Defender Challenge/Punish Question

[Gunndykol]

I am new to actually playing D&D with the 4e ruleset and am planning to build a Amazon Spear Fighter. My understanding is that they are really good at locking mobs down and keeping them focused on the Defender.

What I am confused about is the concept of only one immediate action per round. It's my understanding that I can only punish 1 monster per round for breaking my Combat Challenge.

For instance, I've got two orcs marked and adjacent to me:

- Orc #1 take his turn and shifts 1 square and attempts to attack my healer. I use Combat Challenge to hit the orc and stop his movement and interrupt his ability to attack my ally. Defender works.

Now Orc #2 takes his turn and shifts 1 square and attacks my ally. I cannot attack or punish the second monster because I already used my immediate action this round on orc #1 and the orc shifted so he doesn't provoke a general opportunity attack. My ally takes the full force of the attack and there is nothing I can do to stop it.

Am I understanding this scenario correctly? Are only defenders who's mark punishment is not an interrupt able to punish multiple enemies (without taking Rapid Challenge or similar feat later)?

If this is the scenario, it would seem that depending on encounter design if the DM prefers horde type fights instead of BBEG fights, I may want to choose a different Defender class.

Thanks in advance for guidance.

[Kurald Galain]

Yes, that's correct, but spear fighters are still awesome, and the fighter class is probably the best defender in all of 4E. Note that the point of a 4E defender is not to take all hits, just some of them. Use tricks like Footwork Lure + Polearm Momentum to knock monsters prone so they can't reach your allies; and use a variety of utility powers to further protect your allies.

[NecroRebel]

Well, you wouldn't be able to stop Orc #1's movement if it had shifted, because fighters stop movement only on opportunity attacks which Combat Challenge's immediate interrupt attack isn't. If a target shifts away from you you usually can't stop them from attacking your allies, but you should have high enough average damage per attack that between that and the mark penalty it's not a good idea to violate your mark.



But otherwise, yes, you're understanding the scenario more or less correctly. However, what you might be missing is the fact that you get an opportunity action on every enemy's turn, and Combat Superiority will stop their movement on a hit, so practically speaking they need to shift away from you and then charge if they want to attack anyone else. That limits enemies to their basic attacks, which is still beneficial to you.

Fighters are probably the best at locking down a single enemy, but bear in mind that most other Defenders can't mark more than one enemy at all with their marking class feature until at least paragon tier, and no one else gets something like Combat Superiority, which makes fighters amazingly sticky even for targets they don't have marked.

[Kurald Galain]

And then there's this trick,

1) enemy moves past you
2) you get an opportunity attack
3) regardless of whether you hit, the enemy is now marked
4) if the enemy moves away or attacks an ally, you get a combat challenge attack
6) profit!

[tcrudisi]

You are not understanding it correctly. To use your scenario:

Orc #1 shifts away. You use your immediate action for combat challenge to attack him. He does NOT stop moving. If the orc is still alive, he is at -2 to hit your cleric ally.

Orc #2 shifts away to attack your ally. Since you have already used your immediate action, you cannot attack him. He attacks your cleric ally with a -2 penalty to his attack roll.

Note that the -2 is pretty stiff by itself. Usually it makes your allies defenses on par with yours.

....

You were confusing Opportunity Action with Immediate Action. They are very different. You get an Opportunity Attack when an enemy moves away from a square that you threaten without shifting or teleporting, uses a ranged attack from a square that you threaten, and uh, well, those are the main 2 ways. There might be another, but its slipped my mind at the moment.

So let's change up your scenario.

Your cleric ally is farther away. Orc #1 decides to move (not shift) so that he can hit your cleric ally. He moves. You opportunity attack him. You hit, so his movement immediately ends. He has now used up his move action. He can still attack you with his standard if he desires.

