The Gaming Den

Lago PARANOIA wrote: MMOs have done wonders for the concept of game balance. Gygax's hateful philosophy over the RPG world and the idea that people shouldn't analyze the rules because that ruins the fun have been getting more discredited every year. That's a good thing. The reason why we were able to convince the makers of 4E that fighters and wizards were fucked up was because we took the MMO approach and came up with hard numbers, rather than rely on bullshit like 'feelings' and 'flavor text'. We have people who have played nothing but Everquest and World of Warcraft coming and taking a look at the game, going 'this is fucked up', and penetrating the insularity of the tabletop RPG world.

Yeah, the idea that classes should be balanced is a good thing and something that tends to come from MMORPGs and not from tabletop, as tabletop RPGs were stuck in the "imbalance is okay" mentality for a long time, starting pretty much with original D&D where being a wizard was just way more awesome than being a fighting man, and you were only a fighting man because you failed to roll the right stats to be a good wizard.

Even long after the days of Gygax, there are many who simply get offended by people who analyze the rules. And when they point out imbalances, they're judged as being crazy munchkins.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCKXTOaZmx0

Right up here is exactly the reason why the philosophy of game design has been fucked up for some long. It's about Star Trek but many of the same points apply to any form of entertainment.

Lago PARANOIA wrote: That's still not very much higher than a Paladin or a Tempest Fighter, who can nail a 20 and a 19 for their ACs, respectively

Even 1 more AC is a fairly big deal. It all adds up. If your original point was to say that swordmages don't have 3 or 4 more AC, that's dumb. Balance has to be taken into account.

Level 11 Sword Burst Damage for a swordmage: 1d6+6(int)+2(WF)+2(enh) = 13.5 average damage if they hit.

Level 11 Grimlock Ambusher: 110 hit points.

That is fucking pathetic. AOE damage is unimportant in 4E because 'smear the queer' is much more effective unless you have a group stun.

Nice. So you're listing the average damage of a multi-target ability on a single target to try and say that it sucks. This is hilarious. Yeah, and if sword burst hits 2 that's 26 average. If it hits 3 that's 39.5. Protip: it hits pretty damned often because it targets reflex. Sword burst is an amazing at-will and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

AOE matters. Even on targets with respectable HP it'll add up and result in other party members having to land fewer attacks to kill an opponent. What a ridiculous argument.

Minions are a completely broken and frankly unimportant mechanic and having an ability to 'kill minions' is worth about as much as an ability of 'cupcake baking'.

What, are you trolling? Minion clearing is actually valuable and if you're hitting a non-minion while clearing minions at the same time, so much the better. You don't even understand the game if you're saying that.

NoobCrusher wrote:Even 1 more AC is a fairly big deal. It all adds up. If your original point was to say that swordmages don't have 3 or 4 more AC, that's dumb. Balance has to be taken into account.

You can't analyze this ability in a vacuum. Yes, having a point or two more of AC is always good, but what you have to give up for that point of AC is what makes the shielding swordmage sort of 'meh' as a defender. The assault swordmage just blows.

Nice. So you're listing the average damage of a multi-target ability on a single target to try and say that it sucks. This is hilarious. Yeah, and if sword burst hits 2 that's 26 average. If it hits 3 that's 39.5. Protip: it hits pretty damned often because it targets reflex. Sword burst is an amazing at-will and you're kidding yourself if you think otherwise.

Pssst. 4E uses a system of Critical Existence Failure. Trading high single-target damage for low multi-target damage is a fool's game.

Now, Sword Burst is still one of the better At-Wills because it doesn't do all that much less damage than, say, Valiant Strike. So it's only one of the better ones by default. But most damage in 4E is relatively sad and unless you have Dual/Twin Strike in your corner pocket it gets worse as time goes on.

What, are you trolling? Minion clearing is actually valuable and if you're hitting a non-minion while clearing minions at the same time, so much the better. You don't even understand the game if you're saying that.

The reasons why Minionhood is a broken and ineffectual game mechanic is beyond the thrust of this thread. If you want to know why having an ability of 'kill minions' is just unimportant you can ask someone else or start another thread and we'll get back to you on that.

