Art of the Peel

[WalterKovacs]

Just from doing a bit of quick calculating, at around level 12 [picked it off the top of my head], the Paladin can get up to 30 AC [spending a feat on one of the armor or shield specializations to get the extra point].

Most of the strikers, and even the wizard [in leather], are at about 26 or 27. Taking extra feats, like the specializations, gaining higher armor profs, etc ... can get them to within 2 of the Paladin.

So, the range is ABOUT 4 ... and that is only in the maxed out Paladin that goes with a heavy sheild and takes a feat to up their AC.

And this is also assuming all characters have the 'standard for that level' +3 magic bonus on the armor. This doesn't take into account class features [outside of the warlock's concealment].

Now, if they are at say level 18, when they would have access to +4 magic, they would have gotten a chance to increase a stat 5 times. That would basically mean that the starting ACs get 'back in line'. Since the +2 you would have been able to add to your main defense stat in light armor gets offset by the masterwork quality. Masterwork light armor increases it's bonus by 1, masterwork heavy goes up by 3. The same occurs at the +6 level of magic, which is 25+. At level 24, you will have recieved 7 stat increases. At level 28, it becomes a total of +4, again 'resetting' the difference between heavy armor and light armor.

Most of the way up, a paladin/fighter mark will make the rest of that party at least as good as a shieldless fighter or paladin, if not better, UNLESS a character is focusing on offense to the exclusion of defensive capabilities. However, player choices matter and ignoring AC will make you a juicier target. Just as a monster can decide that it's better to take down the low AC high damage output striker that fight the defender ... a player would realize that making their high damage output striker harder to hit instead at the cost of damage per hit means they'll be able to fight longer and do more damage over time.

The lowest AC of the bunch is likely the melee ranger interestingly enough. It's hard to get their Dex up when you want to optimize their strength, and probably want their wisdom as well. Toughness gets them close to defenders in HP, and two weapon defense gives them a bit of help, but even after that, it's probably only 26 unless they get their DEX up.

 

[Shabe]

Divine Challenge doesn't allow OAs....

.... but if the striker's not an idiot and stands far enough away that the monster has to move to get to him then the pally -does- get the movement OA. Cause, you know, they do. And OAs are just as useful to a pally as a fighter.

Yeah thats what i meant, i mean if a squishy is standing near enough that a monster just needs to shift past the paladin for get a hit in then the squishy is doing something wrong.

 

[ExploderWizard]

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.

In a WOW fight this would be alright but in a tabletop game it doesn't work. Holding back a few seconds in an MMO to let the tank get aggro is no problem but on the tabletop that means a couple rounds of not doing much which is boring.

Since 4E went with an aggro model they should have given it more thought and done more to define threat and what generates it.

A typical party may not have more than one defender yet there are not a lot of options for tanking multiple mobs. One opponent can be marked or challenged but what about the other 5 critters? Some kind of ability like a shout or holy invocation to draw the attention of more monsters would have been useful. A defined list of threat levels and powers to generate threat (or reduce it for the non defenders) would help the defenders be sticky as intended.

Having a tank role doesn't work so well without the tools and full abilities to support it.

 

[Shabe]

In a WOW fight this would be alright but in a tabletop game it doesn't work. Holding back a few seconds in an MMO to let the tank get aggro is no problem but on the tabletop that means a couple rounds of not doing much which is boring.

Since 4E went with an aggro model they should have given it more thought and done more to define threat and what generates it.

A typical party may not have more than one defender yet there are not a lot of options for tanking multiple mobs. One opponent can be marked or challenged but what about the other 5 critters? Some kind of ability like a shout or holy invocation to draw the attention of more monsters would have been useful. A defined list of threat levels and powers to generate threat (or reduce it for the non defenders) would help the defenders be sticky as intended.

Having a tank role doesn't work so well without the tools and full abilities to support it.

Yet the mechanics are there, -2 is an incentive, Divine Challenge damage is an incentive, Combat Challenge is an incentive.
The fact that defenders tend to stay in one place so that you can flank them, stack up penalties etc is an incentive.
Defenders should also be the first one/s into a fight, even if it means the striker delaying so a flanking opportunity is created, attracting the first blow.

I think that strikers can stay back and I don't think it is a coincidence that all strikers have ranged options to fall back on, be it bow/throwing weapons (if you you don't fancy taking lots of actions drawing weapons) for Rangers, dagger/crossbow for Rogues or by just being a Warlock.
It gives you something to do while waiting for the defender to tie up the monsters. All the striker's extra damage sources still work with ranged attacks.

