Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Dark_Stryke Jul 08, 2009 20:04:23	Check out the Crusader. That link is just a pdf of my new class, modelled slightly after the Paladin from World of Warcraft, so WoW players will notice some similar terminology and even some power names that are ripped right out of the game. A couple things to note, though: 1. It's playable at all levels, but still in development. Some levels only have 1 power option available. 2. The third Paragon Path is missing a daily power. This isn't a typo, it's just simply not done yet. The other two paragon paths are completely playable, though "Disciple of Light" could use another level 11 feature. 3. I'm debating removing Scale Proficiency, because it might be a bit much to have off the bat for a striker who can also get shields. Anyway, read it, review it, reply with any questions or comments. Thanks in advance!
#2 ytterbium_dragon Jul 08, 2009 20:31:30	Shields don't have an enhancement bonus, so they can't work as implements.
#3 Dark_Stryke Jul 08, 2009 20:36:48	Shields don't have an enhancement bonus, so they can't work as implements. I'm aware. I already provided for that. Shield of Defence: You can use shields as your implement. For the purposes of being used as an implement, a magic shield confers an enhancement bonus equivalent to that of a same-level holy symbol, and it deals an additional 1d6 points of damage per plus on a critical hit.
#4 Dark_Stryke Jul 23, 2009 16:05:47	Just gonna give this one bump in hopes of getting a few more opinions.
#5 vebrandsson Jul 23, 2009 19:13:46	I like the seal mechanic, its interesting, not something I would have thought up thats for sure. However that said some of them seem slightly over powered even the 1st level ones. Even for a daily the ability do do something like 3[w] + prone + daze is rather high at first level I think. I'm not going to criticize all that hard because I know how difficult power balance can be first hand and I can tell (mostly by your lack of level 25 dailies) that its still a work in progress. You have a decent concept, though I still think its kind of iffy with the shield as implement thing, letting them use holy symbols like most all other divine characters would be much simpler. Any reason you are going with the shield concept? I mean even historically not all crusaders used sword and shield, have you ever heard of or seen Christian Florentine? Its a fighting style that was named after the Christian crusaders that involves the use of two great swords, each held upside down by the blade just above the quillions (the hand guard). It involves some odd slashes and lots of thrusting while being rather defensive at the same time, but I digress.
#6 Dark_Stryke Jul 24, 2009 0:36:14	Holy Symbols are on the list as well. The shields-as-implement thing is mainly there to be fair to the protector build. The two hander build is going to want a magic weapon and a magic holy symbol. Without offering shields-as-implement, the protector wants both of those, plus a magic shield. I suppose I could solve the whole thing by allowing weapons to be used as an implement, but I'm not sure I like the idea. Regarding balance: While it's true that at level one you could use Searing Judgement and Seal of Thunder's Judgement Effect to get 3[W], prone, and dazed, you're using both your encounter power and your daily power at the same time. If you use your at-will judgement, you instead end up with 2[W], which I'll admit still feels high on the curve. Seal of Enlightenment (3-4[W] and a hit bonus) and Seal of Renewal (2-3[W] and a heal) feel pretty balanced to me. They're all essentially reliable, so there's a possibility it's a bit much, but on the other hand, this class is a striker, and it generally deals lower numbers of [W] than the barbarian (partially made up for by using the sorcerer's extra damage feature)... so I'm not sure where the balance lies. One power I've had a lot of contention over is Sacred Shield (level 22 Daily Utility). It's ripped right out of WoW, the idea being that if you don't have a shield up, it creates one every time you're hit. I originally had it set at 10 temporary hit points, but others felt this was way too strong, so I reduced it to 5, which they thought would be irrelevant by level 30. So... we now have a weird mechanic where it starts at 5 and goes up to 7, which everyone I've talked to agrees is balanced, but it just grates on me bacause it's so weird. Oh, and I'm thinking of dropping scale proficiency, just so the class can't start with AC equal to a shield-wearing fighter without spending a feat on it.
