|[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets

On Mar 2, 3:26 am, tussock <sc....TakeThisOut@clear.net.nz> wrote:
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >>> > Divine Challenge tags one enemy, and if they make an attack that
> >>> > doesn't target you, they take a -2 penalty and 8 damage. Doesn't
> >>> > require intelligence or language.
> > I'll translate for you, Mark.
>
>     Look here now, enough of that. Naughty seats all 'round if we don't
> settle down, OK?
>
>     Anyhoo, Divine Challenge just sits a little mini-me on the other
> guy's shoulder that hits him in the ear if he attacks anyone but you.
> Makes total sense. Distraction and damage for ignoble opponents.
>     Right in the ear, metaphorically speaking.
>
> --
>     tussock
>
> I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.

I sense Crusader influence. Crusaders can take maneuvers/stances that
punish opponents for not attacking them such as -4 to hit or suffer an
AoO.

Gerald Katz
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
>
> Hong is right that Holger or Lancelot could simply be modeled as
> fighters with a paladin's code of honour, but I think there's still room
> for a magical, divine paladin who magic and connection to the divine is
> more subtle than burning enemies with holy light (at least at 1st
> level). The 3E paladin's core abilities like divine grace or smite evil
> are right about where I want them to be.
>
>

The OTHER problem is to keep the paladin from looking too much like a
cleric. Smite evil was cool, and they're keeping that. Otherwise,
though, 3E paladins never seemed that different to fighter/clerics to
me, mechanically speaking.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Hong Ooi wrote:
>> Hong is right that Holger or Lancelot could simply be modeled as
>> fighters with a paladin's code of honour, but I think there's still
>> room for a magical, divine paladin who magic and connection to the
>> divine is more subtle than burning enemies with holy light (at least
>> at 1st level). The 3E paladin's core abilities like divine grace or
>> smite evil are right about where I want them to be.
>
> The OTHER problem is to keep the paladin from looking too much like a
> cleric. Smite evil was cool, and they're keeping that.

Only now it seems it's "smite enemy", which doesn't seem as cool. I
appreciate the need to relax the restriction what with the reduced
importance of alignment, and I'd have no problem with something along
the lines of "smite enemy of my god", but it seems it's just "smite
opposition".

Being able to deal better-than-normal damage against... whomever you're
fighting seems hardly different that simply having higher normal damage.

> Otherwise,
> though, 3E paladins never seemed that different to fighter/clerics to
> me, mechanically speaking.

Between being only decent in a fight, but totally badass against a
couple of selected villains, and being the totally badass at mounted
combat, they seemed to have something of a niche to me.

Now they seem like either a fighter with different SFX (magic instead of
skill at arms) or a cleric with a different role (uses magic to protect,
rather than boost), depending on how you look at it.

I might warm up to it eventually, but I preferred the 3E way.


--
Jasin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Mark wrote:
>>>> Eladrin can teleport up to 5 squares as a move action as an encounter
>>>> power. That means that either there's going to be an absurdly
>>>> artificial distinction so that fighting an orc is an encounter but
>>>> standing in front of a door wondering how to get in isn't, or a
>>>> eladrin don't have to worry about any obstacles less than 30 ft.
>>>> thick/tall/wide. (Or perhaps teleport is line of sight/line of effect
>>>> only?) And even if the purely game part works, I complained about
>>>> 1st-level swordsages lighting their swords on fire as too magical. Now
>>>> 1st-level eladrin teleporting?
>>> What was 3rd level is now 1st level, apparently.
>> Teleporting isn't exactly 3rd-level either.
>
> In 3.5, Benign Transposition is 1st level, Baleful Transposition and
> Knight's Move are 2nd/3rd and all have the teleportation subtype.

I'm not thrilled about those either.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Mere moments before death, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic.RemoveThis@inet.hr> hastily
scrawled:

>Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
>>>>>> What was 3rd level is now 1st level, apparently.
>>>>> Teleporting isn't exactly 3rd-level either.
>>>> 30'? Probably LoS only? Meh.
>>> "Meh" as in "it still isn't 3rd-level" or "it's a wimpy power,
>>> appropriate for 3rd level"?
>>>
>>> They might try to make it appropriate game-wise with various
>>> limitations, and I trust they'll succeed, but it still feels like a
>>> high-level power conceptually.
>>
>> If you say so. I don't see it. As it is, in 3.x a 9th level Wizard
>> can take himself and other creatures/objects up to 100 miles. How
>> much better is that than 30 feet, and just yourself (and probably LoS
>> only)?
>
>Much, much better. And that is almost irrelevant to what I'm saying.
>
>Imagine a spell that summons a planetar. The mere sight of such majesty
>is such a shock that it deals 1 hit point of damage to everyone within
>30 ft. It's a fear effect, and Will negates. The planetar disappears
>immediately afterwards.
>
>I don't think this is more powerful than magic missile or mage armour or
>sleep. I still think it's a completely inappropriate 1st-level spell.
>
>I don't think teleportation at 1st level is *as* inappropriate, but I
>think it's inappropriate in the same manner.

You're obviously using some strange definition of "appropriate" that
most other English language users don't seem to use.




--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Mere moments before death, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic.RemoveThis@inet.hr> hastily
scrawled:

>
>I'm not thrilled about those either.

So far, all you've been able to say is "Me no like." Why do you
bother repeating yourself? Why not expound upon your point and let
the rest of the world in on what you're thinking. Because I sure as
hell can't figure out what your "problem" with this ability is.



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Mere moments before death, Jasin Zujovic <jzujovic.TakeThisOut@inet.hr> hastily
scrawled:

>Hong Ooi wrote:
>>> Hong is right that Holger or Lancelot could simply be modeled as
>>> fighters with a paladin's code of honour, but I think there's still
>>> room for a magical, divine paladin who magic and connection to the
>>> divine is more subtle than burning enemies with holy light (at least
>>> at 1st level). The 3E paladin's core abilities like divine grace or
>>> smite evil are right about where I want them to be.
>>
>> The OTHER problem is to keep the paladin from looking too much like a
>> cleric. Smite evil was cool, and they're keeping that.
>
>Only now it seems it's "smite enemy", which doesn't seem as cool. I
>appreciate the need to relax the restriction what with the reduced
>importance of alignment, and I'd have no problem with something along
>the lines of "smite enemy of my god", but it seems it's just "smite
>opposition".

And what's wrong with that anyway? Your god gave you the power to
smite others, it's up to you to decide how to use this power
appropriately. If you're good, there's a good chance that you're not
going to willy-nilly smite everything that bothers you. And if you
do, then you're not good. If you're evil, well then, anything goes.

>Being able to deal better-than-normal damage against... whomever you're
>fighting seems hardly different that simply having higher normal damage.

It really isn't. So what?



--
DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
modifier G @ 11.

"I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
--Terry Austin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Malachias Invictus wrote:

<snip>
>>> > Divine Challenge tags one enemy, and if they make an attack that
>>> > doesn't target you, they take a -2 penalty and 8 damage. Doesn't
>>> > require intelligence or language.


> I'll translate for you, Mark.

Look here now, enough of that. Naughty seats all 'round if we don't
settle down, OK?

Anyhoo, Divine Challenge just sits a little mini-me on the other
guy's shoulder that hits him in the ear if he attacks anyone but you.
Makes total sense. Distraction and damage for ignoble opponents.
Right in the ear, metaphorically speaking.

--
tussock

I'm like a box of chocolates; you never know what you're gunna get.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

tussock wrote:
> Anyhoo, Divine Challenge just sits a little mini-me on the other
> guy's shoulder that hits him in the ear if he attacks anyone but you.
> Makes total sense. Distraction and damage for ignoble opponents.
> Right in the ear, metaphorically speaking.

It'd bother me a lot less if it were limited to "ignoble" opponents, but
it specifically works regardless of the target's language or
intelligence. Animated statues that attack the closest creature rather
than the paladin suffer the gods' wrath just as much as the dark knight
who refuses a challenge to honourable combat.


--
Jasin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

"tussock" <scrub.DeleteThis@clear.net.nz> wrote in message
news:47ca64b6$1@clear.net.nz...
> Malachias Invictus wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>>> > Divine Challenge tags one enemy, and if they make an attack that
>>>> > doesn't target you, they take a -2 penalty and 8 damage. Doesn't
>>>> > require intelligence or language.
>
>
>> I'll translate for you, Mark.
>
> Look here now, enough of that. Naughty seats all 'round if we don't
> settle down, OK?

Don't make me call MSB.

Sorry, but the ridiculous histrionics are getting out of hand.

