He built an Elf Paladin, but spec'd him out terribly because he wanted to use a bow. His highest stat is DEX, and he only has a +2 in STR and a +1 in CHA
Basically, he isn't defending the party because he wants to stay at range. This leaves our party with only 2 people on the front line, me (dragonborn battle cleric) and our warforged barb. He also isn't healing anyone because his healing powers are touch and he stays at range.
We've been lucky so far, but it's left me as the only healing in the party (no warlord), and it's only a matter of time before we get wiped out. How do I get him back on the front line?
2) bind him...
3) break his bow...
4) and trow him as a meat shield...
im sure he gonna pick up his sword after that....
but im not sure if it gona make him heal you more....
Just tell him to play a striker if he wants to be a striker.
But if he never gets this close like 95% of his power choices are useless, as most are melee weapon, and thus do not work with a bow, and the ranged ones are mostly ranged 5. (I just checked my PHB and only saw 2 dailies with more then range 5)
But if he wants to only use basic attacks let him, Though i think the first person to die should at least talk about rolling up an archery ranger, just to obsolete his character.
Seriously, 90% of the questions asked on this board, the answer is "talk to him politely" :-)
Assuming this if 4e, he can still shoot arrows and mark, as the mark is a burst 5, oh course that leaves him in range for the monsters to charge him.
But if he never gets this close like 95% of his power choices are useless, as most are melee weapon, and thus do not work with a bow, and the ranged ones are mostly ranged 5. (I just checked my PHB and only saw 2 dailies with more then range 5)
But if he wants to only use basic attacks let him, Though i think the first person to die should at least talk about rolling up an archery ranger, just to obsolete his character.
We have one already
Reyemile, I plan on talking to him, but my people skills aren't the best, so I was looking more for input on how to approach the subject.
Remake it as an elven bow ranger. If they wanted the religious overtones, tell them to keep playing it, tell them in game to belong to a militant religious order, take the religion skill, take paladin multiclass feats, carry a holy symbol, preach, do it all.
Afteall, this is 4e where the name of a class is not a straight jacket to force you into a concept, but rather just a placeholder for your idea.
First, explain that his character is badly underperforming compared to the rest of the party. Do this carefully--don't make it a problem of stupidity or failure, but an issue of you feeling like you are doing more work for less reward, and thus not having as much fun. Then ask him why he is playing that character. Any discussion you have will be pointless if you don't understand his motivation. Is his character design based on a character in a book? Is it because he didn't understand the rules and thought it would be viable? Is there a roleplaying reason?
Then, try to figure out what will work for eeryone. If he really wants to be a 'holy warrior' with a bow, you might explain to him that holy warrior is mostly flavor, and he can easily be a Ranger with a Cleric/Paladin multiclass. If he honestly thought the build was clever and functional, you could explain to him that it was a noble experiment but that it failed. If he wants to have a bow as a legacy to his elaborate elven anscestral backstory, you could point out that swapping his strength and dexterity would let him function more in day-to-day fights and still leave him a respectable archery total. In other words, give him what he wants. Just do it in a way that doesn't suck :-)
have him describe his light armor as thick, priestly robes and play with the same religious fervor as he normally would.
change the paladin class so it works with ranged weapons.
So far the only bit of decent advice in this thread.....
Reading all but Kerrus's reply here, all I could do was laugh. So much for the 4e rules allowing you to make & play the type of character you wanted.... Heard such hype about that being an aspect of 4e. And hows it turn out? Yes, you can play whatever type of character you want - so long as it's one of the few concepts WoTC wrote powers specificly for.
Didn't choose one of those? The game breaks down completely & everyone tells you to make a character using the same cookie-cutter they use.
Don't go Ranger, that's boring.
All right, Klivian, here's the best advice I can give on how to discuss this problem. DnD is ultimately about one single thing: having fun. If you tell him he's "wrong," or "playing poorly," things will backfire. When having discussions such as this, the number one question you should ask--both to yourself, and to the problem player-- is "what can we do to make the game fun for both of us?"
First, explain that his character is badly underperforming compared to the rest of the party. Do this carefully--don't make it a problem of stupidity or failure, but an issue of you feeling like you are doing more work for less reward, and thus not having as much fun. Then ask him why he is playing that character. Any discussion you have will be pointless if you don't understand his motivation. Is his character design based on a character in a book? Is it because he didn't understand the rules and thought it would be viable? Is there a roleplaying reason?
Then, try to figure out what will work for eeryone. If he really wants to be a 'holy warrior' with a bow, you might explain to him that holy warrior is mostly flavor, and he can easily be a Ranger with a Cleric/Paladin multiclass. If he honestly thought the build was clever and functional, you could explain to him that it was a noble experiment but that it failed. If he wants to have a bow as a legacy to his elaborate elven anscestral backstory, you could point out that swapping his strength and dexterity would let him function more in day-to-day fights and still leave him a respectable archery total. In other words, give him what he wants. Just do it in a way that doesn't suck :-)
Exactly. You need to figure out what it is he's trying to do, and help him do it. Whatever this is ... it ain't workin'.
Sometimes it's something stubborn like "Elf Paladin with a Bow". I've been there! My 3.5 archer fighter concept was my favorite build. Lots of feats, lots of damage (lose out on mobility, that's about it).
My first 4e character? A fighter with a bow. Though I quickly learned that it does not work. I was so upset - betrayed even. Until I actually sat down and built a ranger (my mentality was still "Why play a weak bow ranger when fighter archers are so much better) As I worked out how the powers and character worked I changed my tune - Rangers are now my favorite class (Though I go for the two-weapon variety.. usually as a dwarf with twin axes YAR!)
Anyways, it's possible he's coming crom 3.5 and trying to relive a character that just dosn't exist with what we have so far. Maybe divine power will allow him to play an Archer Paladin, but currently that dosn't work unless the DM homerules a lot of stuff.
So much for the 4e rules allowing you to make & play the type of character you wanted.... Heard such hype about that being an aspect of 4e. And hows it turn out? ...
That allot of players do not understand how this works in 4E.
You are suppose to build you character by choosing a concept and then selecting the options that best fit that concept, and class is not part of a proper concept, personality is. Class represents how you have been trained, and what you are trained to do. not your characters social role or personality type.
Now, it is not that the elf bow Paladin completely sucks, the issue is that he is waisting abilities, and losing options that work better for any personality traits that could be the concept. He needs to Paragon Multi class into Ranger to get full use of the weapon he is using, which is not optimal, but possibly salvageable.
That allot of players do not understand how this works in 4E.
You are suppose to build you character by choosing a concept and then selecting the options that best fit that concept, and class is not part of a proper concept, personality is. Class represents how you have been trained, and what you are trained to do. not your characters social role or personality type.
Now, it is not that the elf bow Paladin completely sucks, the issue is that he is waisting abilities, and losing options that work better for any personality traits that could be the concept. He needs to Paragon Multi class into Ranger to get full use of the weapon he is using, which is not optimal, but possibly salvageable.
QFT.
Elven bow paladin is an awesome concept, and easy to model in 4e. This guy is just doing it entirely wrong.
My build? If he wants to focus on being a defender he could even do this with the paladin base class. Build a Cha-paladin with high Wis and Dex. I don't use point buy but I'd wager he could swing a 16 cha and still have a 14 wis and dex? Ignore Str-based abilities entirely. Choose a maximal number of cha-based paladin abilities, especially the ranged ones, and ranger multiclass. If the GM is not a stickler, see if he'll let you sacrifice Divine Challenge (you're never going to use it anyway) in return for the option to occasionally take a Ranger exploit at levels when you can't take a ranged paladin ability (if there even are any, I can't recall). You won't be super optimal, kind of a wishy-washy leader/defender/striker that can't shine at any of the three roles, but you'll still get use out of your class powers and not be a drain to the party. In a large party you might even be valuable for your versatility.
I for one would just take the easy route of making a ranger with paladin multiclass. It's probably more to the feel this player wants, unless he's laying down an awful lot of paladin healing and status damage while wielding his bow (but it doesn't sound like he is).
Why is he a paladin if he wants to use a bow? I'm assuming your playing 4th edition then, since the classes are so roped into having to fill their roll unlike older editions where one could actually enjoy playing the kind of character they like.
Just tell him to play a striker if he wants to be a striker.
Never miss a chance to take a dig at 4th edition.
So far the only bit of decent advice in this thread.....
Reading all but Kerrus's reply here, all I could do was laugh. So much for the 4e rules allowing you to make & play the type of character you wanted.... Heard such hype about that being an aspect of 4e. And hows it turn out? Yes, you can play whatever type of character you want - so long as it's one of the few concepts WoTC wrote powers specificly for.
Didn't choose one of those? The game breaks down completely & everyone tells you to make a character using the same cookie-cutter they use.
Never miss a chance to take a dig at 4th edition.
Reading all but Kerrus's reply here, all I could do was laugh. So much for the 4e rules allowing you to make & play the type of character you wanted.... Heard such hype about that being an aspect of 4e. And hows it turn out? Yes, you can play whatever type of character you want - so long as it's one of the few concepts WoTC wrote powers specificly for.
Didn't choose one of those? The game breaks down completely & everyone tells you to make a character using the same cookie-cutter they use.
Because it was really easy to make a functional Bow-Paladin in 3rd edition....
But seriously. This is a thread about a 4e player having problems with a 4e campaign that is otherwise 4e fun. As much as I disapprove of AaronM's double posting, I agree with his spirit: if you don't have anything constructive to add to the OP's question, just leave this thread alone. There are more than enough places on these and other boards to moan about 4e being bad.
Meanwhile, as for the OP: I've said my piece. The game is all about fun, so you need to figure out how to make everyone have fun. Isolate what he wants out of his character and help him build a version of his character that has those features without dragging the rest of you down. And let us know how it turns out!
Because it was really easy to make a functional Bow-Paladin in 3rd edition....
It actually was. Ranged Smite is a good start, and with a full BAB class you won't end up with such epic fail as the OP is describing.
It actually was. Ranged Smite is a good start, and with a full BAB class you won't end up with such epic fail as the OP is describing.
Possibly, but I doubt it can not be made to work in 4E either. Just that is would be harder.
You need several pieces in the party (melee combatants), and your build. If you are using nothing from your class, and another class does the role you are playing better, then you are missing out on allot for no good reason, so the Player needs ot figure out how to use his class abilities to full effect.
The player needs to change his style to use the PC's abilities, which in the case of a paladin means staying within 5 squares to be able to mark, and selecting ranged attack powers whenever possible, possibly with some MCing to get more. If he is within 5 squares and marks someone who is adjacent to 1-2 allies, then the monster has a choice of attacking the paladin, and getting OAed or swinging at someone adjacent and getting a penalty and Radiant damage. if the monster charges, then the paladin can shift away to re-attack, or draw a sword and swing that way.
Now as to his actual build it looks like his attributes are more split than they should be, +2 str and +1 cha just doesn't make sense when he's focusing on dex, he has too many points in strength that are literally doing nothing but making him less effcient. Since Divine Challenge is an intrinsic damage source for ranged paladings it should be his secondary focus, in otherwords after dex his attribute points should be in charisma and then a couple points in wisdom to be able to use LoH. He should pretty much completely dump str, con, and int, he has no need for them at all, after all his ranged is dex, his divine challenge is charisma, his melee is charisma, and his healing is wisdom. Starting attributes would look something like:
10 STR
18 DEX
11 CON
8 INT
15 WIS
16 CHA
Take greatbow proficiency asap, and then take feats like weapon focus or ranger multi-class feats (this is one character concept that specifically benefits from power swap multi-class feats).
If the player wasn't very familiar with 4E rules ahead of time it could easily expalin his lackluster build. If this is the case the GM should give him a chance to tweak his character a bit to better suit what he was trying to build.
As much as I disapprove of AaronM's double posting,
Very JUSTIFIED double posting. :P Whining people need to be publicly humiliated.
More on topic: Reyemile is right (albeit a bit too careful with a man's feelings for my taste), find out what he wants and explain him there is a better way of getting it than the current situation. Now he has a suboptimal character, give him options to optimize his character while (optionally) maintaining the spirit of the character if he holds that dear.
No reason to be a paladin and use a bow as your main weapon. Be a Ranger and then start role-playing and stop letting your class dictate your behavior. That's the part about 4th edition I do like, just do what you want and not what you feel like you have just because a class is named wizard or paladin, etc. People need to learn to get over that, just like they need to learn to get over the fact that people don't all have to like the changes that 4E brought and those people's opinions should be respected just like anyone else's.
KShaver - I'm no expert on Paladins, but don't you have to be beside the target for the mark to continue working? or do you just have to keep attacking them? (sorry, don't have a rule-book in front of me)
You must either be adjacent to them, or attack them, so firing the bow is sufficient to maintain the mark.
You must either be adjacent to them, or attack them, so firing the bow is sufficient to maintain the mark.
Hey, that makes this a cooler build than I thought. I thought the pally had to hold the mark at melee range too.
Good thing I learned this before the new paladin joined my campaign.
...where the hell does the concept of the archer-paladin come from? It's a concept that just doesn't jive with me at all. I could see a religious archer-type, but when I think paladin, I automatically think heavy armor and sword and shield. Use a bow for anything more than ranged backup and you no longer have a paladin, imho. Hell, personally I see paladins as the type to avoid ranged weapons completely-- ranged fighting just doesn't have that honor to it.
After reading some of the replies here, I just have to ask...
...where the hell does the concept of the archer-paladin come from? It's a concept that just doesn't jive with me at all. I could see a religious archer-type, but when I think paladin, I automatically think heavy armor and sword and shield. Use a bow for anything more than ranged backup and you no longer have a paladin, imho. Hell, personally I see paladins as the type to avoid ranged weapons completely-- ranged fighting just doesn't have that honor to it.
Given the definition of a Paladin as a Holy Warrior, it makes perfect sense. The class name is not "Knight Templar", even if that is what they used to be in older editions.
Besides, what does anyone but an LG paladin care about honour, necessarily? And who is to say that charging with a sword at someone is more honourable than firing a bow at them? The build is still not a sneak-and-shoot one.
Given the definition of a Paladin as a Holy Warrior, it makes perfect sense. The class name is not "Knight Templar", even if that is what they used to be in older editions.
Well, more accurately, the Paladin was modeled after the peers of Charlesmagne and knights of the Round Table, and the Cleric was supposed to be modeled after the Knights Templar, as well as the other orders involved in the Crusades. Which is actually also why simply saying that all Holy Warriors are Paladins and therefore a divine-flavored archer would need to be a Paladin is just a bit unreasonable in this case. (Not to suggest that you, specifically, are arguing this, mind you)
Besides, what does anyone but an LG paladin care about honour, necessarily? And who is to say that charging with a sword at someone is more honourable than firing a bow at them? The build is still not a sneak-and-shoot one.
Erm, to be fair, the sneaking seems like it starts brush up against the key competancies of any archer character: the ability to use terrain and cover to one's advantage are kind of important for any combat archer, and this is one point in which the Ranger class comes out favorably as an option, what with having one of the relevant knowledge skills automatically, and having Stealth (and Perception, another core competancy) as a class skill. And that's without mentioning the absurdity that is a longbowman decked out in full plate armor.