#7 vebrandsson Jul 24, 2009 9:52:54	As far as the cost of magic items I don't think you're going to have an issue there to need a magic shield, consider first the paladin, magic holy symbol, magic weapon, and magic shield or magic arm slot item (if using a two handed weapon) and they still manage. Even two blade rangers or tempest fighters are shelling out as much gp for 2 magic weapons and a magic arm slot item. The cost would be comparable, or perhaps less, for your shield using crusader if you did not allow them to use shields as implements. And I say less because not using a shield as an implement removes the need to keep it at the highest possible level so you can let it lag without worry of becoming inefficient. The only reason I bring it up is because there are some people who will be confused by it and once you throw in the spiked shield, which is a shield which can be enchanted as a weapon, what happens?
#8 Dark_Stryke Jul 24, 2009 13:14:00	As far as the cost of magic items I don't think you're going to have an issue there to need a magic shield, consider first the paladin, magic holy symbol, magic weapon, and magic shield or magic arm slot item (if using a two handed weapon) and they still manage. Even two blade rangers or tempest fighters are shelling out as much gp for 2 magic weapons and a magic arm slot item. The cost would be comparable, or perhaps less, for your shield using crusader if you did not allow them to use shields as implements. And I say less because not using a shield as an implement removes the need to keep it at the highest possible level so you can let it lag without worry of becoming inefficient. The only reason I bring it up is because there are some people who will be confused by it and once you throw in the spiked shield, which is a shield which can be enchanted as a weapon, what happens? You do raise an interesting point. Maybe I should just scrap it, then. A pity, because I thought it made for a rather unique bit of flavor. I think I'll keep the "must be wearing a shield" requirement for some of the powers, though.
#9 vebrandsson Jul 24, 2009 15:09:17	I hope you do, the sword and shield striker is something I feel 4e is currently lacking
#10 Dark_Stryke Jul 24, 2009 22:43:56	I hope you do, the sword and shield striker is something I feel 4e is currently lacking Well, the Protector build is focused on str/con and has a little bit of defender in it. I expect it'll be on the low end of the striker spectrum in terms of damage, much like a fey pact warlock. I expect the 2-hander build will be a bigger damage dealer, with both larger weapons and a +1 to hit with most powers. It won't be able to take as much advantage of the marking and defensive abilities of the class, though. What would be something good to give the protector build instead of shield implements? Currently both builds get an extra damage ability, but the two hander build gets a +1 to attack rolls with radiant powers. I need something to give the protector build instead of shields-as-implements. I also need to make channel divinity powers, but that's a whole different thing entirely.
#11 Hebitsuikaza Jul 25, 2009 6:04:19	Are you serious?... This seems horrible to me. You get a striker that not only gets access to better armor from day 1 than any defender, but also gets more healing surges. Plus, not only did you give it the damage potential of the rogue, you also give it an ability at level 1 to heal itself with every attack. Please explain to me how taking the best aspects of the defender and striker and rolling them into a single class that is better than either one (except for some particularly horribly broken builds) and then allowing it to be its own leader is a valid option for a class. It really have a definate feel of "I want to be able to do a whole party's work SOLO and screw the rest of the PCs!" The mechanics of the game are really basic. Defender: High AC, Medium-Low attack damage, marks enemies to help other players Striker: High damage, Medium-Low AC, can't do jack for anyone else unless you are melee then you can get into the flank (which is still self-serving). Leader: Medium-High AC, crap attack damage, keeps the rest of the party alive. What you have created here, at least at beginning level is High AC, High Attack, Heals itself, doesn't care jack about having a party. Normal Strikers are self-serving an unfun to be working with enough, but at least when you are talking about the others the bloke needs you to keep them in one piece. But this guy? There's no longer a reason for him to need anything. Can just flip you the bird and declare he doesn't need anyone and he isn't exactly wrong. Worse, it is so over-the-top that I am having trouble conceptualizing a reason for there to even be any other Strikers in the game once you have introduced this solo beast. Even if you can rationalize that this class is not way over-the-top in terms of sheer power and capabilities, it has no place at all in a party. It's like you are intentionally trying to create the situation that required the Druid be totally reinvented for 4E.