> Anyhoo, Divine Challenge just sits a little mini-me on the other
> guy's shoulder that hits him in the ear if he attacks anyone but you.
> Makes total sense. Distraction and damage for ignoble opponents.
> Right in the ear, metaphorically speaking.

....or something.

--
^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishment the scroll,
I am the Master of my fate:
I am the Captain of my soul.

from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Jasin Zujovic wrote:
> Hong Ooi wrote:
>>> Hong is right that Holger or Lancelot could simply be modeled as
>>> fighters with a paladin's code of honour, but I think there's still
>>> room for a magical, divine paladin who magic and connection to the
>>> divine is more subtle than burning enemies with holy light (at least
>>> at 1st level). The 3E paladin's core abilities like divine grace or
>>> smite evil are right about where I want them to be.
>>
>> The OTHER problem is to keep the paladin from looking too much like a
>> cleric. Smite evil was cool, and they're keeping that.
>
> Only now it seems it's "smite enemy", which doesn't seem as cool. I
> appreciate the need to relax the restriction what with the reduced
> importance of alignment, and I'd have no problem with something along
> the lines of "smite enemy of my god", but it seems it's just "smite
> opposition".
>
> Being able to deal better-than-normal damage against... whomever you're
> fighting seems hardly different that simply having higher normal damage.

I think of the new smite as being the daily power "On Pain of Death",
rather than the at-will powers. The Divine Challenge has holes in its
implementation, but there's rumblings from the designers that not all
has been revealed.

Also, I'm happy that they've done away with the code of honour and
behavioural restrictions. Really, they never did anything but start
alignment wars and promote the image of paladins as having a stick up
their ass. If a side-effect of that is allowing paladins to smite
anyone, I don't really mind.

>
>> Otherwise, though, 3E paladins never seemed that different to
>> fighter/clerics to me, mechanically speaking.
>
> Between being only decent in a fight, but totally badass against a
> couple of selected villains, and being the totally badass at mounted
> combat, they seemed to have something of a niche to me.

Being totally badass against evil guys usually translates to being
totally badass against most villains, IME. Or do you mean the limit on
smites per day?

Also, I always thought the mounted combat schtick was far too narrow to
support a core class, especially for a game that involves going
underground as much as D&D does. When I was DMing Gordon's knight (best
"paladin" I've ever seen), he ended up leaving his celestial warhorse
behind because dragging it into dungeons was too cheesy (his opinion,
not mine). Since this is an aesthetic issue and not a mechanical one,
the 3.5 solution -- the pokemount -- didn't really work for us.

>
> Now they seem like either a fighter with different SFX (magic instead of
> skill at arms) or a cleric with a different role (uses magic to protect,
> rather than boost), depending on how you look at it.
>
> I might warm up to it eventually, but I preferred the 3E way.

Well, you said it yourself: a paladin is distinct from a fighter by dint
of SFX; and from a cleric by dint of role. Mechanically speaking, the
design of the class doesn't seem too bad.

I would agree that if your concept of paladin was primarily "knight in
shining armour", then it doesn't really capture that at all. However, I
would say that if you wanted to play such a character, a fighter would
done just as well, both in 3E and 4E. Warlord might also do the trick,
in 4E.
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Hong Ooi wrote:
>>>> Hong is right that Holger or Lancelot could simply be modeled as
>>>> fighters with a paladin's code of honour, but I think there's still
>>>> room for a magical, divine paladin who magic and connection to the
>>>> divine is more subtle than burning enemies with holy light (at least
>>>> at 1st level). The 3E paladin's core abilities like divine grace or
>>>> smite evil are right about where I want them to be.
>>>
>>> The OTHER problem is to keep the paladin from looking too much like a
>>> cleric. Smite evil was cool, and they're keeping that.
>>
>> Only now it seems it's "smite enemy", which doesn't seem as cool. I
>> appreciate the need to relax the restriction what with the reduced
>> importance of alignment, and I'd have no problem with something along
>> the lines of "smite enemy of my god", but it seems it's just "smite
>> opposition".
>>
>> Being able to deal better-than-normal damage against... whomever
>> you're fighting seems hardly different that simply having higher
>> normal damage.
>
> I think of the new smite as being the daily power "On Pain of Death",
> rather than the at-will powers.

I was actually thinking about the smite powers.

On Pain of Death I like. It reminds me of mark of justice which is an
example of paladin magic I think is appropriate.

