PDA

View Full Version : [4E] Paladins aren't defenders



Kurald Galain
2009-02-13, 06:08 AM
I'd like to hear what other people's experiences are with paladins in 4E. I'm not asking whether they're overpowered or fun to play or anything, it's just this:

According to their description, the paladin is a "defender". Yet in play, he really isn't. From what I've seen in practice recently from several paladins, the class plays like a striker with a minor in healing.

The rogue attacks, then deals some extra damage in common circumstances (sneak attack if he has CA). The warlock, likewise, deals extra damage if the target is cursed, or hurts him / moves closer / etc (based on his at wills). And the paladin attacks, then deals a bunch of extra damage later when his divine challenge triggers.

I'm saying this because in nearly all cases I've seen, it's tactically better for the monsters (who tend to have huge HP anyway) to ignore the paladin's mark and simply attack the squishies, and don't be bothered by the 6-7 points of radiant damage they take.

So, paladins can't really defend anything (unlike sticky fighters, or damage-reducing swordmages). So they aren't defenders.

YPU
2009-02-13, 06:14 AM
Remember that the target of divine challenge is also marked thus taking an attack penalty when not attacking the defender.

its_all_ogre
2009-02-13, 06:18 AM
i see where you're coming from but the damage output is massively lower than the 'real' striker classes.
also paladins have much higher defences, in line with defenders and very different to strikers.
marking enemies gives them a -2 to hit allies and presumably most of your squishier allies would avoid being in melee reach anyway.

i see them more as defender/leader where fighters so far are the only pure defenders.
i also see fighters so far being the best defender with little competition frankly.

Starsinger
2009-02-13, 06:47 AM
Not to mention their powers that let them do things like swap position with an ally, take damage for an ally, prevent people from taking damage from area powers... Yeah that's totally striker stuff right there.

MartinHarper
2009-02-13, 06:49 AM
I've not played a paladin, but I wonder if it depends how squishy your squishies are? Also, does your paladin switch to using a two-handed weapon when monsters ignore him?

Kurald Galain
2009-02-13, 06:49 AM
i see where you're coming from but the damage output is massively lower than the 'real' striker classes.
Not really. Warlock = 3d6 + con mod (assuming hellish rebuke + curse + triggering the rebuke's secondary). Paladin = 1d12 + str mod + 3 + cha mod (assuming divine challenge triggering). Rogue = 1d4 + 2d6 + dex mod + str mod (assuming sneak attack with brutal scoundrel).

Paladin is above warlock and on par with rogue, and that's not considering [2W] powers, high crits, or Righteous Cheese of Tempus.


marking enemies gives them a -2 to hit
Which is by definition irrelevant exactly 90% of the time


allies and presumably most of your squishier allies would avoid being in melee reach anyway.
That's what shifting is for. Also, soaking an opportunity attack isn't such a big deal either, if it lets the monster knock the wizard to negative HP.


i also see fighters so far being the best defender with little competition frankly.
Yes.


Not to mention their powers that let them do things like swap position with an ally, take damage for an ally, prevent people from taking damage from area powers... Yeah that's totally striker stuff right there.
No, that's leader stuff, right there. Would that mean the paladin having a minor in healing (i.e. leadering)? Oh, that's right, I already said that in the first post!!

Saph
2009-02-13, 06:57 AM
I think the real issue here is that the 4e role descriptions are a bit misleading.

Paladins aren't literal "defenders" because there is no such thing as defending in 4e. 4e combats are all about attacking - getting the enemy down to 0 HP before he does the same to you. So when the Paladin is described as a "defender" what that really means is "a different type of attacker". Even the Fighter's definition of "defence" basically comes down to "killing the other guy".

In the same way, wizards aren't "controllers", because they don't really do any controlling, at least not at low levels. What they're good at is attacking groups and doing lots of bitty damage that adds up. (I got really frustrated trying to play a wizard before figuring this out.)

- Saph

Hal
2009-02-13, 07:36 AM
I think it also depends on the ability selection from the player. Most players tend to gravitate towards the highest-damage abilities. Paladins have enough that they can end up acting like strikers. Battle Clerics could be the same way.

Tengu_temp
2009-02-13, 07:38 AM
Which is by definition irrelevant exactly 90% of the time


Why do you claim that +1 to attack is a big deal in one thread and that -2 to attack is irrelevant in another?

Starsinger
2009-02-13, 07:42 AM
No, that's leader stuff, right there. Would that mean the paladin having a minor in healing (i.e. leadering)? Oh, that's right, I already said that in the first post!!

{Scrubbed} How is preventing an ally from taking damage by virtue of a power different than preventing an ally from taking damage because you got attacked instead?

AgentPaper
2009-02-13, 07:55 AM
Divine Challenge damage is nothing to sniff at. Sure, it's worth taking some of the time, but 6-9 damage every round adds up VERY fast, and it's usually better to just take down the paladin first rather than going for a "squishier" caster, who will likely be just as hard to kill because of the -2 to hit, and will undoubtedly have some power that lets them run away or teleport or ignore attacks, etc. Sure, if the wizard is right there at low health, begging to be attacked, no question hit the wizard. But with the whole party at full health, and the wizard behind the pally, your best bet is to kill that paladin as fast as you can. As you said, the paladin's damage is nothing to sneeze at anyways, so killing the wizard or ranger or whatever first won't mean you've won.

Remember that while the the paladin is a defender, that doesn't mean he does nothing but protect his allies. He's a competent attacker in his own right. Strikers aren't the only ones that do damage, they just do it best. Just like defenders aren't the only ones that can take damage, they just do it best. Same with controllers, you're not going to throw out a spell or two and completely negate the enemy. You're poking and prodding your enemies into the best position for the rest of your team, but also hurting them directly, and possibly weakening their attacks and defenses so they aren't quite as dangerous.

Basically, being a paladin (or a fighter or a swordsage for that matter) doesn't just mean that now all the enemies HAVE to attack you or they're screwed. It means that, if you and your allies do your job right, it's usually a better idea for them to be hitting you instead of your allies. Do it wrong, and you may as well just be a poor striker with a bit of healing.

Kurald Galain
2009-02-13, 08:07 AM
Why do you claim that +1 to attack is a big deal in one thread and that -2 to attack is irrelevant in another?
+1 to all attacks is a big deal, -2 to one attack (or one round of attacks, in the rare case a creature makes multiple attacks) is not.


Divine Challenge damage is nothing to sniff at. Sure, it's worth taking some of the time, but 6-9 damage every round adds up VERY fast,
Oh, I agree. Paladins are a strong class and DC is a good ability. But it's not defending.


will undoubtedly have some power that lets them run away or teleport or ignore attacks, etc.
Powers that do that during a monster's turn are rare (if they're doing it on their own turn, they're already hit). I'm sure there's more of them at paragon or epic level, though.


with the whole party at full health, and the wizard behind the pally, your best bet is to kill that paladin as fast as you can.
Really? I don't think that's true. The paladin is most likely the character with the highest AC and contender for the most hit points; going after somebody else, anybody else, gives you better odds of dropping him.

Any PC that's unconscious means less firepower the monsters will be facing for awhile, which is good for them. It therefore makes sense for monsters to target the one that is easiest to drop (which isn't necessarily the wizard, because wizzies have excellent AC, but clerics and warlocks frequently don't).


It means that, if you and your allies do your job right, it's usually a better idea for them to be hitting you instead of your allies.
That is my point. For the monsters, it is usually a better idea to hit anybody except the paladin.

kamikasei
2009-02-13, 08:27 AM
Which is by definition irrelevant exactly 90% of the time

I suspect you're abusing math here.

Now, I don't know 4e, I don't know how the attack bonuses and armor stack up most of the time; but a d20 is still a d20, and it's the enemy's view of his chance of hitting that's relevant. If he would have a 50-50 chance (an 11 or above hits), taking a -2 changes that to a 13 or above, a 40% chance of success and a 20% reduction in his chance to hit.

For an enemy that hits on a 16 or above (25%) it changes it to an 18 or above, a 15% chance, and a 40% reduction.

Going the other way, a powerful enemy who only needs a 6 to hit now needs an 8, going from 75% to 65%, a shade under 15% of a penalty.

Point being, the penalty can significantly reduce an enemy's chance of hitting its target, changing its evaluation of which character it should target. It's the equivalent of giving everyone else in the party a +2 AC vs. that enemy, which certainly seems to me nothing to sneeze at.

its_all_ogre
2009-02-13, 08:39 AM
i think kurald's point is that the -2 still makes it easier to hit the ally than the defender role character.

my warlord m/c paladin has AC 20
the fighter has AC20
the rogue has AC17
wizard AC17
ranger AC17
ranger AC15 (melee)

so in my party it is more likely to hit my allies even with the -2 to hit penalty.

how many rounds can our marked enemies survive attacking the non-marked party members? maybe twice, assuming they get attacked.

fighters make better defenders than paladins because their OA's stop enemies moving round to engage other party members and their marked enemies get stabbed for shifting and again for attacking an ally.
but then fighters are defenders
paladin defender/leader
swordmage defender/controller

kamikasei
2009-02-13, 08:49 AM
i think kurald's point is that the -2 still makes it easier to hit the ally than the defender role character.

I was thinking of that, but didn't have the numbers to hand to see how much a paladin's AC would usually lead the squishies'. But then, where did the "exactly 90%" come from?

MartinHarper
2009-02-13, 08:50 AM
Some sample characters. Assuming that your primary stat is 18, secondary 16, tertiary 12, and rest 10.

Battle Cleric (Str, Wis, Cha)
AC: 16 (+6 for chain)
Fort: 14 (+4 for Str)
Ref: 10
Will: 15 (+2 for cleric, +3 for Wis)

Avenging Paladin (Str, Cha, Wis)
AC: 18 (+8 for plate)
Fort: 15 (+4 for Str, +1 for paladin)
Ref: 11 (+1 for paladin)
Will: 14 (+1 for paladin, +3 for Cha)

Both are melee characters. If all else is equal, monsters who attack vs Fort, Ref or Will should attack the paladin. Monsters who attack vs AC might justifiably choose either target.

AgentPaper
2009-02-13, 08:53 AM
+1 to all attacks is a big deal, -2 to one attack (or one round of attacks, in the rare case a creature makes multiple attacks) is not.
Except, it's not just one round of attacks. You should have at least one enemy challenged at all times, and more with certain powers.


Oh, I agree. Paladins are a strong class and DC is a good ability. But it's not defending.
This is getting into opinion. How do you define defending? I define it as doing something that helps keep your friends safe, in a mostly direct way. Threat of retribution for attacking your allies, and immediate followup on that threat, seems pretty clear cut as just that. Unless your enemies are ignoring the threat, in which case you've just become a huge source of damage that never misses. (that last part is important to remember) If you define defending as something that does nothing but directly reduce the amount of damage your allies take no matter what, then I suppose Divine Challenge wouldn't fit in there as well.


Powers that do that during a monster's turn are rare (if they're doing it on their own turn, they're already hit). I'm sure there's more of them at paragon or epic level, though.
Rangers at least get a bunch of these are pretty low levels. Wizards get shield, which helps, and can teleport around later on, or even early on if eladrin.


Really? I don't think that's true. The paladin is most likely the character with the highest AC and contender for the most hit points; going after somebody else, anybody else, gives you better odds of dropping him.
True, unless, by ignoring him, you're letting him move around unmolested, attacking your own squishies, setting up flanking, and doing large amounts of damage with divine challenge.


Any PC that's unconscious means less firepower the monsters will be facing for awhile, which is good for them. It therefore makes sense for monsters to target the one that is easiest to drop (which isn't necessarily the wizard, because wizzies have excellent AC, but clerics and warlocks frequently don't).
Wizards have high AC? Since when? They have less armor proficiency than any other class but warlock, unless they're a staff wizard, which is nice, but still not really "excellent AC". Please clarify, if you can. :smallconfused:


That is my point. For the monsters, it is usually a better idea to hit anybody except the paladin.
Wait, that's completely the opposite of what I said in the quote! :smallconfused::smallwink:

Kurald Galain
2009-02-13, 08:57 AM
I suspect you're abusing math here.
The difference is that I am taking a percentage of a value, whereas you're taking a percentage of a percentage. Using meta-percentages only serves to confuse the issue.

The point is that exactly 90% of the time, it would not have made a difference whether or not the mob had a -2 to hit, because either he would have missed even without the penalty, or he would hit even with the penalty. There is only a 10% chance, regardless of circumstances, that the mob misses because of the penalty.

The rest is all pyschology. Like several other mechanics I could mention in a variety of games, it seems to make a huge difference, but if you do the math, it really doesn't. The DMG recommends that DMs should make their monsters attack the PC who's marked them, but clever monsters will realize that this is generally a bad idea, especially when said PC is a pally.


i think kurald's point is that the -2 still makes it easier to hit the ally than the defender role character.
Yep.

The monster wants to disable the PCs. That means he has to reduce them to zero hit points. That means his priority is to (1) hit things which are easy to hit, and (2) hit things with few hit points.



fighters make better defenders than paladins because their OA's stop enemies moving round to engage other party members and their marked enemies get stabbed for shifting and again for attacking an ally.
Yep again. Note also that the fighter is a defender/striker.