 

[eamon]

In the current set up, it's likely to be in the monsters best interest to attack the tank quite frequently if everyone is playing optimally.

If in the OP game a striker has AC 14, then the striker simply needs to improve his armor, and the paladin should choose a two-handed, more damaging weapon instead of a shield. Even an AC of 14 can be enough though, if you occasionally total defense, and occasionally stay out of range, and the tank actually marks enemies. Played like that (admittedly unfortunately), a monster would be stupid to focus too much attention on the character hardly posing any threat (since he's spending many actions moving or total defensing), who's harder to hit because of marking, divine challenge, potentially cover, or simply movement.

Further, the strikers with such low AC should make sure they just can't be reached easily (that is, stay out of range, run around, do whatever is necessary). Sometimes a paladin can forego his attack, and instead ready a charge to intercept a foe approaching a squishy (which then not only provides the charge attack, should the foe continue, but also the OA for leaving the paladin's threatened area if the foe chooses to continue with it's original plan). Once the squishy is far enough away that it can't be reached in a single round, it should be safe.

Basically though, you really want to have vaguely competitive defenses in the form of situational effects and AC, and enough defenders to hold the opponents mostly at bay.

 

[Dausuul]

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).

This. Any striker fighting on the front line (rogue, TWF ranger) has no excuse for a low AC. If you've got a 14 AC and you wade into melee, of course you're going to get beat on.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Yet the mechanics are there, -2 is an incentive, Divine Challenge damage is an incentive, Combat Challenge is an incentive.
The fact that defenders tend to stay in one place so that you can flank them, stack up penalties etc is an incentive.
Defenders should also be the first one/s into a fight, even if it means the striker delaying so a flanking opportunity is created, attracting the first blow.

I think that strikers can stay back and I don't think it is a coincidence that all strikers have ranged options to fall back on, be it bow/throwing weapons (if you you don't fancy taking lots of actions drawing weapons) for Rangers, dagger/crossbow for Rogues or by just being a Warlock.
It gives you something to do while waiting for the defender to tie up the monsters. All the striker's extra damage sources still work with ranged attacks.

Yes there are some mechanics in place just not to the degree that lets a defender truly be the magnet that he/she needs to be. There is no way to lock down multiple mobs. In most cases if you can only tank 1 mob at a time then you are a fairly crappy tank. So you mark 1 of 6 guys, and lets say it stays on you. How does the tank keep the other five from pummeling the wizard? Staying at range is ok if the monster can't move much. Its almost as if the design team dipped a foot into the aggro pool and was scared of getting wet.

 

[JesterOC]

How does the tank keep the other five from pummeling the wizard?

THe fighter gets an OA against each monster stepping by to get at the wizard. Hopefully the wizard has thunderwave and kocks the swarm back towards the fighter where at least some get another AO. And hopefully the wizard took staff as an implement and has AC 20 at 3rd lvl. (In our group the fighter has AC 19 and the wizard AC 20. If you want a great axe, you have to pay the price )

JesterOC

 

[ExploderWizard]

OK then, the OA rules are more powerful then I remember. The fighter gets to swing at any number of opponents that move past him even if they are nowhere within reach. That should take care of it.

 

[Schmoe]

Seriously, I think people are trying to make the defender role into more than it is. In previous versions of D&D, the fighter/paladin/knight/cavalier/whatever would assume a "defender" role front and center while trying to occupy the opponents and dish out some damage. In the current version of D&D, the fighter/paladin will still do the same. The only difference is that the fighter/paladin in 4e has been given a few extra tools to make his job easier.

Arguments about the defender isn't "sticky", there's no "threat" mechanic in 4e, etc, are irrelevant. The defender is better at his job in 4e than he was in earlier editions.

When push comes to shove and, heaven forbid, combat erupts, the fighter/paladin will, as he always has, assume a position front and center and try to occupy the opponents and dish out some damage. He will, in effect, be "defending" the party. 4e just happened to recognize this and give him some additional tools to make his life easier.

Honestly, expecting a paladin to have a foolproof means to keep an opponent off of an ally is like expecting a rogue to have a foolproof means to do the most damage to an opponent. Sure, the tools are there to make it more likely, but it's not foolproof. Sometimes the opponents avoid the paladin. Sometimes the opponents avoid the rogue. And, true to the philosophy behind 4e, group tactics will help to influence the success of either of these roles.