Fighter + Paladn

29 posts / 0 new
Last post
Okay, okay. Maybe it's pretty obvious; maybe some of you have done this already, but a fighter and paladin can lay down some reasonably heinous punishment on a chosen target this way:

Fighter moves up to and locks down a chosen enemy, or enemies. Paladin with spear moves around to the side, attacks and marks opponent. Opponent must attack Paladin or suffer 8-10 damage; opponent must not move away from Fighter or suffer attack of opportunity. If enemy is smart, he attacks the Fighter -- he's more likely not to have his options restricted and take both sourcs of damage.
Or enemy shifts and attacks paladin. No biggie.

(I'm going with the assumption that you meant using a spear as a reach weapon, not a thrown weapon, right?)
Or enemy shifts and attacks paladin. No biggie.

(I'm going with the assumption that you meant using a spear as a reach weapon, not a thrown weapon, right?)

Shifting would cause the Fighter to get a free basic attack on the enemy ;)
Shifting would cause the Fighter to get a free basic attack on the enemy ;)

No, because the paladin is marking the creature. Check the "Combat Challenge" thread. Logan Bonner stated that the fighter must be marking to get the free swing.

Even if the fighter got the free swing, it's still better. Attacking the fighter nets the monster a 100% chance of 2xCha (i think?) radiant damage and -2 to hit the fighter. Shifting to attack the paladin nets him a X% chance of [W]+Str and a normal attack vs. the paladin.
If I were the DM, I would have the enemy shift and attack the Paladin.

Sure, the fighter may stop him if he hits, but as a DM, I wouldn't have a monster NOT move because "oh well this guy has a special ability where if I move he can stop me". To the monster, shifting is a safe way to move, so it makes the most sense.

Otherwise, if the DM never moved the monster, you may as well change the fighter's ability to "monsters in melee range with fighters, cannot move at all"

But yeah, it is a good combo. Essentially what that happens is that the fighter gets a free attack and possibly stops the monster. If the fighter attack succeeds, monster attacks Fighter and feels some pain. If the monster makes it within range of the paladin, he attacks the Paladin. This combo allows us at most a free fighter attack + pally mark damage OR if the fighter misses, we essentially get nothing. One thing to keep in mind is that this tactic is good against ONE opponent. I'm thinking there will be less fights where you are up against one opponent, so this may not be as optimal as it seems. I think in many fights it wouldn't be used until there is 1 monster left, as a lot of the time you don't want both defenders simply trying to abuse 1 monster really hard, as other monsters are likely going after more vulnerable targets.

It is interesting how the Paladin having a melee weapon with reach kind of changes everything. Without that, there really isn't much of a combo to see. Forcing the monster to move a square just to hit the Paladin and his reach weapon, is really what makes the combo powerful.

Consider if the Paladin was a striker. Assuming the monster stands still and attacks the Fighter, it will take Paladin melee dmg + 8-10 damage. Can the striker deal that much? Very possible. Assuming the monster moves towards the Paladin(something he wouldn't do if the Paladin were a striker), it will take Paladin melee dmg + 8-10 + fighter melee dmg. That is more damage than a striker can deal, but also consider that it required the fighter to land his melee hit, so you can really only count on maybe half of his normal damage and half of the 8-10 damage(assuming he hits on 11+). So clearly the combo is much more powerful if the fighter lands his hit. If you assume the monster just stands there and hits the fighter, it looks like this is possibly around par with having a striker instead of a Paladin, depending on how much the striker deals on average.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, but I doubt any of the groups I play in will have 2 defenders in the same group, so I will likely need to come and read about others abusing the combo!
After making this post, I just read about this whole "fighter must attack marked opponent with his combat challenge" info.

Assuming that the Paladin mark overwrites the Fighter's mark(I'm not sure if this is the case or not, can anyone clarify?), it seems like this combo is not all that effective.

If the monster simply stands still and attack the fighter, and takes the paladin mark damage, I would think that having a striker over a Paladin would be more efficient.

Then it just comes down to "Can striker outdamage one Paladin melee attack + mark damage with his single attack?"
Assuming that the Paladin mark overwrites the Fighter's mark(I'm not sure if this is the case or not, can anyone clarify?), it seems like this combo is not all that effective.

