Paladin is more of a striker?

[Fanaelialae]

Again, that was assuming that, somehow, the PC would always be out of harm's way and damaging the foes with his Divine Challenge. Which is a huge assumption, as I've already proven that it'll never work. Of course, everyone seems perfectly happy to ignore my valid arguments against the build in favor of fantasy, but there just isn't a situation in which that monster isn't going to somehow get to the Paladin, forcing him to do his job in the back row while someone else tries to hold the front line.

We seem to have had a misunderstanding, as I've already said elsewhere that the paladin would only be able to maintain his mark at range in rare situations.

In the quote you referenced, I was talking about a ranger with the paladin multiclassing feat. I was saying that while it looks to be an unusual build, I can't see that it would be broken as it would be even more limited in certain ways than the pally "striker" (since the mark would only be 1/encounter).

It's probably a decent build for a ranger, true, but consider that not only would the ranger be drawing more attention than is likely optimal, his mark would also be 1/encounter. Meaning that all the enemy has to do is break his LoS or otherwise distract him for one round (so that he can't attack his marked target for that round). The mark then goes away and isn't available again until the next encounter.

 

[Khaim]

Challenging a guy safely from the top of a city wall? Not happening.

Why not? Remember, the challenge doesn't do anything unless the target is attacking something. So there has to be a fight going on down there, at which point it's fine if the paladin pulls one of the enemies away from the brawl.

There's always the option of full defense and/or running away.

 

[Mal Malenkirk]

Why not?

Because unless you are offering yourself as a target, it violates the idea of the very word challenge.

The paladin is a defender. It's obvious what the designers had in mind. I want something like : ''The mark is broken if on his turn the target has an opponent that is closer to him than the paladin.'' Thus basically forcing the paladin to move to the front to use his challenge. It's not that different in effect from forcing the Ranger to use Hunter's Quarry on the closest target and it's even more obviously appropriate.

Anything else violates the very concept of the power and the role of the paladin as a defender.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's still a challenge, it's just that the ranged challenger with a bow is a Gingerbread Paladin.

 

[FireLance]

Because unless you are offering yourself as a target, it violates the idea of the very word challenge.

The paladin is a defender. It's obvious what the designers had in mind. I want something like : ''The mark is broken if on his turn the target has an opponent that is closer to him than the paladin.'' Thus basically forcing the paladin to move to the front to use his challenge. It's not that different in effect from forcing the Ranger to use Hunter's Quarry on the closest target and it's even more obviously appropriate.

Anything else violates the very concept of the power and the role of the paladin as a defender.

I don't see why offering yourself as a target has to go hand in hand with being close to your opponent. If an opponent is already in melee with the party wizard, I'd be quite happy for the paladin to challenge him from 5 squares away, and force him to move away from the wizard in order to attack the paladin (or attack the wizard and take damage).

If the opponent has an area attack, doing so could also ensure that he has to choose between attacking the paladin only, or taking damage in order to attack more targets.

 

[Incenjucar]

Honestly, this reminds me of how Spider-Man behaves when encountering a foe in a populated area.

Taunts them, throws things at them, and gets them to follow him to a mysteriously unattended construction site.