Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[Scribble]

I think if you're the type that looks for exploits you can use for a meager bonus then you might have found one.

But it kind of reminds me of the bag full of rats cleave thing. Works on paper, but in the actual game? Not quite as practical.

I mean you're a paladin. Unless role playing doesn't really factor in at all in your games... or you're brave sir robin I guess...)

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Divine challenge *has* to do a lot of damage to work as intended. Divine challenge does, in fact, do a *ton* of damage. The flat 8 damage from the DDXP, *by itself* matched or outdid striker damage. Add in modest thrown damage and you are sitting pretty on the DPS charts. Of course, the improved math of 4e makes secondary attacks relevant, so the ranged damage won't be negligible.

So, what did the Strikers do? Shoot into the air instead of at enemies? Forget to use encounter powers?

 

[two]

The way I see it, it's a limited form of the Geas spell. Do this or else. In this case, attack me or suffer divine punishment. Seems reasonably paladin-like to me. Basically the holy version of a curse.

Do we know if there are some limitations, like does marking not work on mindless creatures, golems, or undead, or something?

I guess I should think of it, in game, as you suggested, as a compulsion spell with damage dealt for failure to comply.

Paladins casting compulsions at will... well, it's better than the alternatives, I suppose.

Thanks for the concept.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

I don't understand this statement.

First, the mark doesn't do 8 automatic damage. The monster takes the damage only if he attacks someone other than the paladin. If he attacks noone but the paladin (or, the way I read it, makes an effort to attack noone but the paladin), he doesn't take any damage.

Second, most of the paladin's special abilities seem to require him to be in melee. He can't use his best powers while shooting a bow.

 

[Derren]

I don't understand this statement.

First, the mark doesn't do 8 automatic damage. The monster takes the damage only if he attacks someone other than the paladin. If he attacks noone but the paladin (or, the way I read it, makes an effort to attack noone but the paladin), he doesn't take any damage.

Second, most of the paladin's special abilities seem to require him to be in melee. He can't use his best powers while shooting a bow.

Case 1: The monster stands there and does nothing -> Best case as the monster is neutralized.
Case 2: The monster attacks the fighter -> 8 automatic damage
Case 3: The monster moves/uses a ranged attack to hit the paladin -> Free attack for the fighter.

In all cases the monster looses big time.

And the paladins best powers either still do less damage than this combo or are only 1/day. The at will powers from the paladin aren't much stronger than a basic attack and certainly less powerful than a basic attack +8.

Works on paper, but in the actual game? Not quite as practical.

This tactic already worked quite well at DDXP

So, what did the Strikers do? Shoot into the air instead of at enemies? Forget to use encounter powers?

So the Strikers must use their limited encounters or daily powers to maybe match the damage output of the paladins basic attack + at will mark.

 

[two]

I don't understand this statement.

First, the mark doesn't do 8 automatic damage. The monster takes the damage only if he attacks someone other than the paladin. If he attacks noone but the paladin (or, the way I read it, makes an effort to attack noone but the paladin), he doesn't take any damage.

Second, most of the paladin's special abilities seem to require him to be in melee. He can't use his best powers while shooting a bow.

The idea is just that, if you are facing 3 enemies, let the "archer paladin" mark one of them and stay in the back. If the marked enemy does not attack another PC, great. Everyone ignores him and beats on the other 2. PC's win the round. If he attacks another PC, he takes auto damage. PC's get essentially a free auto-attack. PC's win. If he tries to move to engage the paladin, presumably the enemy will suck up an aoo or two. PC's win (assuming some other PC can make an AOO).

That sounds exactly like how the game was designed. I guess the question is... is it just too obvious and easy a tactic, which can be used from Day1? Is it just too...well... good?

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

I can't see any DM worth his salt allowing a player to get away with this any more often than on rare occasions. The pally has to be close to his target (5 squares) to lay down the initial mark. Thereafter, he has to attack the target with a ranged weapon every round in order to maintain that mark. If the DM isn't sending a few enemies his way to mess with this tactic, the DM's not doing his job, IMO. If the pally gets surrounded he has the option to either provoke multiple attacks of opportunity every round to maintain his mark (which I doubt he could withstand for long despite being a defender), or let the mark lapse and switch to melee.

Solo monsters will likely have the tools to deal with such tactics. As I mentioned in another thread, the Young Black Dragon can create an AoE darkness that blinds everyone except himself (negating the Fighter's stickiness) and fly over to the Pally who is now isolated from the rest of the party for at least one round.

I don't think it would be an especially effective means for converting a Paladin into a striker. It would make for an interesting "kiting defender" build though. IMO.

 

[Derren]

If the DM isn't sending a few enemies his way to mess with this tactic, the DM's not doing his job, IMO. If the pally gets surrounded he has the option to either provoke multiple attacks of opportunity every round to maintain his mark (which I doubt he could withstand for long despite being a defender), or let the mark lapse and switch to melee.

Only if the players positions the paladin in a bad way. Can the DM send three enemies to the paladin? Yes, if they can get through the fighter and warlord, drawing AoOs from everyone.

Solo monsters will likely have the tools to deal with such tactics. As I mentioned in another thread, the Young Black Dragon can create an AoE darkness that blinds everyone except himself (negating the Fighter's stickiness) and fly over to the Pally who is now isolated from the rest of the party for at least one round.

That didn't stop the tactic at the DDXP.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Case 1: The monster stands there and does nothing -> Best case as the monster is neutralized.
Case 2: The monster attacks the fighter -> 8 automatic damage
Case 3: The monster moves/uses a ranged attack to hit tie paladin -> Free attack for the fighter.

Case 3 is the one I'd see come up in play, most likely with the monster moving away from the fighter to engage the paladin. And it's no big deal. The monster risks an attack (which may miss), and then moves up to the paladin. If the paladin tries to move away on his, the monster also gets a free attack.

And remember, 4e's default assumption is 5 PCs against a similar number of monsters, so what if there are other monsters in the fight? So while two PCs are busy dealing with one monster, the other, squishier PCs are left to fend for themselves. I can only say congratulations, Derren - you've discovered the most ineffectual and likely TPK fatal combo there is.

 

[LFK]

I don't really see how these kind of entrapment tactics are a bad thing. It highlights some incredible synergy between multiple Defender roles, and more than speaking to the power of the Paladin it speaks to the sheer and utter awesome that is the 4e sword-and-board Fighter. If it weren't for the Fighter's 3x3 block of "you shall not pass" the entire strategy falls apart. It's the Fighter that's the important thing here, not the Paladin. If it were another Paladin in the same spot as the Fighter it wouldn't work. If it were any other class but a Fighter it wouldn't work remotely as well.

Here's the entire thing: it puts the monster in a situation where the best course of action is to move. Even with a Fighter blocking, the creature shifts (move), then charges the Paladin (standard). They'll take a basic attack from shifting, but it doesn't stop their movement and will do, on average, less than the Divine Challenge. If it gets too sticky, the monster runs away and hides instead.

It doesn't strike me as exploitative, un-paladin-ish behaviour, nor do I see it as being so inherently superior a tactic that a Paladin would be seven kinds of brain damaged if they did anything else instead of "run away."