Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[ppaladin123]

Thats the example ppaladin123 used to show that this strategy is bad.
Scenario 1: The monster can't heal and to avoid damage must attack the paladin -> paladin defends even from the backrow as it will attack the paladin after getting past the fighter
Scenario 2: The monster doesn't care about the mark damage as it can heal itself by hitting squishies -> paladin can't defend even if he goes into melee as the monster simply attacks squishies instead him.



He can do x2 or x3 damage once or twice per encounter/day and depending on his weapon x2 might not do more damage than mark & bow.
Nearby ally get shield bonuses and he can intercept attacks? Wouldn't it be better to stand next to the squishies in the back row to protect them instead standing next to the other defender and leave the squishies unprotected?

Nearby allies don't get shield bonuses unless you smite something with your melee weapon. Other powers confer other benefits upon smiting something with your melee weapon. Meanwhile you've left the fighter to soak up all the damage....

I really don't think you've found an exploit here and even if you did it would be a rather boring one to play since you could be a ranger, use the hunter's mark and use a bunch of ranged powers instead and do the same or more damage while conferring whatever benefits (my guess is stuff like ranged disarm, hamstringing, etc) a bow master receives.

 

[Derren]

I think the paladin's best tactic will be situational and will depend, among other things, on the terrain, the number of opponents, and the abilities of the opponents. So, challenging from range is sometimes a good tactic. Helping the fighter to lock down an opponent in melee is sometimes a good tactic. The tactical situation may even change from round to round so that was was a good tactic the previous round is no longer a good idea now. It's part of what makes the game interesting for me, at least.

As I see it, challenging at range is more often than not a better idea when you still play a defender paladin. When you go for damage then it is always better to challenge at range (and the damage is equal or better the sustained damage of strikers) while the paladin is still harder to kill than strikers

 

[FireLance]

As I see it, challenging at range is more often than not a better idea when you still play a defender paladin. When you go for damage then it is always better to challenge at range (and the damage is equal or better the sustained damage of strikers) while the paladin is still harder to kill than strikers

Of course, the striker paladin tactic is still highly dependent on the challenged opponent having no ranged attack.

By the way, it is also possible that the damage from Divine Challenge has been reduced. The Keep on the Shadowfell dragonborn paladin has Wis 13, Cha 16 and his challenge does 6 hp of radiant damage. This could mean that challenge damage is 5 + Wisdom bonus (unlikely, since a WotC staff said it depended on Charisma), or it is now 3 + Charisma bonus.

 

[Derren]

Of course, the striker paladin tactic is still highly dependent on the challenged opponent having no ranged attack.

For his own damage. With this setup the enemy then gets damaged by the fighter because he is forced to provoke AoOs. And even without the fighter, the paladin just has to choose the melee enemies to attack first tell they are that. Then its easy to get a melee guy next to the ranged enemies.

By the way, it is also possible that the damage from Divine Challenge has been reduced. The Keep on the Shadowfell dragonborn paladin has Wis 13, Cha 16 and his challenge does 6 hp of radiant damage. This could mean that challenge damage is 5 + Wisdom bonus (unlikely, since a WotC staff said it depended on Charisma), or it is now 3 + Charisma bonus.

That remains to be seen and does of course affect if this tactic is useful or not. Although such a reduction also hurts the "properly" played paladins as its easier for the enemy to ignore the mark.

 

[ppaladin123]

Slightly off topic but still relevant: do we know if the paladin is proficient in military ranged weapons or just simple ranged weapons?

 

[Derren]

Slightly off topic but still relevant: do we know if the paladin is proficient in military ranged weapons or just simple ranged weapons?

He likely won't be proficient with military ranged weapons. But that can be changed with a feat and only means that he won't get the bonus of the weapon and no penalty.

 

[hong]

He likely won't be proficient with military ranged weapons. But that can be changed with a feat and only means that he won't get the bonus of the weapon and no penalty.

Of course, there is more to being a paladin than weapon proficiency.

 

[malraux]

You know, even if the monster found that it was better to disengage from the fighter and move somewhere else in response to the paladin's challenge, once he gets to the squishies, he's likely to find that he'd be better off chewing through the wizard than going after the paladin. Of course, if the paladin were engaged in melee, he has some powers that would greatly help. If he's way in the back, not as much.

 

[Hussar]

This whole discussion is based on some extremely large assumptions.

IF the paladin can mark and then move away...
IF the fighter can "sticky" the baddie....

Come on. What's to stop the baddie from picking up the fighter and hitting the paladin with him a la Hobgoblin Strangler? Heck, if the baddie has reach, then the paladin no longer can simply shift away and gets nailed by the baddie's OA. What if the baddie grapples the paladin? Good grief there's a hundred different ways this goes south in a hurry.

Bottom line is, you have to tag team two defenders against a single opponent for this to work. Given the baseline of 5 baddies (or more) in encounters, this is probably the poorest tactic to use. It's just stupid. Tie up your two defenders while the other four monsters beat the crap out of your three other PC's.

Any two players who tried this should be pelted with dice repeatedly.

 

[Henry]

Heck, if the baddie has reach, then the paladin no longer can simply shift away and gets nailed by the baddie's OA. What if the baddie grapples the paladin? Good grief there's a hundred different ways this goes south in a hurry.

Side note: We've learned that reach doesn't threaten any more, and "threatening reach" is a more uncommon ability. However, I do agree with your point, the whole marking and running thing is not really a big issue. It almost seems that some are averse to much movement on the battlefield.