Comments

23 Responses to “The Defenders Roundtable: Breaking Down Defenses (Part I)”

1. Jay in Oregon says:

   April 28, 2011 at 1:25 pm

   Your math on the Swordmage and Warden ACs is WAY off.

   For the Swordmage, you seem to be using the DEX bonus instead of the INT bonus for calculating the AC. I get a 21 for AC: 10 + 2 (1/2 level) + 4 (INT bonus) + 2 (nonmagical leather armor) +3 (Swordmage Warding)

   For the Warden, you seem to be ignoring the Guardian Might options; there are two that allow you to use the CON bonus in place of INT or DEX for calculating AC. I get a 20 for AC: 10 + 2 (1/2 level) + 3 (CON bonus) + 3 (nonmagical hide armor) +2 (nonmagical heavy shield)
2. Kilsek says:

   April 28, 2011 at 1:27 pm

   Wow, outstanding defender analysis Michael!

   Having seen several of them in play, the swordmage definitely struck me as the most unusual of them all – not as sturdy, and much more hybrid controller/defender than the others by nature. The warden and paladin remain the most impressive to me so far in the games I’ve DM’ed and played in – staunch and tons of multi-marking ability.

   I’m excited about the Battlemind now, as I’ve yet to see or play it, so thank you! Had no idea it was so strong based on early rather mixed PHB3 reviews. And maybe I’ll give the Knight and Cavalier a look too (no Essentials takers yet in our games).
3. Perico says:

   April 28, 2011 at 1:36 pm

   Cool article. I hope you won’t mind a bit of feedback

   Some of your numbers seem to be off. The AC values for Swordmages and Wardens, in particular, are too low – they should be 21 and 20, respectively:
   Swordmage: AC=10 +2(level)+ 4(Int)+2(leather)+3(Warding)=21
   Warden: AC= 10 + 2 (level) +3(Con)+3(hide)+2(shield=20

   Taking this into account, all ACs are pretty close. In fact, in actual games, Swordmages will tend to have the highest AC of any defender, because they will have a starting 20 Intelligence most of the time, and have the best feat support for boosting AC. This is a huge upside for an otherwise unimpressive defender.

   Also, in the Marking & Retribution section, I think you are overlooking one crucial aspect of these class features: conditions for retribution triggering. Consider the following:
   - Some defenders (Battlemind, Swordmage) punish enemies only if they hit an ally, whereas others do so whenever they attack. This is a huge deal, since we can expect a marked enemy to hit an ally about 50% of the time, so the marks that trigger on a hit will trigger half as often.
   - While most defenders require their target to be adjacent, paladins, swordmages and, to a lesser degree, wardens also work at range.
   - The effectiveness of each defender’s opportunity attack is also important, in that defenders with weak OAs will see their opponents walk away from them almost unhindered. Generally, unless the mark works at range, a marked enemy will be able to choose triggering either the mark punishment or a OA, whichever is weakest. This is a major hit against battleminds and swordmages.
   - Many defenders only punish attacks, but the fighter and Cavalier also hurt adjacent enemies which shift. Battleminds can pursue shifting enemies for a similar effect.
   - Unlike other defenders, Knights and Paladins use opportunity actions for their retribution, allowing them to punish multiple enemies in a round.
   - The Paladin’s Divine Challenge is the only mark which punishes while the PC is dazed, and sometimes even when he is stunned/dominated.
   - Defender Auras are pretty cool overall, but can get easily shut down by forced movement.

   With this in mind, I’d put the retribution of fighters and knights at the very top, since they are extremely effective at locking enemies down. Battleminds suffer from their weak OAs, so enemies will rarely have to bother about Mind Spike. And effectiveness of Swordmage Aegis varies a lot: the Shielding build is fairly decent, even at higher levels, wheres Assault is mostly mediocre, and Ensnarement is utterly useless.
4. callin says:

   April 28, 2011 at 2:22 pm

   Nice analysis. At first I was going to dispute your Swordmage analysis. The swordmage in my group can almost completely negate the damage of a monster (or at least bring it low enough to become a non-factor). This is compounded by his ability to AoE mark and can negate an entire round of damage (made even more powerful if the ability [encounter or daily-not sure on that] is used in the opening rounds of combat. Also his ability to mark at range is a serious pain in my butt as DM.
   However, the group is not out of Heroic yet so I have not factored in diminishing returns as they level. Of course they are 10th level now and I haven’t seen much of a change. This may be because he now has enough encounters to warrant a change in his play style. Diminishing returns may not be a factor in actual game play as classes gain newer and more numerous abilities.
   But it is obvious to see how some classes seem to shine a lot brighter in the Defender area. However, we also need to ask ourselves, is the class incapable of acting as a Defender or is it just harder when compared to another class?
5. Editor-in-Chief says:

   April 28, 2011 at 2:35 pm

   @Jay/Perico – I apreciate you pointing out the Swordmage AC flaw – I had created a spreadsheet of defenses but typo’d the AC wrong when I transferred to my blog, which I have corrected. However I disagree with your assessment of the Warden AC, as you are assuming that the Warden will take either the Earthstrength or Stormheart Guardian Might talents, as opposed to the Lifespirit or Wildblood. In my estimation, the Lifespirit is a far more efficacious Guardian Might ability, as it provides healing and a save to an ally, which goes along with the points I want to make in the second part of my article about a defender actually “defending” the party through buffing and other abilities. Admittedly, a Lifespirit Warden would probably have a higher WIS than 12, but if you flip flopped CON for WIS in my example, then the Warden would have lower hit points.

   And Perico, while I would agree that dealing retribution damage is more potent for those classes that can deliver it upon an attack, whether it hits or not, you must admit that classes with auto-hit retribution damage are still more potent in than ones who can miss their marked target. Also, your OA argument about the weakness of Mind Spike, while valid for some enemies, cannot apply to every creature. The assumption that every monster, regardless of intelligence, can knowingly make an evaluation between a player-character’s OA potential and their mark-retribution potential is unbelievably unrealistic – even for a fantasy world. There are plenty of creatures that will have no idea what a Battlemind is, let alone why it should head the mark, and will only realize their error after they take a bite out of the rogue or wizard, and suffer the Mind Spike feedback damage themselves. That level of damage as an auto-hit is extreme, even if there are times when an enemy will realize the potential danger and avoid it – which still makes the Battlemind a pretty superior punisher of marked targets.
6. Perico says:

   April 28, 2011 at 3:31 pm

   >you must admit that classes with auto-hit retribution damage are still more potent in than ones who can miss their marked target.

   While the reliability of auto-hit damage is a boon by its own right, the math of punishing mechanics is set up so that defenders making actual attacks normally deal just as much damage, and can potentially hit much harder.

   Some quick numbers using your sample characters:

   Defender – Punishment avg. damage
   Level 5 Cavalier – 6 radiant damage
   Level 5 Battlemind – Auto-damage equal to Level 5 avg. monster damage: 13 (hit only)
   Level 5 Fighter – 65% chance of hitting for 1d8+5 = 6.175
   Level 5 Knight with Battle Wrath stance – 65% chance of hitting for 1d8+7 = 7.4

   Character attack assumes a +1 Longsword and a 18 on primary ability. Hit rate is a very conservative estimate for a Fighter. This is actually the bare minimum damage you can expect from a fighter, and it only goes higher from there: superior weapons, item bonuses to damage and any of the many ways to boost damage increase the advantage of the humble basic attack over auto-damaging blasts. And Combat Challenge still triggers twice as often as Mind Spike (and the poor Aegis of Assault, too!). So, at the very least, I’d say auto-hit retribution has some serious competitors

   As for Shielding Swordmages, it bears mentioning that Editor’s points assumes updated, post-MM3 monsters with proper damage. If for whatever reason a group uses older monsters (which I wouldn’t recommend, but whatever), they’ll get completely wrecked by Aegis, which easily prevents 80+% of damage regardless of level. However, I’d like to clarify that even post-MM3, Aegis of Shielding hits its lowest point at level 10, and doesn’t really get worse at pargon and beyond. Here are some examples:

