| Post/Author/DateTime | Post |
|---|---|
| #1MaximumHavocMay 28, 2009 13:06:43 | there are some changes (dare i say fixes?) to the paladin class that i would like to see wotc make in a future book: single attack stat: wisdom build/bonus stat: strength or charisma this change allows paladins to more easily choose powers from either build, similar to many other classes. implement: a paladin's weapon serves as his implement. proficiency bonus does not apply when paladin uses a power with the implement keyword. this change removes paladins' dependency on both a weapon AND an implement, which inherently made paladins pricier than classes that rely on only one of those two (of course, the holy avenger might need to be reworked; but then, why let a single magic item constrain the fixing of an entire class). change the divine challenge stat modifier from charisma to wisdom this change allows straladins to use divine challenge as effectively as chaladins. also, since wisdom would be the new attack stat, divine challenge is likely to do more damage, irrespective of build. EDIT (2009 May 29): it occurs to me that, as a defender, this revised paladin, with wisdom as its attack stat, should have the melee training feat for free. otherwise, it would be an inherent feat tax. ___ also, i want to say that for a defender build to have no weapon power options at a particular level seems strange and undefenderish to me. between this and the level 9 strength-based power issue, divine power has much to accomplish for paladins. |
| #2BROM54May 28, 2009 15:30:33 | I would think make the stat Cha instead of Wis, leaving Wis aas the secondary stat involved with loh. Also I don't see making their weapon an implement mainly because the other divine classes that use both have to have them seperate. I really do wish they would change the pally attack stat to just one. I would like them to do it with clerics and warlocks too, but I don't see it happening. |
| #3Tharag_BoccMay 28, 2009 15:58:03 | Me, I'm the opposite. I like paladins, clerics, rangers, and warlocks exactly as they are now. I also wish that some of the PHB2 class had split primaries. I wanted bards to be DEX for weapon powers and CHA for implement power. I would have also like to have seen druids as CON for beast form powers and WIS for the rest. Likewise, I don't want to see the paladins implement changed, as I don't want to see them just become the divine version of arcane's swordmage, though a few more magic weapons that count as holy symbols would be appreciated. Use of holy symbols is something of a unifying element for divine classes. The only divine class that doesn't is the invoker, and while I like that they get other implement options I do whish they could also use holy symbols as well. |
| #4aidan_blackthornMay 28, 2009 18:27:30 | What paladins need is more powers period. Particularly straladins. More than one strength based daily at level five, and to actually *have* a strength based daily at level 9. This was a really glaring oversight in the PHB. Also, it'd be nice if chaladins had some radiant at-wills. I imagine these deficiencies will be addressed in Divine Power, but I'm not holding my breath for the at-wills. The anemic Wizard at-wills were not fixed in Arcane Power. They'll more than likely bring out a new build of Paladin, but like the Ranger in Martial Power, base it off of Strength or Charisma. However, unlike the the Ranger, Strength Paladins and Charisma Paladins aren't really distinguished except by what powers they pick, there's no Class Feature that differentiates them, so I'm not sure what will differentiate them. I agree it would be nice to have weapons that act as holy symbols sometime before the Epic tier Holy Avenger. |
| #5Tharag_BoccMay 28, 2009 18:55:53 | I agree it would be nice to have weapons that act as holy symbols sometime before the Epic tier Holy Avenger. Adventure's Vault included a small selection of paragon tier holy weapons, though most are deity specific. It also included at least one heroic tier holy weapon, but it's limited to maces/hammers. Those are all good starts, however, more variety across all levels would be appreciated. |
| #6McnancyMay 28, 2009 19:45:10 | The Problem with V classes are only temporary; do you really think you're going to have a problem picking Paladin powers after Divine Power 1, 2 or even 3? And at that point you will still have twice as many races to choose from that boost an attack stat. I want to see more V classes, they're better for MCing and HCing and they work really well with character concepts. We don't need a permanent solution to a temporary problem. |
| #7jaxgaretMay 28, 2009 20:25:15 | The anemic Wizard at-wills were not fixed in Arcane Power. Nor should they have been. AFAICT Wizards are designed to have anemic At-Wills and powerful Dailies. Power creep isn't the goal for 4e, for the most part. Overall, they're doing a pretty good job of keeping everything on an even level, once each class gets its full run (PHB + Power book + assorted supplements). |
