Help me understand the paladin.

[Ds Da Man]

Our DM almost always goes for the marker, be it fighter or pally. I still love the pally though. Add Initiate of the Faith feat for a little more healing, then maybe some power-swapping feats and you have a tank who can heal, and dish some damage. Dwarven pallys with greataxes are the best, and are really awesome when they reduce the amount they are pushed, get a saving throw to avoid being knocked prone, and dish 1d12+18+1d6 points of damage on a crit. My pally has saved the party numerous times.

 

[brendan candries]

I kinda skipped to the end of the thread, it might be mentioned but here goes ...

Check out the paladin paragon paths. Specifically:

Champion of Order if you're STR based.
Hospitaler if you're CHA based.

Now evaluate your Divine Challenge again.

 

[DracoSuave]

A very good point. Str-Pallies rely on OAs more than DCs and Cha-Pallies rely on DCs more than OAs, and the paragon paths reinforce this.

 

[Dragongrief]

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.

If all attackers are melee based, then I can see this argument holding sway over most of the others. However, IME (and almost always IMC) there is a variety of attackers ranged and melee.

So here is my view on Fighter, Paladin and (defensive) Swordmage.

Vs. Melee
Fighter
- If opponent shifts away, it suffers Immediate Interupt attack and must either Charge (at -2) or use it's Standard action to move into position.
- If the opponent moves away, it suffers OA that stops the movement on a hit.
- If the opponent attacks another target in range, it suffers a -2 attack penalty and an Immediate Interupt attack.

Paladin
- If the opponent attacks another target, it suffers a -2 attack penalty and 3+Cha Holy damage.

Swordmage
- If the opponent attacks another target, it suffers a -2 attack penalty and any damage dealt is reduced by X (don't remember the formula).

Vs. Ranged
Fighter (if starting in melee range)
- If opponent shifts away, it suffers Immediate Interupt attack and then may attack as normal at a -2 penalty.

Paladin
- If the opponent attacks another target, it suffers a -2 attack penalty and 3+Cha Holy damage.

Swordmage
- If the opponent attacks another target, it suffers a -2 attack penalty and any damage dealt is reduced by X.

So...
Fighters are better at stopping melee opponents from getting around them, but don't do much of anything against ranged opponents (especially those who stay at range).

Paladins don't (by mark alone) stop opponents from attacking their allies, but punish them for doing so regardless of battlefield position.

Swordmages reduce/negate damage done to any allies.

Three different styles of having the same goal - protect allies by making enemies attack the defender. Each are quite effective when used properly.

 

[Cadfan]

For what its worth, I think its a little crazy to try to isolate individual abilities within a character class, label them by role, and then disallow discussion of anything outside a chosen set of bounds.

I mean, our paladin in my group can't quite restrict enemy movement as well as the fighter, fine. Its true. I think the mark is equally good (because guaranteed damage versus possible damage is often mathematically better), but the paladin's OAs kind of suck since she's charisma based. But you know what? She is constantly using Enfeebling Strike, reducing enemy attack rolls against the whole party. And she's picked smites that further penalize enemy attacks, and which heal allies. And she's picked other powers that let her push an ally aside and take a hit instead of them, a defender trick that the fighter isn't capable of doing at all.

Now, I know that generally penalize attack rolls is arguably not a defender shtick, its more controller, and healing allies is more leader. But... I think roles are more holistic than that. They apply to the whole character, not just each individual piece of a character. I do think that we can have intelligent discussion about whether a class fully fulfills a role, and I think we can intelligently discuss whether a particular ability aids in a role or not, but I don't think we can draw lines quite as finely as we're doing here.

 

[Danceofmasks]

I'm happier if characters aren't being pigeonholed into their roles, and are judged on their effects on the battlefield.
Now, in most situations it's a moot point, but if I go to a con, and during muster we get split into groups labeled "defender" and "leader" etc. I'm going to be annoyed.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

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".

You mean like being able to cure the damage they just took because you couldn't get there in time (Lay on Hands) or by being able to grant them a save with a hefty bonus to prevent bad things from happening to them on their turn (Channel Divinity)?

DS

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I just recognize that the Paladins "Heal an Ally" feature is part of his Defending nature. It's also very "leadery", but he is sacrifing his own hit points to help out his allies, basically meaning that in the end, it is still the Paladin that took the damage.

--

The Paladin does this a lot. I am playing in a campaign with a Protecting Paladin with the Justicar (sp?) Paragon Path, and he has stuff like "Strike me instead" that resolves an attack against him instead of his ally.

And then there is "Benign Transposition" that allows him to trade places with an ally that's in trouble.

There is more to the defending stick then just your core class feature.

The Fighter is sticky.
The Paladin attracts damage.
The Swordmage (Shielding Aegis) reduces damage.

They play all differently, and yet they make it that your allies take less damage and make attacking them less effective as it "should" be.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Another Divine Challenge Question

I hope you don't mind me simply asking my question here instead of a new thread. In our game, the paladin was adjacent to a kobold at the start of his turn. He attacked the kobold, then moved away (provoking), and then used on a divine challenge on that kobold. (a) Is it legal? If yes, (b) is it the intent behind divine challenge? He didn't challenge the kobold first because he figured he might kill him on the attack and was saving the challenge for the other kobold he moved up to.

 

[FireLance]

I hope you don't mind me simply asking my question here instead of a new thread. In our game, the paladin was adjacent to a kobold at the start of his turn. He attacked the kobold, then moved away (provoking), and then used on a divine challenge on that kobold. (a) Is it legal? If yes, (b) is it the intent behind divine challenge? He didn't challenge the kobold first because he figured he might kill him on the attack and was saving the challenge for the other kobold he moved up to.

Sounds legal to me. He engaged the target on his turn by attacking it, even if he moved away later. Intent is fuzzier, but this does allow a paladin to give a monster an incentive to disengage from an ally and move to attack the paladin instead. If you think this is in keeping with how the paladin should behave, then you shouldn't have a problem with it.