D&D Next: Wild Shape & Oaths

This for realsies last last playtest packet updates the druid’s Wild Shape and adds a new paladin oath, the Oath of Vengeance.

Wild Shape
You cannot do this at all until 2nd-level, but you can now do it once between short and long rests. At 8th-level you can use it twice between rests. There are many forms available at the start, including flying critters and a horse. The time limit is one-half your level in hours. Finally, Circle of the Moon grants access to more dangerous animals like dire wolves, tigers, and cave bears (oh my).

I still do not like it.

Shocking, I know.

You cannot change your shape at all until 2nd-level. Why? Wild Shape is a very unique and iconic class feature for the druid, so why make them wait while barbarians can still rage, monks can flurry, and rogues can sneak attack? Would it really unbalance anything to allow players access all of one level sooner?

The forms are also not made equally: unless you have a major need for Speed, owls are better than hawks, and anything weasels can do, cats can do better (at least until they inevitably start adding more animal forms in splatbooks). Why make each animal its own statblock? All you are doing is downplaying certain animals when they are not rendered obsolete. You could just as easily make thematic benefit packages for a druid to choose from, and let them determine what form they take.

EDIT: I am also opposed to the inclusion of animal statblocks with only slight mechanical variation. The time and space could be better devoted than giving us numerous blocks for cats, dogs, birds, and other critters that probably will only end up having differing skill bonuses, maybe a movement mode or special sense.

Again I am voicing my dislike of Druid Circles (and the whole paths thing in general). With the current system if I choose Circle of the Land then I irrevocably cut off access to “battle forms” for the rest of the campaign, even if I want to delve into them later. There is no reason why characters cannot make more choices, opting into certain concepts down the road if it suits them. The current model is just…lazy.

ANOTHER EDIT: The fact that forms do not scale is another problem. What if I want to make a druid of, say, a wolf clan? Right now I have to wait until 2nd-level before I can turn into a dire wolf, and…that is it. There are no other wolf forms beyond 2nd-level. If forms were based on your level you would not only not have to wait until you could become a triceratops, but if you wanted to stick around as a wolf it would still be viable.

Also, it would be cool if druids could pick up form-based “maneuvers”.

Oath of Vengeance
You gain access to a set of oath spells, including the very unpaladin-sounding misty step (short-range teleport). One Channel Divinity option lets you frighten a creature (with a bonus against fiends and undead despite undead being largely immune to fear), while the other lets you gain attack advantage against a creature that hits you or something else.

At higher levels you can move after making an opportunity attack against a creature affected by your oath, make an attack against a creature affected by your oath before they attack (assuming they are in range), and eventually transform into a angel with flight and a fear aura.

The flavor behind the oath of vengeance makes it sound like something that a paladin swears once they hear of something bad going down, and that once they handle said bad thing that they are free to swear another kind of oath. Of course oaths are just another path that you lock in at 3rd-level, so once you pick divine Batman from the list you are stuck with it for no discernible reason except that it is how 3rd Edition handled character advancement.

Being able to swear oaths and gain benefits from them would actually make paladins more interesting and diverse from clerics (or fighter/clerics). Dungeon World lets you do something similar: you gain benefits when undertaking a quest, and once you wrap it up you can gain new ones the next time around. In this instance oaths could be thematic packages to choose from, or the Dungeon Master could assign appropriate bonuses from a list.

D&D Next Podcast

From what I can tell instead of a Legends & Lore column, this week we are instead getting a podcast with Mike, Jeremy and Rodney talking about the latest packet and upcoming changes to a few classes.

I mentioned back when the packet was released that I feel like they are going out of their way to make sure that certain groups of people see that they are clearly marking races as unusual and “officially” cordoned off to a campaign setting. I guess to be fair gnomes and half-orcs are in the mix with warforged, though this should really be a campaign setting decision on the DM’s part.

