Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[beverson]

Just a counter argument, but that could mean (and I think it does) all enemies marked, regardless of who marked them. But we don't know at this point. I suspect they won't change their tune on one mark only per character, though.

Scratch what I just said... from the Paladin Pregen sheet: "You mark the target. The target remains marked until you use this power against another target. If you mark other creatures using other powers, the target is still marked. A creature can be subject to only one mark at a time. A new mark supersedes a mark that was already in place."

It looks like any one creature can only have 1 mark at a time, but the Paladin may mark multiple creatures with different abilities. I stand corrected.

 

[Voss]

In many other RPGs, the rules could just say something like "The paladin marks his foe. The foe takes 1d8 damage if the foe makes an attack that does not include the paladin as a target. The paladin must attempt to honorably engage the marked foe, or else the mark fades."

And that would be it. It would be done.

I have yet to encounter an RPG that people don't rules-lawyer to the point of death. Its just that D&D has more players, so the same percentage of rules-lawyers naturally produces more of them.

 

[drjones]

Paladin loses his powers for being a coward. Fixed.

Before word that it had been 'fixed' reached me we houseruled that the pally must be moving towards or engaging the target in melee for the mark not to be removed. Both the player and the DM know the intent of the rule (challenge this guy to a fight) so I don't think there is any room for rules lawyering unless someone really wants to be a pain in the butt in which case the DM is entirely correct to zap em.

 

[The Sword 88]

If the PCs have two defenders then the DM should have some really heavy hitting enemies and if one defender is being a coward it seemes like his friend, the fighter, should be dying pretty quickly. In a good encounter if a defender is doing 1d8 of damge each turn and not holding the enemy in place then the DM should be ableto slaughter the PCs

Also if the Paladin marks one foe then runs just have another enemy attack him when he draws his bow. Even if this was a boss fight just have an enemy show up and attack the paladin while he has his bow out, then the pally has to either take an AoO every turn to shoot the 1st monster or engage the 2nd and lose the mark.

I am sure a good DM can come up with plenty of ways that do not involve changing the rules to easily remedy this tactic.

 

[Kraydak]

Remember, the question isn't: "do you want one of your two defenders pretending to be a striker?" but rather "do you want the party's striker slot to be a ranger, or a paladin that does the same or more damage, can tank extremely well and can heal/grant healing surges to boot?".

A striker pally eats up the striker party slot. Sadly, this fix doesn't effect the striker pally at all, but does cause problems for the defender pally. A mistargetted nerf if ever I saw one.

 

[Lacyon]

Remember, the question isn't: "do you want one of your two defenders pretending to be a striker?" but rather "do you want the party's striker slot to be a ranger, or a paladin that does the same or more damage, can tank extremely well and can heal/grant healing surges to boot?".

I'm not sure where "the same or more damage" comes from. You get to make basic ranged attacks. You get to use few or none of your class powers. You also don't have any of the mobility options that striker classes normally get. You only get your Divine Challenge damage on rounds when the targeted enemy can't hit you with a ranged attack.

That last one especially makes you a piss-poor striker, because one of the hallmarks of the role is the ability to choose its target.

 

[Festivus]

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.

Sorry, not sure I follow, what exactly is "dwarf fighters stickiness"? If it's a mark I can't see how it would matter, as it would overwrite the divine challenge mark.

I do agree, it's not really going to matter in game, and probably not the most optimal use of the paladin in combat. Besides, I could see the underboss saying "Attack the commander" to all his minions, making ranged attacks rather pointless.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It seems to me that this tactic would most often be ineffective. As has already been pointed out, if there is more than one enemy, the extra enemies can go after the paladin and render his ranged strategy ineffective.

If there is only one monster, it is a solo monster. Based on the Young Black Dragon, the only solo monster whose stats I am aware of, solo monsters will likely have a nice assortment of powers specifically designed neutralize simple tactics that the players dream up to deal with them. The dragon, for example, has Cloud of Darkness, an AoE that blinds everyone except the dragon inside it (rendering them incapable of making opportunity attacks). The dragon drops that on the ground, takes to the air, and the next thing anyone knows he's in the pally's face with the rest of party a round or more away from being able to render assistance. It might be that not every solo mob will have the capacity to counter this tactic, but I expect that most will; solo mobs need to be fairly well rounded if they want to avoid easy exploitation of their weaknesses.

I think that this strat might work better for a ranger who takes the Soldier of the Faith feat, but I expect that most rangers won't want to draw that much "aggro".

 

[Derren]

It seems to me that this tactic would most often be ineffective. As has already been pointed out, if there is more than one enemy, the extra enemies can go after the paladin and render his ranged strategy ineffective.

So he fights that monster in melee while the other monster gets automatically damaged by the mark. Why is that ineffective?

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

The power does exactly as it is intended to do - the enemy is trying to get to the paladin. The paladin can attack and withdraw, trying to draw it away and the rest of the party can pursue it, pounding on it and the creature cannot attack them back without taking some amount of hurt.

Or, the creature can just move - either away from the paladin to try and break the aggro, or towards him to try and close the gap. Remember, that the radiant damage only comes into play if the marked creature attacks someone other than the paladin. If the creature takes a move action and is stopped by a Fighter lock, I would then have it exchange its stardard action for a move action (no second AoO from the fighter). If it isn't slower than the paladin, it maintains or closes the gap between them. If the fighter misses an AoO, the creature takes two move actions to close the gap on the paladin who cannot do the same since he is required to attack it, and the fighter probably has to take two move actions to keep up with the creature and have a chance at another AoO.

And all this is assuming the creature doesn't have any powers of its own that outweighs the paladin giving up his stronger melee attacks just to keep the creature occupied.

Maybe I will disagree once I see it in action, but right now I'm just not seeing that much of a problem with it.