PDA

View Full Version : (4e) Paladin vs Avenger



Zonack
2009-09-29, 07:26 PM
A while ago a friend told me he was making a D&D story in a world he created.
He told me we were going to play AD&D because he likes it very much and dominates it.
And well all proceeded like that but my other friends convinced him to switch to 4th edition, and so far so good, there are things which he and me does NOT like, such as the alignment system, and the fact that Paladins can choose not be Lawful Good and so on, details like that.

So anyways, after reading the handbooks I found out the new classes and they are pretty good.
I was planning to make a Paladin, I even created my own Paladin Kit which I was planning to use and it was pretty cool, but maybe now I won't use it cause of the edition change. :P

So anyways the Avenger caught my attention.
The handbooks of 4th edition doesn't really tell you how to roll an Avenger, I am guessing ''The Divine Power'' handbook contains more info on it, but so far not so good.
So anyways, I was reading that an Avenger are kinda like.... soldiers of the Gods, carrying out their will with no code of conduct.
So for example, there is the god ''Hiur'' God of Dawn and Sun. Lawful Good.
You can be an Avenger of Hiur.
Other guy makes a Paladin of Hiur.

What would the clash be between this 2?
I mean if there is an evil warlord who sacked 2 temples dedicated to Hiur, the paladin and the avenger will target the warlord.
The Paladin will make him pay for his crimes, will challenge him or rally an army against him and serve justice.
The Avenger probably will kill him dishonorably or with tricks or in a way the Paladin does not agree.
How would the Paladin react ?

He knows the Avenger does not have a code of conduct like him, he does not have an Ethos, Edicts etc.
But he did removed a threat for the followers of Hiur.
Or what if the Avenger had to sacrifice 7 innocents in order to lure the warlord to an ambush to kill him?

I want to know this so you guys help with the story that will come.
Cause I will be a Paladin of a Lawful Good deity, and I think a friend of mine will be an Avenger of the same deity as me.

I appreciate your answers and help :D

Sir_Elderberry
2009-09-29, 08:33 PM
I would say that Avengers and Paladins actually pretty much agree with each other most of the time. In 4e, they both swear allegiance to a deity, not to a "paladin code" or anything similar. The difference is that a Paladin has been trained more as a priest, and an avenger has been trained more as an assassin. If a group tries to attack a dragon, the paladin will focus on keeping his allies safe from the dragon by defending them, the avenger will try and keep his allies safe by killing the dragon. Defender vs Striker, plain and simple.

There's no real fluff reason to view Avengers as sneakier or more underhanded than paladin. Paladins can assassinate someone in 4e, if they have to--it's kind of contrary to their abilities, which rely more on group dynamics, but it's not necessarily a moral issue. You could be a 4e paladin of Vecna.

falconflicker
2009-09-29, 08:36 PM
Slightly off topic, one thing I have considered is that different deities favor either paladin or avengers. A lot of the lawful good deities are more often followed by paladins than avengers, where many of the chaotic or evil ones have more avengers.

I guess a decent comparison to your original point would be that the paladins are more like the modern stereotype of the U.S. Marines where the avengers are more like the stereotype of the CIA (think John Clark from the Tom Clancy novels).

It's possible that the paladins find the avengers to be fanatics and the avengers find the paladins to be rigid.

Xallace
2009-09-29, 08:59 PM
It's possible that the paladins find the avengers to be fanatics and the avengers find the paladins to be rigid.

I always thought of the avengers as being the witch-hunters and inquisitors, so I think I can agree with that.

Yeah, underhandedness and killing innocents is less about one's class and more about one's alignment. If they're both good, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

Mystic Muse
2009-09-29, 09:24 PM
my friend describes them as "the priests and the terrorists."

Draz74
2009-09-30, 12:32 AM
I always thought of the avengers as being the witch-hunters and inquisitors,

I thought that was the Invokers? :smallamused:

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 12:34 AM
Avengers target something and destroy it. They mark a target as their Oath of Enmity and everything about their class and powers is designed to work better against that target. They're fast, but relatively fragile. They can't change their Oath target until the target reaches 0hp or the Avenger rests for 5 minutes. Also, they wield big 2-handed weapons with Str as a dump stat, holding and swinging them using the raw divine power of their faith. If they were any more single-target focused, they'd start foaming at the mouth in battle. They're VERY good at hitting their target though, taking the better of 2d20 for their attack rolls on their Oath target. Many of their powers grant them extra movement, and even teleports towards their Oath target.

Paladins are all for a cause, and Divinely Challenge enemies, but they don't get as fanatical. They're open to switching targets and helping out their allies. They've even got Lay on Hands. Also, the Platemail, Heavy Shield and defense bonuses make them far sturdier than the Cloth-wearing Avengers.

Invokers, by comparison, wield some of their god's power directly, while Avengers are more kinda wielding their god's wrath. Invokers stand back and are more careful and strategic across the whole battlefield.

herrhauptmann
2009-09-30, 03:00 AM
Don't forget that avengers get bonuses to attack and damage on their target if the targets friends target the avenger.

Or my favorite:
DM: Evil lich is getting annoyed with the avenger so he attacks the avenger (with his daily power)... crit...
Player: "HA!!"
DM: ?? Wtf?
Player: Daily power, you crit on me, and my oath target, the Lich, takes radiant damage equal to the crit.
DM: Oh... your avenger takes 45 points of damage. Lich takes 50 (45 and vulnerable 5). Lich is now dead.

Each time it's happened with my avenger, it's caused the death of an enemy. After the 3rd time, the DM stopped using undead encounters on me.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 04:04 AM
What would the clash be between this 2?
I don't think there is one. The avenger and paladin use different mechanics to represent the same thing. There needn't be any conflict (unless the players want it there) just like a fighter and a ranger don't have to "clash".

KillianHawkeye
2009-09-30, 07:42 AM
I agree with Kurald. The relationship between a Paladin and an Avenger is similar to the relationship between a Fighter and a Ranger. Paladins and Fighters are both good all-around combatants with great defense, capable of helping their allies and confronting whoever poses the greatest risk. Avengers and Rangers are more like skirmishers. They have less defense, greater mobility, and specialize in eliminating their foes with the greatest speed and efficiency possible.

Avengers don't need to be sneaky or underhanded like a Rogue. They merely stride forth with the wrath of their God and smite their opponents into dust. Basically, an Avenger is what you get when you make a Paladin who is calibrated for offense rather than defense. Don't forget that character class is a metagame concept, and your characters don't necessarily know about it. All they really know is that they're both holy warriors for their God, albeit ones with somewhat differing approaches to combat. There's no reason they'd inevitably end up at each others' throats.

Mercenary Pen
2009-09-30, 07:54 AM
The way I see tactics of the divine classes here is as follows:

The Paladin goes in, interposing himself between the evil cultists and the human captives they were about to sacrifice.

The avenger bypasses the regular cultists to try and solo the cult grand-master.

The invoker blasts cultists, but wants to get to the stage where he can blast the entire temple/shrine/cult hideout to pieces.

CarpeGuitarrem
2009-09-30, 08:12 AM
Avengers are like the Avenging Paladin build, but to the max. They have been trained and devoted to the destruction of their god's enemies for many years. They zip around the battlefield and pin down enemies. Paladins are champions of their god, focused on being big and hard-to-hit.

Avengers are like slayers, basically. If you're against their god, they will track you down, and they swear by their pretty floral bonnets, they will end you.

Paladins here are more like the Knights of the Round Table.

Sipex
2009-09-30, 08:18 AM
Every time I read one of the posts here I keep thinking "I thought there were 4 divine classes, why is everyone leaving out the last class?"

Oh right, because it's cleric which doesn't really have a focus on blasting the enemy and thus isn't relevant to the discussion at hand :P

Also yeah, I agree with the general consensus here, a paladin and avenger from the same god would get alone fine in my opinion.

CarpeGuitarrem
2009-09-30, 08:21 AM
Oh right, because it's cleric which doesn't really have a focus on blasting the enemy and thus isn't relevant to the discussion at hand :P

Yeah.....clerics actually probably pull just as much weight as the other guys. Last night, I remember our cleric gave us all a resist 5 damage buff (by sustaining an action), and used a Daily to give us +2AC. That was really nice. It's just things that aren't as overtly flashy, because people are focused on what beats enemies up.

Sipex
2009-09-30, 08:49 AM
What would you say is more useful?

+2 ac or +1 to hit? I'm actually a 4e cleric (which means I should be ashamed for even thinking that stuff beforehand) and my current daily is +1 to hit (for the party) but I've been eyeing that +2 to AC (same level daily, so I'd have to switch to it at level up) but not sure if it'd be as useful...