I am baffled that playtesters seemed mostly happy with the druid, except when it came down to wildshape. Granted I have a lot of issues with wildshape, but what about the rigid, arbitrary class features? Everyone satisfied with the fact that no matter what you are just like every other druid until 3rd level, and that at 15th-level you can always take on the for some reason nonspecific appearance of another creature? What about spellcasting: do you actually think that slots and spell levels sufficiently evokes the flavor of someone calling on “the divine essence of nature itself”?

Okay, got that out of my system. Again. For now. As for details on the changes to wildshape the current proposal is to basically keep it the same as before, except that your animal form has a separate hit point pool, because it was apparently difficult to track hit points otherwise. So if you change into a bear you use the bear’s hit points, and if you run out or shift back to human form you just go back to what you had before. Oh and there will be more forms to choose from, which you can choose from at any time.

Strange, I would have thought it would be easier if a druid had to choose what forms she could shift into ahead of time, so that you could make cards with form stats. After all fighters have to choose their maneuvers when they get whatever class feature says that they get maneuvers. Personally I think it would make more sense for a druid to have to learn animal shapes, or at least restrict them to terrain types as in Dungeon World. It is okay to force spellcasters to have to choose.

The justification is that this will be simpler to manage, not that I think having to track up to two hit point pools is particularly complicated or difficult. It sounds like they are very interested in making this game as simple as possible at the sacrifice of good, interesting, and/or elegant rules. Who needs an evocative, engaging magic system when you can just nonsensically divide spells into levels and force everyone to use spell slots? Why give players choices when you can just force them down a preset track?

The justification for moving cunning action from the thief subclass to the rogue, because it was apparently incredibly popular, is a prime example of why I dislike their subclass model. You know what would have avoided the issue of shifting class features into arbitrary categories? Letting players pick the class features they want. There is absolutely no reason why a character should wait a few levels before having to choose a preset that possibly lets them evoke they concept that they wanted to from the start.

Except, I guess, because that is how it was done before.

D&DN Q&A: Modular Features, Paladin Alignment & Legendary Creatures

I have blogged numerous times about why I do not like wizards, ways I might do magic, and how to make some of the existing classes more interesting, so it was nice to see a positive response in this week’s Question & Answers column as to whether modular features will change the core abilities of a class. Though the answer specifically mentions a “robust point-and-bonus based skill system module”, maybe that means that we will see rules for a magic system that will approach some semblance of sense.

I can dream. After all, they did feature a variety of alternate rules for magic in 3rd Edition’s Unearthed Arcana (hint hint).

The next question asks about decoupling alignment from the rules, something that was mentioned near the tail-end of this week’s Legends & Lore article, despite the paladin still requiring a Lawful alignment. The answer is yes, but they just have not gotten around to it yet because they are working on some “major changes across all classes” in an upcoming packet. Maybe some alternative, understandable, thematic spellcasting systems based on class?

WHAT?

Seriously, as I also mentioned earlier this week I think it would be a lot cooler to have class features tied to something like FATE’s aspects or Exalted‘s virtues and intimacies. Giving paladins class features based on these would go a long way to separating them conceptually from clerics, though this could be great for any character.

Finally more about Legendary status, specifically if an army of peasants can defeat a Legendary creature. The answer uses the tarrasque as an example, which is an iconic unique creature that is virtually impossible to defeat in most editions without a handful of wishes on hand. The part that rubs me the wrong way is when Rodney specifically mentions building in a safe guard that renders it immune to attacks from creatures of a certain level or lower.

Huh? That makes about as much sense as pseudo-Vancian magic.

Sorry, sorry, I will stop. Well, I will try to at any rate. In this article, anyway.

I just have this vision of peasants trying to push boulders on top of it, only to have them harmlessly bounce off. Then a high-level fighter walks up, does the same thing, and crushes its skull. Why not just re-introduce a more granular weapon resistance, like we had in 3rd and 4th Edition? This way the tarrasque can have something like DR 10, making it virtually impossible for a peasant to even damage it, but high-level fighters, what with their scaling damage output suffer a minor inconvenience. Makes much more sense than some arbitrary level-based threshold.

