How do you think they will replicate the Avenger in 5th Edition?

The Avenger was released in the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook 2 and it's been a favourite class of mine ever since. They are divine warriors who, armored only with their faith, descend on their enemies wielding two handed weapons and the might of their chosen deity. Mechanics wise they have the ability to mark a foe with their oath of enmity and as long as that enemy is alone...it's dead. It's hilarious fun to play and I've run one in multiple campaigns.

One of my fondest memories are pursuing one of the BBEG's lieutenants into a secret passage by walking THROUGH the wall beside him. Nothing escaped me!

Did anyone else have fun times with the Avenger? How do you think they could replicate it in 5th edition while remaining true to the spirit of the class? 
Khyber is a dark and dangerous place, full of flame and smoke, where ever stranger things lie dormant.
"How do you think they will replicate the Avenger in 5E?"

I don't.
Jeff Heikkinen DCI Rules Advisor since Dec 25, 2011
I imagine they'll roll it into one of the Paladin options.
The metagame is not the game.
my guess would be as a paladin build, that trades in heavy armor for more punch.
And modified smite evil to resemble oat of enmity
 
Pretty much as everyone else here suggest.  I think it will be a part of paladin.
Depends a lot on what you consider the important parts of the Avenger. The avenger combines weird elements of what the paladin might do, what a rogue might do, and what a ranger has never really been mechanically enabled to do but which might fit for the ranger. One big question in my mind is whether a spiritual successor to the avenger needs to be explicitly a divine spellcaster or not.

While the avenger has various cool elements, I don't know that they have to all be things that have to come as a complete package. I can see offering the variant parts of the avenger as swappable features for another class, likely the space-starved paladin. The ability to pursue after creatures feels within the paladin's wheelhouse, and the nature of the oath can be expanded to cover "I will face you honorably, alone!" feels in addition to the "Now I've got you right where I want you" flavor the avenger had by default. The paladin is a reasonable fit as well because it already has extensive weapon access and inquisitorial spellcasting (Detect Evil, etc.), which is thematic, if not traditional for the avenger. I can envision a paladin feature that trades off armor proficiency for other benefits, although that's maybe something more likely to end up the wayside. Pathfinder's Paladin's Smite Evil feature already works a lot like the Avenger's Oath (at least compared to 3.5's), so maybe there's something there, too.

Realistically, I don't know that they're likely to ever revisit the avenger. It had some cool stuff, but I don't think it was a class that stood out all that much. Still, it's fun to think about, and might provide some grist for a broader paladin class.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
A rogue with some sort of religion background. I seriously doubt 5e will have a robust enough class system to make a unique "Avenger".
Paladin alternative build, just like the Warlord should be a fighter build, the Invoker is sort of already a Cleric build, and the Warden may become part of the Barbarian.
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
Multclass warbringer Cleric perhaps.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

Paladin alternative build, just like the Warlord should be a fighter build, the Invoker is sort of already a Cleric build, and the Warden may become part of the Barbarian.


Why is the quintessential class-based RPG getting rid of so many classes by rolling them into other classes?

Why is the quintessential class-based RPG getting rid of so many classes by rolling them into other classes?

Historically, D&D is known for tying a lot into classes but without giving you a million classes to choose between. It tended to lump a lot of concepts into just four quintessential classes.

At least, that's how I understood it before 3E came out. D&D was for making quick characters and playing, while tons-of-classes was better done through Palladium Fantasy.

The metagame is not the game.
Paladin alternative build, just like the Warlord should be a fighter build, the Invoker is sort of already a Cleric build, and the Warden may become part of the Barbarian.


Why is the quintessential class-based RPG getting rid of so many classes by rolling them into other classes?



 The class is also from a splat book and D&D has often not converted that many over to the next edition. I would not expect to see the class anytime soon in D&DN or at least not on release.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 



 The class is also from a splat book and D&D has often not converted that many over to the next edition..