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 08:56 AM
What would you say is more useful?

+2 ac or +1 to hit?
Statistically, +1 to hit is better, because usually you attack once per round (more if you have multi-target attacks, which many characters do, or use an action point) and are attacked-to-your-AC less than half as often.

Also, statistically, neither is particularly impressive, because most combats do not last long enough for either bonus to make much of a difference in actual gameplay. For instance, resist/5 makes much more of an actual difference e.g. against zone or aura effects. This is why e.g. the cleric utility power "bless" is pretty bad (especially since it's a standard action to activate!), whereas the wizard utility power "mass resistance" is very good.

Sipex
2009-09-30, 09:20 AM
Hrm, maybe I should look at something else then?

I wasn't all too fond of cure minor wounds but maybe divine power has something better.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 09:24 AM
I wasn't all too fond of cure minor wounds
Nor am I, but your party members will love you for using Divine Aid every encounter.

Generally, when choosing utility powers for any class, look for the ones that are minor, free, or immediate actions to use. Using an utility in addition to an attack, rather than instead of an attack, tends to be both more impressive and more effective.

Yakk
2009-09-30, 09:53 AM
+2 to AC is very good, at least in practice. It single handedly turned the tide of two adjacent battles (go go long rests!) it was used in.

Admittedly, this was with a larger than normal (6-7 member) high-AC party (which makes AC buffs more effective) against a large number of melee opponents (L+4ish encounter, almost all AC-targeting). But the number of hits that came through as a "miss" because of that +2 AC buff was rather impressive (and the fights where close).

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 10:01 AM
But the number of hits that came through as a "miss" because of that +2 AC buff was rather impressive (and the fights where close).
I'm sure that'll happen on occasion, but overall it's very unlikely. Of course, you'll always hear of the one time that the power was very effective, and people will forget about the much more common times when the power really didn't do anything.

I mean, I'm sure we all heard of that one time that Jack the Fighter drew the Key, Moon, and Throne cards from the deck of many things, thus immediately becoming the most powerful character in the campaign and ending the major threats singlehandedly, but just because that happened once doesn't mean that the 3E fighter is a strong class, nor that the Deck of Many Things is overall beneficial.

Also, although it's a common misconception on these boards, having a high AC does not make AC buffs more effective.

Joran
2009-09-30, 10:08 AM
Avenger is in Player's Handbook 2.

There's nothing that says an Avenger need to be sneaky or underhanded. He can be basically a holy berserker that charges and smites those he does not like.


Don't forget that character class is a metagame concept, and your characters don't necessarily know about it. All they really know is that they're both holy warriors for their God, albeit ones with somewhat differing approaches to combat. There's no reason they'd inevitably end up at each others' throats.

Exactly. Class only tells you what you're able to do and where that power comes from. There's nothing there that forces you to play a particular personality or type of character. You shouldn't conflate a game term with the world term. For instance, I can see an Avenger calling himself a "Paladin" or a "Knight" or an "Assassin" in game.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 10:59 AM
See. I thought you were going to complain that an Avenger is effectively a Paladin in 4e. I mean, once you have Paladins that are of that can be of any alignment, they become generic "champions of a god."

Then comes another champions of a god.

Which is one of the things I don't like about new classes. Because, apparently, we need a Wizard and a Sorcerer. Mechanically, they have few features that distinguish one another. And I can't help but wonder if they shouldn't have just expanded the Wizard class to include blastiness.

It doesn't help that a lot of these redundant classes run off Charisma. Which basically amounts to: It Works Because I Say So.

Not a direction that I'm thrilled with.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 11:02 AM
Which is one of the things I don't like about new classes. Because, apparently, we need a Wizard and a Sorcerer. We also need an Avenger and a Paladin.
Well, yes. There are seven power sources planned (eight initially, ki got dropped, and I haven't heard anything of elemental lately). So expect at least a PHB3, PHB4 and probably PHB5 as well. Time will tell if there's enough archetypes to account for 25-30 unique classes, and sufficient builds to allow for e.g. the Psionic Power 2 book.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 11:04 AM
Well, yes. There are seven power sources planned (eight initially, ki got dropped, and I haven't heard anything of elemental lately). So expect at least a PHB3, PHB4 and probably PHB5 as well. Time will tell if there's enough archetypes to account for 25-30 unique classes, and sufficient builds to allow for e.g. the Psionic Power 2 book.
I've edited my response.

But in recap:
I think the Paladin of 4e and the Avenger are redundant as "archetypes." There's no reason I can think of that you can't just give the Paladin the Avenger's powers as an alternate "subclass."

The same goes for Wizard and Sorcerer.

I hate the fact that WOTC is going for the splatbook approach rather than going for brevity and adding content by expanding pre-existing classes or adding depth to the game.

Instead, they're going to create lists of new powers and stupid action-heroes who do things because Charisma-Wills-It-So.

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 11:08 AM
I've edited my response.

But in recap:
I think the Paladin of 4e and the Avenger are redundant as "archetypes." There's no reason I can think of that you can't just give the Paladin the Avenger's powers as an alternate "subclass."

The same goes for Wizard and Sorcerer.

They're very different. Sorcerers and Avengers deal a lot of damage. Too much damage for the Paladin or Wizard to deal while still being balanced. (That and their class features are far too different to cover with a simple class feature choice.)

Yakk
2009-09-30, 11:09 AM
Also, although it's a common misconception on these boards, having a high AC does not make AC buffs more effective.

Suppose monsters are hitting you for 20 damage per hit, and you have 60 HP.

AC such that monsters hit you 50% of the time. You live 6 rounds on average.

+2 AC, you are now hit 40% of the time. You live 7.5 rounds on average.
+2 AC made you survive 25% longer.

AC such that monsters hit you 30% of the time. You live 10 rounds on average.
+2 AC, you are now hit 20% of the time. You live 15 rounds on average.
+2 AC made you survive 50% longer.

AC such hit you 20% of the time. You live 15 rounds on average.
+2 AC, you are now hit 10% of the time. You live 30 rounds on average.
+2 AC made you survive 100% longer.

Now scale up the AC-buffless situation to have the same base survival rate.

Base case: 50% hit rate. Monsters hit for ~20. 6/7.5 rounds.
Next case: 30% hit rate. Monsters hit for ~33 1/3. 6/9 rounds (!)
Next case: 20% hit rate. Monsters hit for ~50. 6/12 rounds.

Yes, this is a simple model, intended to describe why higher AC increases the usefulness of AC buffs.

Assuming monsters need a 14+ on an average attack (high-AC party) (35% average hit rate), a +2 AC buff reduces the damage the party takes on an average round by 28%. That, quite honestly, is a huge increase in survivability.

And yes, with 10 monsters making 1.1 attacks per round (some OAs), dieing over 8 rounds relatively uniformly, they make collectively ~50 attacks before death. You get 17.5 hits in the base case, and 12.5 hits in the +2 AC case, on average. So in this case, you'd expect to see 5 hits nullified.

The change in damage output from the monsters will be large enough to swing a hard fight into an easy one -- from running out of healing surge activating abilities, to not having a shortage.

...

But, back on topic. Avengers are described in the fluff as holy assassins. They have lots of stealth and hunting powers. They are about finding a particular opponent (maybe of the faith, maybe not) and eliminating them.

Paladins, meanwhile, are holy protectors.

Note that non-LG Paladins just fill the design gap that previous editions assigned to anti-Paladins or the like.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 11:10 AM
Except that Strikers already sort of exist.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 11:17 AM
But, back on topic. Avengers are described in the fluff as holy assassins. They have lots of stealth and hunting powers. They are about finding a particular opponent (maybe of the faith, maybe not) and eliminating them.

Paladins, meanwhile, are holy protectors.

Note that non-LG Paladins just fill the design gap that previous editions assigned to anti-Paladins or the like.
And what exactly is an Assassin?

And what keeps a church from hiring Rogues from doing the same thing?

As a matter of practical concern, what keeps your average Knight Templar from doing the same?

I find the whole idea pretty stupid.

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 11:20 AM
Except that Strikers already sort of exist.

Yeah, but isn't it more fun to choose what sort of flavor you want your striker to be? A Rogue, Ranger or Warlock are great flavors and all... But what if you want to be a striker wielding your god's wrath? I think having the added choices adds a lot.

Boci
2009-09-30, 11:23 AM
And what exactly is an Assassin?