   Level – Shielded damage – Avg. Monster damage – %Mitigated
   1 - 7 (5+2) – 9 – 77%
   10 - 8 (5+3) – 18 – 44%
   11 - 13 (10+3) – 19 – 68%
   20 - 14 (10+4) – 28 – 50%
   21 - 19 (15+4) – 29 – 65%
   30 - 21 (15+6) – 38 – 55%
7. Editor-in-Chief says:

   April 28, 2011 at 10:50 pm

   @Perico – I think you’re being far too conservative in your monster damage math in order to prove that the Mind Spike is less a potent retribution, and that the Shielding Swordmage’s Aegis is a more potent deterrent than it really is. Your maths assume that the monster is a non-Brute, throwing only the most basic “at-will” style attack, and we know that is not how monsters are designed.

   Every non-minion monster has either a limited expression power (usually with a recharge) which can do up to 50% more damage than the basic attack damage, or it will actually get extra dice thrown on top their damage for gaining CA or other positional advantages, as is the case of Skirmishers and Lurkers. Once you factor in those other higher damage attacks, which will occur at least once per monster per encounter, the Battlemind’s Mind Spike punishment damage far and away surpasses the punishment that any other Defender can dish out. And he does not even need a +1 Longsword and an 18 in his primary ability to do it.

   Sadly, those same limited damage attacks, which again all non-minion monsters have, also make the Shielding Swordmage’s Aegis keep becoming more and more insignificant. And in the case of AoE damage, protecting one ally from 8, 13, or even 21 damage is not going to stop a monster from unleashing a devastating attack on several of the Swordmage’s allies when it gets the chance. Sure that one ally gaining the Aegis reduced damage benefit will be thrilled, but the tallying up the total damage done to other allies in a blast will make the Aegis protection look anemic at best. Shielding even 60% of an attack does nothing to harm a creature – other than slightly slow down the rate it’s murdering one of the Swordmage’s allies.

   Retribution damage is the most effective deterrent because it threatens a monster’s self-preservation, and puts the monster in constant increased danger – and that is why all the other Defenders have retribution damage to some degree or another.
8. Perico says:

   April 29, 2011 at 6:56 am

   Fair enough. I tend to skip limited attacks when analyzing monster damage expressions because these are much harder to predict, as they don’t seem to follow any guidelines that I know of. If I had to make an estimation, I’d say that about 1/3 of monster attacks are encounters or rechargable, and hit for an extra 25% or so. And then there’s the fact that a significant portion of monsters (though still a minority, in my opinion) use Brute damage, which I hadn’t accounted for, either.

   At any rate, I think I’ve deviated a bit from the topic: My previous post wasn’t really intended to discuss on the relative merits of Mind Spike and Shielding Aegis compared to other marks. Rather, I was trying to point out (without much success, I guess) that:
   - Automatic damage is by no means guaranteed to beat plain old attacks. The best example of this is the fact that a paladin’s challenge doesn’t really beat the average damage of even a thoroughly unoptimized fighter. And, though I didn’t explicitly mention it, attacks are easy to boost, whereas auto-damage is more or less fixed.
   - Regardless of how good or bad Shielding Aegis actually is, it doesn’t really get noticeably worse after 10th level, as its scaling is fairly decent. This holds true if monster damage remains between the expressions I provided, and Brute-level damage (i.e. 125% of that). If you assume that monsters routinely hit for 150% or more of normal damage, then yeah, I guess it falls apart… but I’m not sure if that is a reasonable expectation.

   Finally, as a minor nitpick, I wouldn’t consider punishment effectiveness iin the face of monster AoE as a huge factor, since it’s usually easy to set up the area so that both the defender and his allies are included, preventing the mark from triggering.

   Anyway, thanks for answering, and keep up the good work
9. Rhetorical Gamer says:

   May 1, 2011 at 12:30 pm

   I’m not going to engage in a lot of math here — because it’s already been done, but having run several 4E games with different defenders in each one (and playing the game well into paragon) — anecdotally, the Shielding Swordmage and the Warden are the defenders that have caused me the most headache as a DM… (I realize that “anecdotal” evidence is only that, but this has been my play/DM experience)

   Seriously, a dwarven shielding swordmage (or a Genasi/Tiefling) with 20 INT to start are fierce at the table… You’ll get complete agreement that the Assault Swordmage is awful — and we’ve never tried the Ensnaring, but experience with several shielding swordmages (including playing one myself) says they’re better than they may seem at the “pure math” level… which is really only a part of the equation.

