Paladins mark "fix" a plazebo?

[FireLance]

So the paladin, a defender, can only take exploit his marking power by acting like a striker? I don't really see the problem here, even with multiclassing into a striker role the benefit is limited, and a striker that dips into paladin can only do this to one enemy per encounter.

It's one way to make use of it, and it will be useful in certain circumstances, e.g. the opponent's AC and defences are too high to damage it in any other way (which could imply that the party is taking on an opponent much tougher than they would normally be expected to handle), the paladin is low on hit points and healing surges, or the party is facing a single, slow-moving opponent with no ranged attacks.

In most other circumstances, the synergy between a paladin and a fighter is more effective when both are in melee with the same opponent.

 

[FireLance]

It seems like a total waste to me, since 95% of the paladin's powers are either melee weapon or implement, which means they're useless with a bow.

Actually, a paladin should be able to maintain his challenge by using his ranged implement powers. A paladin that wants to defend "at range" might find himself selecting more of these powers.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Assuming the ranger hits 95% of the time with his at-will attacks is probably not a good assumption. The divine challenge damage is best when the target is difficult to hit, because the damage does not require a to hit roll. Assuming the range hits 95% of the time skews the analysis in favor of the ranger.

According to the design mechanics, creatures are no longer supposed to be difficult to hit. The dragon encounter is a bad example that the writers included in the adventure because they figured that players wouldn't care if their DDXP characters died. DMs are not supposed to throw level 4 solo creatures against a level 1 party because such encounters are very likely to prove lethal.

I admit that a 50% accuracy was somewhat low; I used it simply for the sake of simplicity. In truth, it slightly screwed the ranger's total damage value (because my assumption was that everyone needed to hit an AC 10 and the Ranger's Careful Strike attack bonus is +10, he actually loses out on 5% accuracy (because we have to account for the possibility of the automatic miss on a natural 1).

I wanted to give the paladin the benefit of the doubt because I was arguing against it. This might seem backwards, but if I could prove the paladin's "striker tactic" wasn't all that amazing under optimal conditions, then, IMO, it would be even less useful at the actual table.

I think that it was clear from my analysis that while the paladin, under OPTIMAL conditions, could match the damage of the ranger at-will abilities, it couldn't hold a candle to the ranger daily. If as I showed, under optimal conditions for the paladin, the ranger's daily is both more accurate and deals almost three times as much damage, the paladin "striker" tactic is inferior to an actual striker.

Apologies if my analysis was unclear. I admit, it may have been somewhat convoluted and long winded. One of my friends invited me out for Thai food as I was writing it up, so I was in a bit of a rush.

 

[hennebeck]

I wish there was an ignore feature for quotes on these boards.

 

[ppaladin123]

Mechanics: The paladin must spend a standard action to fire arrows at the marked enemy to maintain the mark. He'll be doing suboptimal damage while the other enemies beat the tar out of the people he is supposed to be protecting. A marked orc bloodrager will most likely also ignore the radiant damage/bow damage and heal himself by focusing attacks on the poor bloodied defender-less wizard. I don't see players adopting this strategy unless there are ranged feats/powers that allow paladins to goad enraged enemies into following him.

Thematics: "Come and face me fiend; you'll feel my sting until you do!" The paladin fires an arrow The enemy breaks off his attack against the party wizard and charges the paladin who pulls out his sword and readies for battle. Seems perfectly within character for a paladin...we'll see if the mechanics support this possibility.

 

[Derren]

Mechanics: The paladin can fire away with a bow doing suboptimal damage

Where is this false assumption coming from? At will powers don't always increase the damage. SO the paladin using basic bow attacks is doing normal damage in addition to his mark of the fighters AoO damage. I have to concede that this isn't better then the strikers spike damage but does more sustained damage than them.

And when the enemy gets past the fighter who is he going to attack, a squishy and still take damage or the paladin? So the defender role is still filled.

And when the bloodrager can heal itself by attacking squishies and so can ignore the mark damage just means that the orc would do the same when the paladin would engage him in melee instead at range. So no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role.

 

[FireLance]

Where is this false assumption coming from? At will powers don't always increase the damage. SO the paladin using basic bow attacks is doing normal damage in addition to his mark of the fighters AoO damage. I have to concede that this isn't better then the strikers spike damage but does more sustained damage than them.

