PDA

View Full Version : [4e] Avengers



Gralamin
2010-02-19, 01:56 AM
Well, this months Avenger Article seals it for me. I'm now sure that most people at WotC don't understand the problems that Avengers have. Anyone who frequents the optimization boards knows that the ideal way of playing Avengers revolves around two main builds: Critfisher or Notvenger.

Critfisher is built upon abusing critical hits as much as possible, expanding your critical range, getting multiple attacks, and oath of enmity to have a huge crit chance, with various effects on a crit.

Notvenger is built upon using as few of the abilities of the Avenger as possible: All you really want is Oath of Enmity, and then try to drop the rest. This means using as many non-avenger powers as possible.

This is further a problem when it becomes clear that these are actually pretty much the same build, because Avenger powers don't really help for either build.

To me, its apparent that Avenger has failed as a class design, but maybe I'm missing something. Are there any redeeming features to the class itself?

The features it gets are decent, if the powers encouraged the features activation. However, a lot of Pursuit Avenger powers, for example, Actually stop a foe from running. That is, YOUR POWERS DENY YOU the chance to get your bonus damage.

Prove to me I'm missing something, that there is something salvageable from the class. Otherwise, it might as well be axed and remade from scratch. :smallannoyed:

Asbestos
2010-02-19, 02:14 AM
Are non-critfisher/non-notvengers really so terrible to play? Is the disparity between a regular avenger and another striker really so great?

Gralamin
2010-02-19, 02:23 AM
In my Experience, you have to build an Avenger VERY CAREFULLY to come close to other striker damage, if you choose to not follow one of these paths. The normal disparity is vastly wider, to the point where a normal avenger cannot even really fulfill its role, being more of a pseudo-defender instead.

Edge of Dreams
2010-02-19, 04:39 AM
The simplest fix for Avengers I can think of would be to grant them a substantial bonus to damage any time they roll high enough to hit with BOTH rolls with Oath of Emnity.

That said, I, too, am very disappointed in the existing damage bonus options, as in normal play, they come up just about, well, never. I WANT to play an avenger, but I can't get past the mechanics that just don't stack up.

Maybe when phb3 comes out I can play a hybrid avenger and make it work. *crosses fingers*

Kurald Galain
2010-02-19, 05:05 AM
Are non-critfisher/non-notvengers really so terrible to play?
No, they're not terrible to play, but they're not avengers in the same way that a Fighter 1 / Druid 19 isn't really a fighter.


Is the disparity between a regular avenger and another striker really so great?
Actually, yes. Also, unlike the Warlock, they don't have a bag of nasty tricks to make up for their lack of damage.

RebelRogue
2010-02-19, 06:31 AM
From my limited experience, the damage output is certainly subpar. I take your word that their supplemental powers don't make up for it ('the warlock model'), even though I have seen the few avengers I've played with/DM'ed for occasionally pull off some pretty cool stunts.

Xallace
2010-02-19, 07:45 AM
Our avenger shone when he had creative reign of the battlefield. Teleporting foes into traps and other unwholesome situations was his whole shtick. While the damage output directly stemming from his class didn't come up often, a little bit of DM planning and suddenly he made a big difference.

Sophismata
2010-02-19, 09:08 AM
[...] a little bit of DM planning and suddenly he made a big difference.

Wouldn't that help anyone, regardless of class? Should a class expect or require special DM planning in order to be effective?

Glad he's having fun, though. Good work on the GM's part.

Indon
2010-02-19, 09:12 AM
Do Avengers have powers that allow them to create zones of water?

Because hearing about how weak they are, I kinda want to design a build for a Great Lakes Avenger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lakes_Avengers).

Swordgleam
2010-02-19, 09:29 AM
Wouldn't that help anyone, regardless of class? Should a class expect or require special DM planning in order to be effective?


Kinda, yeah. Most classes are just good at things everyone assumes will be part of the game. But your fighter is going to suck if there's no combat or physical challenges, and that isn't a totally unrealistic situation - what if the game's all intrigue? Your rogue isn't going to be so great if you always fight in dungeons with narrow corridors where it's very hard to get CA from flanking, and your ranger probably won't be thrilled, either. If the campaign is an endless series of 10x10 rooms, your skillmonkey will get pretty bored.

Having cool terrain in battles so the avenger can shine is no different than throwing in social challenges for the party face or grueling fights for the tank. It's just that DMs tend to forget to make cool combat terrain more often than they forget that "this character has a +20 to diplomacy, I should make that useful sometimes."

WalkingTarget
2010-02-19, 09:31 AM
Our avenger shone when he had creative reign of the battlefield. Teleporting foes into traps and other unwholesome situations was his whole shtick. While the damage output directly stemming from his class didn't come up often, a little bit of DM planning and suddenly he made a big difference.

Yeah, the only 4E character I've played was an Avenger and this was more or less what I liked about the character. Our GM threw a tough enemy at us in a room with lots of little gadgets that were effectively explosive traps that went off when hit (and moved around the room) and then rearmed. I did some maneuvering with the traps, then Crimson Strided the enemy within range of three of them at once (with me outside the bursts). My hit activated a close burst counterattack the enemy had (edit - hmm, now that I think about it, it was some kind of fire aura thingy that dealt damage on the enemy's turn, in any event when its initiative came up it hurts everything adjacent to it), which set off the traps, and that was enough to kill it. The GM was not expecting that.

Moving stuff around the battlefield was what I was good at. Murderizing was a secondary consideration (but we had 3 other strikers in the group, so damage wasn't something I typically worried about).

Tengu_temp
2010-02-19, 09:36 AM
If the campaign is an endless series of 10x10 rooms, your skillmonkey will get pretty bored.


Not a part of 4e design. This game no longer has characters who sacrifice combat ability for out-of-combat utility by default, you have to go out of your way to do that. In 4e, all characters are supposed to be major contributors in combat.

Swordgleam
2010-02-19, 09:39 AM
Not a part of 4e design. This game no longer has characters who sacrifice combat ability for out-of-combat utility by default, you have to go out of your way to do that. In 4e, all characters are supposed to be major contributors in combat.

Oh, they are. But some clearly are more skill-based than others, and denying them the chance to use that is making their character less fun to play in the same way that denying a striker their way of doing damage makes them less fun to play.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-19, 10:13 AM
Kinda, yeah. Most classes are just good at things everyone assumes will be part of the game. But your fighter is going to suck if there's no combat or physical challenges, and that isn't a totally unrealistic situation - what if the game's all intrigue?
Yes, but only a few classes have that problem: they're the exception rather than the rule.

Yes, the fighter skill list is pretty bad, and I consider that a problem with the class design. On the other hand, a rogue has plenty of ways to gain CA, and flanking is only one of them. Besides, the example is pretty weird: "a situation that isn't combat or physical challenge" is common in most campaigns. I've never even heard of a campaign that always fights in narrow corridors or 10x10 rooms.

Finally, it's not just the avenger that shines when cool terrain exists. Any class with forced movement powers will love it, and that includes most classes.

TricksyAndFalse
2010-02-19, 10:17 AM
I think the design intent was that the greater accuracy of the avenger with Oath of Emnity should mean they hit more often than other strikers, and so while power-for-power they are weaker, over some period of time, the damage appears even. It's possible that the designers reduced the damage output of the avenger further than they should have, but I do think that power-for-power, an avenger should do less damage than another striker.

In my 4E game, we have running jokes about the uselessness of encounter powers. It seems our avenger is the only one who can ever get his to hit and have some effect. In particular, our warlord has had exactly two successful hits with an encounter power since level one--he's now level seven.

Would you be happier with the avenger if the Oath weren't so restrictive? (could switch oath targets without needing a feat and could have other enemies adjacent?)

DragonBaneDM
2010-02-19, 10:19 AM
Painful Oath and the fact that they just got a Mastery Feat are really gonna help the class out. Dragon does a lot for Avengers.

I play alongside a Tiefling Pursuit Avenger in one of my friend's campaigns. Hes missed six times over almost two years of playing once a week, and crits at least twice a night. Also, the ability to teleport foes into the air makes Avengers hilarious to play. He's just disgusting with the amount of falling damage he can dish out. Our DM's started training villains in Acrobatics JUST for him.

True, the nerf on Armor of Faith takes away their ability to quasi-tank, however in my experience, pure Avengers are a blast to play, and very effective in combat.

Xallace
2010-02-19, 10:26 AM
Finally, it's not just the avenger that shines when cool terrain exists. Any class with forced movement powers will love it, and that includes most classes.

Of course. Heck, cool terrain just makes battles cooler, regardless of your ability to shove enemies around. Our group just makes sure that there's a little something extra around when there's an avenger in the party.

And this is all combat, of course. Avengers are great trackers and inquisitors, too! Our avenger was especially in love with that daily utility power that lets you know the direction of a target across the world, so long as you touch them first ("A firm handshake" was his usual choice). But I don't think anyone's debating the avenger's utility, I just felt I'd bring it up. The question was, after all, what from the class is "salvageable."

DragonBaneDM
2010-02-19, 10:31 AM
Our avenger was especially in love with that daily utility power that lets you know the direction of a target across the world, so long as you touch them first ("A firm handshake" was his usual choice)."

DUDE! We're using that to track a bullette that got away from us in a fight right now. :)

Kurald Galain
2010-02-19, 10:32 AM
It's possible that the designers reduced the damage output of the avenger further than they should have,
That appears to be the case, yes.


I do think that power-for-power, an avenger should do less damage than another striker.
The problem with this design is that it gives the avenger a huge incentive to multiclass, or otherwise obtain non-class powers.


And this is all combat, of course. Avengers are great trackers and inquisitors, too! Our avenger was especially in love with that daily utility power that lets you know the direction of a target across the world, so long as you touch them first ("A firm handshake" was his usual choice). But I don't think anyone's debating the avenger's utility, I just felt I'd bring it up. The question was, after all, what from the class is "salvageable."
Well, CharOp may call avengers worthless, but it's important to realize what that means. For one, in 3E, you have a pretty broad scale, where a fighter may score a 20 and a wizard may be Over Nine Thousand; whereas in 4E, you have a rather smaller scale ("balance") where a barbarian may score a 40 and the avenger gets a 37.

For another, the difference in power between classes are vastly overstated on the internet. The fighter=20 wiz=9001 distinction didn't bother most fighter players, really, and could easily be compensated for by a decent DM. The difference between barb and 'venger may simply never be visible in play.

incubus5075
2010-02-19, 10:38 AM
You can teleport targets up in the air? Tought they had to have a stable surface? think I read that somewhere.....