   We’ve never tried the Battlemind, we don’t use psionic stuff at all, but I’m curious… I remember when the BM appeared the uproar that it wasn’t any good at all because of difficulties in delivering it’s retribution — has that been effectively fixed?

   Thanks
10. Editor-in-Chief says:

    May 2, 2011 at 4:59 am

    @Rhetorical Gamer – well honestly, whether the BM gets to deliver his retribution is entirely dependent as to what kind of DM you choose to be. On one hand, if you play every monster as meta-intelligent (even dumb beasts), fully aware of all the characters’ abilities, and decide they know to simply full move away from a BM, leaving him only a Melee Basic attack as a retribution, then the BM’s Mind Spike ability is almost impossible to use. On the other hand, if a DM role-plays that a good many monsters have no idea what will happen if they keep mauling the caster once the BM has moved in and marked it, then the Mind Spike is a devastatingly powerful auto-hit of retribution damage – potentially more damaging than any other Defender’s retribution ability (depending on the attack the monster uses against the BM’s ally of course).

    As a DM myself, I let my monsters react to marks and retribution according to their origins and relative intelligence. For instance, in my Dark Sun Campaign, a jhakar busily chewing into a psion is not going to stop just because a BM ran up and marked it. But it will sure as heck change targets after it gets Mind Spike‘d once, which can be a pretty brutal retribution given the jhakar’s attacks. On the other hand, a Gith Raider is gonna be really careful around a BM, and try not to invoke a Mind Spike retribution once its marked – it’s psionic and a fairly intelligent tribesmen, and most likely savvy to what could happen if it doesn’t change targets to the Defender. It’s harder, of course, to say whether NPCs and monsters are aware of a BM’s potential in a standard fantasy world like Forgotten Realms, Nerath, or Eberron, where psionics and psionic heroes have always been a rare commodity. Certainly, I would imagine a BM would be able to Mind Spike a target at least once per encounter in those worlds when facing intelligent opponents, and more often if facing a pack of ravenous beasts with only animal smarts. So I think the Mind Spike ability is as useless as a DM wants it to be – just like a DM can actively work to thwart Rogue’s Sneak Attacks, Avenger’s Oaths, and other game mechanics, if they have their monsters well versed in meta-game knowledge.
11. Rhetorical Gamer says:

    May 2, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Fair enough.

    I tend to be more on the side of the issue that in order for the game to work, monsters have to have “knowledge” about what the mark’s going to do to them, and I don’t see that as the DM ‘thwarting’ a character — and I certainly agree that it’s fairly reasonable that a BM could get his spike to work once an encounter — but at the same time, what the “knowledge” of monsters means to me is that the mechanic is working properly if the threat of it forces the monster to choose to attack the BM instead of other targets.

    And for the issue of monster intelligence, well, that’s a highly subjective conversation, but I agree, again, that a dumb brute or beast shouldn’t automatically understand the complicated effects of the Mind Spike, but once they’ve experienced it — or experienced the consequences of moving away, then it becomes highly unlikely that a foe would be hit more than once by such a thing… That is to say, the Monsters have to guess and experiment too, but they don’t have to be “well versed in meta-game knowledge” to not fall prey to the same painful mistake over and over again.

    I tend to play my monsters from a roleplaying point of view, but I also tend to have them be relatively canny as well. And let’s face it — a large part of 4E combat (and most rpg combat, but I’d say 4E tactical takes it to a higher level) involves the application of Meta-Game Knowledge. Even something as simple as a Wizard being able to count squares to automatically and always know the absolute perfect spot to drop his area effect spells (try eyeballing a twenty-foot sphere at 50 feet in the dark and tell me you wouldn’t hit a friend or two some of the time…) is being well-versed in “meta-game knowledge.”

