Help me understand the paladin.

[Morgan_Scott82]

I'm really tired of this misconception of fighters being "better" defenders. They each do their job differently, get over it. Fighters are more "sticky" but Paladins make up for it in plenty of other areas.

I disagree, Fighter's are better Defenders. I'm not saying that fighter is a better class, but if all you're measuring is how good a defender each class is the fighter is the clear winner. Though it may be that we're arguing from different definitions of Defender. For me being 'sticky' is the defining element of the defeder role.

I tend to evaluate the game from an action economy impact perspective. Leaders give actions to allys or make allies actions more effective, while defenders and controllers take actions away from enemies or make enemies actions less effective. Strikers are an interesting case in that their action economy effect is backloaded, but they're not really material for this conversation.

Assuming the above definition is valid, the question of who's the better defender comes down to who causes their enemies to use their actions less efficeintly. An attack against a defender is less efficient than an attack against another party member, defenders incentivise enemies to attack by marking them, therefore the defender that can incentivise more enemies to attack him, by marking more enemies, has an edge in this catagory. Point Fighter.

Ok, but what about the potential consequences for violating the mark, how do they weigh in? The fighter gets an attack which has the potential to do damage, the paladin gets automatic damage, but damage isn't what being a defender is about, and therefore has no impact on who is the better defender.

What about other class features? Which is more defederish? The Paladin gets Channel Divinity, and Lay on Hands, while the Fighter gets Weapon talent, and Combat Superiority. With the expectation that we will continue to see new and varied Channel Divinity feats its fair to say that there will be some that increase the defenders ability to hamper the actions of his enemies, but those released so far don't seem to have defender-type effects. Lay on Hands, heals the Paladin or his allies, which is nice, but it makes him a better leader than the figther, not a better defender. Contrarily Combat Superiority is very, very defender, its all about spoiling your enemies actions, causing him to waste, or at least not get full benefit from a move action. Weapon talent, makes those OAs more likely to hit, which increases the likelihood of combat superiority coming into play, but otherwise isn't very defender.

So if defender is defined by forcing enemies to inefficeintly spend their actions, as I believe it is. Fighter is unequivicably the better defender because he can potentially cause several enemies to inefficiently use both their standard action and thier move action every round, while the paladin at most causes one enemy to ineffeceintly use their standard action. Multiple enemies & Multiple actions is greater than One enemy & One action.

In response to divine challenge vs. combat challenge let's take a look.

Here's the punishment side of things. If someone attacks your buddy this is what happens

Paladin
3-8 damage

Fighter
Assuming an average level 1 AC of 14
(a few feats/race combo's might be able to optimize the high end of this a bit more but I'm assuming not everyone has a +2 str and a racial feat that gives a +2 feat bonus to weapon damage as well as superior weapon training at level 1)
+6 (65%) 1d8+4= 8.5*.65= 5.525 damage
+9 (80%) 2d6+6= 13*.80= 10.4 damage

Adding in crits that's around
5.4 - 10.65 damage on average

At first glance this seems completely in the fighters favor, but that's very deceiving. Here are a few little bonuses only to the Paladin side.

-Paladin punishment works at a distance. (if a guy gets away from you, or was only marked from a ranged attack, you don't get to hit him)

-Paladin punishment is radiant so you get bonus damage against certain monsters. There are very few (none?) monsters with resistance against radiant damage.

Two points here, damage isn't what being a defender is about, so how much, or what type of damage you're doing is inconsequential to who is the better defender. As for the Paladin's range, its only sort of material, but I'll give you that has some valid applications.

Fighters do get there attacks when enemies move away, but to be fair most enemies are going to move away to attack an ally of yours, so your damage just kicks in a little later as a pali.

If the enemy shifts away the fighter gets an immediate interrupt attack, and unless another of the fighters ally was within shifting distance the enemy still has to move after his shift, leaving him no action left to make the attack that would trigger the palladin's punishment. if the enemy moves away the fighter gets an OA, which might prevent the movement altogether, which means the enemy won't be attacking an ally, so no pally damage in that case either.

Now think about these

Ok.

-Paladins get 1 more healing surge than fighters

This doesn't make them a better defender, as the analysis above shows the fighter will be more successful at absorbing enemy attacks than the Pally the fighter is likely to go through more surges in a given day, giving the guy who's less likely to take damage an extra surge is like handing Bill Gates $5, he doesn't need it.

-Paladins have naturally higher armor and better all around defenses than fighters

Also true, but also not what being a defender is about. Sure when the one enemy you've marked attacks you you're less likely to take damage, meanwhile the party fighter has impeded the actions of several enemies through the combination of Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority.