Accoirding to dictionary.com

a murderer, esp. one who kills a politically prominent person for fanatical or monetary reasons.

Personally, someone who kills people they have no relationship with to profit from a third organization.


And what keeps a church from hiring Rogues from doing the same thing??

Rogues need someone to flank with. Not so much a lone wolf.


As a matter of practical concern, what keeps your average Knight Templar from doing the same??

They could handle it, but the knight probably won't be as well equiped to handle the task of an avenger.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 11:23 AM
Yeah, but isn't it more fun to choose what sort of flavor you want your striker to be? A Rogue, Ranger or Warlock are great flavors and all... But what if you want to be a striker wielding your god's wrath? I think having the added choices adds a lot.
No. I can roleplay that easily. And pick options (or a bevy of new powers) to make a Paladin better at tracking specific targets. It's not like the notion of an Inquisitor or a Corrupt Church are exactly old.

Or play a Rogue or Ranger who is especially religious.

All I see is a class that pretty much has to justify a shiny list of new powers in order to exist.

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 11:24 AM
No. I can roleplay that easily. And pick options (or a bevy of new powers) to make a Paladin better at tracking specific targets. It's not like the notion of an Inquisitor or a Corrupt Church are exactly old.

Or play a Rogue or Ranger who is especially religious.

All I see is a class that pretty much has to justify a shiny list of new powers in order to exist.

Ok, you're right. We should only have 4 classes, because there are 4 roles. Having lots of choices and flexibility in mechanics is overrated.

EDIT: While we're at it, we can reflavor a Rogue's sneak dice as damage from their offhand or a second ranged attack, so there's no need to have Rangers either.

The Glyphstone
2009-09-30, 11:30 AM
It doesn't help that a lot of these redundant classes run off Charisma. Which basically amounts to: It Works Because I Say So.

Not a direction that I'm thrilled with.

Personally, I'm more amused by the Dragon Sorcerer with Strength as their secondary stat. Apparently pumping iron in the gym makes my magical spells more effective.

Eorran
2009-09-30, 12:20 PM
And what exactly is an Assassin?

And what keeps a church from hiring Rogues from doing the same thing?

As a matter of practical concern, what keeps your average Knight Templar from doing the same?

Why does the US need Recon Marines, SEALs, Green Berets, Delta, Rangers, whatever name the Air Force has for their special ops, and the CIAs special ops?

Because despite broad similarities, they have some important differences in mission, outlook, and training.
Can you swap one for the other? Yes, sort of. There's a lot of overlap between them, but you will do better using the right tool for the right job.

There's a difference, too, in the way 4e looks at classes from the way earlier editions did. 4e's classes are more like specific build paths, with carefully defined mechanical roles. The story roles are looser, so if you want a Knight Templar, maybe an Avenger is a better build than a Paladin.
The same comment has come up in discussions about two-weapon Fighters (at least before Martial Power), and the idea of using a Ranger instead. It works, if you don't consider Ranger to have to be a woodsman.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 12:45 PM
Why does the US need Recon Marines, SEALs, Green Berets, Delta, Rangers, whatever name the Air Force has for their special ops, and the CIAs special ops?

Because despite broad similarities, they have some important differences in mission, outlook, and training.
Can you swap one for the other? Yes, sort of. There's a lot of overlap between them, but you will do better using the right tool for the right job.
That's such a horrible metaphor. Or maybe you're horrible for using a metaphor. Either way, I'm inclined to ignore arguments by metaphor and I hope I needn't explain why.


There's a difference, too, in the way 4e looks at classes from the way earlier editions did. 4e's classes are more like specific build paths, with carefully defined mechanical roles. The story roles are looser, so if you want a Knight Templar, maybe an Avenger is a better build than a Paladin.
The same comment has come up in discussions about two-weapon Fighters (at least before Martial Power), and the idea of using a Ranger instead. It works, if you don't consider Ranger to have to be a woodsman.
You mean their storied roles are "restricted."

A dragon isn't a dragon unless it has the mechanics that label it a dragon. It's the tail wagging the dog. Ass-backwards. Or some other appropriate turn of phrase.

In any case, I steadfastly refuse to look at or speak with the other classes. They remind me of bad fan-fic taking over D&D class logic. Why don't we just cut out the middle man and make Outcast Drow and Tragic Vampire classes.

As a matter of fact, if we get a subtle variation on any of those two themes, they should also get a class.

Boci
2009-09-30, 12:56 PM
That's such a horrible metaphor. Or maybe you're horrible for using a metaphor. Either way, I'm inclined to ignore arguments by metaphor and I hope I needn't explain why.

Metaphors are a way of communicating, and his point is valid. All these extra classes are needed for the same reason all the special forces are needed.


In any case, I steadfastly refuse to look at or speak with the other classes. They remind me of bad fan-fic taking over D&D class logic.

The whole point of PHII was for some wierd classes. We already had the generic ones in PHI. No ones forcing you to use the avenger if you do not like it.


Why don't we just cut out the middle man and make Outcast Drow and Tragic Vampire classes.

Those are purely flavour concepts. The avenger is not. And I could see both of those as paragon paths.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:01 PM
Metaphors are a way of communicating, and his point is valid. All these extra classes are needed for the same reason all the special forces are needed.
No they're not.

See? I can make a claim without explaining why I think that. Coating it in a metaphor doesn't make it more valid.

Boci
2009-09-30, 01:03 PM
No they're not.

See? I can make a claim without explaining why I think that.

Yes and when debating with people who are explaining why they think X or Y, your arguments look childish.

Your saying there is no mechanical nitch for the avenger, no matter how small? Interesting...

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:06 PM
Yes and when debating with people who are explaining why they think X or Y, your arguments look childish.
Excuse me.

I think I am explaining X and Y and listening to X and Y.

But it annoys me to be told by a bystander that the other guy thinks the classes fill a role, one who won't offer up X and Y without first insulting me while preaching about a debate.

So . . . I kinda got understood what his opinion was. Thanks for spelling it out.

hamishspence
2009-09-30, 01:06 PM
4th ed Dragon Annual had some details on Assassins in D&D-

now, sometimes, the end does justify the means, and an assassin carrying out their assassinations for goood reasons (the protection of others, especially society as a whole) does not have to be Evil.

It does go on to say that "Murder for profit cannot be conceived as anything but evil" though.

Boci
2009-09-30, 01:07 PM
Excuse me.

I think I am explaining X and Y and listening to X and Y.

But it annoys me to be told that the other guy thinks the classes fill a role. And then being told it's valid by a bystander who won't offer up X and Y without first insulting me.

So . . . I kinda got understood what his opinion was. Thanks for spelling it out.

You asked what the point of the avenger was. You got an answer in the form of a metaphor, and have no really said anything worth noting in response aside from "you suck"* and "I'm right"

*
That's such a horrible metaphor. Or maybe you're horrible for using a metaphor. Either way, I'm inclined to ignore arguments by metaphor and I hope I needn't explain why.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:09 PM
You asked what the point of the avenger was. You got an answer in the form of a metaphor, and have no really said anything worth noting in response aside from "you suck" and "I'm right"
I actually went into quite a bit more detail than that. But if you just want to be offended by it, go right ahead.

From what I saw, I was just told, "they have roles to fill." I clearly don't think they do.

Artanis
2009-09-30, 01:09 PM
I imagine a party with both a Paladin and an Avenger might look something like this:

Paladin: "Fear not, my companions! With the power of my God at my side, these foul monstrosities cannot stand before...wait, where'd the Avenger go?"

Avenger: (Already on the other side of the battlefield) "OUTTA MY WAY YOU *******S I HAVE A LICH TO STAB!" *stabbity smite-stab stab*

Paladin: *facepalm* "...well, I guess I can smite the other undead, at any rate."

:smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 01:11 PM
now, sometimes, the end does justify the means, and an assassin carrying out their assassinations for goood reasons (the protection of others, especially society as a whole) does not have to be Evil.

Yeah, we call that Drizz't Syndrome :smallbiggrin:

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:11 PM
I imagine a party with both a Paladin and an Avenger might look something like this:

Paladin: "Fear not, my companions! With the power of my God at my side, these foul monstrosities cannot stand before...wait, where'd the Avenger go?"

Avenger: (Already on the other side of the battlefield) "OUTTA MY WAY YOU *******S I HAVE A LICH TO STAB!" *stabbity smite-stab stab*

Paladin: *facepalm* "...well, I guess I can smite the other undead, at any rate."

:smalltongue:
Or the Avenger is giving the Paladin's speech.

And they Paladin gets pissed at the notion that they're both giving the righteous might speech.