Orc #2 decides to attack your cleric ally. He moves. You opportunity attack him, too. You miss, so he continues sauntering on over to your cleric ally where he attacks at a -2 penalty. He rolls a 20 with a high crit weapon, scoring 5000 points of damage. Your cleric becomes paste and the entire party looks at you with disgust as you just let the cleric die. Bad warrior. Bad. No biscuit.

Do you notice the trend here? If they are marked by you, they get a -2 penalty to attack your allies. (Unless you are also a part of the attack, such as with bursts and blasts.) You can take an infinite number of Opportunity Attacks per round, but only 1 per turn. (A turn is one characters turn. A round is every characters turn.) You can take one immediate action per round. (This resets at the beginning of your turn.) Minor note: You cannot make Opp Attacks or Immediate Actions during your own turn.

Yes, Fighters are great at locking down enemies. The -2 alone is usually enough to keep the monsters attention. The free attacks also help.

[Dimers]

What I am confused about is the concept of only one immediate action per round. It's my understanding that I can only punish 1 monster per round for breaking my Combat Challenge.

For instance, I've got two orcs marked and adjacent to me:

- Orc #1 take his turn and shifts 1 square and attempts to attack my healer. I use Combat Challenge to hit the orc and stop his movement and interrupt his ability to attack my ally. Defender works.

Now Orc #2 takes his turn and shifts 1 square and attacks my ally. I cannot attack or punish the second monster because I already used my immediate action this round on orc #1 and the orc shifted so he doesn't provoke a general opportunity attack. My ally takes the full force of the attack and there is nothing I can do to stop it.

Am I understanding this scenario correctly?

Almost -- Orc1 doesn't get STOPPED on a Combat Challenge hit, because it's the attack is an immediate action rather than an Opportunity Attack. So if it tries to shift, it may take damage from you, but then if it's still alive it'll finish the shift.


Are only defenders who's mark punishment is not an interrupt able to punish multiple enemies (without taking Rapid Challenge or similar feat later)?

If this is the scenario, it would seem that depending on encounter design if the DM prefers horde type fights instead of BBEG fights, I may want to choose a different Defender class.

If two orcs are right beside you and both can shift 1 square to be right beside your ally but away from you, then yes, you can only punish one for that shift. That's an awfully specific situation, though. In general the Fighter is a good defender because it can prevent normal movement AND make shifts a less attractive option. That's something no other defender can accomplish with just its class features.

Only paladins focusing on divine sanction (introduced as part of certain powers and feats in the Divine Power book) can effectively punish multiple enemies in a round, pre-epic. And that's just hit point damage. What makes fighters so great is that they can often prevent an enemy from even attempting an attack against an ally, because they control movement well.

In any case, you shouldn't focus too much on preventing ALL enemies from attacking your allies -- then they would all just gang up on you, and no matter how good your armor and hit points are, that would end poorly. Your squishy teammates can take some hits too -- and they should, considering that if only one person ever gets hit, that one person's pool of surges determines when the whole party has to retreat for the day. Instead, think of the defender's role as taking away good options from enemies, either by penalizing everything they might choose to do, or by outright removing certain options. Balance your punishment, denial and self-protection; make them all great, and you've made a great defender.

EDIT: Sooooo ninja'ed.

[Gunndykol]

Thanks for the replies. Makes sense.

I guess I'm just so used to MMORPG stuff (since I haven't played table-top since AD&D 2nd Edition back 1994 when it was every character for themselves) that I was more thinking of being a "meat-shield".

Sounds like I just need to take a broader look at Defending in table-top and adjust to the realities.

[tcrudisi]

Thanks for the replies. Makes sense.

I guess I'm just so used to MMORPG stuff (since I haven't played table-top since AD&D 2nd Edition back 1994 when it was every character for themselves) that I was more thinking of being a "meat-shield".

Sounds like I just need to take a broader look at Defending in table-top and adjust to the realities.

Actually, most of the time the defender does end up being a meat shield.

For example, at level 1 a Fighter will usually have AC 19. A rogue will usually have AC 17. If you've got something marked and it attacks the rogue, it does so at -2 to attack. So it needs to roll a 19 (total) to hit... which happens to be what it needs to hit the Fighter anyway.

