Paladin: In Defense of the Archetype

Last week we examined classes in 4th Edition that seem to have drawn the short stick. The last unfinished thread of that post was what to do with the Paladin. With two primary ability scores to choose between, and compromise leading to decreased effectiveness is several areas, the class felt like it needed some attention. With the options presented in Divine Power, I felt that both a Strength-based Paladin and a Charisma-based Paladin had been given sufficient power options to be fully viable. Ultimately, however, this comforted me only a little. While melee Rangers stiffing their Dexterity in favor of Strength and Wisdom struck me as a bit uncomfortable, it wasn't completely unheard of in previous editions. Yet, as I pondered the Charismatic Paladin with access to the Melee Training: Charisma feat using Strength as a "dump stat," I felt my ire rising.

I should probably admit that I've always been a bit of a sucker for Paladins. All the way back in AD&D (1st Edition), I remember sitting around rolling set after set of ability scores (3d6, assigned in order) until I managed to meet the 17 Charisma requirement so I could play a Paladin. In retrospect, my DM being "kind" enough to allow me to roll so many attribute sets was probably merely a sadistic amusement in watching the young player scrapping set after set of decent ability scores in pursuit of the most arbitrary of classes in the game. (For those who don't remember, if your DM determined that an action you took was chaotic, or evil, you lost all your paladin powers and had to find a higher level cleric of at least 7th level, confess the sins, then fulfill any penance assigned by said cleric.) Let's just say that Galin the Paladin had a brutally short, highly unsatisfying career....

And while reminiscing about those days has reminded me that since the earliest days of D&D, the paladin has valued Charisma highest, I still struggle with the notion of a valiant, charismatic warrior, clad in full plate, sword, and shield, who cannot carry s pound more, because Strength just wasn't important. So for six days I've been struggling with an alternative. Trying as I might, I just wasn't comfortable with an alternative similar to those I applied to the Warlock and Cleric (see last week's post). But what I have finally come up with may be too radical, too complicated, and ultimately too ridiculous. I suppose only play-testing and time will tell.

Here's the proposal: For Paladin attack powers, use the higher bonus between Strength and Charisma. And, if the lower ability is no more than three points lower than the higher ability, add 1 to the ability modifier. For demonstration purposes, let's say Bob the Human Paladin has chosen the array which starts him with two abilities at 16 before racial modifiers. He puts one in Strength and one in Charisma. He then applies his human ability modifier to Charisma. Now Bob has a Strength of 16 and a Charisma of 18. His modifiers are +3 and +4 respectively. So Bob would use a +4 ability modifier on his powers, instead of using +3 for Strength-related powers, and +4 for Charisma related powers. But, because Bob's Strength and Charisma are within 3 points (18-16=2) he can add 1 to that, giving him a +5 modifier. This makes Bob's ability modifier for attacks retain parity with Robbie the Rogue's, since Robbie was able to simply put an 18 in Dexterity and bump it to 20 with racial modifiers. It also retains the flavor of paladins from previous editions, where higher ability scores across several attributes were not just a good idea, but actually vital.

So perhaps not the cleanest, or even the most balanced solution, since, it starts to break down the sanctity of the ability score array system (which I'm actually a fan of, having always been one of the worst ability score rollers of all time...). In fact, when I get the chance to play-test this, I might find that it is completely unworkable and makes the Paladin completely unbalanced. And I can certainly see why such a solution was not implemented by Wizards from the start (people were rioting enough about all the changes in the new edition. This sort of thing might have caused heads to explode). But I think this just might work, and it will keep Paladins as the archetype of the strong, charismatic warrior, and out of the dichotomous position of either muscle-head or fast-talking wimp.

Two Ability Scores Better Than One?

*WARNING* This post is way too dang long!

