D&D 4th Edition RulesAsk questions about 4th-Edition rules and the like in here. General discussion about 4E or any other game belongs in General RPG Discussion, above.
The shielding swordmage's mark is great because it says, "Go ahead and attack my buddy. With my mark on him, the damage you will do is negligible. Sure he's easier to hit, but you still can't hurt him."
Yep, only enemies that put conditions have some incentive to ignore the Aegis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalker0
The fighter's class ability says, "Just try and leave my side. I'll simply knock you right back to where you started, and you wasted a move action. Your fighting me buddy, just live with it."
Mmm, not always.
If the enemy can shift and then charge another (squishier) party member, then it's usually better to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalker0
The other defenders don't have it as easy. There main incentive is "Hit me, or take some damage." Unfortunately since monsters tend to have a lot of hitpoints, that's not that much of an incentive.
You think?
You're promoting the defender's damage to striker damage if you do that.
I'm sure the enemies don't want another striker in the party
I have a Warden in the game I am running and he is nasty. It is not his mark that does the most damage, but it's the Warden Forms that do it. When he creates difficult terrain around him, enemies have a hard time getting away without being whacked. The Warden also is very durable, so even focusing fire on him doesn't help you much. Your best guess is to attack his weaker defenses and daze or stun him. That requires monsters that can actually do that, of course.
Aside from this, not all Defenders play the same.
The Fighter and the Warden are typically the type of defender that move to their foes and then keep them there, be it with their mark abilities or with their powers.
But beware: If the enemies somehow gets away, don't stand around complaining, follow them and keep them busy. It doesn't hurt to stay close to your weaker allies, if there are no obvious bottlenecks that you can defend.
The Swordmage is typically a lot more mobile. His mark usually works best if he engages one foe and marks another. Basically the enemy has to follow the Swordmage or suffer the consequences of the mar.
The Paladin basic mark has the big advantage that it is automatic damage - no actions, no attack rolls, it just hurts the foe. A fighter still has to hit and needs immediate actions or opportunity action to work his shtick. Sometimes that's easy, sometimes it is not. It doesn't hurt to boost the damage of your Divine Challenge, obviously, especially for Strength-focusing Paladins. But a lot of other defender abilities for the Paladin come from his powers, and there the devil is in the detail. (More so than for the Warden, by the way. The Forms are pretty much like the Barbarian Rages, a lot more straightforward).
Lay on Hands is a defender feature for the mark in two ways - for one, he can compensate other allies getting hit when he "fails" (or the enemy choses to ignore him). If the enemy focuses on him, he can help himself.
An important part for a Defender is to identify the threats that hurt the party most. That is often a Brute, but sometimes keeping a Soldier busy is really useful to the rest of the party, too - because then they are free to attack the targets that really inflict the damage. Skirmishers and Artillery monsters are probably hampered the most by a defender, but Artillery is often hard to catch when the enemy can establish a front line of melee focused creatures. Lurkers typically have too many "get-out-of-jail" cards, but they can be the right target for a Swordmage or Paladin, who can work their mark at range.
Most defenders need to team up with party members that are also good in melee and stay close. It doesn't matter if the enemy can walk around the fighter if he still has to stay within 2 squares of him to strike one of his allies. The Fighter (or Paladin, or Warden) can shift to him, mark him, and now the enemy is locked down. (The Swordmage doesn't need or want to shift, probably.)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Marks are, at their core, the monster having some reason to attack one person over the other: A magical compulsion, them being in their face, them making faces, singing off key, whatever. There can be other reasons to attack OTHER people who outweigh that of the mark, but in most cases the monster is ANGRY at the defender, or annoyed, or something, and wants to get through that plate armor if they can. There is a point where it's foolhardy, but marks are meant to mess with otherwise tactical decisions.
Your average monster who hates the defender over the squishy, isn't going to rationalize "Well I can't defeat the defender so I'll go after the squishy". If the squishy is back there hurling lightning bolts then the monster might thing "Lightning man is making it harder for me to focus on metal man! MUST KILL LIGHTNING MAN"
There's lots of ways to rationalize both as a DM, saying one is wrong or the other is just folly.
That said, combat challenge and it's ilk, you actually want to break it sometimes. You want the defender to feel like that entire section of their character sheet has meaning. Give them the extra attacks, give them the radiant damage, even do it when the monster would die and make the action moot. You're not there to try to beat the PCs, and there's plenty of believable ways to not act like that.