#12 Dark_Stryke Jul 25, 2009 12:34:06	This seems horrible to me. You get a striker that not only gets access to better armor from day 1 than any defender, but also gets more healing surges. Plus, not only did you give it the damage potential of the rogue, you also give it an ability at level 1 to heal itself with every attack. Heal itself with every attack? You mean the at-will attack that gives it temporary hit points? The barbarian has the exact. same. thing. As for "damage potential of a rogue", let's break that down. A rogue will be doing 2d8 (rapier) + 8 (dex) + 5d6 (sneak attack) = 34.5 average with an at-will. Add another 8 if it's a brutal scoundral for a total of 42.5 My class will be doing 2d10 (bastard sword) + 8 (str) + 8 (con) = 27. Add another 3 if you're using a Maul or something (but then your attack bonus goes down by one, so in certain situations you're actually worse off). So... Nope, looks like I don't have the damage potential of a rogue. Also currently, it gets equal armor to a fighter and worse armor than a paladin, and if you had read the thread you'd know I was thinking about dropping chain proficiency, which would give the 2 hander build a whopping 16 AC to start (or 18 for the sword and board build) which is easily obtainable by a striker. In fact, I'd question the build of a rogue with less than 16 AC to begin. Please explain to me how taking the best aspects of the defender and striker and rolling them into a single class that is better than either one (except for some particularly horribly broken builds) and then allowing it to be its own leader is a valid option for a class. It really have a definate feel of "I want to be able to do a whole party's work SOLO and screw the rest of the PCs!" Well, the simple explanation is that you've had a knee-jerk reaction and that you're dead wrong. The possibility for 4 non-stacking temporary hit points a turn (which scales up to a whole 8 at level 30!) if you do nothing but at-will attacks for your entire career and pick one of two builds does not make you a leader. Furthermore, this class lacks the hit points of the defender, though I may have given it too many surges, and I'm going to check to make sure it gets less than the paladin and fighter. Finally, as was already proved, it deals less than or equivalent damage to a dedicated striker, and lacks the multi-target capability of the sorcerer, and the multi-attack capability of the ranger, meaning it won't get as much use out of its extra damage feature than either of those classes. The mechanics of the game are really basic. Defender: High AC, Medium-Low attack damage, marks enemies to help other players Striker: High damage, Medium-Low AC, can't do jack for anyone else unless you are melee then you can get into the flank (which is still self-serving). Leader: Medium-High AC, crap attack damage, keeps the rest of the party alive. There are other defences besides AC, you know. Also, leaders can do quite a bit of damage if they're built right. My party's dwarven warlord is hitting for 1d10+7, currently, and this is at level 2. He's also got higher AC than the party defender. I guess warlord is broken, right? Furthermore, the main draw of a defender isn't the high defences. It's the mark, and the ability to punish people who break your mark. They don't absorb attacks merely because they have high defences, if that were the case, monsters would just gleefully slaughter the low-defence strikers and controllers while the defender poked at the monster and wrung his hands. Strikers can also help the party. There's a few ranger attacks that give a penalty to defences (Splintering shot?) as well as a few that let you attack someone who hits your ally (possibly even negating the attack). Warlocks have a teleport that lets them switch places with an ally. Rogues can shift allies and enemies (King's Castle, Setup Strike). And that's just all off the top of my head. Oh, and the main draw of a leader isn't the healing, though that is a plus. The main draw is the attack bonuses they grant other party members. My class has a whopping 1 ability that does that, at level 1, once per day, if you pick it. So, thanks for the incredibly brief, mostly-wrong definition of three of the four roles. What you have created here, at least at beginning level is High AC, High Attack, Heals itself, doesn't care jack about having a party. Normal Strikers are self-serving an unfun to be working with enough, but at least when you are talking about the others the bloke needs you to keep them in one piece. But this guy? There's no longer a reason for him to need anything. Can just flip you the bird and declare he doesn't need anyone and he isn't exactly wrong. - High AC (that is quite attainable by rogues and rangers) - High attack (that is lower than any other striker) - Heals itself (doesn't. Grants a small number of non-stacking temp HP with an at-will that was shamelessly stolen from another striker class. - Self-serving and unfun (actually, a high number of the utilities benefit party members, and by virtue of being able to help the defender with a few marks, he actually helps the party quite a bit more than other strikers) Worse, it is so over-the-top that I am having trouble conceptualizing a reason for there to even be any other Strikers in the game once you have introduced this solo beast. Reasons to take other strikers: - Higher damage - Higher mobility (one of the main draws of the striker, which this class has very little of) Even if you can rationalize that this class is not way over-the-top in terms of sheer power and capabilities, it has no place at all in a party. It's like you are intentionally trying to create the situation that required the Druid be totally reinvented for 4E. No place at all. Really? So, a low-damage striker that can share some of the defender's responsibilities, which makes fights with large numbers of opponents easier, has no place at all in a party? Blessing of Might, Hand of Protection, Blessing of Sanctuary, Divine Sacrifice, Hand of Freedom, and Redemption don't have a place in a party? Righteous Defence, Hammer of Justice, Wracking Judgement, Seal of Sacred Ground, Vindication, Judgement of Reckoning, and Divine Storm have no place in a party? I don't want to flat out tell you that you're wrong, because you're not. You did notice that the surges were high, and I believe you've swayed me to drop scale proficiency. As for the rest of it; you don't seem to know what the various roles do, except in the most general way, you didn't bother checking how much damage the class was capable of dealing, at all, and I suspect that you don't know that temporary hit points from the same source don't stack. Furthermore, you didn't offer a single fix, you just complained a lot. I don't mind a brutal critique. In fact, I'm much the same myself. At least do a little analysis before posting, though. Else you wind up looking like you have no idea what you're talking about.