    Yes, a DM can be a jerk and do everything they can to “compete” with the PCs — and maybe some groups like that — but a DM who plays tactically to not continually take punishment by allowing some monsters (and even dumb ones) to figure out what hurts them is not the same thing, in my feeling about the game. A DM who blithely allows opponents to just ignore dangers to themselves despite good sense is also not really doing the players much of a service.

    And a power like the BM mark/retribution really leaves itself far more open to be avoided than most other marks — which is perhaps a balance against it’s raw striking potential — and is worthy of serious consideration in an analysis of it’s effectiveness.

    Consider this — the Shielding Swordmage may be more effective considered in the light of “roleplaying” since the mark doesn’t actively have a damaging effect on the creature… it’s much more likely that since it’s not causing actual harm, a dumb beast might continue attacking the wizard who keeps shooting it with fire and never figure out that it’s attacks are less effective because, you know, it’s upset about being shot with fire.

    And I considered scrapping everything I’d just written because it comes off sounding (to my own ears) a little harsh… and I apologize for that, I didn’t mean for it to. It upsets me to hear DMs always take the heat for “Being a jerk” at the table and for “metagaming.”

    I agree with a lot of what you said, and I love reading your take on things — so please take this in the spirit of conversation.

    On a more constructive note — I think it also bears noting that while PCs have active resources on their character sheets to learn “metagame” knowledge about monsters (the various skills) as well as a perception of their experience in terms of “oh, we fought these yellow-skinned, spotty guys before, so we kinda know what they can do” the skills and experience of encounters are largely underrepresented and so up to a DM to interpret. I mean, what are the chances that the 200 year old dwarven fighter your PCs are up against has trained his newest cohort to be aware of certain things, even if they are less experienced? Just thinking out loud at this point.

    (verification word(s): hotsean archbishop — made me happy)
12. Editor-in-Chief says:

    May 2, 2011 at 5:30 pm

    @Rhetorical Gamer – No worries, you bring up good points, and I like to see folks comment whether they agree with me or not!

    A long time ago, back in AD&D days, I got used to the fact that PCs do use meta-game knowledge to their advantage, including reading the Monster Manuals/Compendiums, and having laser-sight perfect placement of their AoEs. But DMs have the power to pull out all stops anytime we want, and really make D&D into a “DM vs. Player” game, particularly during combat Encounters. Consider that with only a few clicks to change stats, or the addition of a couple of thematic powers, a DM can turn any monster into a completely unrecognizable mutant-beast-thing, leaving PCs scratching their heads on exactly what the heck they are fighting. Other bloggers like At-Will.com (”World-Breakers”) and Sly Flourish.com (”Pimp my…”) have come up with all kinds of tweaks to critters, so that even if your Players are so bold as to pull up a monster in the DDI Compendium, they still aren’t sure that is what they are really facing! Their meta-knowledge really is only as good as we, as DMs, allow them to have.

    Not so for us DMs – our meta-knowledge of the player’s characters is perfect, and there is always that honey-pot temptation to let our beasties share in the awareness of the PCs Achilles’ Heels.

    And while the BM Mind Spike can be avoided by canny mobs, BM’s can also take At-Wills that can be used as MBA/OA with an Augment 1. While not as potent as the Mind Spike, these attacks are still painful enough that a monster should think twice about just walking away from a Battlemind.

    To address the Swordmages Aegis of Shielding – it’s not a bad power, but in that example you suggested, the Wizard is not going to be thrilled to have a continuous mauling going on, even if he is only taking 40%-50% of the damage from a monster. I tend to take the MMO mentality (I’ve played Tanks in WoW and EQ2 almost exclusively): I consider it a major failing of a tank to do his job if his powers don’t get a “mob” off the clothie when the dps’er overburns.
13. Seth says:

    May 2, 2011 at 10:04 pm

    I’m trying to talk a friend of mine out of playing a Swordmage; he’s joining a game in progress and replacing the party’s sole defender, a Warden. I’ve expressed to him that a Swordmage is fine as a secondary defender, but would be hard-pressed to serve in the primary role. Will definitely link him to this article.