Yeah, we call that Drizz't Syndrome :smallbiggrin:
A silly book about assassins I read said something to the effect of:
"The ends do not justify the means and the means do not justify the ends."

Putting aside the stock explanation that the speech was about "nihilism," it just struck me as a very pragmatic way of looking at murder-for-money.

Boci
2009-09-30, 01:11 PM
I actually went into quite a bit more detail than that. But if you just want to be offended by it, go right ahead.

From what I saw, I was just told, "they have roles to fill." I clearly don't think they do.

I wouldn't say they have a role to fill. The PHI took care of that. They just have a small mechanical gap to fill.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:17 PM
I wouldn't say they have a role to fill. The PHI took care of that. They just have a small mechanical gap to fill.
Which can be done by an expanded Paladin. Or Cleric.

But it's clear that's not how WOTC wants to sell it.

As far as I'm concerned, that adds the sort of content that uses the logic that every subtle variation on the same idea needs a class. It looks comic-bookish (in a bad way) and is silly. The notion of a Paladin swearing an oath to bring down righteous fury on their foes doesn't need it's own entire player's toolkit.

Being told, "it fills a role" doesn't explain why the poster thinks that is true. D&D isn't entirely about what tools the players have at their disposal but also what tools they're forced to rely on by the needs of the story or by the needs of "fair play."

Splat books just act as a kind of official sanction to say:
Go ahead and do that in your game.

Which is assinine. Players ought to be given expansions along a design philosophy that isn't about selling books. It ought to save them a bit of work homebrewing their own stuff while keeping true to that philosophy.

hamishspence
2009-09-30, 01:19 PM
Yeah, we call that Drizz't Syndrome :smallbiggrin:

4th ed does have a strong tendency to strip away old rules preconceptions.

Paladins of every alignment, for example.

I've heard the "assassination does not have to be evil" argument numerous times on these forums. Maybe the games developers have seen similar ones enough times that they said: "Maybe you're right."

Boci
2009-09-30, 01:20 PM
Which is assinine logic. Players ought to be given expansions along a design philosophy that isn't about selling books.

Theres no harm in dreaming, but it won't achieve anything either. WoTC is a company, they want to make a profit. Your only hope is the people on these forume who do massive house rule projects.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:24 PM
4th ed does have a strong tendency to strip away old rules preconceptions.

Paladins of every alignment, for example.

I've heard the "assassination does not have to be evil" argument numerous times on these forums. Maybe the games developers have seen similar ones enough times that they said: "Maybe you're right."
Well it depends on what kind of fantasy RPG D&D is supposed to be. But I don't think WOTC has any idea what it is they're trying to sell. Is it a catchall system that allows you to play multiple sub-genres? Or is there an official genre?

Again, when it comes to being philosophical around D&D, it really helps if you decide that the alignment system is full of crap.

You don't use the words "lawful" or "evil" or "chaotic." Whether something is evil or not is a person's opinion about the value of a [noun]. It helps more to use words like: malicious, sadistic, greedy, narcissistic, etcetera. Think in terms of ethical codes, tropes and personality traits. Not in terms of poorly-explained labels.

Artanis
2009-09-30, 01:25 PM
*stuff about roles*

OK, just to get things all in order, what exactly do you want to do with a character that you feel the Avenger shouldn't be needed? Religious striker, church/god-appointed bad-guy hunter, etc.?

Boci
2009-09-30, 01:26 PM
OK, just to get things all in order, what exactly do you want to do with a character that you feel the Avenger shouldn't be needed? Religious striker, church/god-appointed bad-guy hunter, etc.?

Didn't he say more options for the paladin?

Artanis
2009-09-30, 01:28 PM
Didn't he say more options for the paladin?

Yes, but I mean what uses would he be applying those options to, and for what reasons.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:28 PM
Didn't he say more options for the paladin?
Or the wizard.

Rituals don't seem nearly grandiose enough for what you're forced to pay in terms of time and money.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 01:28 PM
I've heard the "assassination does not have to be evil" argument numerous times on these forums. Maybe the games developers have seen similar ones enough times that they said: "Maybe you're right."
Regardless of whether assassination is evil, the "assassin" class has very little if anything to do with assassinating. Essentially, that argument on these forums is more that people want to play something called an "assassin" because it sounds cool (regardless of what it actually does) and WOTC has no problem in complying with that.

Roland St. Jude
2009-09-30, 01:28 PM
Sheriff of Moddingham: Dial down the hostility in here, please. Personal attacks and trollish hostility are not permitted here.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:29 PM
Regardless of whether assassination is evil, the "assassin" class has very little if anything to do with assassinating. Essentially, that argument on these forums is more that people want to play something called an "assassin" because it sounds cool (regardless of what it actually does) and WOTC has no problem in complying with that.
Precisely.

Assassination has a lot of roleplaying possibilities. A Paladin can hunt down a heretic and "assassinate" him. And this isn't strictly limited to the Paladin sneaking up behind his target and Sneak Attacking him.

But it's easier to take an Assassin class then actually fleshing out what it means, in your case, to be an assassin.

A bandit doesn't need a class labeled "Bandit" in order to be a bandit.

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 01:33 PM
Which can be done by an expanded Paladin. Or Cleric.

But it's clear that's not how WOTC wants to sell it.

As far as I'm concerned, that adds the sort of content that uses the logic that every subtle variation on the same idea needs a class. It looks comic-bookish (in a bad way) and is silly. The notion of a Paladin swearing an oath to bring down righteous fury on their foes doesn't need it's own entire player's toolkit.

Being told, "it fills a role" doesn't explain why the poster thinks that is true. D&D isn't entirely about what tools the players have at their disposal but also what tools they're forced to rely on by the needs of the story or by the needs of "fair play."

Splat books just act as a kind of official sanction to say:
Go ahead and do that in your game.

Which is assinine. Players ought to be given expansions along a design philosophy that isn't about selling books. It ought to save them a bit of work homebrewing their own stuff while keeping true to that philosophy.

A - PHB2 is considered Core. Says so on the cover. Books like Martial Power and Divine Power are supplements.

B - If WotC didn't keep selling new books, Hasbro would abandon D&D due to lack of profit. Companies need to make money to continue to exist, just like we need to eat to continue to exist.

C - Look at what needs to be done to balance the Avenger's righteous wrath - They wear cloth armor while the Paladin wears plate. If they released Avenger's stuff as options for the Paladin class, with the same restrictions, it would be it's own class anyway as it's so different mechanically, it'd just be "Paladin 2". So why not give it it's own name?

D - They DID release new stuff for Paladins in Divine Power.

E - A DDI Subscription costs about the same as three and a half books per year, but you get all the content of all books they publish (1/month = 12, plus everything they've already published for 4th ed) as well as all dragon mags, other bonuses and very very useful tools.


Well it depends on what kind of fantasy RPG D&D is supposed to be. But I don't think WOTC has any idea what it is they're trying to sell. Is it a catchall system that allows you to play multiple sub-genres? Or is there an official genre?

It's supposed to be a catch-all.

Mordokai
2009-09-30, 01:36 PM
I imagine a party with both a Paladin and an Avenger might look something like this:

Paladin: "Fear not, my companions! With the power of my God at my side, these foul monstrosities cannot stand before...wait, where'd the Avenger go?"

Avenger: (Already on the other side of the battlefield) "OUTTA MY WAY YOU *******S I HAVE A LICH TO STAB!" *stabbity smite-stab stab*

Paladin: *facepalm* "...well, I guess I can smite the other undead, at any rate."

:smalltongue:

I would totally sig that, had I any place left in signature :smallbiggrin:

Arbitrarity
2009-09-30, 01:39 PM
Or the wizard.

Rituals don't seem nearly grandiose enough for what you're forced to pay in terms of time and money.

Higher level ones, maybe, but I like my floating disk. Carries more than anyone in the party, cheap, lasts all day, it's the ultimate "we take that as well", and makes for some funny loot lists (3 goblin waraxes, a book of erotic poetry, a small keg of ale). Easily pays for itself by picking up everything.

Also, while this may be codex creep, I like the mechanical innovation, however minor, that WoTC is doing with new classes. Oath of Emnity and the censures are a very distinct mechanic from the original striker "+1d6/tier", and make the avenger a much more tactical class than, say, a archer ranger. The assassin's shrouds are the same way, a mechanically distinct, interesting method of adding damage, rather than the rather boring rogue powers.
Psion? Sure, it could be wizard stuff, but look at the mechanic! Power points are a new way to manage encounter resources. Rage, transformations, beast form, spirit companion, full disciplines, the number/position tweaking of a bard, all of these add interesting and unique ways that your character can function, increasing the diversity of characters. They may not seem like much, but they actually make the game play quite a bit differently.