We are closing in on 20 months from the release of 4th Edition. It's been almost two years, many source books and additions to the rules. Today, we're going to talk about a design concept that popped up in the very first book, the Player's Handbook, and which subsequently disappeared, never to return again. That design concept is something I'm going to dub the "dual-stat class." Specifically, Clerics, Paladins, Rangers, and Warlocks were given two ability scores to choose between as "primary" abilities. A player creating a character with one of these classes could select one of these ability scores to make as high as possible, reaping high attack bonuses, high damage modifiers, and at least one fairly high defense, but at the cost of being unlikely to choose some of their classes powers due to the low score in the other "primary" ability score for the class. Alternatively, a player creating one of these characters could try to split their character's focus, often making each of the primary ability scores slightly lower but allowing them to choose from all possible powers, but typically suffering in the "secondary" ability score which would often determine the effectiveness of secondary effects of powers selected. Paladins and Star Pact Warlocks were least fortunate in this regard, because prior to the release of their respective Power books, these classes (or builds, respectively) were nearly forced to split their focus, or risk choosing powers that did not fit their concept of character.

To be sure, Arcane Power, Divine Power, and Martial Power mitigated some of these problems by adding more powers from which to choose. However, they were undermined by releases of new classes in the Forgotten Realms Player's Guide, Eberron Player's Guide, and Player's Handbook 2. No other release contains a single class that has divided ability score loyalties as these four original classes did. So why did the design team go this route with these four classes?

1. Perhaps the idea was to allow these classes to have two markedly different play styles and feels. The cleric could either be a ranged character focused on powerful heals and low-damage ranged attacks and debuffs, or a melee combatant with slightly lower-powered heals, but with the added benefits of a melee combatant (higher hit chance with proficiency bonuses from weapons, higher damage depending upon weapon selection, ability to provide and benefit from flanking).
2. Perhaps the point was to make these classes play to strengths, so as to keep their power level in balance with other classes. A Ranger who could deal substantial damage with a bow and quickly change to melee with no decrease in damage potential would be a much bigger threat on the field than a Rogue who relies heavily on combat advantage to deal substantial damage, and who can rarely gain that damage with ranged attacks.
3. Perhaps it was motivated by the original intent of limiting melee effectiveness to melee classes. Fighters, Warlords, Strength-based Rangers, and Strength-based Clerics were originally the only characters who had decent chances to hit with an opportunity attack or basic melee attack granted by another class' powers or abilities.

While I can articulate these ideas, I have a hard time feeling that any of these arguments hold a lot of water. Ultimately, this smacks of a bit of an oversight, or a drastic change in design philosophy after the release of the Player's Handbook. For ease of discussion, I'll number my refutations parallel to the arguments above.

1. Wizards who focus on illusion over evocation-style attacks (to borrow some 3.5 Edition terminology) don't have to choose between maximizing Intelligence or Charisma. They max Intelligence and are done with it, and can choose nearly any powers available for their class. In short, even in the original book, there were other classes with significant flavor variations that were either reliant on the choice of "secondary ability score" or simply by the powers chosen.
2. Sure a Ranger being able to swap between melee and ranged would be rather potent in terms of sustained damage output. But a Rogue can now take the Distant Advantagefeat from Player's Handbook 2, and instead of being limited to attacking the nearest target to them which they have designated their quarry (Ranger's striker damage class feature) they can deal their hefty damage at range with the only restriction being who is granting combat advantage that round. Sure that limitation exists, but it will fluctuate so much round to round that it is unlikely that there will be no eligible targets in a given round, and the rogue can always close to melee if necessary (since their attack powers use Dexterity regardless of melee or ranged, and at the very least, their at-will powers that can be used at range are generally also usable with melee weapons). And no one would argue that warlocks are "totally over-powered!" In short, this argument seems to fall apart when parallels start being drawn under the current rules available for the game.
3. The reason this argument makes no sense anymore is the introduction of the Melee Training feat in Player's Handbook 2 which allows a character, at the cost of a feat to swap his best ability score for strength when determining the attack and damage bonus for basic melee attacks, including those granted during an opportunity attack. Granted, the Strength-based classes can skip this feat, and get something else to increase their melee effectiveness in other ways. But ultimately, the introduction of this feat ends up feeling like an admission of guilt: "Whoops, we wanted to introduce some strikers who didn't use Strength as a primary ability score and still want them to be able to make opportunity attacks or benefit from their Warlord companion granting them a basic melee attack!"

