[4e] Avengers

[Gralamin]

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.

[Asbestos]

Are non-critfisher/non-notvengers really so terrible to play? Is the disparity between a regular avenger and another striker really so great?

[Gralamin]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

[...] 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]

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.

[Swordgleam]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

You can teleport targets up in the air? Tought they had to have a stable surface? think I read that somewhere.....

[DragonBaneDM]

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]

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]

Heh, actually he prefers doing it diagonally.

[Jerthanis]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?