| #8MaximumHavocMay 28, 2009 20:48:58 | Power creep isn't the goal for 4e, for the most part. Overall, they're doing a pretty good job of keeping everything on an even level, once each class gets its full run (PHB + Power book + assorted supplements). the only problem is that wotc is proving itself reticent to "fix" some existing material that arguably is in need of fixing. rather, it appears inclined simply to add options. most of the time, this is fine. sometimes, it isn't. and i will add, this is an issue where the hardcovers hamstring the digital media, because these "fixes" would be as easy as cake if we were dealing only with the compendium and such. edit: i feel the need to make clear that i am a HUGE fan of 4e. |
| #9tehsquirrelyMay 29, 2009 9:36:41 | New option for paladin, some kind of challenge that uses str instead of cha, so strladins actually make some sense to play besides being multiclass powers. |
| #10McnancyMay 29, 2009 10:42:11 | New option for paladin, some kind of challenge that uses str instead of cha, so strladins actually make some sense to play besides being multiclass powers. Now thats what I'm talkin bout, Strladin challenge is a must. |
| #11MaximumHavocMay 29, 2009 11:58:52 | i've just added the following modification to the original post, fyi:EDIT (2009 May 29): it occurs to me that, as a defender, this revised paladin, with wisdom as its attack stat, should have the melee training feat for free. otherwise, it would be an inherent feat tax. |
| #12jaxgaretMay 29, 2009 16:18:25 | the only problem is that wotc is proving itself reticent to "fix" some existing material that arguably is in need of fixing. What problems have you found WotC reticent to fix? |
| #13MaximumHavocMay 30, 2009 8:23:06 | What problems have you found WotC reticent to fix? just to name a few: con warlocks ac issue con shaman ac issue there is one more with an ac issue, but i forget which one it is EDIT: ah, yes str/wis ranger ac issue to a lesser extent, i regard barb ac as an issue starlock at-will con only issue str paladin divine challenge issue starlock mad to a lesser extent, str paladin mad issue to me, a class without a unified attack stat is an issue, so paladin cleric the next issue is not literally a broken issue, but imo, it is a major goof: tiefling (cha) and hellock/hellbringer (con) and prince of hell (cha) this disconnect is huge. i simply cannot stop being repulsed by it, whenever it comes up. now, in fairness, divine power and primal power have not yet come out, but arcane power, martial power and phb2 have, and wotc did not take those opportunities to "fix" these problems. a quick comment on ac: every class should have an equally fair opportunity to have defenses on par with everyone else, with few exceptions. this, i believe, is a premise of 4e. if, when wotc designs a class, they largely do not intend that class to rely upon heavy armor, then wotc must design that class to allow it to achieve parity with other classes with respect to ac, without relying upon heavy armor (examples include those classes with ac issues mentioned above). now, individual players can do what they wish, but a design flaw is a design flaw, irrespective of the fact that one could compensate for it with feats, magic items or otherwise. post script not that this is a problem, but imo prince of hell fire resistance should be made to stack with tiefling fire resistance, so that the ed would be uniquely appealing to tieflings, as opposed to uniquely (almost-fire genasi) less helpful to tieflings. |
| #14Tharag_BoccMay 30, 2009 14:20:14 | con warlocks ac issue What "con warlocks ac issue"? Helllocks and bindlocks both use INT as a secondary so they have no AC issues. Warlocks only have an AC issues if they try to balnace CON+CHA, such as starlocks. |
| #15MaximumHavocMay 30, 2009 14:24:56 | What "con warlocks ac issue"? Helllocks and bindlocks both use INT as a secondary so they have no AC issues. Warlocks only have an AC issues if they try to balnace CON+CHA, such as starlocks. you are absolutely right. that is the issue i, in fact, meant to refer to. and a legitimate issue it is. |
| #16dabutcherMay 31, 2009 15:13:24 | Fixing a class at this point is near impossible for WotC. I would MUCH rather see a feat that buffs and/or changes the modifier for divine challenge. This is significantly more likely than what you are suggesting (directed at OP). I'm sure we can all agree we want the pally's mount back. |
| #17evilveganMay 31, 2009 15:22:37 | Yea, other than a few extra Str powers and heroic tier Holy Avengeresque weapons, I wouldn't change anything. An alternate Divine Challenge would be nice. One that uses Str, or a weapon attack. |