    I also sent him to a short series I wrote a while back that also focused on the issue of Defender marks, produced in response to another friend bemoaning the poor quality of the Battlemind in comparison to the Swordmage—an assertion which I found shocking.

    That said (and to preserve the nature of this comment, I’m penning it before I read part two) I think something that’s important to note in the case of Shielding Swordmages—indeed, Swordmages in general—is that they are far more likely to have replacement effects tacked onto what you term their “punishment.” It’s tricky to consider the class in a vacuum that does not take these powers into account for the same reason that you chide Rhetorical for presenting baseline damage numbers which fail to account for limited-use powers. A shielding swordmage is often going to expend his immediate punishing his marked foe in much more powerful ways and/or reducing the damage more significantly; similarly, they have powers which allow them to expand the number of enemies they mark.

    I recognize that this same consideration could be expanded to all Defenders, but I think it’s of particular import for Swordmages because so many of their powers are designed to act in concert with or replacement of enforcing their Aegis. Considering this will alter how they look as the power level of the game (and thus their store of such powers) rises.

    On now to reading article 2!
14. Editor-in-Chief says:

    May 2, 2011 at 10:51 pm

    @Seth – glad you liked the article, but the real clincher is in Part II, where I take a look at damage mitigation abilities. And once again, the Swordmage finds itself almost at the bottom of the list, second up from the Cavalier (Paladin) which has almost no damage mitigation abilities at all! I know that some folks tend to shy away from using MMO comparisons with regards to 4E, but I think the MMO features of this version of D&D is what makes it more fun to play. And as I explained to Rhetorical Gamer, I’m approaching this topic as I would if I was looking at the Defenders as prospects for the main “tank” in an MMO “raid” – and sadly, without damage mitigation abilities, and what I perceive to be a weak “taunt”, the Swordmage would be my last choice to lead the charge against a “boss mob”.

    Now in games with a powerful healing Leader, like a talented Cleric, with lots of feats and utilities to augment their healing powers, then you could probably do fine with a Swordmage (or Cavalier) as the Defender. But in groups with “light” healing Leaders who also function as Controllers, like Animist Shaman or certain Bard builds, then I think the defender will find himself making alot of death saving throws instead of doing his job of defending the party.
15. Perico says:

    May 3, 2011 at 1:44 am

    >I remember when the BM appeared the uproar that it wasn’t any good at all because of difficulties in delivering it’s retribution — has that been effectively fixed?

    Actually, the BM as released did have mechanical problems on his mark that had nothing to do with DM metagaming. Blurred Step, the power that allows a BM to pursue shifting enemies, used to trigger as an opportunity action, which, among other things, meant that the BM’s pursuit movement triggered before the enemy shifted. Apart from not making much sense, this prevented battleminds from pursuing an enemy placed on their diagonal squares, which was unintended, and rather ineffective. This got fixed by errata later on.

    By the way, since we are talking about swordmages and their weaknesses, it’s worth mentioning one of their unique strengths. Swordmages are among the very few defenders (some hybrid paladin builds would be the others) able to play in a peculiar style that is not quite defending, but can nonetheless be very effective. I’m talking about the ‘chicken defender’ tactic, which basically consists in marking an enemy at range and then go engage someone else while your allies flank it, ensuring that your mark triggers almost every turn unless the foe is willing to provoke multiple attacks of opportunity. This turns an Assault Swordmage into a striker of sorts, and a Shielding Swordmage into a resistance-granting machine (sadly, nothing can turn an Ensnaring Swordmage into anything remotely playable). Does this count as defending? Opinions may vary on the matter, but it is true that a Shielding Swordmage playing chicken with a suitable teammate (say, a barbarian or slayer) can turn his ally into an even sturdier target than a traditional defender. This also works with multiple defenders, of course, but they are not required.
16. Kafitrar says:

    May 5, 2011 at 2:05 am

    I think you have fighter (weaponmaster) marking wrong. They can mark anyone they attack, not just with melee attacks. So they can mark with ranged attacks and their burst attacks.
17. OnlineDM says:

    May 6, 2011 at 11:27 am

    This is a great idea for an article series (and I haven’t read the rest of the series yet) – thanks for writing it! By the way, did you consider writing about the Charisma paladin at all? I’ve been running one of those for ten levels of Living Forgotten Realms games, and I’ve found him to be fun (though not an uber-defender by any means).