That is true to some extent, but they have been quite vocal about their efforts to turn a lot of classes into sub-classes (specialties) and are making much more of an effort to do so than I have ever noticed with any prior edition. "Why?" is the question. I hate to sound cynical, but I think its possible that they feel like they peaked with MDD and literally cannot come up with but a few other defining mechanics for classes (raging for example). I think they blew their load on MDD and will now try to force every martial class possible into specialties for the Fighterish framework, with the arcane classes becoming subspecies of the Wizard. Ironically, 4e, despite its AEDU structure for some classes, ends up with a wider variety of distinct class features than 5e. Who could have seen that coming?
Using paladin as an archtype/speciality the crusader would be the fighter/paladin, the avenger would be the rogue/paladin, the true paladin would be a cleric/paladin (I agree it seems redundant based on the terms), and you can portray a mystic as a wizard/paladin.

The Avenger (paladin/rogue) can switch out advantage with skills to attacks.  
How do you think they could replicate it in 5th edition while remaining true to the spirit of the class? 


I'd say a Barbarian/Reaper/Priest could fill up the Avenger concept as a reckless divine warrior in cloth and wielding two handed weapon and being able to roll twice in its focused pursuit of foes.

Yan
Montréal, Canada
@Plaguescarred on twitter

i dont even know why a class based system needs a billion classes. everyone is saying oh that destroyer of worlds class in player handbook 18 was my favorite class and should be ported to 5th. no it shouldnt the whole issue with the past few years of dnd was that these books bloated the system with hundreds of new rules and it didnt always play well with the core rules. if a class like the warlord needs to get sacked to make a great playable version of dnd then i will be the first to start digging the hole to throw him into
i dont even know why a class based system needs a billion classes. everyone is saying oh that destroyer of worlds class in player handbook 18 was my favorite class and should be ported to 5th. no it shouldnt the whole issue with the past few years of dnd was that these books bloated the system with hundreds of new rules and it didnt always play well with the core rules. if a class like the warlord needs to get sacked to make a great playable version of dnd then i will be the first to start digging the hole to throw him into

Eh, I feel like even if there was much merit to the idea that expansion classes don't play well with the existing rules (no examples spring to mind, except maybe 4e Psionics multiclassing and the interaction between basic-attack-based classes in Essentials and pre-essentials material that grants a lot of basic attacks), there's no real reason to think that anybody's talking about the Avenger because it's a "destroyer of worlds" class. The most powerful classes from all of 3.5 and 4e are all already represented in the playtest or have been explicitly described as "coming soon". (Well, except for th 3.5 Archivist, I guess.) The Avenger is a fine class with what was initially an unusually attractive multiclass option, but there's no measure I can think of by which the class'd be called a "destroyer of worlds".
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I imagine they'll roll it into one of the Paladin options.



This. Ever since I first saw the class, I asked myself "why isn't this just a type of Paladin?"
As Plague mentioned (and I've said elsewhere) I think the barbarian in a rage currently covers the mechanical design space (with out the difficulties I had managing Oath of Enemity [I'd keep killing stuff and not have the minor to oath a new target or the feat that automoved it and forgetting that a new target wasn't oathed when I attacked it. It was inadvertent but I dislike cheating, even by accident]).

By covers the mechanical design space I mean that it has Iron Hide, enhanced movement, constant advantage.

The other stuff is roleplaying, right?
The Avenger was released in the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook 2 and it's been a favourite class of mine ever since. ... Did anyone else have fun times with the Avenger?

I have to admit being vaguely mystified by the Avenger.  At a read, it does not look like an egregiously over- or under- powered class.  For me, personally, it doesn't really seem well-differentiated from the Paladin, and, well...  I just don't 'get' it in the sense of what an Avenger is supposed to be/do either in concept (other than, OK, "avenge" - smite the foes of his god, just like an Avenging Paladin) or mechanically (the way in which you would play the class, how it would be best utilized in combat, etc).  But, I've seen players have an absolute blast with them, so I suppose there's something to it.  I even built a pre-gen 'pursuit' avenger, more or less by the book, and the players who got it loved it.  :shrug:  

How do you think they could replicate it in 5th edition while remaining true to the spirit of the class?

