Art of the Peel

[Tigerlil]

My group was saying the exact same thing about the paladin as you do now...until the paladin levelled above the small levels. End heroic tier the paladin gets much more powerful, especially if combined with a controller like a frost wizard.

The reason for this is, that the paladin gets a few Daze powers. These combined with a wizards slows, dazes, immobilisation effects makes it VERY hard on the mobs to work their way around the paladin without suffering OAs (our paladin hasnt gimped himself by min-maxing cha) and IF they hit something else, they will get a small handful of holy damage chucked up their arse as well.

Also you must remember that as everyone (except poorly built charracters or warlocks) seem to have almost identical defences from level 5 on or so, the -2/4 to hit is a serious debuff for a mob.

Furthermore, the paladin has healpowers and/or shielding powers, so it isnt the end of the world if a mob decides not to hit him a round or 2, as it is easy mend that. Dont be afraid to loose the mob for a round or 2...the strikers can handle it. And if the mob insists on ignoring you, Hey presto...your role from now on is striker with healabilities, adapt.

So my advice is: Build your paladin with both Str and Cha (dragonborn are the perfect paladin race), get yourself some Bracers of Mighty Striking and a Bastard sword so that your OAs pack a punch. Level beyond level 5...thats where the tactical fun REALLY begins. And teach your GM a little bit of statistic math

 

[FadedC]

Similar? In the atypical party where the wizard has done everything to increase AC and the PLD has done nothing. More likely the Paladin will be being hit 20% to 30% less often even counting the buff.

Wow you really are unfamiliar with the game. A wizard who has done everything increase AC has an AC of 18 (5 for int, 2 for leather armor, 1 for staff). A paladin who has done nothing to improve AC has an AC of 18 (8 for plate). With the buff, the wizard actually has a higher AC then the paladin. If the paladin is more defensive and uses a shield they are equal.

It matters a LOT who is being healed since different characters will have more HP and more healing surges. Have YOU even played 4E? I have. More HP means healing surges heal MORE per action spent activating them. Guess what, PLD comes out as being about the absolute worst target to put damage into with their greater HPs and number of surges compared to non-defenders, and thats BEFORE you consider the PLD can be buffing himself with temp hitpoints every single round.
.

The difference in amount healed per surge usually amounts to a very small amount. Number of healing surges is irrelevent because it's extremely unlikely the monsters are going to use them all up in one fight. Seriously we are usually talking a difference of maybe 1-2 points healing for healing the defender vs. healing the wizard. And possibly not even that if your healing a striker or leader.

With a significantly greater likely hood of missing the PLD, and with the PLD healing significantly more per surge, and with the PLD able to toss on temp hit points at no surge cost at all. If your monsters are going after the PLD, then either the monsters are doing something stupid, or the DM is.

And again.....there is no significant difference between hitting the two, and the healing difference is minor.

I mean, seriously, are you actually trying to argue that defenders are just as easy to kill as strikers or controllers? Really? Just... wow.

Well actually.....the diference in killing them is not all that great, especially when you factor in the marked debuff. It is in fact quite possible for a marked enemy to have a harder time hitting the striker then the defender. You could even more justifiably complain about that then all the things your complaining about in this thread. But of course you'd need to have played the game to know that.

Seriously, though you've outright said that you have never played the game. I and other people posting here have. Why are you even posting here about gameplay experience? You've been asked by mods to stop posting at all on these forums.

 

[Schmoe]

Defenders don't fulfill their role purely through class mechanics. They also fulfill their role through tactical positioning. If the opponents choose to avoid the obvious, easy to reach target in favor of the elusive, more maneuverable target, there are countermeasures that can make them pay.

Hell, in 3e, the fighter or whoever is the "defender" of the moment is often able to occupy the enemy simply by virtue of positioning. Even disregarding marking mechanics, the same should hold true at least as often in 4e, probably more, in fact, as the discrepancy between how "squishy" or deadly the classes are has been reduced.

As I understand it, marking is simply intended to provide some additional mechanical incentive not to ignore the defender. I don't think success of marking should be measured in absolutes. I think the intent is that it be considered successful if the defender is the target of a marked opponent >~50% (pick a number) of the time.