FrankTrollman wrote:And indeed, if that was the goal, WotC fucking owns Magic the Gathering.

Heh. I'd hate to see the complaints if they made d&d use the Magic colour wheel. It'd make the "d&dcraft" complaints seem polite and well reasoned.

MartinHarper wrote:

FrankTrollman wrote:And indeed, if that was the goal, WotC fucking owns Magic the Gathering.

Heh. I'd hate to see the complaints if they made d&d use the Magic colour wheel. It'd make the "d&dcraft" complaints seem polite and well reasoned.

And yet if they just published a Shards of Alara alternate setting for D&D, people would suck their dicks until their balls fell off. People are much more willing to accept things which they don't feel are being forced on them.

RandomCasualty2 wrote: Higher AC? not by much. The only thing pretty much that is in the fighter's favor is that he has better starting armor proficiencies. That's it. By paragon tier, that advantage is gone and the clerics are wearing at least scale and holding shields. And then the ACs are even.

Defenders have at least 2-3 more AC than even a leader that starts to focus on AC-boosting feats. And at that point you're getting into some MAD and feat priority problems that might make you a sub-par leader anyway (foregoing feats that boost your healing/support abilities). Fighters/Paladins have the advantage of starting with a better armor proficiency, and who do you think the next piece of sweet +2 armor is going to go to? Now we have an even bigger gap.

Specific instances aside, sure, a leader can catch up on AC to a defender but then they're not focusing on supplementing their support abilities and hence become a bit sub-par at their intended role. A defender is still an inherently better choice for soaking up attacks. Not only do they have better defenses, but they can grant better defenses to others via mark. If you for some reason can only have either or leader or a defender, then it becomes debatable depending on the situation. But why impose an unnecessary restriction for the sake of saying one is better than the other?

No, I'm really not. Lets assume that the defenders do their job and the monster always attacks them.

Defenders have the benefit of 1 more hp per level than a leader has. 6 hp versus 5. So 10th level defender versus 10th level cleric, the defender has 10 more hp than a level 10 cleric. Because the defender will have better con and gets a few more to start with. Lets give the defender the benefit of the doubt and say he has 18 extra HP. That's pretty fair I think.

The cleric on the other hand has two healing words, each of which add 1/4 of the total HP of the guy being healed. At level 10, the cleric will have around 70 HP. That's 17 HP healed for surge value, and another 2d6 (average 7) added in for healing word, plus another 5 for the cleric's wisdom. So that's going to be 29 HP per healing word. And well you get two of them. So you're looking at 58 extra HP for the cleric healing himself.

So the defender's 18 HP edge from his class versus the clerics 58 extra HP leaves the cleric with 40 extra HP.

If a defender manages to avoid getting hit multiple times over what a cleric would in the same case, that HP difference is tilted in the defender's favor. Put a defender and a leader in the same team, and the leader's heals are better used on the defender assuming they're able to divert hits.

Seriously, where does this idea that a healer should only heal themselves come from? Healers keep party members up. Sometimes a striker needs to get healed too because damage directed at them was unavoidable. If you take that into account, the disparity between efficiency of heals used on party members with varying defensive levels becomes even greater.

Yes, leaders can soak up damage pretty well if they have to. But they can soak it up *even better* when they use their healing on a defender. Saying one is better than the other is assuming some mutual exclusivity that just isn't there.

If a defender manages to avoid getting hit multiple times over what a cleric would in the same case, that HP difference is tilted in the defender's favor.

How is that supposed to happen?

A Cleric has Chain Proficiency and a Shield. A Paladin has Plate Proficiency and a Shield. The difference is 2 AC before the Cleric busts out some feats for Armor Proficiency and makes it even. The battle lasts 5-10 rounds because it's the padded sumo world of 4e, but even so the Paladin's ability to get missed once for every 10 AC-targeting attacks he sees is not going to make the difference.

Random Casualty has you by the math pubes: replacing your front liners with Clerics gives your team demonstrably more staying power than actually using the so-called Defenders. Which invalidates the concept of Defenders, because adding extra staying power to the team is the entire supposed point of their existence.