Incidentally, swordmages make at least decent defenders, because "you can hit my ally but you'll do zero damage" is a very useful way of defending people.



paladin defender/leader
That's what it says, but my point is that he really is a striker/leader with high armor class. Defending yourself is not what the defender role means.

kamikasei
2009-02-13, 09:05 AM
The difference is that I am taking a percentage of a value, whereas you're taking a percentage of a percentage. Using meta-percentages only serves to confuse the issue.

No, the "meta-percentage" is the change in that monster's chance to hit, and is therefore what's relevant to that monster in making his decisions. What might happen in other fights with other monsters is of no consequence to the guy who is suddenly 40% less likely to hit his target if he goes after anyone besides the paladin.

To see how this comes out in a general case, you'd have to analyze typical attack bonuses and ACs for all monsters and PCs weighted by frequency; you couldn't just look at a d20.

And setting the pure math aside for a minute:


In the mean time, in exchange for these "maybe"s and a potential future benefit they are significantly increasing the damage they are taking right now.

...this, too. The marked effect means the high-AC paladin is no longer as futile to attack as before, because the gap between his AC and his party mates' closes a little. Then, so long as he's standing he's causing you to take damage in addition to whatever weapon damage he's dealing out. By taking him out you're removing one part of the party's offensive capacity, as you would by targeting any character, but you're also removing an extra ongoing source of damage and effectively removing a buff from the rest of the party making them easier to hit. Sounds like a good approach to me - depending, of course, on the specific figures involved.

Douglas
2009-02-13, 09:07 AM
+1 to all attacks is a big deal, -2 to one attack (or one round of attacks, in the rare case a creature makes multiple attacks) is not.
But the Paladin will be using it every single round so it is to all attacks for that monster.


Oh, I agree. Paladins are a strong class and DC is a good ability. But it's not defending.
It is contingent on the Paladin being ignored. That's all that's really needed for it to fit the defender role.


Really? I don't think that's true. The paladin is most likely the character with the highest AC and contender for the most hit points; going after somebody else, anybody else, gives you better odds of dropping him.

Any PC that's unconscious means less firepower the monsters will be facing for awhile, which is good for them. It therefore makes sense for monsters to target the one that is easiest to drop (which isn't necessarily the wizard, because wizzies have excellent AC, but clerics and warlocks frequently don't).
Going after someone else may let you drop someone slightly faster for a reduction in the party's firepower when you finally do drop the target. Going after the Paladin immediately and automatically drops the Paladin's firepower.


That is my point. For the monsters, it is usually a better idea to hit anybody except the paladin.
If they choose their target wisely it might be easier to hit someone else despite the -2 from the Paladin's mark. They might also drop the target one or even two rounds earlier, but probably not more than that - hp differences between classes aren't all that big in 4E. In the mean time, in exchange for these "maybe"s and a potential future benefit they are significantly increasing the damage they are taking right now. I'd have to see some sample builds and do some math, but I really doubt ignoring the Paladin is as clearly beneficial as you think.

Saph
2009-02-13, 09:14 AM
Wizards have high AC? Since when? They have less armor proficiency than any other class but warlock, unless they're a staff wizard, which is nice, but still not really "excellent AC". Please clarify, if you can. :smallconfused:

I think I can field this one.

My standard wizard build (which I think is pretty close to the optimum one) takes Leather Armour Proficiency and Toughness for its first two feats and the Staff implement. That gives a level 1 base AC of 17 (10 base + 4 int + 2 leather + 1 staff). That alone puts you on par with a striker or leader, who usually have starting ACs of 16-17.

However, the wizard also gets the Staff of Defence interrupt (+2ish to defence, encounter) and at level 2 they get the excellent Shield interrupt (+4 to AC/Ref, encounter). Add this all up and the wizard should be, on balance, a tougher kill than either the Rogue or the Cleric.

Wizards in 4e aren't squishy - their defences are as good or better than any non-defender class.

- Saph

Kurald Galain
2009-02-13, 09:21 AM
Except, it's not just one round of attacks. You should have at least one enemy challenged at all times, and more with certain powers.
Certainly, the paladin should use his challenge ability, because (just like the ranger's quarry and the warlock's curse) it lets him do more damage.


Threat of retribution for attacking your allies, and immediate followup on that threat, seems pretty clear cut as just that.
That's a pretty offensive form of "defending", though. Compare with the fighter, who says you can't reach his allies (stop movement on an OA, OA on a shift) and the swordmage who says you can't damage his allies (heavy damage reduction on a mark).

I define "defending" as "discouraging enemies from attacking your allies". The paladin, while an effective character in a number of other ways, doesn't do that. The PHB says that "[the paladin] can issue bold challenges to foes and compel them to fight you rather than your allies" but he really doesn't.

The pally does have a few powers that let you take damage instead of your ally, but that's more like what a healer (leader) would do. Also, if you can only do it once per combat, it is hardly as defining as a fighter's mark.



Rangers at least get a bunch of these are pretty low levels. Wizards get shield, which helps, and can teleport around later on, or even early on if eladrin.
No wizard (or eladrin) ability to my knowledge lets you teleport to avoid attacks. Shield is good, though. Rangers are decent on reactive mobility. Rogues and warlocks, for instance, are not.



True, unless, by ignoring him, you're letting him move around unmolested, attacking your own squishies, setting up flanking, and doing large amounts of damage with divine challenge.
Well, see, that's the point. Any player character that you let "move around unmolested" is going to be a problem for the monsters. So good tactics for the monsters is to focus on the PC that is easiest to take down.



Wizards have high AC? Since when? They have less armor proficiency than any other class but warlock, unless they're a staff wizard, which is nice, but still not really "excellent AC".
Since leather armor is one of the best wizard feats, and wizards boost int which boosts AC, and wizards can get by with a 20 int at level 1. A 5th-level wiz has 21 AC, boosting to 24 twice per encounter (staff and shield spell).



Wait, that's completely the opposite of what I said in the quote! :smallconfused::smallwink:
Yup. I'm disagreeing with that quote! :smalltongue:

Example in practice: the last three 4E sessions I've played in (and one I've DM'ed for) ended practically every combat with all characters heavily wounded or bloodied, except for the paladins, who were barely scratched. So, er, yeah, that was because the pallies were defending them, right? :smallbiggrin:

Douglas
2009-02-13, 09:36 AM
I define "defending" as "discouraging enemies from attacking your allies". The paladin, while an effective character in a number of other ways, doesn't do that.
"If you attack my allies you will immediately and automatically take damage" doesn't do that?

Kurald Galain
2009-02-13, 09:43 AM
"If you attack my allies you will immediately and automatically take damage" doesn't do that?
No, because any moderately intelligent opponent will realize that if he does not attack the pally's allies, he will end up taking more damage.

Monsters have huge amounts of hit points. 7 damage from Divine Challenge is not going to cut it. As has already been said, the way for a monster to avoid damage is by taking the PCs out of the fight, starting with the PCs that (a) have fewest hit points, and (b) are easiest to hit. Neither group includes the paladin (and the -2 to hit from a mark doesn't compensate for point b).

That means that DC is only defending when the opponents are animals, grunts, or mindless, and lack a leader figure. That is rare, even at low levels.

Douglas
2009-02-13, 09:52 AM
No, because any moderately intelligent opponent will realize that if he does not attack the pally's allies, he will end up taking more damage.
Have you actually done the math to prove this? I can't do it myself right now because I'm at work, but I'm rather dubious of this claim.

MartinHarper
2009-02-13, 09:59 AM
Kurald - given that the DMs involved think it is tactically preferable to ignore paladins, why would we be surprised that the paladins were not seriously injured? That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.

Take the Halfling Slinger. At Int 10, she's probably smart enough to see that the Protecting Paladin (AC 20) is a much tougher target than the Unoptimised Wizard (AC 14, in cloth, no staff). A marked Halfling Slinger needs a 10 to hit the wizard, and a 14 to hit the paladin. The slinger's average damage per turn against the Wizard is around 7.5 x 11/20 = 4.125. Against the paladin, it is around 7.5 x 7/20 = 2.625. However, attacking the wizard causes the slinger to take six points of radiant damage.

It should be pretty clear that the tactically optimal thing to do for the Halfling Slinger is to run away, because, as is normally the case, the PCs have a huge advantage. However, if she's not quite that tactically astute, she should realise that the increased damage per turn she does by attacking the wizard is more than outweighed by the divine challenge damage she takes.

Swordguy
2009-02-13, 10:08 AM
No, because any moderately intelligent opponent will realize that if he does not attack the pally's allies, he will end up taking more damage.


I seem to recall a fairly strongly worded "suggestion" in, IIRC, the DMG that states something to the effect of "the vast majority of creatures should go after the guy that marked them". While it's not an "order" per se, that's very clearly how WoTC intended it to be played, and if you aren't going to play the way they intended (regardless of whether or not you feel the rules adequately support said playstyle) then the game isn't going to work for you.

Let me say it again: regardless of whether the math works out in favor of the NPC ignoring the mark to go after the other guy, WoTC designed the classes and the game around the idea that NPCs generally go after the guy that marked them.

It's the only way the system makes sense, and the DM that doesn't play by WotCs intention is going to run into all sorts of issues. This is no different that the people who ran a Wizard, Beguiler, CoDzilla, Artificer group against standard pregenerated adventures and found the adventures too easy - play in their paradigm or don't play.

MartinHarper
2009-02-13, 10:23 AM
I seem to recall a fairly strongly worded "suggestion" in, IIRC, the DMG that states something to the effect of "the vast majority of creatures should go after the guy that marked them".

I can't find that suggestion in the DMG. I'm looking under "Combat Encounters". Perhaps it doesn't exist?

Kurald Galain
2009-02-13, 10:36 AM
Kurald - given that the DMs involved think it is tactically preferable to ignore paladins, why would we be surprised that the paladins were not seriously injured? That sounds like a self-fulfilling prophecy to me.
No, it means that the DM's choice of strategy (to ignore paladins) worked. If, for instance, a DM thinks that using blast effects that include his own allies is tactically preferable (assuming no immunities), he will be quickly and thoroughly proven wrong. That underlines that "ignoring paladins" is a good strategy, whereas "including your allies in a blast" is not.


The slinger's average damage per turn against the Wizard is around 7.5 x 11/20 = 4.125. Against the paladin, it is around 7.5 x 7/20 = 2.625.
Yes, but these numbers are further skewed towards "hitting the wizard" because wizards have fewer hit points than paladins. And furthermore, monsters have way more hit points than player characters. So 6 damage to a monster? No big deal. 2 damage to a paladin? Not impressive either. 4 damage to a wizard? Hm, that's 20% of his hit point total. These numbers become more apparent that higher levels of course.

So, given 6 PCs and 6 slingers, if they focus fire on the paladin, he's still standing. If they focus fire on the wizard, then sure, one of them takes a bit of radiant damage, but the wizard is now down. Since the wizard does (much) more damage per turn than the pally's Divine Challenge, preferable tactics is to ignore the DC, not ignore the wiz.

(of course, you're picking a poor example here, since slingers are ranged characters, and wizards actually have pretty good armor class; but substitute a warlock or rogue for the wizard, and some orc or kobold grunt for a slinger, and my point still stands)


I seem to recall a fairly strongly worded "suggestion" in, IIRC, the DMG that states something to the effect of "the vast majority of creatures should go after the guy that marked them". While it's not an "order" per se, that's very clearly how WoTC intended it to be played,
The existence of that "order" proves my point. If it was superior tactics for the monsters to, indeed, attack the guy who marked them, then this "order" would never be necessary.

If 3E proved anything for us, it is that many people will play a game by the rules of that game, not by how the designer intended it to be played. It becomes a challenge then to make the rules support this intent.

Artanis
2009-02-13, 10:48 AM
Oh, I agree. Paladins are a strong class and DC is a good ability. But it's not defending.
Could you please tell us what your definition of "defending" is? Because I see a lot of people mentioning things that the Paladin does to defend his allies, but you disregard them all. So maybe if you told us what you wouldn't disregard, we can try to answer your question.

BlackRabite
2009-02-13, 10:57 AM
My group generally agrees that Paladins are more like Leaders that Defenders and that Fighters are vastly superior as defenders because of abilities like Come and Get it. I'm currently playing a Defender build Paladin in our campaign and it's working out alright so far. I'm Charisma based with Student of Battle (?? I think that's the name, Fighter multiclass feat.) and it works decently enough.

Our party is level 4 and I usually start a combat by using the multiclass encounter feat to attack with the paladin encounter power that gives all allies in 5 squares temporary HP, 7 temps for my paladin. Then I use Divine Challenge on a different target. That starts the fight off with two marked targets and a lot of temps. The marks are always helpful, -2 to attacks is a huge debuff, a 10% loss in accuracy. My biggest issue is that with plate and a shield my Paladins AC at level 4 is 25 and that is much higher than any of my teammates' AC. That severely weakens the effectiveness of the mark, it's still better to attack someone that's not the paladin from a mechanical standpoint.

