Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[Ludanto]

I still say this isn't a big deal since the Fighter (at least with the abilities we've seen) can't really stop a monster from going after the Paladin.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

From WotC boards

Okay.

Since I haven't been to a demo yet or anything similar...

And just to be sure I have all of the (currently available) relevant information...

How does the math on that example break down to get those damage amounts?

 

[Dragonblade]

It's not a d8 it's 8 damage.

Mearls supposedly said its not 8, but d8. The DDXP character were based on an earlier version of the rules. Although, I haven't seen an actual cite on that....

 

[Mort_Q]

As for the Warlock's Eyebite, I can't say for sure how broken that will be, but I know that in my game, I wont allow something that actively hides you from the enemy to mark them.

It only hides from the one you cursed targeted , right? Others, if there are any, can still see you?

 

[Kraydak]

Your statistics, please.

Going by the corrected DDXP characters (which has Divine Challenge at a flat 8 damage), we get:

Ranger basic attack: +6 for d10+d8+4 (14)
Range at-will: +10 for d10+d8 (10)
The above assuming that the ranger can apply Hunter's Quarry on the desired target (generally true), and costing the ranger 1 feat (Lethal Hunter, presumably taken Hunter's Quarry from d6 to d8).
Ranger AC for a marked enemy=17+2 (mark)=19.

Tweaked paladin w/thrown handaxe (stats taken from fighter, corrected for Dwarven Weapon Training, presuming the weapon proficiency costs the paladin a feat which makes up for Lethal Hunter, we further give the paladin limited MAD, and reduce his weapon stat mod to 3):
Range basic: +6 for d6+3 (6.5)
Divine Challenge 8 (or d8 for 4.5).
AC=20.

Target AC/Ranger damage/Paladin damage (DG=8)/Paladin damage (DG=d8)
20 / 5.5 / 10.275 / 6.775
15 / 8.4 / 11.9 / 8.4
10 / 11.9 / 13.525 / 10.025

We can see that if DG=flat 8, the paladin smokes the ranger, especially against high AC targets (i.e. those that count). If DG=d8, the paladin is roughly equal to the ranger, does more damage against hard target but less against soft ones. The paladin has a better AC, even if the ranger is being targeted by marked foes. The paladin has better HP/Healing surges.

I expect the paladin is being underplayed here too, as his ideal weapon selection is *very* unclear. We are reverse engineering from secondary weapon set-ups.

 

[Lacyon]

You can't reestablish range without someone else locking down the enemy, unless the enemy was never able to engage in the first place.

No wonder you're having trouble with this.

Nimble Strike Ranger Attack 1
At Will - Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Ranged weapon
Target one creature
Special Shift 1 square before or after you attack
Attack melee or ranged vs. AC

Allows the ranger who's in a bad spot to shift out of range + attack (avoids OA) and still have a full normal move action to move (run if necessary) back behind the fighter. You can also keep using your Hunter's Quarry class feature to keep your damage up (either keep firing at your current quarry or retarget it at the target now close to you).

Eyebite Warlock Attack 1
At Will - Arcane, Charm, Implement, Psychic
Target one creature
Attack Cha vs. Will
Hit 1d6 + Cha Psychic damage and you are invisible to the target until the start of your next turn.

The warlock shifts (move action), curses (minor action), Eyebite (standard action). He does about 2 less damage than he would at longer range. Next round, unless his tormentor has somehow managed to find him while he was invisible, he moves away (perhaps behind the Fighter) and continues his normal blasting with additional benefit of concealment from his Shadow Walk power.

The paladin, once an enemy reaches him, can maybe shift away and keep attacking without avoiding OAs. He lost last round's Divine Challenge damage if the guy who caught up with him is the marked target, however. He now has to pick a new, far-away target for his Divine Challenge if he wants to keep his bonus damage, because he can't keep attacking AND avoid OAs AND re-establish range.

Alternatively, he could rely on his AC and hp and risk the OAs, thus risking his supposedly gigantic advantage over a traditional strikers. Still gets less movement than the ranger, and an additional one square penalty of movement if he's in heavy armor (oops). He can make up the movement difference by running, granting combat advantage to the OA (reducing or negating his AC advantage). His best choice is usually going to be paladin up.

Striker: defender damage at best (no SA, other problems), crap tanking if pressed, striker damage if not pressed.

Keeps full damage if pressed. SA is easier to use in melee, not harder, and the other strikers' bonus damage take only a minor action to activate and target the closest guy anyway.
Gets away if pressed.

Paladin-Striker: full defender damage, full defender tanking if pressed, striker damage if not pressed.

Full defender tanking and damage in place of getting away and keeping full striker damage. Trade-offs FTW.

