Art of the Peel

[Carpe DM]

After playing through and running a few games, I'm discovering that monsters still find it in their best interest to ignore the tanking paladin, and tear into the strikers. In our game (which I am not DMing, for the first time in 25 years) the paladin does his best: piercing smites every encounter, etc, divine challenges galore. And, the Chaladin damage on the challenge is not all that bad.

But it's still in the mob's best interest to drop the striker. Given that 14 or 15 is standard AC for a first level squishy, the -2 AC isn't enough to deter the monster from wanting to shut down the low-HP, high-damage party members.

What this does is force the paladin into a very crappy role: that of peeler. He is throwing Enfeebling Strikes (often considered the worst at-will) in an attempt to decrease the damage output of the mob on the strikers. And, of course, his damage is quite high given that his marked target is eating his challenge every round.

But the monster's better damage output on the strikers, combined with the damage loss that the loss of a striker entails means that it is entirely rational from the monster's point of view that a wizard or warlock ends up tanking every single fight. It's getting pretty old.

Note: this is *not* a DM complaint. The DM is quite right: monsters fight to win, and don't hammer uselessly on the shiny armor-plated guy. This is, IMO, a design tweak problem. The damage-incentive system is simply insufficient to incentivize monsters--even challenged monsters--to stay on the tank.

We've tried to increase the damage, but since Astral Fire only adds to "damage rolls," and because there is no feat upgrade to Divine Challenge, there's not a whole lot to be done.

This leads to my current inquiry. Enfeebling Strike is commonly considered the worst Paladin at-will. It is a major downer for the paladin to continually use his worst power in a vain attempt to perform the role of tank (now starring the Wizard).

So, the current question: at what damage value, and at what estimated level of monster hitpoints would Holy Strike (or Valiant, if the Paladin is sufficiently surrounded) outperform Enfeebling Strike as a peel--that is, the extra damage would drop the monsters enough rounds early that it would be worth more defensively than the -10% damage of Enfeelbling.

It's complicated, of course, because for minions, any attack will do, and Enfeebling is +Cha (so, for a protecting paladin, is better). At the mid-range, though, either Valiant or Holy is likely to drop a standard creature some fraction of a round early.

Of course, due to bloodied values, we get a good view of the hitpoints of a creature. So I'm hoping that by discussing things here, we can work out a metric to tell the paladin -- "hey, it took 20 points to get the thing to bloodied. Best switch to Valiant strike and try to drop it early."

Math on this is particularly welcome. Please, no discretionary gameplay-based remarks (OMGz ur DM shud onlee attak the tnak!). I'm fully aware the DM could fix this if he decided the monsters were idiots. I find that if the DM must compensate for poor rules by deciding to not use an ability (OMGz ur DM shud not attak pipl on the ground!) that that is merely apologetics for bad game design.

best,

Carpe

 

[Schmoe]

That's a very interesting observation. I've wondered about this myself, as to whether the marking of defenders was sufficient deterrent most of the time to protect other party members. I haven't played 4e yet, so I can't really add anything, but I'm very curious to see what other people have to say.

 

[Mort_Q]

I know that you really didn't want to discuss this aspect of it, but DM discretion is necessarily always part of the solution.

The DC flavour is that it is a magical compulsion, not just a penalty. One is the carrot the other is the stick.

I agree that monsters shouldn't be tactically stupid all of the time, even PCs do things in combat that are cinematic or interesting, and not always tactically sound.

Regardless...

... if the stick isn't big enough, perhaps there needs to be a bigger carrot!?

What benefit could you give the monsters to stand toe-to-toe with the Paladin instead of going for the striker? What says win to the monster?


Would making the monster roll a save to ignore the Paladin work? Is that too much?

 

[jaelis]

Kind of a funny thought, but you could give your paladin worse armor. No matter what else you do, if the monsters just can't hit the paly, then they will start attacking someone else instead.

On the flip side, your strikers could pay more attention to their own defenses, either through armor or mobility. Anything making them a less attractive target will shift more attention to the defender.