Since I'm not clear on what the point or appeal of the class really is, it's hard for me to say how it might be handled.  But, what we've been hearing to date would seem to suggest that it'll be a Paladin with a 'Avenger' specialty.  Maybe?  Whether that'll work, I don't know.  The Avenger is a divine class, and the Cleric, the only divine class we've seen so far, wasn't exactly thrown under the bus...

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

Paladin alternative build, just like the Warlord should be a fighter build, the Invoker is sort of already a Cleric build, and the Warden may become part of the Barbarian.

Why is the quintessential class-based RPG getting rid of so many classes by rolling them into other classes?

It depends on how you define class, really. If you see class as a very broad concept that can accomodate a lot of smaller concepts as build options, then the avenger is a natural candidate as one of those smaller concepts to fit under a broader one - that makes it a build option. If class is simply a description of what a character does in specific terms, then it's a class.

DDN appears to be taking the line that class has got to be something bigger thematically and the nitty gritty of what one does within that larger theme, but it's rather arbitrary what things are kept as representatives of the big picture and what things are being kept in the form of class options.



Avengers are cool. The Holy Slayer is friggin awesome, but the servent of domai wasn't anywhere near as interesting. The notion of a holy hunter type has been around for a while though and I could see some of the options from the avenger ending up in paladin, some ending up in ranger and some ending up in rogue.


I think that by assuming that a lot of these 4e classes will be folded into a single class we're limiting ourselves unnecessarily.

Might also peep the PF Inquisitor. The class is structured sort of like the bard - 6-level spellcasting that starts at level 1, medium BAB, lots of skill points and some class features that focus on skills, plus some daily-use-limited activated abilities, the ability to heal (but not super well) - but taken to a very different place. (Uh, and it also makes special use of the game's system of Teamwork Feats.) I think it's pretty cool, but I think most things are pretty cool, so who knows for sure.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
I doubt they'll bother, but I've become pessimistic about Next, so take it with a grain of salt.


If they do, I know how I'd like them to do it, though.


Make it similar to the Shadow Assassin, but with violent Divine magic, instead of Shadow magic. That magic would be a mix of existing divine magic options, and new unique options that work toward what the Avenger needs to do. I'd build the Avenger like a 4e striker, a well. Straight up, no BS, this class focuses on killing the crap out of one individual at a time, and they're very good at it.

Also, a heavy emphasis on being terrifyingly inescapable (which is where I see the biggest overlap with assassins) once they've chosen a target. Possibly powers that push away secondary targets while pulling the main target in/slowing it down.

I mean, they should inspire dread and awe when needed, letting the Divine Wrath to which they have dedicated themselves manifest as a palpable aura, causing enemies other than the target of their Wrath to cower of back away in fear, while making the target unable to move or look away, entranced by it's own impending doom.

Call it Wrathful Aspect, perhaps. Or Helm of Awe, after the old Norse charm.
Skeptical_Clown wrote:
More sex and gender equality and racial equality shouldn't even be an argument--it should simply be an assumption for any RPG that wants to stay relevant in the 21st century.
104340961 wrote:
Pine trees didn't unanimously decide one day that leaves were gauche.
http://community.wizards.com/doctorbadwolf/blog/2012/01/10/how_we_can_help_make_dndnext_awesome
1st point: When I read the name avenger I am imagining the increible Hulk beating up Loki.

I suggest other name, the crusader. I know it was a class from Tome of Battle: book of nine swords but the concept, the archetype is better for a divine fighter with a style more offensive that paladin.

2 nd point: I imagine the 4th ed avenger like a mixture of Solomon Kane (classic character),  Demon Hunter from Diablo III, Inquisitor from Pathfinder rpg, the witch-hunter from warhammer fantasy the with-hunter the prestige class from Oriental Adventures and the sith from Demon Hunter sourcebook from (old) Wold of Darkness rpg.

 

Solomon Kane, picture from homonymous film.

 

Demon Hunter from Diablo III.

 

Trevor Belmont, vampire killer from Castlevania videogame saga. 



Witch hunter, from warhammer online.



Hans and Gretel, witch hunters.

I have showed these pictures to explain better the way I imagine the D&D avenger, like a mixture of crusader+inquisitor+witch hunter+vampire hunter. 