Eorran
2009-09-30, 01:40 PM
Which can be done by an expanded Paladin. Or Cleric.

But it's clear that's not how WOTC wants to sell it.

As far as I'm concerned, that adds the sort of content that uses the logic that every subtle variation on the same idea needs a class. It looks comic-bookish and silly.

Being told, "it fills a role" doesn't explain why the poster thinks that is true. D&D isn't entirely about what tools the players have at their disposal but also what tools they're forced to rely on by the needs of the story or by the needs of "fair play."

Splat books just act as a kind of official sanction to say:
Go ahead and do that in your game.

Which is assinine logic. Players ought to be given expansions along a design philosophy that isn't about selling books.

I don't really see how Avenger as a class is better or worse than Avenger as a sub-class, prestige class, or kit of Cleric or Paladin.

Since you requested clarification (in a roundabout way) of my earlier comment about roles, I'll elaborate:

4e classes are built from two main points: what their power source is, and what their combat role in a party is. Ergo, Paladin is Divine/Defender, Wizard is Arcane/Controller, Fighter is Martial/Defender, and so on.
For the Avenger, then, you can create a class based on Divine/Striker, or you could use an existing class and try to change or ignore one of the two points.
IE: Rogue is Martial/Striker. Fills the role of assassin type, you can fluff him as church-trained, but he doesn't get any actual divine power.
Paladin is Divine/Defender. He's got the divine, but really doesn't fit the high-mobility, hard-hitting, sneaky guy.

You could multiclass - but because of the different key ability scores, you'd end up looking more confused than cohesive.

So why not make a class that fills the role of Divine Striker?

(As to why there are both Warlocks and Sorcerers... I dunno, because people would miss them?)

hamishspence
2009-09-30, 01:42 PM
But it's easier to take an Assassin class then actually fleshing out what it means, in your case, to be an assassin.

And the article went with the latter rather than the former.

We still have the paragon paths for the rogue and the avenger, but there is no "Assassin" base class in 4th ed, and I suspect there will never be one.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:42 PM
A - PHB2 is considered Core. Says so on the cover. Books like Martial Power and Divine Power are supplements.
Therefore, it makes all gamers think that you can't play or homebrew a role without getting it officially sanctioned.

That sucks.


B - If WotC didn't keep selling new books, Hasbro would abandon D&D due to lack of profit. Companies need to make money to continue to exist, just like we need to eat to continue to exist.
Which doesn't prevent WOTC from actually making good books.


C - Look at what needs to be done to balance the Avenger's righteous wrath - They wear cloth armor while the Paladin wears plate. If they released Avenger's stuff as options for the Paladin class, with the same restrictions, it would be it's own class anyway as it's so different mechanically, it'd just be "Paladin 2". So why not give it it's own name?
They needn't go about it in that specific manner. The Paladin just needs ways of being better at hunting down his hated foes. It has nothing to do with the role of being a "striker."

In short, so what? The mechanics are irrelevant if the system's assumptions are itself subject to revision.


D - They DID release new stuff for Paladins in Divine Power.
So be it. I doubt it's much better than their other stuff.


E - A DDI Subscription costs about the same as three and a half books per year, but you get all the content of all books they publish (1/month = 12, plus everything they've already published for 4th ed) as well as all dragon mags, other bonuses and very very useful tools.
Tangential to my point.


It's supposed to be a catch-all.
It isn't. If it is, WOTC isn't exactly clear on that point because they don't really provide the toolkit for it.

3e used a morality system that most players either had to blantantly ignore or edit. It didn't exacly make it clear whether or not that morality system was fluid for campaign use.

Epic fantasy is, in my opinion, perhaps the genre that D&D is the worst at. Because both 3rd and 4th stubbornly maintains traditions that suggest a low fantasy about freelancers.

And there's very little provision for switching things around according to individual taste. You're forced into playing with a rule that's not really good for your style merely because everybody else who has bought Dungeons and Dragons (trademarked) plays it that way.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 01:46 PM
It's supposed to be a catch-all.
...but it's not.

Looking over my shelves of fantasy books, the 4E rules would not be workable for modelling most of them. For instance, the Chronicles of Amber. Royal Assassin/Liveships/Tawny Man trilogies. Discworld. Heralds of Valdemar. Lord of the Rings.

It kind-of-but-not-really works for Krondor and the Belgariad. Inasmuch fantasy has distinct subgenres, it really only works for a handful.

Ehra
2009-09-30, 01:47 PM
Lurker, if it bothers you that much then why don't you just refluff the new classes as extensions of old classes? In the end, all the PHBs really are is a bunch of rules and mechanics wrapped up in arbitrary fluff. It's up to the players to decide how they actually use those rules and new mechanics. If you don't like the idea of having so many classes then don't have so many classes.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 01:47 PM
We still have the paragon paths for the rogue and the avenger, but there is no "Assassin" base class in 4th ed, and I suspect there will never be one.

...er, it appears in the latest Dragon magazine. So, yeah...

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 01:49 PM
(As to why there are both Warlocks and Sorcerers... I dunno, because people would miss them?)

Warlocks/Sorcerers, Rogues/Rangers, Artificers/Bard. Each pair shares both power source and primary role, but are very different mechanically. Each class also leans towards a secondary role though. For example, Artificers are great as leaders, but lean towards Controller with bursty and blasty powers and summoning potential.

hamishspence
2009-09-30, 01:52 PM
Oops.

I have membership but not subscription, so I haven't been reading since they started charging.

Also, I got the Dragon Annual recently, where it explicitly states that there is no reason for an Assassin class- and that it only needs to be a profession.

Why did they change their minds?

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:53 PM
Lurker, if it bothers you that much then why don't you just refluff the new classes as extensions of old classes? In the end, all the PHBs really are is a bunch of rules and mechanics wrapped up in arbitrary fluff. It's up to the players to decide how they actually use those rules and new mechanics. If you don't like the idea of having so many classes then don't have so many classes.
Well duh. But this is sort of getting away from the original point.

I expressed the notion that they're redundant. And that redundancy sucks for the overall philosophy of the game. The philosophy that all players will adapt because WOTC made them buy a book.

I didn't expect to explain the exact reason for holding that opinion for two pages or so. Except that people kept jumping in and asking.

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 01:55 PM
Oh yeah, actually on topic... I'm in a group that has both an Avenger and a Paladin in it. They get along great, even though they worship different gods. Though, I've never seen two players ever have a conflict with this group.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 01:55 PM
Why did they change their minds?
I don't think they did; I believe 4E was always intended to have an assassin class.

First, because the initial design calls for 32 or so classes (8 power sources x 4 roles), possibly more since we already have 6 arcane classes. That means they'll need every idea they can get, because making 32 distinct classes (and three or four builds for each) isn't exactly easy.

Second, because 1E had an assassin, so they can use this as a sales pitch to say that 4E is closer to "the roots" of D&D.

Third, because people like the word "assassin" and would play a class like that regardless whether its mechanics are actually related to assassinating anything (which, incidentally, they're not).

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 01:55 PM
Oops.

I have membership but not subscription, so I haven't been reading since they started charging.

Also, I got the Dragon Annual recently, where it explicitly states that there is no reason for an Assassin class- and that it only needs to be a profession.

Why did they change their minds?
Too many people working on the same project.

Having an Assassin class gives people what they want. Somebody might disagree, but he can't really do anything if somebody else can publish things under his own power.

It gets worse when the designers that you had last year aren't necessarily the same guys you have this year.

Thajocoth
2009-09-30, 01:58 PM
I didn't expect to explain the exact reason for holding that opinion for two pages or so. Except that people kept jumping in and asking.

Isn't that counter-intuitive to saying something? Wouldn't you want people to know why, so that there's some possibility they might go "Oh, that makes sense. I can totally see his logic." instead of just getting confused by your position?

hamishspence
2009-09-30, 01:59 PM
Concerning the role of the avenger- I figured it was a way of representing the multiple divine assassin-type prestige classes, without going overboard with paragon paths.

Slayer of Domiel
Black Flame Zealot
Divine Seeker

Etc.

Demonix
2009-09-30, 02:09 PM
I've edited my response.

But in recap:
I think the Paladin of 4e and the Avenger are redundant as "archetypes." There's no reason I can think of that you can't just give the Paladin the Avenger's powers as an alternate "subclass."