So it has a choice to make: attack the Rogue or attack the Fighter. If it attacks the Rogue, then the Fighter gets a free attack on him. If it attacks the Fighter, then its attacking the guy with a few more hit points.

What you'll find is that, in most cases, the defender will end up being a meat shield.

[Dimers]

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear "4e really doesn't operate much like MMORPGs!" :smallamused:

[GPuzzle]

I can't tell you how refreshing it is to hear "4e really doesn't operate much like MMORPGs!" :smallamused:

Yeah, it really is good to hear, isn't it?

[Gunndykol]

Hehe..I bet.

But I still honestly thing that a lot of the 4e game design was done with MMORPGs in mind. The structured at-wills, encounters, dailies abilities and enormous restriction on Multi-Classing (compared to previous editions) just screams of a design concept that would make created an MMORPG from the new ruleset more viable. And hence we have Neverwinter.

I find it harder and harder to find time to actually get together around a table top with my friends all over the city vs simply all of us logging on from our own living rooms for a night of gaming.

However, I REALLY miss and want to get back to the good feeling of spending all night in a buddies basement, scarfing down Cheetos and soda and rolling dice all over the place (and leaving Cheetos dust all over to boot). The best part of table-top gaming is still the imagination part of things and the true social aspect (calling MMOs a social game is just wrong).

[Akodo Makama]

Hehe..I bet.

But I still honestly thing that a lot of the 4e game design was done with MMORPGs in mind. The structured at-wills, encounters, dailies abilities and enormous restriction on Multi-Classing (compared to previous editions) just screams of a design concept that would make created an MMORPG from the new ruleset more viable. And hence we have Neverwinter.

If by 'previous editions' you mean only 3e, and completely ignore any prior editions. 'Cause multiclassing in 2e and prior was something done once, either at character creation (if non-human), or by forgoing your original class for a while and starting at level 1 again (if human).

[Kimera757]

I am new to actually playing D&D with the 4e ruleset and am planning to build a Amazon Spear Fighter. My understanding is that they are really good at locking mobs down and keeping them focused on the Defender.

What I am confused about is the concept of only one immediate action per round. It's my understanding that I can only punish 1 monster per round for breaking my Combat Challenge.

For instance, I've got two orcs marked and adjacent to me:

- Orc #1 take his turn and shifts 1 square and attempts to attack my healer. I use Combat Challenge to hit the orc and stop his movement and interrupt his ability to attack my ally. Defender works.

Not exactly. Combat Challenge stops the orc, but that doesn't stop him from attacking. You also don't get any extra attacks, and there's nothing preventing the orc from attacking beyond the -2 to hit (unless the orc died). However, the orc has to decide if taking -2 to hit and risking getting smacked is worth hitting your friend.


Now Orc #2 takes his turn and shifts 1 square and attacks my ally. I cannot attack or punish the second monster because I already used my immediate action this round on orc #1 and the orc shifted so he doesn't provoke a general opportunity attack. My ally takes the full force of the attack and there is nothing I can do to stop it.

True, but he'll be at -2 to hit. A knight is, frankly, a bit better at this (because their punishment is an opportunity attack).

Note that if either orc didn't shift, but could still attack an ally, you could smack either one of them as an interrupt instead. Again, you're only getting a single free attack, but that's increasing your damage for the turn. Also note that fighter encounter and daily powers can easily contain enemies in other ways (slowing, immobilizing, shove + follow [Tide of Iron], etc).


Am I understanding this scenario correctly? Are only defenders who's mark punishment is not an interrupt able to punish multiple enemies (without taking Rapid Challenge or similar feat later)?

Correct. Even so, fighters (and knights) are probably the best defenders around. They punish movement, shifts and attacks on allies.


If this is the scenario, it would seem that depending on encounter design if the DM prefers horde type fights instead of BBEG fights, I may want to choose a different Defender class.