-When there allies do get attacked, you can just give them hp out of your hp pool
-you have healing that is not healing surge dependent in the recipient

This makes the paladin a better leader than the fighter, but is has no relevancy to who is the better defender.

-Cha Paladins have an at will that reduces an enemies to hit by -2. That means they have a -4 against your allies.

A better defendery of this power would be to use the at will on someone other than you're mark, thereby mitigating the standard actions of multiple foes, something the fighter can do already.

-Str Paladins have better OA's to make up for their lackluster Divine Challange damage.

Better than the fighter's OAs? The fighter likely has also prioritized Strength, making him equally likely to hit, plus the fighter's OAs have an additional action economy impact that makes them a better defender.

All of this goes to show that the fighter is hands down the better defender. I'm not saying that paladin's are not effective in the defender role, and they do get a lot of milage out of doing other non-defender things. But when what you want is straight up ability to mitigate the enemies abilities to use their actions effectively (read: A good defender) the Fighter is head and shoulders above the other defenders we've seen thus far (Paladin, and Swordmage, not sure about the Warden yet as I've never seen one in play).

 

[evilbob]

In my own experience, fighters and paladins operate from different points on the "defender" line: fighters hang back and stand directly in front of the ranged squishies, while paladins run right into the middle of everything. Paladins have higher AC and can heal themselves, and one "theme" of a lot of their powers is "I put myself in a bad position but I'm still better off than you." I mean, they have a power that increases based on how surrounded they are! And if they use their mark and something runs off to hit someone else, they still take -2 and get smacked.

Healing, boosting, and throwing around lots of temp. HP make up for not sticking quite so well. Plus, to some extent it's all in how your DM plays it: if the monsters routinely ignore marks, then the paladin's mark might seem less useful, but if monsters often focus on who marked them, then the high AC paladin is a great guy to have out front.

 

[Cadfan]

A fancy argument, but you're missing certain important issues.

Ok, but what about the potential consequences for violating the mark, how do they weigh in? The fighter gets an attack which has the potential to do damage, the paladin gets automatic damage, but damage isn't what being a defender is about, and therefore has no impact on who is the better defender.

This is probably the biggest mistake. The way that the fighter and paladin are "sticky" is by threatening damage unless the opponent attacks the fighter or paladin instead of his ally. The amount of damage threatened is therefore extremely important.

Assuming the above definition is valid, the question of who's the better defender comes down to who causes their enemies to use their actions less efficeintly. An attack against a defender is less efficient than an attack against another party member, defenders incentivise enemies to attack by marking them, therefore the defender that can incentivise more enemies to attack him, by marking more enemies, has an edge in this catagory. Point Fighter.

The fighter can only attack multiple enemies by using encounter or daily powers. The paladin, by contrast, can spend encounter or daily powers to directly step in front of attacks against his allies, flat out forbidding his enemies from attacking their chosen target. Plus he can mark one foe and attack another in a way that impedes them, possibly even by using an at will power. This is a wash, at best.

This doesn't make them a better defender, as the analysis above shows the fighter will be more successful at absorbing enemy attacks than the Pally the fighter is likely to go through more surges in a given day, giving the guy who's less likely to take damage an extra surge is like handing Bill Gates $5, he doesn't need it.

I'm surprised. I thought you'd get this one given that it directly plays into the whole "action economy" paradigm you've been using. A more resilient defender can afford to keep defending for a longer period of time before having to back down. More rounds spent in the thick of things means more enemies actions spent inefficiently because of the defender. Your response also leaves a little to be desired- if the fighter really is getting beaten up because he keeps marking multiple foes (questionable whether this will be a meaningful difference given that marking multiple foes requires the use of encounter or daily powers), then the fact that he's biting off more than his hit points, armor class, and healing surges will allow him to chew is actually a strike against him. Personally, I don't think this is something that actually matters, because I think that both the fighter and the paladin tend to be resilient enough to handle themselves on the battlefield. But if I did think the paladin had an edge in durability, as you seem to, obviously I'd be giving the paladin a point, not the fighter.

A better defendery of this power would be to use the at will on someone other than you're mark, thereby mitigating the standard actions of multiple foes, something the fighter can do already.

But not with an at will power. Advantage, paladin.

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

Cadfan, my perspective is ultimately shaped by my play experience and the fighter in the party I DM for has taken exclusively multi-target encoutners for exactly this reason, so I'll readily admit that my view may be biased. However you've overlooked, or maybe just not mentioned that the fighter also marks everything he attacks with a OA.

Regarding the extra healing surge, the Pally is still limited by how many surges they couls spend in an individual encounter (usually 3, both the leader's heals and Second Wind) the pally can skirt this limit a couple of times a day with Lay on Hands, I still see that as not enough to make up for how much better Combat Superiority makes the fighter.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I play a Pally and one of the other players plays a Fighter, so we get to see each other's weaknesses and strengths.