Then again, when I think about it, it also reminds me Divine Challenge:
you tag someone and they get burnt if they attack. I'm not really sure
why I have problems with Divine Challenge, but not On Pain of Death.

> The Divine Challenge has holes in its
> implementation, but there's rumblings from the designers that not all
> has been revealed.

In general, or about Divine Challenge in particular?

> Also, I'm happy that they've done away with the code of honour and
> behavioural restrictions. Really, they never did anything but start
> alignment wars and promote the image of paladins as having a stick up
> their ass. If a side-effect of that is allowing paladins to smite
> anyone, I don't really mind.

I suppose that if it's trying to kill a champion of the faith and his
friend, it's enough of an enemy to the faith to be deserving of a smite.
I just don't want to get to the point where all that differentiates the
paladin's smite from the fighter's mighty blow from the wizard's arcane
strike is an italic line above "this power deals 3d8+3 damage".

>>> Otherwise, though, 3E paladins never seemed that different to
>>> fighter/clerics to me, mechanically speaking.
>>
>> Between being only decent in a fight, but totally badass against a
>> couple of selected villains, and being the totally badass at mounted
>> combat, they seemed to have something of a niche to me.
>
> Being totally badass against evil guys usually translates to being
> totally badass against most villains, IME. Or do you mean the limit on
> smites per day?

Both. Limited smites means you need to pick a couple of villains you'll
really unload on (and they need to be evil, so on the off chance that
the big fight happens to be with some innocent big dumb brute this time,
that's not the fight in which you shine).

> Also, I always thought the mounted combat schtick was far too narrow to
> support a core class, especially for a game that involves going
> underground as much as D&D does. When I was DMing Gordon's knight (best
> "paladin" I've ever seen), he ended up leaving his celestial warhorse
> behind because dragging it into dungeons was too cheesy (his opinion,
> not mine). Since this is an aesthetic issue and not a mechanical one,
> the 3.5 solution -- the pokemount -- didn't really work for us.

The pokemount has been one of the most annoying features of 3.5 until I
managed to handwave it in a way I'm happy with: the mount doesn't
actually <poof!> magically appear, it just manages to find it's way to
where you are (however unlikely). If you're in a dungeon, when you
whistle, it comes galloping down the hallway behind you. If you're in
the city, it appears out of a side street. Kind of like Shadowfax is
always around when Gandalf needs him.

Obviously, there are cases where this is patently silly (what if you're
on a ship? or in a sealed adamantium cube?) but I prefer not to think
too hard about those until I absolutely need to.

Eventually, I hope to find a similar way to deal with the 4E abilities
that annoy me.

>> Now they seem like either a fighter with different SFX (magic instead
>> of skill at arms) or a cleric with a different role (uses magic to
>> protect, rather than boost), depending on how you look at it.
>>
>> I might warm up to it eventually, but I preferred the 3E way.
>
> Well, you said it yourself: a paladin is distinct from a fighter by dint
> of SFX; and from a cleric by dint of role. Mechanically speaking, the
> design of the class doesn't seem too bad.
>
> I would agree that if your concept of paladin was primarily "knight in
> shining armour",

It was.

> then it doesn't really capture that at all. However, I
> would say that if you wanted to play such a character, a fighter would
> done just as well, both in 3E and 4E.

But what is concept the intended concept of the paladin, described in
terms other than 4E's own role/power source paradigm?

> Warlord might also do the trick, in 4E.

It might, yes.


--
Jasin
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets 

Hong Ooi wrote:
> A problem with the paladin class has always been that the characters
> it's ostensibly based on -- Lancelot, Holger Carlsen et al -- are
> basically fighters, mechanically speaking. They fight for truth, justice
> and the Lawful Good way, but they do exactly the same thing as every
> other guy with a sword. Thus, differentiating the class from the fighter
> is something that most D&D editions have had to deal with.
>
> It looks like 4E is going down the "this guy is clearly supported by
> divine powers" route. Supported by that is how you'll be able to play
> evil paladins, so the class really is a divine champion as opposed to an
> honourable, devout warrior. But I think the zeitgeist has been firmly
> behind this definition for some time.

Paladins *should* be supported by power. But who does it have to be
blatantly obvious to everyone present?

Lots of 3.0/3.5 Paladin abilities were nice and subtle, while still
being *hugely* game-useful.

--
Peter Knutsen
sagatafl.org
 >> Stay informed about: |[4E] A Better Look At The Character Sheets