Defenders aren't very good at defending?

[Alex319]

While I will debate both sides about whether a defender does his job or not, I wanted to highlight this point. The fact that a paladin and fighter's marks get worse with higher AC is bad game design.

How do the paladin and fighter's marks get worse with higher AC? A higher AC encourages enemies to attack people other than the defender, and that's when the mark is beneficial.

 

[Stalker0]

How do the paladin and fighter's marks get worse with higher AC? A higher AC encourages enemies to attack people other than the defender, and that's when the mark is beneficial.

As others have mentioned in this thread, the marks are designed to provide the monster's an incentive to attack the fighter or paladin instead of the rest of the group. However, the incentive is proportional to how hard the fighter is to hit compared to the rest of the party. If the fighter's AC is 4 higher for example, well then its a pretty good idea for the monster to attack someone else. If the fighter's AC is only 1 higher, then heck hitting another character is actually a detriment to the monster because of the -2, so its much more likely to hit the fighter.

In other words, the monster (the DM) chooses how useful the mark is, and so the fighter actually has to adjust his build to make his character for appetizing for the monster to choose.

With the swordmage that doesn't happen. The swordmage's mark isn't about defending a fellow player from attacks, but from damage. If your marked by a swordmage, the rest of the party will take less damage, regardless of whether the monster chooses to attack the swordmage or not.

 

[Victim]

The swordmage has a mark that works exactly the same as pally and fighter marks. What's different is the secondary stuff that goes along with it. They have the Aegis of Warding which actually prevents damage.

Assault Swordmages, and Paladins just have abilities that punish monsters for attacking allies - which doesn't necessarily prevent damage to allies. The fighter is somewhat in between, since Combat Superiorty means that they can stop monsters from getting to their allies.

But I think for most monsters, the damage is a significant disincentive, besides the -2.

 

[RefinedBean]

So is that to say, that the benefits of a monster activating a fighter and paladin's mark doesn't outweigh the potential harm the monster could inflict on another non-defender, if the fighter or paladin's AC is too high?

Wow. Lame.

 

[frankthedm]

How do the paladin and fighter's marks get worse with higher AC? A higher AC encourages enemies to attack people other than the defender, and that's when the mark is beneficial.

Because if the defender is ever more than 2 AC over an ally, attacking the ally is the better choice even if the attacker is marked or the defender is giving the ally cover.

 

[Obryn]

I can honestly say that marking has seen major use in my games. I think that it's changed the target of a monster's attack or forced them to make non-optimal choices in at least two out of every three combats we've played so far in 4e.

It's a major ability for fighters and paladins, but IMHO the fighter's is significantly better. A paladin isn't very "sticky" at the end of the day, whereas a fighter can force enemies to stay close.

-O

 

[Gloombunny]

Because if the defender is ever more than 2 AC over an ally, attacking the ally is the better choice even if the attacker is marked or the defender is giving the ally cover.

If you think getting +1 to hit is worth giving your enemy a free attack or suffering a lump of radiant damage, sure.

 

[Bayonet_Chris]

Because if the defender is ever more than 2 AC over an ally, attacking the ally is the better choice even if the attacker is marked or the defender is giving the ally cover.

But it's not just the AC difference. The monster marked by the fighter has a -2 and the fighter gets a free attack. The paladin just does damage in addition to the -2.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

Even if you have a much higher AC than your squishy friends, as a defender you're still helping them: you effectively give them +2 to defenses against one target. If you're close as a Fighter, attack them too, or as a Paladin, smite them. Your high AC is only going to be a problem if your allies insist on being close to you and your mark, making themselves an obvious target. Don't forget there are also a couple of feats that could negate the attack altogether with forced movement.

 

[Cadfan]

Because if the defender is ever more than 2 AC over an ally, attacking the ally is the better choice even if the attacker is marked or the defender is giving the ally cover.

This is true, however, the real motivation not to attack an ally isn't the attack roll penalty. Its the fact that, if you attack my ally after I mark you, I hit you with this really big hammer.