I think the Paladin is a better defender in some situations. He has no ability to control movement but his mark penalty can fire off an infinite number of times. Example would be vs a green dragon. The Fighter can mark the green dragon, the dragon can then use it's minor action to force a slide on the fighter then proceed to attack, action point and attack again to take down a striker, even with a -2 from the mark chances are he'll land with a number of attacks from his Double Attack. In the paladins scenario against a single large target the best thing he can do, almost always, is mark the target and use Enfeebling strike over and over again. The Dragon either attacks the paladin or ignores it and tries to take out a striker. Each one of those attacks gets a -4 and deals the dragon radiant damage no matter what's happening to the Paladin. If a fighter is stunned, out of range or dazed he cannot get off his AoO from the mark, and even if he can he only gets one. The paladin is much better at preventing a high damage monster from breaking away and destroying a low hp class. If the monster does manage to take down or severely wound a striker the Paladin is capable of getting the wounded party member back up, or providing temps to keep it from going down on the next round.

Edit: Making an edit here to bring up something I didn't mention. In the 6 slingers scenario there is not a lot many defenders could do. The best scenario there would be to have a Dragonborn fighter that can mark multiple slingers with his minor action then move in and mark any he missed with an AoE attack, assuming the slingers are at least somewhat bunched together. If we assume that then the Paladin or anyone else could duplicate the effect by standing between the wizard and the group of slingers providing the wizard with a cover bonus and using his DC to mark the one that could most easily bypass the cover via movement. That scenario is a fairly terrible example to use, with 6 people on both sides of the fight there are a number of things that could happen to prevent a striker from going down in a single round and a lot of them don't depend on the defender.

Asbestos
2009-02-13, 11:03 AM
Our party is level 4 and I usually start a combat by using the multiclass encounter feat to attack with the paladin encounter power that gives all allies in 5 squares temporary HP, 7 temps for my paladin. Then I use Divine Challenge on a different target. That starts the fight off with two marked targets and a lot of temps.

Wait, what? How do you have two marked targets? Last I knew, multiclassing into fighter did not grant you the combat challenge class feature and the only way for a paladin to mark a target is to land divine challenge on them.

BlackRabite
2009-02-13, 11:10 AM
Wait, what? How do you have two marked targets? Last I knew, multiclassing into fighter did not grant you the combat challenge class feature and the only way for a paladin to mark a target is to land divine challenge on them.

Fighter multiclass feat allows you to, once per encounter, gain a +1 to an attack and mark the target of that attack on a hit or a miss. That gives me a mark on my melee target and DC can be used to mark another target at ranged.

Totally Guy
2009-02-13, 11:12 AM
It seems the issue is how the DM decides to play it. This isn't really all that bad. It allows the enemies to define themselves a bit better. Is the villian a man with intellegent tactics? Would the villian view the challenge as a matter of honour? A challenge to his manhood? Does the villian mean business? It's kind of an aid to the RP of the antagonists.

The choice is given to the enemy. Whether they choose guaranteed Pain now or Potential more pain later is a personal one that transcends logic.

What this means is that the DM has an element of control.

Does the paladin's player prefer to kill things or play the stalwart defender? If the player has expressed a strong preference at some point the DM can give that player what they want from any particular battle.

Also if the battles are tending to drag this method of ignoring marks increases the damage to both parties. Which should result in a combat conclusion being reached faster.

NecroRebel
2009-02-13, 11:39 AM
That's a pretty offensive form of "defending", though. Compare with the fighter, who says you can't reach his allies (stop movement on an OA, OA on a shift) and the swordmage who says you can't damage his allies (heavy damage reduction on a mark).

Sorry, this is a pet peeve of mine: Fighters do not get OAs on a shift. They get to make a melee basic attack against an adjacent marked target who shifts. There is a huge difference between these two things, particularly since Fighters get Wis to OA attack rolls and usually some other bonuses as well.

If you've been playing that Fighers get OAs on a shift, they'll be much stickier than they actually are. As is, they're only slightly stickier than the Paladin, as enemies can shift away from the Fighter and then use the Charge action against the squishies, while... Well, they actually average higher damage per round as long as they stick with their mark.

Assuming 40% chance to hit a same-level target, which is terribly low for a Fighter, and a Paladin with +3 Cha mod, average damage per round is higher if weapon attacks average 15 damage. Higher to-hit, like the more common 70% that Fighters can manage, drops this to about 9. Guess Fighters are Strikers, then, right, since they should be using their combat challenge extra attack every round but can't actually stop a target from hitting squishies? :smalltongue:

Artanis
2009-02-13, 11:39 AM
Oh, one thing I just thought of...

Being part Leader doesn't just make the Paladin part leader, but it also makes the Paladin a better defender.

Why?

It's because everybody knows that you kill the healer first. This is true in everything from 4e to 3e to even Team Fortress 2 (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/9/21/). The Paladin has the standard-issue Defender-class marking, of course, but on top of that, the Paladin is a little like a Shielding Swordmage in that if you don't attack him, you're liable to wind up doing nothing anyways, even if you hit.

When given the choice between hitting the guy with plate and no DPT vs. hitting the guy with the bathrobe and soul-scorching death lasers, you go after the Warlock. But when given the choice between maybe hurting the guy with the plate vs. hurting the squishy, only for him to be healed back to full anyways, the Paladin starts to look like a more inviting target.

Awesomologist
2009-02-13, 11:53 AM
Yikes, I never want to play in a game run by Kurald's DM. One of the key tenants in the 4e design philosophy is to have fun. If your DM is ignoring the paladin than he's making the game less fun for that player by actively taking away the player's role. Which consequentially makes the game less fun for others.
Thats not to say that a DM can't continue to threaten other PC's. Good encounter design will allow you to deal with the paladin's defenses. Use monsters that reduce the Paladin's AC with Combat Advantage or other status effects. Target Reflex or Fortitude instead. Keep the paladin busy and the player will continue to feel useful and a key member of the party.

Remind your DM that he is the Dungeon Master, not the Douche Master.

EDIT: Stupid cat needs to learn that the keyboard is not a bed. :smallannoyed:

Wizard_Tom
2009-02-13, 11:58 AM
The only problem with that is healing others tends to take the paladin's healing surges, which directly lowers the amount of healing a paladin can recieve. I find that on average, my paladin is the first to run out of healing surges in our group. Part of this comes from the stats a paladin needs and con not being all that high on their list. And from my experience unbloodied monsters are usually willing to take the burn from DC at least once. Most elites are better off ignoring the paladin all together. I'm actually retiring my paladin because of the frustrations I've been having playing him and switching to a swordmage. Of course, part of my frustrations comes with our group not being compatible with the paladin play style. I just don't have the mobility to keep up with my group.

Shadow_Elf
2009-02-13, 12:25 PM
Not sure if anyone's mentioned this (I skipped a lot of the randomness in the middle), but the wording in Divine Challenge at the bottom is relevant here.

Something to the effect of "Divine Challenge is a divine compulsion that even the least intelligent of monsters understands". A monster being properly role-played (hint: they call this a role-playing game for a reason!), will attack the paladin, regardless of the tactical advantage of attacking someone else. A more intelligent foe (INT > 12) might see the tactical advantage of ignoring the mark, but the more common monsters (INT < 12) will attack the paladin. No questions asked.

The paladin's fluff is that he is a defender. But people say he plays like a striker, regardless of the fluff. But in this situation there is a mechanical impact of the fluff on the crunch, and the paladin is therefore a defender in my books.

Also, from personal experience, damage-dealing paladins... are extremely inadvisable in a party where they are the only "defender". If you're playing them like a striker, you're not maximizing their potential, IMHO.

MartinHarper
2009-02-13, 12:42 PM
Smart monsters: ... Smart creatures plan their actions and choose the best course. A vampire might focus its attacks on the cleric who keeps hitting it with radiant damage. ...

So I disagree with Awesomologist - there's nothing wrong with monsters ignoring the paladin if a juicier target presents itself.


My biggest issue is that with plate and a shield my Paladins AC at level 4 is 25 and that is much higher than any of my teammates' AC.

Suggestion: don't use a shield when you are facing smart opponents who target AC. That way you do more damage, and you reduce the AC difference.


No, it means that the DM's choice of strategy (to ignore paladins) worked.

How did it "work"? The monsters all died. The PCs all survived. Some were bloodied, some were not. That's what normally happens. Sure, it's not a terrible strategy, but that doesn't show that it is better than focusing on the paladin. In any case, the optimal strategy for the monsters was to run away, immediately, and keep running.


(... wizards actually have pretty good armor class; but substitute a warlock or rogue for the wizard, and some orc or kobold grunt for a slinger, and my point still stands)

I specified a non-staff cloth wizard with an AC of 14, because that's the lowest AC that anyone might have. In practice, as Saph says, non-defenders tend to have 16-17 AC, while paladins with two-handed weapons have 18 AC.

MartinHarper
2009-02-13, 01:03 PM
Artanis: paladins can use Lay on Hands on themselves, and they have above average surge values, so that's not really an argument.


A more intelligent foe (INT > 12) might see the tactical advantage of ignoring the mark, but the more common monsters (INT < 12) will attack the paladin. No questions asked.

I agree with the concept, but not necessarily with the number 12. I like chocolate, but I am capable of resisting that compulsion. This does not require above-average intellect. Further, divine challenge is not a mind-altering effect. A DM might well decide that while wolves will instinctively respond to the paladin's challenge, goblin soldiers will respond more strongly to the shouts of their commanding officer. Similarly, the Paladin may only have an Int of 10, but he is not going to unthinkingly attack an enemy paladin who has marked him if it is not to his advantage.

Artanis
2009-02-13, 01:23 PM
They get other heals later on, though.

And if I implied that being the healer was the only (or the biggest) reason to get enemies to attack the Paladin, I apologize, because that's not what I meant. It's that people were saying that the Paladin was part Leader as though that was a bad thing, (if not ignoring it altogether) and I meant that that would make the Paladin a better Defender, not a worse one. Sort of like how everybody was raving about the fact that the Fighter's damage output made him a more inviting target, and thus a better Defender, the Paladin's healing capability had a similar effect: making it a more inviting target, and thus a better Defender than just the mark alone would suggest.

Alteran
2009-02-13, 01:35 PM
I believe the "divine compulsion" aspect can only go so far. Even a less intelligent opponent (int <12) should be able to overcome the compulsion if necessary. I would say anybody with an int greater than 8 or 9 would easily take a good opportunity if one presents itself, although they would go after the paladin normally. Anything with less intelligence will probably comply with the challenge for as long as it can.

I think divine challenge would make the paladin the preferred target, but not the only one unless you are faced with an extremely weak-willed foe.

Yakk
2009-02-13, 01:42 PM
That's a pretty offensive form of "defending", though. Compare with the fighter, who says you can't reach his allies (stop movement on an OA, OA on a shift)
You don't understand fighter mark powers.

Let's start with a situation: Enemy is next to defender. Defender has used class feature to mark enemy.

Enemy tries to move away (move action) to get into a position to (say) charge the wizard.

Paladin: Paladin gets an OA, and deals Divine Challenge damage, and creature takes a -2 to the attack roll.

Fighter: Fighter getsn an OA. If it lands, the movement ends. Creature then has to attack the fighter.

Now, how about the creature shifting away, then attacking someone else?

Paladin: Creature shifts away. Then the creature attacks someone else at -2 to their attack roll.

Fighter: Creature shifts away. Fighter gets an IMMEDIATE INTERRUPT attack (not an OA) if it hasn't already been used. If it lands, nothing special happens, because it isn't an OA and the target wasn't moving, just damage. Then the creature attacks someone else at -2 to their attack roll.

---

The Fighter's 'sticky on OA' power is quite nice, but it doesn't apply to shifts. And the Fighter's 'attack someone who shifts/attacks someone else' power is only usable once per round (as it is an immediate action).

For the player building the Defender, it becomes a matter of balancing (making yourself tough) and (making the threat if they don't attack you high).

With a relatively low threat (low charisma on the Paladin), and a very tough Paladin (high AC on the Paladin), monsters quite rightly ignore the Paladin.

Boost up the Paladin's charisma, possibly at the expense of other defenses, and it becomes a worse and worse action to ignore the Paladin.

Similarly for Fighters, it is a balance between the threat and the pointlessness of attacking the Fighter.


and the swordmage who says you can't damage his allies (heavy damage reduction on a mark).

Swordmage shielding aegis is different. But still, at some point, it is worth just smashing through the aegis.

Sendal
2009-02-13, 01:50 PM
I'm not sure inteligence is the primary concern here. Sure an oponent needs a reasonable inteligence score to decide it it tacticaly optimal to attack someone else, but that doesn't mean they have to take the most tacticaly optimal coarse.

An animal (int 2-3 from memory) would have to decide whether the chalenge enrages it (attack the paladin) or intimidates it (run away)

Most characters will be affected by their personality more than anything else. Are they the honerable type? if so, are the paly's allies fighting honorably too, or will they all rally arround and backstab them to death if he accepts the chalenge?


Similarly, the Paladin may only have an Int of 10, but he is not going to unthinkingly attack an enemy paladin who has marked him if it is not to his advantage

I don't know about that. Most paladins I know, upon hearing a scathing chalenge ring across the battlefield from a paladin in service of his sworn enemy, would wade through ranks of soldiers, headless of the flying fireballs and the two fighters draging behind gripping his shins just to answer it.

