PDA

View Full Version : [4e]Stupid Super Sticky Fighter Idea



Darth Stabber
2009-04-13, 10:50 AM
So I had an Idea for a defender to keep several enemies marked for a several rounds at a go. He is sticky all to heck, very little damage, but sticky all day. I call him the mud Genesai

Steps to Make Mud Genesai
1. Make a Genesai fighter with a crappy dex (like 8 or less if you can)
2. Choose Earth as your element (You want the AOE attack)
3. Set your racial attack to dex (seems counter intuitive, but hold on)
4. For your first feat, choose the one that makes the attack reliable
5. You may now spam the AOE to keep everything near marked, Fighters still mark on a miss, and as long as you keep missing, you can keep reusing.
6. for you power choices You want to choose powers that meet one of the following criteria
a)Pull enemies near you
b)Are AOE you can actually hit with (so yo can contribute some damage)
c)Free action attacks that can trigger off of your OAs and Immediate interupts
d)Other reaction or interrupt based attacks
e)Movement
7. Profit.

Your feat, and Item selection also needs to reflect the fact that you are planning on relying on your basic attacks, opportunity or otherwise.

Sstoopidtallkid
2009-04-13, 10:57 AM
...Awesome. Pure violation of the core ideals of the game(hitting is good), while being both RaW and RaI...that's 3.5-style optimiztion there. Plus, now you get to have this conversation:DM:I'm houseruling that everyone gets either Weapon or Impliment expertise at first level that applies to everything. Feat taxes like that are annoying and pointless.
You:Can I swap it out?
DM:...Why?:smallconfused:
You:There are better options, and it doesn't really fit with my build.
DM::smalleek:
You::smallcool:

Grey Paladin
2009-04-13, 11:34 AM
5/5

Would read again

Darth Stabber
2009-04-13, 11:37 AM
If warden's mark was better this would be a complete waste of time, But given fighter's movement stopping, provoked by everything OAs are enough to justify a reason to make something this stupid. Now to find a way to add some form of damage on a miss to this engine of otherwise non-death. Or additional means of missing. Can I Power attack on this thing, if i can then sweet, another -2 to hit. If only there was a way to make my dex not go up on lvls 10 and 20. For the first time, I miss ability drain. I finally have a reason to say, "Oh crap I critted" in a remorseful tone.

RTGoodman
2009-04-13, 12:09 PM
5/5

Would read again

Indeed. Have you posted this on the WotC boards or elsewhere? If not, you should consider it - there's a wider base there, so they might can help out more as far as making this even better.

Darth Stabber
2009-04-13, 12:19 PM
I have not posted it else where yet, if you would like to do so, you may. I don't belong to the wotc boards, but I think that this build should be shared. That goes for anyone who reads this, Post away, just credit Darth Stabber.

Darth Stabber
2009-04-13, 03:13 PM
anyone else have some interesting builds to make advantageous use out of bad ability scores and/or missing attacks?

Artanis
2009-04-13, 03:49 PM
5. You may now spam the AOE to keep everything near marked, Fighters still mark on a miss, and as long as you keep missing, you can keep reusing.

Only as long as you miss everything every single time. The errata changes the Reliable keyword to kick in only if you hit nothing.

AgentPaper
2009-04-13, 03:50 PM
Any way to get hammer rhythm or scimitar dance in there?

tcrudisi
2009-04-13, 04:09 PM
I had to go through the 2 minute process of logging in (yeah, the forum is slow right now) just to give props.

That was hilarious and brilliant at the same time. It seriously makes me want to play a Genasi Fighter, just so I can play it. I don't like to steal credit though, so I won't play it.

I can't stress enough how funny this trick is. I must quote the person above me: 5/5. Would read again.

ocato
2009-04-13, 04:12 PM
I browsed the FR Player's handbook, but I didn't see this feat. I don't deny its existence, but where is it?

My only 'complaint' with this idea is that dumping dex makes it hard to specialize in certain weapons, which is really not a huge loss unless you're a big Heavy Blade AoO defender fan. That and your initiative will double suck, but that also falls under the category of "big whoop". Overall, its a good idea.

Also, it made me give Genasi a closer look. The Earth Genasi is a pretty decent choice for a defender fighter in its own right. Knock everyone prone, they're all marked. They get up and get slapped, marked again. That's a pretty good encounter power. The INT pump is a wash but that's not really a huge deal.

Tiki Snakes
2009-04-13, 04:26 PM
I'd recommend using the nastiest looking Executioners Axe you can find. Screw taking the feat to weild it with proficiency, and you've basically found yourself a -2 penalty.

The main benefit is, on the off chance it does crit something, it will almost do enough damage to make up for it, because iirc it has high crit.

If you dare risk the extra chance of hitting, as you level up go with a Vicious one, and take feats that do horrible stuff on a crit. Devestating Critical at lvl11 is the one that springs to mind, adding 1d10 to any crit, but there are others that could work. Especially if you take the intimidation route.

NPCMook
2009-04-13, 04:38 PM
I browsed the FR Player's handbook, but I didn't see this feat. I don't deny its existence, but where is it?

My only 'complaint' with this idea is that dumping dex makes it hard to specialize in certain weapons, which is really not a huge loss unless you're a big Heavy Blade AoO defender fan. That and your initiative will double suck, but that also falls under the category of "big whoop". Overall, its a good idea.

Also, it made me give Genasi a closer look. The Earth Genasi is a pretty decent choice for a defender fighter in its own right. Knock everyone prone, they're all marked. They get up and get slapped, marked again. That's a pretty good encounter power. The INT pump is a wash but that's not really a huge deal.

Its a Dragon Article, the feat is called Earth Shock Mastery, makes the racial ability Reliable and deal 1d6 damage when you actually hit with it

NecroRebel
2009-04-13, 04:38 PM
I'm... not sure how this is supposed to be stickier than a normal Fighter. You're not doing anything to dissuade anyone beyond the first from shifting away, since you can only take one immediate action per round and thus can't use Combat Challenge to attack beyond the first, and you don't actually stop people's shifting when you hit them with Combat Challenge anyway, so this wouldn't seem to affect enemy behavior at all.

Basically, if a Fighter is around, moving away from them is stupid since they can stop you, so things shift then charge or shift then move. That's why Fighters are stickier than most Defenders. But this doesn't change that; there's no penalty to enemy movement that isn't there anyway, so it's just a waste of time and actions doing no damage when you could be actually contributing.

erikun
2009-04-13, 04:44 PM
Were you looking for this guy?

http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=1166533

NPCMook
2009-04-13, 04:50 PM
Aren't Polearms an int based weapon for fighters?

erikun
2009-04-13, 05:29 PM
There are no INT weapon paths for the fighter... at least, not in PHB. Martial Power might have changed that, but I don't think it did.

