D&D 4E Paladins - The first 4e class to fail

[Bagpuss]

Is there a fighter in the party who's peerformance you can compare against?

There is actually. Come to think about it that selfish Fighter has never granted me a healing surge with one of his attacks, after his mark does nothing to save me from an area attack that includes me. Some defence that is...

What can I say they work differently. Sure the fighter's mark is a greater threat to the enemy than the Paladin's Divine Challenge, but the Paladin has proved useful in other ways.

Heck the Ranger is often one of the best defenders, I've lost count the number of times his Disruptive Strike has saved our bacon. He's even used Weave through the Fray to stop the enemy getting past him, or Sweeping Whirlwind to force the enemy back.

The Paladin isn't fail, he just works differently.

 

[Varis]

Why? They're two different classes. I don't compare my Fighter against the Wizard, or the Cleric, or the Rogue, or the Ranger, etc... Granted, they're both Defenders, but they act in very different ways. My Fighter can't heal anyone, for example, or take hits for them, teleport to change positions, fire off ranged 10 implement powers, auto-damage enemies that ignore his mark or use Plate right out of the gate. They're different classes and shouldn't function the same, nor should they be compared.

Sorry dude, I totally disagree. The fighter and the paladin share the smae role - Defenders. That is the ability to encourage being the focus of any enemy attack by marking and using class features. In my opinion, the fighter does a better job of this than the Stralidin.

The only question that should be asked is, "Does the Paladin contribute to the party". In the case of our STR Paladin that dumped WIS and keeps CHA as his secondary score while using a Greataxe, I would say "Yes". He's a GREAT secondary Defender that can do a lot of things that I can't. I'm stickier, but he can do so much more than that...

Again, I disagree, I've seen foes with a ton of hit points go right past the straladin - even if they get hit with an opportunity attact and divine challenge - some opponents think its worth the price if they can get to a wizard for example. Being stickier as a fighter is a HUGE advantage when your goal is to discourage attempts to get by you and force foes to deal with you first.

I don't deny the straladin can do other things, what I do contend is that it can't do its job.

 

[Varis]

There is actually. Come to think about it that selfish Fighter has never granted me a healing surge with one of his attacks, after his mark does nothing to save me from an area attack that includes me. Some defence that is...

What can I say they work differently. Sure the fighter's mark is a greater threat to the enemy than the Paladin's Divine Challenge, but the Paladin has proved useful in other ways.

Ok he's usefull in other ways,..how usefull is he in getting the ememy to focus of him as opposed to another party member?
The fighter has the combat challenge feature, which is great. The paladin doesnt have an equivalent were he could strongly influence the movement of one or two opponents (unless thy are minions).

I agree that hes great at laying hands (assuming he can tget to you) or providing heals through Paladins Judgement and the like,...but, he has no reliable powers, doesn't have a +1 to hit, isnt sticky, and cant get powers that heal him (I might be wrong about this - was too depressed to look at higher level pally powers), so he has to consider conserving a couple of lay on hands for himself.

Sure, a fighter cant heal you, but he has tons of options to heal himself, which frees up the cleric to focus on others.

Heck the Ranger is often one of the best defenders, I've lost count the number of times his Disruptive Strike has saved our bacon. He's even used Weave through the Fray to stop the enemy getting past him, or Sweeping Whirlwind to force the enemy back.

The second another class is better a better defender than a dedicated defender class, you know something is wrong. Its cool that the ranger can do all this (I'm not aware of the powers btw) but if that translates to him being able to influence opponents around him to force them to deal with him first, then he has become a defender (with a great damage output). I'm happy for him, but it underlines my contention that the Paladin (more specifically the straladin) is a fail).

The Paladin isn't fail, he just works differently.

Unfortunately these differences dont have a similar next effect on the opponents (i.e. influence/deny/control their movements and compell them to attack/focus on him) and thus, I contend, the paladin is a fail.

 

[Wimwick]

I play a Tiefling Paladin for LFR games. While he is only 4th level I've found he does just as good a job or better than the fighter in the party at defending.

My main character is a rogue and I have a paladin and a fighter 'defending' for me in that game and both characters can equally do the job. In some instances the fighter does a better job and is definitely stickier, but other times it's the paladin who is solid.

The advantage or disadvantage with 4e is that it is a game of roles. If you and your party are all playing your correctly and communicating effectively it shouldn't make a difference if you have a paladin or fighter defending for you. Just MHO.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Sorry dude, I totally disagree. The fighter and the paladin share the smae role - Defenders. That is the ability to encourage being the focus of any enemy attack by marking and using class features. In my opinion, the fighter does a better job of this than the Stralidin.