| #18Tharag_BoccMay 31, 2009 17:10:52 | Fixing a class at this point is near impossible for WotC. I would MUCH rather see a feat that buffs and/or changes the modifier for divine challenge. This is significantly more likely than what you are suggesting (directed at OP). I agree that changes to the degree that the OP suggested are unlikely at best, and probably undesirable at this point as well (such changes go well beyond what can be covered by simple errata). Divine challenge definitely needs a fix, but a feat would probably be a bad way to go about it (people complain about feat taxes enough as it is). A better option would be for Divine Power to introduce an alternate class feature for STR paladins. |
| #19brotherjgizmoMay 31, 2009 19:48:35 | Or have a bunch of PP's that affect Divine Challenge in a positive, helpful way. Or, better yet, IMHO, is to have a BUNCH of feats that let you modify your Divine Challenge to do me defenderish, leaderish or controllerish stuff. |
| #20mkillJun 01, 2009 3:35:48 | If the other XY Power books are any indication, we should see 6-7 powers per class per level, enough for a good selection of both weapon and implement powers for both Str and Cha at every level. I haven't seen Divine Power yet but I consider that part fixed. Requests that I support are:
As for the Paladin's mount, I see several ways to include it:
I prefer the paragon path option. That way, Paladins who want their mount can have a powerful one that is tied to their powers, and Paladins who'd like to go without don't have to bother. |
| #21Tharag_BoccJun 01, 2009 8:32:49 | As for the Paladin's mount, I see several ways to include it: Personally, it seems to me that mount bonuses should be mostly handled through feats and I would hope stuff that isn't class (or even power source) specific, though a few obviously divine flavored options that are paladin specific might be okay. A handful of paragon paths would probably be nice as well, but most of the support has to be feats, or else mounts don't become an option until lv.11. The real problem with mount based options is relevancy. The assumed environment of a typical D&D game (the dungeon) is often not friendly to mounted combat. While such restrictions are not always mechanical, as most dungeons need to accommodate large and even huge enemies, the idea of an "always mounted" hero still seems to be an immersion breaker for enough people to be a consideration. It can seem just plain weird that while everyone else ties thier horse to a nearby tree that the paladin/cavalier is intent on riding into the underground maze. As such any mount related feats, powers, paragon paths, and class features have to have at least some small benefit while not mounted or the player that chooses them will likely feel nerfed 50% or more of the time. While some might suggest making mount related character options more powerful to compensate, that would be a bad idea as it would make such options into must-haves for the few campaigns that focus on environments more suited to mounted action. |
| #22famousfoxkingJun 01, 2009 10:24:31 | there are some changes (dare i say fixes?) to the paladin class that i would like to see wotc make in a future book: Ugh, I certainly hope not. First, that would be a complete re-write of the class. And while it's similar to many other classes, it's still dissimmilar to many other classes (Warlock, Ranger, Cleric). Besides, I think we have ample classes that use Wis as their attack stat. implement: a paladin's weapon serves as his implement. proficiency bonus does not apply when paladin uses a power with the implement keyword. This is already amply possible, with crusader's weapons and the like. Only Cha-based or generalist paladins really suffer from *needing* both, and that doesn't put them in a worse place than a ranger, tempest fighter, sword and board fighter, avenger, generalist cleric, or a handful of other classes. change the divine challenge stat modifier from charisma to wisdom Ah, but you're suggesting we get read of str-based paladins all together. If this suggestion and your first suggestion were both put into play, Paladins would go from being fairly MAD to being very SAD. EDIT (2009 May 29): it occurs to me that, as a defender, this revised paladin, with wisdom as its attack stat, should have the melee training feat for free. otherwise, it would be an inherent feat tax. Why? Swordmages are defenders and they don't get Intelligent Blademaster for free. I get that you like paladins, but seriously, they're only slightly underpowered at the moment, and I can't imagine that they wouldn't be fine once Divine Power is out. con warlocks ac issue I see no issues with any of those. Not everyone needs uber AC. Every number on your charactersheet is a trade off for another number. If you want a high AC, you will have to sacrifice in another area. Some builds and classes can achieve a