Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[two]

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.

Nice hyperbole.

The "worst case" is that the marked enemy moves and attacks the Paladin.

The "best case" is that the marked enemy does not move and attack the paladin, and instead attacks somebody more convenient, taking auto damage. Or moves to attacks the Paladin and draws some AOO's.

Note that the "worst case" is the same as might happen if the Paladin didn't use any marks at all, i.e. one enemy attacks the Paladin.

Not sure how any of this leads to a TPK. But you knew that already.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

I think it nicely highlights the differences between a Fighter and a Paladin, and the interesting synergies between them.

The Fighter moves towards the enemies, and forces them to engage him.
The Paladin forces enemies to move to him.
In either case, the enemies take penalties if they don't focus on the Defender.

The nice synergy is that in a "balanced" encounter, a Paladin investing in some ranged abilities could defend the group against enemy artillery and controllers, while he Fighter focuses on the Skirmisher, Lurker, Soldier and Brutes. (Looks like the fighter has to chew off a little bit more then the Paladin...).
The Fighters advantage of course is that it is a lot easier for him to mark multiple foes in melee then it is for the Paladin to mark multiple foes at range. So I suppose the Paladin is still more effective if he moves into enemy groups.

The "abusive" tactic works best (or at all) if there are no artillery or controller enemies working at range. Otherwise, the Paladin can't defend his allies effectively against them, and it would be better to get into melee with them.

 

[Dragonblade]

Yes, it is a moderately good tactic against solos. Its a crappy tactic against anything else.

But the thing is 4e is designed for this sort of synergistic combination. Tactics like this are what 4e is all about. That's a good thing.

Solos are designed to take this sort of punishment. They have a bucketload of hp and a lot of special attacks. I would have no problem with my players using this tactic and would have no trouble having my solo go nuts nuking the fighter. 8 radiant damage when I have several hundred hitpoints? Big deal.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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).

No, I get the basic idea. I just don't understand how he thought that it was 8 auto damage, and that a paladin's ranged attacks would do more damage than his melee attacks.

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?

I really don't think so. It seems like it would work only with solo monsters (who have lots of hp and likely a high defense) for one, *maybe* two rounds as the solo monster closes in the paladin. The PCs are only going to get a couple of attacks in, some if not most which won't hit.

 

[Fanaelialae]

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.

Perhaps if the DM is only tossing encounters at you where the enemies are pouring down a 10 foot wide hallway. I can't see how the fighter and warlord could stop all of the enemies in a large room or wilderness encounter. Even in the previous 10 foot hallway encounter, plenty of creatures now have abilities that allow them to push characters around, limiting one's capacity to turtle inside of a doorway. IMO, if a PC is getting away with this more than once in a blue moon, I can't see that the DM is trying very hard.

That didn't stop the tactic at the DDXP.

The mark hadn't been fixed at DDXP, so I'm not clear how this applies.

 

[Njall]

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 4: The monster attacks both the paladin and the fighter with a breath attack or an area spell. He doesn't draw any free attack, since he hits both of them. He's not restricted to melee, spells and spell like abilities ARE attacks. Furthermore, the paladin draws an AoO everytime he moves away from the monster, and if the monster shifts the fighter cannot stop him from reaching the paladin, as long as he has enough movement.
So, even if the fighter gets a free attack on the monster, the monster gets a free attack against the Paladin. Seems fine to me.

This tactic already worked quite well at DDXP

This tactic worked quite well because the dragon was several levels ahead of the PCs, thus most of them could only hit him on a 20. In this regard, the paladin's combat challenge was the steadier source of damage, since it didn't require an attack roll.

 

[The Little Raven]

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.

And never using 95% of his class powers, thus being relatively useless as both a paladin and a defender. He's stopping one enemy from attacking his allies. He isn't gaining the benefit of his class powers, since he can't use them with a bow. 2[W] + Charisma modifier is more damage than 1d10, especially for a melee combatant.

Also, we've had confirmation from Mearls that it doesn't do 8 automatic damage (it's 1d8), and it only applies if they attack a target other than the paladin. It also doesn't prevent the monster from using a ranged weapon on the paladin, nor using AoE effects on the paladin and his nearby allies (and if the paladin is further away from the fight than everyone else, then he's just a failure as a defender).

This reminds me, almost exactly, of the "monk is overpowered" complaints that were flying around during 3e's release.

 

[Stalker0]

I don't really see how these kind of entrapment tactics are a bad thing. It highlights some incredible synergy between multiple Defender roles.

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.

 

[Kraydak]

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.

Why on earth are you assuming that the party doesn't have a line of defenders to keep the monsters at bay? Remember, case (3) would also result in pasted rangers/warlocks. You don't replace your tank with striker-pally-of-doom, you replace the warlock with the striker-pally-of-doom.

 

[Knightlord]

The mark hadn't been fixed at DDXP, so I'm not clear how this applies.

This.