A really smart, or calm enemy could say something like "Hah, you think your goading will distract me from the true threat?".
How many times in a movie did you see the monsters go for the tough guy? Usually they throw themselves at the tough guy 1 or 2 at a time, and then a few minutes into the fight there's a tense scene where the weak guy is about to get attacked, so the tough guy rushes in to stop the attacker. This has happened a lot, the average mook doesn't usually run past Schwarzenegger even if it's tactically sound to do so.
Your average monster who hates the defender over the squishy, isn't going to rationalize "Well I can't defeat the defender so I'll go after the squishy". If the squishy is back there hurling lightning bolts then the monster might thing "Lightning man is making it harder for me to focus on metal man! MUST KILL LIGHTNING MAN"
There's lots of ways to rationalize both as a DM, saying one is wrong or the other is just folly.
I don't think it is a matter of rationalizing both.
I think the DM should often run monsters to attack the biggest threat at the moment.
The Fighter is closest at first, he is the biggest threat. The Fighter marks the foe, he again is the biggest threat. The monster attacks the Fighter. The Rogue comes up and does Sneak Attack and is successful, he is now the biggest threat. The monster switches to the Rogue and attacks him. The Fighter gets a free attack. If he hits, he is the new biggest threat. If he misses, he is not really the biggest threat again and the Rogue still is. Etc.
In other words, monsters should both pay attention to marks and ignore marks depending on the outcome of the encounter.
The monster has the Fighter bloodied and is starting to win and the Cleric heals the Fighter? The Cleric is now the biggest threat. The monster needs to kill the Cleric so that he can yet again, go kill the Fighter.
And, this is a bit nebulous and each DM might rule differently.
The point is to allow each player's PC to shine. The Fighter shined early on by marking foes and keeping them there. The Rogue shined by doing a lot of damage. The Fighter shined again by getting the free attack and the monster responded by turning its attention back to the Fighter again. The Cleric shined by healing the Fighting and then the Fighter shined again as the monster ignored him for the Cleric.
Defenders don't only shine by keeping foes attacking them. They also shine by getting free attacks or doing damage or whatever to monsters that ignore their marks.
Both should occur in the game since both abilities are in the game system.
It's the extreme POV that shouldn't occur. The monsters should never "always ignore the mark" or never "never ignore the mark". They should be played somewhere in between and "sometimes ignore the mark". But, it should be based on what is happening around the monster and not just based on the DM's knowledge of the AC of other PCs. There should be incentives in both directions for the monster to make its decisions, but usually that incentive should be based on what appears to the monster to be the biggest threat. Now, that doesn't mean that the monster cannot decide to take care of the nuisance threat first if it thinks that this is better overall (one foe is often better to fight than two), it just means that the monsters thinking should not be to either attack the squishies every time, nor to pay attention to the mark every time.
A balance should be maintained by the DM.
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
DM's should try to avoid DMing like they are running an MMO. Just because something is grabbing aggro from a target doesn't mean the enemy has to engage it. There is much more than the immediate actions each party is taking.
At it's most basic level, the DM needs to make sure that the mark is not ruining anyone's fun, including his. If he is frustrated that to his eyes, the only good option is to attack the fighter, he is not having fun. It is time for him to mix things up and throw some enemies that shrug off marks or ignore them entirely.
If the fighter is not having fun because the DM runs roughshod over his marks and perhaps uses underhanded tactics to evade them (dazed fighters cannot OA or take Immediate actions, and are next to useless) the DM needs to include the mark more in his encounter planning.
On the player side, it is not just the defender's job to keep the party safe. If you are a ranged character, then stay at range. If the party can limit the options for a monster to take, then the defender looks like a tastier target. If you are a melee striker, then work with the defender to create opportunities for his mark to be meaningful. For example, my paladin ally would mark an enemy adjacent to me, a fighter, and put him in a predicament. He gets swung at no matter who he goes for. Defenders are great at setting up dilemmas like this.
And sfedi, I don't think you understand how sticky fighters are. You cannot just shift away from a fighter. Shifting, moving, attacking, these things trigger the fighter's extra attacks. This is why he is sticky.
We have a fighter and a paladin in our party - and stuff rarely gets by us. Come and Get it is critical. . . as is good tactical positioning. I view our role as stopping the big stuff. The smaller things that die easily can be handled by the back rank, but is the real tough bruisers that we are there to keep tied up. For my fighter especially there are enough burst or two-attack powers available to keep the attention of several things at once.