high AC easier than others. That strikes me as a feature of the system, not a bug. starlock at-will con only issue The only one of those I can kinda-sorta sympathize with is the starlock at-will "issue". Frankly, however, that's why starlocks gain cumulative bonuses to hit rolls for killing minions. to me, a class without a unified attack stat is an issue, so I couldn't disagree more. I vastly prefer character generation/improvement to be filled with interesting choices. I'd go so far as to say I want to see more classes with dual attack stats. the next issue is not literally a broken issue, but imo, it is a major goof: Doesn't bother me in the slightest. now, in fairness, divine power and primal power have not yet come out, but arcane power, martial power and phb2 have, and wotc did not take those opportunities to "fix" these problems. Which makes sense, since they aren't really problems. a quick comment on ac: I think it's fairly provable that it isn't a premise of 4e at all. If everyone is supposed to have the same defenses, there's no point in basing AC off of a stat at all, just say a character's AC is equal to 10+level and there's no way to change it. Low defense, high staying power should be just as viable a solution as giving everyone high defenses. I think the bear shaman and barbarian both suggest that the designers see this as a reasonable solution. if, when wotc designs a class, they largely do not intend that class to rely upon heavy armor, then wotc must design that class to allow it to achieve parity with other classes with respect to ac, without relying upon heavy armor (examples include those classes with ac issues mentioned above). now, individual players can do what they wish, but a design flaw is a design flaw, irrespective of the fact that one could compensate for it with feats, magic items or otherwise. Must they? I don't think I can accurately express how much I disagree. There are three strategies to surviving damage: don't get hit, be capable of taking a lot of hits, or don't get attacked in the first place. Rather than concentrating on only the first strategy, I think all three should be viable, and that different classes (and builds within those classes) should favor one or two strategies over others. |
| #23lost_in_the_treesJun 01, 2009 18:21:44 | I would like to see a complete rewrite of DC. The way it's worded atm makes my head hurt, the arguements are still raging as to what the wording of the power require the Paladin to need to do to keep the power up. If thats not reason enough for a new look at the whole thing I dont know what is. |
| #24tienlongJun 01, 2009 20:29:41 | I'm afraid I'm going to be in the minority on this one as well. I agree with famousfoxking, especially on the AC issue; there is no reason that the Wizard, who will almost always stay in the far back, should have the same AC as a defender styled class. They typically have a greater Will and Reflex then characters with high AC. In regards to re-working the Paladin, I don't see an issue there either. We had a strladin in our party for a while and the only issue that he had with the class was that the rogue was out damaging him (though he honestly didn't think he should out damage the rogue, he just liked to make a fuss). Sure, you do less damage with the DC but many of the Str based attacks do more direct damage than Cha based attacks; and I think that was the whole purpose of the build. As for changing the DC to be based off of the primary stat (be that Wis as the OP suggested or whatever), I think that goes to far in giving the Paladin the ability to do damage to targets while completely by-passing all defenses. The point of DC is a sharp reminder to the target that you (the Paladin) are there and you are their primary target, it isn't meant to be a significant source of damage; and, correct me if I'm wrong, its the only mark damage that just does damage without having to roll an attack and regardless of where they are in reference to you. This is where its great strength lies. Lastly, and maybe I'm just not getting the issue here, but I don't see how DC is confusing. The three ways to keep a target marked are: 1)end your turn adjacent 2)attack the target 3)use the power again to mark the target again Is there something I'm missing here? |
| #25lost_in_the_treesJun 02, 2009 22:39:14 | I'm afraid I'm going to be in the minority on this one as well. I agree with famousfoxking, especially on the AC issue; there is no reason that the Wizard, who will almost always stay in the far back, should have the same AC as a defender styled class. They typically have a greater Will and Reflex then characters with high AC. I think 3 is the issue, but I will say no more as there are about 3 disscussions going on at the defenders forum about peoples interprutations. You can go there if you feel the need to find out what the issue is. |