-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote: A Cleric has Chain Proficiency and a Shield.

Wrong. Clerics have chain proficiency, but not shields. This means they have a 16 base AC to start out with. 17 if they pick up light shields at the cost of a feat. A paladin starts with plate AND heavy shield proficiency, allowing them 4 more AC and 2 more reflex right off the bat.

Random Casualty has you by the math pubes: replacing your front liners with Clerics gives your team demonstrably more staying power than actually using the so-called Defenders. Which invalidates the concept of Defenders, because adding extra staying power to the team is the entire supposed point of their existence.

Looks like I have you by the factual pubes? Who actually says something like "by the pubes" and means it? And no, the concept of defenders isn't invalidated because you can have a leader and a defender in the same party, and the defender is not only going to be harder to hit, but he's going to make it harder for enemies to hit others. What's even better is that a cleric can give the defender an additional boost to his AC! Wow! Group synergy! How about that?

You're somehow able to reason that because a leader can spend 4 feat slots, assuming they have the attribute requirements to have equivalent AC to a defender means that defenders are invalidated while ignoring the class features that make defenders what they are. Please double-check your facts before entering into arguments about game mechanics. It's annoying to have to correct you on such simple things.

NoobCrusher wrote: If a defender manages to avoid getting hit multiple times over what a cleric would in the same case, that HP difference is tilted in the defender's favor. Put a defender and a leader in the same team, and the leader's heals are better used on the defender assuming they're able to divert hits.

Ok. Fine. Lets take the defenders AC into account. According to the DMG table, a monster of 10th level should be doing about 12 (2d6+5) damage on his average attack. By then I'm assuming clerics are wearing at least scale and carrying shields, so what is the defender's edge? Probably a +2?
So how much is +2 AC worth in terms of damage stopped? Well each +1 stops 1/20th of the average damage per attack. So +2 stops 1/10th. So you're looking at 1.2 damage stopped per attack on the character on average.

This means that to catch up to the 40 HP, a defender needs to be able to soak 33 attacks. I dont' know about you, but most swordmages I know aren't going to be still standing after 15 attacks by equal level monsters.

Seriously, where does this idea that a healer should only heal themselves come from? Healers keep party members up. Sometimes a striker needs to get healed too because damage directed at them was unavoidable. If you take that into account, the disparity between efficiency of heals used on party members with varying defensive levels becomes even greater.

Honestly not really. Most strikers have a good amount of defense anyway. Some like the PHB2 Avenger, actually beat out defender AC. And the barbarian is pretty much going to have equivalent AC. The rogue is probably the only striker that needs to be protected in some manner, but he sucks anyway because he can't even outdamage a fighter.

Yes, leaders can soak up damage pretty well if they have to. But they can soak it up *even better* when they use their healing on a defender. Saying one is better than the other is assuming some mutual exclusivity that just isn't there.

That's true, but now we're talking two characters and inevitably, the extra gains you get from having leader/defender aren't better than having leader/leader, because now you get twice the healing.

Let's assume for the moment that your opponents are going to focus fire on your cleric. Your team can either have a Paladin or a second Cleric to help keep your Cleric up. A Paladin gives out a Mark, that improves your Cleric's defenses by 2 against one of the enemies. A second Cleric hands out some genuine healing.

Seriously, that's it. That's the "protection" that the Paladin is offering. As RC notes, that protection at 10th level is worth approximately 1.2 hit points per round. A single Healing Word from a 10th level Laser Cleric is worth 13 extra hit points (on top of the extra Healing Surge it lets you use). That by itself is worth more saved hit points than 10 rounds of Marking each encounter.

It would be negotiable if Paladins did massively more damage than Clerics, but they don't. Righteous Brand does a small amount of damage on top of doing as much damage as the Fighter's biggest melee attack as an at-will. Clerics grant bonus healing that exceeds the amount of damage that a Paladin's defense enhancers will prevent. And in 4e, damage healed and damage prevented are not meaningfully different. So Clerics > Defenders.