I've been wrestling with a possible solution to this issue, in the form of a house rule for my own games, to address this disparity as I see it. Unfortunately, it isn't as simple as just picking one of the two ability scores and just substituting it for the attack powers that don't use it. Actually, I think that would work fine for the Cleric and Warlock. I'll probably let clerics who want to play a melee character in future games use Wisdom instead of Strength for their attack powers. It'll still cost them a feat for the Melee Training, so I figure it's not free upgrades. For warlocks, I've never been totally keen on the "Constitution as a primary ability score" idea anyway, so I'll likely make all their powers use Charisma. Infernal Pact warlocks will still want a high Constitution since some of their utility powers still would rely upon it. And Star Pact Warlocks won't be as disadvantaged as they were.

For Paladins and Rangers, the fix isn't as simple. Making Paladin's Strength-based would make them feel too much like the fighter in a lot of ways. However, making them Charisma-based would make starting with plate armor proficiency a much greater boon. It would also mean the end of strong, sword and shield paladins, shattering the existing archetype. I've always been partial to the Paladin, and I don't want to damage the prevalent conception that badly.

For Rangers, they have many powers that work for either melee or ranged weapons, and use the appropriate ability score for that build. They have the power choices to support both builds, and while the Archer Ranger is at a disadvantage in melee, a Melee Ranger can still use heavy thrown weapons to achieve a ranged capability. I feel that an Archer Ranger taking Melee Training: Dexterity almost resolves this class' issues. I will probably leave Rangers alone, and might even hold them up as an example of what a "dual-stat class" should be.

Having finally started to experience Paragon Tier, attack bonuses being as high as possible seems even more important than ever. Any design element that punishes a player for building a character that fits their concept just doesn't work for me. If you want to make a Star Pact Warlock, I don't want you to spend more time doing nothing in combat but cursing targets because you can't hit the monsters I'm using because everyone else hits them easily. If you want to play a melee cleric, but don't want to lose your healing potential, I'm okay with that too. Ultimately, I'd rather my players were *slightly* over-effective, rather than frustrated to tears because being the best healer they can be means that when they are out of healing word and healing utility powers, they might as well go watch TV.

So, final review: I feel like Clerics and Warlocks got hosed. I'm going to fix them with the house rules above. Rangers, while in the same category, seem to have gotten decent treatment and will be left alone. And I'm still not sure what to do with Paladins. If anyone has an idea, let me know, I'd love to play-test it and see if we can present a workable solution.

Excuses

So Wednesday has come and mostly gone, and as I whisk myself off to the "day-job" I feel I should make a few excuses. I could say that the changes I am contemplating are so big, so earthshaking, so complicated that I just need more time to play-test and hone these house rules. I could say that, as with the Ranger tweak, I had bitten off more than I could chew. But the truth is that between those factors and Thanksgiving, I just didn't take the time.

Sorry ya'll, but next week: multi-ability classes shall have their day!

Martial Controller Duex

After posting my pronouncement last week, that I would be working up a controller build for the Ranger class, I went and looked over the class and immediately realized I had made a huge mistake. Unlike the Rogue, the Ranger has very few powers that impose conditions or force movement. Most of the Ranger's powers are simply more damage. So while I can't simply trade out the striker damage dice, I set about trying to figure a way to put my money where my mouth is. I think I've got it, finally, so let me know what you think!

New Class Feature

When you make your ranger, and you choose the Archer Fighting Style, you may choose this power instead of Hunter's Quarry.

Scattershot Ranger Feature

You have sacrificed the lethal focus of your ranger brethren in order to unleash a hail of arrows with every draw of your bow.

At-Will * Martial

Free Action

Effect: When you use a ranged martial attack power, you reduce the damage die of your weapon by one size (e.g. d10 becomes d8) and the attack becomes area burst 1. Any conditions or forced movement caused by the power are applied to all targets hit by the power.

Scattershot Ranger

You are a master of the multi-shot, the archer of many arrows. You scorn the idea of focusing upon one foe to the exclusion of all others, and instead direct your skills toward the thinning of herds, and controlling your enemies. Your allies know that when your bow is in hand, no swarm of savage fiends is too large, no host too great. The hum of your bowstring sings a song of evened odds and approaching victory.