Polearms are a "Wisdom" weapon, because of the requirements for the Polearm Gamble feat. Beyond that, most of the powers that specify polearms also mention spears, and are Dex-based. You might decide on a Glaive for Blade Opportunist/Heavy Blade Opportunity, which is also Dex.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-14, 04:01 AM
I'd recommend using the nastiest looking Executioners Axe you can find. Screw taking the feat to weild it with proficiency, and you've basically found yourself a -2 penalty.
I'm reasonably sure that Earth Shock does not have the 'weapon' keyword, and therefore this wouldn't work.

The fact that you have to miss everything to make the 'reliable' keyword work does make this rather pointless, though.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-14, 04:03 AM
There are no INT weapon paths for the fighter... at least, not in PHB. Martial Power might have changed that, but I don't think it did.

Nope. Neither are there any CHA based paths. Most classes make use of three ability scores (or rather, one by default, and your pick of either of the others) and fighter is already pushing it by using four. I seriously doubt there will be any classes that use five. And classes get very little value out of not massively dumping the other scores.

So yeah, fighter are meant to be stupid. As are rogues.

Darth Stabber
2009-04-14, 07:38 AM
But this doesn't change that; there's no penalty to enemy movement that isn't there anyway, so it's just a waste of time and actions doing no damage when you could be actually contributing.

I said in the title that the idea was stupid, I just thought that it was amusing and should be shared. Is it gamebreaking in the sense that it is utterly better at tanking than anything else could ever be, No. Is it game breaking in that it takes a what is defined as a bad thing (missing), and makes clever use of the ability. That being said, Earth Genesai Fighter is a decent build anyway as the attack that they get is decent, they get str, and they get some other random useful bonuses.

NecroRebel
2009-04-14, 09:58 AM
I said in the title that the idea was stupid, I just thought that it was amusing and should be shared. Is it gamebreaking in the sense that it is utterly better at tanking than anything else could ever be, No. Is it game breaking in that it takes a what is defined as a bad thing (missing), and makes clever use of the ability. That being said, Earth Genesai Fighter is a decent build anyway as the attack that they get is decent, they get str, and they get some other random useful bonuses.

Is it gamebreaking? No! It does absolutely nothing! It's worthless! You'd get more benefit from using an actual attack and actually damaging something with your action than by attacking with something that you're almost incapable of hitting with. This 'build' is exactly as capable of tanking as any other fighter, and since you're intentionally wasting your actions instead of contributing to combat, you're worse than any other fighter in other ways! The use of the Earthshock ability is the exact opposite of clever because your use of it is actively reducing your effectiveness.

I'm not objecting to Earth Genasi being decent fighters. They are. When it hits, Earthshock is a very sticky power. But since your build is intentionally missing, Earthshock isn't helping you.



Know what? Answer me this: how is this build stickier than it would be if you had chosen Strength for Earthshock's key ability? If you'd care to do this, please be very explicit in everything that's happening, including the type for every action you'd take. I want to know what effect just simply having multiple enemies marked every round does and how that relates to having a single enemy marked every round but one and during that round multiple enemies being marked and knocked prone.

Darth Stabber
2009-04-14, 10:49 AM
Again i say read the title, the idea is stupid, very stupid. The entire thing is a thought exercise in how to break the game's assumptions, not break the game's balance. One of the games assumtions is that hitting is better than missing, and I say that in this one particular instance some benefit could be derived from missing, and building my character around that instance. It also breaks the assumtion that a low ability score has no benefit what so ever, again since this relies upon inaccuracy, the lower the dex the better. So yes the character is game breaking, but not the vernacular commonly thrown about here, it is a matter of what part of the game you choose to break.

That does not make the build good, just silly. Don't attack me for making a crappy character when I state very clearly in the title of the thread that what I am doing is stupid. You are repeating what i stated. There are times when this guy would be handy to have around, but ultimately you would be better off with a fighter built on more sound principles. Just the fact that he can mark everything around him every turn is amusing, and while not the best course of action, it does have a certain charm. I am amused that the character's trick is based on missing. Again assumption breaking fun, not game breaking fun.

I am not the most experience 4e player in existence, I could not dream of posting the new Ultramega build that can solo Orcus from heroic tier, but I can notice some funny rules interaction and post some goofball ideas for giggles on a forum. Fair enough?

Doug Lampert
2009-04-14, 12:14 PM
I'd recommend using the nastiest looking Executioners Axe you can find. Screw taking the feat to weild it with proficiency, and you've basically found yourself a -2 penalty.

The main benefit is, on the off chance it does crit something, it will almost do enough damage to make up for it, because iirc it has high crit.

If a 20 isn't naturally a hit then a 20 autohits but doesn't crit. You need a high enough attack bonus to hit on a 20 EXACTLY. (If you hit on a 19 you need another penalty, if you hit on a 21 then a 20 hits but doesn't get the high crit bonus.

Darth Stabber
2009-04-14, 01:30 PM
Is there any way to give the attack another effect on a miss, or other ways to increase it's inaccuracy, prefferably both. Power Attack is all i can think of,though I think that requires weapon keyword.


thoughts? and If you are Going to say the thing is stupid i know, I'm making the most of the stupidity.

tcrudisi
2009-04-14, 01:34 PM
Is it gamebreaking? No! It does absolutely nothing! It's worthless!

It's not worthless, as logic will demonstrate.


You'd get more benefit from using an actual attack and actually damaging something with your action than by attacking with something that you're almost incapable of hitting with.

Agreed. But how often do you get attacks with Minor actions? I'm willing to bet you do not use every single one of your Minor actions each combat.


This 'build' is exactly as capable of tanking as any other fighter, and since you're intentionally wasting your actions instead of contributing to combat, you're worse than any other fighter in other ways! The use of the Earthshock ability is the exact opposite of clever because your use of it is actively reducing your effectiveness.

No, because this ability is very useful, especially when you otherwise would not use your minor action. I DM one game and play in another. I see how often Minor actions are not taken because there's no use for them. This lets you use your Minor action every round.


But since your build is intentionally missing, Earthshock isn't helping you. Know what? Answer me this: how is this build stickier than it would be if you had chosen Strength for Earthshock's key ability? If you'd care to do this, please be very explicit in everything that's happening, including the type for every action you'd take. I want to know what effect just simply having multiple enemies marked every round does and how that relates to having a single enemy marked every round but one and during that round multiple enemies being marked and knocked prone.

Now I'll explain to you why you are incorrect in your assumptions. The answer? Reliable. He's making the attack reliable.

You are correct in that if he only uses it one time a combat, it IS better to hit with it.