Furthermore, there are a great many opponents that won't think beyond the current moment or next few seconds' worth of combat. Making the decision to ignore the mark of the paladin (taking damage), move further into the midst of the enemy while eating an AoO (taking more damage), and attacking an opponent who will probably still be around to attack you back, requires either extreme foresight or remarkable training and discipline. Either one is generally rare.

The game is neither chess nor WoW. It is a narrative framework that requires subjective discretion when determining the actions of the participants (NPCs).

 

[Switchback]

People use the old, "The monsters are fighting to win" a little too casually I think. Not every group of monsters is going to act like a perfectly oiled unit with the best interests of their buddies in mind. Monster societies are usually brutish and full of infighting. It's true that every individual monster wants to win, but not necessarily at the expense of his own life. He would rather his buddy die.

What that means is that many creatures marked by the Paladin (and knowing so) will prefer to keep trying to fell the Paladin simply on self-preservation grounds. It's true that he is a harder target to hit, but he is right there, not actively trying to get away like the strikers, and he is not dealing automatic damage like the creature will receive if he bypasses the Paladin to get to other foes.

Opportunity Attacks should often create the same logic for creatures. When a Paladin has just struck them across the face with his blade, chances are not every creature is going to be thinking in pure analytical terms that he needs to get to the strikers first. It's against their basic instinct to willingly turn their back on a threatening foe, to go over and chase the Wizard or Rogue around.

I think this is kind of a silly really. If the monsters are always going to perform the best meta-game tactical option then they would actually run away at the fist sign of heroes, and alert the whole castle, cave, what have you dungeon, that is full of more monsters just standing in rooms waiting to be slaughtered.

The spirit of the game makes a natural assumption that creatures are not going to sacrifice themselves by endlessly turning their backs to the big armored guy hitting them with a sword. They might *want* to attack the Wizard, sure, but they are not thinking "Pff, I have 50 HP left", they are probably thinking I need to deal with this huge annoyance invoking his god against me and standing in my path.

Now if the Pally is already tied up by several foes, it definitely makes sense for other enemies to go chasing down the strikers, leaders, etc. If the game rules have done their job, and I see some arguing they do, the monsters won't gain anyway from eating all the extra and automatic damage they will be receiving. But I'm not even interested in that so much as the common sense expected behavior of most creatures.

World ecology might play a role in monster tactics as well. If you're in the Forgotten Realms with heroes around every corner, maybe the Stoneland Orcs or whatever are used to dealing with adventurers and react with great cunning and poise in the heat of battle. But in a more generic Points of Light style world that 4e encourages, heroes are actually rare and it is far from likely that groups of Wizards, Paladins and Warlords are bursting into monster strongholds every few weeks to give them pointers on excellent strategies to combating them. And even if heroes are common, the monsters that live to tell about such encounters might be 1 in 100.

 

[Benly]

Every so often the DM for the (admittedly low-level) game I'm in thinks the monsters would get this great idea. Every time it leads to hilariously dead monsters.

The situation if Joe Goblin stays and continues to engage the paladin instead of the striker is that he is steadily taking defender damage (moderate) and occasionally taking striker damage (high) as the striker goes after targets of opportunity. If he turns to go after the strikers, he is steadily taking striker-level damage from the paladin and from the striker he's harassing, and does not last long enough to make a big difference.

(Elites and solos are an exception, of course, but with proper controller assistance and positioning it's still quite feasible to keep them relatively focused on the defender.)

 

[inati]

Well, even humans in the real world do not fight by using logic and taking out the least defended but highest damage potential target. If you notice the way an inexperienced group fight in PvP, they tend to develop tunnel vision and go chasing after the first thing they can see. These people lack situational awareness and they do not make assessments in the heat of battle.

Now a well organized group, that understands the fundamentals of not only working together, but the effects of concentrated fire on weaker defense but high damage potential opponents, should go after that striker or controller. But this well organized group would need a lot of practice and experience in handling multiple opponent engagements. If this makes sense in RPing terms for that particular group, have them behave that way. An example would be a highly militaristic society/group that trains for such situations.