Legends & Lore: Wednesday Packet

There is a new playtest packet coming out this week, and just in time for the debut of my sandbox playtest campaign, to boot. There will be new classes and spells, as well as some changes to the math, fighter, skills, two-weapon fighting, and more.

Druid
The druid sounds like a kitbash of 3rd and 4th Edition; you can wildshape at 1st-level (but it is a daily thing), you get to choose a circle that makes you better at either spellcasting or wildshaping, and it has healing on par with the cleric.

Having played a druid in 4th Edition and seen a druid in action in Dungeon World, I am not a fan of making wildshape (and most things, actually) a per-day ability. If it must be usable a specific number of times per day, it would be nice to explain why. I would also take a page from Dungeon World and restrict a druid to terrain types/animal forms that they are familiar with.

I like the non-combat forms, which was an issue in 4th Edition as they tried to balance it out by preventing you from having a fly or swim speed if you changed into a bird or fish. Even more bizarre was the inability to manipulate things, even if your form should have allowed it (such as a monkey or bird carrying things).

I dislike the healing, because I do not think that the game should assume someone is playing a healing class, and think that it would greatly benefit by foregoing that assumption, but at least according to them it will meet the threshold as established by the cleric.

Paladin
I am going with the more charitable interpretation of the statement that they are giving us paladins of various alignments “for the first time ever”, to mean that they are giving us a trio of more distinct classes from the start, instead of adding new things (like the warden and blackguard) down the line, because we could already make paladins of any alignment at the start of 4th Edition.

While I think it is nice that they are paring down detect evil to just undead and fiends, I think this is kind of odd for blackguards, and especially so for wardens (at least, if they are going to be as nature associated as their 8th-level mount implies). For blackguards I can at least get behind it insofar as it allows her to sense where the evil dead are hanging out, presumably so she can help them plot to swallow souls or defeat chainsaw-wielding protagonists.

For wardens I think that undead are still pretty good as affronts to nature go, but that aberrants/aberrations work better than fiends as symbols of all things unnatural. That, along with the 4th Edition warden’s pseudo-shapechanging dailies, would go a long way to help differentiate them.

Finally, I think that 8th-level is a bit much for a summoned mount, especially one that is “fairly weak” without specializing, and as seen in 4th Edition’s cavalier sub-class would be a lot better to grant early on, if the player even opts to choose it at all.

Ranger
1st-level spellcasting? Automatically part of the the class? Really? I am of the mind that spells should be one of several options that rangers can pick up, along with favored enemy and whatever it was that those terrain-based options that the hunter in one of the Essentials books were called.

Speaking of favored enemy, I like the idea of thematic bonuses that can be applied to various monster types. 3rd Edition’s favored enemy was too rigid, and often became obsolete as you leveled up and things like orcs were no longer viable threats. 4th Edition’s hunter’s quarry changed it into a hefty damage bonus, which made it effective all the time if maybe a bit boring. This could make for a more dynamic middle-ground.

Everything Else
Martial Damage Dice is getting changed back to Expertise Dice (yay), fighters (and other martial characters) are getting multiple attacks (yay?), and they have to spend actions to regain spent dice (again, yay?). It will be interested to see what fighters can do, especially given that they no longer have to decide between dealing more damage or doing something potentially more interesting.

I hope that rogues do not scale at the same rate, and that fighters will have ways of regaining spent dice in other ways, such as by landing a critical hit, defending an ally, watching a nearby ally drop, getting “bloodied”, and so on. I think those could make for interesting class feature choices.

Not sure what to make of skills, but I am glad to hear that two-weapon fighting is being changed to reflect a “options make you good, not competent” approach. I think it is interesting that they changed words of power to swift spells. Sounds like they are one step away from just re-creating 3rd Edition’s swift action, which I am totally okay with.

Legends & Lore: Class Design Concepts

Martial damage bonus dice? Really?

First of all, that label is pretty long-winded. Second–and more importantly–it does not make their role clearer when you can spend your martial damage bonus dice to activate things that are not tied to a martial damage bonus, like reducing damage from an attack (Parry), shielding someone else from harm (Protect), or gaining an initiative bonus (Danger Sense).

Expertise dice fit the description perfectly; bonus to damage, Armor Class, saving throws, skill checks, whatever. I guess if the name must be changed, something like stunt dice or exploit dice would make a lot more sense.

It will suck to see the rogue lose maneuvers in favor of another dice-based mechanic that also…grants…special…abilities? Huh. Anyway, maneuvers made them more flexible, interesting, and provided a cohesive system for martial classes (or, at least, classes with noteworthy, non-magical exploits). It also fulfilled the goal of making Sneak Attack a rogue option, as opposed to a universal class feature.

I think that whatever other system they cook up will achieve similar–if not the same–results, I just wonder why they would go through all the trouble. Maybe it will better fit the rogue?

While maneuver-granting feats sound all well and good, I am skeptical as to how useful and applicable they will be, especially with multiclassing and the reduced number of feats overall. Maybe with two editions under their belts and vocal playtesters, the designers will be able to avoid giving us options that sound good but end up having performance issues.

Good to hear that the spellcasting system will still support other options, as it means that–for me at least–that there is a chance that I will actually like one of them. Power points and encounter-refreshing are obvious candidates, but maybe will we see stuff like fatigue, damage, sacrifices, and more.

In a similar vein I am interested to see what kind of experimental rules they roll out for skills. A rank system, or something like 4th Edition’s skill powers could be cool. Just throw it in there as an optional rule. Actually just throw in a lot of experimental rules for a lot of things; who knows what will stick?

I like the idea of a paladin being charged with alignment-based powers, especially if each alignment component does its own thing (or rather, has access to a menu of things), allowing for a bunch of combinations. It reminds me of the champion from Arcana Unearthed–I think…I might be thinking of something else, if not mis-remembering it entirely–and helps differentiate them from clerics.

On the topic of alignments, forcing paladins-as-alignment-champions to have certain alignments makes sense. Forcing all monks to be Lawful when there are non-Lawful archetypes does not.

DDN Blog: Paladin Design Goals

Between playing an unhealthy amount of Diablo 3, spending the weekends out of the house, and a more recent article on hit points and healing surges, I had almost forgotten about paladins.

I am glad to see that paladins will follow codes that reflect on their deity. Having a singular code regardless of god was kind of silly, and I would love to see codes for paladins of a gnome god (Garl, I think?). I like that paladins of neutral and evil gods will still stick around, too. My only complaint is that I would also like to see paladins that champion causes, though given that gods tend to have portfolios it would probably be an easy thing to re-skin and flavor.

I loathed detect evil in past editions for its ability to simultaneously overcome and be overcome by the plot magic items/spells. The new direction seems to be a vague, strange disturbance in the force, as opposed to a distinct radar ping (or aura). I like this. The paladin gets the notion that something is afoot, but does not know the precise source. As someone on RPG.net put it, “the paladin gets to hear the background music”. The bit on smiting implies that a paladin will not be wasting smites, which is also nifty.

Paladins have always major access to weapons and armor, as well as immunity to fear, so the third point is nothing new. I liked how 4th Edition paladins could shield and take hits for allies, which also seems to be sticking around for the good guys at least.

And last but not least, they still seem to be getting lay on hands, divine magic, and have the option to summon a horse. The spells diverge from what a cleric gets, which was how it worked in 3rd and 4th Edition, and summoned mounts might grant kicker effects to other mounts. I guess boosting the stamina and speed of other horses is good for traveling. The bit on turning demons along with undead is nice, though I think clerics should get that, too.

DDN Blog: Paladin Versus Cleric

As I said the last time paladins and clerics were brought up, on the concept level they are both very similar. A previous blog post stated that the paladin feels more martially inclined than the cleric, and that they are “exploring” the creative and mechanical space between the cleric and fighter.

A good idea, but only if the end result is not something that can be cobbled together by building your own cleric/fighter. Reading this post it seems like they are trying to ensure that it is not so easy, but I do not think that highly situational benefits are the way to go.

In 3rd Edition paladins got few alignment based class features–sensing and smiting evil–but also Charisma-based save bonuses and healing, the ability to summon a magical horse, remove diseases, a reduced ability to turn undead, and low-level divine magic. Personally I do not think that alignment-based bonuses are the way to go, and I am surprised to see that they are considering giving the paladin more, as well as still emphasizing the special mount.

I am guessing that with lots of evil-thwarting goodness that the paladin is intended to be “better” than normal when fighting them. Does that mean she will have the expected output against Neutral, or even Good opposition? In other words, will it make her outclass the rest when it comes to fighting evil? Will she still be able to meaningfully contribute otherwise?

I also do not think that paladins should be automatically good at mounted combat, as mounts can be tricky to work into a campaign (as well as maintain). I would rather have a class feature option, or a feat or talent tree. With a retraining mechanic players could even test it out and go another route if they do not like it. In any case having variant and/or scaling mounts (Defenders of the Faith and 4th Edition cavalier summon mount feats) would be great. 

What I would like to see is a continued focus on melee combat and defensive abilities that we have seen in 4th Edition, including smiting powers that do not require an alignment to work. Perhaps a reduced effect on Neutral/Good guys, like the extra damage might always be non-lethal or otherwise penalize them, so that they can be subdued instead of slain.

I am also curious if paladins will champion gods or causes (kind of like an inverse of 4th Edition blackguards). Regardless, I would like to see alternate class features instead of lay on hands and curing diseases; a blessing of war that gives out a damage bonus, the ability to inflict contagions, extra saves against magic for God of Magic-serving paladins, etc. Having angels (or devils?) pop in to help out as a higher-level option also sounds cool.

I guess we will have to see what souvenirs they get from Crazytown.

Character Concepts: Revenant Chaladin

I thought of this a few days ago, and forgot what thought process spawned it. One of Pelor’s faithful, gifted perhaps with modest healing powers, is captured by a necromancer and sacrificed in his own temple as part of an “unhallowing” ritual (causing statues to bleed, holy symbols to melt, the foundations crumble, etc). The character might belong to a powerful bloodline, or be “pure of heart”, or maybe the necromancer just needed someone. At any rate, he rises the next dawn, gifted with the powers of a paladin, with instructions from both the Raven Queen and Pelor to stop this person.

• Prayers: Ardent Strike, Virtuous Strike, Valorous Smite, Majestic Halo
• Feat: Human Soul

I figure that destruction of your village, while a RPG cliche, is sufficient to prompt most people to action. However I think that it’s much more personal if they actually kill you. The background should prove easy to work into most campaigns, as evil necromancers are a villainous staple of the genre. It also provides a reasonable explanation as to why a dead person is going about chanting prayers and channeling holy light, which to me is more interesting than another human, dwarf, or deva.

(what follows is just my thoughts on paladins over the ages, and has nothing to do with the above character)

I’ve seen people play paladins, thankfully never in the way commonly–and hopefully satirically–portrayed in other media; an annoying pretty boy (or girl) with armor and teeth that never tarnish, loudly proclaiming his intent to invade an orc camp, or complaining when the party wants to try subterfuge regardless of potential consequences, good or bad. Mostly I remember my players running them like they would any other character, with the occasional warning that they would forfeit their powers if they continued to proceed with an imminent infraction, which might have been due to a looser (read: more fun) interpretation of alignment and the paladin code.

