New Paladin Mark: Sacred Ward

[Stalker0]

My group has been playing around with different marks to give paladins a bit more of that guardian flavor we are looking for. We tried this in our last game and really liked it a lot.

Sacred Ward
At-will
Minor Action
Close Burst 5
Target: One ally in range.

The target gains a special mark that remains as long as the target is within 5 squares of the paladin, or until the end of the encounter.

When enemy makes an attack on the target, it suffers a -2 to its attack roll, and on its first attack it is dealt radiant damage equal to 3 + the paladin's charisma mod (6+cha at paragon, 9+cha at epic). The attack penalty from other marks do not stack with the Sacred Ward.


My group likes this because it gives each mark its own special niche.

1) The fighter's mark is the most controlling, shutting down movement.
2) The swordmage's assault has a lot of mobility, the aegis is the most defensive.
3) The paladin's mark now can work against multiple creatures more effectively (if they attack the same person), and is the most protective of a single individual.

We are still working on modifying at wills to fit this, but we like the basic concept so we are continuing to work with it. Let me know what you think.

 

[FireLance]

It is nice, but it does create the potential for (possibly too much?) synergy with other defenders, though.

Let's say that a monster is in melee with a fighter and a paladin. The fighter marks the monster and the paladin uses sacred ward on the fighter. On the monster's turn, it takes damage if it attacks the fighter and risks damage if it shifts or attacks the paladin.

One way to mitigate this might be to say the sacred ward does not work on an ally that is marking any creature, and stops functioning when the ally marks any creature.

 

[Stalker0]

One way to mitigate this might be to say the sacred ward does not work on an ally that is marking any creature, and stops functioning when the ally marks any creature.

I could say that sacred ward doesn't work if the enemy is already marked, that would eliminate the synergy.

 

[DanmarLOK]

But doesn't the mark go on the ally and not the monster? Or am I just confused?

Target: One ally in range.

Maybe if it was written, one ally and one enemy in range as kind of a duo mark? And then the sacred mark erases existing marks. So it's more of marking a creature with a holy damage shield versus a specific monster?

Example (for my own clarity):

Jim and Joe and June, paladin, fighter, wizard respectively are fighting Orca and Orcy.

Jim marks (tethers) June and Orca with his sacred mark. June now has little crackles of holy energy dancing over her. If Orca attacks June he takes the radiant damage. Orcy suffers no consequence in attacking June.

Joe kills Orcy.

Orca is obviously thinking about running so Joe marks Orca, 'getting up in his grill' so to speak which disrupts the Sacred Mark that's binding Orca and June and the power effects on June are grounded out.

Orca decides to stick it out and kill June. Jim steps up to the plate and uses Sacred Mark on June which wipes out Joe's fighter mark as joe takes a step back and no longer as threatening to Orca.

That's what Orca was waiting for and bolts for the hills.

Something like that?

If so that I can certainly get behind and use. It certainly helps give the paladin his own flavor and set him off from the others and as long as the mark's wipe each other.

 

[Angellis_ater]

To be honest I think this is WAY too good. First of all, the wording is a little confusing (is it the ally or the enemy/enemies who are marked? Second of all, giving ALL creatures that try to attack a single character is a little too good of a way to defend a striker or controller, or, to be honest, even another Defender. A Fighter/Paladin combo becomes annoyingly good with this.

It would be better to let the Paladin do this in exchange for Lay on Hands. Sacred Ward sheaths an ally in shimmering light, giving them cover against all attacks until the end of the paladins next turn.

 

[keterys]

So, to rework this...

The target is shielded in a ward of divine energy that remains as long as the target ends its turn within 5 squares of the paladin, or until the end of the encounter.

When an unmarked enemy makes an attack on the target, it suffers a -2 penalty to its attack roll. In addition, as an immediate reaction the paladin may inflict 3 + Cha damage on the enemy. (6+cha at paragon, 9+cha at epic)

Whys: the ends its turn is to handle the oddness of two characters walking together who separate out on their turns, and some other things like that. The unmarked prevents abuse. The immediate reaction prevents abuse by hitting multiple enemies and gives a cost to this improved version of the mark.

 

[cjais]

So, to rework this...

The target is shielded in a ward of divine energy that remains as long as the target ends its turn within 5 squares of the paladin, or until the end of the encounter.

When an unmarked enemy makes an attack on the target, it suffers a -2 penalty to its attack roll. In addition, as an immediate reaction the paladin may inflict 3 + Cha damage on the enemy. (6+cha at paragon, 9+cha at epic)

I really like this idea, I think I'm gonna have to snatch it for my game. I like how it's an immediate reaction, as the radiant damage could quickly get out of hand otherwise.
Stalker came up with something that I've felt was always missing, somehow.

 

[DanmarLOK]

I guess I misread the original. The last changes though strike me as possibly too good? So as long as the wizard stays behind the paladin every attack at the wizard is at -2, from an unmarked hostile granted but how many marked hostiles in any one fight are there? A reasonably permanent -2 for a minor action once during the combat seems pretty decent to me.

Perhaps take away the immediate reaction and made the damage automatic again which uses up the energy of the warding although the Paladin can recast it when their turn comes back up?

10% miss chance from the majority of the combatants just seems a bit good. Example: Wizard is Warded by Paladin in a battle with 6 minions, 2 standards and an elite. The fighter and the warlord mark two of them. The rogue does the rogue bit. That leaves 7 of the hostiles at -2 to hit the wizard if they were so inclined.

I like the concept, it definitely gives a unique flavor to the paladin it's missing but I'd be more inclined to use something like this I think, not saying yours is bad/wrong/whatever, I just have a personal subjective leaning against the -2 to all attacks when the original mark was -2 for one creature with the reverse that you also had to attack that creature to keep it up.

Paladin Class Features:

Choose either Sacred Warding or Divine Challenge as one of your class features.

Sacred Warding
At-Will * Divine, Radiant
Minor Action Close Burst 5
Target: One ally in burst
Effect: You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use this power on another target or the target is subject to a successful attack. The creature can only be subject to one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place.
While the target is marked, attack rolls against that target suffer a -2 penalty.
The first attack that damages the target removes the mark and the attacker suffers radiant damage of 3 + your charisma modifier. The damage increases to 6 + your charisma modifier at 11th and 9 + your charisma modifier at 21st level.

Thoughts?

 

[keterys]

It is probably worth noting that giving all creatures -2 to attack a single ally is not necessarily better than giving a single creature -2 to attack all allies. In fact, in many ways it's less powerful since the normal divine challenge will encourage a monster to actually attack the paladin, while sacred ward means they're free to attack, say, the rogue instead of the cleric, or the wizard, while the paladin does nothing to stop them.

That said, I find the idea extremely interesting (with the modifications I made), so thanks Stalker and I'll see if the paladin in one of my games wants to try it out, at some point.

 

[DanmarLOK]

After thinking about that I'd, respectfully, offer a differing opinion. With the one way you potentially affect all hostile attack rolls, assuming everyone is going to attack the warded target. The other way you can only potentially affect one hostile attack roll.

While not direct encouragement for hostiles to attack the paladin specifically, the warding is though encouragement for hostiles to attack any one but the warded creature. Similar but different.

And that's the feel I got from the OP and what I was shooting for in my personal interpretation. For the paladin to use his faith to make one target less... appetizing to the hostiles so they go after someone else. To protect the weak so to speak although I'm sure it would be used by players to buff up the front line defense as much as the squishies.

Not saying your interpretation/wording is wrong or not good, I think we're just going for a different feel.