    For what it’s worth, I’ve had the exact opposite experience from yours in running games with the Battlemind and the Swordmage as defenders – interestingly, both played by the same player. The Swordmage has been fine – not as sticky or tough as a Fighter or Warden, but the Aegis of Shielding has been nice for protecting allies (though, as you said, it hasn’t done much in the way of retribution to the monster for ignoring the mark).

    The Battlemind has been completely disappointing. In three levels of play, Mind Spike has not triggered a single time, and I have a hard time imagining how it ever would. Maybe I’m running marked monsters incorrectly, but I’ve always interpreted a defender’s mark as telling the monster, “Hey you – attack ME, not my allies!” even if the monster doesn’t exactly understand all of the consequences of the mark (which, by the way, they should under rules-as-written). Unless the monster is very intelligent and knows that it’s worth going after the squishy archer instead of the beefy Battlemind, they’re going after the creature that marked them if they can.

    The main situations in which I have my monsters ignore marks are when they can’t easily attack the marker, or when they have some super-tempting reason to go after the ally (a stunned creature, a creature granting combat advantage to a monster that gets bonus damage when it has CA, etc.). The second situation just hasn’t come up so far, but the first situation illustrates why Mind Spike has been so useless:

    If the monster can’t get to the Battlemind, then the Battlemind can’t punish the monster for ignoring the mark (since Mind Spike is Melee 1).

    Maybe I should be a nice DM and have monsters occasionally ignore the mark of the Battlemind who’s standing right next to them every now and then, but that’s never made sense to me from a role-playing perspective. The Battlemind calls out the monster, saying “I’m the one you should attack!” and the monster obeys if it can. Hence, Mind Spike doesn’t trigger.

    I feel bad for the Battlemind’s player, but it hasn’t been a problem for them so far, so I’ve let it be.

    In the end, I’ve found the Battlemind to be at the very bottom of the heap when it comes to defenders, based on the experiences at my own table (and yes, I’ve seen all of the other defenders in action).
18. Editor-in-Chief says:

    May 6, 2011 at 3:31 pm

    @OnlineDM – Well a lot of it depends on how you play marks, and I think I could do a whole blog on the mechanics of marking. I guess you could say that there is a “strong” and “weak” mark method of play. With a strong mark mechanic, the monster will instantly switch targets to the marker, regardless of intelligence or even if it had started attacking another character other than the defender. The strong mark is a lot like a “taunt” power in an MMO, which has an immediate and automatic effect. Under a strong mark, a Battlemind will never use Mind Spike, because marking is 100% effective to attract attention to a defender.

    Personally, I play a weak mark mechanic. With a weak mark, smart monsters will target a defender most of the time, knowing there is danger of retribution for ignoring having a mark on it. But monsters of lesser intellect, like magical beasts or animals, will ignore a mark if it is already engaged with a foe until the defender “punishes” it with a power like Mind Spike, Divine Challenge, etc. I’ve found that under those circumstances, a Battlemind can still get a Mind Spike off now and then, and not feel it is a wasted power.

    Honestly though, I’d love to see the Battlemind revamped, and the Mind Spike power changed to something more like the Paladin’s Divine Challenge or the Weaponmaster’s Combat Challenge. If you let the Battlemind use Mind Spike on a dumb beast that ignores the mark, it’s possible for that monster to do tremendous damage to itself, far greater than any other Defender’s punishment/retribution power. I would honestly rather have it work like a hybrid of the two powers, such that it effects monsters that shift away or do not include the Battlemind in their attack and keep it short ranged – melee 1 (like Combat Challenge); have it auto hit for a base damage + stat bonus, most likely CON,not unlike Divine Challenge. That would make the power useful, without it being such high damage that DMs are afraid to ever let a Battlemind get a Mind Spike off.
19. SirNight says:

    May 8, 2011 at 11:17 am

    A note about the Weaponmaster’s marking: They can mark with any attack, not just melee attacks. This includes attacks with bows (not likely to hit, but still useful for marks) or thrown weapons.
    In a game I DM’d, the dragonborn fighter (with an 8 dexterity) kept a longbow for just this purpose. It was more frustrating than you’d think. He could mark literally anyone on the map that he could see; he could even shoot my drakes down and when they used Flyby Attack they would take that melee attack from Combat Challenge.
20. Editor-in-Chief says:

    May 9, 2011 at 8:13 am

    @SirKnight & Kafitrar – Thank you for correcting my error regarding the Weaponmaster’s combat challenge – I have updated the blog post and noted the change! And SirKnight, that example of the DB WM proves that the Fighter’s mark is more versatile that I imagined – although I am not sure how he could shoot the drakes down during a FlyBy attack against his allies: while the marking ability of Combat Challenge does indeed say it works with any attack, hit or miss, however, the retribution/punishment end of the mark is very specifically limited to a melee basic attack, not a ranged basic attack. But marking with a longbow range is still pretty darned amazing!
21. Cumag says:

    May 11, 2011 at 2:32 am

    Editor – a few important points on Paladins:

    Modern builds are either STR/CON or CHA/WIS – STR/CON ends up with very strong HP, surges, etc.

    Divine Sanction is a 3+CHA marking mechanic which usually applies to enemies in a burst (encounter powers) or melee (Ardent Strike)

    STR/CON Paladins take Mighty Challenge which adds STR damage to Divine Challenge. This will typically be 8 or more at Heroic (3+CHA+STR) and can be 13 or more in Paragon.

    That said, thanks for your article and framework! It’s very thought-provoking as I build my new defender.
22. Iceman says:

    May 12, 2011 at 3:50 pm

    Interesting read. I very much enjoy playing defenders, so I’ve got a ton of opinions (and have talked at length with others) on the subject.

    I admit I find the swordmage to be an odd egg. Shielding is nice, especially in the “I’ll go attack someone else” vein – but it never feels entirely defenderish. Assault is just frustrating, since the blow has to hit for the mark to do accomplish anything beyond the -2 (which is a valid penalty but doesn’t stack up to other defenders well), then you have to burn your immediate to teleport away from your current position.

    I find Paladins to be the weakest, tbh, simply because of the restrictions on maintaining their mark. And while auto-damage is nice, it’s not the threaten an axe to the head is. More than a few times, I’ve had the brute or soldier ignore the mark just to ‘help’ whittle down his colossal number of hit points, 7 at a time.

    Personally, I find fighters (weaponmaster) to be the strongest markers. Any attack, from ranged to burst, can mark – which opens up a lot of multi-marking. They have the most flexible conditions for attacking (shift or attack) w/ great anti-move OAs to back that up. And they have good to great melee basic attacks.
    Knights are a close second, solely because their retributive strike is an OA.
    Wardens follow because of their multi-marking (w/ a free action nonetheless, not a minor) and their similarly flexible reacts. And their general indestructibility (hp, saves, utilities).

    As to the monsters’ awareness of marks, I’ve argued with a number of OP DMs on that one. I just don’t agree with the statement that a monster should know the consequences of a mark, unless those are baked into the marking ability (divine challenge, aegis, fighters to a much lesser extent). More than once, I’ve had DMs insist the monster gets to know about the BM or Warden’s powers as they relate to the mark – though none of them expect to be told about utility powers that have the same triggers. So now, when I sit down at a table of LFR, I make sure to ask the DM up front about it, so we don’t have an issue in the middle of an encounter.

    One last consideration regarding defenders that I’ve dealt with more and more at high heroic and low paragon levels — monsters with a good melee basic, plus a standard “use the basic attack twice” action. As I and everyone else I play with understand it, hitting the defender once and someone else with the second strike Will trigger the mark – the monster is making two separate attacks. Which just makes the “go toe-to-toe” strategy defenders that much better.

    Cheers.
    -VIC
23. How should a DM handle a monster who’s marked? « Online Dungeon Master says:

    September 12, 2011 at 2:16 pm

    [...] no. It was an article on Neuroglyph Games that got me thinking about this a few months ago. The author of the article ranked the [...]