Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[Kraydak]

As a thought experiment, how bad is it is the marked monsters breaks through the front line and attack the striker-pally (or engages in ranged combat)? Well, what happens if we replace the striker-deluxe (paladin) with a "real" striker (bow-ranger)?

The monster still breaks through the front line (or engages in ranged combat).
The monster may be eating a -2 from a defender mark, but the rangers AC is much worse than a paladin's. To hits are, at best for the ranger, a wash.
The monster is attacking someone with striker hp/healing surges, rather than defender hp/healing surges.

In sum, if the opponent is capable of avoiding the Divine Challenge damage by attacking the paladin, you want to replace the paladin with a squishy to get beat on instead. I am in awe of the tactical brilliance.

Monsters being able to attack strikers is not an indictment of striker-pallies alone. It is an indictment of the entire striker role. If strikers work, striker paladins work.

 

[TwoSix]

Its only easily nullified when the terrain allows it and the enemy has minions or standard monsters.

You mean, 90% of the time?

Which means getting AoOed by the other defender and whoever is between the monster and the paladin. And lets not forget that the fighter can prevent movement with the right power.

I'm not getting the problem. So if you have a fighter and a paladin working together against one monster, either:

a) Monster attacks paladin, eats OA from fighter. Fighter might stop monster from moving. Paladin does his job as defender by drawing away attacks.
b) Monster attacks fighter, causing 8 damage (or 1d8, or whatever it ends up being) to monster. Fighter does his job as defender. Paladin must still attack monster or lose mark. Paladin does his job as defender of helping eliminate a chosen threat.
c) Monster attacks other character. Eats OA from fighter, 8 damage from paladin. Neither defender actually did his job defending squishy character, but at least helped weaken monster.

So, in conclusion, using the mark in this manner helped the characters fulfill their roles and win the combat. Isn't that what class-defining powers should do?

 

[AllisterH]

So - wait. Mechanics that videogame RPGs basically stole from RPGs are "videogamey"? That's an interesting definition of videogamey in my mind.

Seriously - I know that I've been using a "taunt" mechanic like this since around 1990 - because interaction skills in combat were integral to Torg and I started playing Torg in 1990. And we were doing something like this in Basic D&D without any mechanics at all long before that - player taunts the dragon, DM decides whether dragon thinks player is funny or angrify-ing, dragon react appropriately. Perhaps if a mechanic was actually needed a "Morale" check would be made. Regardless, there's nothing particularly "videogamey" about taunting a foe with the hope that it will drop what it's doing and attack you instead - in fact, a lot of action movies have fight scenes that hinge on that very tactic. (I'm sure when we started doing this in D&D it was because we were trying to emulate something we saw in Raiders, or Aliens, or some other action/adventure flick).

.

*LOL*

How long have you been on this board Doesn't matter if a RPG has been doing this for years, the fact that WoW uses it now ALWAYS gets people claiming that D&D is becoming like WoW.

Seriously, where have you been in the last 5 years

 

[Ludanto]

You mean, 90% of the time?


I'm not getting the problem. So if you have a fighter and a paladin working together against one monster, either:

a) Monster attacks paladin, eats OA from fighter. Fighter might stop monster from moving. Paladin does his job as defender by drawing away attacks.
b) Monster attacks fighter, causing 8 damage (or 1d8, or whatever it ends up being) to monster. Fighter does his job as defender. Paladin must still attack monster or lose mark. Paladin does his job as defender of helping eliminate a chosen threat.
c) Monster attacks other character. Eats OA from fighter, 8 damage from paladin. Neither defender actually did his job defending squishy character, but at least helped weaken monster.

So, in conclusion, using the mark in this manner helped the characters fulfill their roles and win the combat. Isn't that what class-defining powers should do?

On top of that (and I know this might be a bit of a nitpick) the Fighter's ability to "stop a monster in its tracks" is only on an "Opportunity Attack". The Fighter's ability to react to a shifting foe doesn't say "gets an OA", it says "gets a basic attack". So Shift and Charge is a viable tactic for getting to the Paladin (at the cost of a free swing from the Fighter, of course).