 I had thought about a alternative name, the secutor (from Latin, =follower and pursuer, it was a type of gladiator), because it´s a little word game, similar to Spanish words "seguidor" (=follower), "perseguidor" (=pursuer) and ejecutor (=executioner).

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

The class is also from a splat book and D&D has often not converted that many over to the next edition. I would not expect to see the class anytime soon in D&DN or at least not on release.

A SPLAT BOOK? You really didn't pay much attention to the 4e book design, I'm guessing. It was in PHB2, right along with the barbarian and druid! WotC at the time 4e began had a great idea (well, it sounded great at the time) that they would release a DMG/PHB/MM every year, to lower the overall number of books published, and keep things more organized. They didn't exactly keep to their original intent, and thus the splatbooks re-emerged (but please, the avenger was definately NOT in a splat book).

Now, if they drop the insistance that paladins must be LG and wear heavy armor, I'd probably be fine with the avenger as a paladin subclass. My personal favorite was the pursuit avenger, so there would need to be features that replicate some of the cool powers avengers had (flying, teleporting, phasing, et al).

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
The biggest problem is the barbarian is already stealing the glory from the 4E Avenger with having advantage on every attack when they rage. I am not sure what is left. I do see the Avenger as being different from a monster hunter if you consider the Pathfinder Inquisitor.
The Avenger was released in the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook 2 and it's been a favourite class of mine ever since. They are divine warriors who, armored only with their faith, descend on their enemies wielding two handed weapons and the might of their chosen deity. Mechanics wise they have the ability to mark a foe with their oath of enmity and as long as that enemy is alone...it's dead. It's hilarious fun to play and I've run one in multiple campaigns.
 




In terms of mechanics the Avenger may be a very distinct class, but in terms of concept you pretty much described a Paladin there.

I see a lot of people upset that some of the 4ed classes will not made into Next as a class but may be turned into a class variant of some sort.
But truly, if it's the same concept as another class and the game offers you the mechanics for that through Kits, Archetypes (or whatever the variant system is called)... does it really matter if it's a class or not?
You get the concept and the mechanics in any case. 
The Avenger was released in the Fourth Edition Player's Handbook 2 and it's been a favourite class of mine ever since. They are divine warriors who, armored only with their faith, descend on their enemies wielding two handed weapons and the might of their chosen deity. Mechanics wise they have the ability to mark a foe with their oath of enmity and as long as that enemy is alone...it's dead. It's hilarious fun to play and I've run one in multiple campaigns.
 




In terms of mechanics the Avenger may be a very distinct class, but in terms of concept you pretty much described a Paladin there.

I see a lot of people upset that some of the 4ed classes will not made into Next as a class but may be turned into a class variant of some sort.
But truly, if it's the same concept as another class and the game offers you the mechanics for that through Kits, Archetypes (or whatever the variant system is called)... does it really matter if it's a class or not?
You get the concept and the mechanics in any case. 

I think it's pretty much just the warlord, because the perception is there that it's more than large enough to support a complete class, and more than grounded enough that you'd do it. I don't get the impression that most people in this thread are all that bummed about the Avenger not being a class. It's just not the kind of thing you'd expect, and the barbarian is borrowing its striker mechanic to begin with. (Arguably the avenger got the last laugh; the whole game promoted its striker mechanic to its primary way of expressing a bonus to anything. And yeah, yeah, lots of things used the roll-twice-keep-one mechanic before the avenger, but I think the avenger is the D&D character option for which it played the largest role.)

Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.

But truly, if it's the same concept as another class and the game offers you the mechanics for that through Kits, Archetypes (or whatever the variant system is called)... does it really matter if it's a class or not?
You get the concept and the mechanics in any case. 


It matters if a class existed in any edition. 4E has a mechanic for specialties using themes, backgrounds with extra features ala traits, and multiclassing with hybrid classes. So taking anything from 4E and reducing it to something less is offensive.

They already have a ton of concepts for archtypes or specialites using 4E themes, 3E prestige classes, 2E kits, or 1E proficincies. So start there for ideas so every editon can participate as well.