That's as far as it goes, however. He wants to miss with it. Remember, Fighters mark even on a missed attack. So by using his minor action, which rarely gets used, to attack and miss, he gets to mark everyone in a burst 1 around him. Oh, he missed with every attack? Well, next turn, since it's reliable, I can mark everyone around me again!

Your argument is that you should not waste an action. My argument is that this prevents waste. If you have a better option -- use it. No one is saying that you should not use your uber 8[W] + Str. mod damage attack as a minor action. We are saying that after you've used that attack and have no other purpose for your Minor action, well, do your thing to keep everyone on you. You would get to use this attack once. Yeah, you would knock them prone. So what? While you knock them prone and mark them all once, I'll gladly settle for marking them all every turn. It keeps my allies alive a lot better than just doing it once.

Yes, it is a silly maneuver, as the OP has stated. But it is also remarkably amusing and even has practical value.

Please, instead of just flaming someone because it doesn't fit into the mold of how a character should operate, take time to delve into it and see if it actually works. This kind of creativity should be nurtured and explored, not yelled at. And yes, it did feel as though you were yelling at the OP (at least it did to me, as I can not/will not speak for anyone else).

Kurald Galain
2009-04-14, 03:08 PM
Hm, wasn't there a paragon path (or perhaps it was a feat) that let you do some amount of damage on any miss?

NecroRebel
2009-04-14, 04:19 PM
Again i say read the title, the idea is stupid, very stupid. The entire thing is a thought exercise in how to break the game's assumptions, not break the game's balance. One of the games assumtions is that hitting is better than missing, and I say that in this one particular instance some benefit could be derived from missing, and building my character around that instance. It also breaks the assumtion that a low ability score has no benefit what so ever, again since this relies upon inaccuracy, the lower the dex the better. So yes the character is game breaking, but not the vernacular commonly thrown about here, it is a matter of what part of the game you choose to break.

It doesn't break the assumption that hitting is better than missing, though. You don't actually benefit more from missing than you would from hitting, because you don't actually get any benefit from missing, since you could have everything you wanted marked marked anyway, so having a race, a feat or two, and an action all devoted to marking things doesn't do anything. You could use an at-will power to effect enemies to the same degree, with the same opportunity cost, without the wasted resources.

Since you don't benefit from missing, you don't benefit from a low stat, so that also means you don't break that assumption.

Also, if you're going to call something "game breaking" and you are aware that that term is typically used to denote something overpowered, you should at least attempt to make the thing so called overpowered. So :smalltongue:


That does not make the build good, just silly. Don't attack me for making a crappy character when I state very clearly in the title of the thread that what I am doing is stupid... -snip- ...Fair enough?

Agreed. I apologize for my tone. It just seems that you were trying to present something as powerful and/or useful that really isn't unless you assume that Combat Challenge and Combat Superiority interact somehow, which is something of a pet peeve of mine. Though I still don't think this is any stickier than a Fighter who just attacks and thus a waste of powers, races, feats, and actions, I guess I've calmed down a bit over it :smallredface:




It's not worthless, as logic will demonstrate.

Agreed. But how often do you get attacks with Minor actions? I'm willing to bet you do not use every single one of your Minor actions each combat.

Immaterial. This minor action doesn't improve your ability to hinder enemy movement, so it is worthless at its stated goal: improving your ability to hinder enemy movement.

I had made a mistake, though, in that I had thought that Earthshock was a standard action. That would make this build completely worthless, while if ES is a minor it only makes it mostly worthless.


No, because this ability is very useful, especially when you otherwise would not use your minor action. I DM one game and play in another. I see how often Minor actions are not taken because there's no use for them. This lets you use your Minor action every round.

You're still using at least one feat (to make the power reliable), using stat mixes that you probably wouldn't otherwise (many other feats useful to a Fighter rely on Dex), all to negligible benefit because the things you are hindering the movement of with this technique are going to be under attack by you anyway and thus hindered. Since you cannot make more than one immediate action per round, you cannot punish more than one creature for shifting away, and that one would usually be the one you are attacking.


Now I'll explain to you why you are incorrect in your assumptions. The answer? Reliable. He's making the attack reliable.

You are correct in that if he only uses it one time a combat, it IS better to hit with it.

That's as far as it goes, however. He wants to miss with it. Remember, Fighters mark even on a missed attack. So by using his minor action, which rarely gets used, to attack and miss, he gets to mark everyone in a burst 1 around him. Oh, he missed with every attack? Well, next turn, since it's reliable, I can mark everyone around me again!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the point of the build a "super sticky fighter?" And doesn't "sticky" mean something like "a thing that is able to prevent enemies from moving away?" So, if this technique does what it says it should, it should be more able to prevent enemies from moving away from it than a normal Fighter would (normal being an important undefined term here).

I assert that it is not any better than a normal Fighter at preventing enemies from moving away from it. This Genasi Fighter marks multiple targets every round, and if one of them shifts away the Fighter gets to attack it as an immediate interrupt. Because the player is presumably tactically adept, the player will choose one target (either the biggest threat or the most likely to die quickly) and save their immediate interrupt to attack it should it choose to shift away. Everything else can thus shift away freely without worry, while none of them can move away without risking an opportunity attack that stops their movement.

A random other Fighter marks a single target every round, and if it attempts to shift away the Fighter gets to attack it as an immediate interrupt, same as above. Because the player is presumably tactically adept, the player will choose a target based on the biggest threat or the most likely to die (notice that this is identical to how the Genasi's player chooses a target). If that target should choose to shift away, the Fighter gets to attack it as an immediate interrupt (notice that this, again, is the same as above). Everything else can shift away freely without worry, while none of them can move away without risking an opportunity attack that stops their movement.

All of this is the same between the Genasi and the other. The Genasi is not stickier than other Fighters, even those who are only sticky because of their class features. Thus, the Genasi build is a failure at the stated goal.


Your argument is that you should not waste an action. My argument is that this prevents waste. If you have a better option -- use it. No one is saying that you should not use your uber 8[W] + Str. mod damage attack as a minor action. We are saying that after you've used that attack and have no other purpose for your Minor action, well, do your thing to keep everyone on you.

As mentioned before, I made a mistake and thought that ES was a standard. It doesn't change the fact that this doesn't help how sticky you are.


You would get to use this attack once. Yeah, you would knock them prone. So what? While you knock them prone and mark them all once, I'll gladly settle for marking them all every turn. It keeps my allies alive a lot better than just doing it once.

Besides the fact that being knocked prone by a Fighter leads to about a 75% chance that the attacked target is completely incapable of attacking allies at all for that round? I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that keeping a group of foes is better than preventing attacks altogether for half a round. Do you have any evidence beyond your own statements?