 

[Lacyon]

The monster still breaks through the front line (or engages in ranged combat).
The monster may be eating a -2 from a defender mark, but the rangers AC is much worse than a paladin's. To hits are, at best for the ranger, a wash.
The monster is attacking someone with striker hp/healing surges, rather than defender hp/healing surges.

The mere existence of melee strikers as a viable concept mean that both of your points are weak - they have to have competitive ACs and decent hp/healing surge numbers, even if they are less. Meanwhile:

The paladin lacks the striker's mobility to reestablish range
The paladin loses out on his "strikerish" damage, while the actual striker keeps it up.

Which makes him utterly fail at being a striker once the line's broken or the mark acquires a ranged attack.

Monsters being able to attack strikers is not an indictment of striker-pallies alone. It is an indictment of the entire striker role. If strikers work, striker paladins work.

It is a fine indictment of the Paladin as a striker, because actual strikers get their own class abilities that help them deal with this situation, and Paladins have to fall back on being a defender instead.

 

[malraux]

Yeah, I'm not seeing much of a problem. If you have two classes dedicated to keeping monsters busy, and there's only a single monster involved in combat, there should be some good strategies the two could do. I'm also unconvinced that the mark was such a decisive feature for a 280 hp monster, at least in anything approaching a reasonable encounter, ie one where his lair wasn't just a room big enough for the characters to surround him.

I really don't see what the fuss is about.

 

[rkwoodard]

agree

You mean, 90% of the time?


I'm not getting the problem. So if you have a fighter and a paladin working together against one monster, either:

a) Monster attacks paladin, eats OA from fighter. Fighter might stop monster from moving. Paladin does his job as defender by drawing away attacks.
b) Monster attacks fighter, causing 8 damage (or 1d8, or whatever it ends up being) to monster. Fighter does his job as defender. Paladin must still attack monster or lose mark. Paladin does his job as defender of helping eliminate a chosen threat.
c) Monster attacks other character. Eats OA from fighter, 8 damage from paladin. Neither defender actually did his job defending squishy character, but at least helped weaken monster.

So, in conclusion, using the mark in this manner helped the characters fulfill their roles and win the combat. Isn't that what class-defining powers should do?

I agree with this.

No offense Derren, but it sounds like a good viable tactic that can be used when the Party is fighting a solo monster. If the Paladin and Fighter can pull it off. YAH, RAH.

I don't think many DMs would have a problem with it occuring a lot, there seems to be several ways to get around it. And if the solo is tough enough, it may be able to soak the damage and still put a hurting on someone.

RK

 

[Deep Blue 9000]

So, in conclusion, using the mark in this manner helped the characters fulfill their roles and win the combat. Isn't that what class-defining powers should do?

You've correctly listed the possible consequences of this tactic but not the normative views people have of them. Some people don't think this tactic is effective at all. Others think it's out of character for a paladin. That's why we're still having this discussion after 8+ pages.

 

[DandD]

You've correctly listed the possible consequences of this tactic but not the normative views people have of them. Some people don't think this tactic is effective at all. Others think it's out of character for a paladin. That's why we're still having this discussion after 8+ pages.

This is the internet. People could have discussions which have 20+ long pages all about pie and strawberry cakes. It means nothing...

 

[MindWanderer]

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

In fact, it applies even better now than it did then.

At DDXP, the paladin found it to be in his best interests, in all situations, to mark and run. I played the Delve with a bunch of DMs, and they told me flat-out that that's the "correct" strategy to use. That paladin had no ranged capabilities to speak of--it was better to mark and do nothing than to stick around and fight. A striker-pally gets to do one better: make a ranged attack that is, at worst, only marginally weaker than an at-will melee power. It doesn't work all the time (believe me, I tried), but when it does, it's the thing to do.