If the party defenders aren't doing their jobs, the party is in for a world of hurt unless the DM doesn't know what he is doing. Sometimes protecting the "squishies" doesn't mean staying in a fight until the opponents are dead. You sometimes have to move to engage new enemies that are trying to manuever. Don't let them "lock you down" if you need to be fighting somebody else. Just suck it up, take the AoOs and do your job - the party leader should be doing his job and keeping you from going down, so let him do his, while you concentrate on yours.
In 4th edition the classes are designed with roles in mind. If you don't do your job, the party suffers, and if the job your class is designed for is not one you like. . . you REALLY need to be playing some other class with a role you do like.
Example of defending in action:
The party was getting hosed in a fight we really shouldn't have gotten into without resting. After the third round of getting torn up and seeing where things were headed, I called for a general retreat. At that point - everyone started moving their characters towards the exit. My job wasn't killing enemies - so much as it was manuevering and picking my targets to allow the rest of the party to escape without getting nailed on the way out. As the party's primary defender, it was my job to be last out the door and soak up as much attention as I could.
The party managed to get away. . . but for a few rounds though it looked like I was going to get killed in the process of getting everybody else out. The defender has to be willing to do that sort of thing. If you are not willing to do that, you shouldn't be playing a defender at all.
__________________ There are some cosmological theories, developed from the mathematics of quantum mechanics, that posit an infinite number of alternate universes, covering all possibilities. Every possible outcome of every event, everything we can imagine, and uncountable googleplexes of universes more strange and wonderful than we can imagine.
It is awesome to think, that somewhere out there in that infinite sea of realized possibilities there exists a world where your words were actually a useful comment.
Post-divine power, I've got to say that low level paladins are really nasty. The mark is easily superior to that of the fighter; partly just because (at low levels) the damage isn't insignificant; it's quite comparable to a weak hit - but, unlike the fighter, it's guaranteed to work, and it'll even work at range (so no weird movement power will get you out of that one).
Also, post DP, the paladin has divine sanction, including fairly large bursts, which are simply awesome - this is a mark that causes mass damage should they ignore it, and there's just not that much they can do about it.
Also, post DP, str-paladins finally get a decent mark, but better yet, cha-paladins get a melee basic at-will (no need for melee training), so their at-wills can actually matter.
Finally, a paladin in one of my games has two lay-on-hands buffing feats; this means that he can heal surge-value +10 hitpoints several times a day, which makes him a real boon to party-solidity: when the fighting gets tough, this guy heals more than the leader since lay-on-hands isn't limited to only twice per encounter, and since +10 to healing is about as good as a heal-optimized cleric gets at low levels.
So, at low levels, where the fighter's CC is unlikely to do much more damage than the paladin's DC, there's no doubt that the paladin has a far more effective mark. We've had several fighters, and the only one to really compare was the battlerager with a bloodclaw weapon, who was a target mostly because of the terrible danger he poses and low AC.
The (shielding) swordmage has seen only a few sessions of play; he was exceptionally effective - vs. one target. But, he doesn't have a viable OA (without a feat, which is a very limited resource at low levels), and if there are several opponents, well, he's not doing much but just keeping one busy.
The warden's player isn't the most tactical of sorts, so I can't really say how effective a warden might be.
In our games then, at low levels, the ranking of defenders would have to be:
1. Paladin (by a large margin)
2/3. Fighter (when played as a striker - shield push looks neat but somehow seems circumventable in many cases)
2/3. Swordmage (brilliant in smaller parties vs. smaller number of foes, not so good otherwise)
4. Warden (but this might not be a fair assessment due to player-issues).
Oh, and a very lame defender replacement/enhancement turns out to be the shaman: at low levels it's really rare to see the spirit destroyed, and even if it is, it barely hurts the shaman; so his spirit companion can block entire passageways for a while or strategically force the enemies past the defender. I shudder to think of a party with several; this could really become unplayable.
__________________
4e balanced random loot system
- Think item wishlists are devilspawn?
- Dislike the impact of a few bad item picks by the DM on the party?
- Or find it ludicrous that PC's constantly just "happen" to find magic items tailored to their needs?
Try: A simpler treasure system for (mostly) random loot.