Personally, for a 'holy archer', I would suggest using a laser cleric and multiclassing into ranger-- or, perhaps vice versa, depending on your preferred emphasis. You keep the divine flavor and even the radiant damage, but you also get to use ranged attack powers, and use them effectively-- the two classes even syngergize pretty well in multiclassing.
I suspect that proposed god of archery has very few if any members of the paladin class as followers. He might very well have followers who are rangers or a cross class mix of rangers with cleric or paladin who are known in world as Paladins of GenericArcheryGod.
4th is flexible, and its easy to build a a huge variety of character concepts. The indidvidual classes in 4th are intentionally less flexible and for good reasons.
What the character is essentially doing is saying i want to play a thief and chooseing the rogue class, but then saying my rogue is a knight who is a keptomaniac and choosing weapons and armor and RP conceits that make all of his class abilites unusable and insignificant. I believe that the party is within his rights to expect said character to play a fighter and take skills to represent his thieflyness rather than accept a character that chooses not be effective by making choices based on a class name that lacks mechanical connection to how the character is going to be played at the table
If it is 3.5 then Point Blank Shot is a good idea, if not perhaps some house rules similair to this would be in order.
A sturdy bow with blades on it could be used as a melee weapon, and to parry attacks with, make attacks of opportunity and threaten the adjacent squares etc, and still be used as a bow to fire on the enemy at point blank range, albeit at a cost of accuracy and range for anything that isn't within 10'. This would allow the Paladin to fight toe to toe as a meat shield while still allowing him to use the bow concept.
This is an easy concept to pull off. The problem is a lot of people see "Paladin" and think that the only way to be a Paladin is be a member of the class.
In 4E your class is just a combination of abilities that go together. A Wizard could role play his powers as anything from a dark pact like a warlock or from unlocking power in the items he carries with him like an artificer.
Once that's been gone over I'd recommend a ranger cleric. 18's in Dex and Wisdom. (16+2 ability mod) would be a good choice. Pick up a few MC power feats if he want's to do ranged "smites." He can pick up items that let him do radiant damage and take armor feats if he's really committed to scale or plate.
If he's happy with his character as is he's probably the type of player that likes to set himself up to fail. No big. Just talk about it with your DM. Hopefully s/he will have enough experience to know how to deal with this type of player.
I've had one or two in my day and I've found the trick is to give them opportunities to fail without it hurting the party, then account for their sub optimal build when designing combats and granting XP.
What if you're a Paladin of a god of archery?
What if you are? The bow is not the best weapon to use in every circumstance.
Hell, personally I see paladins as the type to avoid ranged weapons completely-- ranged fighting just doesn't have that honor to it.
Point being that a Paladin of a god of archery would consider it honorable to use a bow, since that is his patron's weapon.
The thing is, he can NOT properly do this from he side lines with a bow. He can not block an atack, or get in the way to shield someone from the sidelines.
A paladin of an archery god would be charged with protecting archers, by getting in the way, and making keeping the enemies from getting to close to attack them. Now this does allow for the use of a bow, but it means he needs to be getting in between the archers and the monsters, which does not work if you keep using the bow from afar.
It was actually in response to this specific line, which I probably should have quoted:
Point being that a Paladin of a god of archery would consider it honorable to use a bow, since that is his patron's weapon.
Favored weapons are out.
A Paladin of an archery god would be charged with protecting felow paladins (who took the Ranger class) of the order, by getting in the way, and making keeping the enemies from getting to close to attack them. Now this does allow for the use of a bow, but it means he needs to be getting in between his archer companions and the monsters, which does not work if you keep using the bow from afar.
While 4th ED is the first edition to truely embrace the idea, membership in an order has (mostly) not required a specific class ever since Elf started being a race.
I believe I agree pretty much with what your saying but I think it might be better put like this:
While 4th ED is the first edition to truely embrace the idea, membership in an order has (mostly) not required a specific class ever since Elf started being a race.
Well said, well said. Have a cookie.
A paladins job is to protect his companions and the faithful.
The thing is, he can NOT properly do this from he side lines with a bow. He can not block an atack, or get in the way to shield someone from the sidelines.
A paladin of an archery god would be charged with protecting archers, by getting in the way, and making keeping the enemies from getting to close to attack them. Now this does allow for the use of a bow, but it means he needs to be getting in between the archers and the monsters, which does not work if you keep using the bow from afar.
I think it would be kind of sweet to play a guy who uses arrows to stop peoples movements. Guy is running to attack the archers, paladin shoots him in the thigh and he stumbles (ending his movement) Guy runs to take a punch at them, paladin shoots him in the elbow or shoulder (ending the attack, or providing a penalty to it).
I think it would be kind of sweet to play a guy who uses arrows to stop peoples movements. Guy is running to attack the archers, paladin shoots him in the thigh and he stumbles (ending his movement) Guy runs to take a punch at them, paladin shoots him in the elbow or shoulder (ending the attack, or providing a penalty to it).
I believe rangers have powers that do both of those (the second example obviously being Disruptive Strike). So, yeah, this guy should have played class: Ranger, but called himself a Paladin.
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0209.html
In this case, I would ask him to make a Ranger, and reflavor his powers. Or wait for the new Avenger class.
I think that's what he's REALLY wanting to play.
Reading all but Kerrus's reply here, all I could do was laugh. So much for the 4e rules allowing you to make & play the type of character you wanted.... Heard such hype about that being an aspect of 4e. And hows it turn out? Yes, you can play whatever type of character you want - so long as it's one of the few concepts WoTC wrote powers specificly for.
Didn't choose one of those? The game breaks down completely & everyone tells you to make a character using the same cookie-cutter they use.
The game breaks down for this guy because he seems to have pulled his character class, attributes values , skills, and Power selection for his character concept at random from a hat.
I'll do the same thing now
I want my character to be very strong in melee range . I want him to be able to take a lot of damage. I want him to be able to protect other party members. Hmmmm This will be the BEST Wizard EVAR! Strength will be #1 priority so I do lots of melee damage. Charisma will be next because I will use my charming good looks to distract the enemies. I'll be a dragonborn too for the extra strength. Lets see 22 point buy and racial adjustments will get me
18+2 =20 strength ,, lots of damage
14+2=16 charisma ,, VERY handsome!
11 constitution ,, for those extra hitpoints
10 dex ,, thats for bows , don't need it!
10 wis ,, Am I a cleric? I think not.
9 int ,, Don't need to be a genius to swing a sword.
OK powers time
For at wills I'll take Cloud of daggers, and use it right in front of me so anything I fight will get hit.
And hmmm Thunderwave sounds like It will make a lot of noise and get the mobs attention.
For an encounter power I will use Force Orb to force my opponents away from the squishies in the back row.
And for the Daily power Sleep sounds perfect , I'll cast that when too many creatures come too close to me!
PERFECT!!!!
haha! WOOT I will have so much fun !
Well, more accurately, the Paladin was modeled after the peers of Charlesmagne .
True
and knights of the Round Table.
Not according to Gary Gygax. He wrote at ENWord that Arthur, Lancelot and most of the Knights of the Round Table would not be Paladins. The inclusion of Paladin levels in the 1e Deities and Demigods was Jim Ward's doing and a mistake in Mr. Gygax's opinion. Although, iirc, Mr. Gygax allowed for Galahad and, perhaps, Perciville as Paladins.
First there are the questions: Is this guy actually new/ignorant to 4E as others have suggested? Is he just being a jerk? Is he having fun despite his ineffectiveness?
These questions are important because I would say that within the scope of someone who knows the rules and isn't out to annoy the other players, there is no "doing it wrong". I don't think that you guys have the right to tell him how to create his character despite his effectiveness. Not in a 7 player party. Really, I would say that IF this guy actually knows how the game works and is not out to disrupt the party, then if you guys are really so concerned about not having an adequate defender then it is ON YOU to change your character(s). YOU are the one with the problem.
Of course, I agree with everyone else that it sounds like he just doesn't get it, and if that's case everything I wrote above is moot and he just needs help with his character.
Not according to Gary Gygax. He wrote at ENWord that Arthur, Lancelot and most of the Knights of the Round Table would not be Paladins. The inclusion of Paladin levels in the 1e Deities and Demigods was Jim Ward's doing and a mistake in Mr. Gygax's opinion. Although, iirc, Mr. Gygax allowed for Galahad and, perhaps, Perciville as Paladins.
Perhaps, though given that Gygax also liked to claim (after the settlement) that he didn't really crib/want to crib all that much of D&D from Tolkien, I do try to take many of his own statements in that regard with at least a grain of salt. You are correct that Gygax has claimed that the Knights of the Round Table would not be archetypal paladins- no doubt because many of them did frequently violate their own chivalric code- but nevertheless, they are a part of the same literary tradition as Roland and the other peers, and there is certainly a number of strong examples amongst them- you yourself mentioned Galahad and Percival, and Bors would also fall in this category, as well.
My main point, though, was that he drew a distinction between the crusading knightly orders (the Knights Templar and Hospitaliers were the inspiration for the Cleric class) and the chivalric knights of the romances- including the peers of Charlemagne, but also including the knights of the round table as part of the same literary tradition.
Much more to the point, though, is that there have just about always been multiple "holy warrior" classes, so it's a little silly and quite a bit of a misrepresentation to claim that because a character a holy warrior, therefore he must have the Paladin class.
Just recently started a campaign a few weeks ago, and the size of our party (7 PCs) means we get some big encounters, unfortunately, our Paladin isn't doing his job.
He built an Elf Paladin, but spec'd him out terribly because he wanted to use a bow. His highest stat is DEX, and he only has a +2 in STR and a +1 in CHA
Basically, he isn't defending the party because he wants to stay at range. This leaves our party with only 2 people on the front line, me (dragonborn battle cleric) and our warforged barb. He also isn't healing anyone because his healing powers are touch and he stays at range.
We've been lucky so far, but it's left me as the only healing in the party (no warlord), and it's only a matter of time before we get wiped out. How do I get him back on the front line?
This is a classic example of one of the major failings of 4e - I won't get into a big thing, but in 3e and 3.5e, it was perfectly viable for a fighter, even a paladin, to pick up a bow and use it rather than a melee weapon.
A ranger and a fighter who specialized in bows were different flavors of character - the ranger more of a guerilla specialist, fast enough and slick enough to escape and evade when caught in melee, while the fighter was more of a martial archer - just switching to the next weapon when engaged in combat.
The only thing a ranged paladin lost was his Smite Evil ability, which was so restrictive and conditional anyway, and even the most flexible GMs would houserule it to allow it on a ranged attack for this kind of character anyway.
These 4e powers just pigeon-hole people to the point where other PCs are shouting at them OOC to stop using their imaginations and play their class like it's intended in the books. That's not what D&D is about.
I really hope additional 4e source material will fix this horrible shortcoming of the system, and let people use their imaginations once again.
My main point, though, was that he drew a distinction between the crusading knightly orders (the Knights Templar and Hospitaliers were the inspiration for the Cleric class) and the chivalric knights of the romances- including the peers of Charlemagne, but also including the knights of the round table as part of the same literary tradition.
Yes, he drew the distinction. However, as a nit pick, wasn't the chivalric knight the inspiration for the cavalier class (as unbalanced as it was)?
This is a classic example of one of the major failings of 4e - I won't get into a big thing, but in 3e and 3.5e, it was perfectly viable for a fighter, even a paladin, to pick up a bow and use it rather than a melee weapon.
No, it is a failing of players who do not realize what classes are (in 4E).
A fighter who specialized in a bow would learn do do what with it? Fire it faster (Twin Strike) and place the shots in more precise locations (Hunters Quarry).
That said, you can still make a Archery Fighter in 4E and be effective. you can make one an optized character though. You would need to multiclass Ranger to get the archery aspect fully,
Yes, he drew the distinction. However, as a nit pick, wasn't the chivalric knight the inspiration for the cavalier class (as unbalanced as it was)?
Though, (according to wikipedia, as I don't have the AD&D UA OR The Complete Book of Fighters) Unearthed Arcana claimed that Paladins were a subclass of Cavalier. I imagine that may have been reworked in 2e, though.
But still, whenever someone references "Charlemagne's peers" in the same breath as "divine magic", they are talking about the heavily mythologized latter works, even if they don't realize it.
My interpretation of much of the Round Table's knights is that they would similarly be AD&D-through-3.5's sorts of paladins, but that many failed to live up to their own code, and fell as a consequence. There are certainly instances where God interceded on their behalf, so one could certainly justify Divine spellcasting just as strongly for the likes of Galahad and Bors as for Roland.
Honestly, I really do read a lot of Gygax's disavowals regarding Arthurian myth as a source of inspiration for the Paladin as derived from either a fear of another intellectual property suit (a la the Tolkien estate) or else a dogged desire to be seen as "better" than having cribbed ideas from the "obvious" mythology. That the Celtic romances saw a literary resurgance that the Italian romances doesn't really mean that they're unworthy of recognition due to their "popularity", and truly, there's no other place I can think of that would have inspired the consequences for Paladins that "fall"- failure and defeat mark the Arthurian stories (and, indeed, this psychological complexity is a large part of why they saw renewed popularity in the 1880s), but are quite absent from the stories of Charlemagne and Roland, who remain tirelessly and triumphantly devoted to God, throughout their myths.
What if you're a Paladin of a god of archery?
Then you know that the traditional paladin is not the training your looking for.
Seriously, re-fluffing the ranger in this case is the best option, and something the DM probably should have picked up on.
It looks like you may want to change your party's battle tactics. With 7 player, the DM is going to be throwing heavy encounters at you. You are lacking in front line warriors at 2.
Fght more ranged battles, falling back and not rushing to melee. Opening doors and immediately falling back should be common. Always try to keep battles moving backward, be prepared to retreat and come back. Have the stealthy characters scout out the area beforehand and attempt to lure the enemy into ambushes. Watch what their routines are to plan the best time to strike.
Very JUSTIFIED double posting. :P Whining people need to be publicly humiliated.
I'm sorry, I've made it quite clear multiple times that I enjoy both 4th and 3.5 and I simply cannot sustain such ridiculous claims without at least speaking my mind.
This idea that a person does not like your edition of choice and his vocalizing his dislike of it without giving reason is whining is justified. That did not happen here. He voiced his complaint, along with reason, and you called it whining. That is not whining, that is a difference in opinion.
A sometimes unclear distinction, but a distinction nonetheless, and it is simply disgusting that people of one of my beloved editions, 4th, have somehow agreed to an unspoken code that, since they have the power of a larger numeric fan base that they can simply trod upon the opinion of another and chalk it up to yet another "whiner."
By all means, I await a rebuttal if you intend to level one, and if not, I would like to thank you for providing me an opportunity to voice my grievance with a posting style you displayed, and apologize for any derailment it might have caused.
His elf paladin sounds fine. He should be dealing steady, if somewhat subpar, damage with Divine Challenge. His one lay on hands is better than nothing, your party needs to acquire some healing potions.
It looks like you may want to change your party's battle tactics. With 7 player, the DM is going to be throwing heavy encounters at you. You are lacking in front line warriors at 2.
Fght more ranged battles, falling back and not rushing to melee. Opening doors and immediately falling back should be common. Always try to keep battles moving backward, be prepared to retreat and come back. Have the stealthy characters scout out the area beforehand and attempt to lure the enemy into ambushes. Watch what their routines are to plan the best time to strike.
The problem isn't simply that they lack front-liners, but that the mechanics of the Divine Challenge will a) consistently have the paladin within 5 squares- i.e, single-move distance- of the marked creature and b) encourage melee monsters to engage the paladin in melee combat. Since being a passable long-range attacker hinges on being able to maintain your distance and on getting away when something tries to close... No, Divine Challenge becomes a liability to a ranged combatant, as it pushes monsters towards the least desirable course of action.
Alter the paladin class this way.
Cut armor Profs back to Chainmail, and no shield
Wep Profs, Simple Melee, Simple and Martial Ranged.
The character can take Ranged Ranger attack powers, Paladin Implement attack powers, and Paladin Utility powers.
Everything else remains the same.
He should also be allowed, at some point, to get a Holy Avenger Bow.
So, I have the following suggestions.
Alter the paladin class this way.
Cut armor Profs back to Chainmail, and no shield
Wep Profs, Simple Melee, Simple and Martial Ranged.
The character can take Ranged Ranger attack powers, Paladin Implement attack powers, and Paladin Utility powers.
Everything else remains the same.
He should also be allowed, at some point, to get a Holy Avenger Bow.
Which would be accomplished by MC rather then trying to change an existing class.
The character in question is trying to fill a controller role rather then a defender, as a defender is designed to be on the front lines.
So if the MC with ranger isn't desirable cook up a divine controller, with ranged weapon requirements for attack powers and utilities/dailies similar to a paladin.
Just keep in mind that a class is what your abilities are not what your character is in the context of the game world.
I'm sorry, I've made it quite clear multiple times that I enjoy both 4th and 3.5 and I simply cannot sustain such ridiculous claims without at least speaking my mind.
Funny, so do I. I greatly enjoy playing my 3.5 warblade and have endless fun DMing my 4th edition group. No differences there.
This idea that a person does not like your edition of choice and his vocalizing his dislike of it without giving reason is whining is justified. That did not happen here. He voiced his complaint, along with reason, and you called it whining. That is not whining, that is a difference in opinion.
He's stating that one cannot enjoy the characters they like in 4e. At all. No condition. So, apparently, if I have a character concept I enjoy, 4e edition will, inevitablely, buttrape it into a horrid monster which can only disgust me to the point of emptying the content of my stomach. This is no valid argument to voice your opinion on DnD, but merely an emotional rant. I call this whining, not a structured opinion.
A sometimes unclear distinction, but a distinction nonetheless, and it is simply disgusting that people of one of my beloved editions, 4th, have somehow agreed to an unspoken code that, since they have the power of a larger numeric fan base that they can simply trod upon the opinion of another and chalk it up to yet another "whiner."
Don't be silly. You assume this as the cause of my statement, while in reality it was the whining of Koushiro.
By all means, I await a rebuttal if you intend to level one, and if not, I would like to thank you for providing me an opportunity to voice my grievance with a posting style you displayed, and apologize for any derailment it might have caused.
Behold, my rebuttal. No derailment caused, but I recognize your need of voicing your opinion. I tend to similarly pick out posts to voice my complaints, even if they extend upon the poster. Luckily, I'm here to correct your improper views on my posting. ;)
Gives you Ranged Smite and a Unicorn mount.
I'm sure it could be converted for 4ed.
That allot of players do not understand how this works in 4E.
You are suppose to build you character by choosing a concept and then selecting the options that best fit that concept, and class is not part of a proper concept, personality is. Class represents how you have been trained, and what you are trained to do. not your characters social role or personality type.
The Player's Handbook states that you should select race, class and powers before you invent personality, description and background for your character.
luc
The Player's Handbook states that you should select race, class and powers before you invent personality, description and background for your character.
luc
This may sound strange, but it's actually a good advice for new players, because it just prevents people from doing the same mistakes shown in this very thread. If you start saying "I'm going to be an Half-Orc Paladin" you already know a deal about your character, and then you can flesh out everything you need.
Actually, I don't really see why a method [Choose personality -> Fit class | Choose class -> Fit personality] should be considered better than the other.
As long as both phases are respected, their order isn't that meaningful.
Remember, he's already doing +DEX bonus damage per attack, anyway, so he's doing as much damage as an at-will minus the kicker effects, and he gets to pop on an additional die of damage when he needs it each encounter, using his defender and healing effects the rest of the time; then, as he gains more encounter, utility, and daily powers, and eventually a ranger at-will, his powers to both skirmish and do ranged damage increase.
Now, if he's just hanging back and acting like a bowmaster all the time, and doing no other support, that's like a 3E character who chooses wizard for his class, but uses a bow, never picks a class or feats to enhance his bow, and never casts a magic spell, either -- he's intentionally hamstringing himself and the party, 3E vs. 4E versatility be damned.
(Plus, all this talk about ranged smite, etc. is using options that were out five YEARS after the introduction of 3E...)
I might even take a crack at a bow using ranger/paladin when I get home tonight. I should be working on an AD&D game, but maybe this will help clear the writer's block.
After reading some of the replies here, I just have to ask...
...where the hell does the concept of the archer-paladin come from? It's a concept that just doesn't jive with me at all. I could see a religious archer-type, but when I think paladin, I automatically think heavy armor and sword and shield. Use a bow for anything more than ranged backup and you no longer have a paladin, imho. Hell, personally I see paladins as the type to avoid ranged weapons completely-- ranged fighting just doesn't have that honor to it.
I think one of the first concepts I had seen was a Paladin of the Silver Flame in the Eberron campaign setting. I totally disagree with you on "that's not pally". IMO a Paladin is not the weapons and armor you where, but the devoted faith and practices you take on. Being a Paladin is to be a holy warrior, not a knight in shining armor.
As for ranged fighting not being honorible, that's not true. Its not the weapon that has honor, its the actions you take with those weapons...also might I add, I'm very happy with the alignment penalty being taken of paladins. I've never liked the whole you have to be good pally to become a bad pally. This once again leaves me to say, paladins are Holy Warriors.
What I recomend to the DM is have the player work out some of the powers to be used at ranged....make him spend feats to use powers at range (like multi-class ranger or something similar).
After reading some of the replies here, I just have to ask...
...where the hell does the concept of the archer-paladin come from? It's a concept that just doesn't jive with me at all. I could see a religious archer-type, but when I think paladin, I automatically think heavy armor and sword and shield. Use a bow for anything more than ranged backup and you no longer have a paladin, imho. Hell, personally I see paladins as the type to avoid ranged weapons completely-- ranged fighting just doesn't have that honor to it.
How about just a simple Elf Paladin? Seriously - every elf child by the time they know their own name can fire a bow. That's just their culture.
Goes to figure also the knights of Corellon Larethian (whose preferred weapon is a bow, by the way) would be incredible archers.
Alternatively, you could simply keep the Arcane archer build as is, and relabel all of the powers divine instead of arcane, as Bard and Paladin both use charisma.
I simply can't see how this can be a problem unless someone is adamant that every character concept any player wants to call a paladin has to be covered under the rules for the class paladin. If WOTC called all of the classes Martial Defender, Martial Striker 1, Martial Striker 2, Divine Defender, Divine Striker, etc., I don't think the problem would even be possible.
He doesn't want to play a divine defender. He wants to play a divine striker, or perhaps a divine controller or divine leader. There's got to be a dozen ways he can do this. Don't get obsessed about "Paladin".
How about just a simple Elf Paladin? Seriously - every elf child by the time they know their own name can fire a bow. That's just their culture.
Goes to figure also the knights of Corellon Larethian (whose preferred weapon is a bow, by the way) would be incredible archers.
This has been asked and answered to death already, but it's worth pointing out that:
1) in any edition, knight != paladin, as paladins were previously supposed to conform to a minuscule subset of mythical knights, the majority of which were either clerics (the crusading orders) or else fighters and
2) prior to 4e, the fact that Corellon was CG and elves usually were as well tended to make it... difficult for Corellon to attract many paladins. In fact, in 3.x, Champion of Corellon was an entirely separate prestige class aimed primarily at fighters with, at most, a 1-level multiclass dip to meet the skill reqs. Oh, and it was also a melee PrC, to boot. So, in the end, we're comparing written-into-the-game mechanical restrictions tied to fluff, as the above, to a case where a class niche is clearly delineated, but where a player is hung up on having character title conform to class name and thus stuck playing a class away from their niche.
EDIT: 3) Don't want to bump the thread, but if, god forbid, someone else does, I just want this post to further reflect the fact that I double-checked the PHB and the Longsword, not the bow, is Corellon's favored weapon. Only Elhonna features the longbow as a favored weapon.
This has been asked and answered to death already, but it's worth pointing out that:
1) in any edition, knight != paladin, as paladins were previously supposed to conform to a minuscule subset of mythical knights, the majority of which were either clerics (the crusading orders) or else fighters and
2) prior to 4e, the fact that Corellon was CG and elves usually were as well tended to make it... difficult for Corellon to attract many paladins. In fact, in 3.x, Champion of Corellon was an entirely separate prestige class aimed primarily at fighters with, at most, a 1-level multiclass dip to meet the skill reqs. Oh, and it was also a melee PrC, to boot. So, in the end, we're comparing written-into-the-game mechanical restrictions tied to fluff, as the above, to a case where a class niche is clearly delineated, but where a player is hung up on having character title conform to class name and thus stuck playing a class away from their niche.
There are WOTC variant rules that allow for Neutral Good and Chaotic Good paladins. Heck, that legacy goes back to Greyhawk in 2e. In 4e, a paladin need only be Good, not Lawful Good.
Alignment of a good God is not really a legitimate barrier and never was.
As to the explanation that his role was hand-fed to him by the "Defender" niche... I agree with you. It was hand-fed, and he's doing his party a disservice by using his imagination and refusing to be pigeon-holed into what his class is expected to do. And, as I said above, I find that to be a terrible failing of 4e that I hope's corrected with either alternative powers for all classes that are availible if a player declares they are playing a "Striker Paladin" on character creation, or a much simpler, more effective multiclass system.
Please don't forget, D&D is not World of Warcraft... and the second the vast majority of players think it should be with rigid, unbendable classes designed to do 1 thing and 1 thing only... we've lost something.
In 4e, a paladin need only be Good, not Lawful Good.
Wait, which 4e? D&D 4e?
Paladins can be of any alignment in 4e, it just has to match the deity.
There are WOTC variant rules that allow for Neutral Good and Chaotic Good paladins. Heck, that legacy goes back to Greyhawk in 2e. In 4e, a paladin need only be Good, not Lawful Good.
Actually, it predates 2e. In AD&D and 2e, the paladin class was additionally restricted to humans only, meaning that 'champion of Corellon' idea went right out the window anyway. And in 4e, there are no alignment or racial restrictions on the class. That was sort of my point- in previous editions, they were subject to arbitrary fluff restrictions, and in 4e, they are subject to a rather non-arbitrary "what do you want to do with this class" restriction.
Alignment of a good God is not really a legitimate barrier and never was.
Not any more than the name of the class itself and certain players' need to match it to their character's in-game title, no. Though, to be fair, AD&D bears a fair bit of responsibility for that one, since it actually had a chart with character titles by level and class.
As to the explanation that his role was hand-fed to him by the "Defender" niche... I agree with you. It was hand-fed, and he's doing his party a disservice by refusing to use his imagination and refusing to be pigeon-holed into what his class is expected to do. And, as I said above, I find that to be a terrible failing of 4e that I hope's corrected with either alternative powers for all classes that are availible if a player declares they are playing a "Striker Paladin" on character creation, or a much simpler, more effective multiclass system.
Fixed it for you. There are dozens of ways to make a (ranged+ divine flavor) class, even before homebrewing anything. I mean, heck, my last group had an uber-effective Ranger/cleric who called themself a champion of Corellon. It's really not that hard. The problem lies in the fact that some people insist on having the word 'Paladin' on their character sheets in order to role-play one. And THAT is pretty sad. Even in all my time playing 3.5, I've never found a group that was that myopic, and it really does a disservice to a fine edition of D&D that so many people are willing to portray themselves as such to complain about a different edition.
Please don't forget, D&D is not World of Warcraft... and the second the vast majority of players think it should be with rigid, unbendable classes designed to do 1 thing and 1 thing only... we've lost something.
Umm, Corian, please meet 2e. If the vast majority of the players think that any class should be able to occupy any and all areas of design space within a single class, then they've completely missed the point of a class-based (as opposed to classless) system. I do often wish that these boards were as thoughtful about design considerations as the folks on boards like RPG.net, but at any rate, this is one of the more obvious things that you trade off when you use a class-based system. 3e, more than anything was premiering the d20 system, then trying to re-write it to be pseudo-class-based so that it would fit D&D. However, D&D has ALWAYS been prominently class-based; 3e was somewhat of an aberration, an experiment in generic universal gameplay. Note that I'm not knocking it; I think it's a fine game for what it is, however, you're really missing the point if 3e is the standard by which you judge all other editions of Dungeons and Dragons.
I'm not saying 4e is bad - but I find that the rigid power systems definitely makes it harder for players to use their imagination. And, I really fail to understand your thesis that he was refusing to use his imagination by... ahem... not finding solid solutions in a 300 page rulebook to play a ranged paladin without actually being a ranged paladin.
That makes no sense to me. Isn't using your imagination going beyond what the books spell out for you as clear as printed press?
Seriously - surround it with all the fancy arguments you like... the whole purpose of this thread is specifically to villainize people who want to play a Paladin who isn't a defender. When all's said and done, all I hear is: "ZOMG UR a paladin. Spec Holy if you want 2 get a gruup N LRN2PLY NUB!!!!11"
I repeat, once more, this is not World of Warcraft. Why are people treating this game as such? In 2e and 3.Xe, you could play a ranged paladin and lose next to nothing. It's a bit of a bummer that you can't in 4e without finding some really obscure multiclass combination that may or may not fit your vision, and even then, probably not being very effective with it.
There's nothing wrong with using 3e as a standard to judge other editions if you really enjoy it. Heck, that's how you judge anything... how does it compare to other things you know and enjoy?
There is a difference bween giving a fair comparison, and a unfair comparison.
Since we do not have any extra divine class source books (yet) in 4e, it is unfair to compare 4e to 3.5 using those books, as the appropriate reference points are not present yet. This means that at the moment the only really valid comparison for a Paladin is from the core books alone.
4e, Archery paladin loses out on powers, but can be made to be passable with some effort, as long as you work with the class features.
3.0/3.5, Smite, lay on hands, aura of courage are weakened by not being next to enemies, and sticking back from the group.
2nd, pretty much every benefit they have is only good within 10 feet.
1st: not in the mood to look through.
THe thing is, the Paladin has been traditionally built for melee, as opposed to ranged. Now they might make a paladin variant that offers a ranged focus for paladins (I would think more likely for Avengers though) but the class is traditionally a melee class.
There's nothing wrong with using 3e as a standard to judge other editions if you really enjoy it. Heck, that's how you judge anything... how does it compare to other things you know and enjoy?
Completely uninformed of the convention or history behind those things? Using 3e as your standard for how D&D works is like using submarines as the standard against which all boats are judged. You're turning to a decidedly idiosyncratic spin on a particular category -a mutant, basically- and holding it up as an archetype. It's simply unreasonable.
I happen to like 3e a lot, but I also recognize that the d20 system happens to share a heck of a lot more qualities with GURPS than it does with Dungeons and Dragons. D&D has always been a decidedly class-based system, and 3e was the result of trying really hard to fit that game to a semi-classless system. And now, you're complaining that a single class can't be made to fit into any spot into the design space: something which never should occur in a true class-based system. Again, this is deliberate. This is what it means to have a class-based system. It's a shame, perhaps, that the two of you couldn't become acquainted under different circumstances.
But, the only one comparing the game to World of Warcraft is you, here. My D&D features -and has always featured- plenty of paladin-archers (Ranger/Clerics and Cleric/Rangers), warrior-monks (Fighters), brawling streetfighters and martial artists (Rogues), and many many others. It ends up, though, that not every class is ideally suited to every task, and, again, this is deliberate. Using the Paladin class to make a ranged warrior is as non-sensical as using the Fighter class to make a character who stands in the back, wears robes and hurls magic at his foes.
I mean, yes, it was easier to make a 'ranged Paladin' whilst using the Paladin class, in 3e. Of course, that was only because their main relevant class feature was "attempt to deal extra damage if you manage to hit an Evil creature x times per day", which is pretty easy to expand in the relevant manner with a feat. Which only existed in a later supplement. And in exchange, their armor proficiencies go to waste, they still lack the skills (Spot!) to be an effective long-range archer, and he would spend all of his feats aspiring to be half the archer a single-classed core-only ranger was, but it could be done, if in those terms. But, from where I'm sitting, that sounds an awful lot like a trap choice, even in 3e.
Meanwhile, my 4e ranged paladin can deal radiant damage and turn undead that get too close, heal and aid allies and keep them from getting attacked with a well-placed arrow, can cast divine rituals and know things about his own faith while still noticing approaching foes and shooting arrows at them, and even still smite an enemy once per encounter. And that's just a Cleric with one or two multiclass feats. You're right, that's way worse. Silly non-intuitive, ineffective multiclassing that requires me to have actually looked at a handful of the class abilities before picking a class purely based on its name.
EDIT: Oh, wait, I just re-read the OP. +2 str and +1 cha? >.<
Completely uninformed of the convention or history behind those things? Using 3e as your standard for how D&D works is like using submarines as the standard against which all boats are judged. You're turning to a decidedly idiosyncratic spin on a particular category -a mutant, basically- and holding it up as an archetype. It's simply unreasonable.
No, I'm not completely uninformed simply because I disagree with you... though that's one heck of an ego you have considering this is a completely subjective discussion anyway.
To be honest, you kinda closed my mind off to anything else you had to say when you decided to go with this opening... so I think we're just at an impasse. If I further respond to this, I think it'll turn into a flame, so we'll just agree to disagree and move on.
There is a difference bween giving a fair comparison, and a unfair comparison.
Since we do not have any extra divine class source books (yet) in 4e, it is unfair to compare 4e to 3.5 using those books, as the appropriate reference points are not present yet. This means that at the moment the only really valid comparison for a Paladin is from the core books alone.
4e, Archery paladin loses out on powers, but can be made to be passable with some effort, as long as you work with the class features.
3.0/3.5, Smite, lay on hands, aura of courage are weakened by not being next to enemies, and sticking back from the group.
2nd, pretty much every benefit they have is only good within 10 feet.
1st: not in the mood to look through.
THe thing is, the Paladin has been traditionally built for melee, as opposed to ranged. Now they might make a paladin variant that offers a ranged focus for paladins (I would think more likely for Avengers though) but the class is traditionally a melee class.
This is all granted - I'm definately not turning my nose up at 4e or anything. I know it's been out for less than a year, and it's not nearly as developed as 3.X was. All I've been saying is that I hope, in future expansions, they will make multi-classing a little more pronounced and develop secondary and tertiary roles for all the archtypes - for example allowing a Paladin to fill the Leadership or Striking roles if they pick a variant that gets rid of Marking in exchange for X, and allows them to pick from another list of powers in exchange for losing access to X, Y and Z powers.
I don't think anyone would say something like that would be a bad thing.
No, I'm not completely uninformed simply because I disagree with you... though that's one heck of an ego you have considering this is a completely subjective discussion anyway.
Dear lord, that's not even a little what I meant. Read in context, plzkthx.
I was saying "I like X, therefore X is the clear standard by which all shall be judged" is a poor way to go about things when X is the clear outlier or aberration. The fact that your complaints boil down to "4e is class-based? WTF?" is just as silly as complaining about the fact that most boats don't go underwater, because my favorite boat is a submarine, and that's what I'm going to compare all boats to. It's a poor archetype for the category you're looking at. My ego really has nothing to do it..
Dear lord, that's not even a little what I meant. Read in context, plzkthx.
I was saying "I like X, therefore X is the clear standard by which all shall be judged" is a poor way to go about things when X is the clear outlier or aberration. The fact that your complaints boil down to "4e is class-based? WTF?" is just as silly as complaining about the fact that most boats don't go underwater, because my favorite boat is a submarine, and that's what I'm going to compare all boats to. It's a poor archetype for the category you're looking at. My ego really has nothing to do it..
C'mon... you mean to tell me that it's wrong to judge... 4th Edition D&D in respect to it's predecessor 3rd Edition D&D? Ridiculous. How many people have had to make a choice whether to stick with 3rd Edition, or evolve their games to 4th Edition? Of course they are going to compare the two, and decide which works best for them.
I completely disagree with you - anyone has a right to say: "4e is all right, though there's some things in 3e that I liked better" and to imply otherwise (or even suggest in *any* interpretable context) that such an opinion is uninformed is, quite frankly, insulting.
Elven bow paladin is an awesome concept, and easy to model in 4e. This guy is just doing it entirely wrong.
My build? If he wants to focus on being a defender he could even do this with the paladin base class. Build a Cha-paladin with high Wis and Dex. I don't use point buy but I'd wager he could swing a 16 cha and still have a 14 wis and dex? Ignore Str-based abilities entirely. Choose a maximal number of cha-based paladin abilities, especially the ranged ones, and ranger multiclass. If the GM is not a stickler, see if he'll let you sacrifice Divine Challenge (you're never going to use it anyway) in return for the option to occasionally take a Ranger exploit at levels when you can't take a ranged paladin ability (if there even are any, I can't recall). You won't be super optimal, kind of a wishy-washy leader/defender/striker that can't shine at any of the three roles, but you'll still get use out of your class powers and not be a drain to the party. In a large party you might even be valuable for your versatility.
I for one would just take the easy route of making a ranger with paladin multiclass. It's probably more to the feel this player wants, unless he's laying down an awful lot of paladin healing and status damage while wielding his bow (but it doesn't sound like he is).
Could work.
Or exchange the challenge ability for a "bow attack" ability, allowing the use of ranged paladin powers as weapon ranged attacks.
But I doubt your friend the bowman paladin is happy with his character. He must feel something is not right, and I think the best way to make the character he wants his to change it to a bow ranger with maybe a MC in paladin or another divine class.
Or change the power source of the ranger to "divine", have the same powers but call the class "divine archer" or "correlon's arrow".
Discuss it with him. Is he happy with his character, fluff-wise? Is he happy with the way the character works in a fight? You, and your DM should not hesitate to allow him to change class if it fits his concept/way to play better. One of my player recently changed her character from cleric to bard and is happier this way.
The game has to be fun for everyone, even if you need to "twist" the rules for it. But unless he absolutely wants to play a member of the paladin class using a bow, and not an archer member of a paladin order, he should take a more fitting class.
Take a look at Martial power's paragon paths. There are a lot of "religious" paths for martial characters, they could be an inspiration.
C'mon... you mean to tell me that it's wrong to judge... 4th Edition D&D in respect to it's predecessor 3rd Edition D&D? Ridiculous. How many people have had to make a choice whether to stick with 3rd Edition, or evolve their games to 4th Edition? Of course they are going to compare the two, and decide which works best for them.
I completely disagree with you - anyone has a right to say: "4e is all right, though there's some things in 3e that I liked better" and to imply otherwise (or even suggest in *any* interpretable context) that such an opinion is uninformed is, quite frankly, insulting.
It would have perhaps been better worded as uniformed by D&D's design legacy, but the substantive meaning was still there, and the insult really wasn't. I even disclaimed repeatedly, that I really like and enjoy 3.5, and find it preferable for many sorts of games.
However, yes, 3e took the game far into the left field of a generic universal system, and no, that really shouldn't set the standard for how D&D's classes are viewed, because D&D has never really been about a generic universal system; the term role playing in RPG was even initially coined to refer specifically to the various classes. "Setting the standard," however, means something distinctly different from "comparing the two," and assuming you understand the distinction, I would hope that you can understand that I do not appreciate my actual argument being misrepresented in this manner. Sure, one can compare the two, but one should also be aware that the crux of this matter -that a particular class (in this case, Paladin) can't be sufficiently customized to stand in for any other class in the game- is a feature of a true class-based system, not a bug, and that the answer to the question, "Well, why can't the Paladin class make an archer build" is, "Because D&D is a class-based system again, now". And, in fact, 3e, whether you or I like it or not, actually represents a pretty significant break from the rest of D&D's design legacy.
With expansions, the direction 3.x drifted was in favor of an even more generic system, where feats, not classes, became the main building blocks of characters. A friend of mine who gradually left D&D for the world of indie RPGs actually toyed with taking it to its logical conclusion, and eschewing classes entirely for feats, breaking apart class abilities and parceling them out in their own feats, and so on. It really wasn't a bad idea, and I could see a pretty great game coming out of it, but, again, it has a heck of a lot more in common with GURPS than it does with D&D.
Feel free to have the last word.
I would hope that you can understand that I do not appreciate my actual argument being misrepresented in this manner.
To help avoid misrepresentation of your argument in the future, I would avoid directing words like "uninformed" at whoever you are having a discussion with. No matter how you mean it, that's a personal attack. If your point is sound enough, it will be evident that I'm uninformed... which, again, is a ludicrous assertion in a purely subjective discussion, like this one is.
No rules prevent a paladin from picking up a bow and using it in place of a sword... all we're discussing is how effective he should be. You believe he should be terrible since that's outside the purview of his class... I feel the system should be flexible enough to allow anything within reason to be viable. Both are valid opinions, and neither are uninformed.
And, in fact, 3e, whether you or I like it or not, actually represents a pretty significant break from the rest of D&D's design legacy.
I disagree with this. In 1e, the fighting man was primarily based on a melee tank concept, yet he could be *very* effective with a bow, despite that not being his initial role. What other weapon allows for the possibility to kill more than one person without even giving your enemy a chance to retort? I believe that such use of him led to the Ranger being created in 2e, who split versatility between the bow and sword.
It's my belief that 1e's original 3 class system evolved to 2e, with far more options for classes - including the debut of dual-classing and multi-classing - and complete flexibility within them (like Fighters being able to specialize in the Bow), and then to 3e (the near-classless system, as you put it) out of a belief that variety is the spice of any D&D game. I believe 4e, in its current form, represents an uncharacteristic devolution of that thought process, where specifically worded powers make certain play styles not viable, like our well-lamented archer Paladin.
This is an aspect of 4e that I do not enjoy, and hope they add a few options to fix it in the future.
To help avoid misrepresentation of your argument in the future, I would avoid directing words like "uninformed" at whoever you are having a discussion with. No matter how you mean it, that's a personal attack. If your point is sound enough, it will be evident that I'm uninformed... which, again, is a ludicrous assertion in a purely subjective discussion, like this one is.
Err, no, that's not what what I said meant in this context, and this is why context is important. For an analysis to be "informed by" or "uninformed by" a particular factor is a very value-neutral statement that simply speaks to whether a particular detail is being factored into that analysis. I was not calling you uninformed, simply noting that you were suggesting that evaluation of the editions not be informed by the design legacy of D&D as a whole, rather than outlier-3e. And at any rate, the particular misrepresentation that I was taking umbrage at was the difference between simply comparing two RPG systems, and setting a particular system as the standard against which the rest are held, irrespective of the fact that, in the category of points of comparison, the particular standard that's being set is a strong outlier.
No rules prevent a paladin from picking up a bow and using it in place of a sword... all we're discussing is how effective he should be. You believe he should be terrible since that's outside the purview of his class... I feel the system should be flexible enough to allow anything within reason to be viable. Both are valid opinions, and neither are uninformed.
I think at some point one has to decide what class means for the game. If every class is so versitile that it can do absolutely anything, then you really have to question what purpose class serves in the game. For my part, I submit that at least a few of the issues raised in unmodified, RAW 3.5 lie at least in part by the fact that a number of classes classes did try to be versitile enough to do everything, and either ended up being game-breaking uber-classes (Druid, Cleric, to a lesser extent, the Wizard) or weak sauce second-stringers who really didn't have much to bring to the table (Monks and non-Diplomancer Bards, most notably)
I disagree with this. In 1e, the fighting man was primarily based on a melee tank concept, yet he could be *very* effective with a bow, despite that not being his initial role. I believe that such use of him led to the Ranger being created in 2e, who split versatility between the bow and sword.
As a point of fact, the ranger was only a TWF class in AD&D and 2e. Note, however, that the three 'roles' in OD&D were Fighting-man, Thief, and Magic-User, with Cleric making an appearance in the first expansion. Yes, they very much referred to classes, and those classes really didn't co-occupy each other's design space. Even though the fighting-man could use a bow. Even AD&D and 2e, with their hybrid classes and multiclassing, remained pretty firm about each class being a variant on one of those four. It only got into game-breaking nonsense when it took those variations too far, like the 2e Swashbuckler kit.
It's my belief that 1e's original 3 class system evolved to 2e, with far more options for classes - including the debut of dual-classing and multi-classing - and complete flexibility within them (like Fighters being able to specialize in the Bow), and then to 3e (the near-classless system, as you put it) out of a belief that variety is the spice of any D&D game. I believe 4e, in its current form, represents an uncharacteristic devolution of that thought process, where specifically worded powers make certain play styles not viable, like our well-lamented archer Paladin.
I wouldn't really call it a devolution of thought-process, by any stretch of the imagination, just because your priorities don't line up perfectly with the new edition. As I intimated above, many of us noted some severe limitations generated by the push towards overly-versitile classes, and see 4e's solution -of retaining distinct, specific classes that nevertheless are not mechanically tied to their flavor and can be easily reskinned as the need arises- as an enviable one. Part of it is that I did a healthy amount of reflavoring and reskinning classes through 3.5 to begin with, and I do recognize that it requires somewhat of a paradigm shift, but as I said, it means that the only real limitation here is self-imposed.
I, for one, have no trouble whatsoever with an archer paladin. I just look for a class or class combination that matches the flavor I'm looking for: ranged divine attacks? Why, that would be a cleric! Do I need more of an archer feel? Why, it certain seems like I could get some good synergy with the ranger! Do I want more of a divinely-guided warrior feel than a martial cleric feel? What if I go ranger/cleric, instead? Or ranger only, but with some knowledge and ritual casting feats?
Seriously, this isn't a difficult thing to sift through; there are only a handful of classes that could fit the bill. How do you picture a paladin archer doing uniquely that this build doesn't manage admirably?
I disagree with this. In 1e, the fighting man was primarily based on a melee tank concept, yet he could be *very* effective with a bow, despite that not being his initial role. What other weapon allows for the possibility to kill more than one person without even giving your enemy a chance to retort? I believe that such use of him led to the Ranger being created in 2e, who split versatility between the bow and sword.
Rangers existed in AD&D. They had d8 HD, and started with 2 HD instead of one; they eventually got Magic-User and Druid spells; they got a damage bonus against "Giant-Class" monsters, which ran the gamut from goblins and orcs to actual giants. They did not, as I recall, differ significantly in combat prowess from Fighters or Paladins, though I honestly don't remember if they had armor restrictions. They used the same attack table and saving throw tables as the Fighter, so the only difference between the two combat-wise, assuming same equipment, would have been the Ranger's bonus damage against Giant-class creatures.
Edit: Actually, now that I think a bit more, the ranger did have a slightly slower attack progression than the Fighter and the Paladin, but it was only a level or two behind.
Never miss a chance to take a dig at 4th edition.
Actually I do.
But hey, I bought the books. I play this edition. So I'll take sarcastic potshots at the system any time I like.
Moreover, my sarcasm in this case was mostly directed at my fellow players - those who can't seem to stomach the idea of someone playing a character how they choose to.
When they encounter someone doing something different from the norm they come here crying about it & get everyone to jump all over it. And the designers haven't helped this any with the selection of powers they've included so far.
Thus the impression is: Class x MUST be played in one of these 2 or 3 prescribed ways, anything else is WRONG.
Thus the impression is: Class x MUST be played in one of these 2 or 3 prescribed ways, anything else is WRONG.
And hypothetically, what's wrong with that? As long as the concept (holy ranged character) is not out of reach, why is it important to utilise it with a particular class (paladin)? Do all characters really go around thinking of themselves as members of particular classes, that just happen to correspond to the names of the classes on their character sheet (i.e. rogues always calling themselves 'rogues' instead of thieves, scoundrels, assassins, warriors, or adventurers)?
The preview for hybrid-classing looks like a perfect solution to this problem :o
Looks like wizards is trying to address the lack of concept flexability... All we have to do is wait a year, woohoo!
Ranger/Paladin, choose ranger/archer attacks, and some paladin utilities, bwahahaha!!
And hypothetically, what's wrong with that? As long as the concept (holy ranged character) is not out of reach, why is it important to utilise it with a particular class (paladin)? Do all characters really go around thinking of themselves as members of particular classes, that just happen to correspond to the names of the classes on their character sheet (i.e. rogues always calling themselves 'rogues' instead of thieves, scoundrels, assassins, warriors, or adventurers)?
One hundred percent CORRECT.
And hypothetically, what's wrong with that? As long as the concept (holy ranged character) is not out of reach, why is it important to utilise it with a particular class (paladin)? Do all characters really go around thinking of themselves as members of particular classes, that just happen to correspond to the names of the classes on their character sheet (i.e. rogues always calling themselves 'rogues' instead of thieves, scoundrels, assassins, warriors, or adventurers)?
Reversing that hypothetical - what's wrong with a player playing a class the way he likes it? Why is it important that he conforms to your definition of what makes an appropriate character?
I just can't see the evil that everyone here insists is happening, but some people are attacking this guy like he's burned their country's flag or something. It's a bit depressing.
Reversing that hypothetical - what's wrong with a player playing a class the way he likes it? Why is it important that he conforms to your definition of what makes an appropriate character?
Because he's gimping his character, not pulling his own weight, and not contributing his share to the party's success, would be my guess.
Because he's gimping his character, not pulling his own weight, and not contributing his share to the party's success, would be my guess.
And to me, that explaination is one step away from running a Damage Meter and saying, in character: "You better get yourself up to 100 damage per round if you wanna be a striker, or we're not inviting you to the next adventure."
And to me, that explaination is one step away from running a Damage Meter and saying, in character: "You better get yourself up to 100 damage per round if you wanna be a striker, or we're not inviting you to the next raid."
A shame, because it's nothing of the sort.
It's about teamwork. You need each person to do their job competently, as a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. If one person is utterly gimped -- not 'unoptimized', outright weak -- then he's going to drag the rest of the party down. This will make things unnecessarily more difficult for the rest of the party, and make things less fun for the rest of the table.
A shame, because it's nothing of the sort.
It's about teamwork. You need each person to do their job competently, as a chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. If one person is utterly gimped -- not 'unoptimized', outright weak -- then he's going to drag the rest of the party down. This will make things unnecessarily more difficult for the rest of the party, and make things less fun for the rest of the table.
I honestly think you're splitting hairs here. Let's put all our cards on the table - you just said: "A party is only as strong as its weakest member." and "If someone isn't performing at an optimal manner, they are dragging down the rest of the party and making things less fun at the table for you."
How is that not one step away from running a damage meter and saying: "This is how much damage a Striker should be doing if he's optimized. This is what you're doing: it's less. You're bringing down the party. Lrn2play, or leave the table so we can find someone who can please."
The day D&D becomes like that, is the day I'll know the game I like is dead.
And to me, that explaination is one step away from running a Damage Meter and saying, in character: "You better get yourself up to 100 damage per round if you wanna be a striker, or we're not inviting you to the next raid."
I'd say that's far more then one step down the slippery slope of your argument here. There's a bit of a difference between "not meeting X DPR" and "contributes less to the fight then the horses we bought in town." A Paladin who shuns melee is the latter, and the player has no excuse because he knew it was a bad character.* Groups do have the right to tell a character who's as effective in a fight as Farmer Joe to go back to non adventurer work. Just like they have the right to kick out characters who steal from the party.
*And he should have known there was a better option that actually fit his character concept too.
I'd say that's far more then one step down the slippery slope of your argument here. There's a bit of a difference between "not meeting X DPR" and "contributes less to the fight then the horses we bought in town." A Paladin who shuns melee is the latter, and the player has no excuse because he knew it was a bad character.* Groups do have the right to tell a character who's as effective in a fight as Farmer Joe to go back to non adventurer work. Just like they have the right to kick out characters who steal from the party.
*And he should have known there was a better option that actually fit his character concept too.
Thank you, that answers his nonsensical accusations nicely.
I'd say that's far more then one step down the slippery slope of your argument here. There's a bit of a difference between "not meeting X DPR" and "contributes less to the fight then the horses we bought in town." A Paladin who shuns melee is the latter, and the player has no excuse because he knew it was a bad character.* Groups do have the right to tell a character who's as effective in a fight as Farmer Joe to go back to non adventurer work. Just like they have the right to kick out characters who steal from the party.
*And he should have known there was a better option that actually fit his character concept too.
I don't feel anyone should ever complain about someone else's character being too *weak.* If the opposite were true, some players may gripe... "His character is too strong - mine is like useless compared to him" - but too weak? Really? D&D just doesn't seem like that kind of game - if people are happy playing weaker characters than others, that's just fine... especially in high fantasy, as rarely are characters created equal in the stories we know and love.
I can only imagine how things might be different if fantasy writers subscribed to the theories being thrown around in this thread.
Gandolf: "Pippin - I admire your spirit, but seriously... you're a halfling fighter. You're not even close to optimal for the role. Seriously, get lost - carrying you isn't worth the EXP hit I'll take."
Dumbledore: "Harry - you're a 11 year old kid, and based on the stat penalties for playing a young adult your stats and level are pitiful. Just hide in your room while I take care of Voldemort - wouldn't want you getting one shotted."
Drizzt: "Cait-bre - no. Just no. Go back to Breunor... put some armor on, level about 10 times, and maybe you can be my tank."
I'll always believe D&D is a story first, and a hack and slash second. It's sad so many people seem to think otherwise.
Thank you, that answers his nonsensical accusations nicely.
And seriously - all I did was quote almost word for word what you said, and asked: "How is a damage meter not the next step?" The fact you think that's somehow nonsensical is... yeah... I should just stop looking for reason here.
I don't feel anyone should ever complain about someone else's character being too *weak.* If the opposite were true, some players may gripe... "His character is too strong - mine is like useless compared to him" - but too weak?
No. Characters being too weak or too strong are the exact same problem. The only difference is one is stealing the spotlight because he's a burden instead of stealing the spotlight because he's a superman. In fact being too weak is objectively worse. A player who's character is too strong won't directly cause a party wipe by being too strong. Characters should conform to the party to some degree unless your group doesn't care about that sort of thing, something I hear a lot but have never seen in real life. Especially not from the people who claim such things don't matter.
Really? D&D just doesn't seem like that kind of game - if people are happy playing weaker characters than others, that's just fine... especially in high fantasy, as rarely are characters created equal in the stories we know and love.
I can only imagine how things might be different if fantasy writers subscribed to the theories being thrown around in this thread.
Gandolf: "Pippin - I admire your spirit, but seriously... you're a halfling fighter. You're not even close to optimal for the role. Seriously, get lost - carrying you isn't worth the EXP hit I'll take."
Dumbledore: "Harry - you're a 11 year old kid, and based on the stat penalties for playing a young adult your stats and level are pitiful. Just hide in your room while I take care of Voldemort - wouldn't want you getting one shotted."
Drizzt: "Cait-bre - no. Just no. Go back to Breunor... put some armor on, level about 10 times, and maybe you can be my tank."
I'll always believe D&D is a story first, and a hack and slash second. It's sad so many people seem to think otherwise.
Sorry but good novel stories make bad gaming stories. Hell, it doesn't even work in your examples: Tolkien ended up splitting his party into groups based on their awesome levels, Dumbledore was the quest giver not a PC, and Salvatore outright states he damn near ignores the D&D rules set entirely when he makes his stories which is why they're all uber badasses despite the "stat disparities". In a game there's no "author" to ignore your pathetic attack choices and -2 stat penalty. And you don't have a "main character" you have several people at the table who all deserve their own time in the spotlight.
So when you troll your group by insisting that they all carry your dead weight, even though they told you nicely they didn't want to play that way, they have a right to boot your character from the party, and you from the group. Just like when you claim that your orbzard who drops -12 save penalties is RAW they have the right to ask you to tone it down or walk.
So when you troll your group by insisting that they all carry your dead weight, even though they told you nicely they didn't want to play that way, they have a right to boot your character from the party, and you from the group.
Yeah - okay. I got no words that can express my disgust for that sentiment.
I don't feel anyone should ever complain about someone else's character being too *weak.* If the opposite were true, some players may gripe... "His character is too strong - mine is like useless compared to him" - but too weak? Really? D&D just doesn't seem like that kind of game - if people are happy playing weaker characters than others, that's just fine... especially in high fantasy, as rarely are characters created equal in the stories we know and love.
And yet, the very authors of the book suggest giving all the players the same level of xp, so that all characters stay the same level.
Why? Could it be that a "weak" character, like, say one several levels below the average in the party, is likely to be unable to contribute meaningfully to a fight that is challenging to the others? Could it be that monsters who constitute a good challenge for the "weak" character will be relatively easy and boring for the others to defeat?
Seriously, I'm not a bit fan of "maximum optimization" or anything. However, there can come a point, either through poor character design, or through poor tactical skills, or just through poor choices, where a character isn't contributing meaningfully to the combat encounters. That's not powergaming. That's being aware of the actual events in the game.
Your group may have no problem with it, for whatever reason. Maybe it fits the story. Maybe the player doesn't mind it, and it's funny. Maybe the character is totally cool in other ways that make up for the combat ineffectiveness.
On the other hand, many players do want to do their part, and punch their weight with a character. That doesn't mean they are optimizers, or min-maxers, or powergamers (though they could be). They may want to be a story driven, well-conceived hero who also happens to be a valuable member in a fight.
In any case, the "stories we all know and love" are narrated by a single author, who controls everything. Giving up "plot control" to players and dice means that it is often very unforgiving for the little hobbits in our midst. Also, a lot of people want to be Aragorn, or Legolas, or Gimli, or even Boromir. Very few people want to be Sam, Merry, or Pippin. More power to the ones that want it, but most players seem to want to be at least semi-badass.
The swordmage I currently play has an Int of 20, an AC of 20, and a level of 1. He even took Aegis of Shielding, and is a real credit to the Defender role. I min/max, but I will never, ever go as far as put down another player who doesn't. To me, that's detestable.
It's obvious that I'm the minority opinion here - so, I withdraw. This is just a wavelength I can not cross - villianizing players who do not optimize their characters.
Once again there's a difference between not minmaxing and having a character who can't hit or damage an even level foe. In fact you, on some level, know this difference, because you yourself can see the difference between casually optimizing and creating a unstoppable munchkined monstrosity. A Paladin who hits on a 16, deals 1[W] for every hit, never marks, and doesn't even stand in front of the squishes is just a game deforming as a character who hits on a 2, makes 4 attacks a round, and kills instantly on a crit. They are both bad.
Once again there's a difference between not minmaxing and having a character who can't hit or damage an even level foe. In fact you, on some level, know this difference, because you yourself can see the difference between casually optimizing and creating a unstoppable munchkined monstrosity. A Paladin who hits on a 16, deals 1[W] for every hit, never marks, and doesn't even stand in front of the squishes is just a game deforming as a character who hits on a 2, makes 4 attacks a round, and kills instantly on a crit. They are both bad.
I do know the difference, yes - and I've played it from both the players end and the DMs end.
I DMed someone who played a Pixie Ranger. Yes - using tiny weapons with a -2 damage penalty. Absolutely useless in combat. He was one of the most effective out of combat characters, however, planning ambushes, scouting enemy movements. He even took some social skills to go with his 20 Cha and became the party's face man.
I just balanced actual battles as though the group was 1 less. It wasn't a big deal. It had heals and a front man - just lacked damage, so I made the HPs of my monsters a bit lower to compensate. He was a very fun character, with a great history, who took on the mantle of an adventurer because he had to... despite being completely ill-equipped to do it.
In trade-off, I let him do his brief scouting missions, made terrain more dynamic than I would normally, and allowed the PCs the opportunity to get the jump on enemies more often than I would normally allow, so he could set his little traps. He loved his character, and it didn't matter to anyone at my table that his damage roll was 1d4-2.
It's much harder to balance a game with 1 brutally overpowered character, since you need to find ways the other 3-4 can shine. When 1 character is brutally underpowered - it's a cakewalk. Just see what he does best, and give him a chance to do it once in awhile... and always offer the option of a reroll if it stops being fun for him.
