Paladin Divine Challenge Fixed

[Hjorimir]

It appears that an exploit slipped through to the DDExp, but not to the game itself, I agree. But you made the statement from that one slip that "this appears to be the most exploitable version dnd yet."

I have to ask - in all fairness and politeness - do you think it's possible that your jumping to conclusions from this one small example, which the devs have already acknowledged and fixed?

But I do agree with you that I hope their testing was both extensive and thorough.

 

[Shroomy]

"Marking" is a defender only mechanic.

 

[Kraydak]

Unless they gave the paladin a bevy of movement restriction abilities I'll believe they come up with a satisfactory RAI fix when I see it.

Of course, a second marking issue was also raised: using marks as mark-dispels (marks overwrite eachother). With the example paladin, if he starts his turn where he wants to (which should happen a lot with a defender without massive movement related abilities), and adjacent to an ally who got marked by an enemy, then the paladin can mark his ally to dispel the existing mark (minor), remark his real target (move->minor) which removes the mark from the ally (the lvl1 mark can only go on one person at a time) and still use his standard action to attack however he choses.

 

[mach1.9pants]

Told you so.

So magnanimous in victory!

 

[ppaladin123]

Unless they gave the paladin a bevy of movement restriction abilities I'll believe they come up with a satisfactory RAI fix when I see it.

Of course, a second marking issue was also raised: using marks as mark-dispels (marks overwrite eachother). With the example paladin, if he starts his turn where he wants to (which should happen a lot with a defender without massive movement related abilities), and adjacent to an ally who got marked by an enemy, then the paladin can mark his ally to dispel the existing mark (minor), remark his real target (move->minor) which removes the mark from the ally (the lvl1 mark can only go on one person at a time) and still use his standard action to attack however he choses.

Can you mark an ally with divine challenge?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Okay, not all powers have saves...same was true with 3e. How is using such powers an exploit?

The daily powers all have saves, btw. Those little minor actions are going to be used all of the time; they are a part of a character's expected power level.

I don't see the exploits; please elucidate.

The paladin's mark caused the opponent to take 1d8 damage every round the opponent couldn't attack the paladin. The fighter's actions kept the monster from pursuing the paladin ... the the monster was rules-suicided at 1d8 hp per round. Couldn't run away, couldn't avoid the damage.

 

[KarinsDad]

The fact that most "mark" type abilities don't have saves doesn't matter. Take a look at them. Other than the fighter, all the mark abilities do nothing until some other effect takes place. And the fighter's ability to inflict a -2 on attack rolls is reasonable.

Actually, it should matter.

Marks give NPCs (or PCs) penalties and sometimes serious penalites. Penalties in the game should require fairly easy ways to avoid or save against. For example, flank. One avoids flank by moving or by killing one flanker or by disarming one flanker, etc. There are multiple ways to avoid it (and still more or less do what the NPC wants to do). Hence, it has no save.

In the case of marks, most uses of the NPC's attack abilities result in a penalty. You get the penalty automatically and the ONLY way to avoid it is by not attacking an ally of the marker.

Marks would even be fine if they allow an NPC to eventually save (as per the save at the end of the next turn that we are hearing about). I'm ok with that (although it is more bookkeeping). I'm just not ok with things like the Paladin's challenge that basically has no defense whatsoever. Fire has a defense. Lightning has a defense. Weapons have a defense. Why do marks not have a defense? Attacking is a key concept in combat and to minimize its effective use without a save or way to counter it (shy of killing the marker) is too potent. IMO.

 

[Voss]

But, with the fighter and paladin marks, the penalties are entirely avoided by attacking the fighter or paladin. And you're going to be fairly close (5 squares of the paladin, and adjacent to the fighter) if you're being marked, close enough to be within striking range.

If it were a 'save ends' effect, it wouldn't be effective at all. Odds are it would go away the first turn. That simply isn't an effective duration for a minor penalty.

ppaladin- yes. As written, it just says one creature and 'target'. So you can take a minor to mark an ally (overwriting a foes mark), a move action to take another minor action to mark an actual enemy, and then a standard action to attack.

 

[Hjorimir]

Penalties in the game should require fairly easy ways to avoid or save against.

No they shouldn't; Some things are unavoidable.

By your logic, a cavern of rough terrain as presented in 3e is bad-wrong-fun because there is no fairly easy way to avoid the movement penalty.

Some things just are.

 

[AllisterH]

The paladin challenges, and runs away. The fighter engages the monster and uses his exploits to prevent the monster from chasing after the paladin. The monster takes 8 damage each round due to the paladin's challenge or else does nothing and gets chopped up.

I'm not exactly sure why this is an "exploit".

Hear me out here. If the standard encounter is 5 PCs versus 5 monsters (as shown in the Bodak entry), wouldn't the paladin running away result in 4 PCs versus 5 monsters. Sure, the marked monster is at -2 to hit and if he does attack the fighter he takes 8 damage, but what about the monster that the fighter should've been egaged with ALREADY,

Doesn't this mean that the fighter is now more likely to be flanked *which gets rid of the penalty* and puts him at a serious disadvantage especially against monsters who get bonuses just by being around other monsters of its species (goblins, kobolds and hobgoblins).

Really, did anyone actually do the math to see whether or not, the actual damage from radiant was worth it to let the fighter suffer attacks from now two monsters?