Awesomologist
2009-02-13, 02:18 PM
So I disagree with Awesomologist - there's nothing wrong with monsters ignoring the paladin if a juicier target presents itself.


I didn't mean to suggest that a monster can't change targets if a better opportunity presents itself, but to completely ignore the Paladin's Divine Challenge just because the DM wants to kill the squishier PC's is a sign of a bad DM.

Artanis
2009-02-13, 02:27 PM
Basically, what I'm seeing is this:

The Fighter makes several enemies stick to him, but can only control a limited area. The Paladin only controls one enemy, but will lock down any enemy on the battlefield, and lock it down hard.



As for the whole "intelligence vs. Divine Challenge" thing, the power itself says it's a magical compulsion that changes the opponent's behavior, regardless of its nature. So fluff-wise, intelligence alone wouldn't be enough to simply overrule Divine Challenge. It would also require awareness that something wasn't quite right with the creature's assessment of how much the Paladin must die (which isn't easy in the chaos of life-or-death combat), and the willpower to break out of an outright compulsion.

tl;dr: Fluff-wise, saying "he's smart" isn't necessarily enough of an excuse for something to ignore Divine Challenge.

Edit: Note, this second part is just a general response to the concept itself, not to any particular poster.

Shadow_Elf
2009-02-13, 02:27 PM
I just picked INT 12 as an arbitrary number. Nothing says that is the case.

And in the event of a goblin commander scaring his troops into ignoring their divine compulsion to attack paladins, that is once again fluff/role-play/situation factoring into the battle's progression, which I mentioned above I was fully in support of.

I agree with Awesomeologist that a DM who plays to beat his or her players is a bad DM. A DM should be happy when his or her encounters challenge a party, but should also be happy when the PCs win. The DM isn't out to perform a TPK, and should be role-playing the monsters in combat, not treating it like some weird Turn-Based Strategy Game where its the DM vs. the PCs.

Saph
2009-02-13, 02:36 PM
I agree with Awesomeologist that a DM who plays to beat his or her players is a bad DM. A DM should be happy when his or her encounters challenge a party, but should also be happy when the PCs win. The DM isn't out to perform a TPK, and should be role-playing the monsters in combat, not treating it like some weird Turn-Based Strategy Game where its the DM vs. the PCs.

I think this is a terrible argument. Sure, the PCs can expect to usually win, but they shouldn't expect to always win. Making every battle a guaranteed victory for the PCs eliminates any challenge from the game. What's the point of fighting if you know you're not allowed to lose? How impressive is a 'hero' who only plays on God Mode?

Having monsters act in suicidal and self-defeating ways is not good role-playing (as you seem to imply), it's bad role-playing. If you're actually trying to play the monsters as living sentient creatures, it makes no sense at all for them to deliberately try to lose.

- Saph

mangosta71
2009-02-13, 02:47 PM
And in the event of a goblin commander scaring his troops into ignoring their divine compulsion to attack paladins, that is once again fluff/role-play/situation factoring into the battle's progression, which I mentioned above I was fully in support of.

In this case, a paladin with half a brain in his head would DC the commander, who would then command ALL of his troops to attack the paladin.

Shadow_Elf
2009-02-13, 03:01 PM
I think this is a terrible argument. Sure, the PCs can expect to usually win, but they shouldn't expect to always win. Making every battle a guaranteed victory for the PCs eliminates any challenge from the game. What's the point of fighting if you know you're not allowed to lose? How impressive is a 'hero' who only plays on God Mode?

Having monsters act in suicidal and self-defeating ways is not good role-playing (as you seem to imply), it's bad role-playing. If you're actually trying to play the monsters as living sentient creatures, it makes no sense at all for them to deliberately try to lose.

- Saph

I never said that the DM should make enemies suicidal, or that they shouldn't take advantage of tactical bonuses such as flanking or strategic dazing. All I meant to convey was that a DM who sacrifices the role-playing aspect of his monsters in combat in order to beat his or her players is a bad DM. The DM should play the monsters the way they think, rather than pulling out combos a monster might not think of.

For example:

The party is fighting a pair of displacer beasts. A doppelganger rogue they defeated earlier appears on the scene. The displacer beasts should not immediately begin trying to flank squishies with the doppelganger and start ignoring the paladin. They might even attack the doppelganger.
On the other hand, the doppelganger may go after a PC with whom s/he/it has a vendetta, ignoring the Paladin's mark in a suicidal attempt at some sort of twisted revenge. Its all in how the monsters are supposed to think, not how the DM, with his subconscious meta-game knowledge, wants them to act.

Awesomologist
2009-02-13, 03:12 PM
I think this is a terrible argument. Sure, the PCs can expect to usually win, but they shouldn't expect to always win. Making every battle a guaranteed victory for the PCs eliminates any challenge from the game. What's the point of fighting if you know you're not allowed to lose? How impressive is a 'hero' who only plays on God Mode?

Having monsters act in suicidal and self-defeating ways is not good role-playing (as you seem to imply), it's bad role-playing. If you're actually trying to play the monsters as living sentient creatures, it makes no sense at all for them to deliberately try to lose.

- Saph

It's not about the PC's always winning. But to completely invalidate an individual PC's role is just bad form. I see nothing wrong with a monster leaving the defender (in this case the Paladin) to go after another PC, especially if that second PC just dealt some incredible damage or status effect against the monster or the monster's leader.
However the way the OP presented the problem of the Paladin being completely ignorable sounded more like a problem with the DM, not with the mechanics of Diving Challenge.
As I said before, a good DM will find ways to engage the defender and still use other monsters to take care squishier PC's. Lurkers and Artillery are very effective at this. Have a Solder, Brute, or a combination of mobs keep the Defender busy while a Lurker sneaks around and tackles other PC's. It gives the encounter an element of surprise and makes a good challenge for the party.

EDIT: Yikes I don't want to seem as though we're ganging up on Saph. Forgive me if it appears so.

Balricaso
2009-02-13, 04:19 PM
If I may use an example from a game I played last week:
I, playing the paladin at lvl 2 had an AC of 21, the closest behind me being the ranger fielding a 17.
We were attacking semi-smart goblins in a pretty wide hall. My squishy thankfully made great use of cover so avoid being shot by sharpshooters and using my challenge and mark abilities I was able to hold a number of skull cleavers.

It is my understanding that the main argument is that it is tactically better for monsters to simply ignore a paladin's mark because it is still easier to hit his allies.
Skull cleavers level 3 brutes, sport a +6 to hit with melee attacks, meaning they need to roll 15+ to hit me, and a 11+ to hit the ranger who also wades into the thick of things.

My particular style of playing has me going straight into the thickest of things, leaving my flanks open for enemies to attack. By making this sacrifice and using marks the situation changed into:
Skull cleavers needing a 13+ to hit me andthe ranger, and my divine challenge target would suffer damage if he chose to ignore me.

It's always been my understanding that being a "defender" means putting yourself in danger to keep your comrades safe. Leaving my flanks open in the thick of things makes me just as viable a target in melee.

The only real problem I face is ranged combatants but in that particular instance my squishies took it upon themselves to end that threat asap.

Saph
2009-02-13, 04:28 PM
On the other hand, the doppelganger may go after a PC with whom s/he/it has a vendetta, ignoring the Paladin's mark in a suicidal attempt at some sort of twisted revenge. Its all in how the monsters are supposed to think.

Well, yes, and how the monsters are supposed to think is generally that they're trying to win. So they're usually going to pick out the most effective tactics they can. Sometimes this'll mean ignoring the defender, sometimes it won't.

It's not about "beating the players", it's about playing the monsters believably. I don't think it's fair to criticise the DM just because he finds that the most sensible thing for the monsters to do is ignore the paladin.

Personally, I find that the whole idea of being a defender is a bit overhyped anyway. If you have 5 monsters to 5 PCs, there's only so much one paladin or fighter can do - sure, you can tie up one of them, but that still leaves 4 others. Only with solos can a defender really control the flow of the battle, which is a big part of the reason solo monsters generally aren't as tough as they're made out to be.

- Saph

Yakk
2009-02-13, 04:45 PM
Actually, you can usually use positioning to encourage 1 to attack you, then your challenge power to get another to attack you.

That's 2 on you, leaving 3 for the rest of the party.

Then, as the number of bad guys decrease, you can still maintain 2 or so on you.

Saph
2009-02-13, 04:55 PM
Actually, you can usually use positioning to encourage 1 to attack you, then your challenge power to get another to attack you.

Sometimes.

Of course, if you do too good a job of this, the monsters will just say "**** this" and all attack you at once. Five simultaneous attacks can one-shot even a Paladin. Actually, if the defender puts himself in a vulnerable position, having every monster attack him is often quite a good tactic, as it means that now the other PCs have to go rescue him instead.

- Saph

Swordguy
2009-02-13, 05:12 PM
Well, yes, and how the monsters are supposed to think is generally that they're trying to win. So they're usually going to pick out the most effective tactics they can. Sometimes this'll mean ignoring the defender, sometimes it won't.

It's not about "beating the players", it's about playing the monsters believably. I don't think it's fair to criticise the DM just because he finds that the most sensible thing for the monsters to do is ignore the paladin.

I'd say it's far less believable for the monsters to suddenly all be able to ignore what's described as a magical compulsion in favor of better tactics. Ignoring that text of the Divine Challenge is no different than the DM who throws Anti-magic fields and amulets around everything so he can "beat" the 3e wizard - an actin condemned many times on these very boards. Invalidating a party member on a regular basis is simply bad DMing - you're there to challenge the PCs AND make sure they have fun. Being ignored/invalidated/consistently unable to use your abilities due to DM fiat is not fun.

FoE
2009-02-13, 05:13 PM
Well, yes, and how the monsters are supposed to think is generally that they're trying to win. So they're usually going to pick out the most effective tactics they can. Sometimes this'll mean ignoring the defender, sometimes it won't.

Well, sometimes they use tactics. Again, the DM's job is not necessarily to defeat the heroes; it's to present a fun and exciting adventure for the PCs. Ignoring the paladin trying to do his job is no fun for him and no fun for the squishy party members behind him.

As well, not all monsters are created equal. Sure, they're out to defeat the heroes, but does that mean every monster suddenly channels Sun Tzu when he goes into combat?

Mindless skeletons and zombies have no notion of strategy, unless they're being specifically directed by a master. Ditto for golems. I see no reason why most beasts or giant insects must think tactically. Oozes certainly don't think. Does a shambling mound? I doubt it.

As for humanoids, most ogres can't even count their toes; why does the light go off in his brain and make him decide to ignore the big armoured guy in the front and strike at the guy in the robes in the back? Does the insane kuo-toa pause in his madness to change the target of his harpoon from the fighter in the front to the warlock in the middle?

And most demons are just eager to get their fangs around the first throat they can find; why should they ignore the holy warrior whacking at them with a sword in the name of Pelor or Kord? Are most slaads even capable of coherent thought? I thought it was all "TURQUOISE BICYCLE FINS ACTUALIZE RADISHES GREENLY!"

Saph
2009-02-13, 05:18 PM
I'd say it's far less believable for the monsters to suddenly all be able to ignore what's described as a magical compulsion in favor of better tactics. Ignoring that text of the Divine Challenge is no different than the DM who throws Anti-magic fields and amulets around everything so he can "beat" the 3e wizard - an actin condemned many times on these very boards. Invalidating a party member on a regular basis is simply bad DMing - you're there to challenge the PCs AND make sure they have fun. Being ignored/invalidated/consistently unable to use your abilities due to DM fiat is not fun.

Divine Challenge isn't a domination effect. If it was intended to work that way, its text would say "The monster may not attack attack anyone but you". It doesn't, so it's quite obvious the designers wanted to give the monsters the ability to ignore the ability if necessary (that's why they put a consequence in for refusing to do it).

If the monster ignores you and hits an ally, your Divine Challenge damages him. Your ability works. This is not being "invalidated", and it's not remotely comparable to Anti-Magic Fielding everything in a 3e campaign. Really, I wish you guys would stop blowing this out of proportion.


As well, not all monsters are created equal. Mindless skeletons and zombies have no notion of strategy, unless they're being specifically directed by a master. Ditto for golems. I see no reason why most beasts or giant insects must think tactically. Oozes certainly don't think. Most ogres can't even count their toes; why does the light go off in his brain and make him decide to ignore the big armoured guy in the front and strike at the guy in the robes in the back? And most demons are just eager to get their fangs around the first throat they can find; why should they ignore the holy warrior whacking at them with a sword in the name of Pelor or Kord?

It depends on the monster.

The way I've been running my Red Hand of Doom game is that the 'mook' monsters - grunts, sergeants, ogres, undead, random beasties - generally fight fairly stupidly, as you suggest. However, when the party come up against the 'special' enemies such as the dragons and the Wyrmlords (the Red Hand generals) I play them to the best of my ability. That includes, for example:

• hitting the most profitable target at every opportunity (rather than the most obvious one)
• adapting to whatever tactics the party uses
• fleeing as soon as they're in serious danger of losing unless they have a good reason not to.

