Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[Dragonblade]

Oh, well if it's 1d8 that's a pretty big difference. That's not something to build an exploit around. Or worry about an exploit.

Do we have any confirmation of this? Can anyone cite Mearls?

1d8 is pretty significant. I don't think its overpowered either way, but if its only 1d8 that makes it even less attractive as a tactical option.

 

[Knightlord]

Sorry, my forum-fu is kinda weak. Please explain?

My isn't the best either, but I've found that this expression is synonmous with agreement.

Best explaination I can give.

 

[Dragonblade]

My isn't the best either, but I've found that this expression is synonmous with agreement.

Best explaination I can give.

This.

 

[Lacyon]

But the potential problem with it is, that two defenders may actually be doing more damage than a defender and a striker.

The point of the striker is to deal tons of damage while the fighter holds the front. But if a paladin can sit in the back, do as much or more damage than the striker, plus gain the healing, hitpoints, AC, etc of a defender...then the paladin is now a better striker than a striker.

This appears to me to be the common conception of a striker, but I don't think it's accurate. None of the sample DDXP characters did "tons of damage" and the strikers did about as much as the Fighter in a round (provided the Fighter can make use of Cleave).

The striker role is geared toward choosing your target and dealing solid damage to that one target, but their overall damage per round is about the same as the Fighter's.

And the Paladin's Challenge seems capable of doing that reasonably well in some circumstances, but fails to do that whenever the enemy is capable of either following the Paladin or attacking the Paladin at range.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

No. The paladin marks the target, then retreats to bow range and plunks the target with a single arrow each round, dealing the same damage as he would do with his melee at will powers in addition to the 8 automatic damage from the mark.

That isn't quite accurate:

If the target makes an attack that doesn't include you as a target, it takes a -2 penalty to attack rolls and takes 8 radiant damage. The target only takes this damage once per turn.

So, if all the marked target does is charge at the paladin, it doesn't take any damage at all from the power. That's how I plan on having the creatures respond - they are going full out at the paladin, especially if they react to another PCs attack and take damage from attacking somebody else.

 

[Derren]

an easily-nullified, slightly-below-average-damage-for-a-1st-level-striker tactic that relies on a second defender is not an exploit):

Its only easily nullified when the terrain allows it and the enemy has minions or standard monsters. The damage is above what strikers can at will or even with their encounter powers. Yes it requires a second defender, but that seems to happen quite often at least among the WotC writers because both the DDXP Delve and KotS feature this setup.

And what do you think will higher levels change? You don't get better at will abilities and their damage also doesn't increase with level. And when it finally does, by reaching the next tier, the mark damage might also go up.
Because you get magical weapons? The the paladin simply gets a magical bow.

The only think which the level changes is that the paladin gets more encounter powers which require melee combat but that can be fixed through multiclassing or selecting the few ranged powers he gets.

So, if all the marked target does is charge at the paladin, it doesn't take any damage at all from the power. That's how I plan on having the creatures respond - they are going full out at the paladin, especially if they react to another PCs attack and take damage from attacking somebody else.

Which means getting AoOed by the other defender and whoever is between the monster and the paladin. And lets not forget that the fighter can prevent movement with the right power.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hey ...

What if receiving any damage broke the mark, or caused the mark's damage to the attacker? Or, relaxed the mark condition to that one attacker. (Where the damage is not from the marker.)

I'm thinking of scenes where a boss is being fought, and a mook intrudes and is destoyed by the boss before the boss returns to the main fight.

What would help is some description of the mark. As just an abstract effect: Bleh. As an effect grounded in a description: Good. Then I can figure out what makes sense.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Sorry, but I can't see why a paladin couldn't get away with this. For example, party is going down a dungeon hallway, encounters guys coming their way. Paladin marks, sits back and uses a bow. Fighter and company are up front holding the line. Not very easy for the enemies to get past the front line, and the paladin's not being a coward, he's just holding his ground doing his damage. Seems reasonable to me...and as others are pointing out, may be even more useful than a ranger's attack.

Now sure is this combo going to work in every situation? Of course not, but on the other hand if the baddies charge the paladin its not like the party is screwed. The paladin for all of his "strikeresque" feel with this combo, is still a defender, with big HP, big AC, and the ability to heal himself. If the baddies come his way, good for the party. If the enemies stay away, good for the party. Its a win/win situation.

In my gaming group, only a small percentage of encounters in a given campaign occur in narrow hallways. We also only nujmber 4 or 5 players at any given time, so the chances of having more than 2 defenders in the party at any given time is quite small (they also like variety, and usually won't play a class if someone else is already playing it). I think that this may largely account for our difference of opinion.

I agree that it is a win/win situation. I think that the mark is rather cleverly designed. In my own group though, circumstances would usually dictate the pally to act as a defender rather than a pseudo-striker. It isn't that the other DM or I would want to "screw" the player's concept of his striker paladin. It's just that we both see the DivC as being a (to borrow an MMO term) "high aggro" ability.

 

[Fanaelialae]

My isn't the best either, but I've found that this expression is synonmous with agreement.

Best explaination I can give.

Okay, I get it now. Thanks!

 

[drjones]

This thread has been very informative, in particular it has informed me that the people I play games with for all their foibles could be a lot, lot, lot worse. I think I'll send them a card or something.