Yes, it is a silly maneuver, as the OP has stated. But it is also remarkably amusing...

Perhaps.
...and even has practical value.

I doubt it.


Please, instead of just flaming someone because it doesn't fit into the mold of how a character should operate, take time to delve into it and see if it actually works. This kind of creativity should be nurtured and explored, not yelled at. And yes, it did feel as though you were yelling at the OP (at least it did to me, as I can not/will not speak for anyone else).

I have explored it thoroughly, now, and have decided that it doesn't actually work. While my knee-jerk reaction previously was somewhat unjustified, I had valid points even then which have not been addressed. Have you or anyone else shown how it makes the Fighter stickier than a normal Fighter? That is, very specifically, what I asked, after all. I said, "Answer me this: how is this build stickier than it would be if you had chosen Strength for Earthshock's key ability?" This is what I was asking. How is this build stickier than any Fighter?

Edit: Didn't realize how long it was. Put in some spoilers to solve that issue.

Colmarr
2009-04-14, 06:01 PM
Stuff

I think you're being overly critical.

EDIT: I just re-read your last post and saw the comment about calming down. I'm going to spoiler the rest of this post to avoid re-inflaming the debate. Since you've calmed down, I will as well :smallsmile:

I leave it here simply as a historical note for those who are interested.

The combo that Darth Stabber is proposing gives a fighter a minor action mark on all enemies in a close burst, and is reliable if none of the attacks hit.

Put another way, at least once per encounter (and multiple times if the player is (un)"lucky" with their attack rolls), the Mud Genasi can give all enemies within X squares a -2 to attack against the Genasi's allies.

That's a nifty ability, and I don't see the benefit in your insistence on a semantic debate of what "sticky" means.

Furthermore, your argument that this does not alter the game's hit/miss paradigm is blatantly false. In this specific example, there is a clear benefit to missing: the Mud Genasi gets to do it all again next turn. That may or may not be better than hitting a few targets, but it's nevertheless a benefit.

Finally, you suggest that the fighter should simply use an at-will instead. Perhaps you would care to name a Fighter at-will that targets all enemies in a close burst?

I say kudos to you, Darth Stabber. Don't let the naysayers get you down.

erikun
2009-04-14, 06:06 PM
I wouldn't quite call it worthless, even mostly worthless. Silly, yes. Sticky, not really. You're giving up a number of resources to make it "work". However, it does hand out a -2 to all enemy attacks each round it doesn't hit, and can be used repeatedly. Probably the hardest thing going against it is that the Warden can do basically the same thing as a free action, every round, without needing to roll.

Perhaps the biggest roadblock is that it's not easy to ensure that Earthshock doesn't hit. At level 1, that's 1d20+1 to hit and average of... what, 13 Fort? Unless you have some really bad dice, you'll likely hit one out of a group of two on your first attempt. At level 10, Fort is probably 17-18, giving you a bit more leeway - although you'll probably still be hitting someone in a group of three regularly.

If you do try it out, let us know how it works. I'm sure cries of "nooooo I hit" will make the group laugh, at least. :smallwink:

tcrudisi
2009-04-14, 07:38 PM
All of this is the same between the Genasi and the other. The Genasi is not stickier than other Fighters, even those who are only sticky because of their class features. Thus, the Genasi build is a failure at the stated goal.

Besides the fact that being knocked prone by a Fighter leads to about a 75% chance that the attacked target is completely incapable of attacking allies at all for that round? I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that keeping a group of foes is better than preventing attacks altogether for half a round.

Do you have any evidence beyond your own statements?
I said, "Answer me this: how is this build stickier than it would be if you had chosen Strength for Earthshock's key ability?" This is what I was asking. How is this build stickier than any Fighter?

There is more to a fighter's mark than just getting an attack on them if they shift. Yes, that is nice, but don't forget about the -2 to attack if they choose to attack someone else. Heck, one of my Bard's at-will attacks does minimal damage just to give one target a -2 to attack. If I could do a burst 1 and give everyone a -2 to attack? That's nice.

Also, before anyone starts saying that you need more than a -2 to attack to prove it worthwhile, I hold up the Paladin. His mark only gives a -2 to attack others and then really, really crappy damage otherwise (Cha mod? Really WotC?) ... plus it takes a Minor action to use.

I'm not arguing that there are not better builds or that this is the be-all, end-all of character optimization. My argument is that this is useful and a viable maneuver.

Enlong
2009-04-14, 07:49 PM
Where's the Gensai from?

erikun
2009-04-14, 07:59 PM
Where's the Gensai from?
Forgotten Realms Player's Guide. The feat mentioned, Earthshock Master, is from Dragon 367 and still freely available for download... I think.

NecroRebel
2009-04-14, 08:44 PM
There is more to a fighter's mark than just getting an attack on them if they shift. Yes, that is nice, but don't forget about the -2 to attack if they choose to attack someone else. Heck, one of my Bard's at-will attacks does minimal damage just to give one target a -2 to attack. If I could do a burst 1 and give everyone a -2 to attack? That's nice.

Also, before anyone starts saying that you need more than a -2 to attack to prove it worthwhile, I hold up the Paladin. His mark only gives a -2 to attack others and then really, really crappy damage otherwise (Cha mod? Really WotC?) ... plus it takes a Minor action to use.

I'm not arguing that there are not better builds or that this is the be-all, end-all of character optimization. My argument is that this is useful and a viable maneuver.

Immaterial. What is being discussed is not whether or not a Fighter's mark does something. What is being discussed, what I have questioned in every single post I have made on this topic, is whether or not this build improves the Fighter's stickiness. It doesn't, you haven't objected to that claim, nor have you presented any evidence to the contrary.



While this is off-topic, I feel I should mention that the -2 attack from a mark is actually a pretty big thing as far as reducing the damage the party takes. Assuming enemies usually hit on ~8 depending on role, level, and target, the -2 is a roughly a 15% decrease in damage. I'm not certain that the multitarget mark to melee targets will actually reduce the damage the party takes more than having knocked them prone next to a Fighter would, but that reduction is still there.

Also, I calculated it in the past; Divine Challenge actually hurts a lot. Due to the fact that it autodamages rather than playing off an attack roll, it doesn't have the fractional average damage multiplier that an attack-based penalty (like a Fighter's Combat Challenge, Swordmage's Aegis of Assault, and similar abilities that trigger when an enemy attacks a nonmarking target). As a result, given equal Cha to the other Defender's basic melee attack stat, the other Defender would need an average weapon damage of ~6.5 per tier. Attainable in heroic, but it becomes increasingly difficult to pull off as levels increase.

tcrudisi
2009-04-14, 09:40 PM
Immaterial. What is being discussed is not whether or not a Fighter's mark does something. What is being discussed, what I have questioned in every single post I have made on this topic, is whether or not this build improves the Fighter's stickiness. It doesn't, you haven't objected to that claim, nor have you presented any evidence to the contrary.

