# Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Copied on request of a mod from the Keep on the Shadowfell thread.

The premise is that the new paladins mark requires the paladin to attack the monster each turn to keep the mark active. But that doesn't fix the issue of exploiting this mark as the paladin can simply take a bow and still run away while a other defender locks the enemy down which leads to the same situation many people complained about in the Delve.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Let's not confuse the problems here. The "run away" paladin problem was a concern because it was too effective a tactic - the marked monster couldn't attack the paladin and would take damage if it attacked anyone else. This goes some way towards fixing the problem since the paladin can't actually "run away". He has to make at least a ranged attack against the target once per round. He can still avoid engaging opponents that only have melee attacks, but opponents with ranged attacks can attack him back.




And get an AoO from the fighter next to it.
Remember what the problem was in te Delve? The Paladin marking the enemy and the fighter lockingit into place so that the enemy either has to move past the fighter, getting AoOs, to attack the paladin, has to attack the fighter being damaged by the paladins mark or doing nothing which is just bad battle tactic.

And this change does not fix this problem at all.
Also the attack doesn't even need to have a realistic chance of hitting. The paladin can mark the enemy and then run away while firing arrows from extreme range at the enemy which only hit on a 20 and it would work







> In addition, the paladin defends by drawing attacks, not with "stickiness" like a fighter. A paladin doesn't need to be close to the enemy to defend. His challenge still works against opponents that could attack the party while remaining out of melee reach, e.g. an archer on a ledge or a balcony, by drawing such ranged attacks away from the other characters.




Except that this is not the goal of this tactic. The paladin is not drawing the enemy away from someone else as this tactic requires the monster to not be able to attack the paladin, either through a fighter lock or range, so that it suffers automatic damage every round.

This "fix" doesn't fix this exploit at all.It just requires the paladin to not run away past bow range.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 8, 2008)

For reference, the fix is



> "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target. To engage it, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn. You can use Divine Challenge once per turn."


----------



## Protagonist (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> which only hit on a 20




I think gazebos are easier to hit than that.


----------



## Baron Opal (May 8, 2008)

I expect that the advantage of the Mark of Justice damage exploit will be mitigated by the fact that by being at extreme bow range the paladin won't be able to use his other abilities. The damage is minimal compared to his daily or encounter damage, and his at-wills may be as useful. Also, he won't be able to heal his allies in combat.

Looking at the whole picture, I think that the loss to the team's capabilities will be greater if the paladin is not in the fight. The mark doesn't cause his targets to explode if they can't attack him, just damage.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 8, 2008)

Personally, if I felt it was an issue in a game then the paladin would start getting dreams from his god that informed him of the error of his ways. Probably wouldn't work for all people's games though.

If it did turn out to be a problem it might be easiest to restrict paladins to melee attacks, or to specify that the challenged creature must have an (apparently) clear path to attack the paladin - i.e. you can use missile fire and retreats to attempt to draw a creature off and lead it on a merry dance, but no plinking from the other side of a chasm.


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (May 8, 2008)

I'd say it's more of a nerf than a fix. Forcing the paladin to spend his standard action on an arrow shot reduces his ability to run away and keep the monster from attacking him.


----------



## lockdar (May 8, 2008)

Should any player in my party try that (staying a extreme range) I would simply rule that he is no threat to the marked creature and does cannot sustain the mark. Same if a fighter is pinning the marked creature while the paladin throws pebbles at it, the fighter is such a big threat compared to the 5% chance the paladin has in hitting the creature that he cannot sustain his mark.
It might require some creative houseruling but I tend to overrule these things that clearly break powers because of some silly wording. The spirit of the power is that the paladin has to be a constant and clear threat to the marked creature, when he isn't the mark vanishes.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> I expect that the advantage of the Mark of Justice damage exploit will be mitigated by the fact that by being at extreme bow range the paladin won't be able to use his other abilities. The damage is minimal compared to his daily or encounter damage, and his at-wills may be as useful. Also, he won't be able to heal his allies in combat.
> 
> Looking at the whole picture, I think that the loss to the team's capabilities will be greater if the paladin is not in the fight. The mark doesn't cause his targets to explode if they can't attack him, just damage.




Until the paladin starts multiclassing into ranger. Also the at will attacks from the paladin don't look that good compared to basic attacks so the Paladin can go in close, fire of his encounter or even daily power, mark the enemy and walk back and use his bow while the other fighter locks the enemy down.

Its of course not something you use against minions but its effective against solo and elite monsters.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 8, 2008)

Of course, one neat angle of this challenge is that it gives the monsters a way out of it!

Paladin challenges you. On your next turn you run away from him and round a corner so that the paladin can neither attack you or move adjacent to you. Bingo! mark goes away!

(this *does* fix the original mark problem of creatures being 'marked for life' as it were)

Cheers


----------



## Ulorian - Agent of Chaos (May 8, 2008)

Protagonist said:
			
		

> I think gazebos are easier to hit than that.



Har! Beat me to the punch with the gazebo joke.

p.s. Derren, it's placebo, not plazebo.

On the surface, it looks like you have a point, but I'm curious to see what the counter-arguments are.

edit: err... I started typing this when there were only 3 other posts in the thread... several counter-arguments have been posted since then: Baron Opal (post #4) and Plane Sailing (post #9) both raise good points.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Of course, one neat angle of this challenge is that it gives the monsters a way out of it!
> 
> Paladin challenges you. On your next turn you run away from him and round a corner so that the paladin can neither attack you or move adjacent to you. Bingo! mark goes away!
> 
> ...




And get an AoO from the melee characters and give the PCs a chance to heal and reorganise. And as soon as the monster comes back it is mark time again. This tactic is about as useful as a monster marking a other monster to override the paladins mark, maybe even less.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 8, 2008)

I thought the 'problem' was a paladin marking someone then just going away? Other wise this is a valid tactic, using synergy with the 2 characters abilities, just like the designers wanted. The Pal cannot just leave the mark on and leave the country! So the choice of the baddies is not good but there will be other powers that leave the monster in a bad position...and they are supposed to!
It is also a nerf for the pal wasting his standard actions on a bow rather than using at will or other powers.
And the range is not bow range but burst 5 IIRC.

As Hong would say 'it is a feature not a bug'


----------



## FireLance (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> And get an AoO from the fighter next to it.
> Remember what the problem was in te Delve? The Paladin marking the enemy and the fighter lockingit into place so that the enemy either has to move past the fighter, getting AoOs, to attack the paladin, has to attack the fighter being damaged by the paladins mark or doing nothing which is just bad battle tactic.



Or good synergy between the fighter and the paladin.


> And this change does not fix this problem at all.
> Also the attack doesn't even need to have a realistic chance of hitting. The paladin can mark the enemy and then run away while firing arrows from extreme range at the enemy which only hit on a 20 and it would work



I think the key constraint on this tactic will be how much space there is to maneuver around. The maximum range of a longbow might theoretically be 40 squares (based on the Ranger pregen sheet), but indoors, in a confined space, the maximum practical range is likely to be shorter.

As I previously noted, this tactic is still very effective against an opponent with no ranged attacks. However, opponents that have ranged attacks can attack him back. This means that they might still draw an AOO from the fighter, either for the ranged attack or for shifting away from him, but the challenged opponent still has the chance of avoiding damage while doing something productive.

In addition, if the challenged opponent has allies, one or more of them can maneuver to engage the paladin, making it difficult or risky to continue making ranged attacks against his challenged opponent.



> Except that this is not the goal of this tactic. The paladin is not drawing the enemy away from someone else as this tactic requires the monster to not be able to attack the paladin, either through a fighter lock or range, so that it suffers automatic damage every round.
> 
> This "fix" doesn't fix this exploit at all.It just requires the paladin to not run away past bow range.



Like I said, there are two issues here. The first is whether it is too effective, and as mentioned, it still works very well against opponents with only melee attack capability, but it is now less effective against opponents with ranged attack capability.

The other is whether a defender needs to be in melee in order to defend. As previously stated, as long as the paladin can still draw his challenged opponent's attacks, he need not be in melee with it to function as a defender.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> The paladin can mark the enemy and then run away while firing arrows from extreme range at the enemy which only hit on a 20 and it would work.



Well, that would make most of his melee attacks useless, no?

But even with a fighter-lock, it only affects a certain type of targets: Creatures without good movement abilities and ranged attacks. The restriction on attacks for the paladin, goes a long way - bow range is similar to the range of ranged attacks of the critters.

And that's the kicker: What if there's more than one target? Unless we're talking about encounters with a solo monster (like a dragon), but these guys usually have good movement AND superior ranged abilities - like a breath weapon.

And due to the "must attack" clause, the paladin must keep a line of effect and line of sight to the target, so he cannot hide from the enemy - the enemy will always have a way to get to the paladin.

And you're surely right: A combination of two defenders can produce dangerous lose/lose-situations for an enemy. But in any case, it only works on a single enemy. And even with a melee attack clause for the paladin, this wouldn't have changed (reach weapons go a looong way).

So, the fix is probably not the most elegant one, but it fixes the problem to a sufficient amount. It's not a placebo.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (May 8, 2008)

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> I thought the 'problem' was a paladin marking someone then just going away? Other wise this is a valid tactic, using synergy with the 2 characters abilities, just like the designers wanted. The Pal cannot just leave the mark on and leave the country! So the choice of the baddies is not good but there will be other powers that leave the monster in a bad position...and they are supposed to!
> It is also a nerf for the pal wasting his standard actions on a bow rather than using at will or other powers.
> And the range is not bow range but burst 5 IIRC.
> 
> As Hong would say 'it is a feature not a bug'




The paladin mark only has range 5 to apply it but after that it is sustained by making ranged attacks against the target out to the bow's maximum range. And pre-nerf the mark was so powerful to make it worth giving up the paladin's melee damage to gain the mark damage. Since the nerf did not reduce the mark's damage, this is still the case.

Some people think that a paladin's best combat option to be to run away from his enemies to be a bug as it is completely out of character for the class.


----------



## mach1.9pants (May 8, 2008)

Deep Blue 9000 said:
			
		

> The paladin mark only has range 5 to apply it but after that it is sustained by making ranged attacks against the target out to the bow's maximum range. And pre-nerf the mark was so powerful to make it worth giving up the paladin's melee damage to gain the mark damage. Since the nerf did not reduce the mark's damage, this is still the case.



gotcha, quite powerful but still requiring 2 defenders to gang up. IMO that is OK, 2 defenders working together should be very effective.







> Some people think that a paladin's best combat option to be to run away from his enemies to be a bug as it is completely out of character for the class.



Depends on the paladins god and or philosophy. I don't think that engaging a baddie with a bow is 'running away' (the original could have running away, I guess, but I ignored it 'cos it was quickly superceded). A pal of an archery god or hunting god or just a pal of vengeance would be fine.

So, I can see why people aren't happy but:
1. Two defenders working together should be really tough on the monsters
2. As long as the pal is still engaging the baddies I have no problems, character wise.

ps Do we know that the mark still does the same damage?


----------



## FireLance (May 8, 2008)

By the way, it may also be possible that paladins aren't proficient with good ranged weapons. The D&D XP sample paladin uses a throwing hammer with a maximum range of 10 squares, and the Keep on the Shadowfell dragonborn paladin uses a javelin (maximum range unknown). It could be that, like the warlord, the paladin is only proficient with simple ranged weapons. This makes the tactic of maintaining the challenge at range a shade more unattractive, except for elf paladins who are automatically proficient with bows (and maybe challenging at range is not entirely inappropriate, flavor-wise, for an elf paladin).


----------



## Cadfan (May 8, 2008)

Not to mention, an exploit that requires two characters to pull off, requires the paladin to use a non standard paladin weapon that isn't compatible with his other abilities, and puts one of the party's defenders in the back row shooting arrows, isn't an exploit.

I mean, for crying out loud, you'd get better overall damage by rolling up a Ranger.

I'm not bothered by an "exploit" that lets a paladin mimic a sub par ranger if and only if someone helps him do it.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> By the way, it may also be possible that paladins aren't proficient with good ranged weapons. The D&D XP sample paladin uses a throwing hammer with a maximum range of 10 squares, and the Keep on the Shadowfell dragonborn paladin uses a javelin (maximum range unknown). It could be that, like the warlord, the paladin is only proficient with simple ranged weapons. This makes the tactic of maintaining the challenge at range a shade more unattractive, except for elf paladins who are automatically proficient with bows (and maybe challenging at range is not entirely inappropriate, flavor-wise, for an elf paladin).




Nonprofiency only means that you won't get the specific weapon bonus (bows get a + to attack I think) but when you go so far away that you only hit with a 20 anyway this doesn't matter.
And you forget muticlassing. A single ability from a ranger, wizard or warlock removes that "not effective at range" as might using magical items (depending on what they can do).



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Not to mention, an exploit that requires two characters to pull off, requires the paladin to use a non standard paladin weapon that isn't compatible with his other abilities, and puts one of the party's defenders in the back row shooting arrows, isn't an exploit.
> 
> I mean, for crying out loud, you'd get better overall damage by rolling up a Ranger.
> 
> I'm not bothered by an "exploit" that lets a paladin mimic a sub par ranger if and only if someone helps him do it.




And still many people reported that this tactic made the dragon combat a lot easier or was even the decisive factor for winning the battle.


----------



## DevoutlyApathetic (May 8, 2008)

This "fix" is particularly inelegant.


----------



## WhatGravitas (May 8, 2008)

Hmmm... on the other hand: The "fix" allows the paladin to be a "ranged defender", i.e. allows him to draw fire from ranged attackers. Which sounds like a feature.

Still a bit inelegant.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Not to mention, an exploit that requires two characters to pull off, requires the paladin to use a non standard paladin weapon that isn't compatible with his other abilities, and puts one of the party's defenders in the back row shooting arrows, isn't an exploit.
> 
> I mean, for crying out loud, you'd get better overall damage by rolling up a Ranger.
> 
> I'm not bothered by an "exploit" that lets a paladin mimic a sub par ranger if and only if someone helps him do it.



The Ranger comparison might be the best. The Ranger deals nearly the same damage per round, has better access to ranged weapon per default, and all of his powers rely on his ranged attacks. 

The Paladin gives up a lot of his damage potential for getting "free damage". And with the "Twin-Defender lock" proposed, it is not as free as you'd like. The Fighter has to keep close to the enemy, and while he defends quite successfully, he will still be subject to attacks every round. So, instead of spreading damage to two targets, all the damage goes to one. That might be a little bit more dangerous for the Fighter. 

No, I think it is an elegant fix.


----------



## FireLance (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Nonprofiency only means that you won't get the specific weapon bonus (bows get a + to attack I think) but when you go so far away that you only hit with a 20 anyway this doesn't matter.



Good point. There are only two range categories in 4e, though, and you get only a single penalty at the longer range (-2, I think, or maybe -4), and beyond that you can't attack the target at all. So while you could theoretically retreat to the higher range for your weapon, you can't go beyond that and maintain the challenge.



> And you forget muticlassing. A single ability from a ranger, wizard or warlock removes that "not effective at range" as might using magical items (depending on what they can do).



I don't think you can get at-will abilities from multiclassing. Generally, even if you get an at-will ability from the secondary class, it becomes an encounter ability for you.


----------



## Njall (May 8, 2008)

Well, this tactic 
is effective only against a solo monster;
Requires that the fighter takes care of the paladin instead of the squishies; 
Doesn't work if your opponent has some kind of ranged ability as well; 
Uses the paladin's standard attack each round; 

Furthermore, you're assuming that the fighters' AoO never miss. If he misses, then the monster will just chase the paladin, that will draw an AoO himself every time he tries to move away from melee range, unless he shifts. If both the paladin and the monster shift, the monster will probably reach the paladin anyway, since shifting doesn't draw an AoO (it does, however, draw a basic attack from the fighter, if the fighter was adjacent to the monster in the first place).
So it all boils down to an extra basic attack for the fighter, with no automatic damage ( that was the problem ). Sounds like a fix to me.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 8, 2008)

Njall said:
			
		

> So it all boils down to an extra basic attack for the fighter, with no automatic damage ( that was the problem ). Sounds like a fix to me.




Don't forget the fighter feat that makes the situation problematic - if a creature incurs an AoO from a fighter and is hit, it is stopped in its tracks and doesn't get to continue moving.

That is what makes a 'fighter pins and paladin taunts' situation potentially so nasty for the target.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Nonprofiency only means that you won't get the specific weapon bonus (bows get a + to attack I think) but when you go so far away that you only hit with a 20 anyway this doesn't matter.




As per my earlier post - only true if the encounter is taking place on a featureless plain.

Monster goes out of line of sight for the paladin and 'ping', no more automatic damage from the challenge.


----------



## fedelas (May 8, 2008)

the RAW text didn't fix the mark very well, IMO if in the clause were included that the the mark expire if the paladin move away to the range of the burst (IIRC 5 square) the mark wil be better fixed (yes you can pair up with a sticky fighter and shoot with a bow from the fifth square but is obviously easy for a monster to reach you here than to sideral distance) certainly not perfect but i think more in tone with my paladin idea and a lot more balanced.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> As per my earlier post - only true if the encounter is taking place on a featureless plain.
> 
> Monster goes out of line of sight for the paladin and 'ping', no more automatic damage from the challenge.




Which only works when you are in a dungeon with lots of curves and no straight corridors.


----------



## Wormwood (May 8, 2008)

> This "fix" is particularly inelegant.



Which only underscores my increasing irritation with the "Marking" concept as a whole.


----------



## tomtill (May 8, 2008)

Some classes and combinations of classes are much more effective than others in a given situation. That's what makes tactics fun. Arranging the battlefield to optimize the party's effectiveness is part of the fun. A kobold skirmisher gets a +1 for every ally adjacent to the target. That makes him much more effective if the kobolds minions swarm.

A paladin using a ranged attack is much more effective if a fighter is pinning the target.

Is this a problem?

The paladin's challenge is a power with the divine and radiant keywords. IMO this means that it is based on divine magic. One fluff to describe this might go something like this: the target magically is only able to see the paladin, all other enemies disappear from his view, or become irrelevant obstacles. Single-mindedly chasing his target, he forgets any concept of danger to himself or his own tactics. He must get that paladin! When something does come to his attention, like the intervening fighter, he can with great force of will tear his attention away from the paladin to attack the fighter, but he finds this saps his vitality (hp) and he exhausts himself trying to ignore his own desire to fight the paladin.

The paladin and his allies know the effect of the challenge. They would be foolish not to utilize it.

The paladin attacking at range is still being quite paladin-like, knowingly using his divine power to control the opponent, giving tactical advantage to his own party. Whether that is a good tactical strategy in a given situation is a good question for the players, but I don't think it is in any way out of character for the paladin (unless the role-player has him screaming like a little girl)


----------



## Voss (May 8, 2008)

Its clumsy wording, but I don't expect to see a lot of examples of the 'problem' in play.  The paladin is going to give up almost of all his abilities to exploit the mark in this way, and be very ineffective overall.  Or have to blow a lot of feats to be even marginally effective. 