3.5 death&dying variant
- Tired of players that won't cure their mortally wounded allies 'cause "he's only at -2"?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which uses anachronistic d10's?
- Tired of a dying mechanic which never kicks into action for high level characters, which tend to go from alive and kicking to instant death before anyone can intervene?
- Tired of horribly complex house rules?
Try: Death & Dying - a better (and simple!) system
I'm not sure what the deal with all of the incredulity. The fighter's combat challenge can hose the bad guys up, but all it takes is a 4-square wide passage to bypass oppies. Divine challenge is just a weak deterrent (5 points of damage can't be ignored?).
When I've Divine Challenged 18 different creatures to death because they chose to ignore it (over 5 levels), I'm cool with Divine Challenge.
Best of all, you can maintain it with any attack, including throwing a knife at the bad guy. Which I have used to great effect.
__________________
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by keteryck, on Iron Heroes
You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeapThaumaturgist
"Home" is what you defend with your life ... from ninjas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalker0
Minions are a convenience, a way to allow a dm to run many guys with little effort, and a chance for players to really strut their stuff. They are not so that Bobo the clown can kill the legion of the damned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
Victory should come like the dawn, not like a light switch.
Spoiler:
Hate skill ranks? Try Sadrik's Fix.
Interested in Blood Throne? Find out more.
Mmm, not always.
If the enemy can shift and then charge another (squishier) party member, then it's usually better to do that.
Really? When the Fighter gets to smack you for shifting? Wild.
__________________
Spoiler:
Quote:
Originally Posted by keteryck, on Iron Heroes
You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeapThaumaturgist
"Home" is what you defend with your life ... from ninjas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stalker0
Minions are a convenience, a way to allow a dm to run many guys with little effort, and a chance for players to really strut their stuff. They are not so that Bobo the clown can kill the legion of the damned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wulf Ratbane
Victory should come like the dawn, not like a light switch.
Spoiler:
Hate skill ranks? Try Sadrik's Fix.
Interested in Blood Throne? Find out more.
My current group contains of a fighter, cleric, bard and a ranger..
The fighter takes up the front, sword and board type.. the cleric sticks to him and backs him up.. the ranger is the back up of those two and go's to the bard's side if needed.. the bard is ranged so he oversee's it all and manages the fight.. he yells stuff and heals first..
A good team work and the fighter takes the lead.. defending to his best..
We have a Fighter and a Aegis of Assault Swordmage.
So, they often attack the same foe and often cannot decide whether they should have the Fighter's mark or the Swordmage's mark on the foe.
Any suggestions for this?
I was going to suggest to the Fighter to always take precedence in groups of foes since the Fighter sometimes marks more than one foe per attack, but I'm not sure if this is best. The player of the Fighter (my wife) is also a bit timid when it comes to marking since she doesn't want to overrule the player of the Swordmage.
Thoughts?
__________________ The first sign of a broken rule is when someone suggests that the way to stop it is by readying an action.
The swordmage has more control over who it marks. Also, the swordmage one (assault) puts in teleportation so it need not be next to you to have it trigger.
As such, I'd say the fighter should be the one to mark the 'main bad guy' and the swordmage should be marking all the little guys so that they don't hinder the other PCs who are trying to clear them out (because it can markthem as it continues fighting someone else and if triggered, the swordmage pops over there; the fighter doesn't have that luxury. it has to be next to the target to mark and use the trigger.)
Just my opinion anyway. Your experience and individual party tactics/makeup will of course cause your own experience.
__________________ If you're bored and like to follow links provided by random strangers, check out my ENWorld Blog http://www.enworld.org/forum/blogs/fba827/
It will have campaign logs and random thoughts...
We have a Fighter and a Aegis of Assault Swordmage.
So, they often attack the same foe and often cannot decide whether they should have the Fighter's mark or the Swordmage's mark on the foe.
Any suggestions for this?
I was going to suggest to the Fighter to always take precedence in groups of foes since the Fighter sometimes marks more than one foe per attack, but I'm not sure if this is best. The player of the Fighter (my wife) is also a bit timid when it comes to marking since she doesn't want to overrule the player of the Swordmage.
Thoughts?
In this situation, I would go fighter or Swordmage. The fighter's mark is better in close combat. What I would suggest to the swordmage is to mark someone else, then run over and work with the fighter. If the monster triggers the swordmage's mark, he can choose to teleport over to the new monster if things are going badly.
