Divine power info

[Harlekin]

It seems other parts of the world received Divine power first (again). There is a long spoiler thread about it on RPG.net.

[Divine Power] I have it. Paladins = fixed. - RPGnet Forums

I am not entirely sure about the title though. It appears that the Str based Paladin might still have somewhat feeble marks.

 

[Hazard_53188]

I am not entirely sure about the title though. It appears that the Str based Paladin might still have somewhat feeble marks.

Between the feat that adds strength modified to Divine Challange and the Divine Sanction feature, it seems to me that strength based Paladin marking wouldn't be something that you'd want to ignore.

 

[Akaiku]

The magic domain feat makes me sad that my hybrid sorcerer/paladin can't take it.

Ah well, sanction and that str to challenge damage will make people much less likely to attack allies anyway.

 

[Ktulu]

Finally; I'm ready to build my paladin....


..oh, gotta wait until CB is uploaded (I'm sooo spoiled).

 

[Stalker0]

I don't know about the new mark. To me, it was never the problem of only being able to mark one person. And its not that I have to engage them (we houseruled that part out anyway).

To me the problem is the damage is just not an incentive to attack the paladin...unless I'm fighting undead or other radiant vulnerable creatures. Whether its one guy marked or 3, I can take 7 damage from his mark, or try to take on this guy in full plate and a heavy shield.

 

[Cadfan]

I don't know about the new mark. To me, it was never the problem of only being able to mark one person. And its not that I have to engage them (we houseruled that part out anyway).

To me the problem is the damage is just not an incentive to attack the paladin...unless I'm fighting undead or other radiant vulnerable creatures. Whether its one guy marked or 3, I can take 7 damage from his mark, or try to take on this guy in full plate and a heavy shield.

Then that just makes the Sanction an automatic 7 damage, doesn't it?

 

[MrMyth]

I don't know about the new mark. To me, it was never the problem of only being able to mark one person. And its not that I have to engage them (we houseruled that part out anyway).

To me the problem is the damage is just not an incentive to attack the paladin...unless I'm fighting undead or other radiant vulnerable creatures. Whether its one guy marked or 3, I can take 7 damage from his mark, or try to take on this guy in full plate and a heavy shield.

If a creature is going to simply eat free damage every round, it will be dropping all the sooner. And the choice, honestly, isn't always between attacking an untouchable character and an extremely fragile one - the AC of a rogue or various other melee characters will only be a few points lower than the Paladin's. (Which is made up for by the penalty to hit applied by the mark.) So the marked enemy is eating up free damage simply for the chance to hit someone other than the paladin, with that chance not being all that much better than swinging at the paladin directly.

Alternatively, if they want to get past the paladin and go after the more fragile characters in the back, they are now looking at eating up an Opportunity Attack in addition to the Divine Challenge damage.

And finally, in the end - what is the reason to attack another character? Often because that character is more of a threat, such as a Striker. But by accepting free damage in order to attack a Striker, the enemy is voluntarily pumping up the Paladin's damage so it is just as dangerous to them.

I mean, it might not seem the strongest marking mechanism, but I think dismissing it entirely is relatively unfounded.

 

[SpydersWebbing]

I don't know about the new mark. To me, it was never the problem of only being able to mark one person. And its not that I have to engage them (we houseruled that part out anyway).

To me the problem is the damage is just not an incentive to attack the paladin...unless I'm fighting undead or other radiant vulnerable creatures. Whether its one guy marked or 3, I can take 7 damage from his mark, or try to take on this guy in full plate and a heavy shield.

Well, if you're looking at the mark in isolation, then yes, it sucks. But remember, the whole class has to be considered as well. And there's enough powers around now to where attacking that guy in the fullplate is preferable, since everyone else has a buttload of temp hp, or they're dazed, some other random effect that the paladin doesn't have on him.

 

[Stalker0]

I mean, it might not seem the strongest marking mechanism, but I think dismissing it entirely is relatively unfounded.

Not completely unfounded. In my game we do not require the paladin to engage his enemy to maintain divine challenge, so in that we already have divine sanction. And the mark just isn't that good, and here's why:

Fighters, Wardens, and Shield Swordmages do not rely on the mark damage or penalty to defend their group.

Fighter: The fighter stops enemy movement. If the big monster can't get over to his buddy, he can't attack him.

Warden: The warden can pull enemies back to the warden. Again, monster can't get to ally, he can't attack him.

Shield Swordmage: The swordmage doesn't care if you attack his buddy or not, he simply drops so much of your damage you simply wish you hadn't. Truely the ultimate defensive mark.

 

[DEFCON 1]

By the way... I dunno if anyone else listened to it, but the WotC Divine Power podcast with Mearls and Crawford finally mentioned the infamous "T" class. The divine striker was originally called "Templar", but Crawford said they changed it when the story design of the class took it further in the direction of "god's hand striking down the infidels". "Avenger" was a better name for that kind of class than "Templar" was.

Which also seems to mean that the "I"nvoker, and the "W"arden were always those names (and no Witches, Theurges, Inquisitors or the like).