While this is off-topic, I feel I should mention that the -2 attack from a mark is actually a pretty big thing as far as reducing the damage the party takes. Assuming enemies usually hit on ~8 depending on role, level, and target, the -2 is a roughly a 15% decrease in damage. I'm not certain that the multitarget mark to melee targets will actually reduce the damage the party takes more than having knocked them prone next to a Fighter would, but that reduction is still there.

I do object to that claim. A -2 to attack can very well be the difference between whether I want to attack one person or another. With that being said, any time it convinces me to stay on the person who has imposed the -2 penalty, it has made them stickier. It only takes one monster above and beyond what another race (I'll use Dwarf as an example) could hold for this build to be stickier. In my experiences, just imposing that -2 penalty will often cause the target to stay on the target. Therefore, this build improves stickiness.

Even you state that it decreases damage. All-around, this build helps a Earthsoul Genasi be a better defending Fighter. (Would I play a Genasi? No, but if I did, I would use this build. I have just always disliked using races except those in the PHB.)

NecroRebel
2009-04-14, 11:07 PM
I do object to that claim. A -2 to attack can very well be the difference between whether I want to attack one person or another. With that being said, any time it convinces me to stay on the person who has imposed the -2 penalty, it has made them stickier. It only takes one monster above and beyond what another race (I'll use Dwarf as an example) could hold for this build to be stickier. In my experiences, just imposing that -2 penalty will often cause the target to stay on the target. Therefore, this build improves stickiness.

Even you state that it decreases damage. All-around, this build helps a Earthsoul Genasi be a better defending Fighter. (Would I play a Genasi? No, but if I did, I would use this build. I have just always disliked using races except those in the PHB.)

That's... an odd definition of stickiness. I've never seen attack penalties included in determining how sticky a target is, at least, but I guess it could be considered to. Hm. I'm still unconvined as to whether or not consistently missing with Earthshock would decrease the damage your party takes more than knocking enemies prone with it once, though.

Some theory (spoiler because it's long)Missing marks them, thus reducing damage to the rest of your party by ~15% due to lowering their chance to hit (it isn't 10% because they had a less than 100% chance to hit before) and has to be applied every round, and if they're out of a 3x3 area that you can get to the middle of, you're out of luck.

Meanwhile, if you hit a group in that same 3x3 area, you knock them prone. At that point, they have 2 choices: stand up and attack you, stand up and shift away from you, or stand up and charge one of your allies. The former two are effectively the same for our argument here since we're only including damage dealt to the non-Fighter and both deal no damage to the rest of the party. If they charge one of your allies, you get an actual opportunity attack against them, and if you hit they don't get stopped, thus not really getting to charge. I assert that it is possible to manage ~80% to-hit on opportunity attacks consistently throughout the levels, based on my experiences, suggested defense values for monsters, and to-hit optimization theory that I've read.

Now, I also assert that battles last approximately 5 rounds, again based on my own experiences and some theoretical battles that have been run. In the absolute best case, the build presented, missing every possible target with Earthshock every round, reduces damage by approximately 15% throughout the fight. Meanwhile, if the build hit with Earthshock and given the assumptions above, it would prevent approximately 80%+ of the damage for one round and deal additional damage to the enemy group (from OAs), working out to ~16% damage reduction throughout the fight. Hitting wins out.

Of course, the longer the fight runs, the lower the Fighter's chance of landing an opportunity attack gets, and the lower the monsters' unmarked chance to hit goes, the more the numbers change in favor of the "super sticky fighter build." However, the more the enemies spread out - which becomes more likely as the battle goes on - the more the numbers go against the SSFB due to the fact that it cannot keep attacking them all. I suspect that real play would favor traditional builds, but I don't have the time nor inclination to run through the trillions of scenarios needed to really prove that.

Colmarr
2009-04-15, 02:34 AM
That's... an odd definition of stickiness.

It is for any traditional meaning of the word "sticky". But stickiness, at least in my experience of discussions of 4e, is a generic term referring to how well a defence "persuades" a given monster to not attack the defender's allies.

It can be forced persuasion (like Combat Challenge), but it doesn't have to be. In fact, if you only count forced persuasion when assessing stickiness, then it becomes clear that the fighter is the only sticky defender. Monsters can choose to ignore and move away from everyone else. So IMO the term must have more meaning than that.

Hence, things like the -2 attack penalty, Divine Challenge damage and Aegis of Shielding all become relevant to how "sticky" a Defender is.

For example, a minion takes no damage from ignoring a shielding swordmage and attacking the wizard, but if the minion's max damage is 5 and the swordmage's Aegis of Shielding reduces damage by 7, then the minion has no reason to attack the wizard. It would be pointless to do so, and the minion is better off attacking the swordmage. For that minion, the Swormage is 100% sticky.

Perhaps the debate was simply a disconnect between different people's interpretation of what stickiness entails.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-15, 04:29 AM
It can be forced persuasion (like Combat Challenge), but it doesn't have to be. In fact, if you only count forced persuasion when assessing stickiness, then it becomes clear that the fighter is the only sticky defender.
Yes, fighters are the only sticky defender. Well, the warden is also pretty good at it. Not every defender is sticky - swordmages defend through damage reduction and teleportation, and paladins really aren't very good at defending to begin with.

You don't have to be sticky to be a defender - although it really does help a lot.

Darth Stabber
2009-04-15, 09:10 AM
CLARIFICATIONS
1) The increased stickiness claim is due to the Larger number of marked targets, so the claims of increased stickyness are based on More opportunities to stick people, as opposed to more actual sticking.
2) Yes shafting Dex cuts off build options, but Shafting Con or Str hurts a lot worse, If i actually build a character off of the concept it will be a con focused, mordenkrad swinging fighter.
3) As far as the "waste" of this build goes, I spend one feat - True, I mangle a fairly useful ability into some thing silly and less efficient, and I cut off a few builds. So the waste of this is pretty low.
4) The only thing this build needs more of is non weapon accuracy reducers, and More Fighter AOEs(to use when you accidentally hit).
5) Will probably post a fleshed out build probably tommorrow.

