Art of the Peel

[Plane Sailing]

It's not just intelligence, it's experience.
If there's a monster that has a level 4 version, and is a level 15 version, they would have learned along the way what's a threat.
I.e. concentrated fire on the wizard first, and make sure he's dead dead rather than unconscious.

If anyone asks, yes I played 3e that way too.
I was a mage player who considers a DM crap if intelligent foes don't attempt to annihilate me first.

Ought to re-evaluate that thinking for 4e, since the mage isn't going to be the automatically toughest opponent any more.

 

[JDillard]

It's not just intelligence, it's experience.
If there's a monster that has a level 4 version, and is a level 15 version, they would have learned along the way what's a threat.
I.e. concentrated fire on the wizard first, and make sure he's dead dead rather than unconscious.

If anyone asks, yes I played 3e that way too.
I was a mage player who considers a DM crap if intelligent foes don't attempt to annihilate me first.

Unless the monster's going to stop and do standard action Heal checks to see if the mage is dead, there's no visible differentiation between that and unconcious. So... if he wants to waste his attacks on an unmoving target while the rest of the party hits him, that seems like the less intelligent move from my perspective.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

To be honest, your way lies madness.

Essentially, and you see this in PVP, there's absolutely no reason not to play a Striker if that's the methodology that is being employed by the DM. Otherwise you have to overpower the tanks as they overpowered Clerics in the last edition and then, being people, you'll find nobody plays a Striker, they all play a Paladin, who is now a SUPER-Striker, because you've beefed him up to the point where the incentives are so strong you create a whole new issue. (In 3E they pumped the clerics, to try and let them heal AND play, to the point that my last campaign was entirely multi-classed clerics.)

So, sure, you can find a 'magic number' that the GM decides means the monsters focus on the paladin, but then everybody is going to want to play a paladin so that the uber-damage falls to them. Because the 'magic number' is, "The Paladin Can DPS Better Than The DPS".

WoW handles this with itemization, talents, and alternate abilities. The PVE Tank Warrior is, essentially, a whole other class than the PVP DPS Warrior. They use different gear, different talents, different stances and hotbars of abilities.

D&D is ALL PVE, though. But your GM is making it PVP. And the Paladin is a PVE Tank. Every class is one thing, and if you make the PVE Tank into PVE Tank + PVP DPS, then he's suddenly got two suites of output compared to everybody else.

The best way would be to pin even more damage on the Challenge, such that the UBERDAMAGE only triggers on the enemy hitting somebody else, but then you'll already be into the realm of being so attractive it's worth it to try and get multiple paladins in the party such that they play round-robin Markathalons with the enemy to force that DPS spike.

--fje

 

[FadedC]

So, sure, you can find a 'magic number' that the GM decides means the monsters focus on the paladin, but then everybody is going to want to play a paladin so that the uber-damage falls to them. Because the 'magic number' is, "The Paladin Can DPS Better Than The DPS".

Except as pointed out above, that's not true. As it stands now, the paladin CAN dps better then the dps, but only against the target he has marked and only if that target is ignoring him. The extra damage that will be done by the paladin's challenge is more then the extra damage that is done by striker abilities (except maybe sneak attack, but that has it's own damage limitations).

This actually works quite well. It doesn't mean the monster HAS to attack the person who marked him. But it means the monster is punished just enough if he doesn't that it makes it suboptimal. Meanwhile the paladin isn't doing more damage then the strikers if he's actually being attacked, meaning there is still good a reason to be a striker.

This is not a DM issue at all. If the DM chooses to ignore the mark then in most cases he's just giving his players a better chance to win.

 

[HeapThaumaturgist]

Except as pointed out above, that's not true. As it stands now, the paladin CAN dps better then the dps, but only against the target he has marked and only if that target is ignoring him. The extra damage that will be done my the paladin's challenge is more then the extra damage that is done by striker abilities (except maybe sneak attack, but that has it's own damage limitations).

This actually works quite well. It doesn't mean the monster HAS to attack the person who marked him. But it means the monster is punished just enough if he doesn't that it makes it suboptimal. Meanwhile the paladin isn't doing more damage then the strikers if he's actually being attacked, meaning there is still good a reason to be a striker.

But the OP's complaint is that this amount is STILL not enough to warrant the monster switching targets to the tank, in his game, because the GM view is that the monster can more easily take down the True Striker (low HP, lower AC) and focus on the Paladin. So even that the Paladin's spikes are greater than the average DPS of the Striker, to use some WoW terms, the GM is essentially resetting the aggro table every round and saying: "Sure, he spikes big DPS when I do A, but removing the Striker is better because I can do that in short order and remove his DPS entirely."

The only way to "solve" that play mentality is:

A) Make the Strikers utterly immune to monster damage such that monsters CANNOT kill the Strikers first.
B) Make the Paladin's DPS SO HIGH that he essentially burns down the monster instantly if it doesn't switch target, such that the monsters will die before doing significant damage to the Striker.

His suggestion is B), but if you do that then there's so much DPS riding around in a Paladin that it is then better to play a paladin because he's a striker with big AC and big HP.

Running A) is to give so many avoidance powers to the Striker that it becomes impossible for the monsters to burn the Strikers before the Paladin burns the monsters down. Same outcome, but then we'd be overbalancing another class because everybody would be playing a Ranger since they could essential trade-kite things around the battlefield drawing GM-Aggro and then fading out into You Can't Touch Me Even If You Want To.

