Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="eamon" data-source="post: 4990216" data-attributes="member: 51942">Post-divine power, I've got to say that low level paladins are really nasty.  The mark is easily superior to that of the fighter; partly just because (at low levels) the damage isn't insignificant; it's quite comparable to a weak hit - but, unlike the fighter, it's guaranteed to work, and it'll even work at range (so no weird movement power will get you out of that one).Also, post DP, the paladin has divine sanction, including fairly large bursts, which are simply awesome - this is a mark that causes mass damage should they ignore it, and there's just not that much they can do about it.Also, post DP, str-paladins finally get a decent mark, but better yet, cha-paladins get a melee basic at-will (no need for melee training), so their at-wills can actually matter.Finally, a paladin in one of my games has two lay-on-hands buffing feats;  this means that he can heal surge-value +10 hitpoints several times a day, which makes him a real boon to party-solidity: when the fighting gets tough, this guy heals more than the leader since lay-on-hands isn't limited to only twice per encounter, and since +10 to healing is about as good as a heal-optimized cleric gets at low levels.So, at low levels, where the fighter's CC is unlikely to do much more damage than the paladin's DC, there's no doubt that the paladin has a far more effective mark.  We've had several fighters, and the only one to really compare was the battlerager with a bloodclaw weapon, who was a target mostly because of the terrible danger he poses and low AC.The (shielding) swordmage has seen only a few sessions of play; he was exceptionally effective - vs. one target.  But, he doesn't have a viable OA (without a feat, which is a very limited resource at low levels), and if there are several opponents, well, he's not doing much but just keeping one busy.The warden's player isn't the most tactical of sorts, so I can't really say how effective a warden might be.In our games then, at low levels, the ranking of defenders would have to be:1. Paladin (by a large margin)2/3. Fighter (when played as a striker - shield push looks neat but somehow seems circumventable in many cases)2/3. Swordmage (brilliant in smaller parties vs. smaller number of foes, not so good otherwise)4. Warden (but this might not be a fair assessment due to player-issues).Oh, and a very lame defender replacement/enhancement turns out to be the shaman: at low levels it's really rare to see the spirit destroyed, and even if it is, it barely hurts the shaman; so his spirit companion can block entire passageways for a while or strategically force the enemies past the defender.  I shudder to think of a party with several; this could really become unplayable.</blockquote>

Verification