Artanis
2009-04-15, 10:04 AM
A -2 to attack can very well be the difference between whether I want to attack one person or another. With that being said, any time it convinces me to stay on the person who has imposed the -2 penalty, it has made them stickier.
<vent>
I agree. One thing I consistantly see in discussions about defenders is that people seem to ignore everything except the fact that the Fighter can make somebody stop moving. Even if Fighters wind up being the best defenders anyways, it still irks me that these kinds of things tend to be completely ignored:

*People tend to ignore the -2 from marks, as you mentioned.
*People tend to ignore that the attack from Combat Challenge can only be done once per round and is not the attack that makes them stop moving.
*People tend to ignore that the Fighter's available methods of marking multiple targets can oftentimes compromise single-target damage (which is often mentioned as part of the Fighter's effectiveness as a defender), the ability to use Combat Superiority against those enemies, or both.
*People they tend to ignore the usefulness of the additional effects of other defenders' marks.
*People tend to ignore ways other classes have of being "sticky".
*People tend to ignore the other things that make other defenders inviting targets.

A Paladin and Swordmage have ranged marks that stick around. They can mark an enemy and then do pretty much whatever they damned well please, secure in the knowledge that not going with the mark will punish the target no matter where they are (Pally, A. Swordmage) or be pointless for the enemy to try (S. Swordmage). But a Fighter has to keep re-applying that mark, and can't do squat to an enemy (beyond the -2) that gets out of his reach.

A Swordmage has ways to get and/or keep enemies nearby without relying on something like Combat Superiority. Lightning Lure, Dimensional Slash, and Spikes of Agony come to mind. Not being able to stop them doesn't matter as much if they can't (or really, really don't want to) move in the first place.

A Paladin can heal. A Paladin can heal really well. Last I checked, "kill the healer first" was one of the more basic strategies in dealing with enemies in pretty much any game.

A Warden has a more versatile mark than a Fighter, enabling him to AoE mark every time he uses it, as a free action, and then go beat on somebody on the other side of the battlefield for a turn. The Fighter (usually) uses a standard action as part of his marking, and (usually) has to stay in the general vicinity of those he marks.
</vent>


tl;dr version: I'm not disputing whether or not the Fighter is the best defender. I just really, REALLY hate how people are so enamored with Combat Superiority that it seems like they completely ignore everything that the other defenders (especially Paladins) have going for them.

Darth Stabber
2009-04-15, 10:40 AM
I will freely admit that I am biased toward fighters, I been rolling fighters since 2e, and will likely continue until they print a version of D&D without them. That being said i am a big fan of both of the swordmage options, Either serious damage mitigation, or bamf smack. Warden (nor the primal power source in general) and paladin's mark seems to not be convincing enough. I just saw a way for fighter to have a semi-spammable mark everything, and ran with the idea that it is based on missing, sadly the whole thing falls apart on a hit.

Kesnit
2009-04-15, 10:49 AM
So I had an Idea for a defender to keep several enemies marked for a several rounds at a go. He is sticky all to heck, very little damage, but sticky all day. I call him the mud Genesai

Steps to Make Mud Genesai
1. Make a Genesai fighter with a crappy dex (like 8 or less if you can)
2. Choose Earth as your element (You want the AOE attack)
3. Set your racial attack to dex (seems counter intuitive, but hold on)
4. For your first feat, choose the one that makes the attack reliable
5. You may now spam the AOE

That ability is an Encounter power. You use it once to mark, but you're done with it after that.

Edit: Just figured out what Reliable means. But that doesn't change my above statement. Even gimping DEX, you can still hit. All you have to do is roll well once and you've lost the ability and all the marks for the rest of the encounter.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-15, 10:56 AM
That ability is an Encounter power. You use it once to mark, but you're done with it after that.

Yeah, but you can make it reliable, and then try to miss with it; that's the point of his build.

NecroRebel
2009-04-15, 11:16 AM
CLARIFICATIONS
1) The increased stickiness claim is due to the Larger number of marked targets, so the claims of increased stickyness are based on More opportunities to stick people, as opposed to more actual sticking.

While I would not use this as part of a definition of stickiness, I can see how you might. Very well.


2) Yes shafting Dex cuts off build options, but Shafting Con or Str hurts a lot worse, If i actually build a character off of the concept it will be a con focused, mordenkrad swinging fighter.

Secondary-Con Fighters are inherently somewhat weaker than secondary-Dex Fighters (assuming that most/all Fighter builds are tertiary-Wis rather than secondary-Wis being a third option) because A) Con's non-defense benefit of more hit points is quickly made obsolete by level-up HP and B) Con shares a defense with all Fighters' primary-Str nature. By comparison, Dex boosts Initiative and Reflex, both of which are useful. Shafting Dex hurts more than Con, even on axe-builds.

That said, it is a viable option.


3) As far as the "waste" of this build goes, I spend one feat - True, I mangle a fairly useful ability into some thing silly and less efficient, and I cut off a few builds. So the waste of this is pretty low.
4) The only thing this build needs more of is non weapon accuracy reducers, and More Fighter AOEs(to use when you accidentally hit).
5) Will probably post a fleshed out build probably tommorrow.

Just so long as you realize that it's not going to be a particularly powerful build :smalltongue:



Also, on the subject of the Paladin's mark, I went through and did a lengthy theoretical scenario in which two identical parties went up against two identical enemy groups. Both had a Paladin, but in one fight the monsters always attacked the PC with the lowest defense, ignoring marks, while in the other marked targets attacked the one marking them while everyone else attacked the lowest-defense PC. It turned out that the group that did not ignore the Paladin's mark lasted an extra round, did more damage, and forced the party to spend an extra healing surge to return to full health than the group that always ignored the mark.

Also, as I mentioned before, Chaladins at least do massive damage with their mark (though I had misremembered my assumptions and methodology). It depends on the Paladin's Charisma and the other defenders' chance to hit, but the Divine Challenge still deals as much or more damage as a very high-damage character can. With 20 Cha on the pally and 70% chance for the other to hit its opponent, for example, the opponent's weapon damage without attribute modifiers must be ~6.5 average. Which is a lot, considering that can be true at level 1 where enhancement and feat bonuses to damage are less common.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-15, 11:29 AM
Secondary-Con Fighters are inherently somewhat weaker than secondary-Dex Fighters
Two words: Battlerager Vigor.


the Divine Challenge still deals as much or more damage as a very high-damage character can.
Not at all. A first level chaladin deals 7 damage with Divine Challenge. A "very high-damage character" deals 10-27 damage on an at-will (using a brutal rogue with the backstabber feat, which isn't even particularly optimized). Even taking into account to-hit chance, the DC pales in comparison. And of course, this only gets more skewed at higher levels.

NecroRebel
2009-04-15, 03:00 PM
Two words: Battlerager Vigor.

...Right. I keep forgetting about that one :smallredface:


Not at all. A first level chaladin deals 7 damage with Divine Challenge. A "very high-damage character" deals 10-27 damage on an at-will (using a brutal rogue with the backstabber feat, which isn't even particularly optimized). Even taking into account to-hit chance, the DC pales in comparison. And of course, this only gets more skewed at higher levels.