Were I to DM the Paladin Ranger, and his battle contribution was negligible, I'd balance the encounter as though the group was 1 player less. I don't consider looking at a number in the Monster Manual, and subtracting -2 to -4 from it much extra work on my part. No big deal, as long as he's happy. I'd inform anyone who complained that every encounter I plan factors in his minimal contribution - so they need not feel "affronted" that he isn't pulling his own weight (It's never happened, and I never conceived that it would).
And occasionally, I'd throw in a flying monster that breathed fire 6 squares to give him a moment to shine.
Yeah - okay. I got no words that can express my disgust for that sentiment.
How about acceptance of the truth.
The problem you seem to be having is not being able to seperate what is actually going on in this discusion, from min/maxers kicking you for not min/maxing. which is another problem.
With requards to the compotence of character building, there is a range of compotence. easily seen as a line, at one end are the uber-gimped characters who can not contribute anything to a party. at the other end are the min maxed munchkins that do everything themselves. somwhere around thre center being averagely built characters.
Now as long as everyone in the group is within so much space on this line (range varying from group to group), no issues occur, as everyone is having fun and no real problems are evident.
However, once someone goes beyound the groups range, issues start ot occur. if he goes the gimping way, he becomes dead weight, or in the stories you keep refering to "comic relief". THis character beocomes a drag on the group, as he simply is not pulling his share of the ordeal, reducing the groups fun. One player going munchkin is just as bad, as he undermines the whole groups reason to be there.
Now everyone here is saying that if someone goes outside that range, you should tel them to get back inside it, as they are being a detriment to the party.
It is the same reason you do not let someone join your group with a lv 1 character when you are all at level 6, the new PC wil get overwhelmed way to easily.
Now another thing about someone being to weak, from my own experience with running a game with bad players. If the player is not pulling his weight, the DM has to either :
- "pull his punches" and not send a full strength encountrs, which slows down peoples progression so the gimped PC is acting as an XP sink.
- run what would be balanced encounters for the number of std PCs, and increase the risk of a TPK
D&D is a party game, and people are expected to pull their own weight in the party. THe same way as if you are not pulling your weight on a Football team you are goign to get kicked for someone who will. If you can not accept that, don't play D&D.
It is the same reason you do not let someone join your group with a lv 1 character when you are all at level 6, the new PC wil get overwhelmed way to easily.
You don't force a disadvantage like that on a player, but if the player insists that he wants to play a character that's weaker than everyone else (and yes, there's some who just get an inspiration of an apprentice type character and don't want to be on equal footing - they're rare, but I've had more than a handful in my years), why deny them what they want to RP? I just balance the encounters to work... and I make sure all players are leveling at a fair and fun rate no matter what happens.
Me, I love the mechanics. I love min/maxing - I mentioned WoW several times before because I *do* play it, and enjoy it. But, fellas, I don't want my D&D game to remind me of WoW in any way, shape or form. Complaining about other players underachieving is the territory for MMORPGs - a game where failure means your opponents relish in your failure (PvP), or one that wastes 3-4 hours, and gives you absolutely nothing to show for it (PvE)
In D&D... I don't *care* what kind of damage other players are doing, as long as my character is contributing his fair share, or more than his fair share. If another player is stealing the show with an insanely powerful character, I take issue. If they are handing me the show on a silver platter by playing a character who can't so much as scratch his ass and laugh at the same time... hey, whatever floats your boat. As long as the DM has enough talent to balance encounters, there's no issue. If he isn't - that's probably a symptome of a larger problem, as I don't consider myself a great DM, but I can scale down encounters in my sleep and still make them challenging and not risk a TPK unless I know I'm risking one.
And if he gets sick of being terrible in combat, he can always ask me to help make him optimized, whether I'm the DM or another player. Until that happens, I assume he's content being underpowered.
THe same way as if you are not pulling your weight on a Football team you are goign to get kicked for someone who will.
The other team, the DM, is not trying to win. You're both working together to make a game good - and I've always found good games come from well defined characters and good roleplay... not the amount of pluses at the end of a dice roll.
Reversing that hypothetical - what's wrong with a player playing a class the way he likes it? Why is it important that he conforms to your definition of what makes an appropriate character?
If every class is supposed to be able to be played in every way, what's the point of having classes in the first place? Again it comes back to concept vs. class. 'Class' is just a set of abilities bound together by an overall theme, and roughly balanced with the abilities of other classes, 'concept' is what you actually make of your character in the game. And there's nothing wrong with making people aware that their concept doesn't fit the abilities of their chosen class.
spoilered for size
I'm still dumbfounded as to why said player would want a paladin for his character when he's not using the paladin's abilities. He could make a multiclass ranger/cleric, and spend every single feat he had on flavourful, non-combat abilities (skill training, linguist, skill focus, ritual casting), and arrange his ability scores in a non-optimised way that would fit his character and help him qualify for said feats, even if it meant having a lower dex, and he would still be more effective in combat than as a paladin, and still be just as able to be a paladin/holy warrior/member of the sacred order of the bow/whatever in the game, and as an added bonus, he would have a host of useful abilities that could add flavour to his character, and give him ways to help the party out of combat.
I think it's a sign of rigid mindset when someone decides that a ranger can't be played as a holy warrior. What's so wrong with using the mechanics that fit the flavour? And if the player actually wants a weak character (and it doesn't appear to, he just seems obsessed with having the word 'paladin' on his character sheet), he can at least be upfront about it, and ask if he can be 4 levels lower than the rest of the party permanently, and hope the DM is willing to twist the story to compensate for it, instead of forcing it down the throat of the other players.
D&D is a team game, it's not a crime to adapt your character to the story the DM and the other players wish to tell. And if that story is about a team of heroes, where each member has his/her own strength and contribute to the team by virtue of more than just their personalities, it seems selfish to want to make an excessively weak character. Sometimes, you just have to accept that the DM and the other party members might find it too much trouble to accommodate your choice of a radically different play-style, and you know what? That doesn't mean the DM and players are Evil, or that the game can't be entertaining, it just means you have to wait a while to utilise this particular concept. Big deal, I make sacrifices to keep the story going all the time, and it doesn't make the game less enjoyable, quite the contrary.
And while there can be story-related reasons for bringing in weaker characters (maybe the party is supposed to protect them, or maybe they have one single function, like being the heir to a wizard who created a network of gates the party needs to use, and therefore being needed to open said gates), it still requires the player to inform the team about their intention to make a weak character, so the DM get a chance to make that story-related reason (and scale down encounters accordingly), and the party members who like working as a team where each member has a role in battle, get the opportunity to build characters to fit these roles, instead of counting on the paladin to defend them.
All in all, the player is just selfish. Just because his character sucks mechanically, it does not automatically make him a good roleplayer who contributes to the story and deserves to be defended (sorry, but a paladin who refuses to take any risks to help the party doesn't sound like good paladin to me). He's just making it harder for the other players, and the DM, to make encounters fit together mechanically, and so far, I've not heard any reason for why. It seems like a classical case of a player being too uncreative to abstract from the names of the classes and just get on with playing a character instead.
I think it's a sign of rigid mindset when someone decides that a ranger can't be played as a holy warrior. What's so wrong with using the mechanics that fit the flavour? And if the player actually wants a weak character (and it doesn't appear to, he just seems obsessed with having the word 'paladin' on his character sheet), he can at least be upfront about it, and ask if he can be 4 levels lower than the rest of the party permanently, and hope the DM is willing to twist the story to compensate for it, instead of forcing it down the throat of the other players.
D&D is a team game, it's not a crime to adapt your character to the story the DM and the other players wish to tell. And if that story is about a team of heroes, where each member has his/her own strength and contribute to the team by virtue of more than just their personalities, it seems selfish to want to make an excessively weak character. Sometimes, you just have to accept that the DM and the other party members might find it too much trouble to accommodate your choice of a radically different play-style, and you know what? That doesn't mean the DM and players are Evil, or that the game can't be entertaining, it just means you have to wait a while to utilise this particular concept. Big deal, I make sacrifices to keep the story going all the time, and it doesn't make the game less enjoyable, quite the contrary.
And while there can be story-related reasons for bringing in weaker characters (maybe the party is supposed to protect them, or maybe they have one single function, like being the heir to a wizard who created a network of gates the party needs to use, and therefore being needed to open said gates), it still requires the player to inform the team about their intention to make a weak character, so the DM get a chance to make that story-related reason (and scale down encounters accordingly), and the party members who like working as a team where each member has a role in battle, get the opportunity to build characters to fit these roles, instead of counting on the paladin to defend them.
All in all, the player is just selfish. Just because his character sucks mechanically, it does not automatically make him a good roleplayer who contributes to the story and deserves to be defended (sorry, but a paladin who refuses to take any risks to help the party doesn't sound like good paladin to me). He's just making it harder for the other players, and the DM, to make encounters fit together mechanically, and so far, I've not heard any reason for why. It seems like a classical case of a player being too uncreative to abstract from the names of the classes and just get on with playing a character instead.
CURSE YOU, FORUMS, FOR EATING MY POST!! :MAD:
*ahem*
Anyway, so the forum ate my long post, so this is going to be utterly pointless ....
Drizzt: "Cait-bre - no. Just no. Go back to Breunor... put some armor on, level about 10 times, and maybe you can be my tank."
Catti-Brie isn't a tank, though - she's a skirmisher, and the bow is her primary weapon. IIRC, she even actively avoids melee because she knows she isn't good at it, and leaves it to the professionals (Drizzle, Wulfgar, Bruenor, and the psycho-battlerage).
In D&D... I don't *care* what kind of damage other players are doing, as long as my character is contributing his fair share, or more than his fair share. If another player is stealing the show with an insanely powerful character, I take issue.
But most people *do* care about how much the other players are doing - or at least how much they're affecting combat. Most people get just as upset about overpowered characters as they do about underpowered ones because they're worried about losing their characters; there's even an in-character motive: they don't want to die. If you've got someone who can't shoot and won't melee, and has no other effective powers, why would you bring him along? Against monsters, there are two paths: either he gets slaughtered because monsters that you can handle but he can't attack you, or you get slaughtered because the guy who should've been at your back couldn't do anything.
Of course, the party looks like it might have some issues anyway: 6 guys, with only one healer and two front-liners (one of whom is the healer)? Unless 4E really changed things, I think that setup might have some problems anyway.
Last part: UMCorian, it looks like you're speaking more from an idealist point of view, and those against you are more realistic. For most people, there does come a point where a member's combat effectiveness in a combat-centric game leads to the member's change or withdrawl. From a RP perspective: these guys have their lives on the line, and someone who's more hindrance than help would be dropped.
Last part: UMCorian, it looks like you're speaking more from an idealist point of view, and those against you are more realistic. For most people, there does come a point where a member's combat effectiveness in a combat-centric game leads to the member's change or withdrawl. From a RP perspective: these guys have their lives on the line, and someone who's more hindrance than help would be dropped.
I dunno bro... of all the annoying, obnoxious, argumentative, unimaginative, smelly people who can wind up sitting next to you at a D&D game, a person who is only guilty of adding 5 less to his dice roll than you is by far the lesser evil. That's my realistic view.
Maybe the player doesn't realize his options. He could be having more fun if he changed to Ranger class but roleplayed with all the paladin flavor. You don't need to be an "uppercase-P" Paladin to be affiliated with the local paladin order (DM willing).
He could shoot only arrows tipped with platinum, blessed and guided by Bahamut. He could spend a feat for heavier armor and wear paladin colors. He could wear a holy symbol for fluff or multiclass into a divine class later.
I dunno bro... of all the annoying, obnoxious, argumentative, unimaginative, smelly people who can wind up sitting next to you at a D&D game, a person who is only guilty of adding 5 less to his dice roll than you is by far the lesser evil. That's my realistic view.
Except we don't know anything about those personal properties - all we know about the guy is that apparently he can't create an effective character. He can only be judged by that factor, since the OP didn't have anything else to say about him. Maybe he's a personable, well-meaning, clean, and flowery-smelling guy who brings cookies and milk to every gaming session. Maybe he's a cave troll. Whatever the case, it's not the problem at hand.
Except we don't know anything about those personal properties - all we know about the guy is that apparently he can't create an effective character. He can only be judged by that factor, since the OP didn't have anything else to say about him. Maybe he's a personable, well-meaning, clean, and flowery-smelling guy who brings cookies and milk to every gaming session. Maybe he's a cave troll. Whatever the case, it's not the problem at hand.
True - just saying though... if his only sin is not having enough pluses at the end of his dice, I'll take him over a random new player any day of the week. lol
From a RP perspective: these guys have their lives on the line, and someone who's more hindrance than help would be dropped.
This point is a good one. The standard D&D adventure typically features characters that are risking their lives, repeatedly. There is such a thing as a character that is so mal-optimized that their presence in an adventuring party strains RP credibility. Ignoring, for a moment, ham-handed But Thou Must scenarios, you're really going to have a handful of explanations for why your adventuring group sticks together. The first: they're hires, and adventuring with the party is something they do for pay. In this case, they really had better be competant at the thing they're getting paid for, just like anyone else. Your backstory as a hireling (or even as someone given a charged to protect) doesn't really work if you're not good at the thing you were hired to do.
The second common party connection is that of a personal bond between party members-siblings, friends, comrades from the past, what have you. Once again, though, being severely outclassed by the dangers you face could be expected to elicit the expected response, in-character: "Adventurer Bob, we have a lot of fun adventuring with you, but we're about to confront one of the dukes of hell, and we know that that's a fair bit out of your league. It's going to take all of our effort simply to ensure our own survival even without looking out for yours, and we really couldn't bear to have harm befall you, so why don't you sit this one out?"
I just balance the encounters to work... and I make sure all players are leveling at a fair and fun rate no matter what happens.
The problem with that is you have to run the encounters on "Moron Mode" for tactics, otherwise they look at the partry, see the signs that one guy is allot greener then the others, and go for the weakest link, same way that they go for the clothy if the defender does not do his job properly. as anything that is fair for the party, is not fair for the gimped char.
Complaining about other players underachieving is the territory for MMORPGs
No, it is part of any group gaame/activity, pull your weight, or accept the consequences. Or are you saying that it is OK for someone to make a horibly bad move in game, and get the party killed because he tough it would be fun to use a weapon that could not effectively damage the dragon they were fighting????
You screw up,. you get mocked for it, that is part of life, MMOs are much worse for it, because of numerous factors, and the mocking is more mean spirited then the joking mocking of a group of friends.
In D&D... I don't *care* what kind of damage other players are doing, as long as my character is contributing his fair share, or more than his fair share.
Interesting thing with this comment, The OPers issue is that the char in question IS NOT CONTRIBUTING HIS FAIR SHARE. He is weaker in combat then the rest of the group, and someone is filling the role he is trying to fill better.
He is not filling any needed combat niche, his stats are not apt. for a party face, The only thing that is left is dex and wis skills, and those should be spread out amoung the group anyway.