If the DM is always having mobs behave as a well organized group, then sorry, that's unrealistic. I could udnerstand if the party was fighting a group of seasoned vetern mobs, but a ragtag group of monsters should not behave in such a manner. Now, if people are trying to say that kobolds/goblins/orcs what have you, have fought and survived multiple encounters with adventurers who are supposedly rare in the world, and they fight with highly regimented group tactics, then that is by far more unrealistic than 'why do they have to attack the paladin' scenarios.

That said, mechanically, the Wizard is provided with control powers for a reason. They can slow, debuff and cause general mayhem with mobs such that either he or the strikers can move away or survive. Keep in mind, though, they also gave Thunderwave as an atwill power for a reason! It's the wizard's way to make room for himself. If the wizard only took AoE damage spells without any control components at their disposal, they are only hurting the group because they have no way to do their job of "controlling".

As for strikers, their powers emphasize not only damage, but mobility on the battlefield as well. If these strikers are willing to just stand there and let themselves be wailed on, then sorry, they are not playing to their strengths. If they took powers that emphasized damage over mobility, they should be prepared to take some lumps, as was intended mechanically.

 

[bobo]

It seems like part of this problem is just that the strikers have worse AC values than they should. Only the Cleric really has an excuse to have an AC lower than 16 (Wizards should take leather and Warlocks should have concealment).

Of the strikers, the Warlock is probably the most attractive target, since he usually ends up at the equivalent of 18 AC (2 from concealment, 2 from mark), has low hp, and does decent damage, but this is still only 2 worse than the Paladin.

If you have a Chaladin, the 8 points of damage from the DC is probably more than the average damage from the Warlock (since the Warlock will miss some of the time). I don't think the mobs are actually making the optimal choice by going after the striker.

Of course, when you have more than one enemy, it does make sense for the ones that are not marked to go after your strikers/leaders.

Oddly, Enfeebling Strike actually may make the mob more likely to attack the striker. If they had a 30% chance to hit the paladin, and a 40% chance to hit the striker before, it shifts to 20% and 30%. This means that instead of doing 33% more damage by attacking the striker, they are doing 50% more damage by attacking the striker. It's still the right choice for a paladin that has temporary hit points though.

If you can't get your party members to improve their defenses, switching to a two handed weapon is probably the best option. Increasing your melee damage doesn't change the mob's priorities much, but making yourself an easier target does. Similarly, if the mobs know you have temporary hit points (which I don't think they should), you could avoid using Bolstering Strike at all (so the damage to you is real).

 

[Jack99]

If the paladin has good charisma, his at-will abilities + divine challenge will make his average damage match the damage of the strikers. That and some strategic placement on the battlefield, should ensure that he can hold the monsters' attention a good deal of the time.

People need to stop and play the monsters as if they have read the PHB and the rules. Even a 20 int monster is going to have no way to judge who will be doing the most damage of several players. That is, until they hit him. And do damage. At that point, it can evaluate who it should pick as target. Or it could go at first for the easiest looking target (appearances could be deceptive though), again, until the damage starts flowing.

 

[Shadeydm]

Since I'm working on a STR build pally this is something that has worried me a little. Not that I expect the DM to play the monster like a Navy SEAL team or anything. It's more that I worry about how sticky my pally will really be considering his DC will only be doing 4 pts. I have to hope that as he starts getting feats like Blade Opportunist and later on heavy Blade Opportunity that this will help.

 

[Stalker0]

I found this discussion pretty interesting. So far, we have always played it that monsters try to avoid taking the paladin's damage as much as possible, but I've never really run an analysis to see if the monster's are better off taking the pain.

That said, the paladin in our group always gets really excited when his mark tries to attack someone else and he gets to throw on some automatic damage. And even if the damage isn't enough of a deterrent, the defender is STILL defending, he is providing his buddies a free +2 to AC.

Now I want to try an encounter with zombies or something and the striker gets hit with somekind of dust that makes every creature want to attack him above all else, and see how the defender's abilities work when the creatures don't take the bait and keep going after the striker.


Finally, for those that are saying high int high level monsters would know exactly how to take on a party, remember that PCs are EXCEPTIONS to the rule. These people just don't exist. Monsters don't see people drop unconscious and suddenly get back up like nothing happened, they don't see people recover near completely after just a few minutes, people with that extreme amount of toughness, power, and loot!! Monsters are used to fighting npcs, and when that changes, they should be just as surprised as anyone.