Don't start to change the game structures accross editions to convert classes to archtypes or vice versa. That is the path to exclusion.     
Okay, here's what I see for a 5E avenger:

Take a paladin and....


  • Swap out Heavy Armor for  a bonus in  light armor.

  • Swap out Smite Evil for an effect that gives Advantage on attacks on the single enemy (Oath)

  • Five levels of divine spellcasting, like the Duskblade had in 3.5. Spell list similar to the assassin's. Hammer of Good/Law/Chaos, Invisability, Darkness, Daylight, Lance of Faith, etc.

  • Swap out the paladin's holy steed for the limited ability to pass through solid walls. 


It's a weird situation where classes are sometimes defined by theme, sometimes by mechanic.


The avenger mechanics i'm reading in 4e are intriguing. We should create a place for the fun mechanics, even if they're not part of the backbone of a class somewhere. I could totally see a unique fighting style represented that many classes could take advantage of.



As an aside, I've sort of begun to separate thematic from mechanical options by saying class = theme and feats = mechanic... but I realise that it doesn't really work that way. It might be nice if it did.

"How do you think they will replicate the Avenger in 5E?"

I don't.



since it is Badwrong4efun I agree with you


How do you think they will replicate the Avenger in 5th Edition?


I'm sorry, but I really hope that they don't bring the Avenger into 5th Edition.

The Avenger is the class that ruined 4E for me.  Its ability to easily achieve a better armour class than Defender-type classes that made use of heavy armour (later errata fixing that notwithstanding) was a deal-breaker.

If we have to put up with something like that being back in the game, then I'd prefer that they just roll a few of its features into an already-existing class.

If you have to resort to making offensive comments instead of making logical arguments, you deserve to be ignored.

So taking anything from 4E and reducing it to something less is offensive.
 



What you want is not possible.
This is a new edition, and it works differently from any previous one.
It appears you want the Warlord to be mechanically the same as in 4e, all options and systems included, but of course it will be quite different, even if they make it into a base class. The nature of the core rules in 5e alone make that level of fidelity impossible.

You may feel that classes from earlier editions are being more "respected" but that is just an impression because class structure in 5e looks somewhat more like 1e to 3e class structure than 4e.
But if you dissect the other classes you'll see that they too are getting "less" than in their 1e to 3e versions, but on the other hand they might be getting a few new ideas, and some rules with which 5e operates are just too different to make a straight up comparison with an earlier version of the class.

Developers did say they would try to visit all classes of D&D from previous editions, but that doesn't mean they'll all be exactly the same in mechanics and/or concept.
It just means they'll try to throw in all those styles of play from previous editions in the new one.

Whether that style of play is translated into a separate class, or a variant of another class, or even diluted into other character options like skills and feats is another matter.
But as long as the game allows you to play with that playstyle and concept you like, I don't see why it really matters if you achieve that by calling it a class of something else.

Maybe the next avenger is a remake of 3.5. ed Crusader, a fighter with some divine spells and "ki maneuvers" (like techniques from "Tome of Battle: Book of nine Swords), with a style more offensive and agresive that paladin.



 

"Say me what you're showing off for, and I'll say you what you lack!" (Spanish saying)

 

Book 13 Anaclet 23 Confucius said: "The Superior Man is in harmony but does not follow the crowd. The inferior man follows the crowd, but is not in harmony"

 

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius 

My two favorite classes in 4e were Avenger and Warlord.  I thought the PHB I classes were lame except for the Warlord, and the Avenger was a great paladin.

I think Warlord should be its own class, but I am not opposed to the concept being accomplished through other means.

The Avenger I think would be best as a specialized Paladin.  I always saw the avenger as a roguish paladin.

I have had a character that was multiclassed rogue and paladin in 3rd edition, so it might be a mix of those two classes.

CAMRA preserves and protects real ale from the homogenization of modern beer production. D&D Grognards are the CAMRA of D&D!
Lawful Nasty Paladin with offensive/strikerish maneuver and blessings and boons selected .. plus Armor of Faith.

Done ... 
  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

1st point: When I read the name avenger I am imagining the increible Hulk beating up Loki.