-Username17

Hold on a second, that analysis isn't quite true.

If you're doing a four or five-encounter workday, then you do in fact need characters like paladins and fighters over clerics because they'll stretch out your healing surges. When someone runs out of healing surges, the workday is over.

However, the five-encounter workday module sucks ass for reasons explained elsewhere on this board. It also sucks ass because, well, if someone is out of healing surges and health, what's the DM going to do? Railroad the party into the next encounter anyway?

Hey, at least they aren't fucking Barbarians. Those assholes have to use exactly one Daily Power per combat or they aren't contributing proportionally to that combat. Ugh. Those assholes make the party rest after every single battle at low levels. Even at epic they never make it past four encounters. Makes them wish they could be archmages.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:Let's assume for the moment that your opponents are going to focus fire on your cleric. Your team can either have a Paladin or a second Cleric to help keep your Cleric up. A Paladin gives out a Mark, that improves your Cleric's defenses by 2 against one of the enemies. A second Cleric hands out some genuine healing.

Seriously, that's it. That's the "protection" that the Paladin is offering. As RC notes, that protection at 10th level is worth approximately 1.2 hit points per round.

Except for the part where a paladin can also lay on hands somebody at the expense of their own surges, as a minor action. Throw in healing hands as a feat and it's almost on par with a cleric's healing word. Healing only goes as far as surge availability, and if you place too much emphasis on leaning on healing abilities you'll run out of them. Most non-defender classes don't prioritize con, either. That's why paladin lay on hands still fits the defender niche - you're basically taking hits for others after the fact.

So Clerics > Defenders.

Better at defending? No. Defenders also have powers that involve completely negating an attack as part of their immediate interrupt mark (Swordmage Transposing Lunge for example). What happens when the healer goes down? A defender can prevent damage from even taking place, allowing someone like the healer to stay up so that they even can heal. That's pretty invaluable when "smear the queer" as others on this board have called it occur. Again, you're just using a single aspect of the role and making a false generalization without looking at the big picture. How many times do I have to explain this?

RandomCasualty2 wrote:By then I'm assuming clerics are wearing at least scale and carrying shields, so what is the defender's edge? Probably a +2?

I would assume +2/+3 on average, comparing a Defender to a melee class. If it's higher than that, the Paladin's mark stops being effective. Obviously there's not much space for it to be lower.

As a Strength Cleric, I'd tend to boost Wis for self-healing, rather than getting a Con of 13 to train Scale Mail. A heavy shield, on the other hand, is a good call.

NoobCrusher wrote:A paladin can also lay on hands somebody at the expense of their own surges, as a minor action. Throw in healing hands as a feat and it's almost on par with a cleric's healing word.

Indeed. And the Cleric gets two/encounter. So at level 10 we have:
Surge Value = ~17
Encounter = ~5 rounds
Primary stat = +6 (22)
Secondary stat = +3 (16)

Paladin with Healing Hands:
* Mark = 1.2hp/round = 6hp
* Lay on Hands = surge + Cha = 23
* Total = 29 (also does ~45 points of divine damage)

Cleric with Shield Spec:
* Healing Word = surge + Wis + 2d6 = 30
* Second Healing Word = 30
* Total = 60

Now, as you and Lago note, with the Cleric the person getting attacked is burning up healing surges, whereas with the Paladin they are not. On the other hand, the Paladin is only able to use Lay on Hands three times a day. Even if encounters/day meant anything, I'm not sure that the Cleric party has less longevity.

And, really, I'm not sure why this is even an issue. You can run 4e without needing a Defender. This is probably a good thing. If Defenders were required, folks would be complaining about that in this thread, just as they are complaining about Leaders being required.

NoobCrusher wrote:What's even better is that a cleric can give the defender an additional boost to his AC! Wow! Group synergy! How about that?

You're very excitable. Priest's Shield is a +1 bonus, and depends on getting a hit. It's also a bonus that works fine if the Cleric tanks.

NoobCrusher wrote:What happens when the healer goes down?

