Paladin. Disappointing

[VannATLC]

You're missing the point.

The POINT is that we're trying to force the Paladin to play fair with his Divine Challenge without nerfing the crap out of him. And line of sight maintenance WOULD nerf the crap out of him.
And the Rogue can still surprise strike at the Wizard, mind you. But he'll pay the price for it. That's the intent of Divine Challenge in the first place!

Line of effect would not though? (Bold emphasis mine)

Personally, I think increasing the range to Burst, 10, while also requiring continued line of effect, is reasonable.

Of course, most of the QQ'ing (Yes, I'm stealing the term.) seems to be regarding the potential abuse of the ability regarding solo monsters.

The Coward Paladin is not going to be effective marking a single monster from a mob of 12 or so, is he? He still needs to be in the thick of it, blocking physical access and laying the smack down on anything that moves past, as well as absorbing the attention of whatever big-bad is in place.

That lurker monster might decide that it is still worth the risk of divine retribution, and make that sneak attack on the casting Wizard (There's a question.. if stealthed, and responding to an Opportunistic Attack Opportunity, does sneak attack apply?)

In any case, is there any reasonable cause to believe LoE/Burst 10 is not a viable solution?

 

[Darth Cyric]

Line of effect would not though? (Bold emphasis mine)

Actually, it would. It would even make it worse if you let the enemy break line of effect. Then the enemy would just have to close the door or go around a corner.

However, you do bring up a good point. Perhaps I should add:

- If the Paladin commits an action that breaks line of sight or line of effect toward his mark, the mark is dissolved. But an enemy action that does the same would not.

The Coward Paladin is not going to be effective marking a single monster from a mob of 12 or so, is he? He still needs to be in the thick of it, blocking physical access and laying the smack down on anything that moves past, as well as absorbing the attention of whatever big-bad is in place.

I'm sure he'll want to do it to at least one enemy. If you got it, flaunt it.

That lurker monster might decide that it is still worth the risk of divine retribution, and make that sneak attack on the casting Wizard

Sure. That I have no problem with.

The only problem I have is with the scenario that allows the lurker to escape the mark through no fault of the Paladin.

 

[VannATLC]

The only problem I have is with the scenario that allows the lurker to escape the mark through no fault of the Paladin.

Woooah Nellie.

I understand where you are coming from, however..

If the creature *escapes* or runs away, or closes a door and hides, then it is, for the moment, out of combat. It should be presenting no active threat to the squishes under the Paladin's protection. I'm fine with allowing a Mark to dissolve under those circumstances.

Edit: The mark is not designed to force a creature to stay in play, or threatening. It is designed to ensure that it attacks only the paladin without incurring damage itself.
Even then, the -2 is probably nastier than the damage, even a kobold takes 4 rounds to die from that kind of damage. (I presume it scales with level, in some fashion.)

Or even if the creature successfully deludes the Paladin into thinking that is what is happening.

I see the mark as an extension of will through divine forces, supernatural in origin, but granting the Paladin no extrasensory perception. I think the current implementation is decidely broken, and that LoS, as you've said, is probably also broken.

I would do one of 2 things.

Adjust it to as I've said above, LoE, 10 Aura range.

Or, make it require the marked creature to seek out and engage the Paladin, or suffer retribution.

That last is quite powerful, I feel, but more in the spirit of what these abilities are intended to achieve.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Or even if the creature successfully deludes the Paladin into thinking that is what is happening.

That's possible. They've really got to sell it, though. Running off outright, yeah, probably. The Paladin would issue a challenge to another enemy, then. Swallowing an invisibility potion in mid-combat or slipping around a corner? Sorry buddy, I'm on to you.

 

[AllisterH]

Here's a question that someone on WOTC boards raised that I didn't think about.

If the standard encounter is supposedly 5 PCs versus 5 Monsters (as shown in the Bodak entry in the MM), if a paladin simply marks and runs away from the room, wouldn't this be a WIN for the monsters since now it is 5 monsters with 1 monster at -2 to hit versus 4 PCs?

Especially given the fact that generally speaking, your at-will attack power will pretty much always hit for most of the PC classes we've seen and thus will do more damage than the radiant round by round

For example, using kobolds as an example, if a paladin marks a kobold skirmisher and takes off, the kobold skirmisher still provides benefit to the rest of his team via the Mob ability.

I can see this being a problem for Solo monsters but even for say a fighter and a paladin taking on an Elite, wouldn't the damage/penalties be too low given that now, the fighter is going to be the center of ALL the attacks on its person.

So, before we fix this, I do wonder how the fighter can pin down one creature given that its focus should be on another creature in most cases?

 

[Herobizkit]

Even then, the -2 is probably nastier than the damage, even a kobold takes 4 rounds to die from that kind of damage. (I presume it scales with level, in some fashion.)

Unless that kobold is a minion, and dies when it suffers ANY Hp damage. I see this as a good way to defeat a mob of minions.

 

[D.Shaffer]

I'm not really convinced that the 'Mark and Run' paladin is really that much of a problem.

Since the Paladin's built around blocking the creature from attacking the more squishy targets, a paladin that's doing 'Mark and Run' is just playing into the encounter's hand. Sure, the creature's taking damage from the attack, but if he'd doing MORE damage to the squishy controller, who's only getting damaged because the 'Brave' Paladin isnt up front and doing his job, I suspect the other characters in the party might have some words to give. I think it's not going to be an 'optimal' tactic for the Paladin in the long run.

 

[M.L. Martin]

This effect seems like an awfully big oops that should've been caught during play-testing, either internal or external.

If I interpret James Wyatt's blog post correctly, it was caught during playtesting--just not soon enough to correct the D&DXP sheets.