I really like playing the Paladin, but the one thing I am really disappointed in (which I had high hopes for in playing) is their Divine Challenge. It doesn't come up often enough. I don't really use any ranged weapon, just sword and board, so maybe I'd see more use if that were the case. But really, the Divine Challenge is usually avoided, since the monster (ie DM) knows the what they are affected by, 9.9 times out of 10 they choose to attack me. Rarely does the damage ever occur.

And I do wish I had the Fighter's Combat Challenge ability or something similiar, I am envious of that.

But other than those two things, I love playing the Paladin. I enjoy the extra AC, the small amount of healing I can do (Lay on Hands FTW!), and the powers which let me reduce damage to my allies (I have Martyr's Blessing and Armor of Bahamutt which negates a crit). I think that is a major "defender" role, not just being sticky.

My AC is higher than the Fighter, so I obviously negate more hits. And when the Fighter goes down, guess who is there to bring him back up? Funny thing is, I seem to go down more than the Fighter does even w/ my higher AC. I guess that means I am doing my job right then, right?

The Fighter is well built, he has abilities that add temp HPs and the regen one (he is a Longtooth Shifter, so he can regen when bloodied) and he has the Lifedrinker sword that gains him temp HPs when he drops a foe (yay for minions).

 

[SteveC]

I play a Pally and one of the other players plays a Fighter, so we get to see each other's weaknesses and strengths.

I really like playing the Paladin, but the one thing I am really disappointed in (which I had high hopes for in playing) is their Divine Challenge. It doesn't come up often enough. I don't really use any ranged weapon, just sword and board, so maybe I'd see more use if that were the case. But really, the Divine Challenge is usually avoided, since the monster (ie DM) knows the what they are affected by, 9.9 times out of 10 they choose to attack me. Rarely does the damage ever occur.

It sounds like you're doing everything right, then. It's a defender's job to get enemies to attack them rather than the more vulnerable targets, so if you mark them and they end up attacking you, you're doing your job. I've played both a Paladin and a Swordmage at level 11, and in both cases I found I ended up getting attacked far more than other characters, but after a couple of sessions it occurred to me that it simply meant I was doing my job.

Once the monsters start peeling off of you to go after the strikers, for example, your defenderishness needs an upgrade, I'd say.

--Steve

 

[RigaMortus2]

I disagree, Fighter's are better Defenders. I'm not saying that fighter is a better class, but if all you're measuring is how good a defender each class is the fighter is the clear winner. Though it may be that we're arguing from different definitions of Defender. For me being 'sticky' is the defining element of the defeder role.

Being "sticky" is only one specific way to be a Defender. I don't think the "sticky factor" should be the only defining criteria for what makes a good Defender. After all, as you said yourself, the Fighter is the most "sticky", but Paladins and Swordmages are classified as Defenders too.

What I think defines a Defender is a class that prevents their enemies from doing harm to their allies, or makes it very undesirable to do so. Sticky is just one way to do this.

 

[Morgan_Scott82]

What I think defines a Defender is a class that prevents their enemies from doing harm to their allies, or makes it very undesirable to do so. Sticky is just one way to do this.

This is true, but so far every defender printed does this by encouraging the enemy to engage the defender... That is one way to be "sticky", the monster has to stay on you, attacking you, essentially stuck to you.

As soon as they print a defender who prevents harm to their allies without a mark, I'll cede this point, but until then I maintain that a mark is just one example manifestation of "Sticky".

All defenders are sticky in this way.

Fighters are sticky in a second way, via combat superiority. No other defender has a second Sticky class feature. Hence, my belief that being "Sticky" is what defines a defender, and fighters are more "Sticky" than the other defender's we've seen.

 

[Regicide]

If something is dumb enough to engage a party that is clearly superior, or to not know they're superior, they're dumb enough to attack the closest target. Stickyness is pretty irrelevant.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

If something is dumb enough to engage a party that is clearly superior, or to not know they're superior, they're dumb enough to attack the closest target. Stickyness is pretty irrelevant.

Yes and no. Most enemies don't have absolute knowledge of the players. I'm certainly not a DM who thinks, "Well, the Wizard has an AC of 15, and the Paladin has an AC of 20. Even with the -2 to hit, it is still quite a bit easier to hit the Wizard and all I take is 7 points of damage."

My thought is normally, "Hmm, -2 to hit and 7 damage, eh? That sucks for him, he'll just attack the Paladin."

The stickiness of Defender classes depends heavily on the thought process of your DM. I know a number of DMs who have monsters attack the one they are marked to 100% of the time.