We're comparing two parties. Party one consists of two Leaders and three Strikers. Party two consists of a Defender, a Leader, and three Strikers. Now, in party one, what happens when the leader goes down? The other leader heals him, as a minor action.

Why does Noob' get to assume that fire will always focus on the person who can do nothing but take hits? Smear the queer means that enemies concentrate on one person, if you have a Paladin and a Cleric, that is the Cleric. If you have a Paladin and a Cleric and the Cleric is taking hits then the defender has failed his job; the Paladin cannot really help him at this point either. Another Cleric could though. So the only time a Paladin is helpful is when he is being attacked. Funny, but Random Casualty has already shown you how he does this worse then a Cleric. Why you respond to the argument "Defenders cannot defend as well as leaders" with, "but they can do leader things that aren't as good as the leaders either!" is beyond me. Seriously, monsters will go after softer targets than the defenders, and the defender doesn't contribute anything if he isn't the target of enemy attacks.

Akula wrote:Why does Noob' get to assume that fire will always focus on the person who can do nothing but take hits? Smear the queer means that enemies concentrate on one person, if you have a Paladin and a Cleric, that is the Cleric.

That's what I'm saying. According to everyone's logic here defenders are useless because smear the queer applies to squishier targets and the defender does little to deter this. I'm saying that's not the case even with a paladin because A. paladin deals guaranteed damage to those who break his rules and B. the paladin can negate a hit or two via lay on hands. A swordmage can outright negate an attack or prevent raw damage. A fighter can interrupt shifts and make free attacks. The paladin may have less deterrence than other defenders but that's why they have lay on hands; to undo what slips past them.

If you have a Paladin and a Cleric and the Cleric is taking hits then the defender has failed his job; the Paladin cannot really help him at this point either. Another Cleric could though.

Lay on hands.

So the only time a Paladin is helpful is when he is being attacked. Funny, but Random Casualty has already shown you how he does this worse then a Cleric. Why you respond to the argument "Defenders cannot defend as well as leaders" with, "but they can do leader things that aren't as good as the leaders either!" is beyond me. Seriously, monsters will go after softer targets than the defenders, and the defender doesn't contribute anything if he isn't the target of enemy attacks.

I'm not saying this. Re-read my posts. I'm saying defenders do things that validate them as better defenders (damage prevention and soaking) than a leader.

And are we using defenders and paladins interchangibly here? I've mentioned swordmages and fighters multiple times in this thread. They are more capable of damage prevention and punishment than the paladin is. Paladins still have the option of undoing the damage after their mark penalty, which, sometimes, is as much of a game winner as a fighter or swordmage's deterrence. The guaranteed radiant damage stacks up over time, lay on hands can save a life, and the -2 penalty can save a life as well. Leaders don't punish for ignoring them. They just heal. Can a leader replace a defender if the party doesn't have one? Sure. Are they better at defending than a defender? No, and that's what I'm trying to point out.

Indeed. And the Cleric gets two/encounter. So at level 10 we have:
Surge Value = ~17
Encounter = ~5 rounds
Primary stat = +6 (22)
Secondary stat = +3 (16)

Paladin with Healing Hands:
* Mark = 1.2hp/round = 6hp
* Lay on Hands = surge + Cha = 23
* Total = 29 (also does ~45 points of divine damage)

Cleric with Shield Spec:
* Healing Word = surge + Wis + 2d6 = 30
* Second Healing Word = 30
* Total = 60

Paladins can lay on hands their wisdom mod per day. If their radiant damage drops an enemy that's also damage prevented. If the enemy attacks the paladin instead of someone else that is damage prevented as well. You're acting like the DM is ALWAYS going to ignore the paladin unconditionally.

Leaders have the luxury of good, consistent damage undoing. That's awesome. Defenders can prevent the damage from happening in the first place. Again, don't forget fighters and swordmages and now wardens.

You're very excitable. Priest's Shield is a +1 bonus, and depends on getting a hit. It's also a bonus that works fine if the Cleric tanks.