Yes, only one mark per monster. Otherwise, I'd pity anything facing a 5-pally team.
Can I get a link to the thread that Logan posted on?
Can I get a link to the thread that Logan posted on?

Sure thing. It was on a different forum, I thought it was this one.
Nevermind.
Can I get a link to the thread that Logan posted on?

http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15905816&postcount=24


There seems to be some misinformation floating around here. As far as I last heard this discussion:

The Fighter can make his Combat Challenge basic attack against a shifting opponent regardless of whether the target is marked or not (the ability makes no mention of needing the target to be marked).

This basic attack is not an opportunity attack (or else it would say so) and thus does not stop the enemy's movement if it hits.

Thus, this combo only works to either inflict the penalties of the Paladin's mark OR give the Fighter a free attack. To get both, you would need a fully ranged, rather than merely reach, Paladin, and the right setup positions (so the monster couldn't shift out of the Fighter's reach and then charge the Paladin).

The clarification Logan made applied to the latest version of Fighter we have seen (H1), and specified that Combat Challenge requires the target to be marked in order to gain an Immediate Reaction to its actions.

That said, it's fairly meaningless unless it's in the PHB, which is what people will be using for rule-keeping.

Also, it seems that the Fighter no longer stops movement with his OA's.
Cool, thanks for the info.

I thought that the combat challenge stopping OAs would be a result of the sword-and-board build, instead of the two handed build...
http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=15905816&postcount=24
Also, it seems that the Fighter no longer stops movement with his OA's.

Actually it says that the basic attack is not an OA and so does not stop movement. An actual OA still will stop movement. That's why he said you would need a ranged paladin instead of just reach, so that the monster would have to actually move instead of shift to get to the paladin.
Actually it says that the basic attack is not an OA and so does not stop movement. An actual OA still will stop movement. That's why he said you would need a ranged paladin instead of just reach, so that the monster would have to actually move instead of shift to get to the paladin.

Even if they did that, the monster could shift + charge unless the Paladin was at a significant distance.

Beyond that, this whole situation assumes something like a Solo monster encounter. Even if you only have two elites, the party will likely want both Defenders using their marks, so the tag-team wouldn't work so well. Since most Solo monsters will (probably) have a way around this sort of thing, I'm just not seeing the "op" in this optimization. It's a nice theory, but I bet it breaks down in practice.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
Even if they did that, the monster could shift + charge unless the Paladin was at a significant distance.

I don't think that would work. The whole point of shifting is that you are safely disengaging or moving in combat. In third edition if you took a five foot step and then moved it counted as you moving from your original location. I thing the same thing goes for shifting. If you shift that is your move action. I might be completely wrong, and if I am I apologize, but that's just my take on things.
You aren't incorrect...a shift takes your move action.

A charge, however, is just a standard. Movement is significantly different in 4th edition and takes some getting used to.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
You aren't incorrect...a shift takes your move action.

A charge, however, is just a standard. Movement is significantly different in 4th edition and takes some getting used to.

So you can move wherever you want and THEN charge(moving the charge distance)?

I'm not sure I am understanding correctly. If a charge is a standard action then you can charge something a LONG ways away!
So you can move wherever you want and THEN charge(moving the charge distance)?

I'm not sure I am understanding correctly. If a charge is a standard action then you can charge something a LONG ways away!

Except a charge is just your move plus an attack, not 2x your move like in 3E. So, move + charge = 2x movement plus attack in both edition. Just now you can shift + 1x movement charge, unlike before.
Except a charge is just your move plus an attack, not 2x your move like in 3E. So, move + charge = 2x movement plus attack in both edition. Just now you can shift + 1x movement charge, unlike before.

I think you might be able to run on a charge (+2 squares of movement) as well, although I'm not certain on this point. I'd have to really want to charge someone to grant my enemies combat advantage anyway.

Orcs can charge a freakishly long distance with just a standard either way.
D&D rules were never meant to exist without the presence of a DM. RAW is a lie.
Except a charge is just your move plus an attack, not 2x your move like in 3E. So, move + charge = 2x movement plus attack in both edition. Just now you can shift + 1x movement charge, unlike before.