THis entire argument has been that is is ok to ask someone who is not pulling his fair sdhare to straighten up, and you are coming back that it is not fine, and your reason is that the DM will fix it. Here is the problem with that mentality, The DM has allot of work already, and you are saying it is OK for a player to put more work on the DM because he wants to do something stupid. but it is not, you are putting more work on someone and increasing their burdens. if the DM does not put that work in, then the onus goes to the rest of the group to cover it. That is just pushing the buck and getting someone else to do your own work for you. a symptom of a lazy and/or self-centered player who is not concerned with the rest.
There is also a flaw with the mentality of it is OK to make a character who sucks in one of the games major areas to the point of being useless there, but is great at another area that the rest of the PCs can not share in doing. it requires the DM to put extra effort into making those scenarios, which take time to run through, and during which what is the rest of the party/players doing, nothing, sitting around being bored. which can detrack from their experience, and just results in someone stealign the spotlight because they can not make a decent character.
The problem with that is you have to run the encounters on "Moron Mode" for tactics, otherwise they look at the partry, see the signs that one guy is allot greener then the others, and go for the weakest link, same way that they go for the clothy if the defender does not do his job properly. as anything that is fair for the party, is not fair for the gimped char.
I would think the opposite would be truer - are you going to ignore the massive guy with the spiked armor and the great axe in favor of the green kid in leather armor with a dagger, who looks as though he has an equal chance to stab himself as he does you? The clothie example is a different monster: you attack him if you get a chance because you're afraid of getting eradicated by magic.
No, it is part of any group gaame/activity, pull your weight, or accept the consequences. Or are you saying that it is OK for someone to make a horibly bad move in game, and get the party killed because he tough it would be fun to use a weapon that could not effectively damage the dragon they were fighting????
You screw up,. you get mocked for it, that is part of life, MMOs are much worse for it, because of numerous factors, and the mocking is more mean spirited then the joking mocking of a group of friends.
Apples and oranges - making a screw up character who does stupid things to kill his team is night and day from someone who doesn't have alot of pluses on his attack rolls. Again, it's disturbing to see how many people equate a non-optimized character to players who are completely stupid.
That is just pushing the buck and getting someone else to do your own work for you. a symptom of a lazy and/or self-centered player who is not concerned with the rest.
I've never heard someone who makes an underpowered character called lazy and self-centered. I have heard someone who over-optimizes and munches out called self-centered, and I have heard people who write backgrounds like: "My character was trained by hiz God and is a dragon in human form and really good at attacking thingz and he has +16 to attak at level 2" called lazy, however.
I've never heard someone who makes an underpowered character called lazy and self-centered.
That's because for some reason I can't fathom a player who sacrifices all their attack powers to get make an unstoppable out of combat monster is a "roleplayer," and a player who sacrifices all their out of combat stuff to become a combat monster is a "rollplayer." I'm not sure what mental tweak causes this, because they're both powergaming bastards at the extreme. Stealing the show out of combat is just as bad as stealing the show in combat. One just seems to have better PR.
That's because for some reason I can't fathom a player who sacrifices all their attack powers to get make an unstoppable out of combat monster is a "roleplayer," and a player who sacrifices all their out of combat stuff to become a combat monster is a "rollplayer." I'm not sure what mental tweak causes this, because they're both powergaming bastards at the extreme. Stealing the show out of combat is just as bad as stealing the show in combat. One just seems to have better PR.
I think it's because an out of combat dynamo just has the illusion of power, and actually has to use his brain and wit to be effective in any situation, whereas the in-combat dynamo can just drink Mountain Dew and toss his d20 on the table while sitting on the sofa, playing Soulcaliber 4, and say: "Is it anything but a 1? If so, it's dead."
I think it's because an out of combat dynamo just has the illusion of power
No. Being unable to fail at skill checks is power. Being unable to fail at multiple connected skill checks in incredible power. Being able to outdo everyone else in the party with your skill checks is powergaming.
and actually has to use his brain and wit to be effective in any situation
Well yes, he does have to not be a total social failure and possess mild creativity. Or 3.X era utility spellcasting. But then that's not a high bar to reach.
whereas the in-combat dynamo can just toss his d20 on the table while sitting on the sofa and say: "Is it anything but a 1? If so, it's dead."
Completely ignoring the brain and wit required to build the character in the first place.
No. Being unable to fail at skill checks is power. Being unable to fail at multiple connected skill checks in incredible power. Being able to outdo everyone else in the party with your skill checks is powergaming.
It all sounds nice until the BBEG says: "Time to die..." pulls out a weapon, and ignores anything else you say. At that point, all the rushed Bluff checks, fancy Diplomacy... and the +42 Tumbling skills don't count for nearly as much. And whipping out a +27 Intimidate is all right... if using full round actions to drop my BBEG's attack power from +26 to +24 is worthwhile to you.
Well yes, he does have to not be a total social failure and possess mild creativity. Or 3.X era utility spellcasting. But then that's not a high bar to reach.
That's a bit of a tired argument. I think we're all happy to see 4e casters reigned in a bit, and though I do miss the versatility as I was primarily a caster, I think that was a necessary change. As for mild creativity - out of combat skill effects are much more open for interpretation. Personally, if a PC doesn't have a damn good speech thought up and expects a +41 Diplomacy check to convince the BBEG to surrender and join the Peace Corps... it ain't gonna happen.
Completely ignoring the brain and wit required to build the character in the first place.
I think you're overselling the effort it takes to go to these forums, type: " Handbook" on the character optimization forum, and push "Search." But, it's a valid point - why people who don't have every handbook/errata memorize by heart don't do that is confusing to me too... but I think the scorn people are showing in this thread toward people who don't value high combat ability is surprising, and some of their justifications for that scorn spread the gambit from harsh to... sheer idiocy.
I think the underlying problem here, as others have said, is a difficulty to tell the difference between an in world title and the name of a class as demonstrated here.
I would think the opposite would be truer - are you going to ignore the massive guy with the spiked armor and the great axe in favor of the green kid in leather armor with a dagger, who looks as though he has an equal chance to stab himself as he does you? The clothie example is a different monster: you attack him if you get a chance because you're afraid of getting eradicated by magic.
I'm going to stick with what I know: it depends on the monster. A lot of predators (wolves, for example) specifically go for the weak or injured members of a group because they *can't* take down healthy animals without a lot of trouble. So if the party is up against another force that is determined to wipe them out, yes it would make sense to attack the obvious threat before going for the weakling in the back - but other kinds of threats, like animals, bandits, and anything focusing on hit-and-runs, is almost certainly going to focus to some extent on the *weakest* member of the group.
I'm going to stick with what I know: it depends on the monster. A lot of predators (wolves, for example) specifically go for the weak or injured members of a group because they *can't* take down healthy animals without a lot of trouble. So if the party is up against another force that is determined to wipe them out, yes it would make sense to attack the obvious threat before going for the weakling in the back - but other kinds of threats, like animals, bandits, and anything focusing on hit-and-runs, is almost certainly going to focus to some extent on the *weakest* member of the group.
The reason wolves and predators always attack the weakest ones is because their meat tastes the same as any other... so why take extra risks? It doesn't strike me as good tactics for a hit/run group intent on seriously weakening the PCs to focus on the weakest threat when you only have a certain amount of time to get in and deal damage.
If you're a B-52 pilot with one bomb to drop, are you going to waste it on a supply truck, when you could hit the entire depot... simply because the chance of blowing up the truck is higher?
I would think the opposite would be truer - are you going to ignore the massive guy with the spiked armor and the great axe in favor of the green kid in leather armor with a dagger, who looks as though he has an equal chance to stab himself as he does you?
No, yo go for the easy targets/drops first whenever possible, as if you ignore them for the tank that you are not droping soon, it lets your opponents set up flanking easier, gives them more potential damage output and alot of other things that are undesirable thanks to a extra body to worry about.
Again, it's disturbing to see how many people equate a non-optimized character to players who are completely stupid.
OK, I now know you have no idea what we are actually discussing here, and are creating your own interpertation.
why, simple reason really........
NO ONE IS SAYING YOU HAVE TO OPTIMIZE YOUR CHARACTER OR ELSE IT SUCKS.
No, we are instead discussin people making gimped horible characters that are full of horible choices. Or are you stuck in some mentality where if you are not optimized you are gimped.
There are gimped char with choices that only serve to make the char worse.
thewre are min/maxed characters like the char-op boards.
THen there are the rest of us, who make a character and make censable choices for the development that add to/mesh with his/her capabilities, without handicaping him.
If you're a B-52 pilot with one bomb to drop, are you going to waste it on a supply truck, when you could hit the entire depot... simply because the chance of blowing up the truck is higher?
If I'm a bomber pilot and I've only got one bomb, I'm going home because I won't hit anything. And it'd actually be easier to hit the depot - trucks are, what, 40' long at the most? Even if the truck's not moving, it'd be much easier to get the Depot assuming a decent chance of hitting. Of course, a high-altitude bomber with only one bomb is pretty similar to the original problem: a character whose concept sucks (no accuracy in this example) and is better covered by a different type (F117 with laser-guided missiles).
The reason wolves and predators always attack the weakest ones is because their meat tastes the same as any other... so why take extra risks? It doesn't strike me as good tactics for a hit/run group intent on seriously weakening the PCs to focus on the weakest threat when you only have a certain amount of time to get in and deal damage.
Actually, if I'm a bandit, I'm going to focus on the weakest threat: if the PCs leave his body there, I can loot it. If they decide to take his stuff/body home, I can either make a coordinated attack while they're plundering the body (and therefore more susceptible to grenade-like attacks) or when they've encumbered themselves with his stuff/body. If nothing else, it lets me focus on the big guns without having to worry about one more potential threat, no matter how minor.
No, yo go for the easy targets/drops first whenever possible, as if you ignore them for the tank that you are not droping soon, it lets your opponents set up flanking easier, gives them more potential damage output and alot of other things that are undesirable thanks to a extra body to worry about.
Thanks for the tip. So rather than go for the tank, or the squishy wizard who deals 50% of the party damage - the smarter play is go for the un-optimized striker paladin who deals 1% of the party's damage.
At least we agree the tank isn't the best target though!
OK, I now know you have no idea what we are actually discussing here, and are creating your own interpertation.
why, simple reason really........
NO ONE IS SAYING YOU HAVE TO OPTIMIZE YOUR CHARACTER OR ELSE IT SUCKS.
No, we are instead discussin people making gimped horible characters that are full of horible choices. Or are you stuck in some mentality where if you are not optimized you are gimped.
There are gimped char with choices that only serve to make the char worse.
thewre are min/maxed characters like the char-op boards.
THen there are the rest of us, who make a character and make censable choices for the development that add to/mesh with his/her capabilities, without handicaping him.
Going back page after page, all I see is *****, *****, ***** and moan moan moan about people who aren't adding a sufficient amount of +s to the end of their characters dice roll.
I get what you're all saying: "A paladin isn't designed to be an archer." It's not a complicated message.
When people start saying "A person who doesn't pull his own weight in combat needs to be booted from my game"... that's when they lose me.
If I'm a bomber pilot and I've only got one bomb, I'm going home because I won't hit anything. And it'd actually be easier to hit the depot - trucks are, what, 40' long at the most? Even if the truck's not moving, it'd be much easier to get the Depot assuming a decent chance of hitting. Of course, a high-altitude bomber with only one bomb is pretty similar to the original problem: a character whose concept sucks (no accuracy in this example) and is better covered by a different type (F117 with laser-guided missiles).
Okay, that really wasn't the point. The idea is do you waste ordinance on a target you can almost guarantee you'll destroy... but that won't be very damaging (IE, the Un-optimized Striker Paladin that people just wanna boot from the party anyway), or a target you have a good chance of destroying, that is a potentially devastating loss (IE, A Sorcerer, or another striker who does like 50% of the party's damage)
Actually, if I'm a bandit, I'm going to focus on the weakest threat: if the PCs leave his body there, I can loot it. If they decide to take his stuff/body home, I can either make a coordinated attack while they're plundering the body (and therefore more susceptible to grenade-like attacks) or when they've encumbered themselves with his stuff/body. If nothing else, it lets me focus on the big guns without having to worry about one more potential threat, no matter how minor.
Your idea of a good strategy is to completely tip your hand by killing off the weakest one that the PCs want to kick out of the party anyway in your one surprise salvo... then hope they don't attack you back, but rather gather around the fallen body so you can grenade them to death?
I... think it's safe to say, you're lucky you're not a bandit.
Your idea of a good strategy is to completely tip your hand by killing off the weakest one that the PCs want to kick out of the party anyway in your one surprise salvo... then hope they don't attack you back, but rather gather around the fallen body so you can grenade them to death?
I... think it's safe to say, you're lucky you're not a bandit.
Actually, it's pretty good strategy, for exactly the reasons he just explained: 1) Taking anyone down takes them out of the fight completely, whereas (particular in D&D and other games where people are blobs of hit points that can't actually be *injured*), doing a chunk of damage to someone who can withstand it or narrowly missing someone who's competant enough to avoid it, still leaves you facing 6 people instead of 5, let's say. Even the incompetant boob can contribute something, so better to pare down the group by a concrete quantity.
2) People change their tactics when someone goes down, and any attacking bandit is aiming to take advantage of this, in exactly the way the other guy said. If they leave him, I win, I got the loot. Much like with the wolf, the meat tastes the same no matter where it comes from. If they stick around to loot the body or try to carry the body away with them, they're leaving themselves more vulnerable to later ambushes and attacks, after I've regrouped.
I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'tip your hand', but if you're ambushing someone, you're not exactly squandering the element of surprise by focusing on inflicting concrete, permanent losses that force a superior enemy to shift strategies. In fact, that's exactly where your priorities should lie.
But my, we've gotten far afield of the original discussion here. Odd that that started happening almost as soon as people started asking what a "ranged paladin" should be able to do that a ranger/cleric in one of its myriad variations couldn't accurately represent.
Your idea of a good strategy is to completely tip your hand by killing off the weakest one that the PCs want to kick out of the party anyway in your one surprise salvo... then hope they don't attack you back, but rather gather around the fallen body so you can grenade them to death?
I... think it's safe to say, you're lucky you're not a bandit.
Actually, my idea of a 'good' strategy is to avoid this group - even if one of them is weak, I'm probably not going to take them out, 'specially not just lil' ol' me. Hypothetical in which a force is tasked to attack the group (geas, starving, etc), however, that is the plan. I don't know they want the guy out of the way ... and if they don't go near the body I get to strip it of loot myself. There are frankly too many variables, though. Bog-standard bandits might not know how to tell power levels (aside from the obvious ones), but former soldiers and mercenaries, who make up a good portion of most established bandits, are quite capable of figuring out who's the most dangerous ones and who would be easy to take out.
Now, I'll admit I didn't put much thought into the previous example, so here's a better one:
I'm the leader of a group of bandits (say 9 men plus me), all FTR or Rangers, levels are APL -3 (min 3), I'm APL -0 (min 5). We look down the road and see seven guys - one warforged warrior of some kind, one dragonborn that looks like a priest of deity x, one guy who's got some fancy armor and is carrying a bow, and four lightly-armored guys (assume, for the sake of argument, two Magic-Users and two skirmisher-types).