I find this makes the battles a lot more interesting and memorable, as well as more believable - these guys are supposed to be the leaders of a horde powerful enough to threaten countries, and they did not get to their position by being stupid.

- Saph

Swordguy
2009-02-13, 05:31 PM
Divine Challenge isn't a domination effect. If it was intended to work that way, its text would say "The monster may not attack attack anyone but you". It doesn't, so it's quite obvious the designers wanted to give the monsters the ability to ignore the ability if necessary (that's why they put a consequence in for refusing to do it).

If the monster ignores you and hits an ally, your Divine Challenge damages him. Your ability works. This is not being "invalidated", and it's not remotely comparable to Anti-Magic Fielding everything in a 3e campaign. Really, I wish you guys would stop blowing this out of proportion.

I'd say that the ability to ignore the DC was put in there so the DM could ignore it in dramatically appropriate moments, not so every critter could take a moment out of their round to chortle at the Paladin as they run by him on their way to eat the squishies. The solo who, through an effort of will, stops himself from stepping toward the paladin, pauses to deliver a one-liner about how the power of the Paladin's god isn't strong enough to defeat him, and who then launches himself into the Warlock is a pretty awesome scene. But if it was a magical compulsion with solid "you MUST attack here" rules, the GM is handcuffed. He doesn't even have the option to ignore it in a dramatically appropriate moment.

Divine Challenge is one of the Paladin's class-defining abilities. It's a large chunk of what makes him a defender. Taking it away is removing one of the major reasons TO play a paladin. Tell you what - and you're right, the AMF example was hyperbolic - next time you run a 3e game, make sure there's a barbarian, and make sure that most monsters are able to ignore the benefits from the barbarian's Rage ability. Or run a 3e game where 90% of the creatures are undead, and don't allow the rogue any non-core material (meaning no augment gems or what-have-you) so his sneak attack ability is negated. See how the players enjoy that. This is the same thing. Regardless of whether the rules technically allow you to do it or not, you should not largely invalidate a PC - part of your responsibility is to make sure the PCs have fun. Or is that one of those "grognard" things - making sure people enjoy playing the game?

EDIT: Crap - looking at your edit, it seems we agree more than I realized. Dramatically appropriate moments, not every mook or critter ignoring the Challenge (which, to be fair, I got more from Kuald anyway).

Doug Lampert
2009-02-13, 05:38 PM
Let me get this straight.

If you ignore the Paladin then he'll average doing substantially more damage per round than ANYONE else, including a flanking Rogue, and you take a -2 to all attacks. And allowing this is considered a GOOD think by the DM for the monsters to do because it's somehow a winning tactic?

I'd hate to see what he thinks is a bad idea for the monsters.

This allegedly better tactic has just made the paladin into an uber-character, does more damage than anyone else, has more surges than anyone else, and has healing powers so if you actually DO manage to take anyone down the Paladin lets them get back up.

Can I have a party with three paladins and two squishies against this tactic? It should rock against anything but solos and work pretty well against them!

There are times to ingore the Paladin, but then there are times to ignore the fighter, and those times are about the same.

If the monsters are fighting with as their sole goal being to kill SOMEONE prior to going down then ignoring the paladin may be a good idea. If they're fighting to win it's normally insane, they'll need to take the paladin out sooner or later and sooner is likely to save more damage than delaying it.

FoE
2009-02-13, 05:40 PM
It depends on the monster.

The way I've been running my Red Hand of Doom game is that the 'mook' monsters - grunts, sergeants, ogres, undead, random beasties - generally fight fairly stupidly, as you suggest. However, when the party come up against the 'special' enemies such as the dragons and the Wyrmlords (the Red Hand generals) I play them to the best of my ability. That includes, for example:

• hitting the most profitable target at every opportunity (rather than the most obvious one)
• adapting to whatever tactics the party uses
• fleeing as soon as they're in serious danger of losing unless they have a good reason not to.

I find this makes the battles a lot more interesting and memorable, as well as more believable - these guys are supposed to be the leaders of a horde powerful enough to threaten countries, and they did not get to their position by being stupid.

And I agree with that. There are plenty of smart mooks and there are smart generals; it's just that they're not ALL smart mooks and ALL smart generals.

Why are we arguing again? It seems like we're on the same page here.

Saph
2009-02-13, 05:41 PM
Divine Challenge is one of the Paladin's class-defining abilities. It's a large chunk of what makes him a defender. Taking it away is removing one of the major reasons TO play a paladin.

You're not taking it away. The monster's still taking the mark penalties, and it's still getting zapped with radiant damage every time it attacks anyone else.

In fact, the most effective paladin I've seen so far in 4e depended on the monsters attacking her ally, an Artful Dodger rogue. She'd move up next to a monster, attack and mark, and the Artful Dodger rogue on his turn would move straight past the monster, drawing an AoO. The AoO would miss due to the stacked penalties, the monster would get zapped with the Divine Challenge, and the rogue would keep moving past the monster and hit it again with his Sneak Attack. Pretty effective.

- Saph

CarpeGuitarrem
2009-02-13, 05:45 PM
Minor thing, Saph: an AoO isn't mandatory. It's something that may be done. So that tactic doesn't auto-work.

Knaight
2009-02-13, 06:00 PM
In which case the monsters are now allowing a rogue free maneuverability around the battlefield. Its a win win situation. As for the paladins mark, they can also use positioning to protect allies. The mark is ideal for when the other person liable to be attacked isn't some exceptionally squishy character. Say a paladin standing next to a high defense rogue, who is slightly easier to kill, but that 7 damage a round is going to deter it.

MartinHarper
2009-02-13, 06:27 PM
Divine Challenge has rules for creatures ignoring the challenge. Further, the fluff says "...searing it with divine light if it ignores the challenge". Sure, the rules say "... It's a magical compulsion that affects the creature's behaviour...". Specifically, it affects the creature's behaviour by giving it a -2 penalty to attack rolls and searing it with divine light.

If a DM wants to say that, in his campaign, it additionally affects the creature's behaviour by giving it an uncontrollable urge to make love to the Paladin, or whatever else, that's great. However, that interpretation is not required by the rules.

If the DM always has creatures responding to the challenge by attacking the paladin, isn't that taking away the class-defining feature of the paladin: the ability to sear creatures of the night with divine light when they cowardly ignore his challenge?

Shadow_Elf
2009-02-13, 06:48 PM
If the DM always has creatures responding to the challenge by attacking the paladin, isn't that taking away the class-defining feature of the paladin: the ability to sear creatures of the night with divine light when they cowardly ignore his challenge?

Thats just it - its a common misconception. Divine Challenge serves its purpose when its subject attacks the Paladin. The potential damage looming over its head is the method in which it accomplishes this goal.

Plus, the paladin has other ways to sear cowardly creatures of the night with divine light :smallwink:.

huttj509
2009-02-14, 03:25 AM
My view of the "magical compulsion which affects the creatures behavior":

You're attacking a group of adventurers. Mook or master, it doesn't matter. As you raise your weapon, you suddenly 'know' (mainly as a strong feeling) "If I attack his friends, I'm gonna get burned." The knowledge or pain from the damage whatever disrupts your attack slightly, making it less accurate.

The paladin did not necessarily call you out yelling over the battlefield (it would seem kinda silly if they did each round). You can choose to take the burn if you think attacking someone else is worth it, you were magically compelled with the feeling that if you did not attack the paladin, there would be consequences. What you choose depends on the situation, who you are, etc.

Merriam-webster.com:

1: to drive or urge forcefully or irresistibly <hunger compelled him to eat>
2: to cause to do or occur by overwhelming pressure <public opinion compelled her to sign the bill>

Compel does not have to be irresistible. I think that the paladin's ability is definitely more than "attack me or I'll glare at you sternly", and that with the threat of magical retribution compel is a not inappropriate word. It's not even something the paladin triggers when the attack is made. It's set. The force is in place, and you WILL be burned if you attack someone else.

MartinHarper
2009-02-14, 09:28 AM
Divine Challenge serves its purpose when its subject attacks the Paladin. The potential damage looming over its head is the method in which it accomplishes this goal.

I'd say that there are two purposes. One is to have the scene where the 'lawful evil' knight turns and accepts the paladin's challenge, and they duel to the death. The other is to have the scene where the 'chaotic evil' goblin queen attacks the paladin's companion and gets burned for her cowardice.

Edea
2009-02-14, 12:58 PM
I don't think divine challenge (or any mark, for that matter) works in a vacuum, though. Usually it's combined with whatever standard action the paladin decided to take that turn (such as Enfeebling Strike, which tacks on an additional -2 penalty for all of the monster's attacks, resulting in a total -4 to anyone who isn't the paladin).

Also, other characters (especially strikers and perhaps to an extent controllers) have powers which make them more difficult to hit even when used alone, so that when combined with the challenge/defender actions, it makes it more likely that the defender is targetted. At ont point we were fighting a monster that had -2 to hit the paladin, but...(I think -6 or -7?)...to hit anyone else, due to the teamwork involved.

However, I -DO- agree that the 'tack on a little radiant' bit isn't much of a deterrant (is IS a deterrant, but one that isn't terribly difficult to shrug off), and certainly not any more of one than an interrupt MBA. Frankly that part's a bit lame IMO.

One thing I've seen repeatedly when playing through a lot of different 4e games is this: 'rider effects' (the things that happen that don't necessarily involve direct damage) are far more dangerous than the actual damage being dealt by a given power or ability. They are also particularly effective deterrants.

If, for example, instead of dealing damage, ignoring a paladin's mark caused the enemy to suffer from the Weakened status for a number of rounds equal to the Paladin's Wisdom modifier (starting with the round containing the attack that provoked the challenge), or even until the end of that enemy's next turn, suddenly it is now a very bad idea to ignore that defender. Worse, there might be a paragon or epic tier feat which upgrades the inflicted status to Blindness; now it's REALLY not a good idea to ignore him.

So maybe talk with your DM about upgrading the rider effect of the mark? I also noticed that many soldier monsters can mark and make MBAs as well, but their basic attacks have rider effects like daze and immobilize, making them exceedingly difficult to ignore if they close with you. That might help; though others will consider this overpowering, in the OP's case it'll likely fix some of the problems they're having with pallies (since they seem to not be playing within the paradigm Swordguy was referring to).

AgentPaper
2009-02-14, 09:14 PM
I don't think the mark really needs upgrades. It's already a powerful ability, far more powerful (in my opinion) than many seem to think. That damage is nothing to sneeze at, it builds up very, very quickly. And really, you'd have to play the enemies as suicidal much of the time to ignore the paladin and try and take out the wizard or whatnot, which will almost surely cost it it's life even if it succeeds. If you make it cripple the monster into uselessness, then you're going to get the case where the paladin hides in the back sniping with his divine mark, while the rest of the party whales on the enemies, who either try to get past them, taking all sorts of AoOs, or futilely try to attack the rest of the party for half damage. And if you tack blinded on top of that, things start getting pretty damn ridiculous. Weakened and blinded are really, REALLY powerful status effects to be throwing around with no attack roll, no save. Solo monsters will quickly becomes useless lumps.

In short, bad, bad idea. I know you mean well, but giving weakened alone would break the game, and blinded would just make it into a shooting gallery.

However, I could definitely see a paragon class that got some extra goodies to throw on to their divine challenge damage. Possibly a once per-day weakened until they save, or once-per day blinded with an attack roll and also until they save. Stunned for a round or dazed until save might also work as encounter powers.

Oracle_Hunter
2009-02-14, 10:13 PM
However, I could definitely see a paragon class that got some extra goodies to throw on to their divine challenge damage. Possibly a once per-day weakened until they save, or once-per day blinded with an attack roll and also until they save. Stunned for a round or dazed until save might also work as encounter powers.

So, like this:

Encounter ✦ Divine,Weapon
Standard Action Melee weapon
Target: One creature
Attack: Strength + 4 vs. AC
Hit: 1[W] damage. If the target is marked, it is also weakened and dazed by this attack for as long as the mark remains in effect.

Or this:

When an enemy that you currently challenge attacks one of your allies, whether the attack hits or misses, that ally regains hit points equal to one-half your level + your Wisdom modifier.

These are already Paladin Paragon Path powers. They work quite well too :smallbiggrin:

Kaliban
2009-02-14, 10:48 PM
Let me get this straight.

If you ignore the Paladin then he'll average doing substantially more damage per round than ANYONE else, including a flanking Rogue, and you take a -2 to all attacks. And allowing this is considered a GOOD think by the DM for the monsters to do because it's somehow a winning tactic?

I'd hate to see what he thinks is a bad idea for the monsters.

This allegedly better tactic has just made the paladin into an uber-character, does more damage than anyone else, has more surges than anyone else, and has healing powers so if you actually DO manage to take anyone down the Paladin lets them get back up.



Exactly.

In 4E, defenders work by imposing of a tactical choice to their opponent: either it hits them, or it has to pay a price.
With paladins, this price is inescapable damage.
There are circonstances when a monster can choose to ignore the challenge, but the price will be high. If the DM chooses to ignore the challenge every time, then , yes, the Paladin can be seen as a striker. As does the fighter, or the assault swordmage. It 's not a problem with the rules, but a problem with bad tactical choices from the DM, or with a misundertanding of the defender's role.