 

[med stud]

Interesting POV. I have never seen a paladin in action so I only have some general thoughts:
*Divine challenge + paladin's attack looks on paper like it would create a striker-like damage per round.
*The striker would benefit from trying to get out of reach from opponents. They have a bunch of abilities made for this. It's problematic for melee- oriented strikers, granted.

I don't know really. I have to try this out in some scenarios.

 

[Ginnel]

A strikers AC = 10 + 4 (18 stat) + 3 (hide) = 17
At third the striker could have two weapon defence or a shield pushing this to effectively 18 ignoring level adjustments

add on top of this the -2 to hit the striker and it could be more difficult than hitting the Fighter/Paladin depending on type of armor worn and whether a shield is used.

add on top of this some shiney damage from the fighters free attack or the paladins free radiant damage and I really think marking should be working the majority of times.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Did you make any actual comparisons between the two options - ignoring the defender or concentrating on the defender? Because I wouldn't be surprised if the net effect is actually the same (or worse?) for a monster if it tries to focus on the Striker. It is of course a lot more dangerous for the Striker then for the Defender, but that doesn't mean the monster is actually better off.

 

[Shabe]

You mean -4 to attack (enfeebling + mark) and an attack of opportunity and damage from divine challenge 6-8 isn't enough of a disincentive?

Also the fact the striker/wizard are likely to be in an AC just 3-4 points below the defender, plus they are going to be harder to flank because they should be some way away from the fight.
If you're talking about melee strikers then maybe they should be hanging back for a round or two to let the monsters get peed off with the defenders, so that monsters want to rip their heads off, mainly the squishies should be hiding behind the defender, two defenders in a group makes this easier.

As a DM i've no reason to think my kobold dragonshields would do anything other than have attack the nearest thing, even if it is incased in plate, as they are playing the same game keeping the others away from their strikers/controllers at the back. My fights are tending to end up as a melee in the middle with defenders/leaders and minions/brutes/soldiers with skirmishers/strikers/artillery/controllers at the edges of the fight taking pot shots at whoever has caught their attention, these are monsters not emotionless surgical strike teams, unless you know they are.

 

[Foxen]

Ultimately though, I believe it is an issue of DM discretion.

Not ALL monsters are intelligent and go for the strikers. in fact, my kobolds tend to lob all their javelins right off the bat at the big shiny thing with the big axe....and the dragonshield guys rush them for glory and honor.

Threat to the monsters isn't perceived in "damaged dealt" but rather, the psychology of the beast in question. I hate to do this, but take WoW for instance... Warriors in defensive stance deal 10% less damage...but draw more aggro...much like how the 4e Paladins with Enfeebling Strike are played. It's not necessarily how much damage the paladin deals, but how much attention they are hoarding and what their perceived level of threat is (think Ripley in the Loader against the Queen in Aliens).

I allow my players to "taunt" the mobs especially when they are declaring that they are trying to "draw" the attention of the monsters even if they are unable to "mark" them. This gives the players somewhat "more control" in attempting to control the combat something beyond cold static numbers.

However, against "smarter" monster or opponents, the party is going to face a whole new slew of punishment. So far, almost EVERY lurker I tossed in the mix went after the clothies. Again, hate to use the analogy, but WoW PVP is the same...the much smarter human opponents go after the strikers and healers first...before taking down the guys in the heavy armor.

Over all though, in my encounters, I throw in enough threat for each player that they more or less face their own small little challenges, whether it be a lurker/minion combo on the clothies, or an owlbear with a threatening reach (yeah yeah, I changed it) who slowly shifts over and OA a wizard hiding in a covered wagon shooting magic missles to annoy it, or the slingers or archers in the backrow having their own battle against the bow weilding ranger or wand bearing wizard (why he chose wand over orb...I do not know, add flavor though).

In the end, I still think it's totally DM discretion...

Fox

 

[Carpe DM]

You mean -4 to attack (enfeebling + mark) and an attack of opportunity and damage from divine challenge 6-8 isn't enough of a disincentive?

Unless I've badly misread something (entirely possible), the paladin doesn't get an attack of opportunity when his challenge is ignored. Nor does his challenge go off on a mere shift. This is the prime difference between the fighter and the paladin.

best,

Carpe