Also, since charge is a basic attack only, as far as we've seen, it's not as big a deal as it used to be. I don't see charging being a very frequent tactic unless you somehow have to charge to cover the distance, since powers are going to be so much more potent than your basic attack.
actually the combo will work beautifully.

QUOTE FROM KotS:
"In addition, whenever an enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt."

So according to this, the paladin doesnt even have to use his spear cause if the enemy attacks anyone other than the figher while being adjacent to the fighter, the fighter gets an Aoo.

This ability is in addition to the marking ability for a -2. They are two seperate benefits of combat challenge class feature.

In conclusion, COMBO on baby, cause thats what class synergy is all about.
Except a charge is just your move plus an attack, not 2x your move like in 3E. So, move + charge = 2x movement plus attack in both edition. Just now you can shift + 1x movement charge, unlike before.

from Kots:

"Charge. as a standard action, you can launch yourself forward and make a melee basic attack.Move your speed as part of the charge. At the end of your move, you make a melee basic attack with a +1 bonus to the attack roll. You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position, and must charge to the nearest unoccupied square from which you can attack the enemy. Charging provokes attack of opportunity. After a charge, you cant take any further actions unless you spend an action point."

so charging sucks up your move action and minor action, to grant you a +1 to attack. You Cannot use a move action in the same round that you charge.
from Kots:

"Charge. as a standard action, you can launch yourself forward and make a melee basic attack.Move your speed as part of the charge. At the end of your move, you make a melee basic attack with a +1 bonus to the attack roll. You must move at least 2 squares from your starting position, and must charge to the nearest unoccupied square from which you can attack the enemy. Charging provokes attack of opportunity. After a charge, you cant take any further actions unless you spend an action point."

so charging sucks up your move action and minor action, to grant you a +1 to attack. You Cannot use a move action in the same round that you charge.

I think you've read it wrong. You can do your minor and move action before you charge as a standard action. You get to move as A PART OF THE CHARGE. So, you can minor, move your speed, then charge your speed, followed by an basic melee at +1.
This ability is in addition to the marking ability for a -2. They are two seperate benefits of combat challenge class feature.

Unless, of course, they actually only function on a Marked target as Logan said about the Shifting feature in the other thread. Hopefully the PHB will make all this completely clear.

As for charging, see above.
Actually it says that the basic attack is not an OA and so does not stop movement. An actual OA still will stop movement. That's why he said you would need a ranged paladin instead of just reach, so that the monster would have to actually move instead of shift to get to the paladin.

No, you misunderstand me. The Combat Superiority class feature no longer prevents movement on a successful movement-proked OA.

This could be a rule change, it could be related to the 2H / Sword-and-Shield difference between the two fighter's we have seen.

Since the class feature bears the same name, I suspect it to be the former (or just removed from the quick play rules for simplicity).
if the enemy attacks anyone other than the figher while being adjacent to the fighter, the fighter gets an Aoo.

Actually, he doesn't.
He gets a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt, not an Aoo.
You can't make an Aoo as an interrupt: you'd need to use an opportunity action.
actually the combo will work beautifully.

QUOTE FROM KotS:
"In addition, whenever an enemy that is adjacent to you shifts or makes an attack that does not include you, you can make a melee basic attack against that enemy as an immediate interrupt."

So according to this, the paladin doesnt even have to use his spear cause if the enemy attacks anyone other than the figher while being adjacent to the fighter, the fighter gets an Aoo.

This ability is in addition to the marking ability for a -2. They are two seperate benefits of combat challenge class feature.

In conclusion, COMBO on baby, cause thats what class synergy is all about.

I'm still trying to make sure I understand this correctly. The Paladin's mark would overwrite the fighter's mark. Thus, if the monster goes to attack the Paladin, the fighter won't get his free attack if he shifts(since I'm now reading it as he only gets this free attack on MARKED targets, according to WotC clarification in that link, even though it was worded incorrectly on KotS pregen). So, the combo won't work. Am I understanding this correctly?
It's cool that you guys all know about this, but whats the restrictions on both the Paladin and the Fighter if they both mark the same monster? Is that possible?
A creature can only have one mark on it at a time. So, the last one placed overrides any others.