Either way, if the GM is not going to buy into the spirit of the rules as much as the letter of the rules, the only solutions create new problems. "Solving" the issue means breaking something else.

--fje

 

[DracoSuave]

Don't forget Strikers have defenses not-named-AC that change how combats work when they are involved. For example, warlocks get concealment from moving, which adds to their AC, allows hiding shinanegans, and other things that contribute to the monster choosing a better, more armored target.

 

[Mort_Q]

The DM just needs to use more minions. They can't afford to ignore DC. Ever.

 

[Victim]

Get your squishies to be less so. If it's a winning strategy for the monster to ignore an AC 20 pally to go after an AC 14 target even with marking, then don't have an AC 14 target. Most characters should be able to swing a 16 AC at first level without too much trouble. After the marking penalty, that's an 18, which is a defender without shield. So a monster could get a ~ +2 attack bonus at the cost of some penalty (mark damage, Combat Challenge).

 

[FadedC]

But the OP's complaint is that this amount is STILL not enough to warrant the monster switching targets to the tank, in his game, because the GM view is that the monster can more easily take down the True Striker (low HP, lower AC) and focus on the Paladin. So even that the Paladin's spikes are greater than the average DPS of the Striker, to use some WoW terms, the GM is essentially resetting the aggro table every round and saying: "Sure, he spikes big DPS when I do A, but removing the Striker is better because I can do that in short order and remove his DPS entirely."

The only way to "solve" that play mentality is:

A) Make the Strikers utterly immune to monster damage such that monsters CANNOT kill the Strikers first.
B) Make the Paladin's DPS SO HIGH that he essentially burns down the monster instantly if it doesn't switch target, such that the monsters will die before doing significant damage to the Striker.

His suggestion is B), but if you do that then there's so much DPS riding around in a Paladin that it is then better to play a paladin because he's a striker with big AC and big HP.

Running A) is to give so many avoidance powers to the Striker that it becomes impossible for the monsters to burn the Strikers before the Paladin burns the monsters down. Same outcome, but then we'd be overbalancing another class because everybody would be playing a Ranger since they could essential trade-kite things around the battlefield drawing GM-Aggro and then fading out into You Can't Touch Me Even If You Want To.

Either way, if the GM is not going to buy into the spirit of the rules as much as the letter of the rules, the only solutions create new problems. "Solving" the issue means breaking something else.

--fje

Well first off regarding the spirit of the rules, the designers have specifically stated the point is not for the defender's target to in any way be forced to attack the defender. It is very much within the spirit of the rules for the defenders target to have the option to attack somebody different if he feels it's strategically advantagous to do so.

Neither of your intentionally over the top ideas are remotely required to "solve" the play mentality. The only thing required is that the monsters have a compelling reason to attack the defender. And that's how it is right now. It doesn't mean the strikers can run around naked with no armor and not fear attack. But it means if the marked target attacks the defender, the defender does more damage then the striker and the striker gets his ac boosted to a level similar to the defender. If that's not an incentive not to do it, I don't know what is.

Part of the problem seems to be that your overestimating just how squishy a striker actually is. A striker who doesn't completely neglect defence will have armor usually within a few points of the defender. And hit point differences between characters are very small.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not the DM or the Paladin that's screwing up, here. It's the striker.

A striker is not supposed to stick around and trade damage, he's supposed to move in, do big damage at the ideal moment, then back off and let someone else do the grinding.

It should go more like this: Paladin issues his Divine Challenge, he and the monster trade blows for a round or two until they've both hit eachother. The monster now has a vested interest in finishing off the Paladin, because if he doesn't, the damage he's done to the pally, and all his actions up to this point have been 'wasted.'

/Then/ the striker moves into a flanking position and does nasty damage to the monster. The monster faces a decision: change targets to grind down the big-damage guy, and take damage from the Pally's divine challenge, as well as throwing away the damage he's done to the paladin, or grind down the paladin to elemintate tha flank. Turning on the Striker is probably still a good call. The monster and striker trade damage for, maybe, another round, until the striker takes some.

Then the striker disengages. The monster now has the choice of 1) 'chase' the damage he's done to the striker and possibly take more big striker damage in return, plus divine challenge and maybe even an OA from the pally, or 2) get back to the paladin, 'wasting' the damage on the striker. Depending on the striker involved and the level of play, chasing the striker might barely be an option at all, he could have reached cover/concealment and be stealthing away (or back to do more damage when you least expect it). What's a poor monster to do?

Probably, he turns back to the paladin. They trade damage some more, and soon both are past bloodied. Just then, the striker comes back and lands some more damage on the monster. Plus, lo and behold, the striker has been healed by the party leader. Now, the monster at this point knows he's screwed. He's nearing death, facing a fresh, big-damage striker that fighting back against takes a penalty /and/ kills him faster, and a Paladin not quite as near death as him, that's also pretty hard to hit. If he runs, they both OA him, if he withdraws carefully, they just both catch up to him, if he stands and fights the striker, he dies, probably, before he can even bloody the guy, if he stands and fights the paladin, he might die before he even hits him again - or he might get lucky and drop him. If the monster is cowdarly, it runs and gets cut down in persuit, if it's vicious, it probably tries to drop the paladin. Even if he does, the paladin has tons of healing surges to get healed back up after the fight, and has done his job as a defender. If the monster still goes after the striker at this point, it really would be a DM problem. Sure, the striker's healing surges are a scarcer commodity and wounding him is probably worse for the party than dropping the pally - but what vicious monster is going to think that way.