Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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."

Click to expand...

Derren said:

which only hit on a 20

Click to expand...

I think gazebos are easier to hit than that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Protagonist said:

I think gazebos are easier to hit than that.

Click to expand...

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.