Despite a lack of harrowing experiences, I’ve never really had any desire to play a paladin. In 2nd Edition it was partially because of the alignment restrictions and paladin code, partially because that the odds of me rolling a Charisma of 17, in addition to the other steep requirements, were slim to say the least, especially when you had to record your results in order. Come to think of it, I think that the only reason any of my friends played a paladin was because they rarely legitimately had the stats to do it, and when the opportunity finally arose they just wanted to see what all the fuss was about.

3rd Edition made things a bit easier since you got to roll 4d6, drop the lowest, and place them however you wanted to. Unfortunately 3rd Edition tied ability scores closely to the rest of the mechanics, and paladins wanted Strength, Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma. It wasn’t unfortunate that they tied ability scores to mechanics, but that the paladin demands so much. You needed Strength for melee attacks, Wisdom to cast spells, Charisma for a few class features such as lay on hands, and Constitution to not die. And if that wasn’t enough, you were still double-teamed by Lawful Good only and the silly paladin code.

Ugh.

4th Edition paladins are much friendlier to everyone at the table. You don’t have a set alignment, and the ability scores you need are Strength or Charisma, and Wisdom helps. Strength and Charisma are used for your attacks, and there are sufficient prayers that you can pick one instead of spreading yourself too thin. Though divine challenge is keyed to Charisma, you can take a feat to link it to Strength instead, allowing you to forgo Charisma almost entirely. Last but not least, there’s no paladin code, so you’re free to act entirely within whatever character traits you desire.

Class Acts: Cavalier

Heroes of the Forgotten Kingdoms gets more momentum this month with Class Acts: Cavaliers, which provides an alternate level 4 class feature for the cavalier, a bunch of new feats that are more general use, and a magic item to top it off.

Now, I don’t like paladins. Not because of years of ingrained stigma from players that didn’t know how to play a Lawful Good character and not be an ass, or DMs who didn’t know what Lawful Good meant and tried to simultaneously fuck over the paladin by threatening to strip away her class features unless she did something to irritate the party (like loudly proclaim to a warband of monsters that we were going to attack them while overwhelmingly outnumbered). No, it’s just that the concept never got any traction with me, and I didn’t like the idea of needing a high Strength, Constitution, Wisdom, and Charisma to get the most out of my class features.

That, and I don’t get to actually play a lot, instead spending the lion’s share of my game time “playing” characters vicariously through the rest of the group.

The alternate class feature–Summoned Steed–lets you use summon celestial steed to conjure up an angelic warhorse twice per day that anyone can ride. Its got half your hit points, uses your Defenses, a Speed of 8, grants riders a damage bonus when charging, uses your level to determine attack bonus and Charisma modifier for damage, can kick as a melee basic, and trample as an encounter. If it dies you lose a healing surge (or take damage), and you can’t summon it again until you take a nap. Basically, its a throwback to what paladins did in earlier editions, except you don’t need to invest a lot of skill points into Ride and constantly make checks.

Feats are divvied into two categories; Mounted Combat and Improved Mount, with four for each.

Mounted Combat feats are more general use, granting you the usage of encounter powers when you are riding a mount (and in some cases has the requisite attack power). In otherwords, its multiclassing for mounts. For example, battle trample requires trample, and grants it a one-turn aura effect that automatically deals damage and pushes enemies that end their turn adjacent to it. Riding attack is for you, allowing you to attack something that your mount doesn’t, though its keyed to either Strength or Dexterity and only deals 1[W] damage.

The Improved Mount feats are straightforward and limited to the cavalier, allowing you to summon something besides (and superior to) a horse with summon celestial steed. These ones are restricted by tier, with battle tiger being Heroic, behemoth and pegasi Paragon, and silver dragon Epic. The dragon is fucking hardcore, being all but immune to cold, having a flight of 10, can heal itself and recharge its breath weapon with the same minor action, and granting you a constant power bonus to attack rolls. Which is only for starters.