Again, I disagree, I've seen foes with a ton of hit points go right past the straladin - even if they get hit with an opportunity attact and divine challenge - some opponents think its worth the price if they can get to a wizard for example. Being stickier as a fighter is a HUGE advantage when your goal is to discourage attempts to get by you and force foes to deal with you first.

I don't deny the straladin can do other things, what I do contend is that it can't do its job.

And what prevents an enemy from blowing past the Fighter and eating a Combat Challenge attack and an OA? Sure, a high WIS Fighter will likely nail that OA, but not all Fighters are high WIS. If the Fighter misses, it doesn't stop movement. Even if he hits, it's possibly that the monster might still be able to charge at the Wizard.

One advantage that the Straladin has over the Fighter is that if an enemy moves away from the Paladin while DC'd, he'll have to eat an OA. Once he gets to the other PC though, he'll take AUTOMATIC damage that doesn't require a hit role, nor does it require the Paladin to be adjacent.

If they tried the same thing on the Fighter, he would completely lose out on being able to make his Combat Challenge attack because he has to be adjacent in order to do that. Even if he does get to make that attack though, it's a melee basic and should only have about a 50% chance or so to hit. This makes the "shift+charge" rather effective against the Fighter since he only has a 50% chance to hit the enemy, and whether he hits or not it won't affect the shift action (unless he kills the guy).

So yes, the Fighter is stickier, but nowhere near as much as you claim. Also, the Paladin's ability to automatically damage the enemy without a hit roll or even being adjacent is very nice. These are just different flavors of being a Defender, but they're both effective. The Fighter is basically meaner and can hurt an enemy more, but the Paladin's damage is assured...which means that a DM that doesn't respect him can end up in a "Death by a million papercuts" scenario.

 

[Herschel]

Again, I disagree, I've seen foes with a ton of hit points go right past the straladin - even if they get hit with an opportunity attact and divine challenge - some opponents think its worth the price if they can get to a wizard for example. Being stickier as a fighter is a HUGE advantage when your goal is to discourage attempts to get by you and force foes to deal with you first.

I don't deny the straladin can do other things, what I do contend is that it can't do its job.

I've seen fighters get ignored plenty of times too. The Paladin does its job very well, just in a different manner than the fighter.

 

[shadowoflameth]

From our play experience, I would have to disagree with the notion of the paladin being a failure as a class, or as a defender. The fighter is definately 'stickier' in melee, but that is not the end all of being effective in the defender role. Healing the fallen or bloodied, granting saves, immediate interrupts to 'take one for the team' are all advantages to having one in the party.

Besides which, for all the talk of players preferences for focusing on a favorite ability build, in the end, the style of play, and the situation make or break a character more often than +1 with one handed weapons vs. lay hands. A troll might thunder past any defender not caring what OAs he takes from either class, but guaranteed, at heroic tier, if a fighter is having a hard time hurting an insubstantial wraith and getting his lunch money taken, and the paladin hits it with sign of vulnerability, and a divine challenge, that wraith will change priorities to fight the paladin or to get out of range of all that radiant damage.

 

[Varis]

And what prevents an enemy from blowing past the Fighter and eating a Combat Challenge attack and an OA? Sure, a high WIS Fighter will likely nail that OA, but not all Fighters are high WIS. If the Fighter misses, it doesn't stop movement. Even if he hits, it's possibly that the monster might still be able to charge at the Wizard.

Combat Superiority denies the enmies movement if the OA hits. With a +1 to hit plus Wisdom bonus and a +3 weapon, your looking at approx +9/10 to hit at first level. Kinda nice, isn't it.
Compare that to say a max +6 damage guaranteed from a Straladin (unless dragonborn and you want to gimp on everything else) and a
+ 7 to hit (with an 18 str and +3 weapon),..AND you don't deny the movement if you hit.

One advantage that the Straladin has over the Fighter is that if an enemy moves away from the Paladin while DC'd, he'll have to eat an OA. Once he gets to the other PC though, he'll take AUTOMATIC damage that doesn't require a hit role, nor does it require the Paladin to be adjacent.

That OA has a better chance of missing.
Yes, but it FORCES the the Paladin to end her turn adjacent to the mark if she wants the mark to contiune,..that can place a Paladin OUT of position if the paladin wants to continue the mark. Hardly ideal for a defender.

If they tried the same thing on the Fighter, he would completely lose out on being able to make his Combat Challenge attack because he has to be adjacent in order to do that. Even if he does get to make that attack though, it's a melee basic and should only have about a 50% chance or so to hit.

Yes, but it's an immediate interupt and denies movement 50% of the time. Cool isn't it.