Take Dexterity as your highest ability score since it dictates attack and damage for your ranged attacks. Make Wisdom your second highest since many of the extra effects of your powers will rely upon it. Strength can be tertiary in case you are forced into melee combat. Make sure you use a ranged weapon since Scattershot requires it, and focus on ranger attack powers that have the ranged weapon requirement. Whenever possible, choose powers that also impose a condition or forced movement, since your damage is lower than a normal ranger.

Suggested Feat: Far Shot (Human: Improved Initiative)

Suggested Skills: Acrobatics, Dungeoneering, Nature, Perception, Stealth

Suggested At-Will Powers: Careful Attack, Nimble Strike

Suggested Encounter Power: Evasive Strike

Suggested Daily Power: Hunter's Bear Trap

So there it is. Not thrilled with it, but I think it's workable, otherwise I wouldn't put it out there. Pouring over the Ranger powers reminded me of another pet peeve of mine. There are only four classes so far that have to choose between two primary abilities for their character and that choice will dictate power choices for the rest of the game. Most classes have a uniform primary ability, such as Wisdom for Avengers and Invokers, or Intelligence for Wizards. Ranger, Warlock, Cleric, and Paladin were split between two abilities. I'm not sure why this is, and I think next week, I'm going to spend a little time dissecting that design choice to see if I can find a reason for it, and if not, see if there is a reason the obvious fix is a bad idea. Tune in next week, same Bat time, same Bat channel!

Class Bloat, Past and Present

I was hitching a ride to a game this evening with a friend. Love my new house, hate how far away from everything I find myself. Oh well. Anyhow, we were discussing 4th Edition, our various grievances with the system, what we liked, etc. I was groaning about the pending release of Martial Power 2 in February of 2010. This led to the topic of the missing "Martial Controller" (All other Power Sources have one of each party role, only Martial has two strikers and no controller). The missing controller led to a more general discussion about class bloating. In D&D 3.5, after several years of source books, the base classes were getting unwieldy. Granted, there were still relatively few base classes, but with prestige classes, and relatively lax multi-classing, things were starting to get a bit out of control in terms of the number of classes. My friend was looking forward to the simplification of the system the new edition (4th Edition) would bring by paring down the number of classes. Now, he admitted, it was starting to feel like the old days. Invokers, Avengers, Wardens, and so on meant that while each Power Source had their requisite class fitting that certain role, you also had to have myriad source books and a solid grasp on the pros and cons of each class relative to its counterparts under other Power Sources.

On the whole, I like the flavor that each Power Source gives. I like being able to play a Shaman instead of a Cleric and have that decision mean something in how my character relates to the world. However, I understand my friend's point, and I certainly agree that the number of classes is getting somewhat extensive, perhaps even burdensome.

Fortunately, my friend did not simply complain about the state of the game, he made a suggestion. One that I thought held a lot of merit. So, with his permission (kind of) I am going to steal his idea and run with it. Instead of introducing more classes, create builds and selectable class features that alter a core class to fill a different party role. Clerics could sacrifice some healing in favor of damaging capabilities and suddenly you have a divine striker without having to bring in the Avenger. As an experiment in this vein, I've created rules for a "Martial Controller" build that doesn't add a class to the game, but instead uses on that is already there: the rogue. Here it is:

Mischief-maker Rogue

Any fool with a dagger can kill a man. It takes a true professional to sow discord amongst the ranks of his enemies. The talented don't need to kill with blades; they kill with misdirection, guile, and trickery. You have perfected the art of mischief-making, and through the mayhem you create, you bring your foes to their knees, where your allies can more easily dispatch them. You may not deliver the deep, life-ending blows so often associated with adventurers of your ilk, but your allies know your worth, and are just as happy to have you along. Your attacks use Dexterity, so make that should be your highest ability score. Charisma should be second highest because you still rely on combat advantage and using your force of personality to misdirect your foes' attentions. Strength falls third, because you rarely use brute force in a situation where speed and guile would suffice, but may find yourself in a corner and needing to fight "fair" for once.