(This is where I wanted to put a badass image that Wayne Reynolds drew of a character on an armored lion, but I couldn’t find it. If you own Defenders of the Faith, check it out and pretend it’s here.)

Finally, we wrap things up with the jade horse, a level 8 uncommon wondrous item with a daily power that lets you summon your very own horse (of course). It has half your hit points, your Defenses, resist all, doesn’t provoke opportunity attacks when charging, and can kick and trample to boot. Nothing too fancy.

While the cavalier doesn’t hold much interest for me, I think the next character I make will have a warhorse. Ultimately, I’d like to get a skeletal horse or nightmare. A man can dream…

Game Design: Paladins Are (Not) MAD

My experience on the official Wizards forums has dwindled over the past eight or so years mostly due to the fact that more often than not its akin to wading into a mire from which you can occasionally procure valuable gems of Wisdom (oh ho, did you see what I did there?).

I do go there, to be sure, but mostly to see if someone found some odd tidbit that I overlooked (like the character sheets from D&DXP) or to dredge up new topics for this blog. Its common practice to decry that anything and everything in D&D sucks given the right person and time, and even with the new edition there isn’t any shortage of complaints.

Paladins are touted as underpowered, or rather being dependent on too many ability scores to be useful. This misconception is spread because the paladin uses either Strength or Charisma for her attack powers. Wisdom serves a secondary purpose, which makes sense, and Constitution rounds things out by giving her as they say, “hit points out the ass”. We can look at several other classes to easily determine that the paladin isn’t alone in this regard: the ranger can key off of Strength or Dexterity depending on your style, and the warlock demands Constitution, Charisma, or both in the case of the star pact.

However, even classes with a single attack stat aren’t immune from this trend. The fighter likes a high Strength, but can get additional benefits from Dexterity or Constitution depending on her weapon of choice. She also likes a good Wisdom to take certain feats and to make opportunity attacks more reliable. The difference is that in order to get the really good weapon feats, you want to have your secondary stat at 17 to 19. Add to the fact that the fighter wants a Constitution that is as good if not better than the paladin (since she is easier to hit), and you have a harder time meeting all the prerequisites.

I think that most, if not all of these complaints originate from people who are too busy analyzing the game to actually play it and see how it all works out. Examples are cultivated in a vacuum, deprived of outside input that might allow them to properly mature and grow. I have a fairly new player in Adrian’s group that is playing a Charisma-oriented warforged paladin, and is having a blast with it. She’s completely effective in combat when she remembers to use divine challenge: just don’t ask her to attempt basic melee attacks (Str 12).

Others focus on the paladin class features, claiming that the paladin just isn’t as sticky as other defenders, which tells me they probably haven’t seen the swordmage. Fighters get to mark anything they attack, and wardens can mark everything next to them, which tells me that soon you’ll get complaints about power creep and that the fighter sucks cause she isnt as sticky as the warden. The trend I’ve noticed is that a fighter often gets to dole out a single attack per round, so in most cases she also gets only a single mark. While this technically makes the fighter stickier than the paladin, the paladin can do other things that help even the playing field in terms of cool factor: healing as a minor action, better starting armor proficiencies, an extra healing surge, and an encounter power that allows a free save or extra damage. You cant just directly compare and contrast classes.

The obvious solution is that if you want a paladin, don’t try to spread yourself out too thin. Set one stat at 16 (as its the magic number) and then apply the rest as you see fit. I don’t expect clerics to try and max out Strength and Wisdom at the same time, so why expect the same from paladins? Pick one and roll with it, or better yet throw hardcore optimization out the window and focus on making a character that you will actually enjoy. Its easy to hit up the Character Optimization thread to make a super-powered character with all the numbers and none of the personality. Its more difficult to make a memorable character.