 

[SlagMortar]

In terms of dealing damage, I think a ranged striker paladin can probably compete with and potentially out do a standard striker by using divine challenge + ranged attacks. If not, a ranged paladin with the ranger multiclass feat probably can. However, I think replacing a striker with a ranged paladin might suffer in its ability to deal damage where it counts - to the enemy's artillery and controllers.

Consider a 5-person party of fighter, paladin, rogue, cleric, wizard facing a 4-person enemy group of artillery, brute, brute, brute.

As I understand it, this situation calls for the rogue to attack the artillery while the defenders and controller keep the brutes off the rogue.

Replacing the rogue with a paladin striker could do very well (possibly better than the rogue) at damaging the brutes with DC + ranged attacks. However as long as the enemy artillery is able to stay 6 squares behind the brutes, the paladin will have a difficult time getting past the brutes to apply DC to the artilery. This is because the paladin lacks the movement related powers common to a striker.

Whether this situation really presents the paladin striker's party with a problem depends on the artillery being the enemies' major offensive threat and on the paladin having a hard time getting enough movement related powers from feats, items, multi-classing, etc.

 

[Kordeth]

Personally, I'm far less interested in seeing numbers crunched in a vacuum than I am in seeing someone come up with an actual scenario (i.e. an encounter area, chunk of a dungeon, etc.) where this tactic actually works for more than a round or two tops before the monsters either break the paladin's LOS or just charge him and nullify his ranged combat super-advantage.

Show me, I dunno, five of those and I might start to think there's potential for abuse.

 

[malraux]

Personally, I'm far less interested in seeing numbers crunched in a vacuum than I am in seeing someone come up with an actual scenario (i.e. an encounter area, chunk of a dungeon, etc.) where this tactic actually works for more than a round or two tops before the monsters either break the paladin's LOS or just charge him and nullify his ranged combat super-advantage.

Show me, I dunno, five of those and I might start to think there's potential for abuse.

Ding. The 3e running the numbers isn't a great way to go because the 4e elements are so tactical that the assumptions are tough to deal with.

 

[Fanaelialae]

No, the fighter does what he is supposed to do, just without mark which he can use on a different enemy, while the paladin uses his at will mark and ranged basic attacks to deal more damage to a monster than what a real striker can do with encounter or even daily abilities.

I think you're mistaken. This combination, when the pally can pull it off, can deal a respectable amount of damage. It isn't on par with striker encounter or per day abilities.

Firstly, Dexterity isn't a primary or secondary ability score for paladins. It is tertiary. So, going with the longbow using pally you've put forward... let's assume that you nerf your primary scores a little to get a decent dexterity score of 14 (the DDXP halfling pally had a 12 dexterity, despite that halflings get a +2 to dexterity). Any more than this and you can likely forget about being even reasonably effective when you are forced into melee.
A longbow deals 1d10+Dex damage (we'll assume that he is a human even though this increases the price that he paid for his 14 dex a bit, since it's simpler than making up stats for a shortbow). We'll even grant the pally the 16 Charisma that the halfling pally has (he'll have to pay for those points from Str, Wis or Con, but let's ignore that for the moment).

For simplicities sake, lets assume a base 50% chance to hit the target with +0 attack.

Your pally has a +4 to hit with his Longbow (we'll assume he took the feat to be proficient).

So he has Longbow +4 to hit [1d10+2 dmg = avg 7.5 dmg] plus (assuming all goes well) an automatic 8 radiant damage, for a total average 15.5 damage each round (assuming he hits with his ranged attack). His divine challenge also applies a -2 to attack to the target.
His accuracy is 70% (100% for DivC) for an average damage of 13.25 and a -2 to attack.

The DDXP Ranger's at-will ability Hunter's Quarry grants him +1d8 dmg (4.5 avg dmg)vs his quarry.
His at-will Careful Attack has a +10 to hit and deals [1d10+4 dmg = 9.5 avg damage]
His total average damage with his at will abilities is 14 dmg, 1.5 dmg less than the pally but with a better chance to hit (albeit, even if the pally misses, he has a guaranteed 8 dmg so long as he can keep the mark on the target).
This attack has 95% accuracy for 13.3 avg dmg.

The Ranger's daily power is Split the Tree +6 to hit two different targets (roll two attack rolls and take the better of the two). It deals 2d10+4 damage (avg 15 dmg) to each target, plus the hunter's quarry bonus to one of them. One takes an average of 19.5 dmg and the other takes avg 15 dmg, for a total of 34.5 damage. The attack is also highly accurate.
The accuracy is 80% with a reroll, for 95% accuracy for 32.775 avg dmg.

The ranger's at will is pretty much in the same ballpark, MAYBE slightly weaker.
The ranger's daily is more than twice the amount of damage.
This is given that I have been fairly generous with the ranged pally build.

I daresay without evidence to back up your claim that this pally combo can out damage striker daily powers, I must disagree.