Right but you're missing my point - if the defender is doing his job, the cleric should be granting that priest's shield bonus to the defender and not himself. Realize that if you play a leader in a party with a defender and completely ignore the defender's tactics, you should get smacked.

We're comparing two parties. Party one consists of two Leaders and three Strikers. Party two consists of a Defender, a Leader, and three Strikers. Now, in party one, what happens when the leader goes down? The other leader heals him, as a minor action.

I'm aware. What I'm doing is justifying the defender's role since so many people seem to think it's non-existent or that it pales in comparison to a leader's defending.

I haven't really looked at 4e much and most of my knowledge is from this board, but I just want to check over what your saying:

A Defender's role is to prevent damage from occurring. They stop as many attacks from happening as possible and reduce the effect of what attacks they let past.

So, wait, how do Defenders work against archers again? And isn't extra free healing roughly equivalent to negating damage?

From the last post I get that:
- Paladins cause automatic damage to one enemy unless they get attacked. This damage is not really enough to care about- its like ignoring a headache because your nose is bleeding. This doesn't defend against multiple enemies at all and (from what I recall) doesn't work against ranged enemies. How does continuous damage stop a monster from attacking someone?
- Swordmages negate attacks. This actually makes sense as a method of reducing damage. However either everyone sticks together in a group or the SM can't negate all the attacks required.
- Fighters interrupt movement. This stops melee opponents getting to squishier party members. Makes more sense than Paladins but still fails against ranged combatants.

So, depending on the Swordmages method of negating attacks, Defenders completely fail against ranged enemies and find it almost impossible to defend against a more numerous opponent.

Please point out my errors in thinking, but I can't see how Defenders reliably reduce damage taken.

"Defender" Cleric Build: Note that while this is playable it's not even particularly optimal, I just wanted to fill it up with "defender" powers. We're also playing this game how ti was "meant" to be played, with the 16, 14, 13, 12, 11, 10 lineup.

Dwarf Cleric of Ilmater (Bahamut outside FR)
Str 16 Dex 11 Con 15 Int 10 Wis 16 Cha 12

Priests's Shield: This is grossly inferior to Righteous Brand but it boots your AC and your allies in a way similar to wearing a shield and marking, though admittedly not as good.

Sacred Flame: This power gives temporary hit point to your allies but not you-- in other words, it lets you disencentivize monsters from attacking squishy party members and grab the aggro for yourself.

Wrathful Thunder: This dazes an enemy in melee; if he wasn't already adjacent to an ally, or the ally can shift away before his turn, he can't attack anyone but you.

Guardian of Faith: This is almost like a Divine Challenge, but by ally not by enemy-- put it next to a squishy friend and the enemy will take damage as a penalty for attacking them.

Feat: Ilmater's Martyrdom. This feat is like lay on hands, it lets you spend your own surges to heal your friends. Many other FR deities have powers which cost you nothing but only gives saves to your allies, not you -- this is like a mark but for control effects. If you don't like FR, many of the PHB deities will negate an attack against a friend, like Armor of Bahamut -- they just will also do it for you yourself.

That's level one: 5 powers, all of which either absorb attacks or let you manipulate aggro. Now let's advance this sucker.

2: Shield of Faith gives the rest of the party +2 AC, like a mark, while giving the Cleric +2 AC making him as tough as a Plate-clad paladin. Alternately, because Cure Light Wounds restores health without using healing surges, it is perfect aggro control, since it does not matter who actually takes the hits. For our feat, Scale Proficiency.

3 Split the Sky pushes 2 and trips an enemy; if you push only 1, a melee enemy can't attack next turn.
4 Plate Proficiency

5 Beacon of Hope -- it debuffs the attacks of all enemies, that's clear-cut Defending. Or Consecrated Ground, which keeps enemies out of an area more effectively than a polearm.

6 Cure Serious Wounds: more aggro control; Dwarven Weapon Training for big damage.

7 Awe Strike: a melee immobilize more accurate than most Paladin or Fighters powers.

8 I wasn't going to take these, but there's little else good in the PHB for dwarf clerics. Shield Proficiency.

9 Man, every power here is made of win. Blade Barrier is the ultimate "stay away from the ranged attackers" power, Astral Defenders is a huge AoO prsence comparable to a fighter, but since I've hogged all the aggro I'm gonna take Divine Power. I can give myself *regeneration 5* which pretty much singlehandedly makes me the toughest thing out there.