DMs always influence the game that way. If you're worried about hordes, a knight (or cavalier, Essentials paladin) is a better choice. If you're facing minions, the cavalier is amazing. Alas, a knight only has support for swords and hammers, not spears (in the core Essentials product, at least; I hear there's a good eladrin knight build but I don't know what sources you need).

[Kurald Galain]

Correct. Even so, fighters (and knights) are probably the best defenders around. They punish movement, shifts and attacks on allies.
Fighters are much better than knights. That's because fighters get some excellent encounter and daily powers, and knights don't. A fighter using only its at-will powers would be about on the same level as a knight.

If you're worried about hordes of minions, bring a controller (e.g. a wizard). Anything with area effect powers takes minions down fast; it shouldn't be a fighter's job to deal with those.

[Dimers]

If you're worried about hordes of minions, bring a controller (e.g. a wizard).

Or a sorcerer! Or a monk with both Starblade Flurry and Skipping Stone Flurry! God, I loved that build. :smallbiggrin:

[MariusKeint]

Fighters are much better than knights. That's because fighters get some excellent encounter and daily powers, and knights don't. A fighter using only its at-will powers would be about on the same level as a knight.

If you're worried about hordes of minions, bring a controller (e.g. a wizard). Anything with area effect powers takes minions down fast; it shouldn't be a fighter's job to deal with those.

My first post was eaten by the net! ughhh...anyway!Here's a shorter version of my original reply.

I disagree that a fighter is a BETTER defender than the knight. While he might have a few good encounter powers and descent nova damage with his dailies, a knight is more resilient, more sticky, and has far better (and more damaging/ lasting) punishment. And unlike a fighter, a knight doesn't need to attack to mark a target. He just needs them adjacent. A fighter surrounded by a dozen non-minion enemies is propably dead within a round, even if he can do AoE damage and such to them. A knight is very likely to survive without even getting bloodied if built right.

I agree that if a spear-wielding warrior is your concept, you should go with a normal fighter. Even if your DM lets you wield a spear as a staff, the staff build Knight is very subpar to the Hammer and Heavy Blade. I'd say focus on charges and dps. Your defending is good without the need to focus on it further, and your dps should help any party.

[Kurald Galain]

While he might have a few good encounter powers and descent nova damage with his dailies,
He might? The fighter has the widest selection of encounter/daily powers of any class save the wizard, and there are several excellent picks here. For instance, Rain of Blows, Come and Get It, and Rain of Steel throughout heroic tier. Other high-tier classes like the ranger and barbarian commonly multiclass to fighter to grab a fighter power.

A knight is clearly less sticky than a fighter because he lacks the fighter's combat superiority feature. You consider the knight tougher because he has one more point of armor class? I suppose that's technically true, but that's not going to make a difference when surrounded by a dozen enemies. On the other hand, using a fighter daily to gain resist 5 all has quite the impact there.

[MariusKeint]

He might? The fighter has the widest selection of encounter/daily powers of any class save the wizard, and there are several excellent picks here. For instance, Rain of Blows, Come and Get It, and Rain of Steel throughout heroic tier. Other high-tier classes like the ranger and barbarian commonly multiclass to fighter to grab a fighter power.

A knight is clearly less sticky than a fighter because he lacks the fighter's combat superiority feature. You consider the knight tougher because he has one more point of armor class? I suppose that's technically true, but that's not going to make a difference when surrounded by a dozen enemies. On the other hand, using a fighter daily to gain resist 5 all has quite the impact there.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying Kurald but remember, a knight can actually gain any of those encounter attack Powers (although only some will be of equal use to him). The knight lacks the fighter's Combat Superiority? I guess thats true, and thus he cannot pick some neat feats that go with it. But what he can do instead is slow at-will, push at-will, shift and place himself where he is needed at-will, depending on his stances. And by picking the right feats (what the fighter needs to do anyway if his Combat Superiority is going to matter much) the knight can knock prone, immobilize, and even daze his foes all with a basic attack (and so as part of his punishment). Combat Superiority lets a fighter stop one enemy's movement once per round. A fighter can slow EVERY enemy around him every round, and with feats add nasty riders on top of that on ALL of his basic attacks, both punishments and normal. The knight needs much more work to work as well as a fighter, and a fighter has a MUCH bigger variety of Powers to choose from, but in the end there are truly only a few dailies that are truly awesome (and not just good). IMO, they do not make the fighter better than the knight though. And I have played a fighter to level 22 and a knight to level 25, so i know how they both work in all tiers.