#13 vebrandsson Jul 25, 2009 14:55:05	Are you serious?... I think he is quite serious This seems horrible to me. You get a striker that not only gets access to better armor from day 1 than any defender, but also gets more healing surges. Plus, not only did you give it the damage potential of the rogue, you also give it an ability at level 1 to heal itself with every attack. Last I checked the paladin, who is a defender, gets plate and heavy shields, how do you beat that for armor. Also the paladin still wins on healing surges easily. I mean you seem to forget that barbarians in hide can match swordmages for AC and come out with a better reflex defense. Please explain to me how taking the best aspects of the defender and striker and rolling them into a single class that is better than either one (except for some particularly horribly broken builds) and then allowing it to be its own leader is a valid option for a class. It really have a definate feel of "I want to be able to do a whole party's work SOLO and screw the rest of the PCs!" Look at the paladin, straladins are very strikerish, you can't say that the lay on hands is not a defender power, plus they have area attacks, the class that can do a little of everything already exists, and I think the paladin is better at it than this class given how little range this class has in comparison to the paladin. The mechanics of the game are really basic. Defender: High AC, Medium-Low attack damage, marks enemies to help other players Striker: High damage, Medium-Low AC, can't do jack for anyone else unless you are melee then you can get into the flank (which is still self-serving). Leader: Medium-High AC, crap attack damage, keeps the rest of the party alive. Rogues have low AC? Rangers have low AC? Sorcerers have low AC? This is news to me. And the warlock is glad to know his controlling abilities that hinder opponents to aid the defenders and other characters doesn't help anyone. What you have created here, at least at beginning level is High AC, High Attack, Heals itself, doesn't care jack about having a party. Normal Strikers are self-serving an unfun to be working with enough, but at least when you are talking about the others the bloke needs you to keep them in one piece. But this guy? There's no longer a reason for him to need anything. Can just flip you the bird and declare he doesn't need anyone and he isn't exactly wrong. Temporary hit points is not healing, and battle ragers and barbarians already get something very similar. Also tell the unity avenger that he is self serving and unfun to be working with. In fact I think this class is far more team oriented than the pre-divine power avenger ever was, given the avenger's need of isolation and design that counters defenders and controllers objectives at every step. Worse, it is so over-the-top that I am having trouble conceptualizing a reason for there to even be any other Strikers in the game once you have introduced this solo beast. Its not really a solo class, temporary hit points are a poor substitute for the ability to spend healing surges which this class does not have a massive ability to do. Now granted this is the only class out there with defender as a secondary role but that does not make it over the top. Even if you can rationalize that this class is not way over-the-top in terms of sheer power and capabilities, it has no place at all in a party. It's like you are intentionally trying to create the situation that required the Druid be totally reinvented for 4E. I have no idea what situation to which you refer but once again its hard to argue that this class is less team oriented than the avenger who's goal in life was to **** off controllers and defenders and over tax the resources of the leader. I mean you complain that he has leader like abilities and can help others which makes him over the top, then you complain that he is completely un-team oriented and designed to solo, which is it?