Why exactly is the DM playing the AC numbers (i.e. competing as if all monsters had Int 20+) as opposed to playing the game for the enjoyment of everyone at the table?
Are you suggesting that the it takes an int of 20+ to go after squishy-looking targets? Or to hit the guy in heavy armor with ref-targeting spells?
My general attitude is that if it has mechanical effect, then it has narrative effect. So those monsters that defend well when adjacent? When they stand alongside each other, they're obviously in formation, and when you attack them, they're obviously defending each other.
That monster with the fighter's marking ability? He marks you and he's obviously waiting to punish any move you make.
I agree: the PCs don't know everything. In general, however, they will find out most things pretty quickly.
Unless of course you intend to run a buffy-style campaign or encounter (ie - PCs meet monsters and get thrashed and withdraw. PCs research foe. PCs return with new tactics/items/rituals and win the day). Which is fine of course, but it's not the default that we're discussing here.
We have a two handed weapon talent fighter with a mordenkrad and the kensei paragon path. He hits very, very hard, and is very accurate. He averages somewhere over 20 damage per hit. Unfortunately for him his AC is terrible, but this means that he's a very popular target for monsters. That's really all he needs to get the job done- monsters can attack him, or attack someone with similar AC and get penalized with a +21 v ac, 2d6+13 brutal 1 attack.
Our paladin, by contrast, has a sky high AC. I forget what it is exactly, but its very, very high. Meanwhile her divine challenge does I think 12 damage, and she has the warding dragonmark. Monsters sometimes ignore her, but an automatic 12 damage is pretty serious, and the -3 they take to attack rolls is noticeable. She likes to use that paladin at will that penalizes attack rolls by 2, so sometimes things are even more grim. And she's selected a number of powers and items that let her absorb or retaliate against enemies who harm nearby allies, even if they're not marked.
So I guess I haven't really seen a problem. Monsters could ignore the defenders, but the consequences for doing so are pretty dire.
I'm involved mostly with LFR games, on both sides of the screen, and as a DM, nothing irks me more than staring down the business end of a Warden (Dareus' Dwarf Warden Torman in particular). I can run two or three guys past a Fighter in a round and at least one will get through unhit. It may cost me another action to get the other enemies past, but I can do it. I can direct Brutes at the Paladin or Swordmage to absorb damage, but there is almost nothing I can do to stop that Warden from just rampaging across the field. Three things specifically:
1) Marking mid-charge: He has a ridiculously high AC so he'll charge right through groups of monsters, watching the OAs bounce off of him and then mark three or four mid-movement. Sure it's only a one-round mark but he's got several pegged.
2) Control over damage: I ignored the mark and smacked a squishie. Warden's Grasp goes off (no roll, mind you) and now I can't get out. To me, this is far worse than the Paladin's divine challenge triggering. Loss of HPs don't change anything until the monster is dead. Sometimes it even helps since I get to bust out Bloodied effects. But if I can't shift and am slowed? Nowhere to run. That guy's about to get surrounded and curb-stomped by Controllers and Strikers. Plus the Warden is far enough away that he's going to Charge me again, picking up more marks on the way over.
3) Reach weapons: Sure, a Fighter could take a reach weapon, but he's not going to get to use that reach for an opp attack in Heroic Tier. That level 1 Warden is going to deliver Warden's Fury once per round from 2 squares away out of the box and once again, the enemy who is now granting combat advantage immediately becomes Public Enemy #1 for the round.
Basically, if I know he's coming, I have to plan the encounter around how to keep him from choosing my strategy for me. That being said, he's worthless against Solos and even Elites to some extent. I have to deal with the Paladin and Swordmage there - particularly the Shielding Swordmage.
Do we have strikers that kill an enemy with one hit?
No.
Do we need defenders who can lock down all the monsters in the encounter?
No.
Defenders work fine. They can hold back around 2 enemies and occasionally a few more with powers. That is how it is supposed to work.
Also, the DM has no obligation to take OA's with monsters or to always attack the paladin. The mark effect -2 to hit is already plenty and often it makes the defender into the best target for the marked monster. Sometimes it does not, but it still helps the allies a lot. The extra damage from attacks or divine challenge/sanction are pretty good bonus damage. Sanction always hits, so it should deal around half damage compared to the fighters attack - in practice it does not quite do so much, but it has some other advantages (like being able to cause damage to several enemies, instead of having a limit of one immediate action).
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