While paladin pete and fighter fred are trying to pull shenanigans on this one monster, the other monsters have successfully killed and eaten the rest of the party.


----------



## Blue (May 8, 2008)

IIRC, you could get the Divine Challenge 1/enc as part of the paladin multiclassing feat.  That could be fun for a ranger or warlock to challenge a BBEG.  They are planning on attacking but staying out of range.  Both also have powers that give movement.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)


----------



## Dormain1 (May 8, 2008)

because DivC requires you to be within   squares of your foe to activate it means that even if the Pally marks then runs away they are not going to be that far away

as soon as the fighter hits it with their AoO the Pally mark goes away so no dmg

this tactic doesn't take it to consideration other foes in the encounter who get to munch on the strikers and controllers while the two defenders deal with one foe

sunder the Pallys range weapon or wait till he runs out of ammo then he has to get next to you

I gave examples of an Eladrin and a Kender...Halfling using these tactics in another thread, the Halfling Pally of a god of trickery or the Eladrin of the god of archery may use these tactics once in a while but I doubt the fighter will be willing to ignor other targets for too long

I really dont see many Pallys doing this type of action too often to be concerned about, most Pallys will go the "Hey you come here and get what's comming to ya!" type of role in melee

This power enables the Pally to mark a foe who is attacking one of the controllers/strikers and get it to shift it's attention to him and move away from the Pallys ally, which a foe could ignore if the controller/striker is doing more dmg to it

If you put a contraint if the Pally moves away then the mark ends, opens up the abuse of hiting the paladin and shifting him one square away(which more than one class and foe has) and the mark ends

I think the fix works for what it intented to stop, Pallys marking targets and running off and waiting for it to die, tactical manuvours and getting the marked target to cross hampering situations be it fighter or whatever doesn't break the ability, it just means the foes can't be stupid


----------



## Blackbrrd (May 8, 2008)

A tactic that works and probably are within the spirit of the rules and lets the Paladin use his melee abilities is to:
Paladin hits marked creature
Shifts away from the marked creature
Generating a basic attack from the fighter. (because of the fighter ablility that grants a basic attack if enemy shifts)

You don't get the automatic 8 damage, but a automatic basic attack from the fighter.

If you change the wording to: the paladin must make a melee attack or end adjacent to the creature it would be ok? Or maybe not if the paladin multiclasses with rogue to get the tumbling encounter ability to make it move?


----------



## Torchlyte (May 8, 2008)

On the contrary Derren, I would have been very annoyed if the "fix" required the Paladin to make melee attacks. 

You feel that it goes against the Paladin's role as a defender if the player does not stay in melee... but that is its own punishment; the roles exist because they are useful. You are either making the choice to leave your party without a real defender, or you're putting all the pressure on one defender and you're too far away to heal him.

As for the dragon fight, I'm okay with the party playing creatively under those kinds of circumstances. When you imagine a dragon fight, do you see warriors standing toe to toe with it? I don't, but maybe Zelda is coloring my perceptions there.

Edit:



			
				Blackbrrd said:
			
		

> A tactic that works and probably are within the spirit of the rules and lets the Paladin use his melee abilities is to:
> Paladin hits marked creature
> Shifts away from the marked creature
> Generating a basic attack from the fighter. (because of the fighter ablility that grants a basic attack if enemy shifts)
> ...




Those abilities allow the PC to move, they don't cause the opponent to move. If we were picking abilities that _do_ make the opponent move, I'd be okay with that, too. The potential to make powerful combos is why multiclassing requires feat investment.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (May 8, 2008)

I don't see a problem with the fix.  Okay... it may have clunky wording but I'm not worried about that.

-If there is more than one critter the monsters that aren't marked get to tear into the squishies.
-If the monster has ranged attacks it gets to retaliate.
-If the monster gets to move/slide/teleport out of the paladin's attack range and/or line-of-sight the tactic is busted.
-If the fighter misses on his AoO the tactic is busted.  For this reason we can assume this works best if the fighter can be expected to hit the critter on a regular basis and if the fighter can hit on a regular basis I think it is safe to assume (for the time being) that the paladin would hit with their melee weapon on a regular basis if they chose to do so.
-I get the feeling that for most paladin builds this will not be the most effective means of dealing damage.  The paladin will still get to attack with their weapon but I'm guessing in most cases the melee weapon would be the primary while the ranged weapon would be the secondary weapon. 

So... under a specific set of circumstances the tactic works well.  Under other circumstances it doesn't work so well.  I fail to see the issue here.


----------



## vagabundo (May 8, 2008)

Seems the exploit is tricky to pull off and a sub-optimal use for a defender (he should be up the front: "_Protect the squeshies!!_"), in which case I will not worry about it too much, from a DMs point of view. 

I have had the halfling paladin player (my rules barrister) in my playtest game try to pull this kind of stuff. I told him he could not attack others after marking someone. He would have to attack the marked creature, he grumbled about it not being on the sheet and I told him to suck it up. He hasn't thought of ranged attacks yet, I'm sure he will. Or linking up with the dwarf fighters stickiness. 

It seems slightly fractured but not broken to me. 

"Flaws are some of the best parts.", Aidan, _Sex in the City_.


----------



## Torchlyte (May 8, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> I have had the halfling paladin player (my rules barrister) in my playtest game try to pull this kind of stuff. I told him he could not attack others after marking someone. He would have to attack the marked creature, he grumbled about it not being on the sheet and I told him to suck it up. He hasn't thought of ranged attacks yet, I'm sure he will. Or linking up with the dwarf fighters stickiness.




I think the WotC fix is better. Not being able to attack others screws with OAs and generally prevents the character from making sound tactical decisions. As long as the enemy can attack the Paladin (the Paladin is adjacent to them), let him use his melee powers on something else.

This fix gives the player lots of options, and I'm happy about it.


----------



## vagabundo (May 8, 2008)

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> I think the WotC fix is better. Not being able to attack others screws with OAs and generally prevents the character from making sound tactical decisions. As long as the enemy can attack the Paladin (the Paladin is adjacent to them), let him use his melee powers on something else.
> 
> This fix gives the player lots of options, and I'm happy about it.




Well I'd let him do OAs, but his standard attack had to be directed at the creature. If he attacked a different creature the mark expired. 

It was just a band aid, I had heard it was fixed, but didnt have the details. I'll run with the WOTC fix from next week.


----------



## Stormtower (May 8, 2008)

What seems lost in this discussion of, IMO, decidedly non-paladinlike tactics (valid though they may be according to 4E RAW) is the possibility that the paladin/fighter combo might be... probably WILL be much more effective with both standing on the front lines defending, rather than messing about with the rules' intent to hit a foe for 8 damage per turn from the mark.

IOW, why not try the ability as intended and see if it's more effective that way rather than assuming every paladin will be marking and running for the hills?


----------



## Andur (May 8, 2008)

n/a


----------



## Knightlord (May 8, 2008)

It seems fine to me. It's not perfect, but few features ever are, simply because creative players will almost ALWAYS find a way to bend the rules to their advantage. Sometimes this is a bad thing, sometimes it's not. But it does happen, and it makes any "Feature" and it's potential "Fixes" vulnerable to manipulation.

In regards specifically to the Paladin Mark, Derren, they're are several ways you could further fix it, such as add a roleplaying element to it (as many have already stated here). Say if the Paladin does not engage the marked creature in melee, face-to-face, the mark vanishes due to the Paladin's God no longer granting the Paladin Divine aid due to Paladin's cowardly actions. Or, in simply a mechanical sense, you could just say that the Paladin's mark requires the Paladin to engage in melee with the marked creature or it doesn't work, period. If the Paladin cannot reach the target, then marking that specific target is illegal at the moment.

Just a thought.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 8, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> It seems fine to me. It's not perfect, but few features ever are, simply because creative players will almost ALWAYS find a way to bend the rules to their advantage. Sometimes this is a bad thing, sometimes it's not. But it does happen, and it makes any "Feature" and it's potential "Fixes" vulnerable to manipulation.
> 
> In regards specifically to the Paladin Mark, Derren, they're are several ways you could further fix it, such as add a roleplaying element to it (as many have already stated here). Say if the Paladin does not engage the marked creature in melee, face-to-face, the mark vanishes due to the Paladin's God no longer granting the Paladin Divine aid due to Paladin's cowardly actions. Or, in simply a mechanical sense, you could just say that the Paladin's mark requires the Paladin to engage in melee with the marked creature or it doesn't work, period. If the Paladin cannot reach the target, then marking that specific target is illegal at the moment.
> 
> Just a thought.



Well, the critic only pertains to the actual mechanic, not to house-ruling or good role-playing. 

But I say the fix works fine. Yes, there are ways to use the power at range. There are situations where this will be very handy and useful. But in the end, most Paladins will be better off wading into melee themselves. 

I think the most interesting aspect of the challenge is that it allows the Paladin to deal with ranged attackers bettern then the Fighter. The Fighter always has to go and stay in melee with an enemy artillery or controller monster, while the Paladin just has to mark and challenge it once. This offers different tactical possibilities between these two Defender classes, and I think they highlight how different implementations of a Role can actually be different form each other.


----------



## malraux (May 8, 2008)

Without reading the magic/combat/marking chapters, its hard to know if the mark and run tactic will even work.  The mark has a range of 5, and though the DDXP text doesn't explicitly say this, its quite possible that marks also require the marker to stay within that range.  Certainly it'll be very difficult for the pally to mark and then make it to extreme bow range.  And unsurprisingly, two defenders should put a lot of constraints on what the opponents can do.


----------



## Bagpuss (May 8, 2008)

The only house rule I might consider (if it actually turns out to be a problem) is that if the creature MUST suffer an AoO to attack the paladin, then the mark is cancelled. Which is similar to how the Knight's ability to get enemies to attack him worked.


----------



## Njall (May 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Don't forget the fighter feat that makes the situation problematic - if a creature incurs an AoO from a fighter and is hit, it is stopped in its tracks and doesn't get to continue moving.
> 
> That is what makes a 'fighter pins and paladin taunts' situation potentially so nasty for the target.




Yes, assuming the fighter's AoOs always hit . 
Furthermore, as I said, if the paladin does not shift, he'll eat an AoO from the solo monster as well.
If he shifts, the monster can shift as well as long as his land speed is at least equal to the paladin's.
The fighter can attack the monster if he is adjacent to him, but his attack is not an AoO: the attack comes from "combat challenge", thus it doesn't stop the monster from reaching the paladin ( only Opportunity Attacks stop a monster's movement action AFAIK)  

OTOH, this kind of tactic is only effective if you're facing an opponent that's too hard to hit, otherwise the 8 damage/round wouldn't be that significant.
If the monster is so hard to hit, then the fighter's AoOs are less likely to work.

So you're using 2 characters to try and keep a monster pinned, you're limiting the paladin's damage capabilities, and the paladin could trigger an AoO whenever he tries to move away from the monster.
All for 8 more damage/round, that the pally could probably have dealt anyway if he used his smite or any other melee attack instead of a ranged attack? And it only works if the monster doesn't have enough reach, movement or an area attack, so you're not even guaranteed to succeed?
It doesn't seem broken to me, at all ^^'


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 8, 2008)

I don't really like this change.

That said, the exploit seems awfully situational.  Not only does it take two classes and specific monster and environmental conditions to set up, but it seems like this would only be effective at lower levels.

Compare 8/turn to solo and elite monster HP in the upper paragon and epic tiers.  I would think there are a lot better things one could do if he wanted to squeeze out extra damage.

I guess I'd have to see how well the Mark combos with Ranger and/or Warlock abilities.  Since multiclassing is pretty limited, however, I think that will be pretty limited as well.


----------



## Burr (May 8, 2008)

Why shouldn't the Paladin defend the Fighter by forcing the enemy to move, and why shouldn't the Fighter get an AoO when the enemy moves?  It seems like a legitimate tactic for a Defender-loaded party, particularly since it only works once-ish.  As soon as the monster melees the Paladin, it will be the Paladin who takes the AoO for moving.  Plus, to set the tactic up again, the Fighter has to move as well, often pulling an AoO from whatever enemy's he's marked himself.


----------



## OchreJelly (May 8, 2008)

I don't see this as a problem because of the opportunity cost of playing outside your role.  A wizard could also wade into melee but it's probably a sub-optimal or situational (at best) solution for him.  

So if the paladin decides to 'play ranger', he's giving up whatever other actions he could be doing, like defenderish stuff - stuff that deals more damage.

Lastly and maybe most importantly, doesn't the mark mean that the marked creature takes damage only from *attacking* someone other than the paladin?  So in the long range situation if the enemies double move toward the paladin *without attacking anyone period*, the marked creature will NOT take mark damage.  He may only suffer the paladin’s piddley ranged damage.  I could be wrong about this, but I thought the mark triggered only when the enemy actually attacked.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 8, 2008)

Total non-issue.

First of all, these are the kinds of cool synergies and tactics I want out of 4e, so this is great!

Second, its not a good tactic for anything but a solo monster. It ties up two defenders and leaves the rest of the party quite vulnerable.

Third, the paladin will never be as good at ranged attacks as they are at melee, so one defender is not going to be able to use his powers to his full potential. If you are going toe to toe with a solo, I think it would be more efficient for the paladin to be in the front line unleashing encounter and daily powers than hanging back with a ranged basic attack.

It is a moderately good tactic, but not broken by any means.


----------



## Terwox (May 8, 2008)

So here's what I'm thinking:

Fighter is sword/shield.  Paladin has a spear.

Fighter charges.  Paladin stands behind fighter and stabs with the spear.  (Or, if you can't attack through your allies in this edition, he stands off to the side.)

Bonus:  Paladin gets to use melee abilities.

This also doesn't violate any roleplaying conventions, unless you're what I'd consider an extreme stickler for honor codes.

But, if the fighter doesn't pin the target down as some are suggesting, this is just a free attack from the fighter each round while the target shifts to attack the paladin, who is not as well defended due to having a 2h weapon.


----------



## ltbaxter (May 8, 2008)

Hmm, not a fan of the 'fix' at all. Sadly, it was designed with an exploit in mind and how to prevent it, not with how the power *should* work.

Some realistic examples of a paladin trying to play according to character, not trying to exploit the rules, let's see how this fix applies:

1) Tough battle, Paladin and Wizard are the only ones left, vs two brutes. He's fighting one brute and those two are slugging it out. The second brute moves next to the injured wizard and is quite likely to kill him in a round or two. The Paladin issues a "Divine Challenge" against the second brute - "Come here you villain, fight *me*!". It's not supposed to be like a fighter's marking, this one is based on divine power, and the courage of the paladin. Calling out a second foe to put his life in danger to save another is about as classic as it gets. The brute has to decide whether to take his lumps and try to dispatch the wizard quickly, or engage the paladin. The paladin can't simultaneously be next to both foes. With the new 'fix', this use of the challenge just got broken. 

2) Same situation, but foes are across a chasm and it's a ranged battle. Paladin is weak at ranged combat but whips out a crossbow and does his best. Same divine challenge issued, "Shoot *me*!" Now because he is attacking, the challenge works. Technically. What really happens is that of course the archers that did not gets challenged shoots at the wizard. No improvement harm over unfixed challenge.

3) Paladin is trying to be a forward-deployed bottleneck. One creature happens to slip through and if headed toward the squishy warlock in the rear. "No, I said fight me!" But he can't engage and is busy attacking others. So the fix reduces the effectiveness of the paladin as bottleneck.

4) Speedy on-the-go ranged attacker loves to move faster than the party can and take a shot at the wizard. Original divine challenge, paladin says "oh no you don't, fire at me!" Now... because the paladin is incapable of getting physically next to the foe and has no ranged attack, his divine challenge will never work in this situation.

In the absence of a "rule" I seriously doubt I would have any problem either as a DM or a player in seeing where the divine challenge would or would not apply. Any player gaming the system and ignoring where his divine power is coming from would learn very quickly that nonsense won't work. 

The critical point here doesn't seem to be whether the paladin is attacking or engaging or not - he's trying to draw attacks, not mark the same way the fighter is. Isn't the essence here whether or not the challenged foe can get to the paladin and/or attack him without being 'stupid'? It's more like a charm spell in that sense - swing/shoot at A instead of B when it doesn't harm the target - no problem. Take a step towards me even though the fighter will mow you down, or take OAs because I'm challenging from the back row. A "duel" where you take ten paces then fire isn't a fair duel if the person is standing in a mine field or if the opponent is hiding behind a wall. 

I don't know if the following would work, but seems more in line with how I picture the challenge. It works for the situations above and the runaway paladin exploit.

The divine challenge will be voided at any time where the challenged creature is unable to attack or move to attack the paladin without putting itself under attack.

(What this would shut down would be a ranged paladin challenging a foe pinned down by a fighter, which I think is against the spirit of a the challenge anyway. An alternative would be voiding the divine challenge if as a result of trying to attack or engage the paladin the marked creature is attacked by an ally of the paladin)

Conclusion:
* Requiring the paladin to attack or engage the challenged foe absolutely eliminates his ability to draw a non-adjacent foe to him to protect another party member when he's engaged with another for or otherwise stuck in place. That seems totally against the differentiation between a divine challenge and the martial one.
* Attempting to add an "elegant fix" to an exploit as a rule instead of using common sense is doomed to fail if you don't consider "normal" situations affected by the rule change and not just players trying to game the system. 
* It's bad enough to have to house rule a vague rule to fix an exploit, but even worse to house rule a specific rule to allow the character to act normally.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 8, 2008)

As I understand it, the paladin can only mark one foe anyway (despite it being an aoe), and it's always worked that way (at least since the DDXP).  So a lot of your example situations wouldn't have worked anyway.


----------



## Cadfan (May 8, 2008)

You know, normally I love D&D.

But this is the sort of thing that bugs me.

In many other RPGs, the rules could just say something like "The paladin marks his foe.  The foe takes 1d8 damage if the foe makes an attack that does not include the paladin as a target.  The paladin must attempt to honorably engage the marked foe, or else the mark fades."

And that would be it.  It would be done.

But this is D&D, so any code of honor is really just a barrier to be rules lawyered around so that you can gain mechanical advantage from honoring the letter while violating the spirit.  That means that any mechanical advantage granted to the paladin to represent his code of honor has to be so airtight that not even the most unscrupulous player can finagle his way past it.  

Bah.


----------



## Cadfan (May 8, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> As I understand it, the paladin can only mark one foe anyway (despite it being an aoe), and it's always worked that way (at least since the DDXP).  So a lot of your example situations wouldn't have worked anyway.



Actually, we have reason to believe that a higher level paladin can mark more than one target.  Check out the paladin paragon paths that have been previewed.  One makes mention of having an effect on "all marked enemies."


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> The paladin must attempt to honorably engage the marked foe, or else the mark fades."
> .




Does ranged combat count? Is the paladin allowed to exploit combat advantage? Is it still honorable to attack a blinded, stunned, dazed, whatever enemy?