And the Knight does not have one extra point of armor alone btw. The knight starts with Plate, the fighter can only wear up to scale(it might be just one point to start but the difference is increased later). He needs to spend feats if he wants better armor and that's extra feats for the knight to use on improving his basic attack. What the Knight lacks compared to the fighter is support in the variety of feats they can use, and of course the variety of their encounter Powers and Dailies (which the Knight lacks). But the knight is much more consistent in forcing enemies to focus on him than the fighter is unless the fighter builds heavily to do the same (feat taxing again that the knight can use to improve other factors).

I guess, its a matter of style and group. The Knight is more controlish with better survivability whereas the fighter is more flexible in his role and can assume any role (except Leader maybe) with relative ease while still being a very good defender.

P.S. I am not arguing with Kurald Galain's (i can't argue with anyone who likes Malazan really!) claims but pointing out a few things most people forget or ignore about knights. Like all Essential classes what the knight lacks most obviously is variety to his actions. Compared to a core Fighter, the Knight feels almost like a 3rd edition fighter with limited attack options.

[tcrudisi]

Combat Superiority lets a fighter stop one enemy's movement once per round.

Per turn, not per round.


And the Knight does not have one extra point of armor alone btw. The knight starts with Plate, the fighter can only wear up to scale(it might be just one point to start but the difference is increased later). He needs to spend feats if he wants better armor and that's extra feats for the knight to use on improving his basic attack.

The difference is 1 point throughout all tiers. Scale gets masterwork increases at the same levels as plate, with both ending at +12 for +6 armors.

Combat Superiority makes the Fighter a stickier defender than the Knight.

[MariusKeint]

Per turn, not per round.



The difference is 1 point throughout all tiers. Scale gets masterwork increases at the same levels as plate, with both ending at +12 for +6 armors.

Combat Superiority makes the Fighter a stickier defender than the Knight.
Per turn, yes. That was a typo. But my point was that he can stop each enemy's move once, and then the monster can move away again using its standard action etc with the fighter unable to do nothing. Whereas that enemy would have a speed of 2 after the knight hit him (or be immobilized, or dazed) thus making it nearly impossible for them to reach anyone but the knight. At a per round basis btw, not a per encounter as with the fighter. The Fighter's Combat Superiority is NOT better than the Knight's defender Aura +Punishment (at-will aura effect added). The Fighter's Combat Superiority +Mark+ a bunch of support feats makes it equally viable maybe. But that's yet another few feats spent to get there. What the fighter far surpasses the Knight in is raw damage, especially end boss Novas. IF you have saved your dailies, and have the right encounters Fighter CAN lock down an enemy for an entire encounter while doing huge damage at them (almost striker level). A knight DOES lock down enemies entire encounters, every encounter and can keep on going...and going...and going. He'll never, EVER reach the Fighter's damage output though. So I guess thats one area the fighter far outshines the Knight. Note however that damage isn't a Fighter's role or even secondary role.

The armor i'll have to check when I get home. I guess its possible that my fighter was wearing +4 scale and the Knight +5 to explain the difference in their AC at Epic Tier.

[Kurald Galain]

Damage is certainly relevant, and fighters are generally considered to have a secondary in striker, yes. Dead enemies can't act, after all.

