Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[Voss]

Its clumsy wording, but I don't expect to see a lot of examples of the 'problem' in play. The paladin is going to give up almost of all his abilities to exploit the mark in this way, and be very ineffective overall. Or have to blow a lot of feats to be even marginally effective.

While paladin pete and fighter fred are trying to pull shenanigans on this one monster, the other monsters have successfully killed and eaten the rest of the party.

 

[Blue]

IIRC, you could get the Divine Challenge 1/enc as part of the paladin multiclassing feat. That could be fun for a ranger or warlock to challenge a BBEG. They are planning on attacking but staying out of range. Both also have powers that give movement.

Cheers,
=Blue(23)

 

[Dormain1]

because DivC requires you to be within squares of your foe to activate it means that even if the Pally marks then runs away they are not going to be that far away

as soon as the fighter hits it with their AoO the Pally mark goes away so no dmg

this tactic doesn't take it to consideration other foes in the encounter who get to munch on the strikers and controllers while the two defenders deal with one foe

sunder the Pallys range weapon or wait till he runs out of ammo then he has to get next to you

I gave examples of an Eladrin and a Kender...Halfling using these tactics in another thread, the Halfling Pally of a god of trickery or the Eladrin of the god of archery may use these tactics once in a while but I doubt the fighter will be willing to ignor other targets for too long

I really dont see many Pallys doing this type of action too often to be concerned about, most Pallys will go the "Hey you come here and get what's comming to ya!" type of role in melee

This power enables the Pally to mark a foe who is attacking one of the controllers/strikers and get it to shift it's attention to him and move away from the Pallys ally, which a foe could ignore if the controller/striker is doing more dmg to it

If you put a contraint if the Pally moves away then the mark ends, opens up the abuse of hiting the paladin and shifting him one square away(which more than one class and foe has) and the mark ends

I think the fix works for what it intented to stop, Pallys marking targets and running off and waiting for it to die, tactical manuvours and getting the marked target to cross hampering situations be it fighter or whatever doesn't break the ability, it just means the foes can't be stupid

 

[Blackbrrd]

A tactic that works and probably are within the spirit of the rules and lets the Paladin use his melee abilities is to:
Paladin hits marked creature
Shifts away from the marked creature
Generating a basic attack from the fighter. (because of the fighter ablility that grants a basic attack if enemy shifts)

You don't get the automatic 8 damage, but a automatic basic attack from the fighter.

If you change the wording to: the paladin must make a melee attack or end adjacent to the creature it would be ok? Or maybe not if the paladin multiclasses with rogue to get the tumbling encounter ability to make it move?

 

[Torchlyte]

On the contrary Derren, I would have been very annoyed if the "fix" required the Paladin to make melee attacks.

You feel that it goes against the Paladin's role as a defender if the player does not stay in melee... but that is its own punishment; the roles exist because they are useful. You are either making the choice to leave your party without a real defender, or you're putting all the pressure on one defender and you're too far away to heal him.

As for the dragon fight, I'm okay with the party playing creatively under those kinds of circumstances. When you imagine a dragon fight, do you see warriors standing toe to toe with it? I don't, but maybe Zelda is coloring my perceptions there.

Edit:

A tactic that works and probably are within the spirit of the rules and lets the Paladin use his melee abilities is to:
Paladin hits marked creature
Shifts away from the marked creature
Generating a basic attack from the fighter. (because of the fighter ablility that grants a basic attack if enemy shifts)

You don't get the automatic 8 damage, but a automatic basic attack from the fighter.

If you change the wording to: the paladin must make a melee attack or end adjacent to the creature it would be ok? Or maybe not if the paladin multiclasses with rogue to get the tumbling encounter ability to make it move?

Those abilities allow the PC to move, they don't cause the opponent to move. If we were picking abilities that do make the opponent move, I'd be okay with that, too. The potential to make powerful combos is why multiclassing requires feat investment.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

I don't see a problem with the fix. Okay... it may have clunky wording but I'm not worried about that.

-If there is more than one critter the monsters that aren't marked get to tear into the squishies.
-If the monster has ranged attacks it gets to retaliate.
-If the monster gets to move/slide/teleport out of the paladin's attack range and/or line-of-sight the tactic is busted.
-If the fighter misses on his AoO the tactic is busted. For this reason we can assume this works best if the fighter can be expected to hit the critter on a regular basis and if the fighter can hit on a regular basis I think it is safe to assume (for the time being) that the paladin would hit with their melee weapon on a regular basis if they chose to do so.
-I get the feeling that for most paladin builds this will not be the most effective means of dealing damage. The paladin will still get to attack with their weapon but I'm guessing in most cases the melee weapon would be the primary while the ranged weapon would be the secondary weapon.

So... under a specific set of circumstances the tactic works well. Under other circumstances it doesn't work so well. I fail to see the issue here.

 

[vagabundo]

Seems the exploit is tricky to pull off and a sub-optimal use for a defender (he should be up the front: "Protect the squeshies!!"), in which case I will not worry about it too much, from a DMs point of view.

I have had the halfling paladin player (my rules barrister) in my playtest game try to pull this kind of stuff. I told him he could not attack others after marking someone. He would have to attack the marked creature, he grumbled about it not being on the sheet and I told him to suck it up. He hasn't thought of ranged attacks yet, I'm sure he will. Or linking up with the dwarf fighters stickiness.

It seems slightly fractured but not broken to me.

"Flaws are some of the best parts.", Aidan, Sex in the City.

 

[Torchlyte]

I have had the halfling paladin player (my rules barrister) in my playtest game try to pull this kind of stuff. I told him he could not attack others after marking someone. He would have to attack the marked creature, he grumbled about it not being on the sheet and I told him to suck it up. He hasn't thought of ranged attacks yet, I'm sure he will. Or linking up with the dwarf fighters stickiness.

I think the WotC fix is better. Not being able to attack others screws with OAs and generally prevents the character from making sound tactical decisions. As long as the enemy can attack the Paladin (the Paladin is adjacent to them), let him use his melee powers on something else.

This fix gives the player lots of options, and I'm happy about it.

 

[vagabundo]

I think the WotC fix is better. Not being able to attack others screws with OAs and generally prevents the character from making sound tactical decisions. As long as the enemy can attack the Paladin (the Paladin is adjacent to them), let him use his melee powers on something else.

This fix gives the player lots of options, and I'm happy about it.

Well I'd let him do OAs, but his standard attack had to be directed at the creature. If he attacked a different creature the mark expired.

It was just a band aid, I had heard it was fixed, but didnt have the details. I'll run with the WOTC fix from next week.

 

[Stormtower]

What seems lost in this discussion of, IMO, decidedly non-paladinlike tactics (valid though they may be according to 4E RAW) is the possibility that the paladin/fighter combo might be... probably WILL be much more effective with both standing on the front lines defending, rather than messing about with the rules' intent to hit a foe for 8 damage per turn from the mark.

IOW, why not try the ability as intended and see if it's more effective that way rather than assuming every paladin will be marking and running for the hills?