The same goes for Wizard and Sorcerer.

I hate the fact that WOTC is going for the splatbook approach rather than going for brevity and adding content by expanding pre-existing classes or adding depth to the game.

Instead, they're going to create lists of new powers and stupid action-heroes who do things because Charisma-Wills-It-So.

Actually, if you think avenger should be a subset of paladin, or want to play one like that, why not make a hybrid paladin/avenger? We're testing out hybrid rules now, but they seem a lot less clunky than the feat-based multiclassing.

Though if someone can tell me why someone would want to be a hybrid wizard/invoker, I would appreciate it. I cant quite see it because they are both the same role.

Artanis
2009-09-30, 02:16 PM
Geez, I leave for like, fifteen minutes... :smalltongue:


Therefore, it makes all gamers think that you can't play or homebrew a role without getting it officially sanctioned.

I don't see why it would do that any more than any book in any RPG ever already does. Not everybody is capable of refluffing however they want, and relatively few people can homebrew worth a damn. If you want to play a Divine Striker, can't homebrew, and can't or don't want to refluff an entire class, then the Avenger works just fine.



Which doesn't prevent WOTC from actually making good books.

I thought the 4e books have generally been pretty decent. Not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, but generally having more good than bad. We sure as hell haven't had a Complete Psionic-level debacle yet :smallwink:



They needn't go about it in that specific manner. The Paladin just needs ways of being better at hunting down his hated foes. It has nothing to do with the role of being a "striker."

In short, so what? The mechanics are irrelevant if the system's assumptions are itself subject to revision.

It has everything to do with being a Striker.

Hunting people down and killing them is what Strikers do. Paladins are Defenders and secondary Leaders. They protect, and they heal. Hunting down and killing is, by and large, what a Paladin does not do. If you want to make the Paladin better at hunting down enemies and killing them, then almost by definition it means making him a better Striker.


So be it. I doubt it's much better than their other stuff.

Divine Power is lauded as being VERY good for the Paladin. Practically every meaningful problem with the Paladin is addressed in Divine Power, usually with a great deal of success.

ShaggyMarco
2009-09-30, 02:18 PM
I'm not sure their design philosophy is entirely about selling books. I think there are simply different philosophies, all of them valid, about what a "class" means.

Clearly, LiP, you think that "class" should be a general catch-all term that fits a broad genre. Fighter is anyone who specializes in weapons, weather they rage, defensively fight with shields, or wield two blades with great mastery. Wizard wields Arcane Magic, the Paladin is all holy warriors, and the Cleric/Priest covers all other divine casters. Maybe throw in a Druid to cover a nature-magic class and a Rogue to cover a skillful and sneaky class. Each of these "classes" gives both a recommendation of Story-role along with mechanical flavors that support it. For this type of system to make most players happy, it would need a staggering breadth and depth of interchangeable options available to each class. Certain combinations within a class would likely be unbalanced, but with enough knowledge of their system, play-testing, and time, that could be minimized.

Lots of systems work this way, and DnD has worked this way at times.

That said, some people look at class as a very specific set of connected mechanical abilities. They should probably have some kind of story-related connection, but don't have to. This desire to have prepackaged sets of narrowly defined abilities has manifested itself in DnD as Kits, Class Variants, and Prestige Classes at different times. This philosophy sees "holy warrior" and say, "How?" Serving their God by throwing around divine inspiration and healing? Serving their God by throwing around the devastating words of creation and words of power? Serving their God by challenging their enemies on behalf of their god, commanding them to do righteous combat? Serving their god by hunting down their enemies with a single-minded religious furor which knows no bounds? This approach looks to classes in a very narrow scope, and then plays on slight variations of this scope as class options. It takes a long time to shade out everything anyone could ever want to play--this approach can definitely make most people happy to find what they want, so long as they are willing to divorce mechanics from story, wait until what they want comes along, or take the next best thing until it does.

Early on DnD was mostly of the first kind, very slowly and surely gaining the depth and breadth that players wanted in order to tell their stories. Late AD&D and all of 3.X straddled the two philosophies, sometimes going the first way, and sometimes going the second, frequently landing somewhere in the middle.

4th Ed. has embraced the second, narrow philosophy. Lots of people don't like that. Many of those people can't or don't very clearly express why ("it's like a video game." or "It's somehow comic-bookish and cheesy." are two I've seen recently), but they have a valid difference of opinion in philosophies--they think a game should have broad archetypes in which characters can be created. 4ed isn't that game, and for many who've been loyal to the DnD brand name, finding that the game you've grown used to has fundamentally shifted philosophy in their class design can be jarring.

That said, Avenger and Paladin both live in very DISTINCT archetypal niches in my mind. It comes down to providing a variety of sets of mechanics with which to express the character concept of a holy warrior.

I could better see this debate over the Invoker/Cleric, Wizard/Sorcerer, Barbarian/Battlerage Fighter, and Shaman/Druid.

ShaggyMarco
2009-09-30, 02:26 PM
Why did they change their minds?

I suspect the name Assassin is a quick fix they added when they decided to kill the Ki power source because it was becoming the "Asian" power-source.

Monk became psionic.

I suspect they had already done design work on a Ninja as a sneaky ki striker-class, and decided to resource it to shadow. This is supported by "ki-focuses" being one of their implements, like with monks.

Yakk
2009-09-30, 03:36 PM
*nod*, taking Assassin and calling it a Ki-sourced Ninja would work reasonably well (not perfectly, but reasonably well). Probably some work was done afterwards.

...

4e ties classes to roles. This provides role and spotlight protection, and makes group synergy an easy and beautiful thing.

Paladins, as written, are Defenders first and foremost. Making them into characters who hunt down and kill a target would turn them into Strikers. Moving a class between one role and another is not just the work of additional options -- by the design decision to defend the spotlight of strikers, Paladins becoming Strikers is a no-no in this design.

Avengers fill the hole of "Divine Striker" with particular crunch (mechanics). You could have another "Divine Striker" that is as different from the Avenger as a Ranger is from a Rogue, or a Sorcerer is from a Warlock, or an Artificer is from a Bard, by giving the new class different mechanics (and fluff possibly).

Mando Knight
2009-09-30, 03:52 PM
Avengers fill the hole of "Divine Striker" with particular crunch (mechanics). You could have another "Divine Striker" that is as different from the Avenger as a Ranger is from a Rogue, or a Sorcerer is from a Warlock, or an Artificer is from a Bard, by giving the new class different mechanics (and fluff possibly).

Yep. Making a new Divine Striker as something like Laser Spammer (Pelor wants you dead. Now.) where instead of supreme accuracy, lightning from the heavens incinerates the target, could play and feel differently from the Avenger, and more like the Invoker or LAZOR Cleric, but more focused on single targets than Invokers and more on damage-dealing than buffing/healing/debuffing than Clerics.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-30, 04:23 PM
4e ties classes to roles. This provides role and spotlight protection, and makes group synergy an easy and beautiful thing.
At least in theory. In practice, until the advent of Divine Power at least, paladins were more strikers than defenders, really. Just like warlocks aren't nearly as striker'ish as the other strikers.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-09-30, 04:34 PM
I was planning to make a Paladin, I even created my own Paladin Kit...
Do you mean Paragon Path, or your choice of powers/feats/ect.? Just curious because there are no kits in 4e.

Zombimode
2009-09-30, 04:54 PM
You missed the part where he explained that this campainge was originaly planed to be played with an AD&D variantion.

Tequila Sunrise
2009-09-30, 05:01 PM
Didn't miss it, I just assumed [wrongly?] that since he started talking about 4e paladins by the time he mentioned the kit that he would port it over somehow. I think it'd be great to hear from Zonack.

LurkerInPlayground
2009-09-30, 05:06 PM
A while ago a friend told me he was making a D&D story in a world he created.
He told me we were going to play AD&D because he likes it very much and dominates it.
And well all proceeded like that but my other friends convinced him to switch to 4th edition, and so far so good, there are things which he and me does NOT like, such as the alignment system, and the fact that Paladins can choose not be Lawful Good and so on, details like that.

So anyways, after reading the handbooks I found out the new classes and they are pretty good.
I was planning to make a Paladin, I even created my own Paladin Kit which I was planning to use and it was pretty cool, but maybe now I won't use it cause of the edition change. :P

So anyways the Avenger caught my attention.
The handbooks of 4th edition doesn't really tell you how to roll an Avenger, I am guessing ''The Divine Power'' handbook contains more info on it, but so far not so good.
So anyways, I was reading that an Avenger are kinda like.... soldiers of the Gods, carrying out their will with no code of conduct.
So for example, there is the god ''Hiur'' God of Dawn and Sun. Lawful Good.
You can be an Avenger of Hiur.
Other guy makes a Paladin of Hiur.

