Defenders handing out free attacks (to opponents)

[Timlagor]

The -2 is a significant bonus for the squishy's defence and the damage from not attacking the paladin is significant.

You have to attack or be adjacent in order to maintain a mark.

I'm more cncerned about an Archer-Paladin once people can create their own characters. "I shot you from way over here and move away. You're now marked and you can't reach me so you're taking more damage and you have a penalty to hit my pals if you can reach them."

Marks are not supposed to be a perfect defence for everyone else; just to help defend them. Of course in 4E the PCs seem to be outnumbered a lot anyway.

 

[Dausuul]

The -2 is a significant bonus for the squishy's defence and the damage from not attacking the paladin is significant.

You have to attack or be adjacent in order to maintain a mark.

I'm more cncerned about an Archer-Paladin once people can create their own characters. "I shot you from way over here and move away. You're now marked and you can't reach me so you're taking more damage and you have a penalty to hit my pals if you can reach them."

I would hope that a melee attack is required. If not, that may top my list to house-rule.

 

[MindWanderer]

-2 to hit is a big difference, I assure you, and ignoring either of these marks is a bad plan for a monster.

The -2 would be no big deal and the pally is going to feel pretty bad watching them get beat on.

It's very simple. If the squishy you're going for has an AC 2 or more less than the defender, then it's in your best interests to attack the squishy anyway: No modifier vs. AC 19 compared with a -2 modifier vs. AC 15 is a no-brainer. The defender's real schtick is the other penalties, like dealing radiant damage or getting a free attack.

 

[cdrcjsn]

I'm more cncerned about an Archer-Paladin once people can create their own characters. "I shot you from way over here and move away. You're now marked and you can't reach me so you're taking more damage and you have a penalty to hit my pals if you can reach them."

I played a 9th level one. Did about striker level damage thanks to Divine Challenge. But the lack of Striker movement abilities was really felt in enclosed spaces (i.e. most dungeons). Also the stat allocation (higher dex) meant that stats in other places were lower, leading to less resilience.

Pros: similar damage to strikers, can tank for limited duration in emergencies
Cons: don't have Striker mobility or damage/attack avoidance, lose a lot of Paladin resilience, Paladin at-wills don't support ranged combat, most other powers don't benefit from ranged strategy, need to spend feats for Ranger MC to gain ranged powers that other strikers have.

Bottomline is that it can work, but no better than a Ranger or other ranged Striker and you'll be weaker than a normal Defender and won't have the mobility of real Strikers.

A Paladin concentrating on thrown weapons on the other hand...

 

[Dausuul]

I played a 9th level one. Did about striker level damage thanks to Divine Challenge. But the lack of Striker movement abilities was really felt in enclosed spaces (i.e. most dungeons). Also the stat allocation (higher dex) meant that stats in other places were lower, leading to less resilience.

Pros: similar damage to strikers, can tank for limited duration in emergencies
Cons: don't have Striker mobility or damage/attack avoidance, lose a lot of Paladin resilience, Paladin at-wills don't support ranged combat, most other powers don't benefit from ranged strategy, need to spend feats for Ranger MC to gain ranged powers that other strikers have.

Bottomline is that it can work, but no better than a Ranger or other ranged Striker and you'll be weaker than a normal Defender and won't have the mobility of real Strikers.

A Paladin concentrating on thrown weapons on the other hand...

What about a Ranger with the Paladin multiclass feat?

 

[cdrcjsn]

What about a Ranger with the Paladin multiclass feat?

Charisma is a dump stat for Rangers, so raising that to up damage would mean you lose out in something else more important to Rangers.

Paladin MC feat only allows Divine Challenge once per round, and Divine Challenge has a range of 5 squares further limiting it.

I would rather use my feats to up my Hunter's Quarry die, or increase my weapon damage on all attacks, or any number of other feats to improve my mobility/AC or general 'Rangerness' than raise my Charisma and spend the feat on the Paladin MC feat so I can do a little bit more damage on one target per encounter. The Thief MC feat for example won't require different stats and will do more damage (though would require a different weapon for one round).

Keep in mind that most encounters are now with multiple creatures and concentrated fire on one target will usually bring it down in 1 or 2 rounds.

 

[Gloombunny]

Ah man, this is a sick idea.

If by "sick" you mean "cannot possibly ever work", then yeah...

The whole point of a defender is that they're unattractive targets for monsters to attack ('cuz they're harder to kill than other PCs), but they make the other PCs even less attractive by inflicting penalties on monsters who target those other PCs. Your idea relies on making the defender easier to kill or otherwise more attractive as a target than other PCs. The issue there is that if the defender is a more attractive target to the monster, then it's bad for the party for the monster to attack him! That's what "more attractive target to the monster" means!

Defenders can only work if they use sticks, not if they use carrots. If there are no penalties to attacking the wizard instead of the fighter, then monsters will only attack the fighter if attacking the fighter is a better strategic choice. Giving your enemy a better strategic choice than he had before is precisely what you do not want to do.

 

[Frostmarrow]

If by "sick" you mean "cannot possibly ever work", then yeah...

The whole point of a defender is that they're unattractive targets for monsters to attack ('cuz they're harder to kill than other PCs), but they make the other PCs even less attractive by inflicting penalties on monsters who target those other PCs. Your idea relies on making the defender easier to kill or otherwise more attractive as a target than other PCs. The issue there is that if the defender is a more attractive target to the monster, then it's bad for the party for the monster to attack him! That's what "more attractive target to the monster" means!

Defenders can only work if they use sticks, not if they use carrots. If there are no penalties to attacking the wizard instead of the fighter, then monsters will only attack the fighter if attacking the fighter is a better strategic choice. Giving your enemy a better strategic choice than he had before is precisely what you do not want to do.

I mean 'sick' as in "wow a negative ability in a game system that tries very hard to keep penalties out of it".

I agree with your sentiments. The defender is an unattractive target and you can't really make them more attactive because that makes them useless. The trick is to make defenders function like a honey-trap. Once an opponent swallows the bait (the free attack) it is stuck in the defender's threat zone. -Getting out of there is hard, due to the refined opportunity attack-abilities of the defender. It seems you can't even shift in there without provoking aos.

Also, for me it is easier to picture a fighter goading opponents into attacking him, rather than marking opponents. How does marking work, flavor-wise?

 

[Kaffis]

Also, for me it is easier to picture a fighter goading opponents into attacking him, rather than marking opponents. How does marking work, flavor-wise?

By goading their opponents, providing a distraction. Or by being such a threatening presence at their flank, that the opponent can't afford to turn his attention elsewhere (or else he gets smacked in the side of the head, which is a further distraction and screws up his attack).

For paladins, marking opponents is a minor act of divine retribution. Their God demands an honorable combat, and will make his displeasure with any foe of his follower refusing to honor the challenge known in a very tangible manner.

Or, at least, that's how I would fluff it.

 

[Cadfan]

We already have this. Ever intentionally provoked an attack of opportunity to cover an ally who needed to make a strategic move without getting slaughtered?