More to the point, the Fighter can also daze/prone/immobilize enemies with his opportunity attack. Heavy Blade Opportunity to push, Hindering Shield to slow, Polearm Momentum to prone, Grappling Strike to immobilize, Overwhelming Impact to daze. By epic tier you would have plenty of spare feats to pull this off. Of course, the fighter has dazing attacks starting from level one, whereas the knight has to wait until epic; so in terms of control, fighter wins.

The thing is this. If a character is surrounded by six enemies and they all try to shift away, then yes, the fighter can attack only one whereas the knight can attack all of them. But that scenario is not realistic. If a character is surrounded by six enemies, then what will happen in practice is that they hit him until he is down. And in terms of survivability, the fighter's defensive dailies trump the knight's +1 to armor class.

Of course, knights are easier to build and easier to play, so they have that going for them. But it's not for nothing that the fighter is widely considered the best defender in the books.

[MariusKeint]

Damage is certainly relevant, and fighters are generally considered to have a secondary in striker, yes. Dead enemies can't act, after all.

More to the point, the Fighter can also daze/prone/immobilize enemies with his opportunity attack. Heavy Blade Opportunity to push, Hindering Shield to slow, Polearm Momentum to prone, Grappling Strike to immobilize, Overwhelming Impact to daze. By epic tier you would have plenty of spare feats to pull this off. Of course, the fighter has dazing attacks starting from level one, whereas the knight has to wait until epic; so in terms of control, fighter wins.

The thing is this. If a character is surrounded by six enemies and they all try to shift away, then yes, the fighter can attack only one whereas the knight can attack all of them. But that scenario is not realistic. If a character is surrounded by six enemies, then what will happen in practice is that they hit him until he is down. And in terms of survivability, the fighter's defensive dailies trump the knight's +1 to armor class.

Of course, knights are easier to build and easier to play, so they have that going for them. But it's not for nothing that the fighter is widely considered the best defender in the books.

The Knight can daze from level one as well at an encounter basis.And doesn't require a ton of feats to pull it off by Epic level. But thats not the point. I guess the difference is that a Fighter CAN be the best defender in the game if you focus heavily on it, choosing the right powers, and feats. As you said, its easier to pull it off with a Knight, and pull it off constantly without having to worry about who to mark and when to use dailies. But what irks me about fighters really is a personal dislike on the fact that making a shield wielding fighter is almost suboptimal to almost every other build. And even if you go with shield, you will never ever choose shield powers over other equivalent level weapon powers available, except for fluff. Despite the vast choice of powers-or maybe because he has such huge choice- the best "defender" in the game is on the top of his game when equipped with a two-handed weapon (polearm mostly). I know that doesn't make him less effective, but the fact that it needs so much work, careful choice of powers and feats during your career, and reliance on specific equipment, makes it counter-productive to me.

Don't get me wrong, on the same tone I hate the fact that knights cannot use (they can but not in any optimal way) any weapons except for heavy blades OR hammers. That goes so against what a knight is supposed to be that its not even funny. Like all essential classes, the knight seems to lack when compared to a PHB class, especially a PHB1. They lack options, and can only fill in one role though. They don't lack as a defender.

As for the paradigm of a fighter and a knight surrounded by 6 enemies, I can tell you that it happens to me all the time. For me, do you know why my Knight survives relatively unscathed whereas my fighter doesn't? As a knight i am not afraid to use total defence to boost my defence along with my utilities. With a fighter, its hard to justify staying put and not using standard actions because that means no marks and thus, enemies can just ignore you. I guess i could have built my fighter to take advantage of minor action marks and use full defence when needed, but the VAST choice of options that a fighter gets when using his actions makes it a waste to spend it just buffing your defence. The knight on the other hand simply needs to keep enemies in his aura and stay capable of OA. Yes its silly claiming that the lack of options can make a knight a good (if boring) defender, but since he does not need to worry of putting marks on targets, its unfortunately true.

P.S i like both classes. I just wish the fighter had better weapon and shield options to supplement his role. But in the 4th edition's moto "best condition to put on an enemy is dead". So I guess damage output is important lol. Point to you sir :)