Paladin Divine Challenge Fixed

[ppaladin123]

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?

I think some people (myself included) object to the mechanics of divine challenge for flavor reasons. Running away/playing evasive doesn't seem like something a paladin would do (but it might be a perfectly good power for a wizard or an evil cleric). The "fix" then is about making the power fit thematically.

 

[Kraydak]

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?

A backline paladin, with a bow, does about the same amount of damage as a frontline paladin (no major damage boosting at wills). He *also* does 8 damage/round which significantly outdoes his potential melee output. Bluntly, the mark is more dangerous than a paladin's weapon. Add in the fact that the mark gives a -2 to hit which effectively raises the paladin's allies' ACs to the paladins level (removing that defensive advantage of a paladin, if you need to, put a leader or striker on the front lines) and the paladin's ability to heal party members (with lay on hands) and you'd have to be a fool to melee your mark.

It isn't that the paladin is making a 5 on 5 fight a 5 on 4 fight, by hanging back he is leaving it a 5 on 5 where the paladin is being optimally effective.

 

[FourthBear]

It does strongly encourage the monster to attack the paladin, as it should. As long as they make rules that prevent the "mark and run" stuff, it might not suffer from no save.

As to the "mark an ally with a lesser mark to overwrite a greater enemy mark", we'll have to see. Of the marking mechanisms we've seen, the paladin's are divine and I suspect will be verboten to place on allies, since I think it's pretty clearly a violation of the intention of the divine power. The fighter's combat challenge to mark an enemy requires them to actually attack that enemy, so the fighter would have to attack an ally to do so, using up a standard action to do so, beyond the basic attack.

I do think it may be a bit funky to have martial marks interfering divine marks, but I can certainly see the potential game reasons for doing so. I would say it's pretty decent genre simulation for the "Stay back, he's mine!" moments. While I like group tactics, I'm not too fond on dog piling on single enemies.

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

Even difficult terrain has ways around it. Fly, tumble, teleport (with the many ways 1st level PCs can teleport in 4E).

Marks don't. If one is Marked (to our knowledge), there is no way to get rid of it shy of killing the marker (or putting a different mark on the target). This is not like flank. This is not like difficult terrain.

The fire aura of a creature still has a defense. It just is, but the proper spell avoids it.


Powers in the game should not adversely affect opponents without a defense.

We are not talking about things that just are. We are talking about attacks. A mark is an attack. That's the bottom line. It is one opponent hindering the target in some way without a defense or opposed roll. Sorry, but attacks should have defenses. They should not be unavoidable.

Quite frankly, I consider this a flaw in the game system.

 

[Fifth Element]

I think some people (myself included) object to the mechanics of divine challenge for flavor reasons. Running away/playing evasive doesn't seem like something a paladin would do (but it might be a perfectly good power for a wizard or an evil cleric). The "fix" then is about making the power fit thematically.

Precisely. Even if the rules text weren't fixed, any DM worth his salt would not let such an abusive thing go on. "You run away? Okay, your deity cuffs you on the back of the head and takes away your divine challenge ability until you learn to use it properly." It's a freaking paladin. Paladins do not challenge their enemies, then slink away. They challenge their enemies, then fight them.

Most abuses of mechanics are not really the fault of the mechanics or text but of players gaming the system. And to a certain extent, you'll never be able to stop such abuse, because players who are dedicated to abusing the rules will always find a way to abuse them.

 

[AllisterH]

A backline paladin, with a bow, does about the same amount of damage as a frontline paladin (no major damage boosting at wills). He *also* does 8 damage/round which significantly outdoes his potential melee output.

Um, no he doesn't. He only does this if the marked creature actually attacks the fighter.

What's preventing the marked monster from simply providing a bonus a la what the gnolls, hobgoblins and kobolds provide just by being "THERE". The type of creature most likely to get the mark is either a soldier or a brute and looking at the monster lists released so far, the -2 to hit iand the lower damage from ranged paladin attacks is peanuts to what the benefit of having 2 monsters in the face of the fighter.....

I'm concerned slightly that the *FIX* will result in a cure worse than the symptom.

 

[Fifth Element]

Double post.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

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

Powers from the martial power source are called expoits.

As in, "his daring exploits."

 

[National Acrobat]

There is NO save mechanic for the mark abilities, like the paladin challenge. Nor for the rangers quarry, the fighter challenge and the warlocks curse.

Wow, imagine a party using ALL those on a poor BBEG as minor actions and then in the same round unleash ALL their dailies as well.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander though. How many DMs will use this same approach with their opposing parties of npcs who are the same classes and levels? Surely that will balance things out...

 

[Incenjucar]

If you're focusing ALL of that on the BBEG his buddies are going to mulch you.