Paladin Divine Challenge Fixed

[Kraydak]

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.....

If the monster doesn't attack then the mark just became a no-save, at will 3e daze. A very losing proposition for the monsters. As for double teaming the fighter, well, firstly it was always possible, secondly the total party damage intake is going down (that pesky -2). Given the existence of lay-on-hands, that becomes a net plus.

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

Here, I very much agree with you. If they give the paladin a full set of movement restricting powers, the fighter gets obsoleted. If they don't, I can't see any way for the paladin to be viable as a defender without this exploit. This exploit is the very thing that protects the back line from a highly mobile foe that the paladin simply does not have the abilities to pin down.

 

[Spatula]

What? The game designers are amazed that the players will find a rules exploit. That's weird. I thought game designers would be (at least in part, or some of them would be) mad rules-lawyering, power-gaming, crazy people sent out to track down and eliminate loopholes like this.

Nah, game designers are about as far from that as possible. Honestly, game companies would benefit from putting some (more) anal-retentative engineer types on the playtester rolls, because the creative types rarely see how rules can be twisted and abused. This is why I have chuckled at all these claims that 4e won't have suboptimal character options (the "4e has mine carts and 3e doesn't!" column) or that there won't be any more broken min/maxing (Massawyrm's AICN playtest reviews). It's sort of like claiming that some brand new piece of software won't have bugs. You may not see them yet, but trust me, they're there. The system is too complex for it to be otherwise.

 

[Cadfan]

Flanking is a penalty against which you cannot save, but which you can avoid by maneuvering so that you are no longer flanked.

Marks are penalties against which you cannot save, but which you can avoid by attacking one foe rather than another.

I can't get too worked up about the difference.

 

[Darth Cyric]

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.

As has been pointed out already, marks have a defense. Attack the guy that marked you. Bada-bing, no penalties, and in the case of the Paladin, no getting zapped.

 

[Darth Cyric]

Flanking is a penalty against which you cannot save, but which you can avoid by maneuvering so that you are no longer flanked.

Marks are penalties against which you cannot save, but which you can avoid by attacking one foe rather than another.

I can't get too worked up about the difference.

Perfect.

 

[Ulthwithian]

Well, 'run away' is a vague term that I believe here really means 'gets far enough away from the monster so that the monster cannot attack the Paladin'. It's quite possible that the Paladin is off doing other things.

Whether or not it is an exploit in terms of actual game mechanics, it is an exploit mainly by WotC fiat. They say it is, probably for verisimilitude issues. (I.e., Challenging someone and then running away is not generally considered Paladin-ish behavior.)

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Perhaps there should be an in-game option where a creature has the ability to use a standard or move action to "remove" a mark.

 

[Kraydak]

Well, 'run away' is a vague term that I believe here really means 'gets far enough away from the monster so that the monster cannot attack the Paladin'. It's quite possible that the Paladin is off doing other things.
...

For example, should a paladin be penalized for maneuvering to save an ally with lay-on-hands? What if it took the paladin 2 rounds of movement to get there?

 

[hong]

For example, should a paladin be penalized for maneuvering to save an ally with lay-on-hands? What if it took the paladin 2 rounds of movement to get there?

Then the mark probably wears off or something. Big whoop, just re-mark when you've saved your ally.

 

[hong]

Dailies are also worrisome; I can easily imagine players getting into the habiot of reserving their dialies like anything, and then unleashing them ALL on some poor BBEG.

I have no idea why you're worried. The whole POINT of per-day powers is to save them up and unleash them on the BBEG.