Help me understand the paladin.

[Carpe DM]

Help me understand the Paladin. After a few sessions playing one, I'm confused as to why one would tank as a Paladin rather than a fighter. The critical difference seems to be that Combat Challenge does not have a green-headed box around it, whereas Divine Challenge does.

The consensus result I'm reading here is that this means everyone that a Fighter marks is subject to her combat challenge, but only one target a paladin marks (regardless of abilities like Arcing Smite, etc.) is subject to damage for attacking another target.

This has borne itself out in our games. Even as a charisma-build paladin, I can't keep people off the strikers and controllers. The numbers still seem to add up that putting the controller or striker down is a bigger net gain for the monster than engaging the tank.

Obviously this is not the case with Fighters, who can stop a monster in its tracks and can affect multiple targets with Combat Challenge.

Anything I'm missing here? Paladins don't seem to be good tanks, and the half-assed healing abilities don't, even with Raven Queen's Blessing, make up for it in the games I've played.

As always, text and math are awesome persuaders.

Thanks in advance,

Carpe

 

[Kzach]

I can't convince you because I totally agree with you. I've seen it in several games I've run or played in and currently it's the number one complaint of a friend of mine who games with a different group (he decided on a pally after playing a fighter for several levels in the previous game).

I'm actually in the brain-storming process of coming up with some kind of solution. Feel free to throw ideas my way

 

[pokken]

The fighter can threaten multiple with his challenge -- but he only gets one immediate a turn so ought not to be able to get more than one challenge attack in a turn. so he challenges 4 guys with an AOE, but if all of them shift/move/attack someone else he only gets one attack.

Also, the Paladin's does damage at a range, whereas the fighter's only does damage if he's still close.

Still, I agree the Paladin is inferior at tanking, but he's superior at healing and doing damage (if you neglect the Tempest build) - so it's a tradeoff you make.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The paladin and fighter are subtly different in how they perform the defender role.

The fighter's mark and the paladin's mark both give the generic -2 penalty to attack anyone else. The fighter's mark can also do damage, but only to an adjacent target and only once/round (since it's an immediate reaction). The Paladin's mark can also do damage - not as much, but it's automatic, and the paladin doesn't have to be adjacent.

The fighter is thus 'sticky,' since it's hard for enemies to get away from him; while the Paladin is better at 'peeling' an enemy off an ally - he doesn't have to engage the enemy, just mark him and make a ranged attack, or, alternately, mark, attack, and step away. The two play differently.

The fighter can get multiple marks, so is better vs several melee foes (solderis, brutes, skirmishers), while the paladin is better vs high-importance individuals (elites, controllers, artillery, lurkers).

The other significant difference between the fighter and paladin is thier secondary roles. The fighter has some strikerish damage potential, while the paladin has some suplementary leader-like powers (lay on hands, most obviously). That also calls for a different style of play.

 

[Danceofmasks]

Well, from a campaign setting perspective, it's a possible charisma-based defender.
Not that it matters much for most games, since PCs can just pick whatever race they want, but ...

Defender tactics for say, halflings and drow are less likely to be fighter-ish than paladin-ish, due to strength builds being sub-optimal for those races.

Also, on the subject of secondary roles, charisma paladins get access to some very awesome ranged and area implement attacks, as well as being decent healers (with healing hands feat).

Fighters? They hit things real good.

See, though I reckon fighters are better at what they do (tanking; killing), paladins can be that guy that pulls the party's ass out of the fire.

 

[Kzach]

The fighter can threaten multiple with his challenge -- but he only gets one immediate a turn so ought not to be able to get more than one challenge attack in a turn. so he challenges 4 guys with an AOE, but if all of them shift/move/attack someone else he only gets one attack.

Not 100% accurate.

The fighter has two abilities. Combat Challenge is limited to marked opponents and by the limit to the amount of immediate actions per turn. Combat Superiority, however, is not.

If a fighter is surrounded by eight opponents, and all of them provoke attacks of opportunity by running away, the fighter can attack every single one of them and any he hits, are stopped dead in their tracks. Marking is irrelevant in this situation.

Attacks of opportunity are only limited by the amount of times you can attack a single target, not by how many times you can attack in a turn.

Given that 4e is designed to accommodate the inclusion of more opponents, the likelihood is that your group is going to be up against multiple enemies in almost every combat encounter. Even solo's are recommended to have a few grunts around them to spice things up. This puts the fighter way ahead of the paladin as far as their role as a defender is concerned.

 

[Carpe DM]

Ok, the immediate reaction nature of the Combat Challenge actually does a lot to assuage my fears.

many thanks,

Carpe

 

[Hypersmurf]

Obviously this is not the case with Fighters, who can stop a monster in its tracks and can affect multiple targets with Combat Challenge.

He can... but remember that the Combat Challenge mark expires each round, so the fighter can only mark as many creatures as he can attack in a given round. The fighter doesn't get Blast 3 at-wills like the wizard, so in many rounds, he'll only be marking one opponent at a time anyway...

Attacks of opportunity are only limited by the amount of times you can attack a single target, not by how many times you can attack in a turn.

Well, if we're being strict, Opportunity Attacks are limited by how many times you can attack in a turn, but not how many times you can attack in a round, nor by how many times you can attack a single target.

The rule limiting OAs is:
"One per Combatant's Turn: You can take only one opportunity action during another combatant's turn, but you can take any number during a round."

Let's say we have a foolish wizard, who has decided that the best use of his actions is to provide flanking for the melee folk.

[Wizard's Turn] He moves into position alongside the enemy orc to provide the ranger with flanking, provoking an OA from the orc in the process. He the Readies an action to Move when the ranger attacks, so he can provide flanking for the rogue.

[Ranger's Turn] The ranger attacks with CA from flanking. This triggers the wizard's Readied action, and the wizard moves, provoking an OA from the orc in the process.

[Warlord's Turn] The warlord uses Surprise Attack on a nearby opponent, and nominates the wizard to make a basic attack against the same opponent. The wizard uses Magic Missile, provoking an OA from the orc in the process. The warlord uses an Action Point, and Readies an action for when the rogue attacks.

[Rogue's Turn] The rogue attacks with CA from flanking. The warlord's Readied Action triggers, and he uses Knight's Move to allow the wizard to move. The wizard moves away from the orc, provoking an OA from the orc in the process.

Only one round, and the wizard has provoked four OAs from the orc... but since each one happened on a different combatant's turn, they're all legal.

-Hyp.

 

[Kzach]

Only one round, and the wizard has provoked four OAs from the orc... but since each one happened on a different combatant's turn, they're all legal.

I think my head just spun off...

 

[Gruns]

Yeah...

I think my head just spun off...

And you should see the poor wizard!
Later,
Gruns