#14 Hebitsuikaza Jul 25, 2009 18:42:42	A rogue will be doing 2d8 (rapier) + 8 (dex) + 5d6 (sneak attack) = 34.5 average with an at-will. Add another 8 if it's a brutal scoundral for a total of 42.5 My class will be doing 2d10 (bastard sword) + 8 (str) + 8 (con) = 27. Add another 3 if you're using a Maul or something (but then your attack bonus goes down by one, so in certain situations you're actually worse off). This is a horribly dishonest example and you knew it when you wrote it. You are comparing the damage of an epic-level Rogue to what your character here will be doing for most of their career. Furthermore, you are comparing the damage a rogue would get only when it gets an opportunity attack without noting the similarly high critical damage your class gets. If your arguement is that the rogue eventually gets higher damage, but will be looking at probably 5 less AC for their entire career... that's not a very fair arguement unless you intended for this class to be used exclusively in high level games. So... Nope, looks like I don't have the damage potential of a rogue. Also currently, it gets equal armor to a fighter and worse armor than a paladin, and if you had read the thread you'd know I was thinking about dropping chain proficiency, which would give the 2 hander build a whopping 16 AC to start (or 18 for the sword and board build) which is easily obtainable by a striker. In fact, I'd question the build of a rogue with less than 16 AC to begin. But that would still make it... what? A Barbarian with better armor? I don't know of any class right now that drops an armor proficiency in the middle of the list either. Well, the simple explanation is that you've had a knee-jerk reaction and that you're dead wrong. The possibility for 4 non-stacking temporary hit points a turn (which scales up to a whole 8 at level 30!) if you do nothing but at-will attacks for your entire career and pick one of two builds does not make you a leader. Furthermore, this class lacks the hit points of the defender, though I may have given it too many surges, and I'm going to check to make sure it gets less than the paladin and fighter. Finally, as was already proved, it deals less than or equivalent damage to a dedicated striker, and lacks the multi-target capability of the sorcerer, and the multi-attack capability of the ranger, meaning it won't get as much use out of its extra damage feature than either of those classes. Why does it instrically do less damage than the Barbarian? Enough for it to warrant getting scale mail? There are other defences besides AC, you know. Also, leaders can do quite a bit of damage if they're built right. My party's dwarven warlord is hitting for 1d10+7, currently, and this is at level 2. He's also got higher AC than the party defender. I guess warlord is broken, right? Probably because your party fighter is using a build that allows him to do quite a lot more than 1d10+7 damage and sacrificed potential AC to do this. Furthermore, the main draw of a defender isn't the high defences. It's the mark, and the ability to punish people who break your mark. They don't absorb attacks merely because they have high defences, if that were the case, monsters would just gleefully slaughter the low-defence strikers and controllers while the defender poked at the monster and wrung his hands. Indeed. Being a defender is sacrificial. There is an element of team play there. This class robs the fighter of most of their stuff and then takes out the team play element. Strikers can also help the party. There's a few ranger attacks that give a penalty to defences (Splintering shot?) as well as a few that let you attack someone who hits your ally (possibly even negating the attack). Warlocks have a teleport that lets them switch places with an ally. Rogues can shift allies and enemies (King's Castle, Setup Strike). And that's just all off the top of my head. I have to point out that the primary use of the later two abilities tends to be pretty selfish. When a Warlock switches places with an ally, it is usually to sacrifice the ally with better defenses when they are taking hits so that they can take combat advantage and rack up more kills. The same is pretty true of the Rogu's ability to shift allies and enemies. Nonetheless, the rogue's mobility is at least expected to get combat advantage for the teammates... something your class here doesn't even consider. Losing the mobility (as you state later in this post) is not a penalty to the class-- it is a penalty to the rest of the team. Oh, and the main draw of a leader isn't the healing, though that is a plus. The main draw is the attack bonuses they grant other party members. My class has a whopping 1 ability that does that, at level 1, once per day, if you pick it. Well, if you say so. My experience playing a Bard says that the healing surges + bonus I can give twice per a battle helps the party quite a bit more than the +1 to attacks for the battle I can do once per a day. But, perhaps I misjudged the healing capacity. Nonetheless, it still feels like you've combined the defender and striker into a single class by removing all the aspects of the roles that were primarily beneficial to allies and creating a class that is primarily meant to play solo adventures.