This makes the "shift+charge" rather effective against the Fighter since he only has a 50% chance to hit the enemy, and whether he hits or not it won't affect the shift action (unless he kills the guy).

If the OA hits, it stops the movement and the foe is marked. Shifting away allows an immediate interrupt by the fighter, and of course, the target is marked.
With the pally, instead of controlling the field, SHE has to run around and cope with targets running past. She can't pin them down effectively.

So yes, the Fighter is stickier, but nowhere near as much as you claim.

See above.

Also, the Paladin's ability to automatically damage the enemy without a hit roll or even being adjacent is very nice.

Only once though, to maintain, the paladin MUSt be adjacent.

These are just different flavors of being a Defender, but they're both effective.

Obviously I disagree on this.

The Fighter is basically meaner and can hurt an enemy more, but the Paladin's damage is assured...which means that a DM that doesn't respect him can end up in a "Death by a million papercuts" scenario.

Damage is assured as a once off. If you want to maintain it, you'll have to move, and that can expose your party.

I know who I'd want to guard a doorway.

 

[Doctor Proctor]

Combat Superiority denies the enmies movement if the OA hits. With a +1 to hit plus Wisdom bonus and a +3 weapon, your looking at approx +9/10 to hit at first level. Kinda nice, isn't it.
Compare that to say a max +6 damage guaranteed from a Straladin (unless dragonborn and you want to gimp on everything else) and a
+ 7 to hit (with an 18 str and +3 weapon),..AND you don't deny the movement if you hit.

That's a lot of assumptions. In the case of my party, I'm +2 ahead of the Paladin for hitting OA's (+2 weapon, FWT, 12 WIS). That's something, but not unmissable. The Paladin can still hurt someone bad with his OA's, as he's doing them with a Greataxe. Yes, the enemy's movement won't be stopped, but he's taking a risk of giving the Paladin free damage.

That OA has a better chance of missing.
Yes, but it FORCES the the Paladin to end her turn adjacent to the mark if she wants the mark to contiune,..that can place a Paladin OUT of position if the paladin wants to continue the mark. Hardly ideal for a defender.

And??? You seem to be misunderstanding the example. If he Paladin DC's someone they have to "engage" the target (attack or end turn adjacent). After the Pally's turn is over, if the enemy decides to move away from the Paladin to attack another party the DC is still in effect because the engaged the target before his turn ended. So, if he does a regular move action, he's taking a 50% chance to eat an OA, a -2 to attack the other party member and guaranteed damage from DC if he does so. The next round, since the Paladin engaged before the end of his turn, the Paladin can DC a new target. The Pally loses nothing in this exchange, whereas the enemy takes guaranteed damage, has a 10% lower chance to hit the other PC and takes a 50% chance of eating an OA. That's being a good Defender.

Yes, but it's an immediate interupt and denies movement 50% of the time. Cool isn't it.

You're not understanding the example. I was saying that if the enemy is able to get away from the Fighter, meaning he avoided the OA, the Fighter cannot use his Combat Challenge at range. Compare this to the Pally where it's easier to get away, but the DC damage (the CC equivalent) is guaranteed. So while it's easier to escape the Pally, you can't escape his damage. That's the difference between the two.

If the OA hits, it stops the movement and the foe is marked. Shifting away allows an immediate interrupt by the fighter, and of course, the target is marked.
With the pally, instead of controlling the field, SHE has to run around and cope with targets running past. She can't pin them down effectively.

You can't OA on a shift, only CC. Also, CC attacks dont stop movement. Notice, I said the "shift+charge" strategy. You shift away from the Fighter, which provokes a CC attack (which is not modified by the Combat Superiority feature) and then charge the other PC with your Standard. This avoids the need to worry about having your movement stopped, provided the shift allows a clear line of attack that won't provoke, but forces the enemy to use a charge rather than a more damaging ability.

See above.
Only once though, to maintain, the paladin MUSt be adjacent.

Again, you're not understanding the point. The Paladin only needs to engage the target or end his turn adjacent to keep DC active for that round. If the enemy moves away after the Paladin ends his turn, DC is still active until the end of the Pally's next turn.

Assuming the above example where the enemy moves away from the Pally and goes to attack an ally, this means that DC will fire off and auto-damage the target. On the Pally's turn he has two options:
1) Chase down the target and re-engage/end his turn adjacent to maintain DC.
2) Spend a minor action to DC a new target and then either engage that target or end his turn adjacent to the target.

So, it's only if the Pally wants to keep challenging the same target round after round that he needs to chase them. Similarly, the Fighter's mark only lasts for until the end of his next turn. Barring powers like Lasting Threat, the Fighter would also have to keep chasing a target around the map if he wished to keep marking him round after round.