Suboptimal compared to what he could do in melee. If the challenged opponent has a ranged attack, the opponent faces the choice of taking damage from the challenge or taking a basic attack from the fighter (or both, if he chooses to attack someone other than the paladin or the fighter) regardless of whether the paladin is at range or in melee. Given that setup, it is usually better for the paladin to be in melee with his challenged opponent instead of making ranged attacks since he can flank the opponent with the fighter, use his melee range powers, and take damage which he can offset with his own healing surges. From a party perspective, it is usually better for the fighter and the paladin to share the damage instead of having all of it directed at one character or the other so that both of them can use their healing surge resources. The paladin can share some of his healing surges using Lay on Hands, but only a limited number of times per day.

And when the enemy gets past the fighter who is he going to attack, a squishy and still take damage or the paladin? So the defender role is still filled.

And when the bloodrager can heal itself by attacking squishies and so can ignore the mark damage just means that the orc would do the same when the paladin would engage him in melee instead at range. So no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role.

Are you basing the assertion that "no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role" on the argument that one creature out of seven in the MM excerpt (not to mention all the other monsters that have been revealed so far) gains hit points by attacking bloodied opponents?

 

[ppaladin123]

Where is this false assumption coming from? At will powers don't always increase the damage. SO the paladin using basic bow attacks is doing normal damage in addition to his mark of the fighters AoO damage. I have to concede that this isn't better then the strikers spike damage but does more sustained damage than them.

And when the enemy gets past the fighter who is he going to attack, a squishy and still take damage or the paladin? So the defender role is still filled.

And when the bloodrager can heal itself by attacking squishies and so can ignore the mark damage just means that the orc would do the same when the paladin would engage him in melee instead at range. So no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role.

Paladins have melee smites that deal 2x or 3x damage. But more importantly the paladin has at least one ability to jump in the way of an adjacent attack and take the damage himself. His smites also grant additional benefits like shield bonuses to nearby allies. Adjacent allies gain immunity to fear and charm if he is a Justiciar. Worse comes to worse he can use lay on hands to heal an adjacent ally. He is also occupying a square...protecting a flank, and soaking up damage that would otherwise be directed at someone else.

Even if the paladin did not have powers that granted extra damage, he'd be making suboptimal use of his turn by making a basic attack with a bow. He could be shielding an ally or even giving himself temporary hps. His powers are geared toward defending not striking.

 

[Derren]

Are you basing the assertion that "no matter what the paladin does he can't fulfill his defender role" on the argument that one creature out of seven in the MM excerpt (not to mention all the other monsters that have been revealed so far) gains hit points by attacking bloodied opponents?

Thats the example ppaladin123 used to show that this strategy is bad.
Scenario 1: The monster can't heal and to avoid damage must attack the paladin -> paladin defends even from the backrow as it will attack the paladin after getting past the fighter
Scenario 2: The monster doesn't care about the mark damage as it can heal itself by hitting squishies -> paladin can't defend even if he goes into melee as the monster simply attacks squishies instead him.

Paladins have melee smites that deal 2x or 3x damage. But more importantly the paladin has at least one ability to jump in the way of an adjacent attack and take the damage himself. His smites also grant additional benefits like shield bonuses to nearby allies. Adjacent allies gain immunity to fear and charm if he is a Justiciar. Worse comes to worse he can use lay on hands to heal an adjacent ally.

He can do x2 or x3 damage once or twice per encounter/day and depending on his weapon x2 might not do more damage than mark & bow.
Nearby ally get shield bonuses and he can intercept attacks? Wouldn't it be better to stand next to the squishies in the back row to protect them instead standing next to the other defender and leave the squishies unprotected?

 

[FireLance]

Thats the example ppaladin123 used to show that this strategy is bad.
Scenario 1: The monster can't heal and to avoid damage must attack the paladin -> paladin defends even from the backrow as it will attack the paladin after getting past the fighter
Scenario 2: The monster doesn't care about the mark damage as it can heal itself by hitting squishies -> paladin can't defend even if he goes into melee as the monster simply attacks squishies instead him.

Well, in scenario 2, the paladin defends by killing the moster as fast as possible, and since his melee attack and damage are probably better than his ranged attack and damage, he's better off engaging the monster in melee instead of at range.

He can do x2 or x3 damage once or twice per encounter/day and depending on his weapon x2 might not do more damage than mark & bow.
Nearby ally get shield bonuses and he can intercept attacks? Wouldn't it be better to stand next to the squishies in the back row to protect them instead standing next to the other defender and leave the squishies unprotected?

I think the paladin's best tactic will be situational and will depend, among other things, on the terrain, the number of opponents, and the abilities of the opponents. So, challenging from range is sometimes a good tactic. Helping the fighter to lock down an opponent in melee is sometimes a good tactic. The tactical situation may even change from round to round so that was was a good tactic the previous round is no longer a good idea now. It's part of what makes the game interesting for me, at least.