#15 pheonixiv Jul 25, 2009 23:06:11	Anyone who thinks Strikers have low AC needs to go take a look at the Avenger, a well built Persuit Avenger has an AC that can accurately be described as "Nuts." Class looks interesting so far. I would personally put some more thought into the whole 'shields as impliments' thing, it doesn't really work at the moment, but the designer in me is sure that it could if it was done right.
#16 Dark_Stryke Jul 26, 2009 1:19:23	This is a horribly dishonest example and you knew it when you wrote it. You are comparing the damage of an epic-level Rogue to what your character here will be doing for most of their career. Furthermore, you are comparing the damage a rogue would get only when it gets an opportunity attack without noting the similarly high critical damage your class gets. If your arguement is that the rogue eventually gets higher damage, but will be looking at probably 5 less AC for their entire career... that's not a very fair arguement unless you intended for this class to be used exclusively in high level games. Actually, I made two mistakes. 1. My class should be dealing 4 more damage, since it's extra damage ability increase to mod+4 at level 21. 2. The rogue doesn't have the Back Stabber feat, which increases his damage to 5d8. Overall, I actually missed a point of damage for the rogue. My class is an additional point behind. Looking at level 1 damage (assuming the best damage you can deal): (assuming both non-humans, with 18s in primary ability scores. That means Dragonborn Crusader and Half-Orc Rogue). Rogue (Positioning Strike) : 1d8 (rapier) + 4 (dex) + 4 (str) + 2d6 (sneak attack) = 19.5 Crusader (Lightbringer's Strike): 2d6 (maul) + 4 (str) + 4 (cha) = 15 No, the rogue does not "eventually" deal more damage. It always deals more damage. Yes, it needs combat advantage. The designers assume you're getting it almost, if not every round. A rogue who is not getting CA is failing as a rogue. Furthermore, we're not looking at "five points of AC behind". Not even close. By virtue of increasing his dexterity mod, the rogue is increasing his AC. At level 30 we're looking at: Rogue: 25 (base) + 10 (+6 starleather) + 8 (dexterity) = 43 Crusader: 25 (base) + 19 (+6 elderscale) + 2 (shield) = 46 That's assuming a protective build crusader, and neither spends a feat to get better armor. If the crusader is using a 2 Hander, his AC drops to 44... one more than the rogue! *EDIT* Responding to "similarly high critical damage": My class has a grand total of 3 abilities that deal extra damage on a critical hit: Judgement of Wrath (2d6 extra damage), Seal of Blood (5 extra damage) and Hammer of Wrath (might possibly deal 6 or 12 extra on a crit of one or both of you are bloodied). Furthermore, two of them require you take a specific paragon path. Trust me, the rogue deals a lot more on a critical hit than a Crusader. But that would still make it... what? A Barbarian with better armor? I don't know of any class right now that drops an armor proficiency in the middle of the list either. The barbarian has a class feature that lets it add constitution or charisma to AC. The AC of the two classes will be pretty much the same. The Crusader will be slightly higher if he uses a shield, but he'll deal less damage. Give and take. *EDIT* I made a mistake. I meant to say that I'd be dropping scale proficiency. I have a feeling you knew that, and you're just intentionally missing the point, but there it is. Why does it instrically do less damage than the Barbarian? Enough for it to warrant getting scale mail? Actually, yes. The Crusader needs heavy armor to have a hope of keeping up with the barbarian's AC. Probably because your party fighter is using a build that allows him to do quite a lot more than 1d10+7 damage and sacrificed potential AC to do this. Wrong again. Our party Warden is dealing 2d4+4 with a falchion. Her AC is 18 (11 base, 4 +1 hide, 3 con), his is 19 (11 base, 6 chainmail, 2 heavy shield). *EDIT* Note that the Warlord has a magic weapon, but the Warden has magic armor. If they both had +1 equipment in every slot, we'd be looking at a warden who dealt 2d4+5 with 18AC and a Warlord who dealt 1d10+7 with 20AC. Indeed. Being a defender is sacrificial. There is an element of team play there. This class robs the fighter of most of their stuff and then takes out the team play element. The fighter has more hit points and can mark everything it attacks. My class gets marks as a per encounter ability if you focus on such things. You're completely wrong. I have to point out that the primary use of the later two abilities tends to be pretty selfish. When a Warlock switches places with an ally, it is usually to sacrifice the ally with better