Alright, perhaps I should have said "very high-damage defender" rather than just character. While your statement is true, with that change mine is as well. Figher and Warden at-wills manage 1W+Str. If we also include Weapon Focus and the theoretical possibility of a magic weapon +1, we get 1W + 2 + Str at level 1. Since you assumed 18-19 Cha, I will assume the same for the other's Str.

Next, assuming "generic" level 1 monsters with AC 15 (which is in-line with DMG recommendations for non-Soldier non-Brute monsters), a +2 proficiency weapon, and the other defender being specifically a Fighter for another +1, we get +8 to hit, for 70% to-hit on the Combat Challenge attack.

So, then we divide 7 (the damage DC does) by .7 to get the average damage the Fighter has to deal with a weapon attack to match the Paladin's DC damage. We get 10. Subtracting the weapon focus, magic weapon, and strength bonuses (1, 1, and 4, respectively), we can determine that the Fighter's 1W must average 4. Fair enough, there are several weapons that deal this much damage.

However, note again the assumptions made. The 1st-level Fighter has a magic weapon, something that is somewhat improbable. This Fighter also has Weapon Focus as its feat, which is possible but not always optimal. Without these things, the to-hit decreases to 65%, which drops the necessary average weapon damage to ~6.77, something which only a few two-handed non-Superior weapons manage to approach. These weapons are the Greataxe, Heavy Flail, Maul, Heavy War Pick, and, if wielded in both hands, the Battleaxe, Flail, Warhammer, and Broadsword.

At some levels the balance changes. Getting more powerful magic weapons pushes the numbers in favor of the Fighter (though in terms of to-hit the Fighter slowly loses due to how monster defenses scale faster than PC attack), while stat bonuses and tier changes favor the Paladin.



Due to how things work out, the Paladin is also significantly more durable than the Fighter taken here due to heavier armor proficiencies and the fact that he can wield a shield without losing out on damage. That Paladin also cannot be foiled by a teleporting opponent as easily - Fighters lose literally all of their damage if their mark teleports away then attacks the Fighter's ally, while the Paladin loses none. Since enemies that can teleport at will become increasingly more common as levels increase, the Paladin becomes increasingly valuable.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-15, 03:38 PM
.
Alright, perhaps I should have said "very high-damage defender" rather than just character. While your statement is true, with that change mine is as well. Figher and Warden at-wills manage 1W+Str.
Okay, I agree that a fighter mark does about as much damage as a paladin mark; to be precise, the fighter does more damage but also has a miss chance, so it balances out.

The point, however, is that a defender is not about damage. The paladin deals damage (but less than a striker), and is tough (but less than a warlock or barbarian), and heals people (but less than a leader) - none of those three makes the pally particularly good at defending anyone. And overall in D&D it's more effective to be the best at one thing, than to be second-best at several.

NecroRebel
2009-04-15, 06:07 PM
Okay, I agree that a fighter mark does about as much damage as a paladin mark; to be precise, the fighter does more damage but also has a miss chance, so it balances out.

The point, however, is that a defender is not about damage. The paladin deals damage (but less than a striker), and is tough (but less than a warlock or barbarian), and heals people (but less than a leader) - none of those three makes the pally particularly good at defending anyone. And overall in D&D it's more effective to be the best at one thing, than to be second-best at several.

Bolded part: How so? OK, Barbarian I can maybe see, but Warlock? In my experience, even Infernalocks tend to be fairly soft targets. With plate and a heavy shield, Paladins get some of the highest AC possible, they have high HP, and more healing surges than any other class that I am aware of. Warlocks just get primary-Con boost to HP and secondary-Int boost to AC, so they don't tend to be particularly tough.

Also, I feel I should point out that a Fighter cannot actually stop someone from shift-charging their allies and only dissuade it with damage. While this is, admittedly, more efficient than the response to the Paladin in the same situation (likely move-specialattack), it isn't that much better, particularly since the Paladin could then heal the damage caused (though again, admittedly inefficiently due to costing the Pally's surges).

Artanis
2009-04-15, 07:38 PM
Okay, I agree that a fighter mark does about as much damage as a paladin mark; to be precise, the fighter does more damage but also has a miss chance, so it balances out.

The point, however, is that a defender is not about damage. The paladin deals damage (but less than a striker), and is tough (but less than a warlock or barbarian), and heals people (but less than a leader) - none of those three makes the pally particularly good at defending anyone. And overall in D&D it's more effective to be the best at one thing, than to be second-best at several.

Any one of those three would be insufficient. But what about having all three contribute to his ability to be a defender?

Colmarr
2009-04-15, 10:41 PM
The paladin deals damage... none of those three makes the pally particularly good at defending anyone.

Again we come back to the point of stickyness.

You clearly judge defensive ability solely on the class' ability to compulsorily deny the enemy attacks on the defender's allies.

That clearly isn't what 4e defenders are about (as evidenced by the fact that only 1 out of 4 currently published defenders can do it). In 4e, defending is about making monsters think twice before attacking an enemy.

If you don't consider the ability to automatically deal 7 damage to such a monster a good means of defence, then I'm not sure what is.

*Yes, there is a good argument that a Chaladin's defender-ness decreases as his level increases (poor scaling), and that Straladins are poor defenders (because the divine challenge damage is too low), but there's nothing bad per se about the idea of Divine Challenge as a defender's ability.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-16, 03:26 AM
Bolded part: How so? OK, Barbarian I can maybe see, but Warlock?
Lots 'n lots of temp HP (assuming infernalock, that is), high con score, and effects that hurt the monsters if they attack him.


Also, I feel I should point out that a Fighter cannot actually stop someone from shift-charging their allies and only dissuade it with damage.
True, but then the monster can only use a basic attack.


particularly since the Paladin could then heal the damage caused (though again, admittedly inefficiently due to costing the Pally's surges).
I don't think that's a problem; paladins have surges to spare.


Any one of those three would be insufficient. But what about having all three contribute to his ability to be a defender?
They contribute to his ability to be useful in combat and a reasonably effective character; just not a defender.



You clearly judge defensive ability solely on the class' ability to compulsorily deny the enemy attacks on the defender's allies.
Nope. It's nice of you to put words in my mouth, but you're getting them completely wrong.



If you don't consider the ability to automatically deal 7 damage to such a monster a good means of defence, then I'm not sure what is.
I am. Look at the warden and swordmage classes for examples. Divine Challenge might not be "bad per se" whatever that means, but it certainly is worse than what every other defender has to offer.