----------



## beverson (May 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Actually, we have reason to believe that a higher level paladin can mark more than one target.  Check out the paladin paragon paths that have been previewed.  One makes mention of having an effect on "all marked enemies."




Just a counter argument, but that could mean (and I think it does) all enemies marked, regardless of who marked them.  But we don't know at this point.  I suspect they won't change their tune on one mark only per character, though.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Actually, we have reason to believe that a higher level paladin can mark more than one target.  Check out the paladin paragon paths that have been previewed.  One makes mention of having an effect on "all marked enemies."




Aha right, I'd forgotten about that.  I thought I remembered a caveat that a paladin can only mark one foe.  Of course, it's also possible that the PP's ability is meant to work in conjunction with another defender.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 8, 2008)

ltbaxter said:
			
		

> Conclusion:
> * Requiring the paladin to attack or engage the challenged foe absolutely eliminates his ability to draw a non-adjacent foe to him to protect another party member when he's engaged with another for or otherwise stuck in place. That seems totally against the differentiation between a divine challenge and the martial one.
> * Attempting to add an "elegant fix" to an exploit as a rule instead of using common sense is doomed to fail if you don't consider "normal" situations affected by the rule change and not just players trying to game the system.
> * It's bad enough to have to house rule a vague rule to fix an exploit, but even worse to house rule a specific rule to allow the character to act normally.




Two issues.

First, I think you are expecting the Divine Challenge to be something its not. Its not intended to draw nonadjacent foes to the paladin. Its intended to keep melee foes engaged with the paladin.

Second, you can't write rules for "common sense". That way lies madness.

Players will always try to take advantage, and DMs will zealously try to avoid imbalance to the point where they may even incorrectly apply the rule just because they don't like a particular application of it. You'll also have a lot of inconsistency from game to game. I think one of WotC's goals is to provide a stable framework for D&D so that all players can play the same game and expect it to be played the same way.

Writing clear concise rules does lead to some rules lawyering, but its better than endless table arguments and it helps protect DMs from abusive players and helps protect players from bad DMs.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Does ranged combat count? Is the paladin allowed to exploit combat advantage? Is it still honorable to attack a blinded, stunned, dazed, whatever enemy?




Yes, these sorts of questions are exactly why you cannot just say the paladin has to honorably attack a foe. What does that mean??

What I consider honorable for a paladin, another player or DM may not. Its too subjective.


----------



## beverson (May 8, 2008)

beverson said:
			
		

> Just a counter argument, but that could mean (and I think it does) all enemies marked, regardless of who marked them.  But we don't know at this point.  I suspect they won't change their tune on one mark only per character, though.




Scratch what I just said... from the Paladin Pregen sheet: "You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use this power against another target. *If you mark other creatures using other powers, the target is still marked.* A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place."

It looks like any one creature can only have 1 mark at a time, but the Paladin may mark multiple creatures with different abilities.  I stand corrected.


----------



## Voss (May 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> In many other RPGs, the rules could just say something like "The paladin marks his foe.  The foe takes 1d8 damage if the foe makes an attack that does not include the paladin as a target.  The paladin must attempt to honorably engage the marked foe, or else the mark fades."
> 
> And that would be it.  It would be done.




I have yet to encounter an RPG that people don't rules-lawyer to the point of death.  Its just that D&D has more players, so the same percentage of rules-lawyers naturally produces more of them.


----------



## drjones (May 8, 2008)

Paladin loses his powers for being a coward. Fixed.

Before word that it had been 'fixed' reached me we houseruled that the pally must be moving towards or engaging the target in melee for the mark not to be removed.  Both the player and the DM know the intent of the rule (challenge this guy to a fight) so I don't think there is any room for rules lawyering unless someone really wants to be a pain in the butt in which case the DM is entirely correct to zap em.


----------



## The Sword 88 (May 8, 2008)

If the PCs have two defenders then the DM should have some really heavy hitting enemies and if one defender is being a coward it seemes like his friend, the fighter, should be dying pretty quickly.  In a good encounter if a defender is doing 1d8 of damge each turn and not holding the enemy in place then the DM should be ableto slaughter the PCs

Also if the Paladin marks one foe then runs just have another enemy attack him when he draws his bow.  Even if this was a boss fight just have an enemy show up and attack the paladin while he has his bow out, then the pally has to either take an AoO every turn to shoot the 1st monster or engage the 2nd and lose the mark.

I am sure a good DM can come up with plenty of ways that do not involve changing the rules to easily remedy this tactic.


----------



## Kraydak (May 8, 2008)

Remember, the question isn't: "do you want one of your two defenders pretending to be a striker?" but rather "do you want the party's striker slot to be a ranger, or a paladin that does the same or more damage, can tank extremely well and can heal/grant healing surges to boot?".

A striker pally eats up the striker party slot.  Sadly, this fix doesn't effect the striker pally *at all*, but does cause problems for the defender pally.  A mistargetted nerf if ever I saw one.


----------



## Lacyon (May 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Remember, the question isn't: "do you want one of your two defenders pretending to be a striker?" but rather "do you want the party's striker slot to be a ranger, or a paladin that does the same or more damage, can tank extremely well and can heal/grant healing surges to boot?".




I'm not sure where "the same or more damage" comes from. You get to make basic ranged attacks. You get to use few or none of your class powers. You also don't have any of the mobility options that striker classes normally get. You only get your Divine Challenge damage on rounds when the targeted enemy can't hit you with a ranged attack.

That last one especially makes you a piss-poor striker, because one of the hallmarks of the role is the ability to choose its target.


----------



## Festivus (May 8, 2008)

vagabundo said:
			
		

> Seems the exploit is tricky to pull off and a sub-optimal use for a defender (he should be up the front: "_Protect the squeshies!!_"), in which case I will not worry about it too much, from a DMs point of view.
> 
> I have had the halfling paladin player (my rules barrister) in my playtest game try to pull this kind of stuff. I told him he could not attack others after marking someone. He would have to attack the marked creature, he grumbled about it not being on the sheet and I told him to suck it up. He hasn't thought of ranged attacks yet, I'm sure he will. Or linking up with the dwarf fighters stickiness.




Sorry, not sure I follow, what exactly is "dwarf fighters stickiness"?  If it's a mark I can't see how it would matter, as it would overwrite the divine challenge mark.

I do agree, it's not really going to matter in game, and probably not the most optimal use of the paladin in combat.  Besides, I could see the underboss saying "Attack the commander" to all his minions, making ranged attacks rather pointless.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

It seems to me that this tactic would most often be ineffective.  As has already been pointed out, if there is more than one enemy, the extra enemies can go after the paladin and render his ranged strategy ineffective.

If there is only one monster, it is a solo monster.  Based on the Young Black Dragon, the only solo monster whose stats I am aware of, solo monsters will likely have a nice assortment of powers specifically designed neutralize simple tactics that the players dream up to deal with them.  The dragon, for example, has Cloud of Darkness, an AoE that blinds everyone except the dragon inside it (rendering them incapable of making opportunity attacks).  The dragon drops that on the ground, takes to the air, and the next thing anyone knows he's in the pally's face with the rest of party a round or more away from being able to render assistance.  It might be that not every solo mob will have the capacity to counter this tactic, but I expect that most will; solo mobs need to be fairly well rounded if they want to avoid easy exploitation of their weaknesses.

I think that this strat might work better for a ranger who takes the Soldier of the Faith feat, but I expect that most rangers won't want to draw that much "aggro".


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> It seems to me that this tactic would most often be ineffective.  As has already been pointed out, if there is more than one enemy, the extra enemies can go after the paladin and render his ranged strategy ineffective.




So he fights that monster in melee while the other monster gets automatically damaged by the mark. Why is that ineffective?


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 8, 2008)

The power does exactly as it is intended to do - the enemy is trying to get to the paladin.  The paladin can attack and withdraw, trying to draw it away and the rest of the party can pursue it, pounding on it and the creature cannot attack them back without taking some amount of hurt.  

Or, the creature can just move - either away from the paladin to try and break the aggro, or towards him to try and close the gap.  Remember, that the radiant damage only comes into play if the marked creature _attacks_ someone other than the paladin.  If the creature takes a move action and is stopped by a Fighter lock, I would then have it exchange its stardard action for a move action (no second AoO from the fighter).  If it isn't slower than the paladin, it maintains or closes the gap between them.  If the fighter misses an AoO, the creature takes two move actions to close the gap on the paladin who cannot do the same since he is required to attack it, and the fighter probably has to take two move actions to keep up with the creature and have a chance at another AoO.

And all this is assuming the creature doesn't have any powers of its own that outweighs the paladin giving up his stronger melee attacks just to keep the creature occupied.

Maybe I will disagree once I see it in action, but right now I'm just not seeing that much of a problem with it.


----------



## ltbaxter (May 8, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> As I understand it, the paladin can only mark one foe anyway (despite it being an aoe)  So a lot of your example situations wouldn't have worked anyway.




I'm aware of that, that doesn't change any one of my examples. The paladin will frequently be battling one foe that choose to stay engaged with him, while he would like to influence another foe to attack him.  (Can I say "draw aggro" without opening up a new can of worms?!)



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Two issues.
> First, I think you are expecting the Divine Challenge to be something its not. Its not intended to draw nonadjacent foes to the paladin. Its intended to keep melee foes engaged with the paladin.




Well, I can't rule out misinterpretting it. But when I read the fluff: "You boldly confront a nearby enemy, searing it with divine light if it ignores your challenge." I have to disagree - that sounds a whole lot like more getting a nearby guy to engage you (or face the consequences) than to force someone already committed to fighting you engaged. In fact, for a foe that has willingly chose to come up and attack you, the Divine Challenge is nearly pointless.



			
				Dragonblade said:
			
		

> Second, you can't write rules for "common sense". That way lies madness...    I think one of WotC's goals is to provide a stable framework for D&D so that all players can play the same game and expect it to be played the same way.




Those are valid and important points. No argument on those.

To be clear though, my problem was *not* that they tried to have a clear concise rule, but rather that for the sake of being clear and concise they came up with a 'fix' for exploitative behavior that crushes several common and legitimate applications of the power.



> Writing clear concise rules does lead to some rules lawyering, but its better than endless table arguments and it helps protect DMs from abusive players and helps protect players from bad DMs.




True for the most part, but if they're clear it should reduce lawyering. As the rule stands now there is really no arguing about it. We can not like it, whine, or house rule it, but it no longer lends itself to a debate on the interpretation of the rule.

Thanks for the feedback...


----------



## malraux (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> So he fights that monster in melee while the other monster gets automatically damaged by the mark. Why is that ineffective?



Cuz the mark would disappear.  If the pally is attacking the other monsters, he's not attacking the marked creature, and the whole discussion assumes he's at range.  Thus, the mark goes away.


----------



## Samhaine (May 8, 2008)

ltbaxter said:
			
		

> 1) Tough battle, Paladin and Wizard are the only ones left, vs two brutes.
> <...>
> 3) Paladin is trying to be a forward-deployed bottleneck.
> <...>
> 4) Speedy on-the-go ranged attacker loves to move faster than the party



_If I'm reading the fix correctly_, these will all still at least be marginally useful, since you can use your minor to mark on the end of your turn and don't have to make an attack or lose the mark until the next round when you have both a marked enemy and a chance to move near or attack. So you attack the foes you're in melee with, then challenge to try to reel in a target off the squishies. Until your next turn, it's marked. It gets shocked if it takes its attack against anyone but you for its turn that round, and may even get shocked again if the squishy tries to run and it makes an OA (I'm not sure whether the damage is on any kind of attacks, or just main attack). Particularly if it got shocked for making an OA, and the squishy is now at range, the monster is going to have a hard decision whether to chase the squishy and get another shock, or move up to the paladin.

Next turn, if the monster chose to keep going after the squishy despite the damage, then the paladin has to decide whether to really focus his attention on it, or let the mark lapse and wait until the next turn to mark something else. Even if the paladin stays engaged, he's able to keep marks on roving monsters at least half the time.


----------



## Korgoth (May 8, 2008)

As an aside, I fail to see the point of all this "marking" crap in the first place.  Where does it come from? What does it represent?  It seems very artificial and not something I imagine when I think of heroes going to battle.


----------



## Wormwood (May 8, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You know, normally I love D&D.



D&D is great.

Gamers, however, suck.


----------



## Wormwood (May 8, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> As an aside, I fail to see the point of all this "marking" crap in the first place.  Where does it come from? What does it represent?  It seems very artificial and not something I imagine when I think of heroes going to battle.



At the risk of agreeing with Korgoth . . . I agree with Korgoth.

Marks are a little kludgy for my tastes.


----------



## Greg K (May 8, 2008)

Wormwood said:
			
		

> At the risk of agreeing with Korgoth . . . I agree with Korgoth.
> 
> Marks are a little kludgy for my tastes.




Add me to the list.


----------



## AllisterH (May 8, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> As an aside, I fail to see the point of all this "marking" crap in the first place.  Where does it come from? What does it represent?  It seems very artificial and not something I imagine when I think of heroes going to battle.




That's because it's trying to instill a feature that turn-based play usually doesn't allow. Namely, the "attack me first mechanic".

In a real-time game, there are two methods of playing "bodyguard". The widely despised aggro mechanic (which itself was in response to the turn-based RPG experience) and actual movement. The former is literally too hard to track (calculating aggro on the fly is definitely a computer-based solution) while the latter simply doesn't work in turn-based (in turn-based games, there's really no reason for the monster simply to just walk around the fighter).

I suspect many DMs didn't actually "cheat" by having their monsters simply exploit their speed by simply walking around the fighter to get to the target...


----------



## cdrcjsn (May 8, 2008)

Strange that nobody's commented on the fact that the Fighter can also Mark at range (albeit no auto damage to foes if they attack someone else).


----------



## two (May 8, 2008)

Can somebody explain how a paladin's radiant damage from a mark can kill? 

I'm just having trouble with the concept and in-game explanation.  

I don't have a problem explaining much.  But this one gets me.

"You mark enemy X, and enemy X ignores it, and attacks your friend.  Enemy X keels over and dies as a result of this."

So marking is like (in game)... er... you point at the enemy... you um, let the enemy know you want to engage it... this does not require communication apparently since it works across languages cultures (it's magic, ok), so the enemy magically knows you want to hurt it and that you are asking for a fight, and if you don't fight the paladin the paladin's god will kill you for being a coward.  Yea, that's it.

Or something like that?

You can mark a blind enemy in theory, right?  A blind, deaf, mute, leprous evil enemy... somehow knows they are "marked"...I just am having trouble here folks.


----------



## Jer (May 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> That's because it's trying to instill a feature that turn-based play usually doesn't allow. Namely, the "attack me first mechanic".




If that's really all that marks do then I'll be pretty disappointed.  It seems like a lot of overhead for what is, essentially, a "taunt" mechanic.  We've been using that for years:

Player: I taunt the ogre
Me: What do you say to him?
Player:  He has bad breath and his momma dresses him funny.  Oh, and his cave smells vaguely of lemons.  Ogres hate lemons, right?
Me: Why would... you know, nevermind.  That's great, make your Taunt check.
[clattering dice as whatever Taunt mechanic the game we're playing uses plays out - player succeeds]
Me: Yeah, he's peeved.  [scribbling sound of me making notes that the ogre is going to attack the player that taunted him next round]
Player: Hah!  How do you like THOSE lemons?  Suck on that, you stupid ogre!
Me: [seeing Player reaching for dice] That doesn't count as another taunt.

I mean, I guess there's an entire class of stuff that might deserve a keyword like "mark" to indicate a relationship between opponents, but if it's just an "attack me first" mechanic it seems like a bit much...


----------



## AllisterH (May 8, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> If that's really all that marks do then I'll be pretty disappointed.  It seems like a lot of overhead for what is, essentially, a "taunt" mechanic.  We've been using that for years:
> 
> Player: I taunt the ogre
> Me: What do you say to him?
> ...




1. That's VERY videogamey even if you've been using it before WoW. I think this is why many people despised the Knight (from the PHB2).

2. It has its own limitations in that the target has to not only hear you and understand you but it has to fail its taunt check...


----------



## Dragonblade (May 8, 2008)

ltbaxter said:
			
		

> Thanks for the feedback...




No problem. 

I reread my post and it sounds a bit snarky which I didn't intend. So my apologies. 

Honestly, I like your concept of the paladin that can draw attackers to him. I think it would be hard to write mechanics for that that wouldn't be abused though.


----------



## coriolis (May 8, 2008)

Korgoth said:
			
		

> Where does it come from? What does it represent?




I suspect that it's trying to emulate the effect of paladin judgements in WoW (in that game, paladins can cast _seals_ on themselves -- short-duration spells that give them something back when they hit. Seals can also be _judged_ on an enemy to transfer a lower version of the bonus to any ally hitting the judged target).

Personally, I would change this ability to be like a reverse _sanctuary_: Cha vs. Will, failure means the target ignores everyone except the paladin until the target is attacked by someone else, reroll save every round.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 8, 2008)

Okay, so let me get this straight.

The paladin can use Divine Challenge to mark a target, then retreat to bow range and plunk the target with a single arrow each round, dealing relatively minimal damage. He forsakes the use of 95% of his class powers, since they rely on melee weapons and melee attacks, and makes himself relatively ineffective, since he's doing very little damage and not really doing much to defend his allies.

If someone wants to actively be useless, like a wizard running in with melee attacks and not using his spells, then that's his choice. I don't see how this is an exploit, since exploits are supposed to be beneficial and this is anything but.


----------



## Kraydak (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> It seems to me that this tactic would most often be ineffective.  As has already been pointed out, if there is more than one enemy, the extra enemies can go after the paladin and render his ranged strategy ineffective.




This isn't an indictment of the striker paladin, it is an indictment of the entire striker role.  If you believe the above, don't bother with rogues/rangers/warlocks, either.


----------



## Kraydak (May 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Okay, so let me get this straight.
> 
> The paladin can use Divine Challenge to mark a target, then retreat to bow range and plunk the target with a single arrow each round, dealing relatively minimal damage. He forsakes the use of 95% of his class powers, since they rely on melee weapons and melee attacks, and makes himself relatively ineffective, since he's doing very little damage and not really doing much to defend his allies.
> 
> If someone wants to actively be useless, like a wizard running in with melee attacks and not using his spells, then that's his choice. I don't see how this is an exploit, since exploits are supposed to be beneficial and this is anything but.




 Divine challenge *has* to do a lot of damage to work as intended.  Divine challenge does, in fact, do a *ton* of damage.  The flat 8 damage from the DDXP, *by itself* matched or outdid striker damage.  Add in modest thrown damage and you are sitting pretty on the DPS charts.  Of course, the improved math of 4e makes secondary attacks relevant, so the ranged damage won't be negligible.


----------



## Jer (May 8, 2008)

AllisterH said:
			
		

> 1. That's VERY videogamey even if you've been using it before WoW. I think this is why many people despised the Knight (from the PHB2).




So - wait.  Mechanics that videogame RPGs basically stole from RPGs are "videogamey"?  That's an interesting definition of videogamey in my mind.