What would the clash be between this 2?
I mean if there is an evil warlord who sacked 2 temples dedicated to Hiur, the paladin and the avenger will target the warlord.
The Paladin will make him pay for his crimes, will challenge him or rally an army against him and serve justice.
The Avenger probably will kill him dishonorably or with tricks or in a way the Paladin does not agree.
How would the Paladin react ?

He knows the Avenger does not have a code of conduct like him, he does not have an Ethos, Edicts etc.
But he did removed a threat for the followers of Hiur.
Or what if the Avenger had to sacrifice 7 innocents in order to lure the warlord to an ambush to kill him?

I want to know this so you guys help with the story that will come.
Cause I will be a Paladin of a Lawful Good deity, and I think a friend of mine will be an Avenger of the same deity as me.

I appreciate your answers and help :D
A belated answer two pages later:

There's no reason the paladin and the "avenger" of the same god aren't sharing ethical codes. The avenger would probably have official sanction from his governing body. Nor do paladin codes have to be unreasonable or inflexible, they just have to make ethical sense.

Frankly, there's no reason why the avenger couldn't respect the paladin's wishes if that's what it takes to maintain group harmony.

In most casts this just means that pally and venger are busom buddies in the war against evil.

In the case of our general, the venger might readily allow the pally to capture the general for trial. No biggie. The venger isn't on the job 100% of the time and doesn't have to kill every enemy he meets.

Likewise, the pally's code may not inhibit a field execution of a venger. Maybe he got a direct order. Maybe it simply doesn't jar with his code.

In general, you can work this out between players. Unless, of course, the point is to have conflict. In which case, it's a jurisdiction thing. Sort of like how local cops hate the FBI trudging in on their cases.

Zonack
2009-09-30, 07:56 PM
Didn't miss it, I just assumed [wrongly?] that since he started talking about 4e paladins by the time he mentioned the kit that he would port it over somehow. I think it'd be great to hear from Zonack.

The Kit I talked about is the ''Templar'' a kit I made like the Ghosthunter, Equerry, Skyrider, Militarist, Errant, Wyrmslayer, Chevalier etc from ''AD&D The Complete Paladin's Handbook''

Basically it's a ''My god is the BEST god and you should follow him! even if you god is Lawful Good, my god is the best Lawful Good!''
And his abilities are Seals, like uh World of Warcraft.
I am not THAT good at creating stuff so I kinda copied some abilities of WoW Paladins to D&D.
Just 4 spells.
I added him seals to look ''flashy'' because the Paladin does not fight with the ''divine effects''
I mean, in AD&D... you are a fighter.

DM : Your turn.
Player : I attack.

DM : Your turn.
Player : I attack.

DM : Your turn.
Player : I attack.

DM : Your turn.
Player : I attack.

DM : Your turn.
Player : I attack.

DM : Your turn.
Player : I attack.

Ok yes, I know you can moves and so on but, the fighter doesn't have ''abilities'' like the ones of 4E, it just has... attack.
The Paladin also, he attacks but you don't see his ''Divine Power'' like you see it on 4E.

Holy Strike - When you hit your target your weapon ignites with Holy Light.
OK NOW that's what I am talking about!
I want the paladin to be flashy and divine since level 1.
Sure I know you guys will say ''But you can always do that in AD&D''
Yeah of course I can.

My friends however hate to use the golden rule =/
Except one, which is gonna be the next DM and that is why I am preparing my character 4 months before the story :D

And the templar.... well it also has nice roleplaying things :D
And I can't cast Lay on Hands nor Turn Undead.
But I promise I am making more original stuff.
I was even making some Fighter kits as well for AD&D :P


But that Paladin is made for AD&D only, In 4E well... with all the Paragon Paths.... I don't see a need to create one, there are many cool paths.

If some of you want to check it I have it on a document, I can send it to you if you like. :D


And well, I guess your answers make sense guys.
And the reason I did not see it before is the following one.

We are going to use the AD&D Paladin in 4th Edition. Roleplaying wise
Which means.

Lawful Good Only.
Edicts, Ethos, Virtues, Oath, Code of Conduct.
Human only (That might be changed)
Stick on the ass (Size varies on player) =P
Miko Style!

Also it says the Avenger are considered Heretics by some religious organizations.
And as a Paladin I wouldn't accept that some guy claiming to serve MY god would sacrifice 5 innocents in order to kill an heretic which I could have sacrificed myself to save those people.
And so on.

So well that's one of the few things I don't like about 4th Edition.
Paladins are kinda like Divine Champion Prestige Class of 3.5.

I saw Paladins as champions, and Avengers as... soldiers.
Now I guess the real question would be.

AD&D Paladin vs Avenger?

Tiki Snakes
2009-09-30, 10:01 PM
Basically you are limiting the Paladin Archetype to a small section of gods and a smaller section of possible people, then, yes? Essentially all but one particular holy order. (And encouraging a lot of the intolerance core to the kind of Paladin Miko represents)

That's fair enough, really, if that's how you prefer them.

Think I'll point out that the Avenger class at no point is required to even consider saving innocents to do anything. As I understand it, they are the type of character who likely comes from a very specific holy sub-order/sect within a Church, who if taken very closely to the default fluff, are dedicated to stopping or destroying the Enemies of their god, directly.

Essentially, the default Avenger is, simply put, a Holy Weapon. They are unleashed for specific purposes, to support the (Possibly even direct) will of their God.

As for your latter-most point, I can see what you are saying. However, one of the points about 4e is that there are not intended to be any 'unworthy' classes. Not necessarily in the balance sense, but in their potential for being special and worthy of legends.

If you wanted a 'prestigous' version of the Paladin, ironically, that would most readily be represented by a Paragon Path, making the Paladin not a class at all, but rather something to tack onto fighters.

Which would, to my mind, be a case of sacrificing flexibility and mechanical diversity in the name of very world specific fluff. (Basically, fair game for your own campaigns if that's how you want it, but not something I could see catching on in any widespread way.)

Sir_Elderberry
2009-09-30, 10:33 PM
I just realized that what the Avenger really reminds me of is the Arbiter from Halo. (Probably. I haven't finished the H2 campaign and haven't played any of H3.)

Zonack
2009-09-30, 11:18 PM
Basically you are limiting the Paladin Archetype to a small section of gods and a smaller section of possible people, then, yes? Essentially all but one particular holy order. (And encouraging a lot of the intolerance core to the kind of Paladin Miko represents)

Well... I think there are some limits needed.
I loved the fact that Paladins were powerful in previous versions but were restricted, and if you wanted to make a Champion of another deity...
Well you could a Cleric and then the Divine Champion appeared.

I mean I can't really see a non-good Paladin.
Except of course an Anti-Paladin which of course I would restrict it to Lawful Evil only.

Gah, I can't wait for my first game of D&D :(

Zombimode
2009-10-01, 12:37 AM
I mean I can't really see a non-good Paladin.


I find this statement funny, since what you described earlier was certainly a non-good paladin :smallcool:

Zonack
2009-10-01, 02:04 AM
I find this statement funny, since what you described earlier was certainly a non-good paladin :smallcool:

???
You mean my Templar?

Zombimode
2009-10-01, 02:16 AM
Yeah, I mean what you described in post #86

Dont get it wrong, I think its perfectly fine and fun to play like this, just not "good" or to qoute Roy "not any definition I would follow" :)

CrazySopher
2009-10-01, 12:34 PM
Well... I think there are some limits needed.
I loved the fact that Paladins were powerful in previous versions but were restricted, and if you wanted to make a Champion of another deity...
Well you could a Cleric and then the Divine Champion appeared.

I mean I can't really see a non-good Paladin.
Except of course an Anti-Paladin which of course I would restrict it to Lawful Evil only.

Gah, I can't wait for my first game of D&D :(

Firstly, as a side note, your first game of DnD is gonna be great if your DM knows how to work a good 4th Ed game. All the more luck to you, I hope your first experience rocks your socks off, and hopefully you turn out liking the game. :)

As for the paladin archetype being good or non-good... really, when it comes down to it, deities in 4th Ed DnD often demand very, very different things from their Paladins. There are, however, a few basic rules that still carry over that define a Paladin. Firstly, you stick to a code. It can be a code that you came up with yourself, but most Paladins adhere to a specific one set forth by a monastery or one that is widely accepted by your god. It's usually martial in character, of course; that's another one. But a Paladin is a Soldier and Champion for their god when it comes down to it. If you want an easier time dealing with non-Lawful Good Paladins, try popping open Divine Power. Farther to the back of the book, they have ways that the four divine classes can play to their strengths while still incorporating a unique outlook on the deity they follow.