10 Shielding Word gives +4 ac to one ally once per encounter, again very similar to marking. Heavy Shield Proficiency.

11 Holy Shit, Warpriest! Now my AC is BETTER than a Paladin and I can mark enemies for real. Feat: Dwarven Durability. I'm now also the toughest bugger out there.

So yeah, I could go on in these vein but I think my point is made. A Cleric is well built to hog aggro, disadvantage enemy attacks against his friends, control space via walls or AoOs and basically do everything Defenders are supposed to do. He doesn't do as good a job at this as a Fighter because fighters are overpowered but he kicks the crap out of a Paladin or Swordsage.

Also, I could have made this EVEN BETTER by multiclassing my cleric with Paladin or Fighter to get the once/encounter mark and cherry pick a power or two, but I wasn't sure you'd consider that kosher.

NoobCrusher wrote:Paladins can lay on hands their wisdom mod per day.

Yes. I said this myself. However, three times per day (at level 10) is often less than once per encounter, so I stand by my maths. You've been making a big deal about running out of healing surges, so presumably you run 4e with multiple encounters per day.

NoobCrusher wrote:If the defender is doing his job, the cleric should be granting that priest's shield bonus to the defender and not himself.

Check the power description: he grants the bonus from Priest's shield to himself and one adjacent ally. The adjacent ally could be a Defender, in a Cleric+Defender party, or a it could be a melee Striker or Leader, in a Cleric+Leader party.

NC wrote:Except for the part where a paladin can also lay on hands somebody at the expense of their own surges, as a minor action. Throw in healing hands as a feat and it's almost on par with a cleric's healing word. Healing only goes as far as surge availability, and if you place too much emphasis on leaning on healing abilities you'll run out of them. Most non-defender classes don't prioritize con, either.

NC wrote:Paladins can lay on hands their wisdom mod per day.

Wait. Wat?

If the Paladin is prioritizing Wisdom and their prime stat (which would be Strength or Charisma depending upon whether they are a Tron Paladin or a Grind Paladin), then how can they prioritize Con any more than any other character? You only get 2 Focus stats.

-Username17

FrankTrollman wrote:The supposed purpose of Role Protection is twofold:

• Encourage Diversity within teams.
• Make everyone feel like they are contributing something unique to the team.

You also get the fringe benefit of being able to balance your game by monster distribution. Assuming you have a decently balanced setup, where most classes are decent and everyone is on the same RNG but overall some classes are just better than others you can then balance the classes by tilting the distribution of monsters to favor the weaker classes.

So if you have a setup where paladins on average are 10 or 20% better than other classes you ensure monsters which favor paladins are rarer than those that favor the other classes. Ideally you will never even have to balance those last few percent, you just get close to real balance, then handle the rest via monster distribution.

Murtak wrote: So if you have a setup where paladins on average are 10 or 20% better than other classes you ensure monsters which favor paladins are rarer than those that favor the other classes. Ideally you will never even have to balance those last few percent, you just get close to real balance, then handle the rest via monster distribution.

The flaw in this concept though is that you assume that there exists counters to each class.

And in fact, the leaders are so potent because there is no tactical count to what they do. While there are ways to render marks almost useless, there's no way to do the same to combat healing. Since 4E is a game of damage received versus damage dealt, there's no way to make combat healing invalid.

Yes, it is pretty much only something you can do to polish a game that is decently balanced already. It doesn't work at all if your game balance is crappy to begin with or with some sort of abilities.

RandomCasualty2 wrote: And in fact, the leaders are so potent because there is no tactical count to what they do. While there are ways to render marks almost useless, there's no way to do the same to combat healing.

EBD to the rescue! Just write up a monster that makes any healing impossible within a 500' radius. I'm not an expert on Leader healing methods, but if they require LoS or touch than a simple divide + conquer strategy would work.