Class Feature: Mischief-Making*

Suggested Feat: Distant Advantage** (Human: Far Shot)

Suggested Skills: Acrobatics, Bluff, Insight, Perception, Stealth, Thievery

Suggested At-Will Powers: Sly Flourish, Disheartening Strike***

Suggested Encounter Power: Impact Shot***

Suggested Daily Power: Blinding Barrage

*New option presented here.

** Presented in Arcane Power.

*** Presented in Martial Power.

Mischief-Making

If you choose this class feature instead of selecting Artful Dodger, Brutal Scoundrel, or Ruthless Ruffian, you also give up the Sneak Attack class feature. Instead, when you use a martial attack power that causes forced movement or imposes a condition on your target, you may make the attack against additional valid targets equal to the number of Sneak Attack dice you would normally have at your level. (e.g. A 3rd level Mischief-Maker rogue could choose to attack 3 targets within range with his Impact Shot power and could push all three assuming they were hit.)

There you have it, the "Martial Controller" Rogue. Turns out there are an awful lot of rogue powers that have a controller flavor to them, and if you expand the number of targets struck, the rogue suddenly fits the bill pretty well.

WARNING: DO NOT use this build if you are expecting the rogue to be the group striker. This is not a striker build, and therefore changes drastically the expectations upon a rogue.

Lastly, I got my hands on the DMG2 and Primal Power finally. I can say that I am quite happy with the attention "fluff" is getting in these newer books. In terms of straight crunch, both books are adequate, well designed, and seem to add some significant options for most classes (or campaigns in the case of DMG2.) My DM asked me what I thought of Primal Power stacked against other Power books and I'll just throw out this bit for you guys: unless you are playing a primal power source class in a campaign currently, I would wait until you are to snag Primal Power. It's great stuff, but not terribly useful outside of its direct sphere. Martial Power and Arcane Power seemed to be more broadly applicable. That said, the book is good, and well worth the cost if you can put it to use for you.

Next week: I think we'll take a look at the ranger and see if we can't make a controller build out of that class, in case your rogue player isn't interested!

Slap-Dash Bard Suggestions

I was going to have an awesome post full of deep, thought-provoking insight and intriguing suggestions. However, I recently purchased Dragon Age: Origins and therefore have not been doing much of anything except playing that game. So here's some half-baked ideas that I've tossed together as I rush off to work:



New Feats:

Cunning Recovery

Prerequisites: Bard, Virtue of Cunning class feature, 11th level

Benefit: When you miss with an arcane attack power with the healing key word and that power has no effect on a miss, you or an ally within range of your Virtue of Cunning regains hit points equal to your Intelligence modifier. This hit point gain cannot be increased by any means.



Valorous Tenacity

Prerequisites: Bard, Virtue of Valor class feature, 11th level

Benefit: When you miss with an arcane attack power with the healing keyword and that power has no effect on a miss, you or an ally within range of your Virtue of Valor gains temporary hit points equal to your Consitution modifier.



Prescient Pause

Prerequisites: Bard, Virtue of Prescience class Feature, 11th level

Benefit: When you miss with an arcane attack power with the healing keyword and that power has no effect on a miss, you or an ally within range of your Virtue of Prescience gains a bonus to all defenses equal to your Wisdom modifier until the end of your next turn.

I built these off the paragon feat created by Logan Bonner in his Class Acts article in Dragon Magazine on clerics. I felt like clerics, of all classes were the least needful in terms of needing that little bit of extra healing, and bards seemed a lot higher up on that list. Of course, then I figured I'd flavor them out for each bard build, since making it Intelligence-driven would be useless for Valor and Prescience bards. Anyhow, I am also toying with making it a touch more powerful (they are paragon feats after all) and making it a substitution for the Virtue power usually allowed (like sliding your ally when an enemy misses them). I limited the Virtue of Cunning feat because of the obvious synergy with the Summer Rhymer paragon path that would have your typical Cunning bard healing an ally for 8-12 hit points on a miss when a hit might have been less healing. Of course, if it were a substitution for the use of the Virtue power for the round, I might be a bit more inclined to allow for modifiers, but ultimately I think you run the risk of a paragon bard missing with a power that grants 10 hit points on a hit including the bonus for the Summer Rhymer paragon path granting 3-4 from the Intelligence modifier, +5-6 for the Summer Rhymer paragon path, +3-4 for a healer's brooch... suddenly that miss is more beneficial than a hit. I think I'll leave it limited, but won't make it mutually exclusive with the Virtue power.