Seriously - I know that I've been using a "taunt" mechanic like this since around 1990 - because interaction skills in combat were integral to Torg and I started playing Torg in 1990.  And we were doing something like this in Basic D&D without any mechanics at all long before that - player taunts the dragon, DM decides whether dragon thinks player is funny or angrify-ing, dragon react appropriately.  Perhaps if a mechanic was actually needed a "Morale" check would be made.  Regardless, there's nothing particularly "videogamey" about taunting a foe with the hope that it will drop what it's doing and attack you instead - in fact, a lot of action movies have fight scenes that hinge on that very tactic.  (I'm sure when we started doing this in D&D it was because we were trying to emulate something we saw in Raiders, or Aliens, or some other action/adventure flick).



			
				AllisterH said:
			
		

> 2. It has its own limitations in that the target has to not only hear you and understand you but it has to fail its taunt check...




Those are features, not bugs.  If you taunt a creature who can maintain composure, you should have a chance that it will fail.  You're supposed to taunt creatures that you can peeve off and get to react against you.  That's a feature of a "taunt".  The mechanic works for things other than taunts - taunting was just the example of "interaction in combat" that is easiest to outline - but if you want to make it a "challenge to your honor" or a "wave the red flag in front of the bull" or "rub yourself in beef tallow so that the Tyrannosaur attacks you instead" the underlying mechanic can be the same, with a few modifications. 

But the point wasn't that this particular mechanism is superior/inferior/whatever from a "mark", just that if that's all that a mark does then I don't really see the need for a keyword for it.  I'm hoping that "marks" are more general than an "attack me first" mechanism.  But I'll wait to see how they play out at the table - if they're just a formalization of something I'm already doing, I guess it won't be that hard to pick them up anyway.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> Okay, so let me get this straight.
> 
> The paladin can use Divine Challenge to mark a target, then retreat to bow range and plunk the target with a single arrow each round, dealing relatively minimal damage.




No. The paladin marks the target, then retreats to bow range and plunks the target with a single arrow each round, dealing the same damage as he would do with his melee at will powers in addition to the 8 automatic damage from the mark.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

two said:
			
		

> Can somebody explain how a paladin's radiant damage from a mark can kill?
> 
> I'm just having trouble with the concept and in-game explanation.
> 
> ...




The way I see it, it's a limited form of the Geas spell.  Do this or else.  In this case, attack me or suffer divine punishment.  Seems reasonably paladin-like to me.  Basically the holy version of a curse.


----------



## Scribble (May 8, 2008)

I think if you're the type that looks for exploits you can use for a meager bonus then you might have found one. 

But it kind of reminds me of the bag full of rats cleave thing. Works on paper, but in the actual game? Not quite as practical. 

I mean you're a paladin. Unless role playing doesn't really factor in at all in your games... or you're brave sir robin I guess...)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Divine challenge *has* to do a lot of damage to work as intended.  Divine challenge does, in fact, do a *ton* of damage.  The flat 8 damage from the DDXP, *by itself* matched or outdid striker damage.  Add in modest thrown damage and you are sitting pretty on the DPS charts.  Of course, the improved math of 4e makes secondary attacks relevant, so the ranged damage won't be negligible.



So, what did the Strikers do? Shoot into the air instead of at enemies? Forget to use encounter  powers?


----------



## two (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> The way I see it, it's a limited form of the Geas spell.  Do this or else.  In this case, attack me or suffer divine punishment.  Seems reasonably paladin-like to me.  Basically the holy version of a curse.




Do we know if there are some limitations, like does marking not work on mindless creatures, golems, or undead, or something?

I guess I should think of it, in game, as you suggested, as a compulsion spell with damage dealt for failure to comply.

Paladins casting compulsions at will... well, it's better than the alternatives, I suppose.  

Thanks for the concept.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No. The paladin marks the target, then retreats to bow range and plunks the target with a single arrow each round, dealing the same damage as he would do with his melee at will powers in addition to the 8 automatic damage from the mark.



I don't understand this statement.  

First, the mark doesn't do 8 automatic damage.  The monster takes the damage only if he attacks someone other than the paladin.  If he attacks noone but the paladin (or, the way I read it, makes an effort to attack noone but the paladin), he doesn't take any damage.

Second, most of the paladin's special abilities seem to require him to be in melee.  He can't use his best powers while shooting a bow.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> I don't understand this statement.
> 
> First, the mark doesn't do 8 automatic damage.  The monster takes the damage only if he attacks someone other than the paladin.  If he attacks noone but the paladin (or, the way I read it, makes an effort to attack noone but the paladin), he doesn't take any damage.
> 
> Second, most of the paladin's special abilities seem to require him to be in melee.  He can't use his best powers while shooting a bow.




Case 1: The monster stands there and does nothing -> Best case as the monster is neutralized.
Case 2: The monster attacks the fighter -> 8 automatic damage
Case 3: The monster moves/uses a ranged attack to hit the paladin -> Free attack for the fighter.

In all cases the monster looses big time.

And the paladins best powers either still do less damage than this combo or are only 1/day. The at will powers from the paladin aren't much stronger than a basic attack and certainly less powerful than a basic attack +8.



			
				Scribble said:
			
		

> Works on paper, but in the actual game? Not quite as practical.




This tactic already worked quite well at DDXP



			
				Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> So, what did the Strikers do? Shoot into the air instead of at enemies? Forget to use encounter powers?




So the Strikers must use their limited encounters or daily powers to maybe match the damage output of the paladins basic attack + at will mark.


----------



## two (May 8, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> I don't understand this statement.
> 
> First, the mark doesn't do 8 automatic damage.  The monster takes the damage only if he attacks someone other than the paladin.  If he attacks noone but the paladin (or, the way I read it, makes an effort to attack noone but the paladin), he doesn't take any damage.
> 
> Second, most of the paladin's special abilities seem to require him to be in melee.  He can't use his best powers while shooting a bow.




The idea is just that, if you are facing 3 enemies, let the "archer paladin" mark one of them and stay in the back. If the marked enemy does not attack another PC, great.  Everyone ignores him and beats on the other 2.  PC's win the round.  If he attacks another PC, he takes auto damage.  PC's get essentially a free auto-attack.  PC's win.  If he tries to move to engage the paladin, presumably the enemy will suck up an aoo or two.  PC's win (assuming some other PC can make an AOO).

That sounds exactly like how the game was designed.  I guess the question is... is it just too obvious and easy a tactic, which can be used from Day1?  Is it just too...well... good?


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No. The paladin marks the target, then retreats to bow range and plunks the target with a single arrow each round, dealing the same damage as he would do with his melee at will powers in addition to the 8 automatic damage from the mark.




I can't see any DM worth his salt allowing a player to get away with this any more often than on rare occasions.  The pally has to be close to his target (5 squares) to lay down the initial mark.  Thereafter, he has to attack the target with a ranged weapon every round in order to maintain that mark.  If the DM isn't sending a few enemies his way to mess with this tactic, the DM's not doing his job, IMO.  If the pally gets surrounded he has the option to either provoke multiple attacks of opportunity every round to maintain his mark (which I doubt he could withstand for long despite being a defender), or let the mark lapse and switch to melee.

Solo monsters will likely have the tools to deal with such tactics.  As I mentioned in another thread, the Young Black Dragon can create an AoE darkness that blinds everyone except himself (negating the Fighter's stickiness) and fly over to the Pally who is now isolated from the rest of the party for at least one round.

I don't think it would be an especially effective means for converting a Paladin into a striker.  It would make for an interesting "kiting defender" build though.  IMO.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> If the DM isn't sending a few enemies his way to mess with this tactic, the DM's not doing his job, IMO.  If the pally gets surrounded he has the option to either provoke multiple attacks of opportunity every round to maintain his mark (which I doubt he could withstand for long despite being a defender), or let the mark lapse and switch to melee.




Only if the players positions the paladin in a bad way. Can the DM send three enemies to the paladin? Yes, if they can get through the fighter and warlord, drawing AoOs from everyone.







> Solo monsters will likely have the tools to deal with such tactics.  As I mentioned in another thread, the Young Black Dragon can create an AoE darkness that blinds everyone except himself (negating the Fighter's stickiness) and fly over to the Pally who is now isolated from the rest of the party for at least one round.




That didn't stop the tactic at the DDXP.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Case 1: The monster stands there and does nothing -> Best case as the monster is neutralized.
> Case 2: The monster attacks the fighter -> 8 automatic damage
> Case 3: The monster moves/uses a ranged attack to hit tie paladin -> Free attack for the fighter.



Case 3 is the one I'd see come up in play, most likely with the monster moving away from the fighter to engage the paladin.  And it's no big deal.  The monster risks an attack (which may miss), and then moves up to the paladin.  If the paladin tries to move away on his, the monster also gets a free attack. 

And remember, 4e's default assumption is 5 PCs against a similar number of monsters, so what if there are other monsters in the fight?  So while two PCs are busy dealing with one monster, the other, squishier PCs are left to fend for themselves.  I can only say congratulations, Derren - you've discovered the most ineffectual and likely TPK fatal combo there is.


----------



## LFK (May 8, 2008)

I don't really see how these kind of entrapment tactics are a bad thing. It highlights some incredible synergy between multiple Defender roles, and more than speaking to the power of the Paladin it speaks to the sheer and utter awesome that is the 4e sword-and-board Fighter. If it weren't for the Fighter's 3x3 block of "you shall not pass" the entire strategy falls apart. It's the Fighter that's the important thing here, not the Paladin. If it were another Paladin in the same spot as the Fighter it wouldn't work. If it were _any other class but a Fighter_ it wouldn't work remotely as well.

Here's the entire thing: it puts the monster in a situation where the best course of action is to move. Even with a Fighter blocking, the creature shifts (move), then charges the Paladin (standard). They'll take a basic attack from shifting, but it doesn't stop their movement and will do, on average, less than the Divine Challenge. If it gets too sticky, the monster runs away and hides instead.

It doesn't strike me as exploitative, un-paladin-ish behaviour, nor do I see it as being so inherently superior a tactic that a Paladin would be seven kinds of brain damaged if they did anything else instead of "run away."


----------



## two (May 8, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Case 3 is the one I'd see come up in play, most likely with the monster moving away from the fighter to engage the paladin.  And it's no big deal.  The monster risks an attack (which may miss), and then moves up to the paladin.  If the paladin tries to move away on his, the monster also gets a free attack.
> 
> And remember, 4e's default assumption is 5 PCs against a similar number of monsters, so what if there are other monsters in the fight?  So while two PCs are busy dealing with one monster, the other, squishier PCs are left to fend for themselves.  I can only say congratulations, Derren - you've discovered the most ineffectual and likely TPK fatal combo there is.




Nice hyperbole.  

The "worst case" is that the marked enemy moves and attacks the Paladin.  

The "best case" is that the marked enemy does not move and attack the paladin, and instead attacks somebody more convenient, taking auto damage. Or moves to attacks the Paladin and draws some AOO's.

Note that the "worst case" is the same as might happen if the Paladin didn't use any marks at all, i.e. one enemy attacks the Paladin.

Not sure how any of this leads to a TPK.  But you knew that already.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> I don't think it would be an especially effective means for converting a Paladin into a striker.  It would make for an interesting "kiting defender" build though.  IMO.



I think it nicely highlights the differences between a Fighter and a Paladin, and the interesting synergies between them.

The Fighter moves towards the enemies, and forces them to engage him.
The Paladin forces enemies to move to him. 
In either case, the enemies take penalties if they don't focus on the Defender.

The nice synergy is that in a "balanced" encounter, a Paladin investing in some ranged abilities could defend the group against enemy artillery and controllers, while he Fighter focuses on the Skirmisher, Lurker, Soldier and Brutes. (Looks like the fighter has to chew off a little bit more then the Paladin...). 
The Fighters advantage of course is that it is a lot easier for him to mark multiple foes in melee then it is for the Paladin to mark multiple foes at range. So I suppose the Paladin is still more effective if he moves into enemy groups. 

The "abusive" tactic works best (or at all) if there are no artillery or controller enemies working at range. Otherwise, the Paladin can't defend his allies effectively against them, and it would be better to get into melee with them.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 8, 2008)

Yes, it is a moderately good tactic against solos. Its a crappy tactic against anything else. 

But the thing is 4e is designed for this sort of synergistic combination. Tactics like this are what 4e is all about. That's a good thing.

Solos are designed to take this sort of punishment. They have a bucketload of hp and a lot of special attacks. I would have no problem with my players using this tactic and would have no trouble having my solo go nuts nuking the fighter. 8 radiant damage when I have several hundred hitpoints? Big deal.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 8, 2008)

two said:
			
		

> The idea is just that, if you are facing 3 enemies, let the "archer paladin" mark one of them and stay in the back. If the marked enemy does not attack another PC, great.  Everyone ignores him and beats on the other 2.  PC's win the round.  If he attacks another PC, he takes auto damage.  PC's get essentially a free auto-attack.  PC's win.  If he tries to move to engage the paladin, presumably the enemy will suck up an aoo or two.  PC's win (assuming some other PC can make an AOO).



No, I get the basic idea.  I just don't understand how he thought that it was 8 auto damage, and that a paladin's ranged attacks would do more damage than his melee attacks.  



> That sounds exactly like how the game was designed.  I guess the question is... is it just too obvious and easy a tactic, which can be used from Day1?  Is it just too...well... good?



I really don't think so.  It seems like it would work only with solo monsters (who have lots of hp and likely a high defense) for one, *maybe* two rounds as the solo monster closes in the paladin.  The PCs are only going to get a couple of attacks in, some if not most which won't hit.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Only if the players positions the paladin in a bad way. Can the DM send three enemies to the paladin? Yes, if they can get through the fighter and warlord, drawing AoOs from everyone.




Perhaps if the DM is only tossing encounters at you where the enemies are pouring down a 10 foot wide hallway.  I can't see how the fighter and warlord could stop all of the enemies in a large room or wilderness encounter.  Even in the previous 10 foot hallway encounter, plenty of creatures now have abilities that allow them to push characters around, limiting one's capacity to turtle inside of a doorway.  IMO, if a PC is getting away with this more than once in a blue moon, I can't see that the DM is trying very hard.



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> That didn't stop the tactic at the DDXP.




The mark hadn't been fixed at DDXP, so I'm not clear how this applies.


----------



## Njall (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Case 1: The monster stands there and does nothing -> Best case as the monster is neutralized.
> Case 2: The monster attacks the fighter -> 8 automatic damage
> Case 3: The monster moves/uses a ranged attack to hit tie paladin -> Free attack for the fighter.




Case 4: The monster attacks both the paladin and the fighter with a breath attack or an area spell. He doesn't draw any free attack, since he hits both of them. He's not restricted to melee, spells and spell like abilities ARE attacks. Furthermore, the paladin draws an AoO everytime he moves away from the monster, and if the monster shifts the fighter cannot stop him from reaching the paladin, as long as he has enough movement.
So, even if the fighter gets a free attack on the monster, the monster gets a free attack against the Paladin. Seems fine to me.




> This tactic already worked quite well at DDXP




This tactic worked quite well because the dragon was several levels ahead of the PCs, thus most of them could only hit him on a 20. In this regard, the paladin's combat challenge was the steadier source of damage, since it didn't require an attack roll.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No. The paladin marks the target, then retreats to bow range and plunks the target with a single arrow each round, dealing the same damage as he would do with his melee at will powers in addition to the 8 automatic damage from the mark.




And never using 95% of his class powers, thus being relatively useless as both a paladin and a defender. He's stopping one enemy from attacking his allies. He isn't gaining the benefit of  his class powers, since he can't use them with a bow. 2[W] + Charisma modifier is more damage than 1d10, especially for a melee combatant.

Also, we've had confirmation from Mearls that it doesn't do 8 automatic damage (it's 1d8), and it only applies if they attack a target other than the paladin. It also doesn't prevent the monster from using a ranged weapon on the paladin, nor using AoE effects on the paladin and his nearby allies (and if the paladin is further away from the fight than everyone else, then he's just a failure as a defender).

This reminds me, almost exactly, of the "monk is overpowered" complaints that were flying around during 3e's release.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 8, 2008)

LFK said:
			
		

> I don't really see how these kind of entrapment tactics are a bad thing. It highlights some incredible synergy between multiple Defender roles.




But the potential problem with it is, that two defenders may actually be doing more damage than a defender and a striker.

The point of the striker is to deal tons of damage while the fighter holds the front. But if a paladin can sit in the back, do as much or more damage than the striker, plus gain the healing, hitpoints, AC, etc of a defender...then the paladin is now a better striker than a striker.


----------



## Kraydak (May 8, 2008)

Jonathan Moyer said:
			
		

> Case 3 is the one I'd see come up in play, most likely with the monster moving away from the fighter to engage the paladin.  And it's no big deal.  The monster risks an attack (which may miss), and then moves up to the paladin.  If the paladin tries to move away on his, the monster also gets a free attack.
> 
> And remember, 4e's default assumption is 5 PCs against a similar number of monsters, so what if there are other monsters in the fight?  So while two PCs are busy dealing with one monster, the other, squishier PCs are left to fend for themselves.  I can only say congratulations, Derren - you've discovered the most ineffectual and likely TPK fatal combo there is.




Why on earth are you assuming that the party doesn't have a line of defenders to keep the monsters at bay?  Remember, case (3) would also result in pasted rangers/warlocks.  You don't replace your tank with striker-pally-of-doom, you replace the warlock with the striker-pally-of-doom.


----------



## Knightlord (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> The mark hadn't been fixed at DDXP, so I'm not clear how this applies.




This.


----------



## two (May 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And never using 95% of his class powers, thus being relatively useless as both a paladin and a defender. He's stopping one enemy from attacking his allies. He isn't gaining the benefit of  his class powers, since he can't use them with a bow. 2[W] + Charisma modifier is more damage than 1d10, especially for a melee combatant.
> 
> Also, we've had confirmation from Mearls that it doesn't do 8 automatic damage (it's 1d8), and it only applies if they attack a target other than the paladin. It also doesn't prevent the monster from using a ranged weapon on the paladin, nor using AoE effects on the paladin and his nearby allies (and if the paladin is further away from the fight than everyone else, then he's just a failure as a defender).
> 
> This reminds me, almost exactly, of the "monk is overpowered" complaints that were flying around during 3e's release.




Oh, well if it's 1d8 that's a pretty big difference.  That's not something to build an exploit around.  Or worry about an exploit.


----------



## Stalker0 (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> I can't see any DM worth his salt allowing a player to get away with this any more often than on rare occasions.  The pally has to be close to his target (5 squares) to lay down the initial mark.  Thereafter, he has to attack the target with a ranged weapon every round in order to maintain that mark.




Sorry, but I can't see why a paladin couldn't get away with this. For example, party is going down a dungeon hallway, encounters guys coming their way. Paladin marks, sits back and uses a bow. Fighter and company are up front holding the line. Not very easy for the enemies to get past the front line, and the paladin's not being a coward, he's just holding his ground doing his damage. Seems reasonable to me...and as others are pointing out, may be even more useful than a ranger's attack.

