Best tactic for a paladin: cower behind allies?

[Skyscraper]

EDIT: Nevermind the following post, what i overlooked has been brought to my attention in the replies. You can disregard this thread.

The paladin's Divine Challenge ability can me summarized as follows. It allows him to effectively mark a target on his turn when the paladin either (a) attacks the target on that same turn or (b) finishes his turn adjacent to the target. If, on its turn, the marked creature attacks another creature than the paladin, it takes -2 to its attack rolls and it also takes radiant damage equal to 3 + the paladin's charisma modifier.

In view of the mechanics of Divine Challenge, it seems like a good strategy for a paladin that starts its turn next to a creature to mark the creature and attack it, then move away behind his allies to hopefully get that creature to either relinquish its attacks, move to attack the paladin hopefully taking OAs from the paladin's allies, or attack the paladin's allies taking damage and attack penalties from Divine Challenge.

In other words, a paladin will first move to engage an opponent in melee, but on the second round will move away behind his allies. Then rinse and repeat: round 1 move to attack; round 2 mark, attack and move away. (Or this can also be accomplished in a single round with an action point.)

Now i see nothing inherently wrong with this tactic mechanically speaking; however, it does appear to be a rather drastic departure from the old paladin fluff we're used to seeing. The paladin effectively taunts his enemies continuously while running to cower behind his allies. Indeed, it puts the opponents in a no-win situation: either respond to the taunt and take OAs from the paladin's allies, or don't respond and take damage from Divine Challenge. Or don't attack, but we all know what not attacking means for many creatures: lose a round. Isn't that weird for good paladins?

Now I've not seen much 4E action yet, we've barely started our first game last week (with a paladin, who didn't try this tactic though). It is quite possible that i misunderstand the mechanics.

In any event, what are your thoughts regarding this tactic?

Side note: i know the terrain might not yield itself to this tactic all the time, nor will some combat situations (the party is surprised, etc...). It's simply my impression that this tactic might be an optimal one for a paladin, when it's possible to achieve. And for a paladin to hope to achieve a situation where he can cower behind his allies is, well, counter-intuitive to me.

Other side note: of course if the party is 4 wizards and a paladin he doesn't want to do this. Again, the paladin might want to achieve this situaiton when possible.

Yet another side note: 4E includes non-lawful good paladins. I'm quite comfortable with that in fact - i've had that houserule for years in 3E. I'm mostly looking at how the Divine Challenge class ability is likely to be used, and how this might impact the fluff around good paladins.

Sky

P.S.: This thread was triggered by the thread on invisible paladins. For the purpose of this thread, please disregard any combo where the paladin becomes invisible or teleports away or whatnot; if you wish to discuss these combos, please refer to the invisible paladin thread here http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?t=234902

p.p.s.: i'm now done with side notes and post scriptums

 

[James McMurray]

The paladin is a defender. Any strategy which involves him shifting attacks onto the weaker party members is doomed.

 

[Skyscraper]

The paladin is a defender. Any strategy which involves him shifting attacks onto the weaker party members is doomed.

Please refer to the Paladin + 4 wizards side note. I presume that the paladin is coupled for example with at least a pair of fighters or resilient leaders or strikers.

Sky

 

[Kordeth]

The paladin's Divine Challenge ability can me summarized as follows. It allows him to effectively mark a target on his turn when the paladin either (a) attacks the target on that same turn or (b) finishes his turn adjacent to the target. If, on its turn, the marked creature attacks another creature than the paladin, it takes -2 to its attack rolls and it also takes radiant damage equal to 3 + the paladin's charisma modifier.

In view of the mechanics of Divine Challenge, it seems like a good strategy for a paladin that starts its turn next to a creature to mark the creature and attack it, then move away behind his allies to hopefully get that creature to either relinquish its attacks, move to attack the paladin hopefully taking OAs from the paladin's allies, or attack the paladin's allies taking damage and attack penalties from Divine Challenge.

The paladin provokes an OA for doing this, since a one-square shift isn't going to be enough to get him behind his allies (and if it is, the monster can almost certainly shift to follow him and smack him).

In other words, a paladin will first move to engage an opponent in melee, but on the second round will move away behind his allies. Then rinse and repeat: round 1 move to attack; round 2 mark, attack and move away. (Or this can also be accomplished in a single round with an action point.)

In this case the paladin is giving up his action every other round--hardly an optimal tactic, and the action point trick can only be pulled off once every other encounter.

Now i see nothing inherently wrong with this tactic mechanically speaking; however, it does appear to be a rather drastic departure from the old paladin fluff we're used to seeing. The paladin effectively taunts his enemies continuously while running to cower behind his allies. Indeed, it puts the opponents in a no-win situation: either respond to the taunt and take OAs from the paladin's allies, or don't respond and take damage from Divine Challenge. Or don't attack, but we all know what not attacking means for many creatures: lose a round. Isn't that weird for good paladins?

I don't see the problem with it fluff-wise unless you insist on calling it "cowering behind allies." Particularly if the allies are tough enough to take it, this kind of engagement is perfectly sound from a tactical POV, and nobody ever said paladins have to be Lawful Stupid.

That said, it's really not an effective tactic at all unless you consider "don't get hit" to be the primary goal of combat.

Side note: i know the terrain might not yield itself to this tactic all the time, nor will some combat situations (the party is surprised, etc...). It's simply my impression that this tactic might be an optimal one for a paladin, when it's possible to achieve. And for a paladin to hope to achieve a situation where he can cower behind his allies is, well, counter-intuitive to me.

It's really not. You're giving up your action every other round to plink a monster for a few points of radiant damage if and only if it can't attack you. I guarantee that you'll be more effective on the front line actually hitting the thing every round.

 

[Mengu]

Isn't this tactic much more effective with a thrown javelin or something? It's only a basic attack, but you can deal some early damage to targets, while staying back, and when your other defender needs help, you run up there and get into melee still fresh, swinging away with your encounter and at-will powers.

 

[Skyscraper]

The paladin provokes an OA for doing this, since a one-square shift isn't going to be enough to get him behind his allies (and if it is, the monster can almost certainly shift to follow him and smack him).

Ah, there, i thought i had overlooked something.

Thanks,

Sky

 

[Cadfan]

1. If you hide behind allies, you may terminate your divine challenge. Please read the small print on your contract with your deity.

2. So let me get this right. A heavily armored, high hit point character with good melee attacks is going to skip his own melee attacks in order to hide behind an ally so that he can either 1) prevent a single enemy from attacking, or 2) deal 3+cha damage to said enemy, whichever the enemy finds preferable. Color me unimpressed. The party could fire that paladin and hire a ranger to deal single target ranged damage far, far in excess of that amount.

 

[James McMurray]

Please refer to the Paladin + 4 wizards side note. I presume that the paladin is coupled for example with at least a pair of fighters or resilient leaders or strikers.

Sky

If you're going to hide behind your heavily armored friends, spend the feat for a good quality missile weapon, and some multiclass feats to make you better with it (or as Cadfan points out, just make a ranger). 3 + Cha isn't worth missing out on the damage you could be doing otherwise.

 

[Skyscraper]

Thanks for the replies. Just so it's clear, the matter is settled in my mind. For some obscure reason i cannot yet fathom, i had forgotten that retreating behind allies would provoke an OA from the opponent. I was so much into the invisible paladin issue that i somehow lost sight of the big picture.

Sky

 

[underfoot007]

The creature which has been "divine challened" just has to delay un til the paladins next turn, which if he does not engage the target of his DC, it goes away.
plus th paladin cannot use his DC on his next turn.