As for Anti-Paladin, closest thing is Blackguard, I think. Corrputed former Paladin, usually. I haven't seen anyone specifically named as a Blackguard in 4th Ed, nor have I seen any paragon class involving the term, but this could be because Paladins can now serve a whole lot of unsavory, evil gods as well. There isn't any need for the Anti-Paladin or Blackguard when the Paladin class itself takes care of it all.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-01, 12:38 PM
Firstly, as a side note, your first game of DnD is gonna be great if your DM knows how to work a good 4th Ed game.

In other news, your first game of anything is gonna be great if your DM knows how to work a good game in that system.

CrazySopher
2009-10-01, 02:03 PM
In other news, your first game of anything is gonna be great if your DM knows how to work a good game in that system.

...that was sorta a needless distinction I made, wasn't it. >_>

Zonack
2009-10-01, 02:18 PM
Firstly, as a side note, your first game of DnD is gonna be great if your DM knows how to work a good 4th Ed game. All the more luck to you, I hope your first experience rocks your socks off, and hopefully you turn out liking the game. :)

As for the paladin archetype being good or non-good... really, when it comes down to it, deities in 4th Ed DnD often demand very, very different things from their Paladins. There are, however, a few basic rules that still carry over that define a Paladin. Firstly, you stick to a code. It can be a code that you came up with yourself, but most Paladins adhere to a specific one set forth by a monastery or one that is widely accepted by your god. It's usually martial in character, of course; that's another one. But a Paladin is a Soldier and Champion for their god when it comes down to it. If you want an easier time dealing with non-Lawful Good Paladins, try popping open Divine Power. Farther to the back of the book, they have ways that the four divine classes can play to their strengths while still incorporating a unique outlook on the deity they follow.

As for Anti-Paladin, closest thing is Blackguard, I think. Corrputed former Paladin, usually. I haven't seen anyone specifically named as a Blackguard in 4th Ed, nor have I seen any paragon class involving the term, but this could be because Paladins can now serve a whole lot of unsavory, evil gods as well. There isn't any need for the Anti-Paladin or Blackguard when the Paladin class itself takes care of it all.

Hehe well, I have played lots of RPG games but never D&D.
I have played Baldur's Gate, Neverwinter Nights and so on and I have read the books, I love Forgotten Realms (despite I know little about it, just about the Shadow Thieves of Amn and Elminster and.... well Baldur's Gate! :P)

I have played.

Vampire : The Masquerade
Werewolf : The Forsaken
Mage : The Ascension
Star Wars Revised Edition
Shadowrun (bleh)
Zombie
Aquelarre (Spanish Game)

And despite well of those the first four game are awesome, except maybe Werewolf, I didn't liked that edition :(
I know D&D is best, first off it requires more imagination, I think White Wolf games would be cooler if it was a fantasy world.
I don't like the ''You start at New York city'' Oh well GEE there goes the imagination.
So anyways, in D&D the characters are ACTUALLY different from each other, at least powerwise and in some cases roleplaying wise.

But I just know I will enjoy D&D and I know it's my favorite RPG game.

Aaaaand about my non-good Paladin.
Ok yeah, the thing is I think AD&D ones are the best, and they don't necessarily have to be like Miko (despite the fact I said so yes :P ) but Paladins are awesome, it's a great roleplaying character.

I have to look carefully about 4E Paladins, I have not trashed them and married the AD&D ones. (After all I have never played one or another).
But AD&D ones DO sound more cool roleplaying wise.
Sure, your buddy who made a thief stole 7 GP from a peasant and THE PALADIN CAUGHT YOU!
''Oh man not your damn ''Lawful'' speech''
Sure, it can be boring but at the same time you have to be prepared for it and it can turn out to be good roleplaying choices.

Which uh can end in the Thief backstabbing the Paladin.

But the thing is, if I make a Paladin of Hiur (deity mentioned at first post).
It makes sensse.
I don't see how a Paladin of Vecna can imbue his weapon with Holy Light and stike down at his enemies O_o
With some modifications... sure but as it is now.... hmmmm not really.
At least I see that way.

Cheers :D

CrazySopher
2009-10-01, 03:36 PM
Paladins are certainly fun. Playing a Strictly Lawful Paladin (Or an out of her mind one, at that, if that counts as an alignment. >_>) can be very fun, though the lawful pally type that shepherds/hinders the party is legendarily one of the downers in a party at times, especially when there's a chaotic or non-good character in the party (lookin' at the thief you mentioned). Inter-PC combat or skill challenges are generally detrimental for all involved.

On the note of Miko, I think that's actually an archetype to stick to. Notice how offensive and movement based she is for a Paladin. No shield, duel-wield spec, Monk-like kick abilities, the ability to move through trouble and combat like that. Notice also how fanatically devoted she is. She waits for someone to perform what she sees as a crime against the gods, and then goes to mete out punishment. This is much closer to how your typical Avenger works, as opposed to the other Paladins, who hang back, form ranks, work with eachother. They defend the bastion of their faith and always keep the organized religion in mind, whereas Miko goes right past that, sees herself as a disciple of the Gods, as their own instrument. She kills and attacks instead of pulling back and defending.

That's the biggest difference right there. As a Defender/Leader mix, Paladins are devoted TO the party, and all their powers are based upon keeping them alive and supporting them. Shields, thick plate, healing spells, so on and so forth. Avengers, on the other hand, wear no armor whatsoever, allowing them fast movement and grace with large two-hander weapons (or, occasionally, I've seen interesting duel-wield specs with Avengers). They are Striker/Controller, totally based around destroying the enemy.

Paladins preserve the faith through shielding and support. Avengers systematically hunt, pursue, and immediately strike down forces opposed to the enemy. Think of the difference between a military's legion of knights and their bow-equipped scouts. Same team, very different roles.

Sorry if I went overboard there. >_> I'm a huge fan of both classes, really, and I actually enjoy 4.0's incarnation of the Paladin class and associated lore.

Tiki Snakes
2009-10-01, 06:11 PM
I don't see how a Paladin of Vecna can imbue his weapon with Holy Light and stike down at his enemies O_o
With some modifications... sure but as it is now.... hmmmm not really.
At least I see that way.

Cheers :D

Holy = of the Gods.

Vecna = God.

Problem?

Also Radiant doesn't even automatically equal holy, per say, as it's also the energy attributed to the horrible, unknowable and lovecraftian stars and by implication, the Far Realm.

Xallace
2009-10-01, 06:18 PM
Holy = of the Gods.

Vecna = God.

Problem?

Also Radiant doesn't even automatically equal holy, per say, as it's also the energy attributed to the horrible, unknowable and lovecraftian stars and by implication, the Far Realm.

And the sun itself, if we go by Cosmic Sorcerer. I'm not sure if that means fire gets so hot that it requires its own damage type, but combined with all of Radiant's other uses it really seems to be damage-by-metaphor.

CrazySopher
2009-10-01, 06:27 PM
Holy = of the Gods.

Vecna = God.

Problem?

Also Radiant doesn't even automatically equal holy, per say, as it's also the energy attributed to the horrible, unknowable and lovecraftian stars and by implication, the Far Realm.

Besides, if it really bothers you that completely, change it to Shadow, or Fire, or Necrotic, or any other energy type that would suit the deity. Also, right up there with Radiant. I friggin' love Star Warlocks.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-01, 06:36 PM
Holy = of the Gods.

Holy = of the god(dess) the Avenger worships

Unholy = of all the other gods

Theodoric
2009-10-02, 02:09 PM
Holy = of the god(dess) the Avenger worships

Unholy = of all the other gods
I though most DnD Paladins, Clerics, priests, etc. were henotheistic, not monolatrist.

Guy
2009-10-02, 05:48 PM
the Radiant damage type in 4e is the type of energy the Gods emit. There is no restriction by alignment.

Kurald Galain
2009-10-02, 06:45 PM
the Radiant damage type in 4e is the type of energy the Gods emit. There is no restriction by alignment.
Kind of. The common assumption is that PCs = good, and monsters = evil. It so happens that Radiant is the most common vulnerability on monsters, and therefore the most suitable damage type for PCs, and by association, Good. Also, Necrotic is the most common damage type on monsters, and therefore by association evil, and also the most desirable resistance for PCs.