Now sure is this combo going to work in every situation? Of course not, but on the other hand if the baddies charge the paladin its not like the party is screwed. The paladin for all of his "strikeresque" feel with this combo, is still a defender, with big HP, big AC, and the ability to heal himself. If the baddies come his way, good for the party. If the enemies stay away, good for the party. Its a win/win situation.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> Perhaps if the DM is only tossing encounters at you where the enemies are pouring down a 10 foot wide hallway.  I can't see how the fighter and warlord could stop all of the enemies in a large room or wilderness encounter.  Even in the previous 10 foot hallway encounter, plenty of creatures now have abilities that allow them to push characters around, limiting one's capacity to turtle inside of a doorway.  IMO, if a PC is getting away with this more than once in a blue moon, I can't see that the DM is trying very hard.




In the wilderness the paladin has a lot more room to evade the monsters and can move in a way so that the monsters have to walk past some other PCs to catch him while he only has to stay within 40 squares of the marked enemy.







> The mark hadn't been fixed at DDXP, so I'm not clear how this applies.




It applies because the fix doesn't fix anything. The only thing which prevented the DDXP paladin from attacking every round is that the pregen only had two throwing weapons. But the exploit itself, marking and making sure that the enemy can't reach the paladin, stays the same.


----------



## Nahat Anoj (May 8, 2008)

two said:
			
		

> Note that the "worst case" is the same as might happen if the Paladin didn't use any marks at all, i.e. one enemy attacks the Paladin.



Well, if the Fighter engages the monster and the Paladin just uses ranged attacks, the monster will ignore the Paladin, because the Paladin sucks with a bow.  So it's not quite the same - the Paladin *has* to use the mark for this to be "effective."

i don't know - at "worst" for the monster it just makes a more predictable encounter, because the monster knows it has to engage the paladin.  This might help the party to put its members in a more advantageous position, but I only see this as being of (minimal) value in an encounter with a solo monster.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> This.




Sorry, my forum-fu is kinda weak.  Please explain?


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> And never using 95% of his class powers, thus being relatively useless as both a paladin and a defender. He's stopping one enemy from attacking his allies. He isn't gaining the benefit of  his class powers, since he can't use them with a bow. 2[W] + Charisma modifier is more damage than 1d10, especially for a melee combatant.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## tenken (May 8, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> But the potential problem with it is, that two defenders may actually be doing more damage than a defender and a striker.
> 
> The point of the striker is to deal tons of damage while the fighter holds the front. But if a paladin can sit in the back, do as much or more damage than the striker, plus gain the healing, hitpoints, AC, etc of a defender...then the paladin is now a better striker than a striker.



If those were the roles as defined, then it might be a problem.  Strikers are supposed to deal out high damage to specific targets while employing a strategy heavily focused on mobility.  Defenders are more static, but they deal out high damage to any target they can attack at any time.


----------



## Vendark (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> It applies because the fix doesn't fix anything.




It fixes cases where the paladin marks a target and then runs away from the fight entirely, which is almost certainly all it was intended to fix.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> This.




When you really think that then explain what this fix would have changed in the DDXP dragon battle under the assumption that the paladin had enough ammo for the encounter.


----------



## Kordeth (May 8, 2008)

I've just realized why I don't like this fix, and it has nothing to do with this so-called "exploit" (sorry, but an easily-nullified, slightly-below-average-damage-for-a-1st-level-striker tactic that relies on a second defender is _not_ an exploit):



			
				Paladin Mark said:
			
		

> "On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target. To engage it, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the *end of your turn,* the marked condition ends and you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn. You can use Divine Challenge once per turn."




This should read "by the end of your *next* turn." That way, even if you don't spend the rest of your turn moving to or attacking the marked target, the monster still has one turn in which it has to decide whether to disengage from its target and go after the paladin or soak up the damage. I think I'd also prefer it if the marked condition persisted, and just the auto-damage was canceled if you didn't attack or end your next turn adjacent to the target.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 8, 2008)

two said:
			
		

> Oh, well if it's 1d8 that's a pretty big difference.  That's not something to build an exploit around.  Or worry about an exploit.




Do we have any confirmation of this? Can anyone cite Mearls?

1d8 is pretty significant. I don't think its overpowered either way, but if its only 1d8 that makes it even less attractive as a tactical option.


----------



## Knightlord (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> Sorry, my forum-fu is kinda weak.  Please explain?




My isn't the best either, but I've found that this expression is synonmous with agreement.

Best explaination I can give.


----------



## Dragonblade (May 8, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> My isn't the best either, but I've found that this expression is synonmous with agreement.
> 
> Best explaination I can give.




This.


----------



## Lacyon (May 8, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> But the potential problem with it is, that two defenders may actually be doing more damage than a defender and a striker.
> 
> The point of the striker is to deal tons of damage while the fighter holds the front. But if a paladin can sit in the back, do as much or more damage than the striker, plus gain the healing, hitpoints, AC, etc of a defender...then the paladin is now a better striker than a striker.




This appears to me to be the common conception of a striker, but I don't think it's accurate. None of the sample DDXP characters did "tons of damage" and the strikers did about as much as the Fighter in a round (provided the Fighter can make use of Cleave).

The striker role is geared toward _choosing your target_ and dealing solid damage to _that one target_, but their overall damage per round is about the same as the Fighter's.

And the Paladin's Challenge seems capable of doing that reasonably well _in some circumstances_, but fails to do that whenever the enemy is capable of either following the Paladin or attacking the Paladin at range.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No. The paladin marks the target, then retreats to bow range and plunks the target with a single arrow each round, dealing the same damage as he would do with his melee at will powers in addition to the 8 automatic damage from the mark.



 That isn't quite accurate:



> If the target *makes an attack* that doesn't include you as a target, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls and takes 8 radiant damage.  The target only takes this damage once per turn.



  So, if all the marked target does is charge at the paladin, it doesn't take any damage at all from the power.  That's how I plan on having the creatures respond - they are going full out at the paladin, especially if they react to another PCs attack and take damage from attacking somebody else.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> an easily-nullified, slightly-below-average-damage-for-a-1st-level-striker tactic that relies on a second defender is _not_ an exploit):




Its only easily nullified when the terrain allows it and the enemy has minions or standard monsters. The damage is above what strikers can at will or even with their encounter powers. Yes it requires a second defender, but that seems to happen quite often at least among the WotC writers because both the DDXP Delve and KotS feature this setup.

And what do you think will higher levels change? You don't get better at will abilities and their damage also doesn't increase with level. And when it finally does, by reaching the next tier, the mark damage might also go up.
Because you get magical weapons? The the paladin simply gets a magical bow.

The only think which the level changes is that the paladin gets more encounter powers which require melee combat but that can be fixed through multiclassing or selecting the few ranged powers he gets.



			
				Thornir Alekeg said:
			
		

> So, if all the marked target does is charge at the paladin, it doesn't take any damage at all from the power.  That's how I plan on having the creatures respond - they are going full out at the paladin, especially if they react to another PCs attack and take damage from attacking somebody else.




Which means getting AoOed by the other defender and whoever is between the monster and the paladin. And lets not forget that the fighter can prevent movement with the right power.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 8, 2008)

Hey ...

What if receiving any damage broke the mark, or caused the mark's damage to the attacker?  Or, relaxed the mark condition to that one attacker.  (Where the damage is not from the marker.)

I'm thinking of scenes where a boss is being fought, and a mook intrudes and is destoyed by the boss before the boss returns to the main fight.

What would help is some description of the mark.  As just an abstract effect: Bleh.  As an effect grounded in a description: Good.  Then I can figure out what makes sense.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Sorry, but I can't see why a paladin couldn't get away with this. For example, party is going down a dungeon hallway, encounters guys coming their way. Paladin marks, sits back and uses a bow. Fighter and company are up front holding the line. Not very easy for the enemies to get past the front line, and the paladin's not being a coward, he's just holding his ground doing his damage. Seems reasonable to me...and as others are pointing out, may be even more useful than a ranger's attack.
> 
> Now sure is this combo going to work in every situation? Of course not, but on the other hand if the baddies charge the paladin its not like the party is screwed. The paladin for all of his "strikeresque" feel with this combo, is still a defender, with big HP, big AC, and the ability to heal himself. If the baddies come his way, good for the party. If the enemies stay away, good for the party. Its a win/win situation.




In my gaming group, only a small percentage of encounters in a given campaign occur in narrow hallways.  We also only nujmber 4 or 5 players at any given time, so the chances of having more than 2 defenders in the party at any given time is quite small (they also like variety, and usually won't play a class if someone else is already playing it).  I think that this may largely account for our difference of opinion.   

I agree that it is a win/win situation.  I think that the mark is rather cleverly designed.  In my own group though, circumstances would usually dictate the pally to act as a defender rather than a pseudo-striker.   It isn't that the other DM or I would want to "screw" the player's concept of his striker paladin.  It's just that we both see the DivC as being a (to borrow an MMO term) "high aggro" ability.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

Knightlord said:
			
		

> My isn't the best either, but I've found that this expression is synonmous with agreement.
> 
> Best explaination I can give.




Okay, I get it now.  Thanks!


----------



## drjones (May 8, 2008)

This thread has been very informative, in particular it has informed me that the people I play games with for all their foibles could be a lot, lot, lot worse.  I think I'll send them a card or something.


----------



## Kraydak (May 8, 2008)

As a thought experiment, how bad is it is the marked monsters breaks through the front line and attack the striker-pally (or engages in ranged combat)?  Well, what happens if we replace the striker-deluxe (paladin) with a "real" striker (bow-ranger)?

The monster still breaks through the front line (or engages in ranged combat).
The monster may be eating a -2 from a defender mark, but the rangers AC is much worse than a paladin's.  To hits are, at best for the ranger, a wash.
The monster is attacking someone with striker hp/healing surges, rather than defender hp/healing surges.

In sum, if the opponent is capable of avoiding the Divine Challenge damage by attacking the paladin, you want to replace the paladin with a squishy to get beat on instead.  I am in awe of the tactical brilliance.

Monsters being able to attack strikers *is not* an indictment of striker-pallies alone.  It is an indictment of the *entire* striker role.  If strikers work, striker paladins work.


----------



## TwoSix (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Its only easily nullified when the terrain allows it and the enemy has minions or standard monsters.



You mean, 90% of the time?



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> Which means getting AoOed by the other defender and whoever is between the monster and the paladin. And lets not forget that the fighter can prevent movement with the right power.



I'm not getting the problem.  So if you have a fighter and a paladin working together against one monster, either:

a)  Monster attacks paladin, eats OA from fighter.  Fighter might stop monster from moving.  Paladin does his job as defender by drawing away attacks.
b)  Monster attacks fighter, causing 8 damage (or 1d8, or whatever it ends up being) to monster.  Fighter does his job as defender.  Paladin must still attack monster or lose mark.  Paladin does his job as defender of helping eliminate a chosen threat.
c)  Monster attacks other character.  Eats OA from fighter, 8 damage from paladin.  Neither defender actually did his job defending squishy character, but at least helped weaken monster.

So, in conclusion, using the mark in this manner helped the characters fulfill their roles and win the combat.  Isn't that what class-defining powers should do?


----------



## AllisterH (May 8, 2008)

Jer said:
			
		

> So - wait.  Mechanics that videogame RPGs basically stole from RPGs are "videogamey"?  That's an interesting definition of videogamey in my mind.
> 
> Seriously - I know that I've been using a "taunt" mechanic like this since around 1990 - because interaction skills in combat were integral to Torg and I started playing Torg in 1990.  And we were doing something like this in Basic D&D without any mechanics at all long before that - player taunts the dragon, DM decides whether dragon thinks player is funny or angrify-ing, dragon react appropriately.  Perhaps if a mechanic was actually needed a "Morale" check would be made.  Regardless, there's nothing particularly "videogamey" about taunting a foe with the hope that it will drop what it's doing and attack you instead - in fact, a lot of action movies have fight scenes that hinge on that very tactic.  (I'm sure when we started doing this in D&D it was because we were trying to emulate something we saw in Raiders, or Aliens, or some other action/adventure flick).
> 
> .




*LOL*

How long have you been on this board   Doesn't matter if a RPG has been doing this for years, the fact that WoW uses it now ALWAYS gets people claiming that D&D is becoming like WoW.

Seriously, where have you been in the last 5 years


----------



## Ludanto (May 8, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> You mean, 90% of the time?
> 
> 
> I'm not getting the problem.  So if you have a fighter and a paladin working together against one monster, either:
> ...




On top of that (and I know this might be a bit of a nitpick) the Fighter's ability to "stop a monster in its tracks" is only on an "Opportunity Attack".  The Fighter's ability to react to a shifting foe doesn't say "gets an OA", it says "gets a basic attack".  So Shift and Charge is a viable tactic for getting to the Paladin (at the cost of a free swing from the Fighter, of course).


----------



## Lacyon (May 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> The monster still breaks through the front line (or engages in ranged combat).
> The monster may be eating a -2 from a defender mark, but the rangers AC is much worse than a paladin's.  To hits are, at best for the ranger, a wash.
> The monster is attacking someone with striker hp/healing surges, rather than defender hp/healing surges.




The mere existence of melee strikers as a viable concept mean that both of your points are weak - they have to have competitive ACs and decent hp/healing surge numbers, even if they are less. Meanwhile:

The paladin lacks the striker's mobility to reestablish range
The paladin loses out on his "strikerish" damage, while the actual striker keeps it up.

Which makes him utterly fail at being a striker once the line's broken or the mark acquires a ranged attack.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Monsters being able to attack strikers *is not* an indictment of striker-pallies alone.  It is an indictment of the *entire* striker role.  If strikers work, striker paladins work.




It is a fine indictment of the _Paladin as a striker_, because actual strikers get their own class abilities that help them deal with this situation, and Paladins have to fall back on being a defender instead.


----------



## malraux (May 8, 2008)

Yeah, I'm not seeing much of a problem.  If you have two classes dedicated to keeping monsters busy, and there's only a single monster involved in combat, there should be some good strategies the two could do.  I'm also unconvinced that the mark was such a decisive feature for a 280 hp monster, at least in anything approaching a reasonable encounter, ie one where his lair wasn't just a room big enough for the characters to surround him.

I really don't see what the fuss is about.


----------



## rkwoodard (May 8, 2008)

*agree*



			
				TwoSix said:
			
		

> You mean, 90% of the time?
> 
> 
> I'm not getting the problem.  So if you have a fighter and a paladin working together against one monster, either:
> ...




I agree with this. 

 No offense Derren, but it sounds like a good viable tactic that can be used when the Party is fighting a solo monster.  If the Paladin and Fighter can pull it off.  YAH, RAH.

I don't think many DMs would have a problem with it occuring a lot, there seems to be several ways to get around it.  And if the solo is tough enough, it may be able to soak the damage and still put a hurting on someone.

RK


----------



## Deep Blue 9000 (May 8, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> So, in conclusion, using the mark in this manner helped the characters fulfill their roles and win the combat.  Isn't that what class-defining powers should do?




You've correctly listed the possible consequences of this tactic but not the normative views people have of them. Some people don't think this tactic is effective at all. Others think it's out of character for a paladin. That's why we're still having this discussion after 8+ pages.


----------



## DandD (May 8, 2008)

Deep Blue 9000 said:
			
		

> You've correctly listed the possible consequences of this tactic but not the normative views people have of them. Some people don't think this tactic is effective at all. Others think it's out of character for a paladin. That's why we're still having this discussion after 8+ pages.



 This is the internet. People could have discussions which have 20+ long pages all about pie and strawberry cakes. It means nothing...


----------



## MindWanderer (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> The mark hadn't been fixed at DDXP, so I'm not clear how this applies.



In fact, it applies even better now than it did then.

At DDXP, the paladin found it to be in his best interests, in all situations, to mark and run.  I played the Delve with a bunch of DMs, and they told me flat-out that that's the "correct" strategy to use.  That paladin had no ranged capabilities to speak of--it was better to mark and do _nothing_ than to stick around and fight.  A striker-pally gets to do one better: make a ranged attack that is, at worst, only marginally weaker than an at-will melee power.  It doesn't work all the time (believe me, I tried), but when it does, it's the thing to do.


----------



## Plane Sailing (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Which only works when you are in a dungeon with lots of curves and no straight corridors.




...or a dungeon with, you know, corners. And doors. And rooms. With cover. Like pretty much every dungeon that has ever been designed.

Furthermore, works *anywhere* that there is cover. There is a reason I pointed out that the problem only really exists on the equivalent of featureless plains.

I'm surprised that you can't admit the validity of a point such as this.

Cheers


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> ...or a dungeon with, you know, corners. And doors. And rooms. With cover. Like pretty much every dungeon that has ever been designed.
> 
> Furthermore, works *anywhere* that there is cover. There is a reason I pointed out that the problem only really exists on the equivalent of featureless plains.
> 
> ...




Sure, but you also forget that in such a environment the fighter has a much easier time to keep the monsters away from the paladin. Does that weight more or less as the restricted line of sight? I don't know.


----------



## TwoSix (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Sure, but you also forget that in such a environment the fighter has a much easier time to keep the monsters away from the paladin. Does that weight more or less as the restricted line of sight? I don't know.




Yes, but in that environment why would the monster run TOWARDS the paladin with the bow and the nasty curse?  Just duck behind a pillar and his magic fails.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

TwoSix said:
			
		

> Yes, but in that environment why would the monster run TOWARDS the paladin with the bow and the nasty curse?  Just duck behind a pillar and his magic fails.




Which means the monster takes an AoO and practically does nothing this turn. Why is that bad for the PCs?


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> In the wilderness the paladin has a lot more room to evade the monsters and can move in a way so that the monsters have to walk past some other PCs to catch him while he only has to stay within 40 squares of the marked enemy.




Let's assume, for simplicity's sake, that this outdoor area is vast and featureless (because difficult terrain and the like could be just as bad for the pally as the enemy, depending on placement).  
-The paladin can start a maximum of 5 squares from the enemy (max range for DivC).  Let's assume the enemy moves at the same speed as the pally (quite reasonable, since the pally is most likely wearing medium or heavy armor). 
-As soon as the fighter engages one of the enemies, the pally marks (minor), shoots (standard), and runs (move= 7 sq).  The pally is now 12 sq from the enemy.
-Marked enemy asks his buddies to help him and sends them after pally.  X enemies perform a double run (standard + move= 14 sq).  The fighter can't stop them because they have enough extra movement to run around him and still reach the pally, assuming the fighter is even between them to start with (they only need 12 sq movement to reach pally and they have 14 total to move).  If they began from a position where the fighter could not interpose, they're now in a position to flank the pally.
-If flanked, the pally must provoke AoOs to move away from them.  If not, he can shift (move) and move 5 sq (standard).  Except now the mark fades off since he could not attack his target this round.  Additionally, he's too far away to remark that target.  He could provoke AoOs to move and still shoot, but then he's doing so every round.  He could drop his bow and melee these enemies, but his mark is gone in that case too.
-Sure, the Cleric, Wizard and Rogue are all doing their own thing during this, but does the Pally honestly expect them to interpose and block the enemies from going after him?  That would be pretty silly, IMO.  That's the defenders' job, not the other roles.
-4e assumes the party will face an equal number of enemies to themselves.  If the enemies are elite, this number is halved; if minions, it doubles.  I expect it will be fairly difficult for the fighter to sticky himself to ALL of these enemies outside of the narrow hallway encounter (for which this tactic would work fairly well assuming the enemy couldn't push the fighter out of the way, teleport past him, or some such).



			
				Derren said:
			
		

> It applies because the fix doesn't fix anything. The only thing which prevented the DDXP paladin from attacking every round is that the pregen only had two throwing weapons. But the exploit itself, marking and making sure that the enemy can't reach the paladin, stays the same.




I've posted this in at least one thread.  I can't recall if it was this one or not.  According to the stats I have for the Young Black Dragon (to the best of my knowledge, this was the "boss" encounter at DDXP) has a power called Cloud of Darkness, which is an AoE that blinds everyone in it aside from the dragon.  I wasn't at DDXP, so I can't say how the DMs there did or did not use this ability.  If it was me though, I'd have dropped this AoE on the fighter (and as many of the other party members as possible) and flown over to the pally to attack.  Before the fix, the pally could have shifted and run (move + standard) while the rest of the party chased after the dragon.  After this fix, the pally who shifts and runs hasn't attacked the dragon this round, so the mark fades.  If I recall correctly from the fix, the pally also cannot use his mark next round.

As far as I can see all it does is make it very likely that your mark will focus on you.  IMO, working as intended.


----------



## mlund (May 8, 2008)

I see absolutely no problem with this implementation.

Either the Paladin is drawing the foe towards his person up and down the battlefield - away from his allies - or he is calling down divine retribution to scourge his opponent. Either outcome works perfectly well.

Running around the battlefield with a Longbow, drawing the solo / elite monster back and forth across the brunt of your allies' attacks seems highly appropriate for an Eladrin, Halfling, or Elven Paladin, in my opinion.

Elites and Solos have many hit-points, broad attack options, and high to-hit modifiers so even if they ignore the Paladin and suffer a Radiant smiting of some sort they still function well.

Meanwhile mobs and minions really aren't important enough that having the Paladin spend all his time suppressing one with mediocre damage up-ends an encounter.

- Marty Lund


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> I wasn't at DDXP, so I can't say how the DMs there did or did not use this ability.  If it was me though, I'd have dropped this AoE on the fighter (and as many of the other party members as possible) and flown over to the pally to attack.  Before the fix, the pally could have shifted and run (move + standard) while the rest of the party chased after the dragon.  After this fix, the pally who shifts and runs hasn't attacked the dragon this round, so the mark fades.  If I recall correctly from the fix, the pally also cannot use his mark next round.




It was used but many people here have said that the DMs allowed the light cantrip of the wizard negate this power. So the next turn the paladin shifts or moves away and attacks while the fighter moves up close and locks the dragon again.


----------



## Kraydak (May 8, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> The mere existence of melee strikers as a viable concept mean that both of your points are weak - they have to have competitive ACs and decent hp/healing surge numbers, even if they are less. Meanwhile:
> 
> The paladin lacks the striker's mobility to reestablish range
> The paladin loses out on his "strikerish" damage, while the actual striker keeps it up.
> ...




If you assume that strikers have adequate defensive abilities that defenders are unneeded, then yes, a paladin striker would be unoptimal...  Then again, a non-striker paladin would be unoptimal too.  I was operating under the assumption that strikers needed defenders to protect them.  Silly me.  (And yes, I do worry about precisely that point, whether the defensive/mobility abilities of strikers make defenders obsolete.  But that is hardly justification for bringing along defender paladins, now is it?)


----------



## Jedi_Solo (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Which means the monster takes an AoO and practically does nothing this turn. Why is that bad for the PCs?




So, to make sure I am up-to-date on the conversation, the two (presumably) strong heavily armored guys take a turn to block the advance of a critter and uses a per-encounter ability in the process (I think I read somewhere above that the paladin ability was per-encounter - I could be wrong on that).

In exchange for ignoring the rest of the battle and using a power - one monster (out of who knows how many) takes one extra attack and doesn't strike at one of the good guys for a round.

I still fail to see the problem.

If the PCs use up a power in a combat they SHOULD get something good in return (damage, attacks, healing, NOT being attacked, etc).


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> It was used but many people here have said that the DMs allowed the light cantrip of the wizard negate this power. So the next turn the paladin shifts or moves away and attacks while the fighter moves up close and locks the dragon again.




If he shifts he's still in range of the dragon's bite attack (which deals ongoing acid damage).  If he moves he suffers an attack of opportunity and is in range for the dragon's Frightful Presence encounter ability (burst stun).  He can also be targeted by the dragon's Breath Weapon (33% recharge).  The Cloud of Darkness (66% recharge) might be countered by the Wizard's light cantrip, but only on the Wizard's turn.  The Dragon can still use it to free himself to chase after the paladin, every time it recharges.  It seems to me that the dragon has plenty of ways to chase after and damage the pally, denying him his "striker" role and affirming his defender role.

If the designers had been perfectly happy with the way the DivC worked at DDXP, they wouldn't have fixed it.


----------



## Lacyon (May 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> If you assume that strikers have adequate defensive abilities that defenders are unneeded, then yes, a paladin striker would be unoptimal...




No. There is no need for you to mischaracterize my statements.

I merely need to assume that the ability to re-establish range and the ability to continue dealing on-par damage even while compromised can be balanced against the fact that being compromised is less bad for the paladin.

In other words, the paladin can function as a striker some of the time, but when he's pressed he has to fall back on defender traits. Likewise, some of the strikers (notably the Rogue in at least one playtest report) are able to fill in the defender role for a few rounds on occasion, but not all the time.

The roles aren't meant to be straitjackets.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Jedi_Solo said:
			
		

> So, to make sure I am up-to-date on the conversation, the two (presumably) strong heavily armored guys take a turn to block the advance of a critter and uses a per-encounter ability in the process (I think I read somewhere above that the paladin ability was per-encounter - I could be wrong on that).




No, the fighter does what he is supposed to do, just without mark which he can use on a different enemy, while the paladin uses his at will mark and ranged basic attacks to deal more damage to a monster than what a real striker can do with encounter or even daily abilities.


----------



## Lacyon (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No, the fighter does what he is supposed to do, just without mark which he can use on a different enemy, while *the paladin uses his at will mark and ranged basic attacks to deal more damage to a monster than what a real striker can do with encounter or even daily abilities*.




I'd love to see that claim backed up.


----------



## Derren (May 8, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> I'd love to see that claim backed up.




From WotC boards



			
				Subedei said:
			
		

> Average damage from a 3[W] daily power using a longsword and shield, and 18 strength = 20.5
> 
> Assume he can use this daily power at will, and will hit the Solo monster 50% of the time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kishin (May 8, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> I'd love to see that claim backed up.




You won't ever, since its a patently ludicrous claim. Paladin has no way we'e seen to facilitate dealing ranged damage, and the mark is what, 1d8 (at the level we've seen?) No way you're going to outstrip Striker dailies that way.


----------



## Kraydak (May 8, 2008)

Lacyon said:
			
		

> No. There is no need for you to mischaracterize my statements.
> 
> I merely need to assume that the ability to re-establish range and the ability to continue dealing on-par damage even while compromised can be balanced against the fact that being compromised is less bad for the paladin.




You can't reestablish range without someone  else locking down the enemy, unless the enemy was never able to engage in the first place.  If the enemy is unable to engage, you don't need a defender.


> In other words, the paladin can function as a striker some of the time, but when he's pressed he has to fall back on defender traits. Likewise, some of the strikers (notably the Rogue in at least one playtest report) are able to fill in the defender role for a few rounds on occasion, but not all the time.
> 
> The roles aren't meant to be straitjackets.




Striker: defender damage at best (no SA, other problems), crap tanking if pressed, striker damage if not pressed.
Paladin-Striker: full defender damage, full defender tanking if pressed, striker damage if not pressed.

Indeed, I would certainly agree that the roles aren't straightjackets.


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 8, 2008)

I really don't see what the confusion over Divine Challenge is all about. The ranged Paladin is a viable build(albeit one that is crippled without multiclassing), but falls short for several reasons. I'll repost from the 'Is the Paladin a Striker?' thread.



> All these comments seem to assume several things I doubt any competent DM(or even most incompetent ones...) will let happen.
> 
> Everything said assumes there is only one monster ever attacking anyone.
> It assumes that said monster has no ranged or special movement abilities. Basically, you're either fighting a single minion, normal, or elite monster, as all solos will have something they can do, if only for a round or so.
> ...




As for the Warlock's Eyebite, I can't say for sure how broken that will be, but I know that in my game, I wont allow something that actively hides you from the enemy to mark them. Having not seen the word-for-word PHB description, it may well mechanically be a consistent  massive damage dealer, but it breaks away from the spirit of what Divine Challenge is, so I still wouldn't allow it.

...and don't take that to mean I wouldn't allow ranged marks. It's not what I mean. I'll just houserule that marking and hiding, or possibly even moving away from your mark by more than a single shifted square, will negate that mark.


----------



## Counterspin (May 8, 2008)

It's not a d8 it's 8 damage.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (May 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Striker: defender damage at best (no SA, other problems), crap tanking if pressed, striker damage if not pressed.
> Paladin-Striker: full defender damage, full defender tanking if pressed, striker damage if not pressed.




Your statistics, please.


----------



## Lacyon (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> From WotC boards




Ah. So if you assume that hit chances remain 50% even when using a weapon you aren't proficient with, and that the character shifts all his points from STR to DEX so that he can use a projectile weapon instead of a thrown weapon, he might be able to out-damage another _defender's_ daily power in the case where the monster actually takes the Divine Challenge damage.

I can't see how this backs up your statement, though.


----------



## Ludanto (May 8, 2008)

I still say this isn't a big deal since the Fighter (at least with the abilities we've seen) can't really stop a monster from going after the Paladin.


----------



## Jedi_Solo (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> From WotC boards




Okay.

Since I haven't been to a demo yet or anything similar...

And just to be sure I have all of the (currently available) relevant information...

How does the math on that example break down to get those damage amounts?


----------



## Dragonblade (May 8, 2008)

Counterspin said:
			
		

> It's not a d8 it's 8 damage.




Mearls supposedly said its not 8, but d8. The DDXP character were based on an earlier version of the rules. Although, I haven't seen an actual cite on that....


----------



## Mort_Q (May 8, 2008)

ZetaStriker said:
			
		

> As for the Warlock's Eyebite, I can't say for sure how broken that will be, but I know that in my game, I wont allow something that actively hides you from the enemy to mark them.




It only hides from the one you cursed targeted , right?  Others, if there are any, can still see you?


----------



## Kraydak (May 8, 2008)

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Your statistics, please.




Going by the corrected DDXP characters (which has Divine Challenge at a flat 8 damage), we get:

Ranger basic attack: +6 for d10+d8+4 (14)
Range at-will: +10 for d10+d8 (10)
The above assuming that the ranger can apply Hunter's Quarry on the desired target (generally true), and costing the ranger 1 feat (Lethal Hunter, presumably taken Hunter's Quarry from d6 to d8).
Ranger AC for a marked enemy=17+2 (mark)=19.

Tweaked paladin w/thrown handaxe (stats taken from fighter, corrected for Dwarven Weapon Training, presuming the weapon proficiency costs the paladin a feat which makes up for Lethal Hunter, we further give the paladin limited MAD, and reduce his weapon stat mod to 3):
Range basic: +6 for d6+3 (6.5)
Divine Challenge 8 (or d8 for 4.5).
AC=20.

Target AC/Ranger damage/Paladin damage (DG=8)/Paladin damage (DG=d8)
20 / 5.5 / 10.275 / 6.775
15 / 8.4 / 11.9 / 8.4
10 / 11.9 / 13.525 / 10.025

We can see that if DG=flat 8, the paladin smokes the ranger, especially against high AC targets (i.e. those that count).  If DG=d8, the paladin is roughly equal to the ranger, does more damage against hard target but less against soft ones.  The paladin has a better AC, even if the ranger is being targeted by marked foes.  The paladin has better HP/Healing surges.

I expect the paladin is being underplayed here too, as his ideal weapon selection is *very* unclear.  We are reverse engineering from secondary weapon set-ups.


----------



## Lacyon (May 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> You can't reestablish range without someone  else locking down the enemy, unless the enemy was never able to engage in the first place.




No wonder you're having trouble with this.

*Nimble Strike* Ranger Attack 1
*At Will - Martial, Weapon*
*Standard Action Ranged* weapon
*Target* one creature
*Special* Shift 1 square before or after you attack
*Attack* melee or ranged vs. AC

Allows the ranger who's in a bad spot to shift out of range + attack (avoids OA) and still have a full normal move action to move (run if necessary) back behind the fighter. You can also keep using your Hunter's Quarry class feature to keep your damage up (either keep firing at your current quarry or retarget it at the target now close to you).

*Eyebite Warlock* Attack 1
*At Will - Arcane, Charm, Implement, Psychic*
*Target* one creature
*Attack* Cha vs. Will
*Hit* 1d6 + Cha Psychic damage and you are invisible to the target until the start of your next turn.

The warlock shifts (move action), curses (minor action), Eyebite (standard action). He does about 2 less damage than he would at longer range. Next round, unless his tormentor has somehow managed to find him while he was invisible, he moves away (perhaps behind the Fighter) and continues his normal blasting with additional benefit of concealment from his Shadow Walk power.

The paladin, once an enemy reaches him, can maybe shift away and keep attacking without avoiding OAs. He lost last round's Divine Challenge damage if the guy who caught up with him is the marked target, however. He now has to pick a new, far-away target for his Divine Challenge if he wants to keep his bonus damage, because he can't keep attacking AND avoid OAs AND re-establish range.

Alternatively, he could rely on his AC and hp and risk the OAs, thus risking his supposedly gigantic advantage over a traditional strikers. Still gets less movement than the ranger, and an additional one square penalty of movement if he's in heavy armor (oops). He can make up the movement difference by running, granting combat advantage to the OA (reducing or negating his AC advantage). His best choice is usually going to be _paladin up_.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Striker: defender damage at best (no SA, other problems), crap tanking if pressed, striker damage if not pressed.




Keeps full damage if pressed. SA is _easier_ to use in melee, not harder, and the other strikers' bonus damage take only a minor action to activate and target the closest guy anyway.
Gets away if pressed.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> Paladin-Striker: full defender damage, full defender tanking if pressed, striker damage if not pressed.




Full defender tanking and damage in place of getting away and keeping full striker damage. Trade-offs FTW.


----------



## SlagMortar (May 8, 2008)

In terms of dealing damage, I think a ranged striker paladin can probably compete with and potentially out do a standard striker by using divine challenge + ranged attacks.  If not, a ranged paladin with the ranger multiclass feat probably can.  However, I think replacing a striker with a ranged paladin might suffer in its ability to deal damage where it counts - to the enemy's artillery and controllers.

Consider a 5-person party of fighter, paladin, rogue, cleric, wizard facing a 4-person enemy group of artillery, brute, brute, brute.  

As I understand it, this situation calls for the rogue to attack the artillery while the defenders and controller keep the brutes off the rogue.

Replacing the rogue with a paladin striker could do very well (possibly better than the rogue) at damaging the brutes with DC + ranged attacks.  However as long as the enemy artillery is able to stay 6 squares behind the brutes, the paladin will have a difficult time getting past the brutes to apply DC to the artilery.  This is because the paladin lacks the movement related powers common to a striker.  

Whether this situation really presents the paladin striker's party with a problem depends on the artillery being the enemies' major offensive threat and on the paladin having a hard time getting enough movement related powers from feats, items, multi-classing, etc.


----------



## Kordeth (May 8, 2008)

Personally, I'm far less interested in seeing numbers crunched in a vacuum than I am in seeing someone come up with an _actual scenario_ (i.e. an encounter area, chunk of a dungeon, etc.) where this tactic actually works for more than a round or two tops before the monsters either break the paladin's LOS or just charge him and nullify his ranged combat super-advantage.

Show me, I dunno, five of those and I might start to think there's potential for abuse.


----------



## malraux (May 8, 2008)

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Personally, I'm far less interested in seeing numbers crunched in a vacuum than I am in seeing someone come up with an _actual scenario_ (i.e. an encounter area, chunk of a dungeon, etc.) where this tactic actually works for more than a round or two tops before the monsters either break the paladin's LOS or just charge him and nullify his ranged combat super-advantage.
> 
> Show me, I dunno, five of those and I might start to think there's potential for abuse.



Ding.  The 3e running the numbers isn't a great way to go because the 4e elements are so tactical that the assumptions are tough to deal with.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 8, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> No, the fighter does what he is supposed to do, just without mark which he can use on a different enemy, while the paladin uses his at will mark and ranged basic attacks to deal more damage to a monster than what a real striker can do with encounter or even daily abilities.




I think you're mistaken.  This combination, when the pally can pull it off, can deal a respectable amount of damage.  It isn't on par with striker encounter or per day abilities.

Firstly, Dexterity isn't a primary or secondary ability score for paladins.  It is tertiary.  So, going with the longbow using pally you've put forward... let's assume that you nerf your primary scores a little to get a decent dexterity score of 14 (the DDXP halfling pally had a 12 dexterity, despite that halflings get a +2 to dexterity).  Any more than this and you can likely forget about being even reasonably effective when you are forced into melee.
A longbow deals 1d10+Dex damage (we'll assume that he is a human even though this increases the price that he paid for his 14 dex a bit, since it's simpler than making up stats for a shortbow).  We'll even grant the pally the 16 Charisma that the halfling pally has (he'll have to pay for those points from Str, Wis or Con, but let's ignore that for the moment).

For simplicities sake, lets assume a base 50% chance to hit the target with +0 attack.

Your pally has a +4 to hit with his Longbow (we'll assume he took the feat to be proficient).

So he has Longbow +4 to hit [1d10+2 dmg = avg 7.5 dmg] plus (assuming all goes well) an automatic 8 radiant damage, for a total average 15.5 damage each round (assuming he hits with his ranged attack).  His divine challenge also applies a -2 to attack to the target.  
His accuracy is 70% (100% for DivC) for an average damage of 13.25 and a -2 to attack.

The DDXP Ranger's at-will ability Hunter's Quarry grants him +1d8 dmg (4.5 avg dmg)vs his quarry.  
His at-will Careful Attack has a +10 to hit and deals [1d10+4 dmg = 9.5 avg damage]
His total average damage with his at will abilities is 14 dmg, 1.5 dmg less than the pally but with a better chance to hit (albeit, even if the pally misses, he has a guaranteed 8 dmg so long as he can keep the mark on the target).  
This attack has 95% accuracy for 13.3 avg dmg.

The Ranger's daily power is Split the Tree +6 to hit two different targets (roll two attack rolls and take the better of the two).  It deals 2d10+4 damage (avg 15 dmg) to each target, plus the hunter's quarry bonus to one of them.  One takes an average of 19.5 dmg and the other takes avg 15 dmg, for a total of 34.5 damage.  The attack is also highly accurate.
The accuracy is 80% with a reroll, for 95% accuracy for 32.775 avg dmg.

The ranger's at will is pretty much in the same ballpark, MAYBE slightly weaker.
The ranger's daily is more than twice the amount of damage.
This is given that I have been fairly generous with the ranged pally build.

I daresay without evidence to back up your claim that this pally combo can out damage striker daily powers, I must disagree.


----------



## Lacyon (May 8, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> If DG=d8, the paladin is roughly equal to the ranger, does more damage against hard target but less against soft ones.




This is what makes the most sense, then.

Notice that the DDXP fighter does an average of 13.5 damage at +6 versus AC (assuming there's a legal cleave target), compared to the DDXP ranger's 14 damage at +6 to-hit (assuming the target's been "quarried").

I've noted elsewhere that strikers almost certainly aren't supposed to be some kind of damage-dealing monstrosities. They get to deal all their damage _to a single target_, and they get powers and abilities that let them _choose their targets_, and pay for it by not getting all the boosts that other classes get (surges, buffs, AoE effects, etc.)


----------



## SlagMortar (May 8, 2008)

Fanaelialae said:
			
		

> This attack has 95% accuracy for 13.3 avg dmg.



Assuming the ranger hits 95% of the time with his at-will attacks is probably not a good assumption.  The divine challenge damage is best when the target is difficult to hit, because the damage does not require a to hit roll.  Assuming the range hits 95% of the time skews the analysis in favor of the ranger.


----------



## malraux (May 8, 2008)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Assuming the ranger hits 95% of the time with his at-will attacks is probably not a good assumption.  The divine challenge damage is best when the target is difficult to hit, because the damage does not require a to hit roll.  Assuming the range hits 95% of the time skews the analysis in favor of the ranger.



But the target being difficult to hit throws out the whole premiss of the divine challenge damage always happening.  The only way to make it work is for the fighter to use his OA to end the movement of the opponent.  But if we're only talking about high AC creatures, then the OA is likely to miss, so the opponent can engage the paladin easily.


----------



## Ludanto (May 8, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> But the target being difficult to hit throws out the whole premiss of the divine challenge damage always happening.  The only way to make it work is for the fighter to use his OA to end the movement of the opponent.  But if we're only talking about high AC creatures, then the OA is likely to miss, so the opponent can engage the paladin easily.




And if the monster Shifts and Charges, he can avoid an OA altogether.


----------



## Kordeth (May 8, 2008)

malraux said:
			
		

> But the target being difficult to hit throws out the whole premiss of the divine challenge damage always happening.  The only way to make it work is for the fighter to use his OA to end the movement of the opponent.  But if we're only talking about high AC creatures, then the OA is likely to miss, so the opponent can engage the paladin easily.




The OA isn't even an issue unless the fighter has a reach weapon: Shift (move action) + Charge the paladin (standard action) = no OA for the fighter (the immediate reaction attack from Combat Challenge is _not_ an OA and therefore doesn't abort the monster's movement).

D'oh, ninja'd. Curse you, Ludanto!


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (May 8, 2008)

And again, if the monster moves and gets stopped by the Fighter's OA, it can then exchange its standard action for another move action, which the fighter cannot stop since he already used his OA.  

The monster doesn't take any radiant damage since he didn't attack anybody other than the paladin - he didn't attack anyone at all trying to get to him.  

The Paladin has not gained any distance since he can only make a single move action and must attack the creature with his standard action.  Sure, the monster loses its attack that round, but to me this makes the most sense for the power - it really wants to reach that paladin.  

The fighter can pursue the creature and repeat the process, but the first time that fighter misses its OA, that creature will probably double move, reaching the paladin.  The Fighter will have to double move to keep up and now you end up with a nice melee where the creature can try to chew on the Paladin while the fighter flanks it and they beat on the creature, or the Paladin can try to disengage to start the cycle again and risk the creatures own OA.  

This all sounds like good tactics to me, and is easily controlled by a DM by not making most fights be a solo fight, or using a creature that has its own powers that can do other things that might not make this such a nice neat scenario.

Heh, I just suddenly had an image of Han Solo running into a squad of stormtroopers, turning to run, and drawing them all after him.  Of course this power only works on one creature.


----------



## FireLance (May 9, 2008)

By the way, as posted by Stephen Radney-MacFarland (Associate Developer, RPG R&D, Wizards of the Coast) in another thread:


			
				Adso said:
			
		

> You can take thrown (simple) weapons with the paladin, but it's never the best option, since your weapon powers are almost always melee, and your ranged powers are almost always implement powers. If you use this "throw build" you'll end up doing basic attacks with ranged (meaning you'll have to build in a higher Dex than you normally would) and *trying not tanking your Cha (since you want to get the most damage you can out of your divine challenge ability)* even then I don't think it’ll work very well. You are better off, using your challenge, marking foes, and keeping them on you, and then attacking with powers that grant allies bonuses to AC, grant temporary hit points, or that move your opponent away from you or your allies (making your target work to come get you or take your radiant damage, all of which is fine defending if you ask me).



It appears that damage from Divine Challenge depends on your Charisma, possibly 5 + Charisma bonus. So, the D&D XP paladin got 8 damage because of his 16 Charisma. So, it's probably not a flat 1d8.


----------



## FireLance (May 9, 2008)

Further information about the fighter's Combat Challenge in the Shadowfell preview thread:


> Every time you attack an enemy, whether that attack hits or misses, you can choose to mark that target. The mark lasts until the end of your next turn. While a target is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls if its attack doesn't include you as a target. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
> In addition whenever an enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or *makes an attack that does not include you*, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt.



This makes the tactic of maintaining his challenge at range even more of an inferior option for the paladin. The synergy between a fighter and a paladin works even better when both of them are in melee with a single target:

1. They can flank the target.
2. The paladin gets to use his melee powers.
3. The opponent still takes Divine Challenge damage for attacking the fighter, or takes a basic attack from the fighter for attacking the paladin.
4. The paladin is in a position to take damage which he can heal with his own healing surges instead of lumping all the damage on the fighter (the paladin only has so many daily uses of Lay on Hands, after all).


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 9, 2008)

Not to mention that everyone's math is wrong simply by virtue of that fact that they assume they'll be doing Divine Challenge damage every turn. It's far more likely that Divine Challenge will simply do the Defender's job of drawing in enemies, as it's been pointed out that there are many ways around a fighter. The Paladin _will_ get pushed into melee with the creature within the first two rounds. I see the odds of actually dealing Divine Challenge damage drops to about 1-7%, only coming into play either when another party member is critically wounded, the creature still have a large back of HP to fall back upon and finds pressing a weaker party member to be a better option, or when the Paladin and Fighter are both in melee and it faces a threat from either, no matter who it attacks.


----------



## Sojorn (May 9, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Further information about the fighter's Combat Challenge in the Shadowfell preview thread:
> This makes the tactic of maintaining his challenge at range even more of an inferior option for the paladin. The synergy between a fighter and a paladin works even better when both of them are in melee with a single target:
> 
> 1. They can flank the target.
> ...



Certainly makes the fighter in front, paladin tossing challenge from the back a nice opener though.

Rake them over the coals and then trap them between the fighter and the paladin.

It blows my mind whenever I realize we're talking about 1st level characters here...


----------



## LFK (May 9, 2008)

I love how many people assume/insist that the affected creature _will_ take the 8 damage _round after round after round_ as though it had no other option.


----------



## ZetaStriker (May 9, 2008)

Yeah, for the short term, Divine Challenge from a ranged Paladin does work pretty well. But the build itself can't function as a Striker, it'll just occasionally get that extra damage boost that is still very 'Defender-ish' in nature.


----------



## Serin_Marst (May 9, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Further information about the fighter's Combat Challenge in the Shadowfell preview thread:
> This makes the tactic of maintaining his challenge at range even more of an inferior option for the paladin. The synergy between a fighter and a paladin works even better when both of them are in melee with a single target:
> 
> 1. They can flank the target.
> ...



 If I'm reading that right, not quite, but it's still another nail in the coffin of this tactic.

Note the "A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time."  As we've heard that "marked" is a keyword, I read that as, only the Paladin or the fighter can have the target marked, not both.  But the whole "kiting" scenario is still in pretty bad shape.

Here's how I see it:  The whole scenaio is predicated on the paladin being able to outrun whatever he's got marked with only a single move action.  I'm, frankly, skeptical that he'd even be able to maintain separation for more than a single round.

Let's say the paladin has a move of 5 and the target has a move of 6(pretty standard numbers from what we've seen so far), in order to mark the target, the paladin has to be within 5 squares, so a separation of 4 squares as the monster has to be in the fifth.  Paladin marks the target tosses a hammer at it and RUNS 7 squares away (granted, as a DM, i'd just declare that "disengaging" and drop the mark anyway).  So now 11 squares of separation.  Monster shifts away from the fighter(no attack because he can't mark it) and runs after the paladin, covering 9 squares total, leaving them only 2 squares apart.  Same deal next round and the monster is adjacent to the paladin without ever triggering the mark or drawing an AoO from the fighter to lock him down.  Now he either has to run drawing an AoO or shift and just get trivially caught again, or man up and fight like he should have been in the first place.

Difficult terain and other party members may stretch it out a little, but ultimately, the result is the same.  Paladin gets caught and only has a couple basic ranged attacks with no bonus damage to show for it.


----------



## Kordeth (May 9, 2008)

Serin_Marst said:
			
		

> If I'm reading that right, not quite, but it's still another nail in the coffin of this tactic.
> 
> Note the "A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time."  As we've heard that "marked" is a keyword, I read that as, only the Paladin or the fighter can have the target marked, not both.  But the whole "kiting" scenario is still in pretty bad shape.




According to that excerpt, the fighter doesn't have to have the target marked to get the free attack--he gets to smack any adjacent foe who makes an attack against somebody else.


----------



## Exen Trik (May 9, 2008)

So the paladin, a defender, can only take exploit his marking power by acting like a striker? I don't really see the problem here, even with multiclassing into a striker role the benefit is limited, and a striker that dips into paladin can only do this to one enemy per encounter.

I like the way it works, personally. It seems like a powerful combo, but I expect there will be better ones that don't involve subverting it's classes role.


----------



## Serin_Marst (May 9, 2008)

Oops, yeah, miss read that.

Of course, according the the other thread, the movement lockdown ability may not be a given for the fighter, either.  So a move/charge combo to catch the paladin in one round may be possible as well.

Either way, some one trying this only really ends up buying maybe a round using this tactic and doesn't gain much of anything in the way of damage output over just engaging in melee.


----------



## The Little Raven (May 9, 2008)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> It seems like a powerful combo, but I expect there will be better ones that don't involve subverting it's classes role.




It seems like a total waste to me, since 95% of the paladin's powers are either melee weapon or implement, which means they're useless with a bow.


----------



## malraux (May 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It seems like a total waste to me, since 95% of the paladin's powers are either melee weapon or implement, which means they're useless with a bow.



Its also worth pointing out that the fighter can't mark the big bad thing either.  In the excerpt, that wouldn't affect things too much, but I'd suspect lots of other fighter power trigger off of marking.


----------



## Incenjucar (May 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It seems like a total waste to me, since 95% of the paladin's powers are either melee weapon or implement, which means they're useless with a bow.




The problem, if any, is if you have a ranged character who has multiclassed.


----------



## Exen Trik (May 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It seems like a total waste to me, since 95% of the paladin's powers are either melee weapon or implement, which means they're useless with a bow.



Well, in a drag out battle with all other resources spent, it could prove an effective last ditch effort for a paladin. But yeah I was referring to a paladin/striker multiclass.

There's another scenario where a paladin can use this method to great advantage: fighting a striker. Especially one with great range and flight, just get close enough to mark once and if it tries to keep too much distance and snipe your allies, make it pay for it. In this case, moving far away as possible from your target and drawing it away from your allies may be the best form of defending.


----------



## FireLance (May 9, 2008)

Exen Trik said:
			
		

> So the paladin, a defender, can only take exploit his marking power by acting like a striker? I don't really see the problem here, even with multiclassing into a striker role the benefit is limited, and a striker that dips into paladin can only do this to one enemy per encounter.



It's one way to make use of it, and it will be useful in certain circumstances, e.g. the opponent's AC and defences are too high to damage it in any other way (which could imply that the party is taking on an opponent much tougher than they would normally be expected to handle), the paladin is low on hit points and healing surges, or the party is facing a single, slow-moving opponent with no ranged attacks.

In most other circumstances, the synergy between a paladin and a fighter is more effective when both are in melee with the same opponent.


----------



## FireLance (May 9, 2008)

Mourn said:
			
		

> It seems like a total waste to me, since 95% of the paladin's powers are either melee weapon or implement, which means they're useless with a bow.



Actually, a paladin should be able to maintain his challenge by using his ranged implement powers. A paladin that wants to defend "at range" might find himself selecting more of these powers.


----------



## Fanaelialae (May 9, 2008)

SlagMortar said:
			
		

> Assuming the ranger hits 95% of the time with his at-will attacks is probably not a good assumption.  The divine challenge damage is best when the target is difficult to hit, because the damage does not require a to hit roll.  Assuming the range hits 95% of the time skews the analysis in favor of the ranger.




According to the design mechanics, creatures are no longer supposed to be difficult to hit.  The dragon encounter is a bad example that the writers included in the adventure because they figured that players wouldn't care if their DDXP characters died.  DMs are not supposed to throw level 4 solo creatures against a level 1 party because such encounters are very likely to prove lethal.  

I admit that a 50% accuracy was somewhat low; I used it simply for the sake of simplicity.  In truth, it slightly screwed the ranger's total damage value (because my assumption was that everyone needed to hit an AC 10 and the Ranger's Careful Strike attack bonus is +10, he actually loses out on 5% accuracy (because we have to account for the possibility of the automatic miss on a natural 1).

I wanted to give the paladin the benefit of the doubt because I was arguing against it.  This might seem backwards, but if I could prove the paladin's "striker tactic" wasn't all that amazing under optimal conditions, then, IMO, it would be even less useful at the actual table.

I think that it was clear from my analysis that while the paladin, under OPTIMAL conditions, could match the damage of the ranger at-will abilities, it couldn't hold a candle to the ranger daily.  If as I showed, under optimal conditions for the paladin, the ranger's daily is both more accurate and deals almost three times as much damage, the paladin "striker" tactic is inferior to an actual striker.

Apologies if my analysis was unclear.  I admit, it may have been somewhat convoluted and long winded.  One of my friends invited me out for Thai food as I was writing it up, so I was in a bit of a rush.


----------



## hennebeck (May 9, 2008)

I wish there was an ignore feature for quotes on these boards.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 9, 2008)

Mechanics: The paladin must spend a standard action to fire arrows at the marked enemy to maintain the mark. He'll be doing suboptimal damage while the other enemies beat the tar out of the people he is supposed to be protecting. A marked orc bloodrager will most likely also ignore the radiant damage/bow damage and heal himself by focusing attacks on the poor bloodied defender-less wizard. I don't see players adopting this strategy unless there are ranged feats/powers that allow paladins to goad enraged enemies into following him. 

Thematics:  "Come and face me fiend; you'll feel my sting until you do!" The paladin fires an arrow The enemy breaks off his attack against the party wizard and charges the paladin who pulls out his sword and readies for battle. Seems perfectly within character for a paladin...we'll see if the mechanics support this possibility.


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2008)

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> Mechanics: The paladin can fire away with a bow doing suboptimal damage




Where is this false assumption coming from? At will powers don't always increase the damage. SO the paladin using basic bow attacks is doing normal damage in addition to his mark of the fighters AoO damage. I have to concede that this isn't better then the strikers spike damage but does more sustained damage than them.

And when the enemy gets past the fighter who is he going to attack, a squishy and still take damage or the paladin? So the defender role is still filled.

And when the bloodrager can heal itself by attacking squishies and so can ignore the mark damage just means that the orc would do the same when the paladin would engage him in melee instead at range. So no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role.


----------



## FireLance (May 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Where is this false assumption coming from? At will powers don't always increase the damage. SO the paladin using basic bow attacks is doing normal damage in addition to his mark of the fighters AoO damage. I have to concede that this isn't better then the strikers spike damage but does more sustained damage than them.



Suboptimal compared to what he could do in melee. If the challenged opponent has a ranged attack, the opponent faces the choice of taking damage from the challenge or taking a basic attack from the fighter (or both, if he chooses to attack someone other than the paladin or the fighter) regardless of whether the paladin is at range or in melee. Given that setup, it is usually better for the paladin to be in melee with his challenged opponent instead of making ranged attacks since he can flank the opponent with the fighter, use his melee range powers, and take damage which he can offset with his own healing surges. From a party perspective, it is usually better for the fighter and the paladin to share the damage instead of having all of it directed at one character or the other so that both of them can use their healing surge resources. The paladin can share some of his healing surges using Lay on Hands, but only a limited number of times per day.



> And when the enemy gets past the fighter who is he going to attack, a squishy and still take damage or the paladin? So the defender role is still filled.
> 
> And when the bloodrager can heal itself by attacking squishies and so can ignore the mark damage just means that the orc would do the same when the paladin would engage him in melee instead at range. So no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role.



Are you basing the assertion that "no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role" on the argument that one creature out of seven in the MM excerpt (not to mention all the other monsters that have been revealed so far) gains hit points by attacking bloodied opponents?


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Where is this false assumption coming from? At will powers don't always increase the damage. SO the paladin using basic bow attacks is doing normal damage in addition to his mark of the fighters AoO damage. I have to concede that this isn't better then the strikers spike damage but does more sustained damage than them.
> 
> And when the enemy gets past the fighter who is he going to attack, a squishy and still take damage or the paladin? So the defender role is still filled.
> 
> And when the bloodrager can heal itself by attacking squishies and so can ignore the mark damage just means that the orc would do the same when the paladin would engage him in melee instead at range. So no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role.




Paladins have melee smites that deal 2x or 3x damage. But more importantly the paladin has at least one ability to jump in the way of an adjacent attack and take the damage himself. His smites also grant additional benefits like shield bonuses to nearby allies. Adjacent allies gain immunity to fear and charm if he is a Justiciar. Worse comes to worse he can use lay on hands to heal an adjacent ally. He is also occupying a square...protecting a flank, and soaking up damage that would otherwise be directed at someone else. 

Even if the paladin did not have powers that granted extra damage, he'd be making suboptimal use of his turn by making a basic attack with a bow. He could be shielding an ally or even giving himself temporary hps. His powers are geared toward defending not striking.


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Are you basing the assertion that "no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role" on the argument that one creature out of seven in the MM excerpt (not to mention all the other monsters that have been revealed so far) gains hit points by attacking bloodied opponents?




Thats the example ppaladin123 used to show that this strategy is bad.
Scenario 1: The monster can't heal and to avoid damage must attack the paladin -> paladin defends even from the backrow as it will attack the paladin after getting past the fighter
Scenario 2: The monster doesn't care about the mark damage as it can heal itself by hitting squishies -> paladin can't defend even if he goes into melee as the monster simply attacks squishies instead him.



			
				ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> Paladins have melee smites that deal 2x or 3x damage. But more importantly the paladin has at least one ability to jump in the way of an adjacent attack and take the damage himself. His smites also grant additional benefits like shield bonuses to nearby allies. Adjacent allies gain immunity to fear and charm if he is a Justiciar. Worse comes to worse he can use lay on hands to heal an adjacent ally.




He can do x2 or x3 damage once or twice per encounter/day and depending on his weapon x2 might not do more damage than mark & bow.
Nearby ally get shield bonuses and he can intercept attacks? Wouldn't it be better to stand next to the squishies in the back row to protect them instead standing next to the other defender and leave the squishies unprotected?


----------



## FireLance (May 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats the example ppaladin123 used to show that this strategy is bad.
> Scenario 1: The monster can't heal and to avoid damage must attack the paladin -> paladin defends even from the backrow as it will attack the paladin after getting past the fighter
> Scenario 2: The monster doesn't care about the mark damage as it can heal itself by hitting squishies -> paladin can't defend even if he goes into melee as the monster simply attacks squishies instead him.



Well, in scenario 2, the paladin defends by _killing the moster as fast as possible_, and since his melee attack and damage are probably better than his ranged attack and damage, he's better off engaging the monster in melee instead of at range.



> He can do x2 or x3 damage once or twice per encounter/day and depending on his weapon x2 might not do more damage than mark & bow.
> Nearby ally get shield bonuses and he can intercept attacks? Wouldn't it be better to stand next to the squishies in the back row to protect them instead standing next to the other defender and leave the squishies unprotected?



I think the paladin's best tactic will be situational and will depend, among other things, on the terrain, the number of opponents, and the abilities of the opponents. So, challenging from range is sometimes a good tactic. Helping the fighter to lock down an opponent in melee is sometimes a good tactic. The tactical situation may even change from round to round so that was was a good tactic the previous round is no longer a good idea now. It's part of what makes the game interesting for me, at least.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> Thats the example ppaladin123 used to show that this strategy is bad.
> Scenario 1: The monster can't heal and to avoid damage must attack the paladin -> paladin defends even from the backrow as it will attack the paladin after getting past the fighter
> Scenario 2: The monster doesn't care about the mark damage as it can heal itself by hitting squishies -> paladin can't defend even if he goes into melee as the monster simply attacks squishies instead him.
> 
> ...





Nearby allies don't get shield bonuses unless you smite something with your melee weapon. Other powers confer other benefits upon smiting something with your melee weapon. Meanwhile you've left the fighter to soak up all the damage....

I really don't think you've found an exploit here and even if you did it would be a rather boring one to play since you could be a ranger, use the hunter's mark and use a bunch of ranged powers instead and do the same or more damage while conferring whatever benefits (my guess is stuff like ranged disarm, hamstringing, etc) a bow master receives.


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> I think the paladin's best tactic will be situational and will depend, among other things, on the terrain, the number of opponents, and the abilities of the opponents. So, challenging from range is sometimes a good tactic. Helping the fighter to lock down an opponent in melee is sometimes a good tactic. The tactical situation may even change from round to round so that was was a good tactic the previous round is no longer a good idea now. It's part of what makes the game interesting for me, at least.




As I see it, challenging at range is more often than not a better idea when you still play a defender paladin. When you go for damage then it is always better to challenge at range (and the damage is equal or better the sustained damage of strikers) while the paladin is still harder to kill than strikers


----------



## FireLance (May 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> As I see it, challenging at range is more often than not a better idea when you still play a defender paladin. When you go for damage then it is always better to challenge at range (and the damage is equal or better the sustained damage of strikers) while the paladin is still harder to kill than strikers



Of course, the striker paladin tactic is still highly dependent on the challenged opponent having no ranged attack. 

By the way, it is also possible that the damage from Divine Challenge has been reduced. The Keep on the Shadowfell dragonborn paladin has Wis 13, Cha 16 and his challenge does 6 hp of radiant damage. This could mean that challenge damage is 5 + Wisdom bonus (unlikely, since a WotC staff said it depended on Charisma), or it is now 3 + Charisma bonus.


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2008)

FireLance said:
			
		

> Of course, the striker paladin tactic is still highly dependent on the challenged opponent having no ranged attack.




For his own damage. With this setup the enemy then gets damaged by the fighter because he is forced to provoke AoOs. And even without the fighter, the paladin just has to choose the melee enemies to attack first tell they are that. Then its easy to get a melee guy next to the ranged enemies.







> By the way, it is also possible that the damage from Divine Challenge has been reduced. The Keep on the Shadowfell dragonborn paladin has Wis 13, Cha 16 and his challenge does 6 hp of radiant damage. This could mean that challenge damage is 5 + Wisdom bonus (unlikely, since a WotC staff said it depended on Charisma), or it is now 3 + Charisma bonus.




That remains to be seen and does of course affect if this tactic is useful or not. Although such a reduction also hurts the "properly" played paladins as its easier for the enemy to ignore the mark.


----------



## ppaladin123 (May 9, 2008)

Slightly off topic but still relevant: do we know if the paladin is proficient in military ranged weapons or just simple ranged weapons?


----------



## Derren (May 9, 2008)

ppaladin123 said:
			
		

> Slightly off topic but still relevant: do we know if the paladin is proficient in military ranged weapons or just simple ranged weapons?




He likely won't be proficient with military ranged weapons. But that can be changed with a feat and only means that he won't get the bonus of the weapon and no penalty.


----------



## hong (May 9, 2008)

Derren said:
			
		

> He likely won't be proficient with military ranged weapons. But that can be changed with a feat and only means that he won't get the bonus of the weapon and no penalty.




Of course, there is more to being a paladin than weapon proficiency.


----------



## malraux (May 9, 2008)

You know, even if the monster found that it was better to disengage from the fighter and move somewhere else in response to the paladin's challenge, once he gets to the squishies, he's likely to find that he'd be better off chewing through the wizard than going after the paladin.  Of course, if the paladin were engaged in melee, he has some powers that would greatly help.  If he's way in the back, not as much.


----------



## Hussar (May 9, 2008)

This whole discussion is based on some extremely large assumptions.  

IF the paladin can mark and then move away...
IF the fighter can "sticky" the baddie....

Come on.  What's to stop the baddie from picking up the fighter and hitting the paladin with him a la Hobgoblin Strangler?  Heck, if the baddie has reach, then the paladin no longer can simply shift away and gets nailed by the baddie's OA.  What if the baddie grapples the paladin?  Good grief there's a hundred different ways this goes south in a hurry.

Bottom line is, you have to tag team two defenders against a single opponent for this to work.  Given the baseline of 5 baddies (or more) in encounters, this is probably the poorest tactic to use.  It's just stupid.  Tie up your two defenders while the other four monsters beat the crap out of your three other PC's.  

Any two players who tried this should be pelted with dice repeatedly.


----------



## Henry (May 9, 2008)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Heck, if the baddie has reach, then the paladin no longer can simply shift away and gets nailed by the baddie's OA.  What if the baddie grapples the paladin?  Good grief there's a hundred different ways this goes south in a hurry.




Side note: We've learned that reach doesn't threaten any more, and "threatening reach" is a more uncommon ability. However, I do agree with your point, the whole marking and running thing is not really a big issue. It almost seems that some are averse to much movement on the battlefield.


----------



## Knightlord (May 9, 2008)

Ya know, I just have to ask: Why is this such a "bad" thing? It's not like it's a gamebreaker or anything. If you want to look at it in a positive light, you can see it's two players working together to achieve a common goal, and it only works against one creature at a time.

If you "don't" see a problem with it, then allow it to work in your game. If you "do" see it as a problem, then don't allow it in your game.


----------



## D.Shaffer (May 9, 2008)

I'm really not seeing the exact problem here either.

Is it
A: That a Paladin can possibly act like a striker at all

or

B: that people are worried that it outdoes the Striker?

The former...why is this an issue? If it works, hey why not.  
If the latter? I dont think we have enough real info on the Striker classes to judge yet.


----------



## Mengu (May 9, 2008)

Let me start by saying, I don't think the range attacking paladin will be much of a problem, but the wording of the ability seems rather clunky to me. It could have been simpler without losing flavor or usefulness, while eliminating the temptation for the paladin to play chase around the battle field. I would have preferred something in the lines of:

Divine Challenge
At-Will Divine, Radiant
Minor Action (sustain free)
Target: One Adjacent Creature
Effect: Target is _marked_. If target creature makes an attack that does not include you *during its turn* it takes -2 to attack rolls, and suffers X damage. Divine challenge can be sustained as a free action, but expires if you do not end your turn adjacent to the target. You may only have one divine challenge at a time, and a creature may only be affected by one mark at a time (latest mark supersedes previous marks).

Without knowing the design philosophies, it's hard to say if this melee only ability would fit the design or not, but it would be simpler.


----------



## Psikus (May 9, 2008)

I don't think that Divine Challenge, in its current form, is really broken. The Fighter-Paladin Challenge Lock is a powerful maneuver, but not that easy to sustain against enemies willing to shift, take attack from fighter, then move. Yes, I'd make sure my paladin always carries plenty of, say, throwing axes to try the trick. But I can think of many scenarios where staying in melee with the marked opponent and being able to flank, lay on hands, and actually use your at-will and encounter powers will be worth it. 

What I'd never do, however, is cripple my PC by playing the Archer Paladin with no proficiencies, virtually no class powers, and just one class feature, just to get the combo running. Not when I can take a ranger and just give him this: 

Soldier of the Faith 	Str 13, Cha 13 	Paladin: skill training, divine challenge 1/encounter

Getting the trick on a character with actual ranged capabilities should be much, much better. You lose the ability to repeat the process in encounters with several enemies, but I find that acceptable. And if you get stunned or are otherwise unable to sustain the Challenge, you're screwed. At least you still have regular ranger damage.

Something that could be, if not broken, REALLY annoying, is a party where everybody (including, of course, a fighter) multiclassed to paladin. I'll have to playtest that, some day.


(I am aware that getting the Str and Cha for the paladin feat isn't exactly free, and that using the Challenge can interfere with other class features such as Hunter's Quarry. But it still beats the single class ranged paladin build, IMO)


----------



## cdrcjsn (May 9, 2008)

*So I tried this tactic...*

So I was interested in this discussion and actually tried it last night with 4 players and a DM.  One of each character role.  I played the paladin archer in a Striker role.

I gave the halfling a shortbow (1d8).  Lowered Str and hiked up Dex.  If Divine Challenge damage happened, he was doing about the same amount as a Ranger would, though using mainly basic ranged attacks rather than at-will or encounter powers.

We ran two encounters, one in an open field and one inside a crypt-type dungeon.

The first combat took 4 rounds, and the Divine Challenge trick was able to be used to do damage in three of those rounds.  It was 3 large bruisers without ranged attacks and one very mobile skirmisher.

The second combat took place the same day and lasted 11 rounds.  Positioning was troublesome indoors and made it difficult to mark and run away.  Several times during the fight, I recall not marking at all because I was bloodied and didn't want to draw attention away from the Defender.  Divine Challenge damaged oppoents only 3 times during that 11 round fight.  It was up for 7 of those rounds, but opponents were able to maneuver close to me for melee or had ranged attacks.  The cramped quarters indoors definitely hurt the challenge and run tactic, since there was very little space to run to.

So my impression?  It can be made to work.  But I think having a party of four definitely limited my options.  If we had a solid party of 5 with two defenders, then I can see the build doing as much damage as a real striker.

The downsides?  Real Strikers have mobility options that a paladin simply does not, which makes indoor combats a lot tougher.  Other players also had a negative view about not playing according to your supposed class role, despite the numbers saying that you're an adequate replacement (I kept track of average damage for this and previous combats that had a ranger or rogue striker).


----------



## Kraydak (May 9, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> So I was interested in this discussion and actually tried it last night with 4 players and a DM.  One of each character role.  I played the paladin archer in a Striker role.
> 
> I gave the halfling a shortbow (1d8).  Lowered Str and hiked up Dex.  If Divine Challenge damage happened, he was doing about the same amount as a Ranger would, though using mainly basic ranged attacks rather than at-will or encounter powers.
> 
> ...




(1) I agree that the striker-pally depends on a solid front line to do his damage.  On the other hand, so do real strikers.  Did you feel that the DM was trying harder to smack you down than he would have against a normal striker, all things considered?  Of course, if the DM *really* hates the striker-pally, you have just found the ideal defender-pally build: meta-game aggro FTW!
(2) Thrown+Shield or (if possible, I kinda doubt it) Implement+Shield.  If the opposition *really* wants to attack you with ranged weapons through the cover of the rest of the party, while you have a shield on, so be it.  Further, if the part does get flanked, you are set-up for normal defender action where a real-striker would be running around trying not to die.  Of course, our ability to reverse-engineer thrown weapons from the data is... not good.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 9, 2008)

Mengu said:
			
		

> Let me start by saying, I don't think the range attacking paladin will be much of a problem, but the wording of the ability seems rather clunky to me. It could have been simpler without losing flavor or usefulness, while eliminating the temptation for the paladin to play chase around the battle field. I would have preferred something in the lines of:
> 
> Divine Challenge
> At-Will Divine, Radiant
> ...




I like this rewrite!

Minor quibble ... what counts as adjacent?  Can there be a closed door in between?  What about a transparent wall of force?  What if as a readied action (that interrupts your turn) the wizard turns you invisible (but you end up adjacent to the target).  (Substitute any similar effects, such as going ethereal, or the 4E analogue.)  Or, if you are a crazy warlock palading combo (don't know how) that puts on the mark then eyebite's you?

Also, what happens if you are bull rushed, forcibly shifted away from the mark outside of your turn?  (Or if a sliding door closes between you and the marked outside of your turn?)


----------



## Mort_Q (May 9, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Minor quibble ... what counts as adjacent?  C




I'd assume that you require *L*ine *o*f *E*ffect to do... anything.


----------



## cdrcjsn (May 9, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> (1) I agree that the striker-pally depends on a solid front line to do his damage.  On the other hand, so do real strikers.  Did you feel that the DM was trying harder to smack you down than he would have against a normal striker, all things considered?  Of course, if the DM *really* hates the striker-pally, you have just found the ideal defender-pally build: meta-game aggro FTW!.




I wasn't being unduly focused on.  It's just that in a limited space like a dungeon, there's less space to maneuver around in.  If you're near a wall for example, and a bruiser moves adjacent to you, there's no where you can go to get clear to shoot unless you spend your entire action trying to set up for the following round.  The situation would've been the same with a Rogue or Ranger, but those classes have abilities that allow them to better maneuver.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> (2) Thrown+Shield or (if possible, I kinda doubt it) Implement+Shield.  If the opposition *really* wants to attack you with ranged weapons through the cover of the rest of the party, while you have a shield on, so be it.  Further, if the part does get flanked, you are set-up for normal defender action where a real-striker would be running around trying not to die.  Of course, our ability to reverse-engineer thrown weapons from the data is... not




The only problem is that you don't want the opponents to attack you unless you are acting as a defender.  If you're trying to emulate a striker, then you need that Divine Challenge to do damage, otherwise you are doing a lot less than a regular striker.  So, yeah, you can take the hits.  But if you cannot maneuver (i.e. in most dungeons), then the party lacks one Striker and gains one Defender.


----------



## Delgar (May 9, 2008)

This is the actual text of the new divine challenge as seen in Keep on the Shadowfell:

_Divine Challenge
At-Will Divine, Radiant
Minor Action Close burst 5
Target: One creature in burst
Effect: You mark the target. If the creature was already marked, your mark supersedes the previous one. The target remains marked until you use this power against another target, or you fail to engage the target (see below). A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
While a target is marked, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls and takes 6 radiant damage if it makes an attack doesn't include you as a target. The target takes this damage only once per turn. (me. Hmm. Looks like this would also affect OAs)
On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target. To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn.
You can use Divine Challenge once per turn._


----------



## Kraydak (May 9, 2008)

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> I wasn't being unduly focused on.  It's just that in a limited space like a dungeon, there's less space to maneuver around in.  If you're near a wall for example, and a bruiser moves adjacent to you, there's no where you can go to get clear to shoot unless you spend your entire action trying to set up for the following round.  The situation would've been the same with a Rogue or Ranger, but those classes have abilities that allow them to better maneuver.




Better, certainly, but you can still corner them, especially in dungeons.  If you couldn't, defenders would be out of a job   



> The only problem is that you don't want the opponents to attack you unless you are acting as a defender.  If you're trying to emulate a striker, then you need that Divine Challenge to do damage, otherwise you are doing a lot less than a regular striker.  So, yeah, you can take the hits.  But if you cannot maneuver (i.e. in most dungeons), then the party lacks one Striker and gains one Defender.




If the party gets pincered/enveloped, there isn't much maneuvering that will go on at the best of times, and then exchanging a striker for a defender is an extremely good idea.

I guess I have a hard time seeing situations where a rear-line paladin-striker would be forced into melee where a striker wouldn't be getting wailed on.  At that point, you might as well turtle up, it beats ranger-puree and even if the ranger can run, the wizard probably can't.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 10, 2008)

Delgar said:
			
		

> On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target. To engage the target, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn.




So the paladin could mark, attack, shift back a square, then have an ally step between the pally and the mark?  (If so: BLEH!)


----------



## Kraydak (May 10, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> So the paladin could mark, attack, shift back a square, then have an ally step between the pally and the mark?  (If so: BLEH!)




Yes.  Mind, if you and your foe start non-diagonal, it will take more than 1 medium sized person to stop him from shifting back to your face.  If you start diagonal, he will (generally) need to take a move action to get back to you, probably drawing an AoO.  If you can withdraw back behind the front lines, it all works.


----------



## tomBitonti (May 10, 2008)

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Yes.  Mind, if you and your foe start non-diagonal, it will take more than 1 medium sized person to stop him from shifting back to your face.  If you start diagonal, he will (generally) need to take a move action to get back to you, probably drawing an AoO.  If you can withdraw back behind the front lines, it all works.




Standing in a doorway would be sufficient to create the circumstance.

I'm thinking any voluntary movement away from the mark should break the mark.


----------



## FireLance (May 11, 2008)

tomBitonti said:
			
		

> Standing in a doorway would be sufficient to create the circumstance.
> 
> I'm thinking any voluntary movement away from the mark should break the mark.



I kind of like the idea of a mark and draw away tactic, though, and I'm quite happy that the stated rules allow for it. Since paladins don't have to be Lawful Good in 4e (and may not even need to be honorable), it might not even be inappropriate for many paladins.


----------

