Kobold Paladin of Bahamut - Pick+Shield vs Heavy Pick

[Phototoxin]

Just wondering if some more experienced players (I tend to DM) could chime in - basically I'm wondering if the +2AC bonus and less damage is better since he's a defender and thus values AC anyway?

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I've built paladins both ways (weapon & board as well as two-hander). It depends on what you're after - survivability or damage output. The paladin class is pretty flexible in 4e, so you can go either way, depending on your stats.

If you're going Cha-based, then you're probably better off concentrating on defence. If you're Str-based, either way can work. I've never tried a balanced build (Str & Cha), but I gather that works best with Half-Orcs for brutal mark-punishment damage.

Since you're starting with a 'small' race, melee damage output is already lagging behind, so I would go for defence. You can always upgrade to a serrated pick later on if you can spare a feat for it.

For further consideration, I recommend this build guide to Paladins: http://community.wizards.com/go/thr..._Faith_(and_Facestabs):_The_Paladins_Handbook

 

[Storminator]

I think I would lean to the heavy pick. A paladin want to get attacked, so making your AC too high can discourage attacks against you (if paladin AC > friend AC +2). Paladins tend to have boatload of surges and a lot of hp, and can therefore take the pain.

And as ND says, your damage will already suffer, but I would try to mitigate that, rather than just accept it.

PS

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

That is a good point. Also, Pick Expertise is quite good for that as well; +1 damage if your target is larger than you, and as a kobold, that's a lot of things.

 

[Ferghis]

A paladin want to get attacked, so making your AC too high can discourage attacks against you (if paladin AC > friend AC +2).

I agree with the comments in this thread, but this bears elaborating. If a monster were just faced with a plain mark, this would be the conclusion of a tactical consideration. But in addition to the penalty, the enemy violating the mark also takes damage and heals the target ally. This makes attacking the paladin a better tactical choice even if the attack is a bit less likely to connect. And that makes high defenses worthwhile.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Paladins tend, IME, to be minion-magnets for that reason. Especially if you take a lot of mass-mark abilities.

 

[Phototoxin]

I didn't know about the pick feat for bonus damage vs larger targets... thanks guys a lot of food for thought.

 

[Lindeloef]

Regarding the "More Damage vs More Armor" thing. I personally would ask the DM how he handles Marks ingame. Does he just abides to them or does he actively break them or anything in between.

 

[Ramaster]

Shields give you a +2 to your Reflex defense, as well. That would increase your survivability a bit more.

IMHO, if you are building a defender, damage output gets put in second place behind your ability to protect yourself/your allies. And I know that giving your enemies the mighty "Dead" condition is cool and all, but most CHA powers don't use your weapon die for damage. And surviving just ONE MORE hit might make the difference between life and TPK.

 

[Ferghis]

Regarding the "More Damage vs More Armor" thing. I personally would ask the DM how he handles Marks ingame. Does he just abides to them or does he actively break them or anything in between.

I think this is a healthy discussion to have, although DMs are not always realistic about their gameplay. It's healthy because it's worth exploring what knowledge a marked monster has, since, in many cases, you want the monster to violate the mark (so it misses and is punished), and what the monster knows about the mark governs that decision. However, many DMs rightfully try to run combat quickly and make snap (and sometimes unpondered) decisions about what a marked monster will do.