Edea
2009-02-14, 11:02 PM
Well, another problem with the mark's secondary effect (damage being easily ignored or not aside) is that it is Charisma-based. It should be Wisdom-based, so as to balance out the class feature's effectiveness between the two paladin builds (actually I don't like it in general when class features key off of primaries; the same goes for a cleric's Healer's Lore, that should be Charisma-based, not Wisdom-based).

Also, the status effects suggested were merely examples; one could make custom status effects as sort of an 'in between,' or assign a different penalty not associated with direct damage. Blinded is quite extreme, yes (I saw that as sort of an epic destiny feature); Weakened, on the other hand, I'm not terribly convinced about, since enemies in 4e tend to depend on rider effects rather than 'base' raw damage output to deplete PC resources (weakened does nothing to prevent these), and I don't believe more than one enemy at a time is going to be suffering from it if you use the 'until end of next turn' interpretation. Also, eventually you will find/fight monsters immune or extremely resistant to radiant (many more than there are now, I would think); that will not be a pleasant experience.

I have indeed seen marks ignored multiple times with minimal consequence to the enemy (probably not as often as Kurald has, but it definitely gets disregarded), though the types of enemies that can ignore different types of marks vary significantly...EXCEPT a Shielding Aegis. That thing seems to attract a marked enemy to a Swordmage like flies to poo.

Douglas
2009-02-15, 06:05 PM
Ok, folks, I have done the math for a sample encounter both with the monsters ignoring the paladin and with them going for the paladin first. The OP is, to a point, correct. When the monsters concentrated on the paladin first they ended up doing substantially less damage before being defeated than when they ignored the paladin and went after squishier party members first.

I used strictly average damage, adjusted for chance to hit, and exactly equivalent monsters and tactics except for which party member the monsters concentrate on. With the monsters attacking the paladin, the fight ended with the paladin somewhat wounded and one other party member lightly damaged (area attacks) but no one really badly hurt. With the monsters ignoring the paladin, the fight ended with the wizard just barely conscious despite having received both of the cleric's healing words, plus the same collateral damage from area attacks. In the second case, the paladin's damage output was within about 1 point of the ranger's, placing him firmly in striker territory.

In order for the paladin to function as a defender rather than a somewhat unorthodox striker, he must a) not use a shield or be facing monsters that primarily attack non-AC defenses, b) face a single monster that accounts for an abnormally large portion of an encounter's offense, or c) have a DM who just follows the mark as a matter of course. Preferably some combination of the three. It may also work if the entire rest of the party has unusually high defenses that are nearly on par with the paladin's, but however you go about it the disparity between the paladin's defenses and the rest of the party has to be small. Even a 3 point difference is pushing it. More than that, and the paladin is functionally a striker that doesn't normally get attacked by smart monsters.

NecroRebel
2009-02-15, 06:31 PM
Alright, what was the sample encounter and the sample party? If we're to believe your statements, you've gotta give us more information than you have. After all, I could very easily claim that I mathematically showed that a level 1 Wizard can outmelee Orcus, Demon Prince of the Undead even if I actually haven't :smalltongue:

So, post your method so the rest of us can see if we can spot any flaws in it. Then, if your method is acceptable, others can try different permutations of the attempt and see if your conclusion holds true in all cases or if yours is just a fluke.

For what is that, but SCIENCE!

For SCIENCE! I was going to post a graphic from Girl Genius, but I couldn't find a good one on such short notice. Little help?

fractic
2009-02-15, 06:52 PM
Ok, folks, I have done the math for a sample encounter both with the monsters ignoring the paladin and with them going for the paladin first. The OP is, to a point, correct. When the monsters concentrated on the paladin first they ended up doing substantially less damage before being defeated than when they ignored the paladin and went after squishier party members first.

So what does this experiment prove exactly? It proves that monsters are better of ignoring the paladin. It does not prove that paladins aren't defenders. In order to prove that you would also do this encounter with a fighter instead of a paladin twice. This to see if the fighter is a better defender or if the real issue is that ignoring the defender is always a good idea.

Finaly you would need to run the encounter again with a striker instead of a paladin and compare. Probably the paladin will add more defensive value than the striker does.

Only if a fighter does a lot better than the paladin when ignored and when the striker manages to defend the party as good as the paladin you can claim that the paladin isn't a defender.

Douglas
2009-02-15, 07:10 PM
I ignored dailies for my test.

Sample party:
Level 1 dragonborn paladin, 18 strength, 12 con, 10 dex, 8 int, 12 wisdom, 18 charisma, toughness, longsword and shield, used Piercing Smite first round, Enfeebling Strike after.
Level 1 elf ranger, 16 strength, 12 con, 18 dex, 8 int, 14 wis, 10 charisma, Lethal Hunter, two longswords, used Two-Fanged Strike first round, Twin Strike after.
Level 1 eladrin wizard, 8 strength, 10 con, 13 dex, 20 int, 14 wis, 10 charisma, Expanded Spellbook, used Ray of Enfeeblement first round, Cloud of Daggers after.
Level 1 dwarf cleric, 14 strength, 12 con, 13 dex, 8 int, 18 wis, 14 charisma, Astral Fire, used Divine Glow first round, Sacred Flame after, Healing Word as needed.
Each party member had basic +1 gear for each of armor, neck slot, and weapon/implement.

Sample encounter:
The level 1 sample goblin encounter in the Monster Manual. 2 Goblin Warriors, 1 Goblin Blackblade, 2 Fire Beetles.

Tactics: Everyone takes 10 on initiative. Not technically legal, but fair and consistent. Monsters focus on either the paladin or the wizard depending on which I'm testing. Party focuses on the beetles, one at a time, then the blackblade, then the warriors. I judged hitting one extra target with the beetles' fire spray seemed fair, along with Divine Glow hitting both beetles and the blackblade (they're all clustered around one target) and buffing that target plus the ranger. The Blackblade did not have combat advantage in the first round, but was assumed to flank with the beetles until they died in subsequent rounds. Both warriors were assumed to always be moving enough to get their Great Position benefit. All attacks are calculated as dealing exactly average damage multiplied by the chance to hit.

I did my calculations at a friend's house and didn't save them, but the paladin's high defenses compared to the wizard reduced the monsters damage when they focused on him a lot more than enough to compensate for the lack of Divine Challenge damage.


So what does this experiment prove exactly? It proves that monsters are better of ignoring the paladin. It does not prove that paladins aren't defenders. In order to prove that you would also do this encounter with a fighter instead of a paladin twice. This to see if the fighter is a better defender or if the real issue is that ignoring the defender is always a good idea.
It proves that paladins do not satisfy the canonical definition of a defender - a character that monsters should not ignore. How paladins compare to other defenders isn't really relevant to the issue, how they compare to what the defender's role is explicitly defined as is.


Finaly you would need to run the encounter again with a striker instead of a paladin and compare. Probably the paladin will add more defensive value than the striker does.
I don't even have to repeat my calculations to tell you how that would work. Replacing the paladin with a copy of the ranger would have the encounter go almost exactly the same as the time the monsters focused on the wizard. Damage output on both sides would go up by a point or two and that would be it.

greenknight
2009-02-15, 08:14 PM
I ignored dailies for my test.

Sample party:
Level 1 dragonborn paladin, 18 strength, 12 con, 10 dex, 8 int, 12 wisdom, 18 charisma, toughness, longsword and shield, used Piercing Smite first round, Enfeebling Strike after.
Level 1 elf ranger, 16 strength, 12 con, 18 dex, 8 int, 14 wis, 10 charisma, Lethal Hunter, two longswords, used Two-Fanged Strike first round, Twin Strike after.
Level 1 eladrin wizard, 8 strength, 10 con, 13 dex, 20 int, 14 wis, 10 charisma, Expanded Spellbook, used Ray of Enfeeblement first round, Cloud of Daggers after.
Level 1 dwarf cleric, 14 strength, 12 con, 13 dex, 8 int, 18 wis, 14 charisma, Astral Fire, used Divine Glow first round, Sacred Flame after, Healing Word as needed.
Each party member had basic +1 gear for each of armor, neck slot, and weapon/implement.

There's part of your problem. The Dragonborn Paladin should have used Dragon Breath at some point, if the foes were all bunched together. And Toughness isn't a particularly good feat choice for a Paladin, since they already have lots of hitpoints. It doesn't do anything at all if the foes are ignoring the Paladin, like in the second part of your test. Better to choose a Feat which is actually useful to the character.

The Wizard is also poorly thought out. I assume you have an Orb Wizard there, which isn't really all that good until Paragon IMO. I think it's better for Heroic Tier Wizards to use Staffs or Wands, personally. And the chosen Feat is also nearly useless. Generally, a 1st level Wizard is much better off choosing Leather Armor proficiency (again, IMO).

I'm not sure about the Wizard's tactics either. Enfeebling Strike isn't what I'd recommend for an encounter power. If it is an Orb Wizard, I'd go with either Chill Strike or Icy Terrain, depending on what At-Will powers you've chosen. Speaking of which, Ray of Frost is a better choice than Cloud of Daggers in most cases, and the second at-will should be either Scorching Burst (in which case you'd probably go with Icy Terrain for your encounter power) or Thunderwave (with Chill Strike for your encounter power). Given this Wizard's stats, Thunderwave + Chill Strike would be the way to go, IMO. So any enemies which make it to the squishy Wizard get hit with a Thunderwave, and the Wizard just moves back, forcing them to take a double move just to get into melee range again, which will just provoke another Thunderwave...


Tactics: Everyone takes 10 on initiative. Not technically legal, but fair and consistent. Monsters focus on either the paladin or the wizard depending on which I'm testing. Party focuses on the beetles, one at a time, then the blackblade, then the warriors. I judged hitting one extra target with the beetles' fire spray seemed fair, along with Divine Glow hitting both beetles and the blackblade (they're all clustered around one target) and buffing that target plus the ranger. The Blackblade did not have combat advantage in the first round, but was assumed to flank with the beetles until they died in subsequent rounds. Both warriors were assumed to always be moving enough to get their Great Position benefit. All attacks are calculated as dealing exactly average damage multiplied by the chance to hit.

Since it's a Dragonborn Paladin, how come the character didn't use Dragon Breath on those bunched targets? And how come the Wizard wasn't using a mass damage attack like Thunderwave or Scorching Burst?


It proves that paladins do not satisfy the canonical definition of a defender - a character that monsters should not ignore. How paladins compare to other defenders isn't really relevant to the issue, how they compare to what the defender's role is explicitly defined as is.

This proves that Wizards shouldn't follow the build and tactics you gave your Wizard.


I don't even have to repeat my calculations to tell you how that would work. Replacing the paladin with a copy of the ranger would have the encounter go almost exactly the same as the time the monsters focused on the wizard. Damage output on both sides would go up by a point or two and that would be it.

Did the Paladin always miss with Enfeebling Strike? Because that -2 to hit can be quite significant, especially on top of the -2 to hit penalty from marking if the foe is ignoring the Paladin.

Douglas
2009-02-15, 08:45 PM
I acknowledge the builds and tactics I used can be improved on, but I don't see how any of the potential issues you pointed out would have any bearing on the choice of whether to ignore the paladin or not.

Aron Times
2009-02-15, 10:30 PM
Try this.

Let the party fight an evil standard party with an evil paladin taking on the defender role. Have the paladin mark the most damaging party member and see how long he survives if he keeps ignoring the paladin's Divine Challenge.

Doug Lampert
2009-02-15, 10:32 PM
Well, another problem with the mark's secondary effect (damage being easily ignored or not aside) is that it is Charisma-based. It should be Wisdom-based, so as to balance out the class feature's effectiveness between the two paladin builds (actually I don't like it in general when class features key off of primaries; the same goes for a cleric's Healer's Lore, that should be Charisma-based, not Wisdom-based).

But making it Charisma based DOES balance effectiveness between the two builds! The strength based Paladin has a better OA for people who ignore him and does extra damage to bypassing opponents with the more accurate and damaging OA, the charisma based Paladin has a better Divine Challenge.

The OA and Divine Challenge are both part of forcing people not to ignore the front line to get to the back rank faster, and one Paladin build is better at OA and the other at Divine Challenge. Two different ways to hold off the enemy.

NecroRebel
2009-02-16, 12:24 AM
I acknowledge the builds and tactics I used can be improved on, but I don't see how any of the potential issues you pointed out would have any bearing on the choice of whether to ignore the paladin or not.

Alterations to stats:Wizard takes Leather Armor Proficiency; now, it has 17 AC, only 3 worse than the Paladin's 20 with plate and heavy shield. Further, it should be a Staffizard, boosting its AC to 18, since Orbizards aren't particularly worthwhile until Paragon tier and Wandizards aren't practical. Should also probably use those wasted points in Wisdom to pump Con to 14 instead. Now the Wizard is just as hard for the Paladin's mark to hit as the Paladin himself. Also, it should be using Ray of Frost on the one of the unmarked enemies that would otherwise go for the Cleric instead of the Paladin, as the Cleric is the only squishy and is forced to be within a Goblin's charge range to attack.

