Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[two]

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.

Oh, well if it's 1d8 that's a pretty big difference. That's not something to build an exploit around. Or worry about an exploit.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Sorry, but I can't see why a paladin couldn't get away with this. For example, party is going down a dungeon hallway, encounters guys coming their way. Paladin marks, sits back and uses a bow. Fighter and company are up front holding the line. Not very easy for the enemies to get past the front line, and the paladin's not being a coward, he's just holding his ground doing his damage. Seems reasonable to me...and as others are pointing out, may be even more useful than a ranger's attack.

Now sure is this combo going to work in every situation? Of course not, but on the other hand if the baddies charge the paladin its not like the party is screwed. The paladin for all of his "strikeresque" feel with this combo, is still a defender, with big HP, big AC, and the ability to heal himself. If the baddies come his way, good for the party. If the enemies stay away, good for the party. Its a win/win situation.

 

[Derren]

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.

In the wilderness the paladin has a lot more room to evade the monsters and can move in a way so that the monsters have to walk past some other PCs to catch him while he only has to stay within 40 squares of the marked enemy.

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

It applies because the fix doesn't fix anything. The only thing which prevented the DDXP paladin from attacking every round is that the pregen only had two throwing weapons. But the exploit itself, marking and making sure that the enemy can't reach the paladin, stays the same.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

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.

Well, if the Fighter engages the monster and the Paladin just uses ranged attacks, the monster will ignore the Paladin, because the Paladin sucks with a bow. So it's not quite the same - the Paladin *has* to use the mark for this to be "effective."

i don't know - at "worst" for the monster it just makes a more predictable encounter, because the monster knows it has to engage the paladin. This might help the party to put its members in a more advantageous position, but I only see this as being of (minimal) value in an encounter with a solo monster.

 

[Fanaelialae]

This.

Sorry, my forum-fu is kinda weak. Please explain?

 

[Derren]

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.

Do you actually look at the powers before you are writing such things? 1d10 +8 is more or less equal to 2[w] + Cha damage. Also this is a encounter power so only useable once per combat while the 1d10 + 8 is doable every round and gives the monster a -2 to attacks.

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.

If that is true than it changes everything. But then it must have been changed after the DDXP as 8 is not an approximation of 1d8.

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).

Which means the monster draws an AoO from the fighter. And not acting according to your role alone is not something bad, especially when you are more effective than otherwise.

 

[tenken]

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.

If those were the roles as defined, then it might be a problem. Strikers are supposed to deal out high damage to specific targets while employing a strategy heavily focused on mobility. Defenders are more static, but they deal out high damage to any target they can attack at any time.

 

[Vendark]

It applies because the fix doesn't fix anything.

It fixes cases where the paladin marks a target and then runs away from the fight entirely, which is almost certainly all it was intended to fix.

 

[Derren]

This.

When you really think that then explain what this fix would have changed in the DDXP dragon battle under the assumption that the paladin had enough ammo for the encounter.

 

[Kordeth]

I've just realized why I don't like this fix, and it has nothing to do with this so-called "exploit" (sorry, but an easily-nullified, slightly-below-average-damage-for-a-1st-level-striker tactic that relies on a second defender is not an exploit):

"On your turn, you must engage the target you challenged or challenge a different target. To engage it, you must either attack it or end your turn adjacent to it. If none of these events occur by the end of your turn, the marked condition ends and you can't use Divine Challenge on your next turn. You can use Divine Challenge once per turn."

This should read "by the end of your next turn." That way, even if you don't spend the rest of your turn moving to or attacking the marked target, the monster still has one turn in which it has to decide whether to disengage from its target and go after the paladin or soak up the damage. I think I'd also prefer it if the marked condition persisted, and just the auto-damage was canceled if you didn't attack or end your next turn adjacent to the target.