DragonBaneDM
2010-02-19, 10:42 AM
You can teleport targets up in the air? Tought they had to have a stable surface? think I read that somewhere.....

Go ahead and check. Heh. My DM hasn't been able to find anything. He'd love it if you could turn something up.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-19, 10:45 AM
You can teleport targets up in the air? Tought they had to have a stable surface? think I read that somewhere.....
Ah, welcome to one of the most hotly debated issues on the WOTC board. It's a classic case of "the rules don't say you can" vs. "the rules don't say you can't".

Per the latest errata, if you teleport somebody to a spot that would cause them to fall, they get a save to negate the teleport. But this apparently refers to teleporting people horizontally so they end up over a cliff. WOTC has so far refused to answer whether you can teleport people vertically even if there isn't a cliff around.

To some, it is obvious. To others, it is not. On the WOTC board, both sides claim RAW, both sides claim their version is "balanced", whatever that means, and there has been some name calling all around. It's one of those things...

Note that this is a sub-issue of vertical targeting in general, and that the whole issue opens up several other cans of worms. For instance, it can be used to convert an area effect spell into an "enemies only" area. It also would mean that you can't push people up a hillside, by RAW. Overall it seems that three dimensional combat was never thought about at all by at least some of the game designers.

DragonBaneDM
2010-02-19, 10:47 AM
Heh, actually he prefers doing it diagonally.

Jerthanis
2010-02-19, 11:31 AM
Avenger is/was one of my favorite classes, because they got high defenses for a Striker, and while they didn't get good, reliable bonus damage, they created incentive for their isolated foe not going after squishier targets. This ideally resulted in a Striker who played like an offtank defender. They were Strikers not because they dealt a huge amount of damage all at once, but because they did decent reliable damage and avoided putting additional burden on the healer as often as some other striker classes. I felt like it really mixed up the Four Roles rigidity in a way I liked.

Then they lost their defender level AC and are now just strikers that deal less damage. Their sole advantage lies in being able to grab as gnarly a weapon as you like and going to town with high #[w] attacks you can be confident will hit. Of course, the Barbarian can do that too, and he got defender level defenses since some expansion or errata instead of losing it, and had defender HP the whole time.

So yeah.

Dimers
2010-02-19, 12:16 PM
Note that this is a sub-issue of vertical targeting in general, and that the whole issue opens up several other cans of worms. For instance, it can be used to convert an area effect spell into an "enemies only" area. It also would mean that you can't push people up a hillside, by RAW. Overall it seems that three dimensional combat was never thought about at all by at least some of the game designers.

And if vertical targeting is considered, you have to figure out how area spells affect creatures of different heights. Halfling and goliath certainly don't take up the same space while standing ... Of course, they shouldn't while prone, either ... Yes, the can of worms is "Family Sized".

Xallace
2010-02-19, 02:12 PM
Well, CharOp may call avengers worthless, but it's important to realize what that means. For one, in 3E, you have a pretty broad scale, where a fighter may score a 20 and a wizard may be Over Nine Thousand; whereas in 4E, you have a rather smaller scale ("balance") where a barbarian may score a 40 and the avenger gets a 37.

For another, the difference in power between classes are vastly overstated on the internet. The fighter=20 wiz=9001 distinction didn't bother most fighter players, really, and could easily be compensated for by a decent DM. The difference between barb and 'venger may simply never be visible in play.

For truth. Our group only experienced the power distinction in 3.5 because the guy playing the full caster also happened to be the group "power player." So it never even seemed to us the classes themselves so much as anything that man touched.

I tend to not put much stock into anything I read about optimization. Mostly I DM anyway, so I just alter stuff as it becomes problematic.

Asbestos
2010-02-19, 02:22 PM
A
Then they lost their defender level AC and are now just strikers that deal less damage. Their sole advantage lies in being able to grab as gnarly a weapon as you like and going to town with high #[w] attacks you can be confident will hit. Of course, the Barbarian can do that too, and he got defender level defenses since some expansion or errata instead of losing it, and had defender HP the whole time.

So yeah.

Yeah, I'm not a fan of that Primal Power feat for Barbs... survivability didn't seem to be something Barbs were lacking.

TheEmerged
2010-02-19, 02:24 PM
Go ahead and check. Heh. My DM hasn't been able to find anything. He'd love it if you could turn something up.

Well, for me it falls under the "If you do it to the monsters, the monsters will do it to you" and "I'm the DM - if I think it's wrong, it doesn't matter what WotC says" boilerplates :D

BlckDv
2010-02-19, 02:41 PM
You can teleport targets up in the air? Tought they had to have a stable surface? think I read that somewhere.....

I have not found it anywhere as a universal rule, but I have found it as a limit on several teleport powers.. which to me implies that it is not already assumed to be a limit.

4e Size/Space is already abstract enough... in 4e battle space the diagonal of a square is equal the the length of any edge. For that reason my group is okay hand waving the issue of a Halfling being shorter than a Goliath; they are each 1 square monsters, which we accept as a concession to qucik play and simple math. We actually find it more jarring the few times (such as the jump rules to catch a ledge) that the rules do use actual height in place of "standard creature unit" size.

When I DM you can teleport into the air and then fall (yourself and others), and you can force move a creature over any surface it has a legal move to cross. (so you can only push something up a wall if it has a climb speed) and as a special case rule things fall as soon as you push them off an edge, you can't push them three more squares into open air unless they can fly. These are my table rules presented as food for thought, I do not claim they are RAW.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-19, 02:57 PM
I have not found it anywhere as a universal rule, but I have found it as a limit on several teleport powers.. which to me implies that it is not already assumed to be a limit.
Rules Don't Work That Way.

For a simple counterexample: there is no universal rule that you cannot take people along with when you teleport. However, this is found as a limit on at least one teleport power (wizard/6: dimension door). So that would then imply that every other teleport power lets you take your friends along? Hm, I think not.


For that reason my group is okay hand waving the issue of a Halfling being shorter than a Goliath; they are each 1 square monsters,
Okay, so does a horse now become a 2x2x2 cube?


as a special case rule things fall as soon as you push them off an edge, you can't push them three more squares into open air unless they can fly.
Hm, that's interesting... I've never heard anyone claim different than this, but it would seem that RAW doesn't actually say so, does it now?

BlckDv
2010-02-19, 03:13 PM
Rules Don't Work That Way.

For a simple counterexample: there is no universal rule that you cannot take people along with when you teleport. However, this is found as a limit on at least one teleport power (wizard/6: dimension door). So that would then imply that every other teleport power lets you take your friends along? Hm, I think not.


Agreed and not in dispute, especially about RAW. It was just one of my personal deciding factors, that enough powers added that limit to make me feel at least a good number of designers did not assume it. I know that counter examples abound; and would not try to use this argument as "proof" if a DM in a game I was a player in ruled the other way.



Okay, so does a horse now become a 2x2x2 cube?


Yes. And this has led to area attacks being "air detonated" to hit large/huge targets while missing Medium/small ones. Of course, monsters can also use this if PCs happen to be elevated on say a roof or balcony.

The closest we have come to even trying to explain it is that the cube is "space you command" and you may occupy any part of that cube at a given moment, and that is part of the existing miss chance, your horse had reared up and was in the back two squares...

My party knows that it is spatially silly but we prefer combat rules that apply with simple universal calls to high versimilitude. I play 40k when I want to argue about how long an inch is. As long as space/target rules are consistently applied when PCs or monsters use them, we're cool.



Hm, that's interesting... I've never heard anyone claim different than this, but it would seem that RAW doesn't actually say so, does it now?

Nope, I had a player who wanted to base his PC on multisquare "throws", and very much wanted to claim that the creature should not get a save if the slide/push ended with nothing to grab onto. That was right out... but thinking about it led me to realize how much the rules left unsaid and make my official call.

Lamech
2010-02-19, 03:43 PM
When I DM you can teleport into the air and then fall (yourself and others), and you can force move a creature over any surface it has a legal move to cross. (so you can only push something up a wall if it has a climb speed) and as a special case rule things fall as soon as you push them off an edge, you can't push them three more squares into open air unless they can fly. These are my table rules presented as food for thought, I do not claim they are RAW.Forced Movement: ... Clear Path: Forced Movement can't move a target into a space it couldn't enter by walking. So, by RAW you can not push something into the air, in fact flying creatures appear totally immune to pushing, pulling and sliding. (Although this is from my non-errated PHB, so I may be totally wrong.)

Kurald Galain
2010-02-19, 03:50 PM
Forced Movement: ... Clear Path: Forced Movement can't move a target into a space it couldn't enter by walking. So, ... flying creatures appear totally immune to pushing, pulling and sliding.

And snakes, too.

BlckDv
2010-02-19, 03:57 PM
Forced Movement: ... Clear Path: Forced Movement can't move a target into a space it couldn't enter by walking. So, by RAW you can not push something into the air, in fact flying creatures appear totally immune to pushing, pulling and sliding. (Although this is from my non-errated PHB, so I may be totally wrong.)

Thus my noting that my rules are not RAW and presented as food for thought. It is noteworthy that by RAW you can argue that it is impossible to push any creature that does not have a current legal walk move, not just flyers. (Aquatic creatures, Climbers, etc)

One of my favorite scenes in my game was when a dwarf with an at-will push 1 / shift into space managed to jump on the back of a dragon that was trying to escape and "stomp it back to the ground" (push, AP push, push again next round as Dragon shook off an Immobilize save) so the rest of the melee heavy party could finish it off. Totally against RAW, but one of the current party's favorite game sessions ever.

BobTheDog
2010-02-19, 04:15 PM
As to the "creatures that don't fly fall immediately at the 1st square" I think I remember an example that cited a giant or some other creature pushing a character clear over a pit.

In other words, I rule the other way. If you push 3, you push the critter 3 squares off the edge. This can be fluffed as "you throw the kobold off the cliff and it falls 15 feet away" or as "the kobold runs 15 feet away, and suddenly realizes there's no ground underneath him, falling into the pit", depending on the comedy inclination of the group. :smallbiggrin:

Gralamin
2010-02-19, 04:16 PM
So what I get from this thread is:
1) Utility powers are save-able, and
2) Avengers pretty much need special terrain, or teleporting into the air shenanigans to work.
3) The power difference between an Avenger and Barbarian is still relatively small, compared to 3.5s power differences. (But still substantial enough to be noticeable)

As for the comments about Oath and hitting frequently: It's that exact mentality that causes the Notvenger problem. Why use Avenger powers when Oath doesn't explicitly need them? Why should I not, say, Twin-strike instead?

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-19, 05:59 PM
As for the comments about Oath and hitting frequently: It's that exact mentality that causes the Notvenger problem. Why use Avenger powers when Oath doesn't explicitly need them? Why should I not, say, Twin-strike instead?
This is the central problem.

Avengers have a great gimmick, but - unlike other classes - it neither benefits from, nor requires, Avenger powers to operate. Worse, said gimmick is ideal for powers from other classes; getting an Avenger with At-Will Twin Strike advances its power level from 15 to OVER 9000.

I cannot think of an "easy" fix for this, aside from going the Rampage Route - you can only Rampage with Barbarian Powers, so you can only Oath with Avenger Powers. Yes this makes MC Avenger a much less attractive choice, but perhaps you can allow the MC Oath to work with any attack since it essentially only works with one target per Encounter?

Break
2010-02-19, 06:07 PM
Considering that the Avenger is already quite weak to begin with, the solution should tend more towards making a non-MC Avenger worth using, instead of limiting the uses of Oath to make the class even worse. Unfortunately, such a solution would basically require scrapping their non-utility power set and their censures in their current forms.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-19, 06:10 PM
Considering that the Avenger is already quite weak to begin with, the solution should tend more towards making a non-MC Avenger worth using, instead of limiting the uses of Oath to make the class even worse. Unfortunately, such a solution would basically require scrapping their non-utility power set and their censures in their current forms.
I hold that Avengers aren't actually that weak, but their alternative builds are just that strong. Yes, the Avenger is a poorly built class, but it's not like the Pre-DP Strength Paladin.

Basically, becoming a crit-and-hit machine isn't the worst thing in the world, y'know. Get a nice High-Crit Weapon and go to town :smallbiggrin:

Artanis
2010-02-19, 06:14 PM
I hold that Avengers aren't actually that weak, but their alternative builds are just that strong. Yes, the Avenger is a poorly built class, but it's not like the Pre-DP Strength Paladin.

Basically, becoming a crit-and-hit machine isn't the worst thing in the world, y'know. Get a nice High-Crit Weapon and go to town :smallbiggrin:

When the most effective way to play a class is not to play that class, then the class needs some powering-up.

AtopTheMountain
2010-02-19, 06:15 PM
Well, this is... surprising. I play an avenger that isn't any special powerful build, and he probably does the most of anyone in my group. I honestly thought it was a powerful class.

There was something said about the class preventing people from running away, therefore preventing you from using your class features. That's why you don't play a persuing avenger. My avenger is the other build from PHB2, which has powers that work out fine, do plenty of damage, and live up to what they're supposed to do.

The main problem I've seen with the class is the Implement powers: You don't get the bonus from Oath of Emnity, so why would you even take those attacks?

EDIT: Although I would like a link or something to show how to build one of those Critfisher avengers...

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-19, 06:16 PM
When the most effective way to play a class is not to play that class, then the class needs some powering-up.
Not necessarily.

If Sneak Attack were not limited to Light Weapons, it would be a great idea to play a NotRogue and get both Sneak and high [W] attacks. This would be the most effective way to play the Rogue class, and yet the Rogue is not known to be a particularly "weak" class.

EDIT:
@Metalhead - the fact that Pursuit Avengers are so terrible is part of the problem. 4e was built to avoid these kind of "trap choices" and yet the Avenger is full of them.

Gralamin
2010-02-19, 07:20 PM
Not necessarily.

If Sneak Attack were not limited to Light Weapons, it would be a great idea to play a NotRogue and get both Sneak and high [W] attacks. This would be the most effective way to play the Rogue class, and yet the Rogue is not known to be a particularly "weak" class.

EDIT:
@Metalhead - the fact that Pursuit Avengers are so terrible is part of the problem. 4e was built to avoid these kind of "trap choices" and yet the Avenger is full of them.

The rogue is a good example of how a restriction can make a class better. Would such a restriction make the Avenger better though? I doubt it.


Well, this is... surprising. I play an avenger that isn't any special powerful build, and he probably does the most of anyone in my group. I honestly thought it was a powerful class.

There was something said about the class preventing people from running away, therefore preventing you from using your class features. That's why you don't play a persuing avenger. My avenger is the other build from PHB2, which has powers that work out fine, do plenty of damage, and live up to what they're supposed to do.

The main problem I've seen with the class is the Implement powers: You don't get the bonus from Oath of Emnity, so why would you even take those attacks?

EDIT: Although I would like a link or something to show how to build one of those Critfisher avengers...

There are a bunch of powers that stop Retribution Avengers cold as well, other then the fact that you have to kill yourself to do well.

Kylarra
2010-02-19, 07:52 PM
Not necessarily.

If Sneak Attack were not limited to Light Weapons, it would be a great idea to play a NotRogue and get both Sneak and high [W] attacks. This would be the most effective way to play the Rogue class, and yet the Rogue is not known to be a particularly "weak" class.
MP2 brings in a few more options, allowing you to use bows (if elf) or warhammer/throwing hammer (if dwarf) with your sneak attack/rogue powers, but for the most part that holds true.

Grynning
2010-02-19, 08:46 PM
This thread got me curious, so I fired up CB and started looking at the class. I notice no one has mentioned Censure of Unity, which seems to be better than the other two to me. Did that or anything else from Divine Power help the class at all?

Break
2010-02-20, 02:56 AM
This thread got me curious, so I fired up CB and started looking at the class. I notice no one has mentioned Censure of Unity, which seems to be better than the other two to me. Did that or anything else from Divine Power help the class at all?

Sort of. It's better in that the damage bonus is easier to get, but not so much better because the damage you get is lower unless you're -really- got a lot of allies in your Oath target's face.

Past that, Divine Power gave the Avenger a couple of new toys - Fury's Advance for an encounter multiattack, and Ardent Champion for a PP that's actually good, off the top of my head - but nothing that really fixed the class's problems like DP did for Paladin.

Gralamin
2010-02-20, 03:29 AM
Sort of. It's better in that the damage bonus is easier to get, but not so much better because the damage you get is lower unless you're -really- got a lot of allies in your Oath target's face.

Past that, Divine Power gave the Avenger a couple of new toys - Fury's Advance for an encounter multiattack, and Ardent Champion for a PP that's actually good, off the top of my head - but nothing that really fixed the class's problems like DP did for Paladin.

Theres also the problem of Unityvenger Powers - Most of them don't really help you get your damage either. They place the creature in position to get it, but very few of them stop the creature from moving away (A simple shift can get them out, for example, and unless your allies really feel like sticking to it, instead of dealing with their other problems, you probably aren't going to get much damage).

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet is how hilariously hard it can be for an Avenger to get its bonus damage on a solo: Unity doesn't have this problem, but Retvengers pretty much flat out CANNOT, and Pursuitvengers only do against certain types of solos (Skirmishers, Artillery, and Lurkers, the type that want to stay away from the group Anyway)

1of3
2010-02-20, 10:02 AM
Do avengers do most damage? No. But they are pretty resilient (again with the feat from PHB3) and have some leader-ly stuff going on as well, and can make good use of a ranged attack or two. Avengers are quite solid alrounders.

Apart from that, no other class gets phasing so reliably - beginning at level 3. From eladrin you can at least hide in a place without windows. These guys will get to you. I mean, even the picture of people casually walking through walls with a big mean and weapon in hand, is more than cool.

juggalotis
2010-02-20, 10:15 AM
its definitly fun to play outside those roles. not everyone is a minmaxer. a lot of people like the different flavor an avenger brings with his own powers without having to be the "best" in the group.

Sir Homeslice
2010-02-20, 07:25 PM
its definitly fun to play outside those roles. not everyone is a minmaxer. a lot of people like the different flavor an avenger brings with his own powers without having to be the "best" in the group.

Thanks, I totally forgot that wanting a class with good fluff means I'd have to sacrifice mechanics and graceful design. You've shown me the light, thank you.

Classes with good mechanics, good fluff, and good design? Pfft, that's ridiculous. Who'd ever want it.

AtopTheMountain
2010-02-20, 08:58 PM
Okay. I've come to the conclusion that the Avenger class may not be the best class out there, or even the best Striker out there, but definitely is NOT a bad class. I just had a session with my 4E group today, and my not-even-remotely-optimized Deva Isolating Avenger did more than anyone else except the Rogue (who has so much Sneak Attack optimization that he regularly pulls off damage rolls in the mid 60s), including being the only one fighting the Elite demon and surviving. Of course, the rest of our group could just be that incompetent (Doppelganger wizard [deceased], Tiefling infernal warlock, Dwarf healbot cleric), but I doubt it.

EDIT: As a side note, it's mostly the fluff that makes me so in love with the class. Not that I don't also enjoy the mechanics...

Also, I'm effectively our Defender, since I'm the only one with both good AC and good HP.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-20, 09:21 PM
Okay. I've come to the conclusion that the Avenger class may not be the best class out there, or even the best Striker out there, but definitely is NOT a bad class. I just had a session with my 4E group today, and my not-even-remotely-optimized Deva Isolating Avenger did more than anyone else except the Rogue (who has so much Sneak Attack optimization that he regularly pulls off damage rolls in the mid 60s), including being the only one fighting the Elite demon and surviving. Of course, the rest of our group could just be that incompetent (Doppelganger wizard [deceased], Tiefling infernal warlock, Dwarf healbot cleric), but I doubt it.
Like I said - they're not that bad but they can be so much better if they weren't so... Avenger-y :smalltongue:

It is definitely a problem that INT Avenger is really the only worthwhile selection. Unity isn't bad, but it sure as hell isn't good. I'm not even going to address the Pursuit Avenger :smallyuk:

Gralamin
2010-02-21, 03:51 AM
its definitly fun to play outside those roles. not everyone is a minmaxer. a lot of people like the different flavor an avenger brings with his own powers without having to be the "best" in the group.

Fallacy here. The reason I made this thread about Avengers (Instead of one of the other problematic classes - notably Seekers and Swordmages), is because Avengers have what is arguably some of the best fluff in the game. However, they are mechanically poor, especially since you are better at fulfilling your fluff by not being an Avenger.

Besides, which, 4e highly encourages refluffing. Which means, there is no reason why you couldn't re-flavor a Ranger as an Avenger.


Okay. I've come to the conclusion that the Avenger class may not be the best class out there, or even the best Striker out there, but definitely is NOT a bad class. I just had a session with my 4E group today, and my not-even-remotely-optimized Deva Isolating Avenger did more than anyone else except the Rogue (who has so much Sneak Attack optimization that he regularly pulls off damage rolls in the mid 60s), including being the only one fighting the Elite demon and surviving.
Where you doing your job though? Were you acting as a striker, or as a defender? In either case, why were the enemies bothering to attack you? What did you do to stop them from walking right past you?


Of course, the rest of our group could just be that incompetent (Doppelganger wizard [deceased], Tiefling infernal warlock, Dwarf healbot cleric), but I doubt it.
Honestly, I'm guessing you are wrong about being the most effective. You might be the most -obviously- effective of the group, but Controllers have a huge effect that can be very hard to see if you aren't the DM. The Warlock depends on how its played. I'm guessing the Healbot cleric is why you managed to survive - Like most leaders, its a way of enabling others.


Also, I'm effectively our Defender, since I'm the only one with both good AC and good HP.

Just making sure, you realize that Armor of Faith was nerfed right? (Still makes it possible, just harder). And Avengers can be pretty bad Defenders since they have trouble keeping the enemies from simply ignoring them.


Like I said - they're not that bad but they can be so much better if they weren't so... Avenger-y :smalltongue:

It is definitely a problem that INT Avenger is really the only worthwhile selection. Unity isn't bad, but it sure as hell isn't good. I'm not even going to address the Pursuit Avenger :smallyuk:

And once again, the Retvenger is only good against non-solos (Its impossible for them to get their striker damage against solos). Even then, you have trouble keeping people stuck to you, instead of going off to attack someone else. Especially since attacking you usually means one of their friends dies faster.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-21, 07:44 AM
its definitly fun to play outside those roles. not everyone is a minmaxer. a lot of people like the different flavor an avenger brings with his own powers without having to be the "best" in the group.

Frankly I don't see how the avenger fluff is any different from Battle Cleric or Paladin fluff.

Jerthanis
2010-02-21, 11:53 AM
Like I said - they're not that bad but they can be so much better if they weren't so... Avenger-y :smalltongue:

It is definitely a problem that INT Avenger is really the only worthwhile selection. Unity isn't bad, but it sure as hell isn't good. I'm not even going to address the Pursuit Avenger :smallyuk:

Pursuit is the offtank spec, in my mind. When the Pursuit Avenger isolates a guy, that guy has a lot of incentive not to go after anyone else. The ideal being that the Avenger has good enough defenses to make the enemy miss almost 50% of the time so the Avenger's high likelyhood of hitting wears the opponent down over a number of rounds, rather than Rogue or Ranger style burst damaging them.

It's an intangible benefit, and there are plenty of battle setups where it won't be useful, but it's actually one of the reasons I like Pursuit.



And once again, the Retvenger is only good against non-solos (Its impossible for them to get their striker damage against solos). Even then, you have trouble keeping people stuck to you, instead of going off to attack someone else. Especially since attacking you usually means one of their friends dies faster.

Which is exactly what the Pursuitvenger does though. Admittedly, not quite enough Push/Pull/Slide to set it up perfectly or reliably, and you still need an actual defender to offtank for, but it does work sometimes.

AtopTheMountain
2010-02-21, 01:14 PM
Fallacy here. The reason I made this thread about Avengers (Instead of one of the other problematic classes - notably Seekers and Swordmages), is because Avengers have what is arguably some of the best fluff in the game. However, they are mechanically poor, especially since you are better at fulfilling your fluff by not being an Avenger.

Explanation? The Avenger powers are all geared towards being a divine avenger that hunts down the enemies of its god. Powers of other classes are made for their fluff -- For example, Ranger powers are built so you are a hardy woodsman who sticks to a certain fighting style.


Besides, which, 4e highly encourages refluffing. Which means, there is no reason why you couldn't re-flavor a Ranger as an Avenger.

But there's also no reason to do so, since Avenger powers work better with the fluff than Ranger powers. See above.



Where you doing your job though? Were you acting as a striker, or as a defender? In either case, why were the enemies bothering to attack you? What did you do to stop them from walking right past you?

Kind of both. In that fight, I was effectively solo-dueling the elite large demon, doing pretty decent damage, while his wizard buddies were firing magic rays at me, inadvertantly giving my my Censure of Retribution benefit. The demon wasn't running away because I had him trapped in a narrow hallway beating on him, and I was standing between it and the Warlock, protecting him.



Honestly, I'm guessing you are wrong about being the most effective. You might be the most -obviously- effective of the group, but Controllers have a huge effect that can be very hard to see if you aren't the DM. The Warlock depends on how its played. I'm guessing the Healbot cleric is why you managed to survive - Like most leaders, its a way of enabling others.

To elaborate, Here's what the wizard was doing: He's a doppleganger, so he decided to... shapeshift into a female to seduce one of the enemy wizards. In the middle of the fight. With a large demon and a Death Knight. It worked for a few rounds, then the rogue killed that wizard, and I killed the other one... then he decided to seduce the demon that I was fighting. After he had found out what happens when a Large demon with a Strength bonus of +18 hugs you, then he started casting spells... such as an inconveniently placed Wall of Fire that almost took out our cleric, and a Thunderlance that made the demon fall on top of me. The wizard was killed (as in, dead-dead, not just unconscious) by the large explosion that happened when I killed the demon. The warlock started by minion-bombing all the minions, then blasting the Death Knight. I didn't actually require a ton of healing -- at least not as much as the Rogue and Wizard.[/quote]


Just making sure, you realize that Armor of Faith was nerfed right? (Still makes it possible, just harder). And Avengers can be pretty bad Defenders since they have trouble keeping the enemies from simply ignoring them.

I was not aware of that, no. In what way was it nerfed? Because unless it gives a lower armor bonus or they got rid of feats that improve it, then I don't think it matters for me.
The demon I was soloing definitely was not ignoring me, nor were his Wizard and Death Knight buddies.


And once again, the Retvenger is only good against non-solos (Its impossible for them to get their striker damage against solos). Even then, you have trouble keeping people stuck to you, instead of going off to attack someone else. Especially since attacking you usually means one of their friends dies faster.

Well, we weren't fighting a solo, and we almost never do. Even if we were, I do enough damage with my Fullblade to make up for the lack of Censure.


Frankly I don't see how the avenger fluff is any different from Battle Cleric or Paladin fluff.

Avenger: Devoted assassin who hunts down and punishes the enemies of his god.
Battle Cleric: Priest who happens to fight people.
Paladin: Holy warrior who champions the cause of his deity.

Draz74
2010-02-21, 01:28 PM
I was not aware of that, no. In what way was it nerfed? Because unless it gives a lower armor bonus or they got rid of feats that improve it, then I don't think it matters for me.

It no longer works if you're wearing armor (other than Cloth).

AtopTheMountain
2010-02-21, 01:30 PM
It no longer works if you're wearing armor (other than Cloth).

No problem there, then; I wear Cloth armor anyways.

DSCrankshaw
2010-02-21, 01:42 PM
Then they lost their defender level AC and are now just strikers that deal less damage. Their sole advantage lies in being able to grab as gnarly a weapon as you like and going to town with high #[w] attacks you can be confident will hit. Of course, the Barbarian can do that too, and he got defender level defenses since some expansion or errata instead of losing it, and had defender HP the whole time.

So yeah.
That's been pretty much fixed with the PHB3. There's a feat that gives you +2 AC if you wear cloth--it's basically for monks and avengers, and gives avengers a top-flight AC again.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-21, 03:07 PM
That's been pretty much fixed with the PHB3. There's a feat that gives you +2 AC if you wear cloth--it's basically for monks and avengers, and gives avengers a top-flight AC again.
Goddamnit! I thought WotC had finally learned that Feat Taxes are bad :smallmad:

Yes, you needed to use a Feat to wear Leather anyhow, but this sort of micromanaging is starting to get on my nerves.

Draz74
2010-02-21, 03:18 PM
Goddamnit! I thought WotC had finally learned that Feat Taxes are bad :smallmad:

What ever gave you that idea? It's only been a year since PHB2 gave us Weapon Expertise. :smalltongue:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-21, 03:19 PM
What ever gave you that idea? It's only been a year since PHB2 gave us Weapon Expertise. :smalltongue:
Well... I thought people were annoyed about the Feat Taxing aspect of the Expertise feats. I guess it was just me? :smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2010-02-21, 03:22 PM
Well... I thought people were annoyed about the Feat Taxing aspect of the Expertise feats. I guess it was just me? :smallconfused:

They are, and one of the most common houserules appears to be either banning them or giving them to everyone for free. But that doesn't mean WOTC has learned not to make feat taxes in the future.

Mordokai
2010-02-21, 03:30 PM
Goddamnit! I thought WotC had finally learned that Feat Taxes are bad :smallmad:

I would be interested in knowing what constitues as Feat Tax, since this term in new to me. I mean, I get the general idea, but a clarification would be welcomed :smallsmile:

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-21, 03:32 PM
They are, and one of the most common houserules appears to be either banning them or giving them to everyone for free. But that doesn't mean WOTC has learned not to make feat taxes in the future.
Actually, I just make them Paragon Feats... though I have been convinced that there is a reason to leave 'em as is.
Essentially, 4e gives you two types of feats - simple bonuses and complex actions. Taking a feat for +5 HP or +1 to hit is great for the player who hates dealing with mechanics or has trouble remembering options - it's all baked into their character sheet and they never need to think about them again. For others, having more options - another CD, Power Attack, or even Super-Jumping - is more interesting. For them you have MC Feats, some of the "skill trick" feats and the like.

So, while a +1 to hit is always good, at low levels a player might be more interested in getting access to a new weapon or ability instead. For people who don't want to remember complicated feat chains, there's always the "+1 to good stuff" feat available; for everyone else, they can choose.

Admittedly, in a very mechanically-difficult campaign (i.e. lots of high-risk encounters) you may be forced to take those +1's over Agile Climber - but that is more of a question of aligning PC/DM priorities and having the DM be sensitive to the concerns of individual players.
I'm not completely sold, mind you, but there is one player in my current game who really likes RP and just has a hard time / is unwilling to learn and understand the mechanics. For her, it is just easier to have someone else to make character-building choices - and there, it is nice to pick things that will always be used.

Still, the fact that this sort of purpose is not explicit in the rules (or in any of the various design articles) makes me feel that WotC is still stuck in its Feat-Taxing ways.

EDIT:
Feat Taxes
A "feat tax" is the introduction of a mechanic that is so good / important that every player will take it - and adopting the mechanic is costly in some fashion. In D&D, these new mechanics usually show up as Feats and, by taking one, you are forestalled from taking any other possible Feat.

The Expertise Feats are a good example. Before they were introduced there were a bunch of "+1 to hit IF" Feats that, because they were situational, were not always a good idea to take. However, Expertise Feats are always on which makes them strictly better than any possible "+1 to hit IF" feat. Since hitting things is the primary method of having an impact in combat, a +1 to hit is extremely valuable (as opposed to +5 HP, which isn't so important if you don't get hit often) - so Expertise becomes a Feat that is both really good and really important; you should almost always take it at 1st Level. But, by filling up that Feat slot you stop people from having the fun of selecting amongst the other dozen or so feats that might be more "interesting."

Another example is Hide Armor Expertise for Barbarians. Constitution is useful for all kinds of Barbarian Powers - mainly by making the Barbarians more durable. Thanks to the point-buy system, Barbarians usually had to make choices between CON and INT/DEX (for AC); typically this left Barbarians with low AC and high HP or high AC and low HP. But, by allowing CON to be used to boost AC, Barbarians can easily be both High AC and High HP; since Barbarians are "front-line" Strikers, this is an irresistible combination.

Mordokai
2010-02-21, 03:45 PM
Thanks for explanation and I can say now, I see your point. That mechanic is kinda annoying. In our group, it's solved by making expertise free for everybody.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-21, 03:56 PM
Thanks for explanation and I can say now, I see your point. That mechanic is kinda annoying. In our group, it's solved by making expertise free for everybody.
A common solution.

For me, moving it to Paragon made more sense. The existing Paragon Feats already provide a lot of +1's (like the various Armor Expertise) so choosing between upping your AC and your to-hit seems like a better choice than between upping your to-hit and (sometimes) upping your to-hit.

I don't know what to do about Hide Armor Expertise. I can make the most ridiculously broken Goliath/Dwarven Barbarians using it - and even more ridiculous Battleragers! Admittedly, Battleragers need to be at least LV 4 to break things, but still - a LV 4 Dwarven Battlerager should not be able to walk around with an 18 CON, 21 AC (nonmagic), 15 Reflex (Heavy Shield, 12 DEX), and an At-Will (Brash Strike) that is +2 to hit, does 1d10+11 damage [Brutal 2] and grants 4 THP.

Damage Breakdown
1d10 [Brutal 2] (Craghammer)
+3(STR)
+4(CON)
+2(Rager, with THP)
+2(Dwarven Weapon Training)
Oh, and he gets 8 THP (10 at LV 6) every time he hits with an Invigorating Attack, and 4 with any other.

It's insane! :smalleek:

Kurald Galain
2010-02-21, 04:01 PM
For me, moving it to Paragon made more sense. The existing Paragon Feats already provide a lot of +1's (like the various Armor Expertise) so choosing between upping your AC and your to-hit seems like a better choice than between upping your to-hit and (sometimes) upping your to-hit.

Hm, I'm not convinced that helps much. In heroic tier, the +1 is not nearly as important as people give it credit for; in paragon tier, you can have four paragon feats by level 12 anyway (and most people seem to do that).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-21, 04:05 PM
Hm, I'm not convinced that helps much. In heroic tier, the +1 is not nearly as important as people give it credit for; in paragon tier, you can have four paragon feats by level 12 anyway (and most people seem to do that).
Well, I'd argue that at LV 1 a +1 to hit with Implements is pretty huge. And, for sure, that extra +1 is nice when it stacks with various other to-hit bonuses (CA, Leader Bonuses, etc.).

It's hard to say that the +1 isn't important, and a good case could be made that it's more important in most 4e campaigns (e.g. ones where combat is important) than, say, being able to climb at full, rather than half speed.

At least at LV 11 you have some choices to make. Plus, there are quite a few Heroic Feats which I would not train away for a +1 to hit (MC Utility, for example) so I don't know if you really do end up with 4 Paragon Feats by LV 12. Unless, of course, you took a bunch of Heroic Feats that are easily swapped for Paragon ones, or if you didn't really care what Heroic ones you took.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-21, 04:11 PM
Well, I'd argue that at LV 1 a +1 to hit with Implements is pretty huge. And, for sure, that extra +1 is nice when it stacks with various other to-hit bonuses (CA, Leader Bonuses, etc.).
Oh, it's certainly nice, but I would take an "enabler" feat over a +1 bonus any day. That's mostly to taste, of course.

But I find that people on forums in general tend to overstate the impact of small bonuses.

RebelRogue
2010-02-21, 04:12 PM
in paragon tier, you can have four paragon feats by level 12 anyway (and most people seem to do that).
How? Are you allowed to retrain Heroic Feats into Paragon ones?

Kurald Galain
2010-02-21, 04:13 PM
How? Are you allowed to retrain Heroic Feats into Paragon ones?

Yes. Says so in the chapter on retraining, with explicit examples.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-21, 04:17 PM
Oh, it's certainly nice, but I would take an "enabler" feat over a +1 bonus any day. That's mostly to taste, of course.

But I find that people on forums in general tend to overstate the impact of small bonuses.
What do you mean by "enabler feat?"

Also: the "small bonus" problem is an almost existential one. Since there are few (if any) things in 4e that grant large bonuses, almost all of them are +1 or +2. While any individual +1 might seem insignificant, when considered for its impact over time (and its interactions with other bonuses) it can start looking much more important.

So, while a +1 is not going to save the world, having it available all the time, and stackable with the other "intended" bonuses (e.g. CA, one-off Leader bonuses, etc.) can give it a much larger impact. I think it's unwise to act as though +1's are unimportant - though it probably doesn't hurt to remind folks that a +1 is not exactly going to Save the World :smallsmile:

RebelRogue
2010-02-21, 04:22 PM
Yes. Says so in the chapter on retraining, with explicit examples.
So it does. I've never noticed. It seems sort of backwards to me, but I guess it's all right.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-21, 04:23 PM
What do you mean by "enabler feat?"
Anything that gives you a new option, such as Power Attack, Enlarge Spell, or any Multiclass feat.


Also: the "small bonus" problem is an almost existential one. Since there are few (if any) things in 4e that grant large bonuses, almost all of them are +1 or +2.
Yes, but in mechanical terms, just because something is rare doesn't mean it's valuable.

If you take Enlarge Spell, you and your table will notice the difference multiple times every combat. If you take Implement Expertise, then statistically it only makes a difference every two or three combats (less often if you use a lot of single-target spells) and people won't really notice it. In my opinion, flashy feats are preferable to numerical ones.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-21, 04:35 PM
Yes, but in mechanical terms, just because something is rare doesn't mean it's valuable.

If you take Enlarge Spell, you and your table will notice the difference multiple times every combat. If you take Implement Expertise, then statistically it only makes a difference every two or three combats (less often if you use a lot of single-target spells) and people won't really notice it. In my opinion, flashy feats are preferable to numerical ones.
Well, when something is both rare and useful, it generally is considered valuable :smallbiggrin:

But yes, "flashy" feats can be a more attractive choice for an individual who values them (see my comments regarding "Simple Bonus" v. "Complex Action" Feats in another thread) but an unnoticed benefit is not necessarily less valuable mechanically.

I guess I just feel like the Expertise Feats are out of line with the other feats available. Heroic characters should (IMHO) have to make some trade-off to get a +1 to hit - use a Light Blade in CA, hit with an Encounter power, or what have you.

Full Disclosure:
My annoyance with Hide Armor Expertise comes from having to choose a LV 4 Feat for my Half-Elf Thaneborn Barbarian. Aside from having an annoyingly low AC, I "wasted" 2 CPs to bring my INT from 13 to 14 that I could have used to bring my CON from 13+2 to 14+2. We have a Defender-weak party (one Warforged Shielding Swordmage) so I take a lot of hits - getting 3 THP instead of 2 THP with Recuperating Strike would have been great to have for the past 3 levels!

Anyhow, my (admittedly eccentric) Barbarian, who was going to either take Jack of All Trades or Skill Training at LV 4 (for RP purposes) is now facing down a decision that could get her +1 AC... and if I'm going to take Hide Armor Expertise, LV 4 is the best place to take it! :smallannoyed:

Colmarr
2010-02-21, 07:29 PM
Quick question:

In a group featuring an avenger and a [some other striker], where both PCs are played by optimisers of moderate (but not "theoretical CharOp") ability and/or inclination, will the difference in damage output between the Avenger and the [other striker] be noticeably large?

In case it's necessary for your reply, by "moderate ability and/or inclination" I mean taking obviously useful and effective feats, but not going out of your way to break things (eg. No taking wintertouched and always carrying a frost weapon just to break that combo).

Kurald Galain
2010-02-21, 07:35 PM
In a group featuring an avenger and a [some other striker], where both PCs are played by optimisers of moderate (but not "theoretical CharOp") ability and/or inclination, will the difference in damage output between the Avenger and the [other striker] be noticeably large?
Unless the other striker is a ranger, it is not likely that most players would notice an obvious difference. For one, people tend not to keep track of exactly how much damage each person does. For another, luck of the dice plays a huge factor in damage done.

RebelRogue
2010-02-21, 07:43 PM
Quick question:

In a group featuring an avenger and a [some other striker], where both PCs are played by optimisers of moderate (but not "theoretical CharOp") ability and/or inclination, will the difference in damage output between the Avenger and the [other striker] be noticeably large?
In my experience: yes. I currently play in a group with a Rogue and an Avenger. Teasing the Avenger about his low damage output is sort of a running gag! He recently switched to a high crit weapon which will probably help a little, but there's no way it will close the gap as far as I can see.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-21, 07:54 PM
In a group featuring an avenger and a [some other striker], where both PCs are played by optimisers of moderate (but not "theoretical CharOp") ability and/or inclination, will the difference in damage output between the Avenger and the [other striker] be noticeably large?
Likely they will notice a difference - unless the other Striker is a Warlock :smalltongue:

Why? Because Avengers just don't roll very many dice.

Most Avenger powers are only 1[w], with a few 2[w] and no 3[w] except for the occasional Daily. Even with an awesome weapon, you'll probably be rolling fewer dice than a 2H Fighter, let alone a Striker.

Rogues get 1-2[w] plus 2d6(8) Sneak - basically they "start" with a Maul and do some amount of damage on top of that. Rangers do silly amounts of damage thanks to their static modifiers and Barbarians have a 1st Level Encounter Power that rolls 3[w].

Even if the numbers "average out" to be about the same, the Avenger will feel like they're doing less damage. And while the "extra" crits are nice, I'm not sure folks will cheer so much about it - getting an extra d12 or 2d4 is nice, but when the Barbarian crits you start at 36 damage and go from there :smallbiggrin:

Yakk
2010-02-21, 09:05 PM
Avengers need work to generate good damage output.

A rogue's level 1 at-will is doing an easy average 16.5 before any feats, and they get a free +1 to hit. Options on top of that include +1 to hit (2 feats give you this), +2 to damage (1 feat), +1 to damage (1 feat).

The avenger at the same 0 feat level is getting 2 attack rolls, but hitting for a mere 9.5 average per hit (non-crit). 2 feats that grant +1 to damage, and another feat that grants +1 to hit, are the avenger options.

(Both classes can make +1 damage/-1 to hit tradeoffs).

The avenger riders are honestly weak -- and the avenger striker feature options are not very damage-centric (as the opponents do not have to do much in order to avoid the damage bonus).

With 18/16 in primary/secondary attribute, both end up with the same AC pre-feats.

At the 3 feat point, the Rogue has +2 to hit and +2 to damage (so is now +5 with CA over standard, and deals 18.5 average per hit). Assuming a base 11+ to hit with a 18 stat and a +2 prof weapon, this means the Rogue is hitting 75% of the time (and critting 5% of the time for 27 damage).

14.3 DPR.

The avenger with a mord (2d6 brutal 1 for 8 average damage), 18 in the primary stat (up to 12 average damage), focus (+1 damage) and expertise (+1 to hit) is a +1 to hit (+3 with CA) and 13 average damage per hit.

With the same 11+ default, the avenger hits 87.8% of the time and crits about 10% of the time.

11.8 DPR.

Basically, the Rogue DPR is higher than the average hit damage of the avenger at the 3 feat mark.

Adding in things like magic weapon helps somewhat, but the problem is that Rogue accuracy rivals Avenger accuracy, and Rogues get a damage bonus rider of backstab. The extra crit chance of the Avenger, and higher base damage die, just doesn't measure up against backstab with a dagger.

Avenger at-wills are also part of the problem -- avenger at-wills don't do extra damage often enough. They have control effects, or self-healing effects - the only "does damage" give a +int bonus to damage to one particular ally on the next attack (so +int/2 actual damage, assuming you hit and the ally attacks it).

In comparison, Rogue have at-wills just deal damage (+cha to damage), boost accuracy further (vs reflex weapon attack), or can be exploited to deal damage (deft strike and clever strike can both be used to nearly guarantee CA).

Avengers primary "dealing damage" feature is "roll twice to hit" -- and they get given a bunch of crappy "Hey look, I don't work when the feature is active" powers that range from close-range ranged implement powers, to powers that are both ranged implement and deal crappy damage (I'm looking at you, Bond of Censure), etc.

AtopTheMountain
2010-02-21, 09:44 PM
The main reason the Avenger deals less damage than other strikers is because they focus more on never missing than dealing tons of damage at once. Their class features reflect this, while other strikers have more class features to do tons of damage. Let's look at the other strikers:
Barbarian: Rampage, rages, plus they have simply insane amounts of damage.
Ranger: Hunter's Quarry, plus multi-attack powers.
Rogue: Sneak Attack is a big one.
Sorcerer: Adds secondary attribute modifier to damage. Also, area attacks.
Warlock: Actually does less damage than the Avenger, with more of a focus on debilitating effects.
The Avenger doesn't need lots of bonus damage because it never misses its attacks. Last time I played, I probably rolled 10-12 attacks. I missed once, and that was against a target that I didn't have Oathed.

Artanis
2010-02-21, 10:14 PM
The main reason the Avenger deals less damage than other strikers is because they focus more on never missing than dealing tons of damage at once. Their class features reflect this, while other strikers have more class features to do tons of damage. Let's look at the other strikers:
Barbarian: Rampage, rages, plus they have simply insane amounts of damage.
Ranger: Hunter's Quarry, plus multi-attack powers.
Rogue: Sneak Attack is a big one.
Sorcerer: Adds secondary attribute modifier to damage. Also, area attacks.
Warlock: Actually does less damage than the Avenger, with more of a focus on debilitating effects.
The Avenger doesn't need lots of bonus damage because it never misses its attacks. Last time I played, I probably rolled 10-12 attacks. I missed once, and that was against a target that I didn't have Oathed.

The assessment that they deal less damage already includes their good accuracy.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-22, 03:15 AM
Why? Because Avengers just don't roll very many dice.
Sure, but they roll double attack dice.

On the other hand, you are quite correct in that e.g. a rogue will occasionally have the DM exclaiming, "you do HOW much damage?!?" and the avenger never will.


The main reason the Avenger deals less damage than other strikers is because they focus more on never missing than dealing tons of damage at once.
That's the intent. However, rogues get ludicrous to-hit bonuses, and will occasionally even hit on a natural 2.

Yakk
2010-02-22, 08:36 AM
*nod* -- getting CA (via class features, utility powers, powers that don't give up much to get it (Deft Strike), or rogue feats) is relatively easy for a Rogue.

So the Rogue is often +2 (CA) +1 (Nimble Blade) +1 (Weapon Talent) above everyone else's to-hit numbers. Stack on a dex/int-primary class (making a 20 in the primary stat very tempting) which is probably worth another +1 over the avenger (whose AC requires a secondary stat be high).

That's +5 to hit over the avenger, which matches or exceeds the benefit of "roll twice" in most situations.

The avenger can exceed the rogue's accuracy by staying with a +3 proficiency weapon (fullblade) and picking up CA often.

...

But even then, because the Rogues hits are doing 1d4+2d8+stat (and sometimes +stat again) with a primary stat that is probably 1 higher than the Avengers, vs the Avengers 1d12 damage...

That puts the Rogue at 6 points/hit ahead of the Avenger before criticals.

And that is a lot of ground to make up with criticals.

RebelRogue
2010-02-22, 09:35 AM
On the other hand, you are quite correct in that e.g. a rogue will occasionally have the DM exclaiming, "you do HOW much damage?!?" and the avenger never will.
Yes. We actually use that exact same criterion as for when you are playing your Striker correctly :smallbiggrin:

Blackfang108
2010-02-22, 09:42 AM
Yes. We actually use that exact same criterion as for when you are playing your Striker correctly :smallbiggrin:

I got that with my Storm Sorceror with Fury of the Storm(level 24).

Not counting my Daggermaster Powers, the minimum damage I do on a Crit is 97. (my at-wills are both 100)

He eventually stopped picking his jaw off the floor.

Then again, my Pursuit Avenger has elicited this reaction more than once, using actual Avenger powers. (At Heroic Tier. That may stop around Paragon)

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-22, 10:56 AM
So... speaking of Avengers, I had a fun thought last night.

Holy Rager - a Rageblood MC Avenger (LV 2)

At that level he could pop two 3[w] attacks (Daily 1 + Avalanche Strike) on a single target while getting the benefit of his Oath. At LV 3 he can use another 3[W] attack (provided the target is bloodied - 2[w] otherwise) with the benefit of an AP.

That's a silly amount of highly-accurate damage on a single target - not even counting crits :smalltongue:

Best news: by taking Hide Armor Expertise, he starts out with Plate Armor (Con 16+2, Hide, and +1 for Barbarian) at LV 1.

...yeah, I can hear the Codex Creep over here :smallsigh:

Break
2010-02-23, 12:10 AM
To get back to the initial question of what's salvageable about the Avenger -


The Oath of Enmity itself. The limitations are fine, and there's not much reason why it should be changed.
The idea behind Oath and Censures - that is, the need to set up the situations required for you to get your bonus damage. This, I feel, is the big one. Rogue is like this to a much lesser extent, but the avenger should have a power set that helps to force lose-lose situations and mindgames. The fact that the structure for such things are there, but the support is not, just baffles me. As it stands, they're mere deterrents, and poor ones at that.
The utilities. One of the class's few strong points.


What it needs is....a little more difficult to determine. The support for mindgames above, yeah. Maybe ditching the damage route entirely and making avengers the go-to guys for slapping on status effects due to their above-average accuracy. Censures that rely a lot less on DM fiat to make workable - this basically means putting more control of the censure into the hands of the avenger's player. Possibly a good dose of role protection, too, in order to avoid the critfisher/notvenger problem, though I'm not quite sure how to implement this.

Gralamin
2010-02-23, 12:15 AM
To get back to the initial question of what's salvageable about the Avenger -


The Oath of Enmity itself. The limitations are fine, and there's not much reason why it should be changed.
The idea behind Oath and Censures - that is, the need to set up the situations required for you to get your bonus damage. This, I feel, is the big one. Rogue is like this to a much lesser extent, but the avenger should have a power set that helps to force lose-lose situations and mindgames. The fact that the structure for such things are there, but the support is not, just baffles me. As it stands, they're mere deterrents, and poor ones at that.
The utilities. One of the class's few strong points.


What it needs is....a little more difficult to determine. The support for mindgames above, yeah. Maybe ditching the damage route entirely and making avengers the go-to guys for slapping on status effects due to their above-average accuracy. Censures that rely a lot less on DM fiat to make workable - this basically means putting more control of the censure into the hands of the avenger's player. Possibly a good dose of role protection, too, in order to avoid the critfisher/notvenger problem, though I'm not quite sure how to implement this.

Definitely seems to be a good summary of what we've seen. I guess this can be expanded slightly to an interesting question:

Given that Censures are changed too work a better, without changing the entire style of effect, Are there any particular attack powers, Paragon Paths, or Avenger Feats that can definitely stay?

Yakk
2010-02-23, 10:41 AM
#1: Slight improvement to Oath of Enmity, and a restriction to divine attack powers:
Oath of Enmity:
When attacking the target of your oath with a divine attack power, and they are the only enemy adjacent to you, roll twice on the attack roll.

Build in the crit-fisher:
The most effective avengers are crit-fishers. Let's make avengers crit-fishers by default.

#2: A proposed Censure of Pursuit that really, really encourages bad guys to run away from you ... then screws them if they do. Now, all of the powers that discourage opponents to run away from you, or help you keep up with the target ... actually help you.

Censure of Pursuit:
If the target of your oath ends their turn adjacent to you while not immobilised, you score critical hits on the target of the oath on a 19 or 20 when using avenger attack powers until the end of your next turn. This improves to a 18-20 at level 11, and a 17-20 at level 21.

If the target of your oath moves away from you, you gain a bonus to damage equal to your dexterity modifier on the first hit on the target of your oath before the end of your next turn.

#3: This is an evil Censure of Retribution.
Censure of Retribution:
If the target of your oath damages you or an ally, you score critical hits on the target of your oath on a 19 or 20 when using avenger attack powers until the end of your next turn. This improves to 18-20 at level 11, and 17-20 at level 21.

Whenever you are damaged by any enemy besides the target of your oath, you gain a bonus to damage equal to your intelligence modifier on the target of your oath before the end of your next turn.

The Avenger may choose to roll twice on any avenger power attack roll against any adjacent opponent, but doing so means that the attack provokes an opportunity attack.

#4: This is an evil Censure of Unity:
Censure of Unity:
Gain a +1 bonus to damage on the target of your oath for every ally adjacent to the target of your oath.

As a free action at the end of your turn, you can designate one ally as your oath-sworn ally. This removes any other ally from being designated as your oath-sworn ally.

If the target of your oath hits your oath-sworn ally while not marked by your oath-sworn ally, you score critical hits on a 19 or 20 when using avenger attack powers on the target of your oath until the end of your next turn. This improves to a 18-20 at level 11, and a 17-20 at level 21.

---

I believe the above would be more than enough to make Avengers darn good. The "I crit" mechanics are designed to be punitive -- they are on the level of defender marks in forcing behaviour on the oath target.

Pursuit is the strongest of the above, probably. Opponents are going to trigger the +dex to damage constantly, and there are a myriad of ways to "force" someone to stay adjacent to you while not immobilising them.

Retribution is weaker than Pursuit, because it is harder to force the bonuses. The ability to roll twice on any target in exchange for OAs was added as a rider -- but I don't know if it is enough.

Unity is interesting. The bonus to damage is relatively easy to get for Unity. The oath-sworn ally option makes them a one-target defender: attack that target, and you are doomed. You could imagine a unity avenger teaming up with another striker or something. I'm not sure.

But Pursuit? With the above oath and censure, I think Pursuit would be doing quite acceptable damage output. And all of a sudden the Pursuit powers that let you chase down the target of your oath become very fun, because the target of your oath is desperately running away from you!

Break
2010-02-23, 12:58 PM
I like Yakk's idea, but would prefer to propose a slight change - instead of it triggering when your target runs, how about having it trigger when you are able to get closer to the target on your turn so you have more control over it?

Basically, why not have it emphasize you pursuing the target instead of having the target run?

Yakk
2010-02-23, 01:26 PM
If the target doesn't run, you cannot get closer now, can you? :-)

I wanted the Pursuit avenger to generate a lose-lose situation for the oath target.

If the oath target doesn't get away, the punishment is intended to be really massive. This encourages the oath target to get away.

If the oath target does get away, then the avenger gets a "standard" damage boost (secondary stat to damage against it).

In essence, so long as the avenger can keep up pursuit, the target damned if they do, and damned if they don't. The target can just shift away 1 square after attacking the avenger -- but that makes the pursuit pretty easy. The target can also try to move away, but that typically provokes OAs.

I then restricted it to divine attack powers in order to make MC avenger less ridiculously broken with multi-attack martial powers. I could also make it "the first attack you make" or "until you hit the target"? With avenger powers being single-attack powers, making it "the first attack roll against the target on each round" might nerf the oath for MC avengers sufficient to make it less ridiculous. Avengers could then get an "action point oath" feat to bring it back up to par?

"Divine attacks only" makes the MC avenger no good for non-divine melee characters...

Break
2010-02-23, 02:05 PM
If the target doesn't run, you cannot get closer now, can you? :-)

I don't think I explained myself correctly, because if they don't run, you've already got something for that. :smallbiggrin: The critical threat range expansion for when the target stays adjacent to you is fine - I was referring to the second bit.

Instead of getting the Dex mod to damage when they run, you get it when you chase them. This expands it a little bit to put the censure's control more into your hands, so you can take advantage of the boosted damage after, say, pushes and closing the gap right after initiative is rolled. You'd still get it if they run, should you choose to pursue.

Yakk
2010-02-23, 02:17 PM
Hmm. I dunno -- pushing something away so you can pursue seems pretty cheesy. :) And not that optimal.

Giving the target a way out of the bind is also something I like. Monsters that can be slid by their allies, or can push you away, can avoid both the "end turn adjacent" and "may not flee" parts of the oath. Ie: there is something that the monster can do to mitigate the situation.

This remains true in the "if you move closer" option, in that the monster can immobilise the Avenger and get out of melee range.

It would also be another upgrade to the damage output -- and I think that, as written, the avenger with +secondary stat to damage, two rolls to attack, and the possibility of screwing a target into a crit-filled party will be able to match non-cheese based alternative strikers.

...

I'm more concerned about Unity and Retribution honestly.

Unity I tried creating a mini-defender effect. But practically, getting that +1 to damage per ally is hard to do when you need to also be in a position where the only enemy adjacent to you is your target. And that +1 per ally doesn't scale very well.

The "oath-sworn ally" mechanic, being a mini-defender mechanic, tickles my funny bone. But it probably ends up not restricting the monster that much, and won't go off that often...

Retribution "if anyone attacks me, you are screwed" also has issues. Unlike pursuit, there is no "damned if you do, damned if you don't (with a small loophole)" I could think of. So the result is Warlock-esque: your Avenger ends up not being attacked, but also doesn't do good damage.

I can think of a few fun tricks...

What if Retribution could make a basic attack (well, pseudo-basic attack based off Int) against anyone who chooses not to take an OA against it? That would give it some "area effect" damage by mass-provoking OAs. Either they attack (and trigger retribution on the oath target), or they don't (and get smacked down for their troubles).

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-23, 02:45 PM
I then restricted it to divine attack powers in order to make MC avenger less ridiculously broken with multi-attack martial powers. I could also make it "the first attack you make" or "until you hit the target"? With avenger powers being single-attack powers, making it "the first attack roll against the target on each round" might nerf the oath for MC avengers sufficient to make it less ridiculous. Avengers could then get an "action point oath" feat to bring it back up to par?
Make it "the first attack you make each turn" so that non-Divine MC Avengers can exist. I said "turn" so that you could still Oath on OAs.

Also: make Pursuit "moves away from you on their turn" to avoid triggering it by pushes and such.

I presume you don't want the Crit Bonus to stack with any other Crit modifiers for obvious reasons?

Yakk
2010-02-23, 04:41 PM
Ya. That would be bad (the crit bonus stacking with other crit bonuses).

I made the "threat of the crit bonus" large and nasty enough that "simple" crit bonuses will be smaller than it.

19-20 in heroic is top notch. 18-20 in paragon puts it up with daggermaster (and I'm not worried about daggermaster avengers needing help). The crit range of 17-20 in epic ... is a death sentence, on purpose.

...

"The first attack each turn" isn't bad. "The first attack in each action" isn't bad. "Each round, until you hit the target" also isn't bad.

"Moves" already doesn't cover forced movement by RAW.

I'm not that worried about OAs really -- if Avengers are forcing OAs, that is lots of bonus damage that will let them keep up with other strikers even without any accuracy bonus.

I am tempted to give them a melee training feat (wisdom) for free, maybe one that only works against their oath target. (Ie, when "making a basic attack against your oath target, you may substitute wisdom for the attack and damage stat as your god guides your blow". Note that this is better than melee training -- it works on ranged attacks, and even on magic missile!)

...

Anyhow, the control portion of those Censures does look neat.

Censure of Pursuit forces the target to flee.
Censure of Retribution forces the target to attack someone else.
Censure of Unity forces the target not to attack one of your allies.

Pursuit gets the +dex to damage pretty free.

Retribution ... needs something. I like the idea of a weapon int vs will free attack on someone who chooses not to take an OA for [W] damage? That gives Retribution the "I attract OAs on purpose to boost my damage" option.

Meh. That just isn't ... good enough.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-23, 06:48 PM
"Moves" already doesn't cover forced movement by RAW.
Yes it does; this is just a fallacy propagated by a few people at WOTC who think Blood Pulse is overpowered (and it is, but this is not the solution).

"Forced movement" is movement just like a "long sword" is a kind of sword; this follows from simple English grammar, the rulebooks nowhere indicate differently, and both the developer interview in Dragon mag as well as CustServ have confirmed this (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19685882/Consolidated_Customer_Service_Answers&post_num=539#362955377).

Gralamin
2010-02-23, 07:06 PM
Thats some interesting Fixes Yakk. I'm not sure I agree with making them crit monsters, but it is a rather simple and elegant way of changing them - and that on its own is pretty amazing.

deathpigeon
2010-02-23, 07:23 PM
Also: make Pursuit "moves away from you on their turn" to avoid triggering it by pushes and such.

The Players Handbook 2 already deals with that issue. The rules state that the movement has to be willing to gain the bonus.

Dimers
2010-02-23, 11:53 PM
The Players Handbook 2 already deals with that issue. The rules state that the movement has to be willing to gain the bonus.

I'd personally like to see an exception in the case of the pursuit avenger for Fear effects. You inflict holy terror on the subject, they run away, and then you beat the hell out of them for running away. :smallbiggrin:

Sophismata
2010-02-24, 12:59 AM
Personally, I thought Pursuit would be better phrased along the lines of...

"Whenever you end your movement more than 2 squares from where you started, you get +secondary stat to damage on your first attack roll against your oath target this turn."

falconflicker
2010-02-24, 02:00 AM
Idea for Retribution

when an enemy other than your oath of enmity target damages you, your oath of enmity target takes untyped damage equal to half the damage you were dealt.

Critfishing only if nobody damages you for that turn.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-24, 10:58 AM
I am tempted to give them a melee training feat (wisdom) for free, maybe one that only works against their oath target. (Ie, when "making a basic attack against your oath target, you may substitute wisdom for the attack and damage stat as your god guides your blow". Note that this is better than melee training -- it works on ranged attacks, and even on magic missile!)
I'd just make one of the "less exciting" At-Wills "count as a Basic Melee Attack." It'd give people a reason to take it, at least.

Darth Stabber
2010-02-24, 02:29 PM
It has been my experience that Avengers are fine strikers.

Normal strikers have bonus damage abilities, but have a normal chance at missing

Avengers rarely miss, but have no bonus damage ability

We have strikerA who deals x damage, and has y bonus damage, and hits 65% percent of the time.

StrikerB is an avenger who deals x damage, and has no bonus damage and hits 90% of the time

Over a combat (assuming 4 rounds and an attack each round) StrikerA will deal .65(x+y), and StrikerB will deal.9x. Meaning that unless StrikerA's damage bonus increases damage more than 25%, StrikerB has the advantage.

And if you build your Avenger to Critfish you have a bonus damage ability.

Kurald Galain
2010-02-24, 02:36 PM
We have strikerA who deals x damage, and has y bonus damage, and hits 65% percent of the time.

StrikerB is an avenger who deals x damage, and has no bonus damage and hits 90% of the time
This fails to take into account that (1) rolling twice increases your to-hit chance by significantly less than 25%, (2) rangers have many attacks that roll twice and still give bonus damage, and (3) rogues have much better to-hit bonuses and can plausibly hit more often than avengers do.

The math pretty much disproves your point.

DSCrankshaw
2010-02-24, 02:45 PM
It used to be that Crit-fishing took a very specific build. The addition of Hand of Divine Vengeance helped a lot--all you need now is a high crit weapon with decent crit damage. On the damage front, Painful Oath was a significant boon, especially against enemies with necrotic or radiant vulnerability (and radiant vulnerability is fairly easy to cause). The removal of leather armor hurt a lot, as it limited their ability to go toe-to-toe with the enemy, but Unarmored Agility makes up for that.

So, ultimately, I wouldn't say avengers are in that bad of a shape. Yes, it seems that most of the fixes are in forms of feat taxes, but you can still build a fairly damaging avenger.

Yakk
2010-02-24, 03:13 PM
So, your position that in epic, a half-elf Avenger who grabs twin strike and uses it to crit-fish using hand of divine vengence is doing good damage, thus the Avenger class is fine?

...

The problem: half-elf avenger with at-will twin strike, some way to have a high attack ability with twin strike, daggermaster for a 18-20 crit range, produces lots of damage output.

(Half-Elf Avenger MC Rogue Str/Wis build does it).

Avengers benefit hugely from a broad crit range and from multiple attacks when crit-fishing. And it is through crit-fishing that the Avenger damage output can get crazy.

I want to weaken that kind of cheese (hence the "one attack per turn" restriction on the oath). I don't know what can be done about daggermaster... (really, the problem is that daggermaster is too good in general)

Hmm.

RebelRogue
2010-02-24, 03:37 PM
In general, Daggermaster seems like a PP that is way too advantageous to multiclass into. As far as I can see, requiring Rogue Weapon Talent (with a dagger specifically, as I think there's some substitution option in MP2) as an additional prereq would be an elegant fix for this.

Well, sort of. There's still some potential problems with halfelves, but it reduces the cheese.

Oracle_Hunter
2010-02-24, 03:41 PM
I want to weaken that kind of cheese (hence the "one attack per turn" restriction on the oath). I don't know what can be done about daggermaster... (really, the problem is that daggermaster is too good in general)
Bit off-topic - how exactly does the Daggermaster Cheese work?

Every single piece of the Daggermaster requires you to be using a dagger. 1d4 damage.

Am I missing something here?

Kurald Galain
2010-02-24, 03:43 PM
Bit off-topic - how exactly does the Daggermaster Cheese work?
Easily. Stack it with anything that gives you more attacks, deals more damage on a crit, or gives extra attacks on a crit. The latter works recursively, even.

Whether base damage is 1d4 or 1d10 quickly becomes irrelevant if you get to add a boatload of damage bonuses.

Blackfang108
2010-02-24, 03:48 PM
Easily. Stack it with anything that gives you more attacks, deals more damage on a crit, or gives extra attacks on a crit. The latter works recursively, even.

Whether base damage is 1d4 or 1d10 quickly becomes irrelevant if you get to add a boatload of damage bonuses.

For implement users, it's even better: I have a 24 Halfling Storm Sorceror Daggermaster who uses a Goblin Totem Dagger.
My crits are insane (I took Fury of the Storm. All of my Sorceror Crit Dice are maxed. At wills deal 100 damage on a crit. :smallbiggrin:

AtopTheMountain
2010-02-24, 07:04 PM
I like how the main criteria for saying whether the Avenger is good or bad is comparing it to extremely powerful classes, such as Ranger, Rogue, and Sorcerer.
I also like how the main way to make Avenger better is to take Ranger powers. Can't every melee class be improved this way, since Ranger is arguably the strongest melee class in 4E? So that doesn't really say anything -- it can't do rediculous amounts of damage like Rogue or Ranger, therefore the only reason you should play it is for fluff. :smallconfused: Sorry if I'm getting this wrong, but that's really what I'm getting out of this thread. Please correct me.

Sophismata
2010-02-24, 07:17 PM
No-one has compared the Avenger to the Sorcerer. The Avenger is bad, because its damage output is terrible as long as you actually play an Avenger. Its damage output is legendary as longs as you play anything else with the oath.

Something is wrong.

AtopTheMountain
2010-02-24, 07:25 PM
No-one has compared the Avenger to the Sorcerer.


For implement users, it's even better: I have a 24 Halfling Storm Sorceror Daggermaster who uses a Goblin Totem Dagger.
My crits are insane (I took Fury of the Storm. All of my Sorceror Crit Dice are maxed. At wills deal 100 damage on a crit.

Emphasis added.

DSCrankshaw
2010-02-24, 07:56 PM
So, your position that in epic, a half-elf Avenger who grabs twin strike and uses it to crit-fish using hand of divine vengence is doing good damage, thus the Avenger class is fine?

...

The problem: half-elf avenger with at-will twin strike, some way to have a high attack ability with twin strike, daggermaster for a 18-20 crit range, produces lots of damage output.

(Half-Elf Avenger MC Rogue Str/Wis build does it).

Avengers benefit hugely from a broad crit range and from multiple attacks when crit-fishing. And it is through crit-fishing that the Avenger damage output can get crazy.

I want to weaken that kind of cheese (hence the "one attack per turn" restriction on the oath). I don't know what can be done about daggermaster... (really, the problem is that daggermaster is too good in general)

Hmm.

That's odd--I don't remember mentioning half-elves. Or twin strike. I just pointed out that feat taxes had been added which made avengers more viable, so it didn't require quite so much effort to improve their damage. While, sure, you can get better crit-fishing if you choose the right multiclassing and paragon path etc, for more pedestrian levels of crit-fishing (20% chance--once or twice per encounter), it's no longer necessary to get just the right build and use just the right weapon and do the right sort of multiclassing.

Yakk
2010-02-24, 11:46 PM
So, an epic avenger with a 10% crit feat...

19% crit chance, 75% hit chance.

Each +1 crit damage is +.19 DPR.
Each +1 hit damage is +.75 DPR.

A simple, naive at-will (leading strike) becomes 2[W]+Stat+Stat/2+Enhance+MeleeMisc non-crit damage.

We'll use a 1d12 high crit weapon (say, a fullblade) with this, 9 wisdom and 8 int.

13+9+4+6+4(bracers)+3(focus) = 39, *.75 = 29.25 DPR.
Crit is 6d12+11(maxing the 2[W])+19.5 (high crit)=+69.5 crit damage, *.19 = +13.205 DPR

Giving an at-will DPR of 42.455 from a simple full blade using, 50% base hitting, weapon focused, bracer damage boosted, d12 crit dice fullblade avenger. Maybe toss another 6.75 DPR from that paragon tier feat for total of 49.205 DPR.

Now, a basic daggermaster rogue. 5d8 sneak attack, 18-20 crit chance, +1(weapon talent)+1(nimble blade)+2(combat advantage automatically). Uses a 1d12 crit weapon as well. Uses sly flourish, to keep it simple.

70% hit chance, 15% crit chance.

Bracers for +4 damage, weapon focus for +3, dex for +10, cha for +7, 5d8+2d4 sneak and weapon damage.

51.5 per hit, for 36.5 DPR
+98.5 damage on a crit (those backstab dice are nasty on a crit), *.15 = 14.774 DPR from crits

50.824 DPR using sly flourish.

That is close enough, I'll admit!

Sophismata
2010-02-25, 12:24 AM
Emphasis added.

He's not comparing the Avenger to the Sorcerer - he's outlining the fact that small weapon damage doesn't mean jack to many characters.

Break
2010-02-25, 04:44 AM
I like how the main criteria for saying whether the Avenger is good or bad is comparing it to extremely powerful classes, such as Ranger, Rogue, and Sorcerer.

Ranger is one I'll give you, but, uh, rogue and sorceror being extremely powerful? Nooooo.

Those two are considered to be baselines strikers - the fact that the avenger's abilities are well below that baseline means it's a bad class. We're also not arguing this based on a pure power standpoint. The avenger's abilities (namely the censures and powers) - and even some of their paragon paths - are simply poorly designed.


I also like how the main way to make Avenger better is to take Ranger powers. Can't every melee class be improved this way, since Ranger is arguably the strongest melee class in 4E?

No, because not every class can easily get something out of dual-wielding, nor do they necessarily need in order to keep up like the Avenger does. There's a steep feat cost for grabbing those powers, too - most classes are simply better off augmenting their own abilities instead of stealing lots of tricks from the ranger.


So that doesn't really say anything -- it can't do rediculous amounts of damage like Rogue or Ranger, therefore the only reason you should play it is for fluff. :smallconfused: Sorry if I'm getting this wrong, but that's really what I'm getting out of this thread. Please correct me.

It does say something, considering your assumptions about the rogue and sorceror are incorrect. Hell, even extend the comparison to the other strikers, and you'll find that pretty much all of them (with the possible exception of the warlock, but even they have a few fancy pure damage tricks) outdamage the avenger - and even then the Warlock has a lot of control abilities to fall back on to bring it back up to par. The avenger's higher defenses don't do the same for them.

Blackfang108
2010-02-25, 09:41 AM
Emphasis added.

I wasn't comparing the Avenger to the Sorceror.

I was commenting on the Daggermaster PP being taken by non-rogue classes. Specifically Implement users, in this case.