Also, why the heck is the Ranger's Strength lower than it's Dexterity if it's going to melee? There's little to no reason to it that way, and it lowers hit%. The Ranger should either A) be Archery-focused or B) not be an Elf. Further, Lethal Hunter gives a smaller average damage bonus at level 1 than Weapon Focus if you'll be using Twin Strike since Quarry damage is only possible 1/round. Change Ranger to wield a Longbow (changing combat style doesn't matter, and it may be better to retain Two-Weapon style as Toughness > Defensive Mobility), drop Str to pump Dex to 20, and fight at the longest possible range to avoid attacks. Ranger then wears Hide and gets 18 AC, so even-odds for marked targets to hit Ranger and Paladin.

The Dwarf, with his Chain armor, has only 16 AC, so the monsters should be attempting to take him down if they're going for the squishiest party member. However, Dwarves are relatively tough to take down due to their minor-action Second Wind, and this one will be gaining temporary hit points every couple rounds from Sacred Flame. He shouldn't be being taken down very easily. Since he probably doesn't need the damage bonus very much, we'll also drop Astral Fire in favor of Scale Armor Proficiency, increasing his AC to 17. We'll also drop Strength to 11 to boost Charisma to 16.

All this alters who is most beneficial to attack. The Wizard is not the first target, as it has higher AC than the Cleric and can fight from twice the range, and the Ranger shouldn't even be considered due to its even larger effective range. The question is, is taking an extra 7 damage per round worth it for the marked monster to go after a 5% better chance to hit the Cleric?

Hit%s and average damage/hit:Each Warrior has a 55% chance to hit the Cleric naturally, dropping to 45% if they're marked, dealing 8 damage or 5.5 if they're not marked; the Wizard is Slowing the unmarked one with Ray of Frost, making Great Positioning damage impossible. The Blackblade's chances are 50% and 40%, respectively, dealing 5.5 damage or 8 with combat advantage. Finally, the most unfair level 1 monsters in the game, hereafter referred to as the MULMiGs (also known as Fire Beetles) have a 50/40% to-hit for 7 damage or a 33% chance for a 65/55% chance of 10.5 damage.

The Paladin has +7 to hit, hitting the Warriors 50% of the time, Blackblade 55% of the time, and MULMiGs 70% of the time, dealing 8.5 damage while Divine Challenge deals 7. The Ranger has +7 to hit as well, but double attacks radically alter effective hit chance and damage dealt: 25% chance for 0 damage on Warriors, 20.25% on the Blackblade, and 9% on the MULMiGs; 25% for 16.5 on the Warriors, 30.25% on the Blackblade, and 49% on the MULMiGs; 50% chance for 10 on the Warriors, 49.5% on the Blackblade, or 42% on the MULMiGs. The Wizard has +5 to hit, targeting Fortitude, for a 60%, 65%, and 60% to-hit dealing 8.5. The Cleric targets Reflex at +4, for 45%, 50%, and 60% dealing 7.5 and gaining 3 temporary hit points.

Paladin has 27 hit points, Ranger 29, Wizard 24, and Cleric 24; Warriors have 29, Blackblade 25, and MULMiGs 32.

How things play out:For tactics on both sides, I will be assuming the following:

First, the MULMiGs will not have an opportunity to use their Fire Spray on more than one opponent, as the Paladin is the only meleer in the group and everyone else can fight from beyond the 3-square range.
Second, the monsters will focus fire on the Cleric first, as he is squishiest and is the party healer, or the Paladin first, as he is marking them and thus the subject of this inquiry.
Third, the party will have the Paladin mark one Warrior initially while the party deals with the other (the Wizard can drastically reduce a Warrior's DPR with Ray of Frost's Slow effect).
Fourth, actually I'm just going to assume no encounter powers except for Healing Words and Second Winds on anyone's part. Since this battle is skewed towards the goblins anyway (500 xp value vs. 4 PCs is a level 2 encounter, not 1), we'll just skew it more, yes? It doesn't really matter anyway as far as I can tell.

So, without further ado, let us examine:

Form 1: Monsters Ignore Divine Challenges
Round 1 involves the Goblins going before any marks or effect come into play. Cleric gets full set of 5 attacks, averaging 19.8 damage. Party then goes: Paladin Divine Challenges and attacks one of the Warriors, dealing 4.25 damage, everyone else attacks the other Warrior, averaging 17.6 damage. Cleric uses a Healing Word, regaining 17.3 including the temp. HP from Sacred Flame.

After Round 1, Cleric is at 21.5, Warrior 1 is at 24.75, and Warrior 2 is at 11.4.

Round 2 again begins with the Cleric taking 5 attacks; however, this time the damage is different as Warrior 1 is taking the Divine Challenge penalty and Warrior 2 is Slowed, losing Great Positioning bonus. Cleric takes 14.124. Warrior 1 takes Divine Challenge damage and Paladin attack damage for a total of 11.25, while everyone else except the Cleric attacks Warrior 2, averaging 14.225. The Cleric attacks Warrior 1 instead, averaging 3.375. Cleric uses a second Healing Word, again regaining 17.3, and Warrior 2 drops.

Cleric is at 24.1, Warrior 1 is at 10.135, Warrior 2 is dead.

Round 3 has the Cleric taking 4 attacks for 14.6, followed by the Paladin killing Warrior 1 with Divine Challenge + attack damage of 11.25. Paladin then marks the Blackblade and everyone else goes to town on it; 19.21625 damage. Cleric uses Second Wind, regaining 9.5 total.

Cleric is at 19, Warriors are dead, Blackblade is at 5.78375.

Round 4 begins with the Cleric taking 3 attacks for 10.2 damage; 7 Divine Challenge damage kills the Blackblade, so Paladin marks one of the MULMiGs and everyone hits it for 27.835 damage; Cleric gains 1.8 temporary HP.

Cleric is at 10.6, all goblins are dead, MULMiG 1 is at 4.165.

Round 5 is the punultimate round; the Cleric is attacked twice for 6.3 damage, with Divine Challenge killing MULMiG 1. Everyone attacks MULMiG 2 and the Paladin marks it, dealing 27.835 damage and giving the Cleric another 1.8 HP.

Cleric is at 6.1, MULMiG 2 is last enemy standing at 4.165.

Round 6 ends the battle as the Cleric is attacked for 2.8 damage, followed immediately by the MULMiG dying to Divine Challenge.

Cleric ends battle at 3.3 HP.

Form 2: Challenged enemies always attack Paladin
Round 1 involves the Goblins going before any marks or effect come into play. Cleric gets full set of 5 attacks, averaging 19.8 damage. Party then goes: Paladin Divine Challenges and attacks one of the Warriors, dealing 4.25 damage, everyone else attacks the other Warrior, averaging 17.6 damage. Cleric uses a Healing Word, regaining 17.3 including the temp. HP from Sacred Flame.

After Round 1, Cleric is at 21.5, Warrior 1 is at 24.75, and Warrior 2 is at 11.4.

Round 2 has Warrior 1 hitting the Paladin and everything else hitting the Cleric. Paladin takes 2.8 damage, Cleric takes 14.025. The Ranger and Wizard attack Warrior 2, while the Paladin and Cleric hit Warrior 1. Warrior 2 takes 14.225, dropping it, while Warrior 1 takes 7.625. Cleric regains 1.35 HP from Sacred Flame and uses second wind for another 8.

After Round 2, Cleric is at 16.825, Paladin is at 24.2, Warrior 2 is down, and Warrior 1 is at 17.125.

Round 3 has Warrior 1 attacking the Paladin againwhile the MULMiGs and Blackblade hits the Cleric. Paladin takes 2.8, Cleric takes 11. Everyone but the Cleric attack Warrior 1, dealing 18.475 damage and dropping it. Paladin marks and Cleric attacks the Blackblade, dealing 3.75 damage and regaining 1.5. Cleric also uses second Healing Word, regaining another 13.5.

After Round 3, Cleric is at 20.825, Paladin at 21.4, Warriors are dead, and Blackblade is at 21.25.

Round 4 has the Blackblade hit the Paladin while the MULMiGs attack the Cleric. Paladin takes 2.8, Cleric takes 7. Everyone whomps on the Blackblade, dealing 23.89125 and dropping it and giving the Cleric another 1.8 temp. HP. Paladin marks MULMiG 1.

After Round 4, all goblins are dead, Cleric is at 15.625, and Paladin is at 18.6.

Round 5 has one MULMiG attack the Cleric and Paladin, dealing 3.5 and 2.45 damage, respectively. Everyone attacks MULMiG 1, dealing 27.835 damage, and Cleric gains 1.8 HP.

After Round 5, all goblins are dead, Cleric is at 13.925, Paladin is at 16.5, and MULMiG 1 is at 4.165.

Round 6 is the penultimate round and, once again, has one MULMiG attack the Cleric and Paladin for 3.5 and 2.45 damage. The wizard then finishes off MULMiG 1 with 5.1 damage, everyone else hits MULMiG 2 for 22.735, and Cleric regains another 1.8 HP.

After Round 6, all goblins are dead, MULMiG is at 9.265, Cleric is at 12.225, and Paladin is at 14.05.

Round 7 is the final round. The MULMiG hits the Paladin for a final 2.45 damage before the Ranger finishes it with 12.285 damage.

Cleric ends battle at 12.225, Paladin at 11.6.

Final Analysis:
Well, I accidentally screwed up the hit%'s :smallredface: However, since the numbers were the same throughout, the result should be the same regardless. The monsters lasted 1 more round if they did not ignore Divine Challenge than if they did. Therefore, we can assume that not ignoring Divine Challenge is a good decision for this particular group to make.

Incidentally, average damage dealt to the party is 67.824 if the Cleric is always attacked, or 74.575 if the target the Paladin has marked always attacks it while everything else goes for the Cleric. Using this data, again, not ignoring Divine Challenge is the right idea.

In terms of after-battle recovery for the party, Form 1 takes the Cleric 10 minutes to recover completely and 2 Healing Surges - 5 minutes to recover Healing Words, then using them for at most 18 hit points each (so even with maximum rolls 2 are needed), followed by another 5 minutes to recover them again. Form 2 takes the Cleric 10 minutes and 1 surge to recover completely and the Paladin 5 minutes and 2 surges - Cleric spends 5 minutes recovering Healing Words, uses one on itself recovering at least 13 (putting it at max) and another on the Paladin recovering an average of 14.25, requiring a Second Wind to bring it to full, followed by another 5 minutes recovering the Healing Words and Second Wind. This method of analysis, then, also suggests that not ignoring Divine Challenge is the right idea for the monsters.

Final Final Analysis:
Given this data, it is tactically most beneficial for monsters to attack a Paladin marking them rather than ignoring the mark.



...I just spent 3 1/2 hours analyzing a Paladin's Mark :smalleek:

Also, since the forums ate my several-page-long post, I'm very glad I had the foresight to save a copy.

Douglas
2009-02-16, 12:58 AM
Congratulations, you have demonstrated that if every single member of the entire party deliberately focuses on getting a high AC, to a significantly greater extent than I consider normal, the paladin works as a defender. I mentioned this possibility in my first post about my calculations. Try it again with only the armor proficiencies granted by class and no staff for the wizard (it's only one option out of three, all reasonable), and I expect the result will be quite different.

NecroRebel
2009-02-16, 01:38 AM
Congratulations, you have demonstrated that if every single member of the entire party deliberately focuses on getting a high AC, to a significantly greater extent than I consider normal, the paladin works as a defender. I mentioned this possibility in my first post about my calculations. Try it again with only the armor proficiencies granted by class and no staff for the wizard (it's only one option out of three, all reasonable), and I expect the result will be quite different.

'Normal' is highly subjective. In any case, I really didn't; the Wizard's armor class involved taking the single best heroic-tier feat for a Wizard as it does increase AC by 2 points for effectively nothing, the Ranger's involved optimizing to-hit (something Strikers should be doing anyway) and using class-granted proficiencies, and the Cleric's, again, involved taking a very much not-bad feat for a heroic-tier Cleric. If anything, the Paladin's build (which I cribbed entirely from you) is the most over-optimized for AC given the stated goal.

Further, if taking one feat is a "significant" investment, I guess I'm guilty. However, lowering AC will only serve to increase the speed at which the party dies, not the rate at which they deal damage, and will increase both forms by roughly the same ratio. It will still hold true that not attacking the Paladin will kill the monsters significantly faster than attacking it will, and thus the monsters will last longer, dealing more damage.

Douglas
2009-02-16, 02:00 AM
"Normal" in my opinion means proficiencies granted by class only. The proficiency feats exist as an option, but any class that is "expected" to be using any particular type of armor gets the proficiency for that armor automatically. The Paladin gets plate and heavy shield proficiency from his class. Simply using the proficiencies he gets automatically is hardly optimization at all.

Lowering AC of the non-paladin party members increases the speed at which the party dies if and only if the monsters ignore the paladin, so making that change changes the balance between the two options.