defenses when they are taking hits so that they can take combat advantage and rack up more kills. The same is pretty true of the Rogu's ability to shift allies and enemies. Nonetheless, the rogue's mobility is at least expected to get combat advantage for the teammates... something your class here doesn't even consider. Losing the mobility (as you state later in this post) is not a penalty to the class-- it is a penalty to the rest of the team. Clearly, the Warlock can't use his teleport to put a team mate in an advantageous position. Also, the rogue can't but a defender in a position where he's surrounded by enemies (where he wants to be!) that would be unselfish, which as we know, strikers can't do. Also, strikers besides the rogue have mobility. The warlock teleports semi-constantly, and the ranger has multiple abilities to shift. The Crusader gives up some of this mobility (though he still has a bit, see Righteous Surge and Path of Glory) in order to gain a bit of the defender's power. It's a trade off. Well, if you say so. My experience playing a Bard says that the healing surges + bonus I can give twice per a battle helps the party quite a bit more than the +1 to attacks for the battle I can do once per a day. But, perhaps I misjudged the healing capacity. Nonetheless, it still feels like you've combined the defender and striker into a single class by removing all the aspects of the roles that were primarily beneficial to allies and creating a class that is primarily meant to play solo adventures. I'm sorry you feel that way. You have indeed completely misjudged the healing capacity. While a leader can be played completely as a healer, you miss out on many of the best leader abilities. Take a look at the warlord. Commander's Strike, Wolf Pack Tactics, and Furious Smash are all designed to help allies with attack bonuses, extra attacks, or both! The Crusader gains neither the healing capacity of the leader nor the attack bonus abilities, and certainly cannot function as "its own leader". It is what it is. A blend of striker and defender abilities, with a primary striker role. I also don't understand this "solo class" mentality you have. Several abilities (Blessing of Might, Blessing of Sacrifice, Divine Sacrifice, Guardian's Favor, Blessing of Sanctuary, Righteous Defence, Redemption, Hammer of the Righteous) can only be used on allies, and by virtue of having several defender abilities (pseudo-marks like Divine Ward) you can help out the party defender, which, as you plainly state, is a "sacrificial" role.
#17 vebrandsson Jul 27, 2009 10:46:22	You see what Hebitsuikaza has not done is the actual math on AC, if he had he would realize that this class in scale armor is actually worse off than a barbarian in hide by several points. The rogue who takes feats for hide and shields can have one of the highest ACs in the game. Hide + hide spec + heavy shield + max dex bonus = 34 AC. Plate armor + heavy shield + plate spec = 33. Heavy armor is WORSE than light armor in 4e provided you have a high dex/int (or other stat if a class feature allows like dragon sorcerers get)
#18 esperifiel Jul 29, 2009 4:30:02	You've built a retadin. Get rid of the shield flavor of the class and replace with two-handers. Put in some two-hander specific bonuses that would be in 4E that aren't in WoW, like reach. I see striker primary, leader secondary. You still need bubble (low level utility daily) and lay hands (same as 4E paladin). Rapid Judgement: "You deliver to quick..." Change to: "two"
#19 Dark_Stryke Jul 29, 2009 15:40:08	You've built a retadin. Get rid of the shield flavor of the class and replace with two-handers. Put in some two-hander specific bonuses that would be in 4E that aren't in WoW, like reach. I see striker primary, leader secondary. You still need bubble (low level utility daily) and lay hands (same as 4E paladin). Rapid Judgement: "You deliver to quick..." Change to: "two" Thanks for the error correction. Yes, it does take some inspiration from World of Warcraft. There's already a two-hander build (Crusader's Strike feature grants a bonus to damage with two-handed weapons). Bubble is already in the class (Hand of Protection is a low level encounter utility and Divine Shield is a level 16 daily utility). I don't think it needs Lay on Hands, especially if it's exactly the same as another the Paladin's. The idea wasn't to make something exactly the same as the WoW Pally, but something that kept the flavor while being uniquely 4E. Adding reach to some of the attacks would be interesting, and would certainly get around the mobility problem. Currently, I don't have anything to keep the shield build from getting such attacks, though, unless I make them charisma-based.