Obviously I disagree on this.

But your disagreement also seems to be based off of some invalid assumptions.

Damage is assured as a once off. If you want to maintain it, you'll have to move, and that can expose your party.

I know who I'd want to guard a doorway.

How is the Fighter any different? He gets one CC attack per round, which means his potential attack is a one-off, and it's not even guaranteed to hit. Additionally, in the example of someone doing a shift+charge at an ally in the back row the Fighter must make the same decision as the Pally as to whether he should move to re-engage the target, or pick someone else to attack and mark. They're no different in this respect.

As for you who you'd want to guard a door, yes, a Fighter would probably be better at that. If you think Defenders are only good for guarding doors, then I guess that's the best option. However, most people seem to think that they're good for other things besides that...and the Pally has a lot of extra tricks that the Fighter doesn't. Even level 1 attack powers like Paladin's Judgement add a lot to a party, whereas the Fighter's attack powers are usually more offensive in nature and cause effects on the enemies. Granted, they get some nice Utilities for the Fighter that can help out other party members, but many require a shield...and they're Utility powers, as opposed to At-Will, Encounter, Daily AND Utility powers (as is the case with the Pally).

 

[FireLance]

There's been a lot of back and forth on this issue, so I think it would be useful to compare how a fighter, a Strength-based paladin and a Charisma-based paladin will fare across a variety of situations:

1. Against An Adjacent Shifting Opponent
The fighter is the clear winner here. If he has already marked the opponent, he gets an immediate Combat Challenge attack against it. Note that this is not an opportunity attack, however, so he does not get to add his Wisdom bonus to the attack roll, he does not stop the shift, and he can only do this once per round, which means that any other opponents he may have marked are free to shift without provoking an attack from the fighter. Nonetheless, neither variety of paladin can do much to counter shifting opponents.

2. Against An Opponent Who Provokes An Opportunity Attack
Again, the fighter has the advantage. He gets to add his Wisdom bonus and possibly a bonus from his weapon talent to the attack roll, and he stops the opponent's movement if the opportunity attack was provoked by movement. Of the two types of paladin, Strength-based paladins tend to fare better than Charisma-based paladins because their melee basic attacks tend to be better.

3. Against A Marked Opponent Who Makes An Attack That Does Not Include The Defender
Here, the paladins have the advantage of reliability, with the Charisma-based paladin edging out the Strength-based paladin because of higher divine challenge damage. The paladin need not remain adjacent to the opponent, and need not make an attack roll. Assuming a 50% chance to hit on the part of the fighter (again, this is not an opportunity attack, so he does not get to add his Wisdom bonus to the attack roll) the Charisma-based paladin is also likely to do more damage on average with his divine challenge. Even a Strength-based paladin with a Charisma of 14 deals 5 points of damage a round, which is comparable to the expected damage of a Strength 18 fighter with a one-handed weapon such as a longsword.

4. Maintaining A Mark Against An Opponent Who Moves Away From The Defender
The fighter and the paladins have roughly similar options. They could choose to maintain the mark by making a ranged attack, or by pursuing the opponent and making a melee attack. The paladins actually have a bit more flexibility here because they could also maintain their mark by moving adjacent to their marked target and attacking another opponent. Charisma-based paladins have a further potential edge in that there are a few Charisma-based ranged encounter and daily powers, so they may be more effective at attacking a marked opponent at range.

5. Enfeebling Stike
One other point I should mention is the paladin at-will attack enfeebling strike. It's a Charisma attack that imposes a -2 penalty to attack rolls on a target marked by the paladin until the end of the paladin's next turn. This effectively allows the paladin to double the effectiveness of his mark (and, in relative terms, further boost his already impressive defences) if he hits.

So, in the final analysis, I'd say that Varis is partly right. Both the fighter and the Charisma-based paladin seem to be better defenders than the Strength-based paladin. However, it doesn't seem to me that the Charisma-based paladin is a worse defender than the fighter: with his better opportunity attacks and ability to attack shifting opponents, the fighter seems to be better at controlling his opponents' movements, but with his higher average damage from divine challenge, better ability to maintain a mark on an opponent, and an at-will power that further penalizes a marked opponent's attacks, I'd say the Charisma-based paladin is better at influencing a marked opponent's attacks.

Finally, just because a Strength-based paladin isn't as good a defender as a fighter or a Charisma-based paladin, it doesn't mean that he can't function as a defender at all. As long as he can still defend (and his opportunity attacks and divine challenge are still decent, even if they aren't as good as those of a fighter and a Charisma-based paladin respectively) I wouldn't consider him a failure.