The whole situation hinges on the difference between the paladin's AC and the lowest AC in the party. Simply by making use of his class granted proficiencies, the paladin can get a 20. A "standard" wizard will have 15 with 20 intelligence, 16 if he uses a staff. That difference is enough to overwhelm both the -2 penalty from the paladin's mark and the extra time a monster might get by not triggering the Divine Challenge damage. Such tactics as Thunderwave + move by the wizard might make attacking him harder, but the presence or absence of the paladin is irrelevant for that.

Draz74
2009-02-16, 02:22 AM
"Normal" in my opinion means proficiencies granted by class only. The proficiency feats exist as an option, but any class that is "expected" to be using any particular type of armor gets the proficiency for that armor automatically.

I'm no 4e optimizer, but I have heard overwhelming support in many threads for Armor Proficiency being the standard "best choice" for Wizards' first feats. And most of those threads were just about general optimization, not about AC in particular. So leather-armored Wizards seem to be a valid case to consider, at least.

NecroRebel
2009-02-16, 02:28 AM
As was mentioned before, a moderately-optimized level 1 Wizard will take Leather Armor Proficiency because it is so very much more powerful than all the other heroic-tier feats. A Wizard who never expects to get above level 10 will also likely be a Staffizard, as the Wand feature is statistically much weaker than the others at every level due to its secondary stat's shared defenses with Intelligence and its simple lack of true utility, while the Orb feature does not truly begin to shine until the Paragon tier.

Most of the monsters should ignore the Paladin; this isn't what this thread is about. The thread is about whether the monster that has the Divine Challenge on it should ignore the Paladin, which they should not, as I have shown. The fact that the rest of the party dies faster is immaterial, as the damage the one marked monster causes if it ignores the Paladin is far less than the damage it causes if it attacks the Paladin, because it dies so very, very quickly. In other words, if the marked monster wants to maximize its damage output, unless it is at critically low HP anyway, it should attack the Paladin to put off its death that much longer.

You also seem to be overestimating the damage increase from lowered AC. Relative to my Wizard, yours would take 15% more damage. More specifically, it would be taking 15% more damage... of about 8 per blow. Based off my previous calculations, if the Cleric had 3 points less AC for some reason (or if the monsters were attacking a 14-AC Wizard), they would have dealt 77.9976 damage if they ignored the Paladin, or 83.39875 damage if the challenged opponent attacked the Paladin. Attacking the Paladin is still more beneficial for the monsters. The Form1 damage my way is 90.9% Form2's my way, while Form1 your way is about 93.5% Form2's your way.

Edit: The damage in Form2 is calculated by adding the damage to the squishy to the damage to the pally. Lowering (or improving) the squishy's defenses change the damage dealt by multiplying 58.825 by the hit percentage increase, followed by adding the damage dealt to the paladin (15.75). So, we can calculate the actual amount we would need to lower the squishy's AC by to have not attacking by worthwhile by using the equation 58.825X + 15.75 = 67.824X. This comes out to X~1.75019, so it is better to attack the squishy if and only if you decrease the squishy's AC by 15 (actually, 16 if you want to be "better," since 15 is only "as good as"). So, build yourself a character with an AC of 2, and then we'll talk about Challenged foes ignoring the Paladin. EditEdit: I need to not write this stuff at 2:00 in the morning. You have to increase the to-hit chance by 75% of the previous to-hit chance rather than by a simple 75% for it to work out. This would still work out to stupidly low AC on the squishy's part, as the goblins and MULMiGs would need a 95% and 90% to-hit chance to be a 75% improvement over their old ones, which in turn works out to a squishy AC of 8.

greenknight
2009-02-16, 04:42 AM
The whole situation hinges on the difference between the paladin's AC and the lowest AC in the party. Simply by making use of his class granted proficiencies, the paladin can get a 20. A "standard" wizard will have 15 with 20 intelligence, 16 if he uses a staff. That difference is enough to overwhelm both the -2 penalty from the paladin's mark and the extra time a monster might get by not triggering the Divine Challenge damage. Such tactics as Thunderwave + move by the wizard might make attacking him harder, but the presence or absence of the paladin is irrelevant for that.

I think this is a good point, but I'm not sure you've thought the logic of it all the way through. In an actual game, the DM will react in one of two ways: attack the defender regardless (in which case this discussion is irrelevant), or attack the easiest target. And in that case, your 15 or 16 AC Wizard is most likely going to spend many (if not most) battles heavily injured or unconscious. That's not really a lot of fun for the player, and is likely to result in the player dropping out, modifying the character to be more survivable, or creating a new character entirely. And if the player does modify the character to be more survivable, the odds are you'll see the Leather wearing Staff Wizard build pop up, and the character will almost always have some kind of means of keeping the enemies back as well.

The same goes for the other members of the party. If they are too easy a target, and the DM doesn't simply have the enemies attack the defender(s), then they will spend a lot of time bloodied or unconscious. Consequently, if they are going to survive, they will have some way to avoid being an easy target, most of the time anyway. Which usually means the difference between the Paladin's AC and the AC of the other party members who are able to be attacked isn't worth facing the -2 penalty to attack and the Divine Challenge damage.

Bandededed
2009-02-16, 09:44 AM
Then again, were the paladin to drop the heavy shield and pick up, say, a maul or heavy flail (or exchange toughness for SWP: Mordenkrad), he deals more damage, while making himself a squishier target.

IC, a paladin would know that pumping his AC as high as possible is one of the best ways to have monsters avoid attacking him - the disparity between his parties AC and his is too high for the -2 to really matter. Thus, wouldn't he leave himself more open, to make himself the more delectable choice, as it were? If the cleric's AC is 17 (as the Pally's is 18), then attacking anyone else while marked is the dumbest thing you could possibly do - they're all harder to hit, and you're taking radiant damage.

Yakk
2009-02-17, 10:59 AM
The Paladin has more than just the radiant damage.

If the Paladin is adjacent to a monster, and the Wizard is at least 3 squares away, then the Paladin gets an OA, free radiant damage, and imposes the -2 to hit on the creature.

-2 to hit is about a 20% decrease in average damage output. After that, the Wizard is another 2 points easier to hit. Radiant damage is 5 to 7 points of damage. Call the OA another 5 damage.

That's 10 damage taken to attack the wizard, in exchange for ~+20% damage output.

Call me crazy, but at low levels, that doesn't seem worth it, if your goal is to do as much damage as you can before you are taken out.

Edea
2009-02-17, 11:48 AM
Try this.

Let the party fight an evil standard party with an evil paladin taking on the defender role. Have the paladin mark the most damaging party member and see how long he survives if he keeps ignoring the paladin's Divine Challenge.

IMO that's not exactly a fair comparison, given that PCs generally have lower to-hit rates and, more importantly, VASTLY inferior HP scores to monsters of their level.


But making it Charisma based DOES balance effectiveness between the two builds! The strength based Paladin has a better OA for people who ignore him and does extra damage to bypassing opponents with the more accurate and damaging OA, the charisma based Paladin has a better Divine Challenge.

The OA and Divine Challenge are both part of forcing people not to ignore the front line to get to the back rank faster, and one Paladin build is better at OA and the other at Divine Challenge. Two different ways to hold off the enemy.

...anyone with a decent Str score can use basic OAs, and that is in no way attached to their marking ability. Not a particularly impressive defender trait without some assistance (such as, say, a Fighter's +Wis to the OA attack roll). Further, this restricts the paladin to melee opponents, who will proceed to pull the ever-so-popular "shift and charge" tactic that a Charismadin doesn't much care about (or worse, use a special monster movement ability; I've seen plenty of those already). Also, for the current selection of powers available, Charismadin beats the daylights out of Strengthadin (hopefully this part changes). What the Strengthadin IS better at is multiclassing, easily.


The Paladin has more than just the radiant damage.

If the Paladin is adjacent to a monster, and the Wizard is at least 3 squares away, then the Paladin gets an OA, free radiant damage, and imposes the -2 to hit on the creature.

-2 to hit is about a 20% decrease in average damage output. After that, the Wizard is another 2 points easier to hit. Radiant damage is 5 to 7 points of damage. Call the OA another 5 damage.

That's 10 damage taken to attack the wizard, in exchange for ~+20% damage output.

Call me crazy, but at low levels, that doesn't seem worth it, if your goal is to do as much damage as you can before you are taken out.

It may well be worth it, especially if the attack does something other than damage (and the vast majority of creatures are like this). For example, say the monster was a drow, with their infamous sleep arrows, or a weapon with some other status condition attached (weakened [save ends] seems to be popular). I'm pretty sure the resulting ranged attack wasn't intended for the raw damage output, though it does contribute to the stated goal (just not by that particular monster).

Yakk
2009-02-17, 01:38 PM
Yes, sometimes it is optimal for bad guys to ignore PC marks. Sometimes it isn't.

Paladin and Fighter and Swordmage marks are not intended to be "you must" but "you are encouraged to".

mangosta71
2009-02-17, 03:25 PM
It may well be worth it, especially if the attack does something other than damage (and the vast majority of creatures are like this). For example, say the monster was a drow, with their infamous sleep arrows, or a weapon with some other status condition attached (weakened [save ends] seems to be popular). I'm pretty sure the resulting ranged attack wasn't intended for the raw damage output, though it does contribute to the stated goal (just not by that particular monster).

I'm still not sure it wouldn't be better to put the first sleep arrow in the paladin. Then on the monster's next turn, it's no longer marked so not only is the next target easier to hit, it doesn't take damage. The only way it's potentially better would be if it only has one.

Darth Stabber
2009-03-25, 12:08 PM
I can see the benefit of DC, but if your pally over-optimizes AC, A halfway intelligent monster will see that it cant hit you via AC and thus should eat the burn and Deal with the penalty to attack. Now fighters have a method of keeping foes in place, not just giving them incentive to. So their tankyness is more reliable, but affects only the area around them as opposed to whole battle field, and they still operate on disincentive when shifting comes into the picture. You need to find a sweetspot of ac, i.e. you need to be hittable, With in 3ac of your squishies, so the chance to deal damage gives you the ability to hold their attention. So high ac pallies are strikers, low ac pallies are defenders, check out that conundrum.

Thajocoth
2009-03-25, 01:06 PM
Paladins mark. Any creature, even the lowest, stupidest ones, understand the combat challenge. They know it makes them less likely to hit another target, and they know just trying is going to get them hurt. This means the Paladin can make a creature FAR more likely to attack them than anyone else on the field. The job of a defender is to get the focus of attacks on themselves. Sure, their mark is not as powerful as any other defender's mark... It's only 1 target and just hurts them a little... But a Pally is still very much a defender because of this ability.

daa18
2009-03-30, 09:02 PM
I think the monsters are being played wrong. The goblin does not know that his hit chance is higher on the paladin and more importantly is not going after the wizard, it's going after whoever irked it most last turn. This is probably the paladin considering that paladin specializes in mono-a-mono fights.

Also, fire beetles? there's something wrong if a 1 int creature does anything but attack the closest enemy. And don't even get me started on what the effect would be of an artillery replacing one of the melee monsters.

Artanis
2009-03-30, 10:58 PM
I think the monsters are being played wrong. The goblin does not know that his hit chance is higher on the paladin and more importantly is not going after the wizard, it's going after whoever irked it most last turn. This is probably the paladin considering that paladin specializes in mono-a-mono fights.

Also, fire beetles? there's something wrong if a 1 int creature does anything but attack the closest enemy. And don't even get me started on what the effect would be of an artillery replacing one of the melee monsters.
The marking rules specifically state that something that's marked knows that it's marked, and knows what it entails.

OneFamiliarFace
2009-03-30, 11:40 PM
I think there was a tendency to rely on damage for the desired effects in the PHB1. Wizard at-wills are a good example, where 3 out of the 5 of them only do damage.

With the Paladin, the automatic damage is supposed to provide the incentive to not attack. With even a starting Cha of 16 (19 by Paragon), a marked opponent avoiding the Pally will take just a hair less than 1/10 or 1/11 of its hp in damage automatically if it does not attack the pally. With a lock's curse or a hunter's quarry, an enemy will take the same extra damage only if the lock hits, and only if he rolls 10 on 2d6. With the rogue, it is a little better on that front, but he has to have CA (and he still has to hit). In a combat that lasts 5 or 6 rounds, a marked enemy could take half his hp in damage from avoiding the Paladin's mark. I don't think that that means avoiding the pally is a good idea.

Kurald is right though, in that the Defender probably needs more than damage as a threat. Especially the paladin with his Divine powers, it seems like he would have other forms of censure or what-not (an interesting idea would have been to slow or immobilize an enemy who attacks another opponent).

One final case for the Pally though resides in the fact that he will have some of the highest defenses in the game (High AC from armor and shield, High Fort and Will from class and stats, and decent Ref from Shield). While this isn't put into some fancy class feature, a properly played paladin should be able to cut off avenues of attack as easily as the fighter by being able to go anywhere on the battlefield without being afraid of being hurt. He can then use his Zone and Teleport powers to pull allies out of harms way. This is a leaderly way of defending. Where the fighter keeps the enemies away from his friends, the paladin keeps his friends away from the enemy.

Finally, a shift-charge will work for almost all enemies in escaping the more dangerous effects of a fighter's mark as well. Still, I do think both the Fighter and Swordmage have better marks for defending.