That's all for this week. Hopefully I'll break that video game's vampiric hold on my soul and get something decent out next week. But in the meantime: if you liked Baldur's Gate and felt the original was in many ways the pinnacle of Bioware's RPG craft, you should check out Dragon Age: Origins. I avoid talking about video games on this blog, since it's a bit off topic, but since Green Ronin Publishing is making a PnP RPG of the game, I feel like I can at least mention it. Usually, I'm not a big fan of Green Ronin, but the backstory of this game is so good, I might have to check it out.

Getting a Handle on Enemies

I can't recall a time that I ran a Star Wars: Saga Edition game. I've always played in games run by a friend. And he runs pretty killer games. One thing he always grouses about, and even stumbles over as the game is running, is the stat blocks for enemies. After all the trash I was talking about 4th Edition D&D last week, I figured I'd play nice and try adapting the new monster stat block from 4th Edition for use with Saga Edition. I've also times myself at it to see roughly how much prep time it would consume to convert a few stat blocks for use at your game table. I grabbed a handy SW:SE book, so the NPCs come out of The Force Unleashed Campaign Guide. So hopefully, this is helpful to some of you besides my erstwhile GM. If it is, let me know!


Imperial Jump Trooper CL7

Force 1; Darkside 5
Init: +8; Senses: Perception +12(can reroll must take second result); Low-light vision
hp 51 bloodied 25 (threshold 20)
Defenses: Ref 24(FF 21); Fort 20; Will 16
Speed 6 (Flying: jetpack)
M: unarmed +9 (1d4+4)
M: Grapple +10
R: Blaster Rifle +12(3d8+3)
R: Rail Detonator Gun +12 (3d8+3, 1 square splash)
R: Strafing Run +10 (3d8+3) Targets a line 1 square by 4 squares (autofire) or all squares flown over while using jetpack (autofire)
S: Takes no penalties for firing into melee, or attacking a target with concealment.
S: Can move before and after an attack, provided movement does not exceed normal movement. S: +1 to attack and damage at point blank range.
Skills: Jump +11, Stealth +13
Str 13, Dex 16, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Possessions: rail detonator gun, blaster rifle, jumptrooper armor with helmet package, jetpack, comlink

Imperial Radiation Zone Trooper CL4

Force 1, Darkside 5
Init: +5; Senses: Perception +11, Low-light vision
hp 34 bloodied 17 (Threshold 19)
Defenses: Ref 19 (FF17); Fort 19 (25 vs Radiation); Will 14
Speed 6
M: unarmed +7 (1d6+2)
M: Grapple +7
R: Blaster Carbine +8 (3d8+1)
A: Autofire Blaster Carbine (Area 2 blast) +6 (3d8+1)
A: Frag Grenade (Area burst 2) +7 (4d6+1)
S: Aid Another is automatically successful when target is adjacent or at point blank range.
Skills: Endurance +10, Mechanics +9, Survival +9
Str 12, Dex 12, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10
Possessions: Blaster carbine, 2 frag grenades, Radtrooper armor with helmet package, comlink, radiation survival kit.

So it took me about 30 minutes to throw these two together. However, I had to look up several feats to make sure I incorporated their effects into the stat block for easy reference, and I had to look up some talents as well. I think when you start familiarizing yourself with those feats and talents, it will become even faster. In fact, the second stat block took roughly half as long as the first.

In newer Saga Edition books, the stat blocks have started resembling the 4th Edition monster block a little more closely, but even so, the choice not to include the specific numbers for autofiring, talents and feats that modify attacks, etc. has made running those stat blocks a little less GM-friendly. With a few minutes of quick work, they can be "streamlined." And they're reusable once you've converted them!

Hope this helps, and let me know how it works!