There are two routes we can take regarding combat tactics: we can shoot down the cleric, since he's the only obvious healer-type, or we can shoot down the mages since they're the obvious artillery. I would prefer to go for the dragonborn - shooting the magi is less effective if the priest can heal them up, since now they're angry.
So, surprise round: assume half the attacks connect with the cleric, and he's either injured or down, if not dead. If he's apparently out of the battle (according to indications) and we still have range/initiative, target is shifted to the magi. If we're really lucky, we might take one down, but now the group knows we're here and are reacting. We have - at most - a 2:1 advantage. We're in this for the loot, though, so we're going to pull back and hit them again a bit later.
This time, we don't particularly expect to get surprise - they're going to be moving the moment the arrows start falling. The cleric is, again, going to be the primary target (if he's still around), followed by the magi. This is our turf, though - we've probably been able to watch them at least a bit, so we should be able to predict their actions. We'll try to avoid tangling with the Brute Squad and Armoured guy at first, and bring down the Skirms and Mage with 3:1 tactical superiority.
Around about now, we'll be noticing that Mr "Knight" plinking away at us with his bow, and doing it badly. We can either ignore him and focus on the damage-dealers, or we can weaken those efforts and send a couple guys to take him down. Unless he's proving himself to actually be credible, I'd say to skip him until later and take him down when we deal with Brute Squad over there.
Why? He's wearing armor, and BS would look to be a melee monster. Those are two types you avoid if you're (relatively) underequipped, at least until you have dealt with the more dangerous types. Remember, we're bandits, not adventurers - we won't have fancy stuff like magic armor and weapons (yet ...). Well, I might, since I'm the boss, but that stuff's premium gear, and ex-soldiers aren't likely to be toting such stuff. So we go for the credible threats we can probably deal with, then shoot down the big goons when we've got the rest of the area secured.
Note: If Mr "Knight" isn't actually "knight-like," and is wearing archer-suitable gear, then he'd be a secondary target after spell-casters. Unless he appears absolutely pointless we probably wouldn't ignore him - the assumption would be that he's like us and other skirms: quick, light, and deadly.
Edit: And, yes, this is assuming we're looking to wipe the group out and quickly. yrogerg made the points about looting banditry above.
Actually, my idea of a 'good' strategy is to avoid this group - even if one of them is weak, I'm probably not going to take them out, 'specially not just lil' ol' me. Hypothetical in which a force is tasked to attack the group (geas, starving, etc), however, that is the plan. I don't know they want the guy out of the way ... and if they don't go near the body I get to strip it of loot myself. There are frankly too many variables, though. Bog-standard bandits might not know how to tell power levels (aside from the obvious ones), but former soldiers and mercenaries, who make up a good portion of most established bandits, are quite capable of figuring out who's the most dangerous ones and who would be easy to take out.
Now, I'll admit I didn't put much thought into the previous example, so here's a better one:
I'm the leader of a group of bandits (say 9 men plus me), all FTR or Rangers, levels are APL -3 (min 3), I'm APL -0 (min 5). We look down the road and see seven guys - one warforged warrior of some kind, one dragonborn that looks like a priest of deity x, one guy who's got some fancy armor and is carrying a bow, and four lightly-armored guys (assume, for the sake of argument, two Magic-Users and two skirmisher-types).
There are two routes we can take regarding combat tactics: we can shoot down the cleric, since he's the only obvious healer-type, or we can shoot down the mages since they're the obvious artillery. I would prefer to go for the dragonborn - shooting the magi is less effective if the priest can heal them up, since now they're angry.
So, surprise round: assume half the attacks connect with the cleric, and he's either injured or down, if not dead. If he's apparently out of the battle (according to indications) and we still have range/initiative, target is shifted to the magi. If we're really lucky, we might take one down, but now the group knows we're here and are reacting. We have - at most - a 2:1 advantage. We're in this for the loot, though, so we're going to pull back and hit them again a bit later.
This time, we don't particularly expect to get surprise - they're going to be moving the moment the arrows start falling. The cleric is, again, going to be the primary target (if he's still around), followed by the magi. This is our turf, though - we've probably been able to watch them at least a bit, so we should be able to predict their actions. We'll try to avoid tangling with the Brute Squad and Armoured guy at first, and bring down the Skirms and Mage with 3:1 tactical superiority.
Okey dokes. With you so far. This is more or less how I'd play it too.
After this, your logic more or less seems to fall apart. Explain to me, as someone who's trying to slaughter this group in the most efficient way possible, how exactly a properly optimized paladin would have influenced how this played out from a targeting stand-point?
You even said, Sir Plinksalot would be the next target if he was wearing lighter armor... and that your bandits wanted to avoid encounters with heavy-wielding beast types. In another words, you're killing every caster/leader/striker before going for the defenders.
In another words, at what point would they have said: "Let's make sure to attack that shield-wielding, heavy armor wearing paladin before attacking X, where X is any other person in the party."
Yes, a legit paladin could start forcing issues a bit by closing into melee and doing a bit more damage - but there's no rule saying Sir Plinksalot couldn't mark a target himself, and basically grant the exact same benefit that any other defender could in that circumstance. You're most likely just going to ignore the mark anyway to focus on the squishies and eat the -2 to hit and radiant damage, no matter who marked you.
EDIT: And I think, if this group is putting all their chips on the damage difference between one single poorly optimized Defender... and an optimized Defender... that the group's screwed anyway. Just a simple math break down, assuming the guy knew at least the very basics and wanted to give himself a fighting chance at Archer Paladin: Max in Dex offsets Strength bonuses, so he's attacking with a standard Ranged Attack at 1d8+4 damage. Weapon enhancements offset, as do any feat bonuses - so this is pretty much = to the At-Will powers damage-wise without the minor fluff effects like "gaining temporary hit points" (which is worthless anyway, since Paladin isn't going to be attacked in this ambush until the end)
So, we're left with Encounter Powers being the only difference between the two. Don't know the level of the game, but assuming it's pre Level 11, that's a *single* level 1 encounter power and a *single* level 3 encounter power that's unavailable, since those are the only levels that offer only "melee weapon only" abilities. All the Dailys have one Radiant damage option, as does a Level 7 Encounter power. Raw 3d8-type abilities. So, for two rounds, a melee paladin can add 1 extra dice roll to the attack and a little fluff effect (again, like sliding ALA Staggering Smite) before he's dealing the exact same damage as Plinkalot.
An extra 9 damage over 2 rounds, and a single bandit losing 1 move action to... unslide himself... isn't going to sway this fight
Yes, a legit paladin could start forcing issues a bit by closing into melee and doing a bit more damage - but there's no rule saying Sir Plinksalot couldn't mark a target himself, and basically grant the exact same benefit that any other defender could in that circumstance. You're most likely just going to ignore the mark anyway to focus on the squishies and eat the -2 to hit, no matter who marked you.
But you see the problem, here, don't you? The problems with marks, that is. Marking encourages opponents to focus their attacks on the paladin. For the majority of opponents, this means that you just drew them into melee with you. For the OP's paladin, this means that he just drew them into the type of combat where he's least threatening. Thanks to his low strength score, and worse Charisma, he can't effectively use Paladin powers, or even make basic melee attacks.
See, this is the problem with the Paladin that relies on Divine Challenge and a bow for basic ranged attacks. Divine Challenge is basically a big "melee me" sign on the Paladin's back. Ranged-focused characters do not -DO. NOT.- like being hedged into melee. They either lose thier range and a lot of their specialized abilities, along with a good chunk of their accuracy, or they take multiple attacks each round in the form of Opportunity Attacks. That's why rangers and rogues each have a handful of powers that let them slip out of melee via shifts or extra movement and OA protection- rangers even get an extra shift as an at-will, and both have the option of considerable OA protection via a class ability. Meanwhile, any creature that closes to melee with Sir Plinksalot has just effectively marked him, by forcing him to drop his own attacks by several points (and losing range) or else take a manifold increase in damage in the form of OAs.
So, no, there's no rule that he can't mark someone and plink them with his pathetic +1 Cha, but dear god, it would be a terrible idea, tactically. Best case, it's totally ineffective. (Since it's actually the -2 plus the damage that makes marking an effective tool. On its own, the -2 is pretty much the difference between a defender's heavier armor and the lighter armor of a striker or controller.) Worst, it's actively counterproductive.
Also, I see what you mean about optimization, now: I mean, any idiot would have realized the above, given half a thought about it. It certainly isn't some great intellectual endeavor at all. :P
See, this is the problem with the Paladin that relies on Divine Challenge and a bow for basic ranged attacks. Divine Challenge is basically a big "melee me" sign on the Paladin's back. Ranged-focused characters do not -DO. NOT.- like being hedged into melee. They either lose thier range and a lot of their specialized abilities, along with a good chunk of their accuracy, or they take multiple attacks each round in the form of Opportunity Attacks. That's why rangers and rogues each have a handful of powers that let them slip out of melee via shifts or extra movement and OA protection- rangers even get an extra shift as an at-will, and both have the option of considerable OA protection via a class ability. Meanwhile, any creature that closes to melee with Sir Plinksalot has just effectively marked him, by forcing him to drop his own attacks by several points (and losing range) or else take a manifold increase in damage in the form of OAs.
Ya, I know. God forbid he actually switch to melee then after doing his job and drawing the hate off a squishy. And God forbid he have a 14-16 in Charisma as his second stat (racials dependent) - then, he could use the 2 encounter powers he lost. That would show him to be intelligent, but anyone who uses a bow as a Defender is definitely not that... since you're obviously very intelligent and you don't use a bow when you play a paladin.
I mean, any idiot would have realized the above, given half a thought about it. It certainly isn't some great intellectual endeavor at all.
So, no, there's no rule that he can't mark someone and plink them with his pathetic +1 Cha, but dear god, it would be a terrible idea, tactically.
Hey, I'm still trying to figure out where Charisma has anything to do with how well he plinks, or how well he marks, as you asserted. The extra 3 radiant damage that's the difference between someone with 12 Cha, and 18 Cha? Oh yeah - clutch. That's the deal sealer.
You'd be surprised what some idiots can and can not realize.
Anyway, I've gone off target - my point was never to prove a Paladin can make an effective archer, even though I'll say it's much better than I thought it would be. My point is - just because someone thinks outside the box doesn't mean they deserve your contempt. When it comes down to it, we're all nerds... and those who are offended by another player who adds 3 or 4 less than you at the end of a dice roll... seriously. Go outside. Get some fresh air. If that's the worst thing that's happened to you in a day, it's time to rethink your life.
The end. Flame away. I'm done. This time, I mean it.
After this, your logic more or less seems to fall apart. Explain to me, as someone who's trying to slaughter this group in the most efficient way possible, how exactly a properly optimized paladin would have influenced how this played out from a targeting stand-point?
You even said, Sir Plinksalot would be the next target if he was wearing lighter armor... and that your bandits wanted to avoid encounters with heavy-wielding beast types. In another words, you're killing every caster/leader/striker before going for the defenders.
Assumption being that a conservatively decked-out paladin would be recognizably different from other heavies, there's a second holy guy - off-hand and back-hand, Paladins and martial Clerics don't look all that dissimilar. The assumption would be that the party contains two clerics, not one, which doubles the healing capability and makes the group significantly more dangerous once the game closes to melee - as it eventually will, regardless of the situation.
Under normal circumstances, my group would leave the party be.
Tactically, the primary difference would be in target selection and enforcement: magi would be top-priority, and then the skirmishers. Both clerics would be left until the end, along with the Brute Squad. Make pincushions of the mages, draw the skirmishers away from their allies, retreat, repeat.
In another words, at what point would they have said: "Let's make sure to attack that shield-wielding, heavy armor wearing paladin before attacking X, where X is any other person in the party."
Yes, a legit paladin could start forcing issues a bit by closing into melee and doing a bit more damage - but there's no rule saying Sir Plinksalot couldn't mark a target himself, and basically grant the exact same benefit that any other defender could in that circumstance. You're most likely just going to ignore the mark anyway to focus on the squishies and eat the -2 to hit and radiant damage, no matter who marked you.
See the disclaimer at the top. I don't know how marks work (haven't seen many posts dealing with them) so I can't answer.
EDIT: And I think, if this group is putting all their chips on the damage difference between one single poorly optimized Defender... and an optimized Defender... that the group's screwed anyway.
I made some noises to this effect in my first post, but when I had to retype it, it just made a side-note near the end - that if the group has four 'Strikers,' one 'Healer,' and two 'Defenders' (one of which is the 'Healer'), something is wrong with the party makeup anyway.
Ah, I'm going to hate myself again for replying to ya... but I did ignore 2 of your posts, so it's a slight morale victory.
I hope that's a reasonable substitue for you for an actual victory in this discussion, because, y'know. Though, I must admit that you're pretty good at ignoring things.
Ya, I know. God forbid he actually switch to melee then after doing his job and drawing the hate off a squishy. And God forbid he have a 14-16 in Charisma as his second stat (racials dependent) - then, he could use the 2 encounter powers he lost. That would show him to be intelligent, but anyone who uses a bow as a Defender is definitely not that... since you're obviously very intelligent and you don't use a bow when you play a paladin.
Arguing facts not in evidence. I refered to the OP four or five times in my post, you'll note. The OP actually mentioned that the Paladin in question min/maxed away from Strength and Cha, and towards Dex. So, umm, no, he's not actually interested in switching into melee after marking someone*. Your hypothetical paladin that isn't the paladin that this thread started off about is, it ends up, less of a problem character than the one that this thread started off about. Imagine that.
Hey, I'm still trying to figure out where Charisma has anything to do with how well he plinks, or how well he marks, as you asserted. The extra 3 radiant damage that's the difference between someone with 12 Cha, and 18 Cha? Oh yeah - clutch. That's the deal sealer.
Isn't 3 damage on average also the difference between a dagger and a bastard sword? Or between the damage with Hunter's Quarry and the normal damage with the same power?
In other words, yes it makes a difference, and enough of a difference to matter. The math isn't particularly hard: compare the AC of your standard defender to the AC of your standard non-defender. If the only thing about the mark that mattered was the -2 to attacks, then you should hold harmless between attacking a defender in chain or plate, and attacking a cloth or leather-clad controller or striker, no? You're looking at the same AC range, either way, right? In many cases, the controller or striker is even still the more appealing target. Yet, that's not the way it actually plays, because that difference is made up in free extra damage as a penalty for ignoring the defender. On top of the damage that they (ordinarily) do with their actual actions. Though, again, that last bit is complicated somewhat when your normal rounds' damage amounts to a single basic attack each round.
You'd be surprised what some idiots can and can not realize.
You said it, there.
*ETA: It's interesting to note that this deflates the, "Well, maybe he just wanted to focus more on out-of-combat abilities!" argument pretty handily, as well. This archer-paladin can't really live up to the role of party Face, either, and that *is* largely the bent that the Paladin's class skills push it towards.
What if you're a Paladin of a god of archery?
Druid?