Oslecamo
2009-04-16, 05:53 AM
Lots 'n lots of temp HP (assuming infernalock, that is), high con score, and effects that hurt the monsters if they attack him.


Temp HP doesn't stack. And the paladin will still have higher defenses, specially AC. Nobody has better AC than the paladin, and then the remaining defenses will all be high except reflexes. Combine it with self healing, lots of surges, high basic HP and the paladin is the toughest class to take down, no contest.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-16, 06:48 AM
the paladin is the toughest class to take down, no contest.
Oh, but it is a contest. The warlock is a contender (because of stealth, among others), as is the battlerage fighter. Swordmages and even wizards are known to have a very good armor class. Certain primal classes are also hard to take down, and an elven archer ranger is also hard to take down by virtue of being hard to reach in the first place.

But being hard to take down is not a party role. Even funnier, if you're hard to take down that gives monsters an incentive to attack the other party members instead, which means you're failing as a defender.

Oslecamo
2009-04-16, 07:45 AM
Oh, but it is a contest. The warlock is a contender (because of stealth, among others), as is the battlerage fighter. Swordmages and even wizards are known to have a very good armor class. Certain primal classes are also hard to take down, and an elven archer ranger is also hard to take down by virtue of being hard to reach in the first place.


However, neither the wizard or the swordmage can get easily temporary HP. And if the warlock is hiding, then he isn't being attacked at all, wich isn't being tough, it's just staying out of the fray, in wich case you're really not playing wall anymore.



But being hard to take down is not a party role. Even funnier, if you're hard to take down that gives monsters an incentive to attack the other party members instead, which means you're failing as a defender.

So it's your duty as a paladin to go old-school and block the monsters the hard way: with your hard face, by standing between them and the party members. Works better in tight tunnels. But yes, in open areas against high mobile enemies it doesn't worck that well.

But then, I could argue that the party faces flying monsters with artillery mounts wich never get in melee range, and then the paladin is the only guy who can still mark the oponents and do them some harm out of the defenders. Well, the swordmage could probably teleport in the air, but then he literally falls.

NecroRebel
2009-04-16, 10:27 AM
But being hard to take down is not a party role. Even funnier, if you're hard to take down that gives monsters an incentive to attack the other party members instead, which means you're failing as a defender.

Nope, doesn't work that way. Or rather, it does, but not to any significant degree unless the other party members' defenses are unreasonably low.

I notice that you keep saying that Paladins aren't defenders, but have yet to provide any numbers to support that assertion. Meanwhile, other people, including myself, have posted numbers to deny your assertion. I took the liberty of digging up a couple posts from your "Paladins aren't Defenders" thread a while back wherein I had demonstrated that it is more harmful to the party if the monsters do not ignore the Paladin's Divine Challenge, and further that it is only more beneficial for monsters to ignore the Paladin if the other party members' defenses were 12 lower than the Paladin's. Which, since the test took place at level 1 and the Paladin had 20 AC, was literally impossible.

Those posts, spoilered for your convenience.
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.


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.

Kurald Galain
2009-04-16, 10:44 AM
Meanwhile, other people, including myself, have posted numbers to deny your assertion.
That claim is more than a little silly. Your post is a highly contrived and cherry-picked set of circumstances, and based on several false assumptions. Meanwhile, on the WOTC charop forums, several threads are ongoing that compare the efficacy of classes, and that point out that of all four defender classes printed so far, the paladin is certainly the worst at actually defending anybody other than himself.

Or, as Oslecamo just said, the paladin has to "block the monsters the hard way: with your hard face, by standing between them and the party members. Works better in tight tunnels." That I completely agree with, but I'm afraid that at least in LFR adventures, one-square-wide passages are exceedingly rare.

NecroRebel
2009-04-16, 11:10 AM
That claim is more than a little silly. Your post is a highly contrived and cherry-picked set of circumstances, and based on several false assumptions. Meanwhile, on the WOTC charop forums, several threads are ongoing that compare the efficacy of classes, and that point out that of all four defender classes printed so far, the paladin is certainly the worst at actually defending anybody other than himself.

'Silly' or not, my claim stands. It can't hurt you to, you know, actually support your claims, can it? Hell, you can even find and post things that other people have worked out. That would work to support your claims as well, while just saying that the support exists doesn't actually support anything at all.

Also, while I agree that the circumstances there are fairly specific, they aren't chosen to support my point and thus don't fall under what I see as the normal definition of 'cherry-picked.' It uses a moderately-optimized party going up against one of the example monster groups presented in the Monster Manual. Note that the monster group wasn't in fact chosen by me, either; it, and the group's stats except for the changes I explicitly made, was chosen by the person I was responding to, douglas.

Finally, I should point out that assumptions cannot be 'false.' They can be disagreed with, which is fine, say which you disagree with and how they change the numbers, but assumptions are, by definition, things that are assumed to be true for the sake of the argument being made. The test is not contrived, nothing about it was cherry-picked, and there are no false assumptions. It is simply a case study that is used to extend the findings to the general case.

Again, I challenge you to support your assertions with numbers, not empty appeals to authority.

Artanis
2009-04-16, 12:46 PM
They contribute to his ability to be useful in combat and a reasonably effective character; just not a defender.
The way I see it, a defender's job has two parts:
1) Get the enemy to target you instead of somebody else
2) Survive them doing so

Last I checked, being a more effective character contributes to #1 by making you a more inviting target. As proof, I present the fact that the more effective a Rogue is at stabbing people in the spleen, the more likely those people are to try to take him out. So anything that makes the Paladin a more effective character - including the ability to heal that EVERYBODY ignores in these discussions - makes the Paladin a more inviting target, and thus better at #1, and thus in turn a better defender.

Darth Stabber
2009-04-16, 12:57 PM
So of all the 4e threads that I have started, almost 75% have derailed into How much do paladins suck discussions. And there have been several dedicated do paladins suck threads.

So far hear are the opinions of paladin that i have heard
1)Perfectly valid defender
2)thinly disguised striker
3)thinly disguised Leader
4)Jack of all trades master of none
5)utter abomination of class design

How did we go from silly fighter build to paladins suck/no the don't?

Kurald Galain
2009-04-16, 05:39 PM
TLast I checked, being a more effective character contributes to #1 by making you a more inviting target. As proof, I present the fact that the more effective a Rogue is at stabbing people in the spleen, the more likely those people are to try to take him out.

By that logic, the rogue is a defender :smallbiggrin:

But yeah, we should just invoke Chocolate and be done with it.

NecroRebel
2009-04-16, 05:46 PM
But yeah, we should just invoke Chocolate and be done with it.

No, you should just post any actual evidence you have that helps your point.

Also, strawberry :smallmad: