(4e) Paladin vs Avenger

[Zonack]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I appreciate your answers and help :D

[Sir_Elderberry]

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

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

[falconflicker]

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

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

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

[Xallace]

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

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

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

[Mystic Muse]

my friend describes them as "the priests and the terrorists."

[Draz74]

I always thought of the avengers as being the witch-hunters and inquisitors,

I thought that was the Invokers?

[Thajocoth]

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

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

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

[herrhauptmann]

Don't forget that avengers get bonuses to attack and damage on their target if the targets friends target the avenger.

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

What would the clash be between this 2?

I don't think there is one. The avenger and paladin use different mechanics to represent the same thing. There needn't be any conflict (unless the players want it there) just like a fighter and a ranger don't have to "clash".

[KillianHawkeye]

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

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

[Mercenary Pen]

The way I see tactics of the divine classes here is as follows:

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

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

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

[CarpeGuitarrem]

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

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

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

[Sipex]

Every time I read one of the posts here I keep thinking "I thought there were 4 divine classes, why is everyone leaving out the last class?"

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

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

[CarpeGuitarrem]

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

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

[Sipex]

What would you say is more useful?

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

[Kurald Galain]

What would you say is more useful?

+2 ac or +1 to hit?

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

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

[Sipex]

Hrm, maybe I should look at something else then?

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

[Kurald Galain]

I wasn't all too fond of cure minor wounds

Nor am I, but your party members will love you for using Divine Aid every encounter.

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

[Yakk]

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

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

[Kurald Galain]

But the number of hits that came through as a "miss" because of that +2 AC buff was rather impressive (and the fights where close).

I'm sure that'll happen on occasion, but overall it's very unlikely. Of course, you'll always hear of the one time that the power was very effective, and people will forget about the much more common times when the power really didn't do anything.

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

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

[Joran]

Avenger is in Player's Handbook 2.

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

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

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

[LurkerInPlayground]

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

Then comes another champions of a god.

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

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

Not a direction that I'm thrilled with.

[Kurald Galain]

Which is one of the things I don't like about new classes. Because, apparently, we need a Wizard and a Sorcerer. We also need an Avenger and a Paladin.

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

[LurkerInPlayground]

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

I've edited my response.

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

The same goes for Wizard and Sorcerer.

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

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

[Thajocoth]

I've edited my response.

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

The same goes for Wizard and Sorcerer.

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

[Yakk]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

Paladins, meanwhile, are holy protectors.

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

[LurkerInPlayground]

Except that Strikers already sort of exist.

[LurkerInPlayground]

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

Paladins, meanwhile, are holy protectors.

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

And what exactly is an Assassin?

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

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

I find the whole idea pretty stupid.

[Thajocoth]

Except that Strikers already sort of exist.

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

[Boci]

And what exactly is an Assassin?

Accoirding to dictionary.com

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

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

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

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

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

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