I suggest other name, the crusader. I know it was a class from Tome of Battle: book of nine swords but the concept, the archetype is better for a divine fighter with a style more offensive that paladin.

2 nd point: I imagine the 4th ed avenger like a mixture of Solomon Kane (classic character),  Demon Hunter from Diablo III, Inquisitor from Pathfinder rpg, the witch-hunter from warhammer fantasy the with-hunter the prestige class from Oriental Adventures and the sith from Demon Hunter sourcebook from (old) Wold of Darkness rpg.
pictures

 

Solomon Kane, picture from homonymous film.

 

Demon Hunter from Diablo III.

 

Trevor Belmont, vampire killer from Castlevania videogame saga. 



Witch hunter, from warhammer online.



Hans and Gretel, witch hunters.


I have showed these pictures to explain better the way I imagine the D&D avenger, like a mixture of crusader+inquisitor+witch hunter+vampire hunter. 

 I had thought about a alternative name, the secutor (from Latin, =follower and pursuer, it was a type of gladiator), because it´s a little word game, similar to Spanish words "seguidor" (=follower), "perseguidor" (=pursuer) and ejecutor (=executioner).



How did you get all that and forget Kent Allard aka Lamont Cranston aka The Shadow (The Phantom works to) perhaps the pulps greatest inspiration for the archtype.

Some D&D minutae, the Avenger was Chaos' answer to Law's Paladin back in BECMI and the inspiration for the Anti-Paladin in Best of Dragon Vol. 2 (sorry, don't know the Dragon Issue).
well lets start looking outside mecanics, what is a avenger?.

A avenger is a agent of a god who actively seeks out treats and enemies of his god and his folowers and eliminates them.

compared to the paladin.

A paladin is a agent of a god who has taken on the duty to protect the folowes of  his god from treats both physical and treats to their fate.


so in the concept a avenger is more proactive then the paladin not waiting form evil to expose itselve but activly hunting it.

I have a theory about 4e class design that may or may not be true, and I won't defend it, but I'm throwing it out there 'cause the avenger vs paladin discussion seems to ring true with it:


I think that the initial idea behind 4e (and it was definitely changed later on) was to keep things pretty close to roles. To cover concepts that the previous classes were covering, they decided to make a different version of the old class and slant it to one role or the other. So the paladin became the defender and embodied all that good stuff we know about paladins, the avenger took over as the aggressive version. I don't think they sought to make a version of the paladin for each role, but I think that was a starting point. Roles in 4e basically served as guidelines for class creation. It's all very tidy and it allows for a lot of different classes.


Lots of different classes in 4e is necessary because of the lack of real multiclassing. Hybrids are amazing and I love the solution they eventually came to, but it took them a long time to release it. Most of us had moved on by the time hybrids came about. I believe that if hybrids had been part of the initial release, there wouldn't be so many classes in 4e now. The need to make a whole new class for something simply wouldn't be there and we'd have seen a lot of themes for the classes that were present to start with and a couple of base classes added in but mostly we'd have seen themes and hybrids doing the job that many of the classes in 4e were doing.


In a game with multiclassing baked in from the start, the need for all these niche classes is greatly diminished. I think what they're angling for is a reasonable compromise where the list of character classes are kept small and themes and feats are used to fill in the niches that 4e fans associate with classes.

The Avenger I think would be best as a specialized Paladin.  I always saw the avenger as a roguish paladin.

I suppose there is some kinship with rogues, but tangentially, almost like comparing barbarian and ranger, IMO. One key thematic difference the "classic" paladin and an avenger is the most glaring: the former is primarily str-based and wears heavy armor, while the latter would be dex-based and wears light armor. I'd probably make the avengers "Channel Divinity" power some form of rapid movement, with it improving with level to include teleporting and phasing.

On a semi-related note, a chain of feats I wouldn't mind seeing borrowed from PF is the "Step Up" chain, where it allows a character to follow the movement of another. It essentially prevented the "5' step and shoot/cast", making you very sticky. I'd probably have it cost your reaction, but allow you to continue to follow the target on their turn until you move up to your movement, and lose that much movement on your turn.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.