actual resentment is/was felt regarding this particular incident, it's more an example I actually remember the relevant details of.
Also, one last thing, and I will no longer comment on this word:
There are plenty of reasons one might not want to talk about something. Being angsty over whatever should not be a default assumption.
When I say: "I don't want to talk about it." I'm saying "It's not relevant, so let's deal with things that are actually relevant and try to stay on topic. " (I'm even worse with derailing conversations IRL.)
Someone else just might not want to talk about because they just don't care.
the avenger is that wanna be assassin so many teens dream of being o_o that cloth-wearing, cold, unemotional bad-***
Pursuit Avengers seem to be less mystical and more martial oriented. After all Dex is a physical stat, and they trigger they're striking when pursuing the enemy.
Retribution Avengers on the other hand are much more mystical with their Int to damage when hit, and even more fanatic with their bonus being cumulative, thus wanting to be hit much more than a Pursuit Avenger.
Outfit for example varies. P. As really don't want cloth. They want leather and in some cases even hide. They will have, along with Swordmages, the highest AC in the group.
R As. are the reason, IMO, Avengers get only Cloth: they really don't want much more than that +3 Faith Armor [of Basic Survival]. They will be a little pain to balance, tactically-speaking, since they'll have to sustain much punishment if wanting to deal the massive damage they can deal. Toughness and Durable are [even more] mandatory feats and they will probably really look a bit freakish, with countless scars, a probably hulking look, and at the same time an intellectual-spirited feel.
So appearance starts to vary with build, but what one must consider too is their deity.
I see Pelor/Bahamut Avengers dress in pure white. Coupled with some parallels with the real world and with female gender characters, you get a new picture of what avengers may look like... Nature deities are especially good for fey races of course and they could make the Avenger look much more primal in power source.
P. As could even look indistinguishable from simply light-armored warriors, even with an oriental flavor attached to them. There was a custom Samurai class in the boards (the best I remember) which really looked like P. As mechanically speaking, and with a feat it became a cloth-clad wis-to-AC warrior. They could even work better as secret agents, not revealing their true office to anyone and "acting" like "simple" warrior types.
Than one must remember that the investiture gives an Avenger his powers and some vows, but the vows can be broken and the power would remain. And for obvious reasons, Avengers seem much more prone to break their vows than for example Paladins. So one should consider the option of a selfish, even deity-less, Avenger who really simply uses his/her divine powers in the way he/she likes the best.
These are the two most commonly used definitions for the word. Put in context, an "emo" conversation would go something like this:
In common usage however, Emo is (becoming) synonymous with melodramatic, in light of the fact that the culture itself is defined primarily by its melodrama.
But I digress that we are getting off-topic, and should stop debating the merits/existance of the term and its role in the modern english language, lest the thread be derailed.
I think you missed the part of the emo definition where it explains that you also have ato hang out at Denny's late at night and do nothing other than drink coffee and hot chocolate... I'm joking...well, sort of...
I've noticed in the area where I live that emo also seems to be absorbing the metrosexual fad.
Getting back on topic: I think perhaps recent games such as Assassin's Creed may have fueled some of the interest.
I also think that it provides an alternative to the typical paladin/cleric character who has to do everything by the book. It may be some backlash from people who were playing paladins in 3E and had a DM bone them for every minor infraction.
I could see why someone would want to play a divine character who acts more like Dirty Harry and less like a member of the 700 Club with a sword. (I have nothing against the 700 Club; that name was only used for the purpose of contrast.)
The flavor of the class is cool. It's just not the class I am the most excited to play.
Believe me, no emotional energy is spent on this. It's more of an overall annoyance with the word "emo" becoming a default insult of, well, just about anything, much like the terms "gay" or "retarded." It's ignorant at best, moronic at worst, and serves no purpose other than for the accuser to become more confident in his trouser size.
You seem to be expending an awful lot of emotional energy ranting about this for being something that you spend no emotional energy on.
Emo isn't a true insult in the sense that emo kids label themselves as emo. Much the same as I label myself as a geek (more based on my interests as I don't fit the actual definition of one... completely :D), yet there are some who use geek as an insult.
(more based on my interests as I don't fit the actual definition of one... completely :D
I don't think anyone actually does, anymore.
Using X as an example != spending emotional energy on X.
What do we have, two and a half weeks until this comes out?
Can't wait.